Jump to content

Dare I ask . . . how much HERO do we need?


Recommended Posts

Ok, so this is perhaps a high concept question, or a meta-meta-question, coming from a couple of other questions I've been wrestling with. Here's the back-story:

  • There have been a lot of discussions in the forums where the issue of rules accuracy vs. narrative convenience have come up ("simulation" vs. "narrative," or "complexity" vs. "rules-lite," for example). Usually these issues are not fundamental to the topic being discussed, and are eventually passed over. But I'm curious, as a concept in itself, about how many rules we actually need to play a HERO game and have it still be a HERO game.
  • At Origins last week I experienced my first narrative based, rules-lite game (Hydro Hacker Operatives, run by the designer). I created a character in 5 minutes and played a 3 hour game with a very small learning curve. I had a lot of fun, and didn't have any different experience, ultimately, than when I play HERO games.
  • Likewise, I also was in a couple of HERO games at Origins with some new players who were completely baffled by the complexity of the rules. They were able to play along, but I'm not sure some of them were ever really aware of what was going on (in terms of the game mechanics, not the stories).
  • I also bought FATE Accelerated, just out of curiosity, and felt like I learned how to play the entire game in a very short amount of time when I read the rules. It made me wonder (and this issue has been debated to death already) how much I could simplify the HERO System rules in like fashion.

As a person who is trying to teach HERO to a group of new players (a Pulp HERO campaign), I'm fascinated with how much one can simplify a HERO System game without completely making the HERO rules irrelevant. 

 

I'm fully aware that, as the GM, I can make it as complex or easy as I deem, so I'm not looking for the obvious "it's a toolbox, do what you feel" answer. I'm curious what people have taken from the rules-lite, narrative games and applied to HERO games to make them easier to learn and more approachable for people who've never played with the HERO System before. This is going to seem like a repetitive question that comes up way too frequently, but in all honesty I'm not looking for a hypothetical discussion of what could be done. I'm looking for some actual experiences of what has been done from different experienced GMs. What ideas have you borrowed from other games, and how far have you pared down the rules without completely losing the HERO System altogether?

 

I realize this is a question of taste, so I'm not looking to debate whose taste is better. I'm just looking for some "actual play" examples of what has been done so I can learn from your collective wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need the toolbox, then a variety of different degrees of rules for games put out: simple and lean, complex and crunchy, etc for settings.

For example.

Teen Champions: super light rules, very simple, lots of handwaving and minimal book

Game of Thrones Hero: Crunchy heavy rules with several big books

 

What I'm saying is that the level of crunch and the rules that are useful depend on the genre, the campaign, and the players.  Some games will need more detail and technicality, some won't.  There really isn't an ideal anywhere.


My games have tended to be really crunchy on my end and minimal for the players, except during character design.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya. I've been doing narrative and rules lite games for the last six to seven years (Fate Accelerated is a favorite; if you haven't checked out my Pathfinder Fate Accelerated stuff you might find it interesting), and only just came back to the Hero System by request of @WilyQuixote (who is a Hero System diehard player) and @Scything who became Hero System curious after years of hearing about past Hero System campaigns and from looking at stuff on my website. 

 

I think the essence of the HS is the SPD chart, the 3d6 bell curve for resolution, a pool of D6 for effect, separate STUN and BODY stats, maneuvers have CV modifiers built into them,  sandboxy point buy vs class / level / tree. More limited things cost less than less limited things. Mechanically similar things use the same rules vs being arbitrarily redefined. 

 

The rest of it is largely embellishment, for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you noted, this has been discussed many times before in many different ways. I certainly have strong opinions on this. There are certain old school RPG expectations built into HERO that do not work with most modern gaming expectations.  That said, keeping this to strictly "Actual play" examples:

 

  1. Got rid of the Speed Chart and went to an initiative system... works amazingly well and I'd never go back. It removes a lot of the 'turn based war gaming' aspect, removes a level of high SPD character abuse, and generally works to keep all players "leaning in" to the game instead of tuning out when it isn't their phase.
  2. Got rid of END. Flat out, just ignored it and removed the old school, resource management through bookkeeping nightmare. It wasn't missed at all, until we wanted to play around with pushing rules and found a new use for it, but this was an advanced modification, and not something needed for basic play.
  3. Implemented a bennie system, called "Luck Chits" that changed Luck as written to be a "director stance resource" that players bought on the characters that would provide narrative control and ability to re-roll, take defensive actions, do power stunts, etc. in the hands of players. Fundamentally transformed the game and probably the most important development in making "actual play' more dramatic, fun, thematically consistent, narratively whole and just avoid the 'ugh' moments that random dice can generate.
  4. Implemented structured play group dynamics around character creation. No more individual players bringing their pet creation and trying to shoe-horn it into a game, let alone then trying to make any kind of team out of those characters. Now, every character from concept through build is vetted by the play group, and built with a shared history... often using a shared story telling session to build that shared history... before the actual play begins, or as part of the very first actual play session.

I'd say those four are the big ones in terms of changes, though there are a lot of details in the subsequent downstream effects of these.

Also, these changes were made in the context of actually keeping the core HERO functionality... using Stats and Powers and Costs as listed... just sometimes re-interpreting them. 

 

Core things that I feel really do define HERO in actual play...

  1. Paying attention to Active Points being used in any particular action, in increments of 5 for 1d6. So many quick rulings can be made if you just keep this in mind.
  2. The 3d6 Bell Curve for task resolution (simply the best mechanic ever) and the "rolling under" for success. This provides such a stable and flexible way to resolve just about anything, and to reflect levels of expertise a PC may have.
  3. OCV vs. DCV and all the combat maneuvers that drive the most unique, visceral, fun and interesting combats.
  4. Killing vs. Normal damage and resistant vs. normal defenses. (EDIT: Oh... and Stun vs. Body of course) Combat can become very nuanced with slight shifts on these axis. 

What I do realize, and this frustrates me, is that #3 and 4 are both crunchy, and counter to my general desire to simplify character build and speed up play. I was joking with my old friends at Origins that I'm 75% in the camp of "give me Nar mechanics that just help guide shared story telling!" but this conflicts with the 25% of me that wants the complex interplay of a great HERO martial arts fight that no other game can do.

 

This conflict drives me!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Killer Shrike said:

Ya. I've been doing narrative and rules lite games for the last six to seven years (Fate Accelerated is a favorite; if you haven't checked out my Pathfinder Fate Accelerated stuff you might find it interesting), and only just came back to the Hero System by request of @WilyQuixote (who is a Hero System diehard player) and @Scything who became Hero System curious after years of hearing about past Hero System campaigns and from looking at stuff on my website. 

 

I think the essence of the HS is the SPD chart, the 3d6 bell curve for resolution, a pool of D6 for effect, separate STUN and BODY stats, maneuvers have CV modifiers built into them,  sandboxy point buy vs class / level / tree. More limited things cost less than less limited things. Mechanically similar things use the same rules vs being arbitrarily redefined. 

 

The rest of it is largely embellishment, for me.

 

 

Excellent summary.

 

For my Fantasy HERO campaigns I would agree with everything above and add:

1-  Armor mechanics are more intuitive:  adds to safety, but makes you slower, clumsier and easier to hit.

2-  Hit Locations:  Add a lot of variety to combat and differentiate from systems that don't use it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

think the essence of the HS is the SPD chart, the 3d6 bell curve for resolution, a pool of D6 for effect, separate STUN and BODY stats, maneuvers have CV modifiers built into them,  sandboxy point buy vs class / level / tree. More limited things cost less than less limited things. Mechanically similar things use the same rules vs being arbitrarily redefined. 

 

We cross posted on this, and I see we agree on much and disagree on some. Your "pool of d6 for effect" sounds very similar to what I was saying about Active Points in 5 for 1d6 ratio. Obviously we differ on the SPD chart... I'm still wondering about the "sandboxy point buy" aspect. While this is truly what defined HERO back in the '80s, and was a huge advancement in game design at the time, it is something of a relic now as decades of play have disproven "points = balance" which begs the question why bother with points at all. I feel you could still have a very HERO like play experience if you removed the detailed crunch of pre-defining point spends for characters in such detail, and went more general... each character having a pool of points that they define narratively in character concept, resolving interactions with some general rules of AP in attack vs. defense, etc. A bit a of pipe dream of mine, but it basically is the ultimate expression of your final bit "mechanically similar use the same rules" mantra, which I 100% agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I don't suffer from the delusion that points == balance. I think that they do provide a tool to help find equivalence, but it requires GM discretion and in the end could be dispensed with. I think it mostly offers some common ground between players and GM...the rules suggest this is worth 5 points and I might think it's over costed and you might think it's under costed, but now we are having a conversation about something concrete vs cowboys & indians argumentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I decided to use Pulp HERO to teach new players for the following reasons:

  • Heroic level games don’t require an understanding of powers at all, which is the most intimidating part of learning the game.
  • There is a level of realism that everyone is familiar with, but also enough naïveté to make weird things possible without requiring arguments over their reasonableness. There’s science, but it’s weird science. There’s world traveling, but the destinations are weird enough that we don’t have to question their reality.
  • I’m using the HERO System Basic Rulebook for 6e to minimize the special and complex rules. There are plenty of maneuvers and skills available in the basic rules to make for a fun game without adding too much confusion.
  • We created characters at a “session zero” where everyone came up with character ideas that fit well together, then I designed the full characters for them. I’ll let them learn the rules first before I expect them to build characters. This is a really big deal to me, since effective character design really depends on some sense of how the rules work, especially in HERO. There are lots of debates over whether figured characteristics give new players a baseline to build from, etc. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a fan of the 6e rules and don’t find any real problem with internal consistency of the Characteristics. The bigger problem, to me, is not what the proper levels of CV are, since a new player doesn’t really know what that means anyway. I’ll make their characters, let them learn the rules by throwing them in a whole array of representative encounters, and then give them soft rebuilds after a few sessions once they get a feel for how it all fits together.
  • The most basic encounters I cover in the first session or two are perception rolls, basic skill resolution, PRE attacks (a truly unique aspect of HERO that new players under-utilize), and a simple combat. Because it’s a heroic level game, the combat is pretty quick and straightforward with small modifiers and fewer dice of damage. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

What I do realize, and this frustrates me, is that #3 and 4 are both crunchy, and counter to my general desire to simplify character build and speed up play. I was joking with my old friends at Origins that I'm 75% in the camp of "give me Nar mechanics that just help guide shared story telling!" but this conflicts with the 25% of me that wants the complex interplay of a great HERO martial arts fight that no other game can do.

 

This conflict drives me!

Me too. In fact, this pretty much sums up the reason for posting this topic, except right now my % split is probably the reverse of yours since I’m new to the narrative games. But my imagination is totally sparked by their possibility. 

 

What I’m looking right now is a way to teach the game with a minimal amount of “book learning” for my players. I want to say, “Tell me what you want to do and I’ll figure it out for you” in such a way that they don’t have to worry about the rules, since I’ll do the worrying, but to also teach them the rules as I go. I guess my internal struggle is to decide how much they really need to peek behind he curtain to enjoy themselves.

 

Part of me wants to encourage them to just tell the story and roll dice when I tell them to, but part of me also wants them to learn when and why to make their rolls. I suppose this is the real art of GMing that we all need to figure out for ourselves and our groups. I want them to have fun, but also to learn. For now, I think the most important part is to get them invested in their characters and the story. Hopefully they’ll want to learn the rules once we get going. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

 

Excellent summary.

 

For my Fantasy HERO campaigns I would agree with everything above and add:

1-  Armor mechanics are more intuitive:  adds to safety, but makes you slower, clumsier and easier to hit.

2-  Hit Locations:  Add a lot of variety to combat and differentiate from systems that don't use it.

 

 

I love the hit locations, and will implement them in the second combat (or third, depending) to show the versatility of the game. There’s no armor in my Pulp HERO campaign, so no concerns with the bookkeeping for that stuff, but I have always loved the way Fantasy HERO allows for sectional armor in a way that makes a real difference. I think this rule alone would sell many of my fantasy-playing friends, if I could only convince them to give up D&D for just a few game sessions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Part of me wants to encourage them to just tell the story and roll dice when I tell them to, but part of me also wants them to learn when and why to make their rolls. I suppose this is the real art of GMing that we all need to figure out for ourselves and our groups. I want them to have fun, but also to learn. For now, I think the most important part is to get them invested in their characters and the story. Hopefully they’ll want to learn the rules once we get going. 

 

Do this, and be transparent about it. Tell them exactly this... you want them to invest in their characters the story and wanting to play... and if that inspires them to want to learn the crunch, great, but no need to worry about it. If you want PC actions to feel intuitively correct for the scenario/action rather than driven by mechanical efficiency or expediency, I'd recommend this. It should work, assuming you don't (and I don't think you'd do this) fall into the trap of punishing them for "wrong" decisions. A lot of the drive to rule mastery is an aspect of being punished for 'bad decisions' because you didn't know the rules well enough. Assuming you avoid that (and I assume you will) then it should work fine. Let the individual player let you know if they want to know more about the crunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

We cross posted on this, and I see we agree on much and disagree on some. Your "pool of d6 for effect" sounds very similar to what I was saying about Active Points in 5 for 1d6 ratio. Obviously we differ on the SPD chart... I'm still wondering about the "sandboxy point buy" aspect. While this is truly what defined HERO back in the '80s, and was a huge advancement in game design at the time, it is something of a relic now as decades of play have disproven "points = balance" which begs the question why bother with points at all. I feel you could still have a very HERO like play experience if you removed the detailed crunch of pre-defining point spends for characters in such detail, and went more general... each character having a pool of points that they define narratively in character concept, resolving interactions with some general rules of AP in attack vs. defense, etc. A bit a of pipe dream of mine, but it basically is the ultimate expression of your final bit "mechanically similar use the same rules" mantra, which I 100% agree with.

I’m fond of the point build approach, maybe simply out of habitat this point. But it’s also what drew me into Fantasy HERO and away from AD&D back in the ‘80s, and it’s what I now use to entice current D&D players into the system. It’s at least an idea that intrigues people. The crunch is problematic though. 

 

As I wrote above, I give my new players a soft pre-gen so they can learn the rules, and then rebuild them later. I also give them an incomplete build so they can add things as they learn what’s useful for their vision of their characters. I started a thread a month or so ago about using Resource Pools for things like Skills, languages, Perks, and equipment, and some people lost their minds over it. Sure, it’s a liberal application of the Resource Points rule, but like you suggest, it makes sense to give the characters a certain amount of flexibility from game session to game session so they don’t have to have it all figured out ahead of time. From my viewpoint, it’s a balance between the spirit of HERO System and the flexibility of narrative gaming. 

 

I’m also a big fan of the Quick Character Generator in the Champions books (both 5e and 6e) because they play with the idea of archetypes and roughly balanced builds with a minimum of crunchiness. The new Character Creation Cards are another great example of that approach. I think they could easily be built for other genres as well, especially Fantasy HERO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HERO takes longer to digest, but recently my Wednesday night table - that I had kind of written off in terms of really getting to understand the game has finally turned the corner and they are buying HERO Designer and trying to build their own power frameworks.

 

Which has lead to a level 2 conversation - Why you need DM approval on warning/stop sign powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toxxus said:

HERO takes longer to digest, but recently my Wednesday night table - that I had kind of written off in terms of really getting to understand the game has finally turned the corner and they are buying HERO Designer and trying to build their own power frameworks.

 

Which has lead to a level 2 conversation - Why you need DM approval on warning/stop sign powers.

I’m out of “likes” for the day, so I guess I’m forced to feel “meh” about your post . . . :winkgrin:

 

I am secretly waiting for this moment to arrive. I won’t push it, but I’m hoping some folks buy into it at this level. I will let them use my Hero Designer on my computer, but I really want them to buy their own books and software eventually. But that’ll be farther down the road. Right now, I’m just hoping for emotional buy-in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely an issue I have been struggling with a strive to seek a game that I would like to run and play.  I am a business major with interests in creative writing, theology, philosophy, behavioral sciences and so forth.  As a person who is just trying to be the best person I can be, I place a lot of valuable in expanding my understanding of reality.  As someone with creative interests, I also take that view when studying stories regardless of whether they come from books, movies, or whatever.  The negative result is that I tend to over think things and make things more complex than they need to be.  The positive result is that I do have a better than average understanding of different points of view regarding reality, and I feel that I do an above average job of interpreting things.  As someone who has an interest in creative writing using roleplaying games as a medium, I tend to put too much in my games.  My dream campaign for the Hero System is very involved.

 

But, more recently, I have been wanting to take a simpler approach and just aim at having fun with RPGs.  To that end, I am looking at systems that I call fast and friendly.  I have a general distaste for class and level systems like DnD, but even with simpler systems, I am having problems finding players who are interested in games that are wide open for creative freedom.  I think a lot of the problem is too much access to personalized and immediate entertainment.  There is no fighting and compromising of control of the only TV in the house.  Instead, everyone goes off to watch their own devices.  Looking back at my own life, I can see how I would have liked having that opportunity when I was young, but I also see how I benefited from not having that option.  It forced me to occasionally watch stuff I didn't want to watch forcing me to expand my bubble awareness out of my own selfish interests, and I learned that it was necessary to make compromises to get along with the people around me and to cooperate with others.  When I finally was initiated into roleplaying games, I brought that with me.  I knew how to compromise with other players and the GM to get what I want, and because of being exposed to ideas outside of my little bubble, I could bring in ideas from even those TV shows that I didn't like when I was younger.  

 

The question for modern roleplayers is how do we compete with an instant access, me first style culture that our society seems to be spawning?  I admit that issue is bigger than just who controls the TV and affects more than just the roleplaying culture, but if pen and paper tabletop RPGs are still going to be a thing, those are thoughts that we will have to consider.  On the positive side, I am noting that many in the younger generation are starting to see the emptiness of that lifestyle and are becoming disillusioned and are ready to seek other options, and I believe that tabletop RPGs can be a part of the solution by creating a sense of community that I feel that the younger set is hungering for.  I think it will involve baby steps pulling people out of the self-centered lifestyles they are suffering under, and to that end, if RPGs are going to a part of the solution, faster and friendlier systems would need to be created and promoted.  

 

Unfortunately, I don't really have any answers as to what that might look like.  I have been looking at old systems I used to have and at new systems that are coming out.  Some of them would be easier to implement than others.  Also unfortunately, I think systems like Hero and GURPS might be a little too advanced for the current generation though I think the current generation has the emotional capacity to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Anaximander said:

Unfortunately, I don't really have any answers as to what that might look like.  I have been looking at old systems I used to have and at new systems that are coming out.  Some of them would be easier to implement than others.  Also unfortunately, I think systems like Hero and GURPS might be a little too advanced for the current generation though I think the current generation has the emotional capacity to get there.

Take a look at something like Gnome Stew online, which is a gaming blog that discusses these issues. You may find something you like, and may find some games that are interesting to you. There are also many gaming podcasts out there. Many of the people from Gnome Stew are on misdirectedmark.com, which offers a variety of podcasts discussing these sorts of issues. They also have a lively online/social media presence, which may give you an idea of where gaming is headed these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most folks here are already aware of this, but my "solution" for the complexity problem was to not advance.  My group and I lived 2e, and we stayed there.  When FH came out under 3e, I bought that and used it to bring our already extant non-supers game more or less (which is  to say, as far as we wanted to go) in line with the new rules for "heroic" level games, but even then, we just cribbed the bits we wanted and totally ignored the rest. 

 

And we've done it for every version since: crib what we like, and ignore the rest.  And hon---

 

Stop.

 

Let me say this:

 

NO!  THIS NEXT COMMENT IS NOT AN INSULT, IS NOT SLANDER, AND IS NOT HATE-DRIVEN, NOR IS IT THE LUDDITE RANTINGS OF A DERANGED OLD MAN PINING FOR IMAGINARY GOOD OLD DAYS!   IT IS SIMPLE FACT, AND OFFERED ONLY AS SIMPLE FACT IN REPLY TO QUESTION AT HAND. 

 

Sorry for yelling, but this next comment has the tendency infuriate the faithful fans, even to the point of forgetting that I am actually one of them. 

 

As I was saying:

 

Each subsequent edition brings less and less for us to crib, because there is less and less within that appeals to us.  For this conversation, that's really all that matters:  we use the 72-page (not counting character sheets) page rule book I bought in.... '83?  I think it was' 83--  and occasionally pull a modifier or ruling or new ability from a later edition. 

 

It doesn't affect our enjoyment of newer material at all, because as noted all over this board, as the system changes very little, there is built-in compatibility in either direction.  As a bonus: tiny rule book.  :lol:  at this point in time, I have about seven copies of that book I can lay hands on, and four others on loan to other people, which is great for new players, because after an intro session or two, I can offer them a copy to study at home when it's convenient, and they can show up to the next session with a list of questions.  It really helps them pick it up quickly.  Doesn't hurt that that the first three editions were nowhere near as dry as the last three. 

 

I can't imagine even trying to buy a dozen copies of the current rules.... 

 

When 5e came out, I picked up three copies (still have 2), but we never did a lot with it.  I did run a couple of 5e games, but we ran it via "Sidekick," which is a very-pared-down version of the 5e rules.  We used Sidekick so much I bought a second one, but by that time there had been a revision, so my Sidekicks don't quite match up. 

 

I have never run a 6e game, and judging from the looks on my players' faces when I finally got print copies and plopped them down on the table, I seriously doubt I ever will.  I know I'm not really interested in it at all, but on the off-chance that I give it a whirl, I picked up Hero System Basic, which like Sidekick, is a seriously pared-down version of the rules. 

 

If I were to consider using 6e, it would be from Basic. 

 

There.  That _almost_ answers the question, at least as far as how we do it.  One bit of universal and universally-ignored advice:

 

You have to be familiar..  No; that's wrong.  You have to _know_ the rules before you even show it to your players.  Why?  When you're confident, they become confident.  When you can recite- or at least flip directly to- an answer for the current conundrum, they are going to be more comfortable.  Think of yourself as a tour guide.  You want them to have a good time, and part of that is answering their questions with ease and confidence. 

 

And of course, you need to decide ahead of time which rules you are going to use, and which you are not going to use, and present the rules in that fashion: they only have to (at first) learn the rules that apply to the game they are in, period. 

 

And of course, have fun.  Have lots and lots of fun.  :D

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hero's real core mechanic, the foundation on which all the other ideas are built is divorcing Mechanics and Special Effect.

 

Which is why it's a toolkit to make a game, not a ready-play game. Even systems like Fate can't completely divorce these two. Fate does do an excellent job by being almost entirely narrative in nature, but it becomes extremely abstract when it does that. Hero leans more on the crunch.

 

If you want to reduce Hero to the foundations it's asking two questions: What happens, How Does It Look.

Remove Special Effects and most characters are Attack; Move; Defend; Skill Set. But Heroes granularity is the elegant (if mathematical) way it allows you to define those elements.

 

Which you can get in any system, even abstract one's like Fate, where things like "how far do I move?" are answered as "Plot Distance" unless you have an Aspect or Stunt that specifically defines you moving "Extra Plot Distance"; And if you're group isn't very narrative in nature, well, Hero with the nuts & bolts & numbers is the best at defining the idea that What Happens & How It Looks are two radically different things.

 

How many actual rules can you remove from Hero before you stop being Hero? A lot probably, as long as you don't remove so much the core concept of Mechanics & Special Effect are Two Different Things That Work Together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I have to walk in as the contrarian, somewhat because i really despise a narrative focus, and prefer the "Wargame-y" segments of Hero.  Now I am in agreement with Duke , but my agreement is around 3rd Edition, with separated  genre books, but without the onion shaving complexity, introduced with a lot of the martial arts books. (I view it as it's own separate game).  I am not a fan of initiative when compared to the speed chart. What I objected to with later editions was the  diminution of skill categories, and the point inflation. 200 base for a Superhero with 50 points in Disads, or 100 for a Fantasy Hero starting character, plus Disads, seem  fine. 6E the point totals are up in t the  400s for starting characters?  Whyyyy?

 

For me, Game balance is a tricky question. War is rarely balanced. Balance though is important to sports. Balance in games, to me is separate from "fairness" in that a GM and the players should play by the same rules inside the game, even though the GM  sets up the outside parameters, and defines the starting conditions and the problem.  I feel that the points are a way for GMs to guag relative abilities between characters.

As to the minimal rules system, I just HATE them.  I played in an online environment with no GM, and no combat rules other than the rule of cool,and resolution of conflict came down to "success by assertion." .  When I was markedly smarter, and used my facility with Creative writing to totally gut another's character's aspirations in the game, they took it personally, and either whined to the other players using private messages, or invented lame "near superpowers" out of their ass, to pull themselves out of harm's way. While the Roleplay and the relationships between characters were solid, and emotionally satisfying, conflicts became rather unpleasant  rapidly and the whole thing fell apart after a couple of years. I feel the same way about minimal Narrative based systems, for two reasons. One I do not wish to live under the tyranny of Theater majors.  and 2.) I Really really really like the game aspect of the hobby, Given a problem, tactical, or diplomatic, and having to solve it within a framework of rules, with the resources I have been given. I am not here primarily for the story, but for the problem solving and the camaraderie around the table, and some roleplay. Hero, for me, works VERY well for that.

 

I am not interested in Modern RPGs, as they all seem to be very genre focused, and, well I am not that much interested in Genre fidelity. Maybe more to say in the other similar thread from this week, later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

think the essence of the HS is the SPD chart, the 3d6 bell curve for resolution, a pool of D6 for effect, separate STUN and BODY stats, maneuvers have CV modifiers built into them,  sandboxy point buy vs class / level / tree. More limited things cost less than less limited things. 

 

I would probably add defenses reduce damage taken rather than avoid damage taken as another feature.  This is less distinct these days but it was a key factor that attracted me to Hero and it still stands out pretty well from many games.

 

Quote

I am not interested in Modern RPGs, as they all seem to be very genre focused, and, well I am not that much interested in Genre fidelity.

 

I agree, I don't necessarily want absolute generic open system in the game rules, but I don't like how absolutely focused so many are on one specific setting to the exclusion of all others in order to weld in that genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Most folks here are already aware of this, but my "solution" for the complexity problem was to not advance.  My group and I lived 2e, and we stayed there.  When FH came out under 3e, I bought that and used it to bring our already extant non-supers game more or less (which is  to say, as far as we wanted to go) in line with the new rules for "heroic" level games, but even then, we just cribbed the bits we wanted and totally ignored the rest. 

 

And we've done it for every version since: crib what we like, and ignore the rest.  And hon---

 

Stop.

 

Let me say this:

 

NO!  THIS NEXT COMMENT IS NOT AN INSULT, IS NOT SLANDER, AND IS NOT HATE-DRIVEN, NOR IS IT THE LUDDITE RANTINGS OF A DERANGED OLD MAN PINING FOR IMAGINARY GOOD OLD DAYS!   IT IS SIMPLE FACT, AND OFFERED ONLY AS SIMPLE FACT IN REPLY TO QUESTION AT HAND. 

 

Sorry for yelling, but this next comment has the tendency infuriate the faithful fans, even to the point of forgetting that I am actually one of them. 

 

As I was saying:

 

Each subsequent edition brings less and less for us to crib, because there is less and less within that appeals to us.  For this conversation, that's really all that matters:  we use the 72-page (not counting character sheets) page rule book I bought in.... '83?  I think it was' 83--  and occasionally pull a modifier or ruling or new ability from a later edition. 

 

It doesn't affect our enjoyment of newer material at all, because as noted all over this board, as the system changes very little, there is built-in compatibility in either direction.  As a bonus: tiny rule book.  :lol:  at this point in time, I have about seven copies of that book I can lay hands on, and four others on loan to other people, which is great for new players, because after an intro session or two, I can offer them a copy to study at home when it's convenient, and they can show up to the next session with a list of questions.  It really helps them pick it up quickly.  Doesn't hurt that that the first three editions were nowhere near as dry as the last three. 

 

I can't imagine even trying to buy a dozen copies of the current rules.... 

 

When 5e came out, I picked up three copies (still have 2), but we never did a lot with it.  I did run a couple of 5e games, but we ran it via "Sidekick," which is a very-pared-down version of the 5e rules.  We used Sidekick so much I bought a second one, but by that time there had been a revision, so my Sidekicks don't quite match up. 

 

I have never run a 6e game, and judging from the looks on my players' faces when I finally got print copies and plopped them down on the table, I seriously doubt I ever will.  I know I'm not really interested in it at all, but on the off-chance that I give it a whirl, I picked up Hero System Basic, which like Sidekick, is a seriously pared-down version of the rules. 

 

If I were to consider using 6e, it would be from Basic. 

 

There.  That _almost_ answers the question, at least as far as how we do it.  One bit of universal and universally-ignored advice:

 

You have to be familiar..  No; that's wrong.  You have to _know_ the rules before you even show it to your players.  Why?  When you're confident, they become confident.  When you can recite- or at least flip directly to- an answer for the current conundrum, they are going to be more comfortable.  Think of yourself as a tour guide.  You want them to have a good time, and part of that is answering their questions with ease and confidence. 

 

And of course, you need to decide ahead of time which rules you are going to use, and which you are not going to use, and present the rules in that fashion: they only have to (at first) learn the rules that apply to the game they are in, period. 

 

And of course, have fun.  Have lots and lots of fun.  :D

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

 

 

Every time I play 6e I feel like I'm cheating on 4e. 

 

She was the worthiest of the HERO editions.  Really felt like the right balance between rules exposition and playability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If I were to consider using 6e, it would be from Basic. 

 

There.  That _almost_ answers the question, at least as far as how we do it.  One bit of universal and universally-ignored advice:

 

You have to be familiar..  No; that's wrong.  You have to _know_ the rules before you even show it to your players.  Why?  When you're confident, they become confident.  When you can recite- or at least flip directly to- an answer for the current conundrum, they are going to be more comfortable.  Think of yourself as a tour guide.  You want them to have a good time, and part of that is answering their questions with ease and confidence. 

 

And of course, you need to decide ahead of time which rules you are going to use, and which you are not going to use, and present the rules in that fashion: they only have to (at first) learn the rules that apply to the game they are in, period. 

 

And of course, have fun.  Have lots and lots of fun.  :D

There is a gaming group at Origins that hosts a lot of events, and every year they have at least on Champions game based on the 3e rules. They're quick and easy to play, and since it's a convention game the players don't have to learn many of the rules, and what they do learn is pretty standard for every edition of the game. It made me look at teaching the game a whole lot differently: simplicity is best, at least at the beginning. I showed my new players the Basic Rulebook for exactly the reason you say: to avoid the freakout of the monstrous two volumes!

 

So the question at hand, to get back to the original post, is how far can you pare things down when presenting the rules? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...