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

[Brian Stanfield]

On 6/21/2019 at 5:39 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Given nothing but those ten pages, can you learn to build a character and play the game?

 

If we take the suggestion of pre-gen characters (which I'm a big fan of, and keep a few handy in case of new players.  My entire youth group started with pre-gens:  a dice-off to see who picks from the stack of (at that time) about eighteen characters, and eventually we had a team), will that ten pages teach them what they need to know to play the game?

 

If the answer to either of these (especially that first one!    ) is "Yes," then I need to print out two or three copies myself!

My experience so far has been good. It doesn’t show them how to build characters, but it does show them the character sheet and gives them a tour through the various parts of it. It’s really ten pages of teaching gold as far as I’m concerned. It makes the character sheet less of an intimidating monolith of numbers! (Huh, autocorrect just changed “numbers” to “my nerds!” Nice!”

 

If they are familiar with the basic 2 page rules summary, and where to find all the stuff on a character sheet, then they can look at pre-gen characters make a slightly informed decision about what they do. 

 

My suggestion is to look at the Introduction the 6e Basic Rulebook and see what you think. 

[RDU Neil]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 1:29 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

I can't speak for Brian, but in my experience with new players it's that Skills have their target number written down, and bonuses or penalties are unlikely to change by more than one or two points, while the target number for combat is a lot more fluid.  OCV, DCV, range, combat maneuvers on the part of both the attacker and defender, et cetera, and all of those can change from phase to phase even against the same opponent. 

This... a hundred times this. I love that fluidity in HERO combat, but it is complex and difficult at the beginning.

[Brian Stanfield]

4 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Funny... this is how I explain it and it seems eminently grokkable. Roll... subtract that from your offense... that is the defense you hit. Done. Very quickly they realize why rolling low is good. The important thing is to have your Offensive Number (OCV + 11) clearly written down. If I had my druthers, that would be part of the Stat... your OCV is 11+X and you pay five for 1 for x. That would simplify things a lot, IMO.

The problem I ran into at Origins was that people didn’t really understand what they were rolling for. It’s  hard to explain, but if you say “Roll under 15 and you hit,” they get it. If you say “Roll the dice and you may or may not hit this or that character depending on his DCV,” confusion sets in. The roll appears to be an arbitrary modifier to your Offensive value rather than a probability randomizer. This was the hardest part to explain, at least in the game I was playing. 

[RDU Neil]

1 minute ago, Brian Stanfield said:

The problem I ran into at Origins was that people didn’t really understand what they were rolling for. It’s  hard to explain, but if you say “Roll under 15 and you hit,” they get it. If you say “Roll the dice and you may or may not hit this or that character depending on his DCV,” confusion sets in. The roll appears to be an arbitrary modifier to your Offensive value rather than a probability randomizer. This was the hardest part to explain, at least in the game I was playing. 

 

Interesting... usually I just point to their DCV stat... a six or eight or whatever... and say "So they have a stat like that... and if you hit that stat or higher, you hit them"... and it seems to work. I get it, though. It can be confusing.

[Brian Stanfield]

5 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Interesting... usually I just point to their DCV stat... a six or eight or whatever... and say "So they have a stat like that... and if you hit that stat or higher, you hit them"... and it seems to work. I get it, though. It can be confusing.

I think, just conceptually, trying to explain why they subtract their die roll is the catching point. That seems like a negative modifier or something at the gut level. When I explained that the roll was their base chance to hit, with OCV and DCV as modifiers, they got it right away. The math is exactly the same! Who knows why these things click or don’t click with people?!

[Duke Bushido]

23 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Huh, autocorrect just changed “numbers” to “my nerds!”

 

You know I'm keeping that, right?

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

One other thing about the question, "why do we add an 11 to OCV", It appears that in skill tests an 11- is considered Competent

 

Because you subtract the DCV from the result, so its still shooting for 11.  OCV 3 minus DCV 3 = just rolling for 11

[Doc Democracy]

When I played with my last group of teenagers I switched from roll low to roll high and switched it all around to tell them every task in or out of combat required them to beat 10 on a modified roll. Skills were listed with modifiers rather than target numbers - so Counterfeiting +3 rather than 14 or less.

 

So, in combat, they would roll 3d6, add offence, subtract defence and, if the end result was greater than 10, they succeeded.

Out of combat they would roll 3d6, add skill bonus, subtract difficulty modifier and, if the end result was greater than 10, they succeeded.

 

Noone ever asked me why we used 10, people like 10 more than they like 11.  11 is an awkward number...  😄

 

Doc

[RDU Neil]

I'm sure this is a terrible idea, but just playing with it. (I think it avoids the whole weirdness of subtracting the roll, which feels wrong, as Brian pointed out.)

 

Make combat an opposed roll. Player just takes 11+OCV +/- any modifiers... roll and figure out "How much you made the roll by?"  Example: 7 OCV + 11 = 18 or less (just like a skill roll)... roll 3d6... get a 12... made it by 6. If they are doing an Offensive Strike it is 11+7-2 for 16 or less... roll a 12, made it by 4. Basically, all they have to do is "I made it by X"

 

GM rolls 11+DCV and mods... how much did they make it by? "5 DCV so 16 or less on my defense roll... I rolled a 13, made it by 3"  

 

So, "Attack made it by 6" beats "Defense Made it by 3"... you hit.

 

Or target dodges... so 5 DCV + 11 + 5 for dodge... rolled a 13, made it by 8... you miss"

 

I know there are arguments against the extra roll... but there are arguments for it in terms of everyone "leaning in" to see how the rolls compare. And then the roll feels just like a skill roll "How much did you make your stealth by?" and "How much did you make your attack roll by?" become the same question.

 

This does work, right? Or is my limited math brain on the fritz.  (It does remove the slight advantage for the attacker (11 over 10.5 in the traditional calculation), but I dunno if that matters. It does allow players and PCs to feel like they are actively involved (by rolling their Defense roll) when being attacked, rather than just passively taking it.

 

I dunno... I kinda like it. hmm...

[ghost-angel]

A lot of systems use Opposed Rolls to attack/defend. It's not an entirely bad idea, honestly. Of all the systems I've played in recent memory far more systems use opposed Attack/Defend Rolls versus Static Attack Vs Target Number Rolls.

 

It would certainly make things like Mental Combat work a little smoother in my experience; since it seems unless you're playing a game of Mentalists buying a little bit of DMCV never really helps since the dedicated Mentalist always seems to buy enough OMCV to guarantee hitting most targets.

 

You wouldn't even need to change how Hero Works, just make DCV/DMCV an active stat instead of a passive one.

[TranquiloUno]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

I'm sure this is a terrible idea, but just playing with it. (I think it avoids the whole weirdness of subtracting the roll, which feels wrong, as Brian pointed out.)

 

Make combat an opposed roll. Player just takes 11+OCV +/- any modifiers... roll and figure out "How much you made the roll by?"  Example: 7 OCV + 11 = 18 or less (just like a skill roll)... roll 3d6... get a 12... made it by 6. If they are doing an Offensive Strike it is 11+7-2 for 16 or less... roll a 12, made it by 4. Basically, all they have to do is "I made it by X"

 

GM rolls 11+DCV and mods... how much did they make it by? "5 DCV so 16 or less on my defense roll... I rolled a 13, made it by 3"  

 

So, "Attack made it by 6" beats "Defense Made it by 3"... you hit.

 

Or target dodges... so 5 DCV + 11 + 5 for dodge... rolled a 13, made it by 8... you miss"

 

I know there are arguments against the extra roll... but there are arguments for it in terms of everyone "leaning in" to see how the rolls compare. And then the roll feels just like a skill roll "How much did you make your stealth by?" and "How much did you make your attack roll by?" become the same question.

 

This does work, right? Or is my limited math brain on the fritz.  (It does remove the slight advantage for the attacker (11 over 10.5 in the traditional calculation), but I dunno if that matters. It does allow players and PCs to feel like they are actively involved (by rolling their Defense roll) when being attacked, rather than just passively taking it.

 

I dunno... I kinda like it. hmm...

 

So....GURPS, then? 🤣  /I kid, I kid.....

 

 

[ghost-angel]

GURPS, Shadowrun, Prowlers & Paragons, and more!

[Lord Liaden]

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Noone ever asked me why we used 10, people like 10 more than they like 11.  11 is an awkward number...  😄

 

11 will always be a friend of mine...

[Brian Stanfield]

7 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

Make combat an opposed roll. Player just takes 11+OCV +/- any modifiers... roll and figure out "How much you made the roll by?"  Example: 7 OCV + 11 = 18 or less (just like a skill roll)... roll 3d6... get a 12... made it by 6. If they are doing an Offensive Strike it is 11+7-2 for 16 or less... roll a 12, made it by 4. Basically, all they have to do is "I made it by X"

When I learned to play GURPS, I thought this was a cool idea. It’s reasonable to make every attack contend with an active defense. What I realized, though, after playing a while was that a defender could successfully defend against an indefinite number of attacks before he ever has an actual chance to act. The thought of blocking punches from 5 opponents pretty much all at once, and then have a counterattack (which that target gets to oppose) could make combat interminably long!

 

After thinking about this a while back, I’m satisfied that OCV vs. DCV with modifiers for defensive maneuvers is a good enough model for a game. It may not be as “realistic” as the opposed rolls, but the infinite parry machine is just as “unreal” in the other extreme.  

[Brian Stanfield]

9 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Noone ever asked me why we used 10, people like 10 more than they like 11.  11 is an awkward number...  😄

11 isn’t awkward, it’s a prime number! C’mon, man!

[assault]

11 is greater than 10

[Doc Democracy]

9 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

Make combat an opposed roll. Player just takes 11+OCV +/- any modifiers... roll and figure out "How much you made the roll by?"  Example: 7 OCV + 11 = 18 or less (just like a skill roll)... roll 3d6... get a 12... made it by 6. If they are doing an Offensive Strike it is 11+7-2 for 16 or less... roll a 12, made it by 4. Basically, all they have to do is "I made it by X"

 

GM rolls 11+DCV and mods... how much did they make it by? "5 DCV so 16 or less on my defense roll... I rolled a 13, made it by 3"  

 

So, "Attack made it by 6" beats "Defense Made it by 3"... you hit.

 

Or target dodges... so 5 DCV + 11 + 5 for dodge... rolled a 13, made it by 8... you miss"

 

If you want an active defence, why not just replace the static 11 with a roll by the defender, GM does not have to use it, all villain's could "take 11".

 

you would then hit if your OCV+3D6 was greater than opponents DCV+3D6.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, assault said:

11 is greater than 10

 

But more angular and less cuddly...

[dmjalund]

Add 3d6 - 10 to my OCV and that's the DCV I hit

[RDU Neil]

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

11 will always be a friend of mine...

 

Good good eleven

[Doc Democracy]

A perfect 10

[Doc Democracy]

Another Perfect 10.

[Brian Stanfield]

9 hours ago, assault said:

11 is greater than 10

 

Well, if we're escalating: 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

11 is one more, isn't it?  That makes it better than 10

[Doc Democracy]

Only in purely quantity terms, I would prefer 10 lashes to 11....