Things not covered/addressed in Hero

[zslane]

Like anything else in RPGs, if you don't like something, don't use it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Sanity rules, or run/play a campaign in which a central part of "character progression" involves slowly going insane the more your Arcane Lore skill goes up. CoC-style roleplaying is an acquired taste, and not everyone acquires it, but some groups really dig it, and for them the Hero System is lacking a formal (i.e., official) Sanity system resembling Chaosium's. But as is quite evident from the numerous solutions arrived at over the years (including mine which I uploaded to the Download page of these forums a few years back), such a thing is pretty easy to construct from the Hero toolbox.

[Christopher R Taylor]

There needs to be a system built for falling in love, infatuation, and heartbreak! 

 

Your girlfriend answered your text with "K" roll for betrayal.

[zslane]

There's the next design challenge: a Hero System social media combat system.

[IndianaJoe3]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

There's the next design challenge: a Hero System social media combat system.

 

There's one in APG2.

[zslane]

Is it a social combat system or a social media combat system? There's a difference...

[Ragitsu]

 

To what extent do most players not mind having the agency over their characters taken out of their hands?

[Lord Liaden]

Okay, really didn't need to see that.

[sentry0]

55 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

To what extent do most players not mind having the agency over their characters taken out of their hands?

 

I think a CoC style campaign really requires player buy in before you start...seems pretty cruel otherwise ?

[Beast]

On 4/7/2018 at 7:05 PM, specks said:

What skills, perks, powers, advantages, etc... do you believe have not been covered or fully addressed in any of the Hero books?

 

I know the money perk should have access to a non-combat resource pool for cars, houses, contacts, etc... for the wealthy PC.

to say get vehicles that affect combat you just need to buy vehicles perk also
the vehicle perk could just mean the character has access to vehicles and maybe somebody to mod them

[Beast]

15 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Yes but according to source materiel, sanity doesn’t happen that way. You lose it permanently  That Call of Cthulhu for you.

So refund the sanity point for more

KS: Mythos Knowledge 

add to spell pool reserve
recruit foolowers

etc.....

on the other hand spending time in a psych ward could get them back and even allow the character to spend exp of raising the stat to higher levels or even resistance to Mythos encounters
this would be for characters who went insane(died) and are not playable as heroes at the moment
I would treat Sanity as Body for healing perposes
and anything that brings the character to zero sanity is now an npc of the GM's unless the heroes are able to subdue and haul off to a psych ward
this might need a new Sanity Recovery stat that recovers at per month

[Beast]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

There needs to be a system built for falling in love, infatuation, and heartbreak! 

 

Your girlfriend answered your text with "K" roll for betrayal.

That is a GM's job ,especially if the player has

DNPC loved one of the moment kinda thing

or Psy lim disad: hopeless romantic

or a Hunted that would order a mook/recruit unknowing the S.O. to betray the hero

[dsatow]

8 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

To what extent do most players not mind having the agency over their characters taken out of their hands?

 

That's just a loss of face

 

[Doc Democracy]

I do think horror is possibly the most difficult genre to get right.  The players do absolutely have to buy into the game, setting aside the knowledge they are in a horror story, setting aside any notions of fairness, understanding they will often lose Wendy as players as their characters react in ways that are less than optimal.

 

it is possibly the last one that causes most issues.  Most players I have encountered hate the idea that the character might limit the player in what actions might be taken, detest being captured and often feel that while they should be able to use intimidate to make NOCs cough up information, that an NPC should not be able to do the same to a PC.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I do think horror is possibly the most difficult genre to get right.  The players do absolutely have to buy into the game, setting aside the knowledge they are in a horror story, setting aside any notions of fairness, understanding they will often lose Wendy as players as their characters react in ways that are less than optimal.

 

it is possibly the last one that causes most issues.  Most players I have encountered hate the idea that the character might limit the player in what actions might be taken, detest being captured and often feel that while they should be able to use intimidate to make NOCs cough up information, that an NPC should not be able to do the same to a PC.

 

Doc

 

This is exactly the issue - it's big in Horror, but appears in other genres as well.  One RPG rulebook noted it's a lot easier to say "Valeros is brave - we wades through the waist-deep pool of writhing zombie arms" and another to actually undertake an action like that.

 

We talk a lot about "true role playing" versus "munchkin roll-players", but it's not easy to see the clear "right tactical answer" and dismiss it as something my character simply would not do.  When the complications say "Impetuous, impatient and impulsive", I as a player should not be going over the exact distances on the battlemap and the dozen options my character has, in a careful and detailed analysis of the situation.  When an Overconfident (20 points) character yells up at Firewing "HEY - you and me, one on one - or are you chicken?", manages to hang in to Phase 12 when Firewing levels a blast, then asks "If I make an Ego roll at -3. can I abort to Dodge?" knowing the hit will take him out, but also knowing it would take a lot for his character to truly believe that - THAT is great role playing. 

 

[He made the roll.  He dodged the attack.  He lasted half a turn more after his PS 12.  The group remembers that game 20+ years later.  Firewing surveyed his downed opponent and left - he fought well, and with honour - this battle is ended.]

 

And you're absolutely right that too many players figure that a skill roll should allow them to trick, charm, persuade or intimidate any opponent, but their 10 PRE, 8 EGO character should be able to resist any temptation thrown their way because "well, my character just wouldn't do that".  But it's not OK that a NPC "just wouldn't do that" - I PAID for those skills!

 

Funny...we would never argue that "my vision of my character is that he has uncanny accuracy, so he should hit" - we compare OCV and DCV, we roll, and we accept the results. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think Call of Cthulhu did a great job with building horror into the game, but the players do have to buy into it.  The biggest problem is that in a horror genre, the characters are disposable, and players have to understand that from the beginning.  Often, in these stories, characters do things that are unbelievably stupid and self-destructive, leading to a grisly end.  

 

I ran a game like that once on a Halloween, Camp Nunganhom (none go home).  The players played kids at a summer camp and you had two options: you could do things intelligently and try to survive that way, or you could do idiotic crap they do in these movies all the time, and get a luck point for each time you did it.  The luck point let you get out of a death.  So it was a way to encourage people to do retarded stuff like back into a darkened room without turning the lights on, neglect to tell anyone about the body you found in the lonely corn field, etc.  It worked pretty well.

[zslane]

Many RPGs, not just horror RPGs, put incentive mechanics into their systems to try and motivate players to actually roleplay their characters. It is a clever way to get players to do what their characters would do, rather than what would be best for them to do. But this problem has plagued the hobby since its inception, and I think we've always recognized a distinction between those who really get into character and those who don't. I vividly recall how this perceived separation between "typical gamers" and "real roleplayers" is what divided the hobby in the 90s when Vampire: the Masquerade came out and the rulebook went out of its way to embrace (no pun intended) and celebrate those who were into it for the psychodrama, rather than the "winning" of any given scenario.

 

If you're into RPGs primarily for tactical problem solving, great, don't play CoC or any horror game designed to capture the high death toll and low survivability inherent in the genre. On the other hand, if you're into RPGs to experience everything the chosen genre has to offer, and you really like Lovecraftian horror, then you're going to be okay with not always being in control of your character, and you're going to be okay with the eventual deterioration of his or her sanity and the ultimate futility of fighting against the darkness.

[Brian Stanfield]

On 4/9/2018 at 9:49 AM, massey said:

Instead I would say "You hurry down the avenue, constantly looking over your shoulder.  The street is crammed with people, you feel as though someone is following you.  To your right is a park.  There are children playing there.  Make a perception roll.  You notice that instead of playing, the children on the merry-go-round are all staring at you.  Decrepit buildings are on your left.  The sound of strange, foreign instruments and singing in an odd language drifts down to you from one of the dark windows above."

 

 

Man, That's good stuff! I want to play in your campaign! I was drinking my morning coffee when I read this, and can't get the image of those children out of my mind!

[Brian Stanfield]

On 4/9/2018 at 9:49 AM, massey said:

Instead I would say "You hurry down the avenue, constantly looking over your shoulder.  The street is crammed with people, you feel as though someone is following you.  To your right is a park.  There are children playing there.  Make a perception roll.  You notice that instead of playing, the children on the merry-go-round are all staring at you.  Decrepit buildings are on your left.  The sound of strange, foreign instruments and singing in an odd language drifts down to you from one of the dark windows above."

 

Basically it's the same description, just more sinister, and filtered through the lens of paranoia.  I've found that trigger happy players are far more susceptible to scenarios like this.  It's perfectly logical to play CoC like a murder hobo, except for the problem that nobody else in that world realizes they're in a horror story.

 

1 hour ago, zslane said:

Many RPGs, not just horror RPGs, put incentive mechanics into their systems to try and motivate players to actually roleplay their characters. It is a clever way to get players to do what their characters would do, rather than what would be best for them to do. But this problem has plagued the hobby since its inception, and I think we've always recognized a distinction between those who really get into character and those who don't. I vividly recall how this perceived separation between "typical gamers" and "real roleplayers" is what divided the hobby in the 90s when Vampire: the Masquerade came out and the rulebook went out of its way to embrace (no pun intended) and celebrate those who were into it for the psychodrama, rather than the "winning" of any given scenario.

 

zslane, that's a really good point that comes back around to the original post: how can HERO System incentivize or motivate good roleplaying? Massey's post earlier is a great example of how the mood can be affected by the GM, but is there a way to get the players "into character" with more than just experience points?

 

I recently played a GURPS game and was given a couple of extra experience points because I came up with a clever and hilarious solution to a problem, but it was really a meta-gaming reward for making the group laugh. On the other end of the spectrum, I was doing D&D Encounters for a while, and a theater guy showed up out of the blue to learn the game, and without knowing the rules did the most amazing job of really role playing his character. It was a top-notch job, but he left as suddenly as he arrived, never having been rewarded for a truly memorable job of roleplaying even though he didn't know the rules.

 

So, the question on the table: is there a way to incentivize good roleplaying, other than just experience points? I know this is ultimately a GM issue, but I'm asking for self-serving purposes. I'd like to start a HERO campaign sometime soon with new guys who are "roll players" more than they are "role players." In other words, how can we encourage good roleplaying that isn't merely the standard video game murder-hobo approach that the hobby has become?

[zslane]

The only consistently effective mechanism for enforcing good roleplaying that I've ever encountered is peer pressure. Ultimately, if the majority of the group isn't into good roleplaying, then it's a losing battle no matter what incentive mechanics there may be. On the other hand, if they are into good roleplaying then it will be a self-reinforcing phenomenon as the group shows disdain for poor roleplaying (or pure "roll playing") and shows approval and encouragement for joining in. Those who resist will either leave or get with the program; in either case the problem solves itself at the meta level.

 

Of course, I'm primarily speaking about adults. Children are a different matter, since winning is almost instinctually prioritized over more mature aspects of the experience (like immersion and playing with identity). For them, incentive mechanics are about the only way to nudge them in the right direction, but even then it doesn't always work. As they get older, peer pressure will play a larger role in sculpting their behavior, but while they are very young you can't expect much from them in terms of genuine roleplaying. Merely keeping their attention for more than five minutes will feel like a miracle.

[sentry0]

 

5 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

So, the question on the table: is there a way to incentivize good roleplaying, other than just experience points? I know this is ultimately a GM issue, but I'm asking for self-serving purposes. I'd like to start a HERO campaign sometime soon with new guys who are "roll players" more than they are "role players." In other words, how can we encourage good roleplaying that isn't merely the standard video game murder-hobo approach that the hobby has become?

  

You could always hand out a couple of on-the-spot HAPs if you use them.  I doubt good roleplayers would care about HAPs or any other incentive...they don't need an excuse to roleplay, just an opportunity.

 

Roleplaying opportunities can be tough to engineer in some groups but you can stack the deck in it's favor if you know the characters Psy Lims.  Complications in general are a goldmine in terms of understanding what types of situations you could setup to encourage roleplaying.  It's a little sadistic but I like finding conflicting Psy Lims on players and putting them in a situation that will provoke conflict between them...it has led to some great roleplaying in groups I've been in.

 

Edit: I should point out that don't set the players against one another unless you're absolutely sure they're mature enough to handle it

[zslane]

A good GM will make use of those Complications for sure. Unfortunately, they require a certain degree of cooperation from the players. They have to "play along", so to speak, for that to really work, and some players just don't. There's only so much the mechanics can do in the face of an unwilling player. You can usually spot the non-roleplayers because they are the ones who get irritated when their Complications come up in play, and they are the first to ask how they can buy them off as quickly as possible.

[sentry0]

19 minutes ago, zslane said:

A good GM will make use of those Complications for sure. Unfortunately, they require a certain degree of cooperation from the players. They have to "play along", so to speak, for that to really work, and some players just don't. There's only so much the mechanics can do in the face of an unwilling player. You can usually spot the non-roleplayers because they are the ones who get irritated when their Complications come up in play, and they are the first to ask how they can buy them off as quickly as possible.

 

It's true, it's the old adage about leading a horse to water seems apt.  All you can do with certain groups is give them the opportunity, if they squander it then move on.

 

Some of the best sessions I've ever been lucky enough to be a part of had no (or minimal) combat in them.  That was with groups where there was a lot of experience and trust between the players.

[Doc Democracy]

My most obvious issue with this "problem" in players was playing Pedragon. 

 

The characters have a whole set of sliding characteristics, like a slider between Brave and Cowardly. If Brave is 15, Cowardly is 5 - always adding up to 20.  In a situation where the scene demands the player be brave (not every scene, you would not use it in a situation where you might expect a knight to be brave, like charging into battle) then you need to roll your brave. You need to roll under the Brave stat to be brave.  If you fail, you see if you roll under Cowardly, when your action needs to be cowardly.  If both are failed, the knight cannot be brave but does not have to be cowardly.  The stats change during the game, knights are expected to become more knightly as they gain in experience.  I thought it was ingenious when I first played but so many of my friends hated the dice telling them they had to be cowardly...

 

Doc

 

(I put problem in quote marks because it is only a problem when the expectation differ in the group, most especially between the GM and the players.  If everyone is on the same page and it is all game efficiency and numbers, then great, no-one should be told they are having BadWrongFun)

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, zslane said:

Many RPGs, not just horror RPGs, put incentive mechanics into their systems to try and motivate players to actually roleplay their characters. It is a clever way to get players to do what their characters would do, rather than what would be best for them to do.

 

I seem to recall at least one that, many years back, innovated a build system where taking psychological drawbacks allowed more points with which to purchase a character's abilities.  I wonder if they are still around

 

But I agree the only real answer is to find a game, and a group, which plays the way you like to play.  "Forcing" a non-role player to role play is no more fun than "forcing" a role player to run his character like a pawn on a board game.

 

18 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

So, the question on the table: is there a way to incentivize good roleplaying, other than just experience points? I know this is ultimately a GM issue, but I'm asking for self-serving purposes. I'd like to start a HERO campaign sometime soon with new guys who are "roll players" more than they are "role players." In other words, how can we encourage good roleplaying that isn't merely the standard video game murder-hobo approach that the hobby has become?

 

Practically, if the players want to play a murderhobo video game, and you want to run a role playing game, you are not both going to enjoy the game. 

[RDU Neil]

On 4/9/2018 at 5:41 PM, Ragitsu said:

To what extent do most players not mind having the agency over their characters taken out of their hands?

 

This is old school RPG thinking, where the players are poised against the GM, and anything other than min-maxing task resolution/combat actions are considered a "mistake" by the players to be punished. Original CoC was taking a stab at narrative mechanics with this insanity enforcement, but it was long before that kind of game development hit its stride. It felt punitive to that old school mindset.

 

For a CoC game, or any such, you really need to be thinking narratively, as a player, and not "protagonizing" your PC... because it isn't about the PC gaining points and getting more mechanically powerful over time, it is about the PC as a vehicle to role play madness and obsession and isolation to evoke that feeling in the playgroup. The player doesn't lose agency, it is about granting them the agency to role play that descent into dissolution in a way that is an enjoyable experience.

 

To say mechanics don't matter to role playing is wrong. Just expecting players to "get it" and all have the same experiential reference will never really work, not even with long standing, similar style players. Providing a structure is important. Hero "rewards" players who want to be good at punching things by giving them a clear system and interactive mechanics for them to demonstrate effective punching. The same is for many different task resolutions, combat or no. 

 

To get to Brian Stanfield's question... there are many different Narrative Mechanics that layer very nicely over Hero's Task Resolution mechanics, so you can get the best of both worlds. Try a "bennies" system  or an "advantage/threat" system like in the current Star Wars RPG. Usually some mechanic that allows a level of director stance to players, works with intent not just action resolution ("You hit him, but what did you want to happen as a result of you hitting him?")  

 

Hero has traditionally not addressed (back to this thread's origins) Narrative mechanics, coming out of the old school, vanilla role playing concepts (mechanics help you fight, everything else is based on whether the player is just "good at it") though it has some attempts at this... the original Presence Attack was a step toward this, as it helped encourage intent "After I punch the guy's lights out, I want the others realizing they are outclassed and maybe giving up!" which was a great thing. It was limited in its applications, and was still about losing agency if the effect was turned on the PCs.

 

If you want to encourage role playing, maybe something like "Drama Dice" (which I'm making up as I type)... say PCs have a pool of dice, separated (by color?) from their other dice. They can choose to add these dice to a damage roll, or have the subtracted from a skill roll, but the number of dice, or amount rolled on them would result in some kind of challenge or dramatic shift appropriate to the story... and the PLAYERS get to help come up with this outcome, not just the GM... so "We are getting smacked down by the Doominator! I go all in on this blast, 'cause we have to take him out!  (Rolls big dice pool with Drama Dice added... gets big numbers!) YES! Got him! But oh boy, look at all those drama dice... something... let me think... oh, I got it, you mentioned that school bus earlier!  Well my blast was so powerful, it cracked the bridge struts, and suddenly it is starting to collapse out from under that bus! We have to save 'em!"   

 

When the PLAYERS are encouraged to create these kind of drama bits... even if just by adding the dice to the pool and letting the GM come up with the drama issue afterwards... they are much more invested in the scene, theme story, than just reacting to every decision being implemented by the GM. This kind of mechanic encourages player involvement in the drama, provides an ingame reward, as well as encourages metagame dynamics... and some very small aspects of this (again, easily layered on to basic Hero task resolution mechanics) can go a long way toward encouraging the kind of experiential role playing that otherwise is just left up to undefined "good role playing" and whatever the heck that might mean for that particular group.