Creating a HERO game

[Doc Democracy]

So.  You are a GM and you decide to run a game based on HERO.  Lets say you want to run Champions.  What do you have to do, as GM, to make that as clear as possible to your players?  What decisions do you make, what dials do you touch and how far do you just wing it from the core rulebooks (Encyclopedia Heroica) or Complete Champions?

 

If you had more time, more guidance, more help, is there more you would like to do??

 

I point you to a call for players here on the boards by Diamond Spear.  This is quite a detailed background but there is no indication of what that means rule-wise.  If you are struggling to comment due to lack of immediate inspiration, look at this description and tell me what rule choices you would have made to deliver this campaign...

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Sorry to add a tangent on first response.  A dial I think needs more attention is defenses.

 

Guidelines tend to be "This PD/ED, this much Resistant".  With the options in 6e, this is not the only dial.

 

EXAMPLE:  You want a game where Supers shrug off normal attacks, but Super vs Super is dangerous, and heroes emerge bloodied after a tough fight.

 

Conventional 25 PD, 25 ED will not do the trick unless we have a lot of KAs.

 

What about focusing defenses more on Negation (maybe also Reduction) and less on PD/ED?  That typical Super will have, say, 6 levels of Damage Negation and 7 PD/ED, likely Resistant.

 

A 12d6 Blast in a conventional game gets 17 STUN past defenses, and never does BOD.  But in this game, that's an average roll of 21 (13 - 15 STUN past defenses) and 6 BOD (no BOD damage).   But an above average roll does get some BOD through.

 

The dynamic changes, Regeneration and BOD healing become more useful, and a hospitalized hero after a major battle is much more likely.

[Hugh Neilson]

To that specific setting...hmmm...Actually, the description tells me little about setting the dials.

 

I am thinking defense levels that allow BOD to be taken, so this could be a Negation-style campaign from my comments above.

 

This seems Heroic, so let's apply Wounding only to those who are not part of the Shadow World.

 

It feels like this game should be pretty life-threatening, so I am thinking we will use Hit Locations, Impairing and Disabling.  However, I might consider restricting Impairing and/or Disabling to those outside the Shadow World as well.

 

Knockdown yes, Knockback no.

 

Bleeding - probably, but maybe limited to non-Shadow World NPCs (oer move the chart down a step or two for those in the Shadow World).

 

Actually, it could be interesting to only have the more "gritty" mechanics (bleeding, impairing, disabling) apply (or apply to those in the Shadow World) only where those magical, fantastic and horrific things that are the fringe of the fringe elements appear, setting those encounters apart from more mundane challenges.

[Doc Democracy]

I am just checking a character.  I had some sketchy details - standards were to be 12D6 attacks, 8 CV,  4 MCV, DEF 20, REC 10, SPD 5, STUN 55.  I expect a character to be on standard for most above on one significantly above on one and below on one.  I indicated that I would expect a lot of points spent on colour powers (things that make the character what they are rather than necessarily making them more efficient/effective in combat) and that they will face lots of challenges that will not be solvable simply by hitting something or someone.  I said that buying everything to standard would result in a quite narrow character and that the campaign average for everything will be lower than the standard values but each hero should pick things that exceed standard to make them stand out.
 

The first character had a 14D6 attack potential (though would burn through all his END in half his actions doing that), 9 OCV 10 DCV, 3 MCV, DEF 25, REC 12, SPD 12, STUN 48.

 

I will be going back pointing out that he could attack at full power six times a turn against a standard opponent, doing an average of 129 STUN a round, taking 30 and, if he could manage 5 recoveries in the 6 phases he has available, be at full END and STUN at the end of the turn, possibly having taken out two opponents.

 

This is not really the players fault - the system is there to build things, it is his first character and he will not be looking at this like me.  Where is the rulebook helping him?  How could I help him more in setting up the game to deliver a character more in fitting with the game I have in mind?

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

1 minute ago, Doc Democracy said:

I am just checking a character.  I had some sketchy details - standards were to be 12D6 attacks, 8 CV,  4 MCV, DEF 20, REC 10, SPD 5, STUN 55.  I expect a character to be on standard for most above on one significantly above on one and below on one.  I indicated that I would expect a lot of points spent on colour powers (things that make the character what they are rather than necessarily making them more efficient/effective in combat) and that they will face lots of challenges that will not be solvable simply by hitting something or someone.  I said that buying everything to standard would result in a quite narrow character and that the campaign average for everything will be lower than the standard values but each hero should pick things that exceed standard to make them stand out.
 

The first character had a 14D6 attack potential (though would burn through all his END in half his actions doing that), 9 OCV 10 DCV, 3 MCV, DEF 25, REC 12, SPD 12, STUN 48.

 

I will be going back pointing out that he could attack at full power six times a turn against a standard opponent, doing an average of 129 STUN a round, taking 30 and, if he could manage 5 recoveries in the 6 phases he has available, be at full END and STUN at the end of the turn, possibly having taken out two opponents.

 

This is not really the players fault - the system is there to build things, it is his first character and he will not be looking at this like me.  Where is the rulebook helping him?  How could I help him more in setting up the game to deliver a character more in fitting with the game I have in mind?

 

Doc

 

First thing that jumps out is SPD.  You said around 5 and he went with 12.  Every sample guidance in the book shows SPD well below 12.

 

Second issue, virtually every item noted is above standard.  You said one significantly above, while his damage, OCV, DCV, DEF, REC and SPD are all above standard. 

 

Did you define what is "significantly above" and what is "below", or your expectation of "most on standard, one well above, one materially below"?  I could see a player thinking "I'm within 5 - 10 AP on every item except SPD which is "significantly" higher, and believing that is what you meant.

 

Did the character buy colour powers?  Did he buy abilities to assist him out of combat?  Did you define how much was "a lot of points" to spend on colour powers?  To some players, "wasting" 10 points of 400 is "a lot", while others will think nothing of spending 100 points to round out the character beyond basic combat effectiveness.

 

Quick math estimate, 243 points will buy me campaign standard (assuming 10/10 rDEF, and 60 points on those 12 DCs).  He spent 94 more points, mostly on SPD.

[Doc Democracy]

?  He did not really follow the stuff beyond looking at standard.  He also went for SPD 12,  I think, because he saw a SPD 12 character in a different game.  What he did not appreciate was THAT speedster was below standard on almost everything else, glass jaw, low STUN, low defences etc.  It was an exercise in using the phases to set up times when he could hit without unduly exposing himself to retribution and recovering furiously the END expended in short bursts of activity.

 

To be fair, there is a lot of colour in the character but it all happens to be in combat colour. Again, not a terrible thing for a first time build but I do come back to how the system might help the GM to help the player.  It is obvious short guidelines dont do it, nor does a decent narrative of the proposed campaign.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Is this a byproduct of game system or game style?  In many games, players are looking for the best combination of abilities to maximize their effectiveness.  The restrictions in-game are relied on for balance.  Hero removes those in-game restrictions, placing a much greater onus on the GM.  A player used to a power-gaming d20 environment ("find the best combos to maximize your effectiveness through synergies") is likely to approach Hero from the same perspective.

 

I think we all do this to some level.  Witness the proportion of "high DEX trained normals" to "human DEX + CSLs trained normals" in Champions 1e to 5e.  And we all bought CON to values ended in 3 or 8, just like odd numbers in D&D 3rd Ed are pretty rare.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I am just checking a character.  I had some sketchy details - standards were to be 12D6 attacks, 8 CV,  4 MCV, DEF 20, REC 10, SPD 5, STUN 55.  I expect a character to be on standard for most above on one significantly above on one and below on one.  I indicated that I would expect a lot of points spent on colour powers (things that make the character what they are rather than necessarily making them more efficient/effective in combat) and that they will face lots of challenges that will not be solvable simply by hitting something or someone.  I said that buying everything to standard would result in a quite narrow character and that the campaign average for everything will be lower than the standard values but each hero should pick things that exceed standard to make them stand out.
 

The first character had a 14D6 attack potential (though would burn through all his END in half his actions doing that), 9 OCV 10 DCV, 3 MCV, DEF 25, REC 12, SPD 12, STUN 48.

 

I will be going back pointing out that he could attack at full power six times a turn against a standard opponent, doing an average of 129 STUN a round, taking 30 and, if he could manage 5 recoveries in the 6 phases he has available, be at full END and STUN at the end of the turn, possibly having taken out two opponents.

 

This is not really the players fault - the system is there to build things, it is his first character and he will not be looking at this like me.  Where is the rulebook helping him?  How could I help him more in setting up the game to deliver a character more in fitting with the game I have in mind?

 

Doc

To me, this indicates a player who either doesn't understand the game or who isn't thinking critically.  He may not understand what SPD 12 means in practice, or may not have thought about it and how it affects the power of his attacks, REC, etc. 

 

Last week, my weekly HERO group was making new characters.  Standard FRED 200+150s, 60 AP soft-cap, etc.  One guy rolled in with a guy with 40 PD, 30 ED, 6 DCs.  This was a strange decision but the GM accepted it.  Another asked if 45 PD and ED was 'right', then seemed confused when people reacted with surprise and rejection.  This latter player knows the game rules.  He's the most experienced HERO player behind me and the GM.  He just never stopped to ask "well wait, what does this value mean?". 

[Doc Democracy]

This is what I am talking about.  There is a gap in the rules giving guidance on how the GM needs to communicate the limits that she is imposing on the game and how to think through how to apply those limits.  Not everyone is a numbers person where it is obvious that 10D6 attacks and 35 PD defences mean long drawn out fights and 14D6 attacks with 20 PD defences could lead to quick resolutions and good chance of people being stunned during fights.  And that's before you start trying to factor in SPD, STUN, REC etc.

 

We seem to expect folk to understand the concepts and what the numbers mean without any ready references. Even when you talk to us about it you indicate that the GM was content with 40PD but didn't understand why someone else might ask whether 45 PD was right.  

 

Personally I am content with much higher defences and attacks etc to be available as long as there are limitations and costs associated with going beyond the limits.  It means that there are tactical decisions to be made - pushing the attacks at the cost of accuracy or defence or fatigue.  The more we can get away from a standard attack and a standard defence, the better the in-game experience will be.  But until the rulebooks provide the GM with the tools to deliver those sorts of games, it is likely the math will deliver bog standard, potentially uninteresting games.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Is this a byproduct of game system or game style?  In many games, players are looking for the best combination of abilities to maximize their effectiveness.  The restrictions in-game are relied on for balance.  Hero removes those in-game restrictions, placing a much greater onus on the GM.  A player used to a power-gaming d20 environment ("find the best combos to maximize your effectiveness through synergies") is likely to approach Hero from the same perspective.

 

I think we all do this to some level.  Witness the proportion of "high DEX trained normals" to "human DEX + CSLs trained normals" in Champions 1e to 5e.  And we all bought CON to values ended in 3 or 8, just like odd numbers in D&D 3rd Ed are pretty rare.

 

Yup.  As I said, it is a first time design.  The player has been in a few games and so seen the system in play and there are things he genuinely wants to achieve.  The problem is that most other games do not ask the player to impose limitations or to taper their powers in order to deliver a better in game experience.  I dont think I have ever played any other game where the player thinks about anything beyond how to maximise the elements of the character that he wants to play...

 

HERO can deliver MUCH more ability to maximise and expects the GM to know enough to police that maximisation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Doc, to me this comes back to "Hero as a game design system" as Hero is not a game unto itself.  The designer builds the limits.

[Doc Democracy]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Doc, to me this comes back to "Hero as a game design system" as Hero is not a game unto itself.  The designer builds the limits.

 

I totally agree.  But how should the GM go about it?  How far do the rules go in holding a new GMs hand in making those decisions?

[Doc Democracy]

Let me have a go at some of the settings...

Soldiers Fight Soldiers

There is a psychological limitation here.  Something like "Don't break cover" or "Never act where your "difference" may be witnessed" which might be converted to a Hunted if they breach that action.  All player characters and most NPCs should have this built in.  There should also be a Code of Honour, something along the lines of "The Shadow Accord" which sets out the terms of engagement between the various factions.  I might also have a Distinctive Feature that means others will be able to see which faction I belong to.

 

The World Is Not All Doom And Gloom

How should the system provide for this?  It sounds to me like there is some kind of force actively preventing people from making connections about what is going on.  I like there being a bonus to any attempts to explain away things.  A global bonus to any kind of cover-up.  I would provide each player with conversation, persuasion skills that they should be directed to use whenever situations occur.  Kind of like the end part of Deadlands adventures where players tell tales of their success to reduce the fear level of an area.  Players should be actively working towards reducing the suspicion level of the areas work and live in.  This should be almost a mechanical aspect of the game where actions build up the suspicion and it can only be lowered through the players providing alternative solutions.

 

Real World Tech…Mostly

Here is a limit to what the players may use as powers.  I would be inclined to simply restrict the players to choosing technology from lists.

 

The Magic, Fantastical And Horrific

There is nothing here to say that the players can create or use these items.  I will presume that these are the kinds of things the PCs will come across during the campaign, they will accumulate this kind of resource that they may or may not be able to use.  I would therefore have to come up with a range of skills that allow the use of such things.  I would also have a system of perks that might permit a PC to retain something magic, fantastical or horrific that would otherwise disappear into the shadows.

 

I am going to say that NCM is in force.

 

I think I would have to come up with a list of Knowledge skills that I intended to use during the game, perks, contacts and a raft of other stuff that will allow the players to tie themselves into the background before the first adventure...

 

 

Doc

 

 

 

[Spence]

To take a stab at the OP, I want to preface that I have come to use this process for any RPG I run.  In the last few years I have adopted the following for any campaign I wish to run. 

 

First:

I have a sit down and we talk about the setting, the type of story it will be and what roles are available for PC’s in that story.  If the players are not interested in it, then I don’t run it. 

 

Side note: As a player if I am not interested in the game being proposed by a GM, I bow out.   I do not agree to play in a game and then try to twist the game onto another path.  I absolutely hate that when it is done to me, and refuse to do it to others. To me it demonstrates and severe moral or ethical bankruptcy of the person doing it.  And it usually means they go on my “don’t game with this person” list.

 

If the players are interested in playing in the campaign, I like to run a short “Flashback” mini-campaign/adventure designed for two to four sessions.  The Flashback takes place in the setting using pre-gen PC’s and is designed to let the players get a feel for the game and for me to get a feel for how they run their PC’s. 

 

Second:

After completing the Flashback we have a face to face sit down where I tell them specifics about the actual campaign and we discuss the PC’s they wish to build.  All PC’s are made up and finalized with the group.  This way they fit in the game and with each other and I can tell what they are actually looking for in the game, rather than trying to interpret what they meant from their write up.   This is where I go over any rule rulings/exclusions/home-rules that will apply and the players have an opportunity to “bargain” or change some of those if it makes sense for their PC.  The primary objective is for everyone to get a PC they will enjoy without breaking the campaign and since the PC’s are all built at the table, at the same time there is plenty of opportunity to explain build and rule limits.

 

Since the OP used Champions as the talking point.  I tend to run games where the players actually investigate and solve mysteries/crimes or make discoveries that stave off doom.  So, things I disallow are those that tend to allow players to skip to the end. 

 

The items I usually disallow are these:

 

1) True Telepathy. 

Impressions, a feeling of intent, a sense of truthfulness, empathy.  Sure.  But no game killing mind reading.

 

2) True Prophesy.  

Pretty much as Telepathy.  You can get some clues, but nothing that can wreak the mystery.

 

3) Lone Wolf Characters:

The lone avenger works great in a movie, novel, comic, manga, anime, cartoon, etc. But I presume that the players actually want to control their own PC’s and will resist the measures needed to hammer a round peg into the square hole. 

 

4) Evil/Demonic/Rabid Killer/Murderers

I like to run games featuring HEROES.  In Champions they are SuperHEROES.  And yes, I understand that in 2019 the “anti-Hero”, the “evil mass murderer gets a change of heart” and the “humorous happy go lucky casual murderers” are in fashion.  But I like watching/reading the Lone Wolf, I do not wish to expend effort trying to shoehorn in a PC that is on someone’s most wanted list.

 

The items I usually require are:

 

1) Team.

The PC’s are either part of a team or from backgrounds that will naturally act together. 

 

2) Heroes.

The PC’s are the good guys. 

 

Now to be clear, no one is compelled to play in my games.  But I am a firm believer that the GM deserves as much enjoyment and consideration as the players do.  That is why I bow out of games that are not something I’d enjoy.   I have a friend who is a fantastic GM and roleplayer.  But he tends toward the PvP intrigue style games like the old Vampire the Masquerade was famous for.  I enjoy games with investigations revealing the bad guys that are then taken down with cinematic action.  Not literal hours play acting a ball while plotting to assassinate the other players.  So, I usually decline when invited and he understands why.  We do game together on the occasion, but we recognize that our preferred styles are different. 

 

Now I use many tropes that the munchkin brigade vilifies on the various boards.  Such as being captured.  Many of the most memorable games, as player or GM, involved the party getting captured.  Be it Supers or D&D. 

 

Overall the key (for me) for any system is requiring the players to build their PC’s at the same table at the same time.  Of course, the biggest obstacle to a good game is the one player that falls into the “Player looking for a GM and supporting cast players”.  The one that shows up with a 15 page background and tries to maneuver all the other players into supporting cast of their personal ideas and assumes that the GM is there to serve.  After all they are not their to play in a campaign, they are there to act out their personal adventure.

 

I guess I have been rambling a bit….

[Doc Democracy]

17 minutes ago, Spence said:

I guess I have been rambling a bit….

 

Yup  but thats what the boards are for! ?

 

Here is a process that could be in the books as guidance.  Might not work for everyone but a solid process for getting folk on the same page.  The Flashback could take my group a long time, we are fortunate if we face to face once a fortnight...

[Killer Shrike]

I start with this and adapt it as seems necessary:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/ParadigmWorksheet.aspx

This is an extension of the "campaign guidelines" worksheet from 4e, my own spin on it.

 

I might extend the "paradigm" with a sample gear list, any house rules or custom abilities that will be available in the campaign, and so on.

 

Here are a few examples of it in use:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/HighFantasy.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/LowFantasy.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/EpicFantasy.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/SwordSorceryFantasy.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/SuperFantasy.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/MetaCyber/MetaCyberParadigm.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm.aspx

 

I don't use caps in general; they do more harm than good in my experience. I do sometimes put limits on things like Martial Arts Damage Clases, Combat Luck and Deadly Blow to prevent them from overshadowing standard defense and attack options.

 

Then I make some archetypal / iconic characters for the setting that capture main ideas and serve both as examples of what I envision the setting being about and also as pregenerated characters a player can play as is or take as a base and then individualize to suit their preferences. I've found that it is far better to SHOW than to TELL and sample characters do this. They also allow me to develop ideas and work out any potential problems with the campaign assumptions.

 

Some players prefer to tell me what they want and have me build it for them, tweaking as necessary for fit and finish.

 

Some players prefer to make their own character, which I will then review and give feedback or approval on.

 

It's easy and it works.

[TranquiloUno]

I'd have to divide this up along a couple axis.

But first, as some others have said, is meeting with the players, either having and pitching a concept, or having a freeform discussion about what we even want to play\run, and all of that stuff. The prep work requisite in Hero that I don't think is AS required in other games (still need to talk about the game style and blah blah blah, but the character creation stuff probably less so (probably)) basically. But I'm kinda taking that "as read" as it were. In that I probs wouldn't be calling for character builds\giving char gen info out if we haven't established what game we're playing. So...with that said....

 

I'd sort the players along a couple of axis.

The "will learn the rules" versus "just wants to play the game" axis would be first.

 

For players that aren't likely to learn the rules I'd just give them the basic campaign pitch, any lore or reference info I have available, and then go to a session zero\character creation session to get concepts and then, probably, do their build for them.

This is a nice option because by building all the lil imaginary dudes myself I can make sure they are about as balanced as I want them to be.

 

For players that are likely to look at and use the rules I'd probably divide them again in to "Hero-naive" and "Hero experienced" groups.

For players that know Hero, and know the rules (at least well enough to make a lil imaginary dude), I'd give them some ranges and maxes for various stuff (AP, Def, stats, you know, all the usual) and then work with what they turned in.

I'd expect players like this to understand gaming in general, and Hero in general, and per the first point, I'd expect that player to know what type of game we are playing (style, genre, flavor, tone) so they can design a character they think is fitting.

 

For players that know Hero, but aren't really in to rules, I'd give them similar caps\maxes and guidelines, have them come up with a basic concept using as much Hero terminology as they possess and then rewrite it for them to meet campaign specs (probably mostly by eyeball rather than hard values).

 

IME the case of "Knows Hero, likes rules" is pretty small (unless you've found a group of other Hero devotees) so essentially I'll end up writing most\all of the PCs. So the dials and settings and levels and levers and all the other GM stuff is mostly something I need to consider in my own head rather than something I need to specify to the players for their own use.

 

Due to that I'd spend more of my time as GM trying to communicate the in-game world, the flavor\type of campaign (which they should already be agreeable to, but just to reinforce...), and trying to use those to inspire an interesting concept from the players than I would worry about mechanical caps.

 

Another factor in this is that Hero is nicely made for general point-based balancing (yay!) but IME in actual play this is less relevant due to actual play factors.

 

Like...as long as the PC "fighter" feels like a good and mighty fighter (or whatever matches the game at hand) then I'm less concerned with everybody having the exact same points and utterly balanced out CVs and APs and such than I am with the players each getting a niche to occupy and feel effective in.

Same for Supers games. If the mentalist feels like they are cool and useful and feel like they can do stuff in game that more or less matches their concept and feel like doing those things is effective and useful for the group...cool. Maybe it's a sub-optimal build. Or maybe it's over the APs\other limits in some ways but due to being the only mentalist (or whatever) it won't effect the game hugely in unplanned ways then...it's fine. For me, for my purposes.

 

Since I don't generally run for groups that are larger than 4ish folks I don't worry too much about highly specific mechanical limits that I communicate to players prior to character creation. Just...isn't really needed.

If I had two or more players that were real Champions points wizards, that both wanted to play the same concept, and were going to get in to a min\max point battle for supremacy\efficiency, then maybe I'd want to communicate more mechanical and non-mechanical info to them (like: "Don't both play the same concept, please. Or figure out between yourselves how that's gonna be enjoyable for you both.").

 

Specific to Dr D's question: " What do you have to do, as GM, to make that as clear as possible to your players?"

 

I'd talk to them. During the pre-game\session zero. To make sure we're all on the same page as far as what we're doing.

Then, if any of them actually know the rules and want to make their own lil imaginary dudes, I'd give them some general guides and let 'em work and see what they brought back, and then adjust that as needed.

BUT, since most of them are unlikely to know the rules, unlikely to read them, and unlikely to learn them enough to figure out how they interact with combat and other typical adventurin' stuff generally I'll just gather concepts and make characters for them.