The myth of Hero

[TheDarkness]

I am not seeing overconfidence here as much as I see "The only solution to any challenge is violence". Nothing prevents an overconfident character from parlaying.

 

 

A game where tactical mastery is key, and no human foible or flaw like a personality trait that causes the character fail to make the optimal tactical choice every time can be tolerated can be a good game, and it`s a lot of things. However, I would not describe it as "heavy on role play". In many games, it is about subordinating role play to tactical efficiency.

 

 

Sounds like the kind of character who attacks a dragon we were trying to parlay with.

 

I recall a party deciding to rest in a giant`s lair, against one player`s protests. "We are short of spells so we have to rest – simple as that. " When attacked by giants in the middle of the night, the players bemoan the unfairness of it all, when the one who protested says "If you are robbing someone`s house, maybe it’s not too smart to stop and take a nap on his couch when you get sleepy. "

There is a balance. In a tactical game, it is poor character development to give a character a trait that would absolutely preclude them from being part of the well oiled team. This does not mean that they cannot have flaws, or that those won't ever come into play. I find the best tactical play comes not from expecting perfect plans to happen, but from good plans and good improvisation.

 

In a tactical game where the team is some sort of military style unit getting orders from above, role play may well go by the wayside. If they are their own, and have no chain of command or constant source of intel, they have to actually meet NPCs to learn about things they need. They have to develop trust and a good reputation with some, tolerate others, and oppose some, and they have to determine which category the people they deal with fall under. That kind of game drives a lot of role play, in my opinion, and makes that role play have meaning and drive the story in ways that the characters influence greatly. I would argue, in such cases, that the presence of some tactics enhances role play more than the absence every could.

 

As for my character being played as overconfident, I was providing that example to show that I was not lacking in previous bad character role play. He was not played as much of anything except a murder hobo after only having played D&D games where murder hobo was the only real class that was being played, an expectation that that wouldn't go anywhere bad, and a fair bit of min-maxing instead of actual character development. Placed in a game where there was actual tactics and consequences and role play. He wasn't really a character, just a bunch of stats with gear.

 

The situation with the guy crisped by the dragon was entirely based on his idea of overconfidence, which, apparently, up to that point had only been head canon. After two years of playing that character. In a game that had far more role play than combat. During which the feared bad guy, who they'd pursued for two years of gaming, when they finally caught him, turned out to be only slightly more powerful than they were. But also a game where they'd had tough fights against less powerful NPCs. So they knew combat could have repercussions.

 

So yes, my guy would have attacked the dragon, but it would have been because I would have had zero experience at gaming beyond the lowest order of power gaming. The entire game that that guy got killed by a dragon in began with a group of players who had only played a few murder hobo games, and didn't like it. In my game, they were pursuing an evil cleric across the desert who had murdered a local caliph's daughter as part of some dark ritual. In their pursuit, he laid traps in his wake. At first, the characters were fighting off these traps to great effect, but, through role play, discovered that the cleric, being a cleric of a corrupt god, was using often innocent or good people, if possible, putting them in situations where if they did not attack the characters, something bad would happen.

 

Subsequently, the characters became quite clever at sneaking into areas, finding out what his real plans were, and solving the circumstances that would lead whatever local power to attack the party.

 

The whole time, I was worried about the final confrontation. I very specifically wanted the villain to be more clever than powerful. But I didn't want the final confrontation to be anticlimactic. I struggled greatly with making the final battle seem grand enough. Had a whole plan, the perfect place for it to happen, when, where. The players outwitted me, after two years of pursuit, knowing the city he was going to would have many of his supporters, I had been so focused on week after week of them pursuing him, when they figured out a way to break ahead. He'd been throwing his henchmen in their path for ages, and was down to a handful. Two party members infiltrated the camp, bought off his hired swords while he slept, and the party was standing over the villain when he woke.

 

The player in question, however, was more concerned with his player being at the center of attention. Plus, he was not a 15 year old gamer playing in what would be the first well crafted role playing campaign ever, he had gamed a lot, he was really a power gamer more than a role player. Nor was I the only GM who had this problem with his part in games. You almost had to put up a giant sign that read "You are low level and this is a balrog, I don't actually expect you to fight it", and even then, if it were Hero, he couldn't read it because he would have traded his literacy points in in some desperate bid to min-max.

 

This is really the crux of it, for me. Certain players, if they say they're going to play an overconfident character, I'd be excited to see how they're going to play it. But there is a significant number of people who choose it to be the center of attention, not for the role play opportunity, or as a shorthand for "I'm role playing" when they're really not.

 

So it's not overconfidence per se, it is that that complication attracts certain people who do not use it to really role play. That's why I look at it as a red flag.

 

If I get such a player, I usually try to stress that the role play is a much larger part than power gaming in my game, and if they want to try it out, they're welcome, but red flag role playing things for me, like overconfidence, I try to make them think about how they play out before we even play, and I make it clear that the game is not likely to ever become power gaming, so if that's more their interest, they might consider a different campaign.

 

And, to be clear, I am not unpleasant with the player, I just make clear what sort of game they can expect, if they don't want to play that sort of game, that's fine.

 

That's funny about the giant's cave!

[Tasha]

The guy that started a fight with the Dragon is doing something beyond just overconfidence. Yeah he's being overconfident in battle, but I usually take overconfidence to mean in everything. ie If that had been my character she would have been totally confident that she could talk the dragon into doing anything. To me an overconfident character says Yes, when they ask if they are capable of doing something. As long as they have some paltry amount of skill. ie an Overconfident character with no medical training would not try surgery, but one with first aid might try it. 
 

So it's not overconfidence per se, it is that that complication attracts certain people who do not use it to really role play. That's why I look at it as a red flag.

That's a great line, that's a problem with a lot of things in RPGs. Some types of players gravitate toward certain things if they think it can get them out of actually roleplaying their Character. It's my problem with people who always want to play Chaotic Neutral and Evil Characters in D20 games. They are looking for the easy excuse to be a jerk and be disruptive. I have also played with characters who would start fights so they didn't have to listen to people actually talk and roleplay.

[Roter Baron]

Once, we told one player: "If your character would not be a player character, he would be dead by now!" - He was playing a necromancer on his way to immortality/ lichedom/ devildom, was one of the family (we were all barbarians) but had turned away from all our common customs and culture and looked down on it all. And he made quite frequently comments that he saw us as expendable barbarian scum fit as sacrifices if the need called for it (but usable in the meantime).

 

We choose to adress it on a meta-game level because we are all in for a good time and not into the "I kill the other character's guy becaus ethat is what my cahracter would do"-routine. But the enjoyment of your game and your own character really suffers if you have to play him always agaisnt his usual inclination.

 

End of story: The player of the necromancer got into contact with the gm and the gm figured something out how to get the necromancer ot of the picture in-game (he was taken to hel in a botched ceremony! - or maybe it really worked and he ia now one of the princes down there) and the player joined the group with a new character - a civilized demon- and with-hunter! And the game continued.

 

But generally speaking: Either forbid a disruptive caharcter from entering the campaign - OR allow him to suffer the consequence. Including waking up and finding a dagger in your breast rom your "beloved" comrades you screwed once too often. There is a reason why most criminals don't live to long or to free.

[TheDarkness]

I feel slightly guilty that my curmudgeonly nature derailed the thread!

[Hugh Neilson]

In a tactical game where the team is some sort of military style unit getting orders from above, role play may well go by the wayside.

I don`t believe any of the good source material features characters wo take their orders from above and work with the unit seamlessly, tossing out their own personalities. Star Trek is a good example – members of Starfleet still have personalities, still make sub-optimal decisions due to their own personalities, and can struggle with implementing their orders within their own personalities and moral codes.

 

If they are their own, and have no chain of command or constant source of intel, they have to actually meet NPCs to learn about things they need. They have to develop trust and a good reputation with some, tolerate others, and oppose some, and they have to determine which category the people they deal with fall under. That kind of game drives a lot of role play, in my opinion, and makes that role play have meaning and drive the story in ways that the characters influence greatly. I would argue, in such cases, that the presence of some tactics enhances role play more than the absence every could.

It can do either. The characters can select which NPCs they will work with, tolerate and oppose based entirely on their determination of "best tactics" rather than any character personality. Tactics also exist outside combat. Honour? Screw that – when it becomes expedient, my word means nothing. Torture the prisoners? Sure, if it gets the best modifiers. These characters can drive the story – it does not make "my character always does whatever is tactically best" role playing.

 

The player in question, however, was more concerned with his player being at the center of attention.

 

So it's not overconfidence per se, it is that that complication attracts certain people who do not use it to really role play. That's why I look at it as a red flag.

We seem to concur it is not the complication itself that is the problem – it`s the player. Tasha`s example of certain D&D choices being driven by "Ì just want to be able to do whatever I feel like", whether that is being a jerk or torturing the peasants, is pretty similar. "I just want an excuse to do whatever I think will work to my advantage", including always selecting the optimal tactics, is poor role playing.

 

 

 

 

Once, we told one player: "If your character would not be a player character, he would be dead by now

 

But generally speaking: Either forbid a disruptive caharcter from entering the campaign - OR allow him to suffer the consequence. Including waking up and finding a dagger in your breast rom your "beloved" comrades you screwed once too often. There is a reason why most criminals don't live to long or to free.

I`m not a fan of the PC Halo. I think part of player responsibility is to build a character who can work with the group, and whose presence creates more benefits than drawbacks for the group. That means, in part, some consensus on campaign objectives, flavor and tone. It can mean compromising a character vision somewhat to fit the game, or shelving that concept until a campaign he fits with comes along.

 

As to the Myth of Hero, I think psychological complications can be a lot like D&D alignment – a dispute over what the complication means results in unhappy players and GMs and sours them on the game, or at least that aspect of it. I`ve seen plenty of comments (more pre 6e) on needing to make the character a "`basket case" in order to raise the disadvantage points needed to have the available character points in the game. A different issue from the mechanical complexity, certainly, but the myth that the game system, rather than the problem player, caused issues is pretty common in gamers.

[TheDarkness]

I don`t believe any of the good source material features characters wo take their orders from above and work with the unit seamlessly, tossing out their own personalities. Star Trek is a good example – members of Starfleet still have personalities, still make sub-optimal decisions due to their own personalities, and can struggle with implementing their orders within their own personalities and moral codes.

 

 

It can do either. The characters can select which NPCs they will work with, tolerate and oppose based entirely on their determination of "best tactics" rather than any character personality. Tactics also exist outside combat. Honour? Screw that – when it becomes expedient, my word means nothing. Torture the prisoners? Sure, if it gets the best modifiers. These characters can drive the story – it does not make "my character always does whatever is tactically best" role playing.

I think we're in mostly talking about different things here. I would say that total overconfidence is well into a pathological realm, and is not depicted in most of the sources you're citing as teams except, possibly, in very narrow sets of circumstances, which is not a big issue for me. I brought up units and should have specified 'tactical units' to clarify a small group with severely limited autonomy. I've been a player in such games, but don't generally run them.

 

On the second part, I would say that, I don't actually think that it is tactically sound to live in a world where all relationships are based on tactical advantage. It is advantageous to have people and allies who actually care about you for more than expediency, and building those relationships takes a lot more than favors. Further, since I award experience for role play more than experience for knocking someone out the exact same way the character always knocks someone out, I will clarify my position to say I don't actually equate "my character always does whatever is tactically best" with good tactics in a game run by me.

[massey]

BTW Steve did the unlinking of Figureds pretty much on his own and little of any feedback from the boards. He just said "that's how it's going to happen in 6e"

 

Sure, but there have been a lot of people calling for it over the years.  Steve Long finally decided to come down on that side of the figured characteristics argument.

[zslane]

The concept of taking Disadvantages in exchange for more points (to spend on abilities) has been the source of minor controversy since Champions 1e. The objection to it always focused on how easy Disadvantages are to "exploit"; free points as it were. And yet the foundational rule that a Disadvantage which doesn't meaningfully hinder the PC isn't worth any points should refute that criticism decisively. The fact that it doesn't, for many groups, merely spotlights the fact that point-based systems like this demand a certain degree of responsible maturity on the part of the players. If players aren't able or willing to sign up to that responsibility/obligation, then they shouldn't be playing the Hero System. Just because the game is available to everyone, doesn't mean it is suitable for everyone.

[bigdamnhero]

...point-based systems like this demand a certain degree of responsible maturity on the part of the players..

[nod] ...and/or a GM willing to enforce the law.

 

Most of the objections I hear to getting points from Disadvantages stem from early editions where there was no limit to how many points you could get from them; so it was easy for munchkins to tack on a ton of questionable Disads to get a tone of extra points and min-max their characters out. A problem easily solved by saying "you must take X points of Disadvantages - you can take more than that, but you don't get additional points from them." It's not that hard. (I realize I'm preaching to the choir here...)

[zslane]

Even early editions had the rule that Disadvantages of the same type after the first two yielded lower point benefits. It took effort to cheat the Disadvantage system, and it only escaped the notice of inexperienced or lazy GMs. Sometimes gamers have to make more of an effort to avoid inviting players of questionable character (no pun intended) into their group.

[TheDarkness]

I've been working on designing a point based game for my own uses(no plan to try marketing it, it's a fun hobby), which is part of the reason I'm taking part in a lot of the conversations about the sticking points in the Hero system, so I can see common pitfalls and where the solutions come from.

 

I've decided on disadvantages as a percentage of starting points. Say the character is 100 pts.(just picking a simple number). Those points are all spent on the character, but the section for disadvantages automatically gets an amount equal to 30% of that value. It must be bought down to zero through limitations on powers, disadvantages, etc(limits on powers, in what I'm working on, comes from that pool, and does not affect the actual cost of a power).

 

That said, I don't really have a problem with Champions way of doing it, either. Munchkins will find a way no matter what. I think the points from disadvantages, though not insubstantial, is often dwarfed by savings from limitations that are cheesy, but legal, because making them not RAW would affect people who have legitimate uses for them.

[Spence]

I believe the issue with Hero has nothing to do with the system itself, I think it is to do with how the system is presented.  And I do not mean physical presentation, which could be better, but presentation as a concept.

 

I’m going to present few points to, for lack of a better term, set the stage for my explanation.

 

First I look at RPG’s as having distinct parts, or levels of completeness.

 

1) The hidden meta-rules that the authors use to “build” the game.  These can be everything from a set of development notes to actual codified rules.  The games source code you might say.  All RPG’s have this is some form or another and it is used to ensure game balance and it is also never or very very rarely released to the public.

 

2) The core play rules.  This are the game rules as published including SRD’s and various open use documents.  This is what most GM’s and players use.  Some rule systems mimic meta-rules while in reality they don’t actually reveal their core design rules.

 

3) Creator designed adventures and core support materials.  Created by the RPG’s original authors using the Core Rules and Official Publications plus taking advantage of access to the systems meta-rules.  These are everything from monsters and NPC’s to full pre-generated adventures and campaigns. 

 

4) Third Party supplements and adventures.  Similar to #3 with the exception that they rely on official published rules and supplements and create new items/options/creatures on a best guess method.  With no access to the actual meta-rules they have to guess how their additions/changes will impact the game overall.  Many use SRD’s, which ca be confused with the meta-rules. 

 

5) The individual adventures run by the GM.  Usually a pregenerated adventure that is either run straight as written or slightly modified by the GM with some house rules. 

 

6) Fully unique campaigns/adventures created and run by the local GM.

 

7) Campaign frames that have a lot of detail, but cannot be run without extensive study.  These are very similar to 3 or 4, but are usually packed with details, races, classes/occupations deliberately designed to NOT resemble any existing or default settings.  Very cool to own, but very seldom actually run.  With a complete lack of common ground, everyone needs to study the details in order to have a chance of making intelligent choices for characters.   These campaigns usually run aground and sink on the reefs of “Job”, “Family” and “Responsibility”.  

 

All of the RPG’s I know fall under these broad points with the vast majority of RPG’s fall under 2-3-4-5.

Pathfinder is a solid 2-3-4-5. 

D&D is a solid 2-3-4-5.

 

The only systems I know for sure that are 1-2-3-4-5 are Hero, Mutants and Masterminds and Fate.

GURPs and Savage World are 2-3-4-5 but mimic 1 by including a wide availability of pre-designed options that allow you to create a very wide range of PC’s and creatures.  But they do not actually release the real core details.

 

#6 is what everyone claims they prefer and most people claim it is what they want to play, but remarkably few actually do this regularly.  Time is usually what kills #6.  I personally have found a lack of free time has me running pre-gens that I tweak a little to accommodate my players style.

Note: #1 isn’t usually available to the general player after #2 is published.  Once the “rules” are released they are not generally tinkered with in an official manner except by the author/publisher.

 

D&D, Pathfinder and 13^th Age in their initial versions are essentially set in the same world.  Generic High Fantasy.   You have Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, Rogues, Rangers and Bards.  You have Humans, Halflings, Elves and Dwarves.   Sprinkle in a few “unique classes” and “unique races” just to give the appearance of being different and poof, you have Generic High Fantasy.    And yes, once you go beyond the initial few levels of character development, the game worlds take on very unique “flavors”.  But for that most critical initial step of recruiting GM’s and players, they are essentially the same characters/settings with the difference being game mechanics.   Anyone who has played or read any fantasy books/games can immediately identify the role/personality of the core generic character.

 

This is where Hero constantly fails with a spectacular splash.  They can’t seem to understand that once you have built the furniture, you put the tool kit away.  In fact, their complete settings are not complete. They are partial kits that still require you to build stuff.

 

If I were to build an introduction Fantasy Game for Hero it would include finalized selections with no active points or real costs listed.

 

Off the cuff let’s say we are doing D&D Hero.

I deliberately avoid anything that reflects point costs or annotation if possible.  

 

I make the decision to only include Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings.  I make each racial package cost 50 points.  I do not break down anything about cost and annotations.  Just a list of what you get for the 50 points.  Pluses to characteristics, skills granted and so on.

 

I make the decision to only include Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue and Ranger.  I make them 50 points and define them just like I did the races. 

 

I choose 50 and 50 so that all combinations equal 100 points. 

 

Dwarf

+10 Str

+10 Con

+5 BDY

Language: Dwarven

+ 3 Skill with Battleaxes, Hammers and Swords

And so on…….

 

When making a character, they pick a race and occupation and then they use the remaining points to customize their PC.

 

I add a customization section that allows them:

Increase/decrease characteristics.

Purchase additional skills from a pre-designated list.

Purchase talents.

Purchase magic from a pre-designed list.

Nothing magic or talent wise includes hero annotation. 

 

Require them to pick X complications from a pre-designed list. 

 

I include a list of weapons and armor complete enough to meet a campaigns needs with just the name and damage, plus Two Handed and so on.  With a cost in Gold.  No points or Hero Annotation.  Equipment is the same. 

 

I build a library of pre-built monsters and NPC’s suitable to the setting so the GM can pick creatures.  I give each creature a rating that equals their Active Points, but the creature write ups are completely devoid if details costs and hero annotations.

 

I round it out with the playing the game rules from FHC, setting advice, a couple short adventures and a pregenerated party.

 

I close the tool kits (Hero 6^th Edition, Complete Fantasy Hero, etc), put them away and lock the cabinet. 

I no longer need the Tool Kit (#1) as I am now playing a game (#2).

The player and the GM should be able to create a party and kill goblins and so without even knowing Fantasy Hero Complete or Hero 6^th exists. 

 

In the back of the book I include an appendix.

The appendix has a preface explaining the FHC and 6^th exist and that it was used to make this setting. 

Then is includes a step by step breakdown of the Dwarf Package costs and design, and lists the hero annotated “stat blocks” for all the others.

Repeat for Occupations.

Repeat for Weapons and Equipment

And so on. 

 

Now we have an actual product set in a familiar setting using familiar character types that someone can pick up, read today, make characters tomorrow and play.  Just like D&D, Pathfinder and 13^th Age. 

Include enough detail so they can play a fully realized campaign without needing to “Tool Kit” at all.   

A complete PLAYABLE game. 

Once you get people to where they can actually play it, there will pop up the “want” to customize and create and change stuff.  For most other games it is done by guess work or forced purchase of splat books.  But for Hero they can be pointed at the Complete books.  By having that completely “unnecessary to play”  “just for cool information” appendix in the back, you plant the seeds for them to buy FHC and expand their game. 

 

FHC, CC and 6^th Ed are source code.  It is like handing someone a book on C++ (yes I am dating myself and no idea what is used in modern coding) and saying they should bang out Halo 5 when they have never even played a computer/console game before. 

But once a person actually PLAYs a game, they suddenly have a referent for what can be done. 

 

Hero always does #1 and jumps straight to #7 with nothing in between and then says adventures and campaigns don’t sell.    As Paizo, WotC, Modiphious, Pinnacle, FFG and so on crank them out and they fly off the shelves. 

 

Hero is correct when hey say their extremely highly detailed adventures and extremely highly specifically unique campaigns do not sell well.   Anything that requires all involved to actually spend time studying before they can make a simple character creation decision is built to fail.  Or an adventure that requires extremely unique things to exist and will simply not fit in anyone’s world.  If I need to spend hours adapting the adventure, why not simply make one up?

 

Teach Fantasy Hero by building the initial book to be Hero’s version of D&D/Pathfinder.  Will half the hard core Hero’files on this board die from apoplexy and OCD vapor lock? 

 

Probably.   

 

But the board members are not the target.  They are already sold.  They are already fans.  They already own the game.

 

The target are people that do not want #1 right now.  They just want #2 and the ability to actually play a game.  Later down the road they will want to do cool things.  But first they need to see how the game plays.   Once you have a feel for the game in play, you can begin to make intelligent decisions and build stuff from the Tool Kit.  

 

The old saying is not put the cart before the horse.  Hero has not only put the cart before the horse, they have shackled the horse in place, welded a cage around it and post guards to make sure it cannot be changed.  Not to mention hired the assassins guild to ensure no heretics survive…..

 

 

Well… I guess that is rant over…

You may attack at will

[Cantriped]

Well… I guess that is rant over…

You may attack at will

I am imagining Mr. Burns saying "release the hounds".

 

I run a #6 style game in Pathfinder by the seat of my pants. Thanks in huge part to the massive number of tables from which I can randomly generate encounters, rewards, and tavern menus (I shit you not... there is a random table in the GameMastery guide for Tavern Menus... and I have used it). Even so I use the "default" setting, and simply gloss over the details unless they are important to the adventure at hand.

 

I have continuously been disappointed that the so-called "Campaign Setting" book rarely actually contains enough information to actually run a Campaign set in the world it describes, although I find many of these books are a joy to peruse for ideas. I especially liked Ebberon, the Iron Kingdoms, and the Turakian Age, but I can count the number of games I've participated in set in any of those campaign settings on one hand.

 

As much as we may or may not want to include the exact builds for all of the assets in future products, some of the Game Elements still need to be included in such a way that their interaction with other Game Elements can be adjudicated. For example, we have to include Active Point totals for every piece of Equipment so players and GMs can adjudicate Drain/Supress and Dispel attempts against equipment... Weapons and Spells need to note (at the very least) the total value of modifiers which affect improving the Power through +DCs from Martial Arts and Combat Skill Levels... And you need almost the entire power construct to adjudicate Aid/Boost.

Much of this can be done the same way that the "Rules for Writing Weapons" are handled: You give a one or two paragraph description which includes every modifier a given type of thing (such as a weapon, a potion, a suit of armor, a dose of poison, etc) must take, and then only note the exceptions to specific examples. That way you can fit a large amount of material into a fairly small space (like dozens of weapons onto a single page table), and when the specific construct is needed, a smart GM can still reverse engineer it if they have to.

[Tasha]

Unfortunatly the powers section of the game has a builtin bias toward knowing active costs. That bias is built into Adjustment powers. It's very difficult to impossible to build Curses, Dispels, Supression field spells and others without knowing Active costs. 

 

I guess you should set up other spells with a specific active point limit and base Adjustment power costs from that. Also having stats being based on 1 for 1 cost could simplify draining stats.

[assault]

As spells, Adjustment powers would be predesigned, and hopefully balanced against other spells and magic items.

 

There's no reason to include spells to drain/suppress/whatever non-magical equipment. No reason not to, either, but it's an arbitrary choice, and sometimes convenience wins.

 

It's funny - we can't even discuss this kind of thing without getting caught up in the kind of complexity we are trying to get rid of. Partly it's a real problem - there are real complications in the system - but part of it is probably an inability to let go of what's not important/relevant.

[Tasha]

Wasn't even talking about draining Non Magical Equipment.

I was talking about Draining/Suppressing etc Magical Spells and Magical Equipment. Also Poisons and Diseases are purchased as Drains.

I don't believe that we need Active Costs for non specialized equipment. Just Body and Defense. Because destroying those items are always defined as Damage to the item. 

[massey]

Yeah, in a complete campaign setting, you wouldn't have to worry about active points.

 

Rust Monster's rust attack -- When the creature makes a successful attack, roll randomly between the characters exposed metal possessions.  Anything touched rusts away to nothingness.

(Game effect -- 20D6 Dispel vs any metallic item, standard effect 60 points, in a setting where metal items will have no more than 60 APs)

 

 

You don't have to have active points listed.  The biggest problem with Hero is in its presentation.  All the nuts and bolts are exposed.  And while that's good for experienced players, it can be quite intimidating to newbies.  And it's hard to read and clutters up a character sheet as well.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, in a complete campaign setting, you wouldn't have to worry about active points.

...

(Game effect -- 20D6 Dispel vs any metallic item, standard effect 60 points, in a setting where metal items will have no more than 60 APs)

Only if you want the sort of all-or-nothing effects that D&D is (in)famous for. If you want the effect to have a chance of succeeding, you need to have some sort of point total to measure it against. And that's fine. It doesn't add significant complexity to give an AP value for stuff; you just don't have to Show Your Work behind how you got there.

 

If you really wanted to simplify, I guess you could jigger Adjustment Powers so they work against Real Cost rather than AP, and then you would only have to list one number. But the problems with doing that could fill up a whole `nother thread.

[assault]

Only if you want the sort of all-or-nothing effects that D&D is (in)famous for. If you want the effect to have a chance of succeeding, you need to have some sort of point total to measure it against. And that's fine. It doesn't add significant complexity to give an AP value for stuff; you just don't have to Show Your Work behind how you got there.

 

If you really wanted to simplify, I guess you could jigger Adjustment Powers so they work against Real Cost rather than AP, and then you would only have to list one number. But the problems with doing that could fill up a whole `nother thread.

 

I'll repeat myself here:

"It's funny - we can't even discuss this kind of thing without getting caught up in the kind of complexity we are trying to get rid of. Partly it's a real problem - there are real complications in the system - but part of it is probably an inability to let go of what's not important/relevant."

 

If you are messing with the rules, you are doing it wrong, IMHO. The rules are fine. They just need to be as close to invisible as possible.

 

In this case, we definitely do "want the sort of all-or-nothing effects that D&D is (in)famous for". It's easier, and the target audience are already familiar with it.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'll repeat myself here:

"It's funny - we can't even discuss this kind of thing without getting caught up in the kind of complexity we are trying to get rid of. Partly it's a real problem - there are real complications in the system - but part of it is probably an inability to let go of what's not important/relevant."

 

I will make an open offer to run a Danger International one-shot for up to five players, using the rules as written in the 1985 book.  You have to come to me (Portland, Oregon area) or pay my way to you (airfare and accommodations if applicable).  You can also catch me at GameStorm.  This offer stays open until I decide to close it.  

 

ETA:  You don't even need to own the book! 

 

ETA II:  Or I can run it online!

[bigdamnhero]

In this case, we definitely do "want the sort of all-or-nothing effects that D&D is (in)famous for". It's easier, and the target audience are already familiar with it.

Speak for yourself. For me, that was one of the (many) things that led me to run screaming from D&D.

 

I'm all for making the rules invisible. (Or at least more translucent.) But unless you want to do away Adjustment Powers altogether, it seems to me you have two choices:

1. Give detailed guidance for each separate spell built using Adjustment Powers, stating clearly exactly how effective it is against these things, those items, and that other stuff, or
2. Just list an AP cost for each item and say "beat that."

You're actually making things more complicated, not less.

[zslane]

Speak for yourself. For me, that was one of the (many) things that led me to run screaming from D&D.

 

Same here.

 

People who want D&D should play D&D. People who want the Hero System should play the Hero System. I understand that the Hero System is a "toolkit", but it was not designed to be turned into another system. It was designed to let you express nearly any game idea in a "Hero System manner". That manner implies a number of assumptions and limitations built into the DNA of the system. Assumptions like no absolutes and an inherent cinematicism. Nearly all of the hacks added to the system to get around these underlying assumptions (Standard Effect, hit locations, long-term endurance, etc.) merely create complexity in a different way, they don't eliminate it.

[TheDarkness]

In reference to the difficulty of making a 'powered by Hero' game due to AP and drains.

 

I think the easiest approach is to approach it in the pre-gens. IN DESIGN, made all things of a certain 'tier' have a certain range that does not exceed what a drain could effect. I think APs will almost have to be listed, but if we hardwire abilities so that they simply have a range they work within, and have what appears to be rules, but is actually part of the build(does not work against tier 3 power), it could mitigate this. Maybe.

 

Also, as someone already stated, we could simply avoid the issue by avoiding drain constructs that strain things.

[Grailknight]

In the interest of simplicity, I would have the beginner game only use Adjustment Powers vs Characteristics. Save the other Adjustments for the Advanced Game. That way we can avoid the debates about SFX and Adjustment powers until GM's and players are better versed in the system.

[TheDarkness]

In the interest of simplicity, I would have the beginner game only use Adjustment Powers vs Characteristics. Save the other Adjustments for the Advanced Game. That way we can avoid the debates about SFX and Adjustment powers until GM's and players are better versed in the system.

And, yes. That is a great idea...