HS 6e is mechanically the best version of the rules; dissenting views welcome

[megaplayboy]

Is there a ruleset that's physically longer than 6th?  I mean, it's nearly 800 pages.  

[IndianaJoe3]

7 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Is there a ruleset that's physically longer than 6th?  I mean, it's nearly 800 pages.  

 

Are there more than 800 pages of Pathfinder or D&Dx rules? Probably.

[megaplayboy]

2 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Are there more than 800 pages of Pathfinder or D&Dx rules? Probably.

In the core rules, though? If we went with rules addendums and edits, Hero would go well into the thousands of pages(The Ultimate books alone, hoo boy).

[Spence]

13 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

In the core rules, though? If we went with rules addendums and edits, Hero would go well into the thousands of pages(The Ultimate books alone, hoo boy).

 

Not wrong, but the except for the two APG's, the additional books for Hero don't actually add any "rules".  They simply show you ways to use the existing rules to make various builds or achieve various actions.  Pathfinder and pre-5th edition D&D added new rules by the pound.  Most, but not all, RPG's out there continuously add rules throughout their existence. Hero is the only game I am personally familiar with that has added very very little in the new rules category, perhaps too much in the advice on how to use the rules, but not that much actually new.

[megaplayboy]

11 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

Not wrong, but the except for the two APG's, the additional books for Hero don't actually add any "rules".  They simply show you ways to use the existing rules to make various builds or achieve various actions.  Pathfinder and pre-5th edition D&D added new rules by the pound.  Most, but not all, RPG's out there continuously add rules throughout their existence. Hero is the only game I am personally familiar with that has added very very little in the new rules category, perhaps too much in the advice on how to use the rules, but not that much actually new.

Eh, to an extent that's true.  But there's a set of mass combat rules in Fantasy Hero, that don't exist in the core rules. Ditto for the Kingdom rules in Ultimate Base and the APG.  Here and there you'll actually find some new rules.  Hero System Martial Arts gives rules for making new maneuvers, e.g. 

I guess one could write up an edition that consists of 3 massive 600 page hardcovers.  I tend to doubt that any but the most hardcore Hero gamers would even give it a try, though.  I think 6th took it about as far as it can go. If there's a new edition, imo, they should strip it down back to basics and have a ruleset that's less than 300 pages, preferably less than 200.  

[Spence]

2 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Eh, to an extent that's true.  But there's a set of mass combat rules in Fantasy Hero, that don't exist in the core rules. Ditto for the Kingdom rules in Ultimate Base and the APG.  Here and there you'll actually find some new rules.  Hero System Martial Arts gives rules for making new maneuvers, e.g. 

I guess one could write up an edition that consists of 3 massive 600 page hardcovers.  I tend to doubt that any but the most hardcore Hero gamers would even give it a try, though.  I think 6th took it about as far as it can go. If there's a new edition, imo, they should strip it down back to basics and have a ruleset that's less than 300 pages, preferably less than 200.  

 Not wrong

 

But I personally don't think 6th took it as far as it can go. 

 

I believe it was a step too far. 

 

An RPG has two parts. 

1) The rules and their internal balance. 

2) Intuitive fun factor. 

#1 is self explanatory, while #2 is not something that can be objectively defined, but truly exists. 

 

In the obsessive quest for some kind of mathematical purity, they literally dumped the "feel" and "fun" that made Champions, Espionage, Justice Inc. and the other games so great for so many years.  For me 1st through 4th was a roller coaster of fun packed fun.  5th was where Hero began to get that antiseptic feel.  But it also had some of the best books they ever put out, just no actual playable adventures.  It was like they were trying to bleach the game out, but the game was resisting the attempts to kill it. 

 

6th completely changed the "feel" of the game.  Even on these boards, threads like this one endlessly argue about opinions of the purity of the math and completely ignore the primary attribute of a game.  Fun.   Instead of the endless point cost discussions or whether Comeliness is a stat, maybe a discussion of why the greater gaming world doesn't even realize Hero exists anymore. 

 

While I know that my points will be labeled "straw men" or whatever other terms currently use for burying unpopular opinions.  But there are three very real things being done by literally all of the current successful games.

1) Playable settings.

2) actual adventures and campaigns that only require the GM to read them to run.  In other words playable "out of the box".   One or two 6-10 episode campaigns a year are more than enough, especially when you have #3.

3) Some form of open license that allows people to create adventures without needing a specific license.  That allows anywhere from dozens to hundreds, depending on the game, of low cost or free adventures to be available for people who do not have time to spend building games but want to play.  They may not be top shelf master works, but they are more than sufficient to play.

 

I normally don't really post much anymore, especially in threads like this.  But sometimes I just can't help myself.  It's like seeing a house on fire and the firemen are arguing over the color of its paint while it burns.  It is just frustrating as well as disappointing.

 

[ghost-angel]

Perhaps the answer is that the Characteristics should get more bang-for-the-point than component builds.

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree that all the components of a Characteristic should add up to a full cost. After all, Characteristics get their bonuses at 3, 8, 13, 18, etc... and not 5, 10, 15, 20, etc...

 

At that point, 3Points of INT would need to break down to "All INT Skills At Once" and "Perception" - and then you have to spend 5 Points to get the next +2. Which means the first +2 are at a disparity and we're just using 5 Points as a median, not an actual point expenditure.

 

The math doesn't work anyway, so it feels futile to add Limitations and then make them all add up to the original cost as components. If INT does two things, then each +1 is worth half the INT, or 2.5 Points, do you round in favor? Then +1 To All Skills & +1 to Perception is actually 4 Points separately, or +1 to All INT Skills is 3 points and +1 to Perception is 3 points and the total is 6, more than +5 INT. Or, we use the current cost in the Book, 4+3 is 7... still more than INT.

 

 

But at 2/1 INT is going to be 10 Points, +1 to all INT Skills becomes 5 Points, and +1 Perception becomes 5 Points, more than the current book cost, probably more than they're worth. Making 2/1 Too much.

 

You can do this with practically any Characteristic, and it'll never work out right. So either literally everything that isn't 5pts/+1D6 is probably incorrect; Or Characteristics are inherently a good value just by being - at that point from a Play perspective, you can either play a numbers game to tweak the math as you wish; or the GM+Players set Ranges for a game, and anything not in that Range has to be bought at the less effecient Cost.

 

Which brings me back to the idea that DEX is worth 1/1 along with all the other Characteristic - screw "Going First" and "Lightning Reflexes" as reasons to artificially inflate a single Characteristic.

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 hours ago, ghost-angel said:

Perhaps the answer is that the Characteristics should get more bang-for-the-point than component builds.

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree that all the components of a Characteristic should add up to a full cost. After all, Characteristics get their bonuses at 3, 8, 13, 18, etc... and not 5, 10, 15, 20, etc...

 

At that point, 3Points of INT would need to break down to "All INT Skills At Once" and "Perception" - and then you have to spend 5 Points to get the next +2. Which means the first +2 are at a disparity and we're just using 5 Points as a median, not an actual point expenditure.

 

The math doesn't work anyway, so it feels futile to add Limitations and then make them all add up to the original cost as components. If INT does two things, then each +1 is worth half the INT, or 2.5 Points, do you round in favor? Then +1 To All Skills & +1 to Perception is actually 4 Points separately, or +1 to All INT Skills is 3 points and +1 to Perception is 3 points and the total is 6, more than +5 INT. Or, we use the current cost in the Book, 4+3 is 7... still more than INT.

 

 

But at 2/1 INT is going to be 10 Points, +1 to all INT Skills becomes 5 Points, and +1 Perception becomes 5 Points, more than the current book cost, probably more than they're worth. Making 2/1 Too much.

 

You can do this with practically any Characteristic, and it'll never work out right. So either literally everything that isn't 5pts/+1D6 is probably incorrect; Or Characteristics are inherently a good value just by being - at that point from a Play perspective, you can either play a numbers game to tweak the math as you wish; or the GM+Players set Ranges for a game, and anything not in that Range has to be bought at the less effecient Cost.

 

Which brings me back to the idea that DEX is worth 1/1 along with all the other Characteristic - screw "Going First" and "Lightning Reflexes" as reasons to artificially inflate a single Characteristic.

 

As I said slightly upthread, the issue is that INT holds value only every 5th point, but has to have an integer cost. 

Make INT 7 or 8 real per 5 and you lose the issue. 

 

Or better yet, drop the 4 meaningless points entirely. 

[Toxxus]

On 6/1/2019 at 10:21 AM, ghost-angel said:

If one wanted they could probably pull 25points off the Standard Superhero and reduce the DEX/CV values a notch or two without much effect to the At Table Experience. 

 

Once players recognize that we don't ROLL for initiative and that turn order is fixed based on DEX there is a strong desire to buy enough DEX to consistently go first or at least in the top 1/3rd of the order.

 

Then, after they get more familiar with the system, they realize that the defensive Abort options can make going later/last quite attractive.  Especially in group encounters where an enemy attacks a teammate who dodges/blocks and then, having acted, cannot take a defensive action against your attack.

 

I do find the 2 point cost of DEX to be warranted.  It comes up so often in avoiding traps / environment hazards and determining who wins out in held-action vs. action contests.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 6/2/2019 at 7:56 PM, Spence said:

 

Not wrong, but the except for the two APG's, the additional books for Hero don't actually add any "rules".  They simply show you ways to use the existing rules to make various builds or achieve various actions.  Pathfinder and pre-5th edition D&D added new rules by the pound.  Most, but not all, RPG's out there continuously add rules throughout their existence. Hero is the only game I am personally familiar with that has added very very little in the new rules category, perhaps too much in the advice on how to use the rules, but not that much actually new.

 

In addition to the comments upthread, HSMA has the rules for ranged martial arts. 

 

On 6/2/2019 at 9:26 PM, ghost-angel said:

Perhaps the answer is that the Characteristics should get more bang-for-the-point than component builds.

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree that all the components of a Characteristic should add up to a full cost.

 

If the objective is "get what you pay for, and pay for what you get", I believe the components should add up to a full cost.  It's funny that you later argue that, if +1 to all INT rolls costs 5 points, and +1 to all PER rolls costs 3 points, then +10 INT is overpriced at 10 points.  That is just the other side of the components not adding up to the full cost.

 

Giving characteristics more bang for their buck serves only to reward a specific type of build, one which is characteristc-centered.  This works better in a d20 style game where spending of character resources is segregated between the components and cannot be traded off between each other.  Hero does not restrict such tradeoffs

.

On 6/2/2019 at 9:26 PM, ghost-angel said:

After all, Characteristics get their bonuses at 3, 8, 13, 18, etc... and not 5, 10, 15, 20, etc...

 

At that point, 3Points of INT would need to break down to "All INT Skills At Once" and "Perception" - and then you have to spend 5 Points to get the next +2. Which means the first +2 are at a disparity and we're just using 5 Points as a median, not an actual point expenditure.

 

The incremantal cost is always 5 points.  As has been noted upthread, that means you get nothing for 4 points, then +1 for the next point.  I could sell back 2 INT to spend 5 points less than the fellow who paid 3 for a 13 INT.  We are now 5 points different.  This is not a lot different than rounding with advantages and limitations.

 

Another possibility, suggested by Gnomebody upthread, is to remove the 4 meaningless points.  10 points gets "+5 DEX" - you can't buy "+2 DEX" or "+3 INT" any more, you must buy to breakpoints.  I suggested upthread a means to make 5 point breakpoints relevant - roll an extra d6 with the roll, and every point above the breakpoint is a 1 in 6 chance of success if the roll is just missed.  So that 8 INT means a roll of 12 always fails an unmodified INT roll, while a 10 means you have 1 chance in 3 that a 12 succeeds. 

 

Of, if you want a more "Conventional Hero" approach, you could make the 1-4 range "+1 to all rolls, activation roll".  I don't like the math on that as Activation rolls are limited more than pure math suggests.  That's reasonable in most cases to also account for unreliability, but a skill or similar check is already unreliable.

 

Doc's approach of eliminating many characteristics so you only buy the components is a more radical approach, but consistent with "nothing is figured".

 

On 6/2/2019 at 9:26 PM, ghost-angel said:

The math doesn't work anyway, so it feels futile to add Limitations and then make them all add up to the original cost as components. If INT does two things, then each +1 is worth half the INT, or 2.5 Points, do you round in favor? Then +1 To All Skills & +1 to Perception is actually 4 Points separately, or +1 to All INT Skills is 3 points and +1 to Perception is 3 points and the total is 6, more than +5 INT. Or, we use the current cost in the Book, 4+3 is 7... still more than INT

 

That 4 points is not a relevant comparison.  You are spending 4 points to get +1 in any one INT skill at a time so you also do not benefit from complementary rolls.  +5 INT is +1 to all skills at the same time, all PER rolls and any INT rolls unconnected with any skill or PER check.

 

I have been using "each of the two components is equal" more for convenience than because they must be equal.  We could accept that +1 to all PER rolls is worth about 3 points.  That can be reversed to "INT, only for PER rolls -2 limitation".  We could accept that +1 to all INT rolls other than PER is worth 7 points, and reverse engineer that to "INT, not for PER rolls" is a -1/2 limitation.  If we then say "only for one roll at any given time" is worth -1, we get "+1 INT roll, not for PER (-1/2), only one INT roll at a time (-1)" = 4 points = 1 Skill Level with all INT skills.  Which is the present costing.

 

I stuck with equal weighting  because it is the closes to consistent.  +1 with all Agility skills is 6 points and the INT and PER equivalent are 4 points.  Lightning Reflexes starts at 5 points for +5 all the time.  +1d6 PRE attack tends to be viewed as 5 points.

 

If we went with -1/2 for "no PER rolls, no PRE attacks or no Initiative" and -2 for "PER rolls, PRE attacks or initiative only", that would also work.  Slap on another -1/4 for "no base characteristic rolls and, assuming 2 points per +1, we get 5.7 (round to 6) for +1 to all intellect, agility or interaction skills (not one at a time, all at once).

 

Incorporate Doc's vision that we ditch characteristics entirely and we could start with the premise that everyone has an 11- roll for all tasks, modified by any penalties.  One can then be "Intelligent", "Dextrous" or a "Social Butterfly", granting +1 to all intellect-based, dexterity-based or interaction-based rolls.  Or we preclude purchases in increments other than 5, given that all other increments are meaningless (except they are not for DEX, although "roll off for all DEX 3's" is no different from "all DEX 15s" other than creating more rolloffs - Lightning Reflexes could give bonuses to the rolloffs or +1 DEX, Activation Roll, only to act first).

 

We could, if desired, price the components.  If +1 to all PER rolls is worth 3, +1 to all INT skills (not one at a time, all at once) is worth 6 and +1 to INT rolls other than PER or skills is worth 1, then +1 to all INT rolls is worth 10 after all.  Obviously, you would reduce the price of Lightning Reflexes.  Many gamers (including Steve) disagree.  I'd be OK with LR being 1/3 of the value of DEX and DEX rolls being 2/3. 

 

All of this is fine tuning the concept, which is premature until we have the concept itself.

 

On 6/2/2019 at 9:26 PM, ghost-angel said:

But at 2/1 INT is going to be 10 Points, +1 to all INT Skills becomes 5 Points, and +1 Perception becomes 5 Points, more than the current book cost, probably more than they're worth. Making 2/1 Too much.

 

You can do this with practically any Characteristic, and it'll never work out right. So either literally everything that isn't 5pts/+1D6 is probably incorrect; Or Characteristics are inherently a good value just by being - at that point from a Play perspective, you can either play a numbers game to tweak the math as you wish; or the GM+Players set Ranges for a game, and anything not in that Range has to be bought at the less effecient Cost.

 

"Practically any characteristic"?  Let's look.

 

STR is an odd man out as it provides many things that cannot be bought any other way.  +1 STR can enhance lifting by extrapolating the chart, and the 3 point break presently used for +1/2d6 can be extrapolated out to other variant DCs, if desired.

 

DEX grants LR (point for point) and skill bonuses. PRE grants PRE defense (at present, not under my model; point for point), rolls and PRE attack (1/2 dice exist here as well) and INT grants rolls only.  Those are the three we've identified as having this issue.

 

EGO grants rolls and maybe PRE defense, so similar.

 

CON, BOD, PD, ED, SPD, REC, STUN, END, OCV, DCV, mOCV, mDCV all work one for one.

 

So I guess it depends a lot on what we consider to be a "characteristic".

 

Ultimately, there should be no "bargain purchases" if the objective is to get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  With that in mind, characteristics should not provide a bargain purchase for a bundled suite of abilities.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

Once players recognize that we don't ROLL for initiative and that turn order is fixed based on DEX there is a strong desire to buy enough DEX to consistently go first or at least in the top 1/3rd of the order.

 

Then, after they get more familiar with the system, they realize that the defensive Abort options can make going later/last quite attractive.  Especially in group encounters where an enemy attacks a teammate who dodges/blocks and then, having acted, cannot take a defensive action against your attack.

 

I do find the 2 point cost of DEX to be warranted.  It comes up so often in avoiding traps / environment hazards and determining who wins out in held-action vs. action contests.

Just a highlight showing that some gamers place a higher value on going first where GA and I do not.  Like most things, I find it situational.  In a game where typical DCs are 6 - 8 and typical defenses are 15-20, going first is no big deal.  If typical DCs are 8-10 and defenses are 8-12, going first becomes much more valuable.

[Toxxus]

41 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Just a highlight showing that some gamers place a higher value on going first where GA and I do not.  Like most things, I find it situational.  In a game where typical DCs are 6 - 8 and typical defenses are 15-20, going first is no big deal.  If typical DCs are 8-10 and defenses are 8-12, going first becomes much more valuable.

 

Unless those high DCs are also hard to avoid (large AoE's, extremely high OCV, etc.) then I find my groups typically use a tactic of having targets dodge/block and then non-targets counterattack.  The counterattacks are especially effective since you can't abort on the same segment you've already had a phase.

 

What I noticed in my Fantasy Hero games as players have moved into the high-end (270pts now) and are at the level of low end super-heroes is that most of the high-dex / low-armor types have progressed towards more armor.  The team now looks more like heavy-to-medium armor with only my wife's sorceress still very vulnerable to lethal damage.

 

Also, the OCV/DCV progression has this weird dichotomy where nobody wants the goose and gander to have equal treatment.

 

Me:  The celestial warrior attacks with his flaming greatsword.  He is OCV 11.

Player:  ELEVEN!!  Holy !@#$!  That's crazy.

Me:  Dude, aren't you OCV 11 with your levels on attack?

Player:  Yeah, but...

[ghost-angel]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

EGO grants rolls and maybe PRE defense, so similar.

 

EGO is also Mental Affects Threshhold, whose importance varies from game to game, but when it's important it's Very Important.

 

(and I should have specified the 6 Primary/Classic Characteristics whose ranges are all similar/bought the same.)

 

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The incremantal cost is always 5 points.  As has been noted upthread, that means you get nothing for 4 points, then +1 for the next point

 

But the math doesn't bear this out. You spend 3 Points and get the benefit, then spend 2 more points for the "5 Points is costs" and get ... nothing more than the guy who spent 3. That's an irrefutable point. The next +1 costs everyone the same 5 Points though... Making the 5 Points the Median cost, which is fine, we just need to recognize that first step is even cheaper.

 

I've been picking on INT because it's probably the one Characteristic that has little to no meaning in the mid points. PRE/EGO can change Effect Level, DEX has going first, STR can increment Damage, CON can effect Stun Threshold. But INT... does nothing in the mid steps.

 

Maybe that's just the Odd Man Out, should be removed and replaced with a less granular Step Leveling. Perception is really just an INT Based Skill instead of a Power/Ability (This is true in a very large number of games, in actuality). Meaning 5 Points for +1 to All INT Based Skills should just be the cost, you get 2 INT for free, it goes up to 6 with NCM, +1 INT costs 5 Points. Presence is a Skill.

7th Edition Fodder possibly.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Unless those high DCs are also hard to avoid (large AoE's, extremely high OCV, etc.) then I find my groups typically use a tactic of having targets dodge/block and then non-targets counterattack.  The counterattacks are especially effective since you can't abort on the same segment you've already had a phase..

 

That's the Single Enemy Syndrome.  Target dodges or blocks; others gang up on single target.  Block/Dodge fails?  Well, when the non-targets gang up next time, you hang back and recover.  Less effective if BOD is also getting through, of course.

 

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

EGO is also Mental Affects Threshhold, whose importance varies from game to game, but when it's important it's Very Important.

 

(and I should have specified the 6 Primary/Classic Characteristics whose ranges are all similar/bought the same.)

 

Even then CON is an outlier, as I assume we are leaving BOD out.  Another reason for Ego (and in my model it would provide PRE defense - many games use greater of EGO and PRE as well).

 

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

But the math doesn't bear this out. You spend 3 Points and get the benefit, then spend 2 more points for the "5 Points is costs" and get ... nothing more than the guy who spent 3. That's an irrefutable point. The next +1 costs everyone the same 5 Points though... Making the 5 Points the Median cost, which is fine, we just need to recognize that first step is even cheaper.

 

Only if you assume no one sells back 2 INT since the extra 2 points do nothing.  Not taking 2 points from the sellback is functionally equivalent to paying 2 points.

 

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

I've been picking on INT because it's probably the one Characteristic that has little to no meaning in the mid points. PRE/EGO can change Effect Level, DEX has going first, STR can increment Damage, CON can effect Stun Threshold. But INT... does nothing in the mid steps.

 

True - under my model, PRE joins INT as it does not provide defense against PRE attacks, but there are still PRE attacks at 5's and 10's, which are as valid as STR incremental damage.

 

I'm likely a bit less focused on the "dead" numbers than on the disparity between the cost of the CHAR and the cost of buying the benefits of the CHAR.  6e solved the most egregious issues by removing Figureds.  7e fodder for me would be the further breakdown, but that could also mean removal of INT entirely.  Alternatively, it could stay 1 point, and lose its impact on PER - want better PER rolls, buy enhanced perception.  But it still needs a cost that aligns with skill levels -  "+1 to any one INT skill at a time" is not 80% as good as "+1 to all INT rolls all the time".

[Doc Democracy]

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Another possibility, suggested by Doc upthread, is to remove the 4 meaningless points.  10 points gets "+5 DEX" - you can't buy "+2 DEX" or "+3 INT" any more, you must buy to breakpoints.  I suggested upthread a means to make 5 point breakpoints relevant - roll an extra d6 with the roll, and every point above the breakpoint is a 1 in 6 chance of success if the roll is just missed.  So that 8 INT means a roll of 12 always fails an unmodified INT roll, while a 10 means you have 1 chance in 3 that a 12 succeeds. 

 

Credit where credit is due, that was Gnome, not me.  🙂  I went for the much more radical approach of getting rid of the old primary characteristics (STR, DEX, CON, PRE, INT and EGO) completely.

[Toxxus]

On 6/2/2019 at 10:25 PM, Spence said:

For me 1st through 4th was a roller coaster of fun packed fun.  5th was where Hero began to get that antiseptic feel.  But it also had some of the best books they ever put out, just no actual playable adventures.

 

This is one area where I feel HERO system just destroyed itself in the market.

 

The failure to produce a reasonable volume of adventures sent GMs and their players to other systems.  A lot of us who played RPGs in high school & college grew up, started families, and no longer had time to generate entire worlds from scratch.

 

Many of us were quite happy to use canned adventures and modify them to fit our preferences.

 

Fast forward 30 years and I STILL do this.  I'm currently running HERO system twice a week using Pathfinder adventures.  That's $300 worth of adventure path books I've sent to Paizo instead of HERO because there aren't any Fantasy HERO adventures of similar quality.

 

The core of HERO system combat is preferred by my players, but the current rule books are so overwhelming none of them have tried to make their own characters.  Three of my players have purchased HERO Designer and only two of them have tried to make a character as they are quickly overwhelmed by the volume of options in the software.

 

HERO would benefit, imo, from two things.  A condensed, simplified version of the rules in a modern format along with some playable content.

[megaplayboy]

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

This is one area where I feel HERO system just destroyed itself in the market.

 

The failure to produce a reasonable volume of adventures sent GMs and their players to other systems.  A lot of us who played RPGs in high school & college grew up, started families, and no longer had time to generate entire worlds from scratch.

 

Many of us were quite happy to use canned adventures and modify them to fit our preferences.

 

Fast forward 30 years and I STILL do this.  I'm currently running HERO system twice a week using Pathfinder adventures.  That's $300 worth of adventure path books I've sent to Paizo instead of HERO because there aren't any Fantasy HERO adventures of similar quality.

 

The core of HERO system combat is preferred by my players, but the current rule books are so overwhelming none of them have tried to make their own characters.  Three of my players have purchased HERO Designer and only two of them have tried to make a character as they are quickly overwhelmed by the volume of options in the software.

 

HERO would benefit, imo, from two things.  A condensed, simplified version of the rules in a modern format along with some playable content.

I think there was a point in time where the conventional wisdom at Hero was that adventure books don't sell as well as XYZ type releases.  During the latter era of 4th edition that may actually have been true.  I think it was more a commonplace/substitute practice to introduce a villain or team or agency and suggest 3 scenarios one could use them in.  

[Hugh Neilson]

D&D got out of the adventure business, relegating it to third parties and Dungeon Magazine, around 3e.  The 3rd parties quickly started releasing sourcebooks.  Pretty clear where the publishers thought the $$ were.

 

Paizo really revitalized the "adventure" market with their adventure paths, after Dungeon got yanked out from under them.  The first time, I believe, that a company developed a game to support their adventures rather than the other way around.

[Toxxus]

26 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

D&D got out of the adventure business, relegating it to third parties and Dungeon Magazine, around 3e.  The 3rd parties quickly started releasing sourcebooks.  Pretty clear where the publishers thought the $$ were.

 

Paizo really revitalized the "adventure" market with their adventure paths, after Dungeon got yanked out from under them.  The first time, I believe, that a company developed a game to support their adventures rather than the other way around.

 

D&D got back into the adventure business pretty hard with 5th Edition.  Not only is there a new hardcover or two with each season (currently going on Season 9), but Adventurer's League has a process to take in 3rd party author work and make sure it is sanitized for organized play.

 

I'd much rather spend 30 minutes reading someone else's adventure and modifying it to fit my players than create from scratch.  I'm a reasonably creative guy and yet I doubt, as an individual, I could punch out something as masterful as The Storm King's Thunder or Paizo's War for the Crown.

[massey]

Well, it's quite possible that adventure modules are sort of a "loss leader" for RPGs.  They may not sell great, but you really only need one guy to buy the adventure, and then the four or five people in his gaming group end up purchasing the rulebook.  And it's possible that they are sort of a prerequisite to having a successful game.  If you don't make them, people don't pick up your system.

 

A series of adventure modules, kind of like Paizo's adventure paths, that told a story like a comic book would be interesting.  The first module could introduce a hero team, and then you run them through the equivalent of like a 50 issue story arc.  Think the New Teen Titans from the early 80s.  Each module could cover like the equivalent of 7 or 8 issues, complete with DNPC story hooks, intro of new villains, power complication subplots, newly revealed backstory, new villain character sheets, etc.  You could have four or five different storylines, with different hero groups, going at the same time.  Perhaps fleshing out the universe that way instead of just focusing on sourcebooks would be a better idea.

[Chris Goodwin]

17 minutes ago, massey said:

Well, it's quite possible that adventure modules are sort of a "loss leader" for RPGs.  They may not sell great, but you really only need one guy to buy the adventure, and then the four or five people in his gaming group end up purchasing the rulebook.  And it's possible that they are sort of a prerequisite to having a successful game.  If you don't make them, people don't pick up your system.

 

You said what I've been trying to say for years, much better than I have. 

[megaplayboy]

In the old days, they were 24-64 page books that sold for 5-10 bucks apiece.  Probably not a big profit margin.  

[Chris Goodwin]

43 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

In the old days, they were 24-64 page books that sold for 5-10 bucks apiece.  Probably not a big profit margin.  

 

If one of those $5-10 books then proceeds to sell four or five $40 books, with the longer term potential for 16 more... what's the profit margin on that?

 

Adventures should not be product.  They should be marketing.

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

D&D got back into the adventure business pretty hard with 5th Edition.  Not only is there a new hardcover or two with each season (currently going on Season 9), but Adventurer's League has a process to take in 3rd party author work and make sure it is sanitized for organized play.

 

I'd much rather spend 30 minutes reading someone else's adventure and modifying it to fit my players than create from scratch.  I'm a reasonably creative guy and yet I doubt, as an individual, I could punch out something as masterful as The Storm King's Thunder or Paizo's War for the Crown.

 

I agree.  I also think back to buying those 32 page modules back in the day and ask whether I would have had the financial wherewithal to buy full hardcover adventures.  The hobby has evolved.

 

But the reality is that only one person in the group needs to buy the adventure.

 

14 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

If one of those $5-10 books then proceeds to sell four or five $40 books, with the longer term potential for 16 more... what's the profit margin on that?

 

Adventures should not be product.  They should be marketing.

 

As I think back to the early '80s, the model seemed to be one boxed set game, likely with a starter adventure, and a series of adventure modules.   Only a very few games went beyond that first few adventure modules.

 

And maybe that was the idea - your group has already bought this game's rulebooks.  I need a new game so you will all buy something again, not more modules for the old game so I get a single $5-$10 sale.  Or maybe I don't need a new game, but just a new edition that is not reverse compatible, or even a new rulebook that you need to play this new adventure series.

 

Definitely agree that a Champions Adventure Path would be a great thing...really, Hero had those bigger adventures in 4e/5e that were almost AP precursors - not a full campaign, but a series of smaller adventures woven into a large one.

 

Pathfinder and D&D have both, however, also designed the game to have campaigns with a limited shelf life.  D&D 3e made a big deal of a year of weekly play likely moving a group from L1 novices to L20 retirees, then start again.  The Pathfinder APs are designed around that model - a complete campaign, and then we start a new one with new PCs.

[massey]

Let's say that Hero decided to start in that direction.  They could start by publishing a combined rulebook and genre book, like 4th edition Champions.  It gives people Viper agents, a villain team, about a dozen individual villains, and a master villain like Mechanon.  It also gives a starting hero team and some basic ideas on superhero adventures, as well as info on Delta City or something, wherever you've got your campaigns set.  You also publish a Classic Enemies/CKC villain book with like 50 different bad guys to use.  This is your standard Players Handbook/Monster Manual that most people will buy.  It's kind of expected at this point.

 

But then, then let's say you start 3 different adventure modules, based around 3 different teams.  So you've got maybe X-Men, Teen Titans, and Fantastic Four.  The first module gives character sheets for our heroes, and campaign guidelines if players want to use their own.  And each module has like a dozen adventures (one game a week for 3 months) for these characters.  And once every quarter, you release a new module.  You could go for a year, or a year and a half (or however long you want), taking these characters through the equivalent of one writer's time on a comic book.  So it would be sort of like John Byrne's run on Superman, or Walt Simonson's run on Thor.  You've got a certain set of plots and supporting characters that the author likes, and villains who will show up, but it's a defined period of the characters' history.  Each new module shows how the characters have spent their XP and gives updated character sheets.  It also obviously includes new villains and NPCs that will be appearing in the next three months worth of adventures.

 

So you've got like 3 different teams of characters for a new group of players to select from.  And you'll have 3 different storylines that you'll develop over the next year or two.  Then, once you complete one of those stories, you can publish a sourcebook that brings everybody up to date.  So let's say your X-Men analog have been operating in the Pacific Northwest city of Seacouver.  You could make an X-Men sourcebook that details what it's like, who the villains are, and just sort of a general update for people who didn't play through the modules.  It gives character sheets for the heroes that would more or less match up with their final versions from the modules (it doesn't have to be exactly the same -- there's a new writer on that comic now, after all).  And maybe some characters or organizations who were mentioned in the module get fleshed out a little better here.

 

Then, you start with a new series of modules.  New characters in a different part of the world.  Maybe now you have Hudson City Vigilantes (Batman Family plus Spidey plus Cloak and Dagger), Avengers West Coast (standard adult supers), and a comedy one (🎵Rorschach and Deadpool...🎶).  Sort of different genres within the broader superhero category.  If something became really popular, like say maybe your X-Men adventures sold really well, you could always revisit them a little later with a new adventure module.  Characters don't have to stay static.  Just because Wolverine ended the last module at 537 points, that doesn't mean that he's at least that level in your new module.  Maybe he's been hanging out in bars instead of training, or his powers are fluctuating, or whatever.  In one adventure maybe he traveled into outer space and hung out with aliens, and that character sheet included Language: Klingon and +2 OCV with disintegrators.  That doesn't mean it needs to be on his character sheet now that he's on a mission to rescue mutant POWs from some southeast asian country.

 

I think something like this would let you flesh out your superhero world in an organic and interesting way.  People might actually care when you publish the stats for some superhero team.  The Tiger Squad would be somebody who was introduced in a planned way, and not just like "oh yeah, here are some dudes from China that you might use if you can come up with anything".

 

Anyway, this post was kind of stream of consciousness, but nobody is really doing any kind of real continuity with superhero rpgs.