HERO master

[dsatow]

Has anyone tried to incorporate the concept that in order to increase your ability in something, you need to frequently use that ability? 

 

The idea is that based on ones rolls, you can subsequently improve that ability.  Rolemaster did this when you scored a certain success on a skill, you checked that skill.  Then, at the end of the session, you'd try and fail that skill.  Failure meant that you could improve that skill.

(ex: In the game you try to say pick a lock and get a critical success, you mark that skill.  At the end of the game, you roll the skill again and if you fail that roll(thus showing you have room, to grow), you increase the skill.)

 

I note this as I was reading the Crit thread and wondering about if anyone tried something like this before.  If you have, I'd love to hear about it.

[zslane]

I am accustomed to campaigns where in order to spend XP on an ability, you had to have been using it a lot in play. Alternatively, you could tell the GM that you were studying or training a particular ability during the "off time" between sessions. But you couldn't just spend your XP without some sort of in-game justification. I don't think this requires any formal mechanics, just a simple campaign statement akin to the previous three sentences.

[Christopher]

8 hours ago, dsatow said:

The idea is that based on ones rolls, you can subsequently improve that ability.  Rolemaster did this when you scored a certain success on a skill, you checked that skill.  Then, at the end of the session, you'd try and fail that skill.  Failure meant that you could improve that skill. 

(ex: In the game you try to say pick a lock and get a critical success, you mark that skill.  At the end of the game, you roll the skill again and if you fail that roll(thus showing you have room, to grow), you increase the skill.)

There are two obvious downsides with that:

1) You would get progress without spending XP

2) It is a tracking nightmare. I would never even consider it outside of a Computer Game. With what I heard about rolemaster, it might be mad enough to also do that.

 

I do know 1 or 2 levelbased Systems where you have to "fail a roll" to level up the Skill as part of the normal levelup mechanic. But such mechanics are incredibly rare and it has been at least 1.5 decades since I last played a System with that.

[Greywind]

From what I recall of that system, that was their skill progression system. There was no other way to improve.

[Grailknight]

That sounds more like Runequest than Rolemaster. Rolemaster was level based and gave skill points at each level.

[dsatow]

I admit I could be mixing the two up.  Still I am curious about if anyone tried it.  Its an interesting idea but I could see abuse in people making spurious rolls just to try and advance the ability. 

 

GM: "Why are you hacking at the tree?"

Player: "I want to improve my combat skill with the sword."

GM: "Why not adventure?"

Player: "It's safer this way."

 

At which point, I can see the GM being frustrated and start to say something like "The treant near to the tree doesn't like what you are doing to his aunt Maple."

[Duke Bushido]

18 hours ago, dsatow said:

Has anyone tried to incorporate the concept that in order to increase your ability in something, you need to frequently use that * sorry I screwed up the crop here*

 

Always in Heroic level; somewhat in supers. 

 

And amusingly enough, I picked up the habit from role master's Space Opera.

[Christopher]

15 hours ago, Greywind said:

From what I recall of that system, that was their skill progression system. There was no other way to improve.

 

14 hours ago, Grailknight said:

That sounds more like Runequest than Rolemaster. Rolemaster was level based and gave skill points at each level.

For me it sounds like any Elder Scrolls game since Morrowind. And possibly before that too.

[archer]

3 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

For me it sounds like any Elder Scrolls game since Morrowind. And possibly before that too.

 

It was like that in Daggerfall, which was released in 1996 as the second Elder Scrolls game.

[archer]

On 10/25/2018 at 1:12 PM, dsatow said:

Has anyone tried to incorporate the concept that in order to increase your ability in something, you need to frequently use that ability? 

 

 

 

I like the concept of "use an ability in order to increase it" because it helps keep the PC's characters from growing in directions which are both radically different than the original character concept and radically different than anything the character is experiencing during the campaign. If the character has never expressed any interest in computers or vehicles and has been adventuring for months through mystic realms, I'd balk at allowing the character to immediately spend his accumulated earned points on Computer Programming and Starship Operations.

 

But as mentioned earlier in the conversation, I think this should be handled as part of the campaign background rules (hey, be aware that you'll need to use an ability in order to increase it) rather than obsessively trying to keep track of what actions each PC is taking during adventures.

 

Quote

On 10/25/2018 at 2:08 PM, zslane said:

 

Alternatively, you could tell the GM that you were studying or training a particular ability during the "off time" between sessions.

 

Exactly. When a player wants to gain or increase a skill or power that she hasn't been using during game time, the player and GM should discuss what kind of downtime activity the character will engage in which will give the desired result.

 

You want to gain Area Knowledge of a nearby city? Bum around in that city for a few weeks. Learning French? Travel abroad or study a language course. Increase your END or running? Exercise or enter a marathon.

[Duke Bushido]

19 hours ago, Christopher said:

1) You would get progress without spending XP

 

"Downside" may be a bit harsh.  Certainly "not baseline HERO; no doubt.  But if it works for someone, then it's not a downside.  Or perhaps something like Killer Shrikes "Epiphany Points" idea: a critical success with a Skill grants you a bonus eepee for use exclusively on that Skill.  Then you solve the "no XP expenditure" issue.  An argument could be made that you're getting "Free" XP and that it's no different than not spending XP, but at the end of the day, any role playing game is Who's Line: the points are made up and the score means nothing.   We give "bonus" points for particularly good roleplaying and for particularly clever ideas, etc.  We give "bonus damage" and such for "critical hits," which isn't even part of the core rules.  No reason we can't give a bonus, limitation-bound XP for a critical hit instead.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Christopher said:

2) It is a tracking nightmare. I would never even consider it outside of a Computer Game. With what I heard about rolemaster, it might be mad enough to also do that.

 

I don't understand this comment.  Seriously: is there something I hadn't considered?  Because when we tried Epiphany Points last week, we just tacked a hash mark on the skill line, very similar to the checkmark mentioned above.  At the end of the session, they were counted up.  The one player who ended up with enough to "level up" did so, and left one tick on the line.  One other player spent his and two XP to raise a skill, and deleted the tick he earned from the sheet.  No biggie.

 

Oh-- is it a paper sheet thing?  Clearly this would require some extra building on a spreadsheet.  On paper, though, it's pretty straight forward.

 

19 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

19 hours ago, Christopher said:

With what I heard about rolemaster, it might be mad enough to also do that.

 

If you really are unfamiliar with Role Master, you missed out!   The common name was "Roll Master" because there were charts for _everything_.  I mean _everything_.  My GM had both of the critical books: critical hits (which I _think_ was called "Ten Thousand Ways to Die," but that might have been just our nickname for it) and the similarly funny book for critical fumbles (who's name totally escapes me at the moment).  You'd roll a d100 to see which table you rolled a d100 on; you might need a d1000 handy...

 

Lots of fun.   Though Role Master was an intricate system, and one of the earlier "generic" systems.  Space Opera was my particular bag for Role Master; the rest of the group liked straight up Role Master-- a fantasy that tried very, very hard to be MERP.

 

[Christopher]

31 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

"Downside" may be a bit harsh.  Certainly "not baseline HERO; no doubt.  But if it works for someone, then it's not a downside.  Or perhaps something like Killer Shrikes "Epiphany Points" idea: a critical success with a Skill grants you a bonus eepee for use exclusively on that Skill.  Then you solve the "no XP expenditure" issue.

I consider every mechanic that reworks major parts of the game mechanics to be a downside. It opens up loads of new balance problems. You are free to view it as a positive for yourself.

After all I can warn you that you are handling a loaded gun, but I can not prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot.

 

35 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

We give "bonus" points for particularly good roleplaying and for particularly clever ideas, etc.  We give "bonus damage" and such for "critical hits," which isn't even part of the core rules.  No reason we can't give a bonus, limitation-bound XP for a critical hit instead.

None of those bonuse are permanent in the same way as Character progression is.

And giuving situational bonuses is part of the base rules in every RPG I know off.

 

40 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I don't understand this comment.  Seriously: is there something I hadn't considered?  Because when we tried Epiphany Points last week, we just tacked a hash mark on the skill line, very similar to the checkmark mentioned above.  At the end of the session, they were counted up.  The one player who ended up with enough to "level up" did so, and left one tick on the line.  One other player spent his and two XP to raise a skill, and deleted the tick he earned from the sheet.  No biggie. 

Now do that for a few game sessions. Try no to loose track wich numbers/ticks actually apply and wich are just leftover from the last 5 games.

 

41 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Oh-- is it a paper sheet thing?  Clearly this would require some extra building on a spreadsheet.  On paper, though, it's pretty straight forward. 

On a spreadsheet it would be way easier. No issue with properly erasing marks and numbers.

[massey]

I'm not a fan of the idea.  One of the assumptions I use when building characters is that there are certain things my character can do, they just aren't on his sheet yet.

 

Suppose I'm playing a Batman knock-off.  Maybe I don't have the points available to speak any foreign languages, or to be rich, or to have my Knock-offmobile.  As far as I'm concerned, I have those abilities, they just haven't shown up in my comic book yet.  As long as the events of the campaign haven't specifically shown me to not have them, I should be able to take them at any time.  For instance, if there's a session where a street thug is speaking Russian, and I have no clue what he's saying, to the point that our characters miss some important information, then it doesn't really make sense for me to take fluency in Russian three game sessions later, having "always" been able to speak it.  But if that doesn't happen, I should be able to spend my XP on anything that hasn't really popped up yet.

[dsatow]

29 minutes ago, Christopher said:

Now do that for a few game sessions. Try no to loose track which numbers/ticks actually apply and which are just leftover from the last 5 games.

 

The thing is, it's at the end of the session as far as I understand.  In the game system which I think was role master, you had check boxes to mark on your sheet.

[dsatow]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Or perhaps something like Killer Shrikes "Epiphany Points" idea: a critical success with a Skill grants you a bonus eepee for use exclusively on that Skill.  Then you solve the "no XP expenditure" issue.  An argument could be made that you're getting "Free" XP and that it's no different than not spending XP, but at the end of the day, any role playing game is Who's Line: the points are made up and the score means nothing.   We give "bonus" points for particularly good roleplaying and for particularly clever ideas, etc.  We give "bonus damage" and such for "critical hits," which isn't even part of the core rules.  No reason we can't give a bonus, limitation-bound XP for a critical hit instead.

 

I was thinking along similar lines which is why I noted the Crit thread earlier.  I was thinking anytime the player Crits, at the end of the session, they need to fail the skill roll (an 18 always fails) to get 1 point applied to the skill.  Player would still get normal XP (but maybe at a slightly reduced rate but not below 1) to spend how they want.  I think Role Master, or whatever game I was thinking about in the original post, had a limit of three advancement attempts.

 

While this might work well for skills, what about powers or characteristics?

[Duke Bushido]

To be completely honest with you, 

 

The general "feel" of HERO, at least the vibe I get, is set up the exact opposite:

 

There is no mandate to require practice or role-play of a skill's usage in order to improve it.  In fact, the Power Skill finally "officialized" in 5e (about time, too!  Honestly, who wasn't already using some variant of that anyway?   ) seems very much to support the idea of buying a skill or trick because you want to use it:  With the Power Skill, you can, on occasion, do a nifty thing.  But if you want to do it twice, you need to buy that skill or power outright before doing it again.

 

Now, that being said, let me reply in earnest:

 

I think a great deal of us require a person to at least "off table" practice the skill.  It's not part of the rules, but it _is_ part of good role playing.  I've required this myself since becoming a GM a few decades ago, and I've noticed that most players don't mind it, and some even really enjoy working with the "personal time" aspect of the game.  Because of this, when Shrike posted his Epiphany Points concept, I jumped all over it: it was a great dovetail into the way we handle skill progression (though, as I noted elsewhere, I am going to cap how many "major epiphanies" (:rofl:) you can have during the course of a session ).

 

Would I allow Epiphany Points to increase a Power?

 

I don't know.  I'd really have to think it over.  My knee-jerk reaction is "no," but I'd really have to mull it over.  I might allow a Character to use them to increase his Power Skill, if he had one, or apply them toward buying a Power Skill later.  I am almost certain that I would do this if the Character was, at the time of the nat 3, attempting to use his Power in a new or creative way.

 

Would I require practice before letting a Character increase a Power?

 

That's hard to say.  After all, much like Skill progression, HERO seems to push the other way: witness the Radiation Accident, around since what?  3e?  2e, maybe?  Where you save a dump of experience points and then suddenly splurge in a crazy-go-nuts radical change of the Character.  Sure; the presentation of the idea includes the suggestion of a story-related reason (like radiation accident, for example), but doesn't really push it.  "Buy it because you want to use it" seems to be the driving force behind the game design, and given that it has marketed itself forever on the idea of "building exactly the character you want" and taking him straight into play, it follows that if he isn't _quite_ where you want him to be, then get him there as quickly as possible so you can "more fully" enjoy using the character you envisioned.

 

On the other had, the same volume that presented the Radiation Accident presented the Danger Room, a place just for practice, but even that was filled with so many ideas of scenarios where X happened in the Danger Room that you sort of had to wonder why they included costs to build it.  But they did, which implies designer-supported practice.

 

For what it's worth, I require practice to increase a Power.  That practice may be little more than "favoring" that Power for a couple of scenarios, as complex as spending game time in actual practice with other Characters assisting, but is generally an off-table thing----  Sorry.  Hold on.

 

--- I didn't read Strike Force until about two years ago.  Even then, it was on the suggestion of a friend who told me he learned a lot.  Nothing personal to the late Mr. Alston or anyone else; I had always heard it was notes from someone's campaign (and it was), and I just wasn't interested in reading notes from someone else's campaign, so I never did.  At any rate, because of the lateness of my "education," I never adopted the phrase "blue-booking."  My GM introduced it to me as "off-table play," and I've never found a compelling reason to call it anything else.--

 

sorry.  Back on course--

 

I allow practicing with a Power to be an off-table thing.  I just like to see that the player takes his character seriously, and has invested in his character the way I have invested in his universe.  I don't get too preachy or too picky about what is or is not "enough practice," just as long as it's being done.

 

This brings up a sticky point-- at least, it's been sticky for me:

 

The Player who wants to develop a new power.  (This, by the by, is precisely how we ended up with our own version of the Power Skill umpteen years ago: to learn to use your powers in a new way).  First, I go over with the player just how he envisions this power to interact with his other powers.  If it's something of a variant of an existing power (Energy Blast into Killing Attack, for example, or Telepathy into EGO Attack), then standard practice works for me: "Study in particular that part of your telepathic connection that makes you aware of their mind; that part where "you" stop and "he" begins" etc, etc.

 

If it's a new power that's not too closely tied to a current power, but has close ties in SFX-- say, Flamethrower decides he wants to learn how to use his flame form to fly by heating himself up lighter than air and propelling himself on mighty bursts of plasma-- then again, standard practice rules apply.  "practice" a couple of sessions or a few off-table sessions, and Boom!  Whip up a new Multipower or EC (yes; I know that's gone from 6e.  I don't use 6e) and start jetting across the campaign.

 

If it's something _totally_ new, -- well, first: I am _not_ going to deny the player out of hat.  I find out why he wants this power, and how he ended up with this power (that is, if I didn't stick him into some villainous device and accidentally give it to him! ).  Typically, we find a way to work that into the very next session, and definitely into the one after that if we can't make it work immediately.  I will interrupt a well-crafted session with a surprise thing that leads to a mini-arc or single-scenario adventure if I need to.  I have no interest in penalizing my players because of something they have legitimately earned, after all.  The only thing I do require with a genuinely new power is that they first buy it at a low-ish level.  That is, when it shows up (unless instant mastery is important to the plot), I don't want to see it in full-fledged, all the EXP I had available form.  They should practice it the session in which it shows up.  At the close of that session, they can buy it as high as they wish (or can afford), with the agreement to "practice" with it at least a little more in the next session.  

 

As an example, if a player can afford his character to buy 5d of --- I don't know; say Illusion, then I would prefer he first buy 3 and practice with it so that, by the end of the session, he has "learned" how to access all 5d.  

 

I can see how someone _might_ think that this is some kind of penalty, but frankly, I do it primarily to be fair to all the other characters who have to practice to improve.

 

 

That the sort of answer you're looking for, or did I miss the point completely?

 

[Killer Shrike]

Well...advancement is technically separate from game play, and while the explicitly described intent (for characters to progress by earning XP and then spending them as character points on a 1:1 basis) was the central hook to the game system traditionally, it is a simple matter to swap that out for literally any other means of progressing a character.

 

I did a series of of "meta" concepts for alternate character design and character progression back in the day (

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/MetaConcepts.aspx ), in response to a poster on these boards. I didn't think to do one based on skilling up based upon usage, which is odd because I used to discourage players from spending XP to improve abilities they never used in game. It would be easy enough to implement. The main difficulty would be remembering to keep track of ability usage during the game.

[Christopher]

15 hours ago, massey said:

Suppose I'm playing a Batman knock-off.  Maybe I don't have the points available to speak any foreign languages, or to be rich, or to have my Knock-offmobile.  As far as I'm concerned, I have those abilities, they just haven't shown up in my comic book yet.  As long as the events of the campaign haven't specifically shown me to not have them, I should be able to take them at any time.  For instance, if there's a session where a street thug is speaking Russian, and I have no clue what he's saying, to the point that our characters miss some important information, then it doesn't really make sense for me to take fluency in Russian three game sessions later, having "always" been able to speak it.  But if that doesn't happen, I should be able to spend my XP on anything that hasn't really popped up yet. 

In that case I would asume this would happen:
You say your Character always spoke Russian.

a) The GM agrees and you either get it for free (because Languages are not a big thing in the campaign) or have to spend your next XP to get it

b) The GM disagrees.

 

Most GM's I played with grew bored of the language barrier quickly. So it never really came up longterm.

[Scott Ruggels]

The Epiphany system is a good way for a story based progression, but other than that I go with the assumption that skills and and powers bought with XP just are either making the character closer to his conceptual ideal, or saving up for that “radiation “ accident. The strength of the Hero System is building what YOU want. 

[Duke Bushido]

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

 

Now do that for a few game sessions. Try no to loose track wich numbers/ticks actually apply and wich are just leftover from the last 5 games.

 

 

 

This is a total non-issue. 

 

Presumably you have experience spending XP.

Presumably you have experience advancing Characteristics, Skills, and Powers. 

Presumably you have never lost track of earned XP or spent XP. 

 

This is exactly the same thing. They exist in one of two states: they are either earned and waiting to be spent, or they are spent.  When they are spent move them from column (or whatever method you use in your games) where they are recorded to wherever you track XP spent. 

 

I would like to say that it is completely foolproof, but you and I both know the world will build for you a better fool. I can say with absolute certainty, however, that it is no less complication- or problem-prone than tracking end-of-game or off-table XP and then spending it.  I can say that because that is exactly what it is. 

[zslane]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

It's not part of the rules, but it _is_ part of good role playing.

 

I sorta feel that "good role playing" is what keeps an RPG from being reduced to just a tactical wargame, and I don't personally regard it as optional. Now, if a group isn't into roleplaying that's fine, but I know from many discussions with Steve Peterson back in the day that "good roleplaying" was always envisioned as an integral element of the Champions game playing experience (as I think it would be for any RPG, really). Yet outside of the genre sourcebook, they didn't devote much material in the rules to explaining how good roleplaying ought to fit into the game. They pretty much assumed you knew how to do that instinctively, and would do so without being told to.

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, zslane said:

Yet outside of the genre sourcebook, they didn't devote much material in the rules to explaining how good roleplaying ought to fit into the game. They pretty much assumed you knew how to do that instinctively, and would do so without being told to.

 

And later editions have done little to correct this oversight.  Granted, I think we all understand that the very fact that they are "role playing games" implies the importance of that very thing.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 10/26/2018 at 4:56 PM, Christopher said:

I consider every mechanic that reworks major parts of the game mechanics to be a downside. It opens up loads of new balance problems. You are free to view it as a positive for yourself.

After all I can warn you that you are handling a loaded gun, but I can not prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot.

 

 

I don't know that I see this at the same extreme, but any change to the system carried ripple effects.

 

It seems like "an extra xp to spend on the skill" for great skill rolls, or for using the skill then missing a skill roll, favours characters with a lot of skills over those focused on other abilities.  Does the Warrior who rolls a critical hit, or hits with his sword, get a (chance at) bonus xp to add skill levels to that specific weapon, to melee combat in general, or to combat in general? 

 

We also face the guys with lower skill wanting to take a shot to get a chance to improve the skill - is that how people will logically behave, or do we create a mechanistic drive to poor role playing?  We're in the field, we know Ted has the best skill in demolitions, but let's give Charlie first dibs on trying to defuse the bomb since he can use the skill upgrade.  I am better with my sword, but I have a tick there already - I draw my bow.

 

What is "good role playing"?  Too often, it is "playing my character like someone else, typically the GM, thinks he should be played, rather than like I think he should be played". 

 

The "use the skill, get a chance to enhance it" model is a PvP concept, at its core - who can grow their character the fastest?  I find many games have shifted to be a team effort - all characters progress at the same rate.  Bonus xp (i.e. bonus character enhancement) for individual success puts the players in competition with one another.  That may, or may not, be the game model you want, but recognize that it is the game model being fostered.  You will get the game play your own play style fosters. 

 

Taking that back to role playing, in a game where any tactical misstep means defeat, likely death, or some other negative consequence, expect characters who always make the tactically best choice.  If you want characters with real character, driven by their personalities, rather than tactical effectiveness, then the game must reward,  not penalize, that role playing.  I don't find requiring the players to declare what their characters are practicing in order to be permitted to spend their xp contributes markedly to players imbuing their characters with personalities.  YMMV

[Scott Ruggels]

20 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I sorta feel that "good role playing" is what keeps an RPG from being reduced to just a tactical wargame, and I don't personally regard it as optional.

 

Oh, it’s totally optional. The Herosystem, especially the earlier editions made a great tactical war game system, and was used as such on occasion. To me, that’s the mark of a great system. I am cold on minimalist, theater of the mind, systems. I think it boils down to group expectations and desires. 

 

20 hours ago, zslane said:

Now, if a group isn't into roleplaying that's fine, but I know from many discussions with Steve Peterson back in the day that "good roleplaying" was always envisioned as an integral element of the Champions game playing experience (as I think it would be for any RPG, really). Yet outside of the genre sourcebook, they didn't devote much material in the rules to explaining how good roleplaying ought to fit into the game. They pretty much assumed you knew how to do that instinctively, and would do so without being told to.

 

Unfortunately it’s not instinctive, and requires some maturity.  Most people can be taught to do it by others, but some people aren’t comfortable opening up, or are emotionally limited. It’s the old “I roll my persuasion skill vs. trying in character to persuade an NPC”, problem. Again, it is group preference. I know it took me a short while to get comfortable, and clearly separate IC and OOC knowledge, but I got there by playing with good role players, and extended from my wargaming roots. 

[Scott Ruggels]

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

And later editions have done little to correct this oversight.  Granted, I think we all understand that the very fact that they are "role playing games" implies the importance of that very thing.

 

 

I think what Aaron Allston implied in many of his game books was a direction, or a basis for good role play. It was implied though, rather than explicit, as like others role play was assumed. The rules and scales are set leading all the way back to Chainmail. Role play really doesn’t get that much explanation save for some of the “ minimalist”, narrative centered system.