Perceptions of the game change

[Duke Bushido]

Hmmm.. 

 

The Dome City "event" might even play into origin stories for a couple of villains along the way: the day the Done went up, the energies unleashed, etc, etc; you're super now. 

 

A tiny bit of depth that ties one thing to another, but to nothing outside the setting.... 

 

 

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Gnome Body (!) do you have Hero Designer? I would share some of the updated characters I did so you can see what I’m talking about.  Plus a major point of like to say is that experience should be given in larger quantity say 5 CP minimum until you reach 400 CP.. 

 

I do 5 points weekly at my game plus or minus a point for extraordinary success or failure.

[Duke Bushido]

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

There's two problems with that. 

 

The first is that you're a highly experienced player who is surely well versed in efficiency, and thus can easily get more from less.  When you spend 300 points, you get at least 300 points of value.  Someone approaching HERO for the first time is going to have none of that experience available to them.  When an newcomer spends 300 points, they spend inefficiently and inelegantly.  They don't hit breakpoints, they don't apply Advantages and Limitations in efficient ways, they don't use Power Frameworks optimally, etc.  The fact that you can fit a full character in 300 points doesn't indicate 400 is too much, it indicates that you've gotten good at making characters. 

 

Once upon a time, _we_ learned how to do it.  We opened a box or a book and read and played and figured it out.  I don't think the best way to attract a new audience is to insult their ability to do precisely the same.  We learned it; they will learn it, so long as we can make it attractive enough to get them started.

 

My first 250-pt (well, 230-something; I was "done" at that point) was not particularly efficient, at least not at first.  As I learned, my builds reflected my learning.  That 250-pt character is still the one I played for twenty years  (ugh).  I got better; he got better.  Everyone at the table got better.  Anyone who is interested _will_ get better.  Or maybe they won't.  Maybe they'll be like me and they'll find a personal "sweet spot" and stick right around there.   They _will_ do it, but they will do it _only_ if they're interested.  Hell, I've been playing since 1e, and _I_ don't use power frameworks efficiently.  I _barely_ use them, period.  So what?  Is there a mandate?  No; of course there isn't, because what we are shooting for is something _fresh_: a new start in a new world where _they_ define the power levels; _they_ define the action.  Trying to shoehorn new players into a detailed 40-year-old setting and telling them their builds should immediately reflect a firm grasp of calculus and a deep and possibly romantic love of spreadsheets so that they can measure up to 40-years-established  villains with all the latest cheese bells and cheese whistles is _why_ no one is interested anymore.  As someone else noted, it's more common to get the "what's HERO?" or "Wow!  They're still in business?" reaction than it is to get a "Yeah; I'd like to try that!" response.  Also more common than "I'd like to try that" is "God, no!  I don't solve differential equations for fun!"

 

So for beginners, we _get rid of that crap_.  Get rid of the pressure to be "points effective."  Get rid of the idea that they have to measure up to characters written by complete strangers who _do_ solve differential equations for fun.  Out of curiosity, how damned many other games out there have software for building characters?  Serious "track-the-math" type software, as opposed to something that does a couple of light calculations and prints out in an attractive format?  How many other games damned-near _need_ that software?

The idea here is demonstrating that this is a _game_, not a math class.  This game is _easy_ to learn.  This game is _fun_ to play.  Throwing in a bunch of completely unnecessary yardsticks and build expectations is completely counter to that goal.  Dump them.

 

Present Villains in three clear power levels.  Let the GM pick the one he thinks is most appropriate for his and his player's comfort level.  Done.

 

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

 

The second problem is that starting with a cramped point budget mechanically enforces narrative assumptions.  You suggest that gamers should be fine with starting with inexperienced characters, but setting the default point value there means that every campaign that starts at the recommended values therefore must start with inexperienced heroes.

 

Make up your mind, Amigo!    Can a 300 point character be efficient and useful and "powerful" or not?  Personally, I would think that we should follow the path of other serialized adventures: There are still D&D serials that start at Level 1, aren't there?  Why should this be somehow different?  Worried about learning points efficiency?  Then let them face some 8 or 12 DC Energy Blasts before throwing 24DC attacks at them.  This is the learning curve, after all.  And if the players start out all super-good at wringing points into powers?  Well, villains in three different levels.  

 

Woah-- there's an inspiration: Villains in 3 different power levels using the same total build points!   Boom-- tailor-made to a learning curve.

 

 

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Though, I imagine a decent part of this is just me being old and bitter 

 

I know where you're coming from, my friend.

 

 

13 hours ago, dmjalund said:

How about a Champions Heroes book or four. ready to play Player characters for a particular genre, including tips on how to customize them .

 

The "opening adventure" should probably feature.. say, six new heroes built at the points total (whatever that may be) for which the adventure is tailored.  No less than 4, and no no more than six.  Even if we get six, then they should (and this'll be difficult) be designed in such a fashion that any _four_ of them will form a reasonably-balanced team (you might only find four players; why leave them handicapped, or stick the GM having to be a player as well?).   Villains should be stated out for the adventure in which they will (may) appear, of course.  Subsequent adventures in a given series may even introduce an additional hero or two in each one, to both allow the group to build a repertoire and to have more examples of "how to" as well as just fill in the world a little bit: these can be background characters the players see on the news; they can be swapped if players find these characters more interesting.  Whatever.  Maybe just one super and one "normal of note" for the campaign?

 

 

10 hours ago, MK Blackout said:

A lot of D and D's current popularity can be attributed to shows like Critical Role.  Gamers these days seem to love to watch other gamers play.  Starter sets are great if you have an audience that is interested in buying them in the first place.  If there was an official (or semi-official) HERO actual play twitch/youtube/podcast show using the current rules that highlighted the game, it might generate enough interest to make the production of a starter set and adventures feasible.  

 

What the Hell is Twitch?

 

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Ok first, (not sure about CT)

 

Same question, only this time it's CT.

 

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

 

 

I translated several characters from 4th directly as possible in 6th with adjusting stats and for the most part they end up around 300 CP. I mean I didn’t lower CV or DeX or STR just as is. Second yes I would remove some multi powers or limit them as needed. Look at Green Dragon in CC with his Stances multi power. Honestly as a new player coming in with all his other stuff, is the player going to grind all that?

 

Ultimately we'd like them to, of course, but we don't want to hit them with it at first.  Why would anyone want to learn the basics if the basics are already intimidating?  Too many choices without the guidance of practice and experience is _always_ a bad thing.  Always.  It causes either confusion or lag, and no matter what else, it's an immediate "bad experience" memory associated with the first time they try the game.  Avoid it.  Save it for later.  Whatever.

 

 

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Now add skills or rather subtract them or maybe combine them. Not at the book right now but I’m sure you can roll several KS for example into a bigger one. And CSLs can be reduced and combined.  

 

 

Skills has _always_ been a horrible, horrible weak spot in HERO, and that is specifically _because_ of the open-endedness of the skills.  When you get right down to it-- when you really study it up right, it becomes clear that the book doesn't offer _any_ skills, really, but instead very, very narrow _categories_ of skills, as it's up to the individual group to determine just what the actual skill _is_.  I hate to say it, as I loved the idea behind it, but 4e was the beginning of the end for the "Skill System" in HERO, particularly with the introduction of "Combat X."  No no matter what the skill was, it didn't cover the combat version of it, or there wouldn't be a combat version of it, would there?  GMs scrambled to see just how far apart they could tear each individual sub-skill, and it just went nuts.  Yes; we can all agree how a skill works _within our group_, but will never agree as a whole simply because different people will find different aspects of the skill to be more or less important (and thus needing or not needing their own listings).  Honestly, I think for a beginning group, it's better to keep skills nice and fat and liberal: if it seems like you  _should_ know something about it, then probably you do.

 

You know: "Paramedic."  Do you know first aid?  Do you know triage?  Do you know how to determine and administer dosages of various pharmaceuticals?  Can you drive the truck?  (Yes, but can you do it in _combat_?!).   Is "Pilot" broken down by type of engine, type of plane, size of aircraft, and do you need a separate skill to fly an attack drone?  

 

Screw all that:  if you think the skill you have is appropriate, then let it ride.  Introduce fracturing gradually.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke, CT was short for Christopher Taylor. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke, I agree with skills, too many can be overkill. I like  the 4th ed builds. Most have a few skills to round out and that’s it.  The only skill monkey was Jaguar in human form and that was cause he was a Detective.

[Duke Bushido]

The funny thing about Jaguar:

 

He's the one I never remember as even existing until someone reminds me he existed.     Seriously, I wasn't keen on many of them, in particular Solitaire, but I would find myself staring at the back cover of BBB and thinking "who the heck is that?!"

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Out of curiosity, how damned many other games out there have software for building characters? 

 

D&D has had one since 3.5 at least.  Most of them do by now, but few of them are as complicated in their options as Hero, to be sure.

[Chris Goodwin]

35 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

The funny thing about Jaguar:

 

He's the one I never remember as even existing until someone reminds me he existed.     Seriously, I wasn't keen on many of them, in particular Solitaire, but I would find myself staring at the back cover of BBB and thinking "who the heck is that?!"

 

I think you weren't the only one.  I think everyone forgot him, including the people who were writing the adventures. 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

So for beginners, we _get rid of that crap_.  Get rid of the pressure to be "points effective."  Get rid of the idea that they have to measure up to characters written by complete strangers who _do_ solve differential equations for fun.  Out of curiosity, how damned many other games out there have software for building characters?

 

 

 D&D Beyond. Its a Free website that allows you to stat up characers fairly efficiently and quickly for D&D 5e. I fiind it very usefyl, even if its limited to the basic sets, but it allows for a fair amount of customization.

 

Quote

 This game is _easy_ to learn.  This game is _fun_ to play.  Throwing in a bunch of completely unnecessary yardsticks and build expectations is completely counter to that goal.  Dump them.

 

Present Villains in three clear power levels.  Let the GM pick the one he thinks is most appropriate for his and his player's comfort level.  Done.

 

 I'd think presenting villains specific to the adventure at that point in time would be more useful. Save the Global Threat type for further along.  If we follow the Paizo methood, have each presentation be set for for an appropriate level.  I (almost) finished The Mummy's Mask in Pathfinder, and I started with a first level Sorceror, who had to do damage with a sling and a dagger, because first level was crap.  He ended up around 15th and extremely effective.

 

If Champpions folloed the same format, you could have a long form  MCU style plot starting out with beginning Superheroes, against measured opposition, and  figuring on Experience, per book,  then adding that forecast experience total in calculating the opposition. So by the end of the campaign, they are seasoned heroes (and players), ready  either for their next adventure, or they could be put away, and a new set generated for new advantures could start.  If  point totals were set up, and then printed on the back cover, one could slot in other books in between the first "path" to change things up.  Now while no one has any time any more for world building unless you are retired, it could still  allow a GM some semi-customization with NPC's, Maps, and scenarios, of the appropriate point total.

 

Quote

 

 

Make up your mind, Amigo!    Can a 300 point character be efficient and useful and "powerful" or not?  Personally, I would think that we should follow the path of other serialized adventures: There are still D&D serials that start at Level 1, aren't there?  Why should this be somehow different?  Worried about learning points efficiency?  Then let them face some 8 or 12 DC Energy Blasts before throwing 24DC attacks at them.  This is the learning curve, after all.  And if the players start out all super-good at wringing points into powers?  Well, villains in three different levels.

 

 

Exactly. serialized adventures, not "splat" books, but a fairly open ended set of scenarios that allow for characger progression.  Probably all of the books would need an intro exlaining how to run, at least at the beginnning to address when things start progressing in a different direction. Paizo hass good options in theirs for this. Looking at the differences in NPCs met and methods taken by the folks  playing "Mummy's Mask" right now on the Quotes from the Campaign Thread. The broad strokes are the same, but those players met different people and had different solutions to the problems they face, and still made it to the end of the first chapter as the Players I played with, did.

 

Quote

 

 

Woah-- there's an inspiration: Villains in 3 different power levels using the same total build points!   Boom-- tailor-made to a learning curve.

 

That's not a bad idea.

 

Quote

 

The "opening adventure" should probably feature.. say, six new heroes built at the points total (whatever that may be) for which the adventure is tailored.  No less than 4, and no no more than six.  Even if we get six, then they should (and this'll be difficult) be designed in such a fashion that any _four_ of them will form a reasonably-balanced team (you might only find four players; why leave them handicapped, or stick the GM having to be a player as well?).   Villains should be stated out for the adventure in which they will (may) appear, of course.  Subsequent adventures in a given series may even introduce an additional hero or two in each one, to both allow the group to build a repertoire and to have more examples of "how to" as well as just fill in the world a little bit: these can be background characters the players see on the news; they can be swapped if players find these characters more interesting.  Whatever.  Maybe just one super and one "normal of note" for the campaign?

Exactly

 

Quote

 

What the Hell is Twitch?

 

It is an online streaming service, focused on games. it is a competitor to YouTube, but has far more restrictive rules (if you are male), and a few folks will pop in a Web Cam, and stream their D&D games. This is partially responsible for the resurgence of D&D into the public conciousness, again.

 

 

Quote

 

Ultimately we'd like them to, of course, but we don't want to hit them with it at first.  Why would anyone want to learn the basics if the basics are already intimidating?

 

THey don't  They bother the player next to them who did learn it.

 

Quote

 

 Too many choices without the guidance of practice and experience is _always_ a bad thing.  Always.  It causes either confusion or lag, and no matter what else, it's an immediate "bad experience" memory associated with the first time they try the game.  Avoid it.  Save it for later.  Whatever.

 

Agreed.

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Skills has _always_ been a horrible, horrible weak spot in HERO, and that is specifically _because_ of the open-endedness of the skills.  When you get right down to it-- when you really study it up right, it becomes clear that the book doesn't offer _any_ skills, really, but instead very, very narrow _categories_ of skills, as it's up to the individual group to determine just what the actual skill _is_.  I hate to say it, as I loved the idea behind it, but 4e was the beginning of the end for the "Skill System" in HERO, particularly with the introduction of "Combat X."  No no matter what the skill was, it didn't cover the combat version of it, or there wouldn't be a combat version of it, would there?  GMs scrambled to see just how far apart they could tear each individual sub-skill, and it just went nuts.  Yes; we can all agree how a skill works _within our group_, but will never agree as a whole simply because different people will find different aspects of the skill to be more or less important (and thus needing or not needing their own listings).  Honestly, I think for a beginning group, it's better to keep skills nice and fat and liberal: if it seems like you  _should_ know something about it, then probably you do.

 

The narrowing of the Skills categories is I think one of the main reasons for the point inflation in 6e. The other being the decoupling of Characteristics, but that is an argument for another thread.

 

Using the example characters, in simple terms what one can do, and NOT do with skills would be probably for the best.  Make them simple, and DO NOT have any characters that have skill levels in the first book, and then explain them when they start fighting a few villains with them in the second book. don't allow levels until the

players see them used , first...on them.   Ideally, every villain should be an illustration of the rules, and their build discussion should be saved in an Appendix, 

Quote

 

You know: "Paramedic."  Do you know first aid?  Do you know triage?  Do you know how to determine and administer dosages of various pharmaceuticals?  Can you drive the truck?  (Yes, but can you do it in _combat_?!).   Is "Pilot" broken down by type of engine, type of plane, size of aircraft, and do you need a separate skill to fly an attack drone?  

 

Screw all that:  if you think the skill you have is appropriate, then let it ride.  Introduce fracturing gradually.

 

Skill differentiation like that is most appropriate for Espionage/Danger International, but not really for Superheroes.  

 

As an Aside, I have been thinking about the Art Presentation.   Comic book style art, especially in styles 30 years past their due date, are a non started. Those of us that picked up Champions when it first came out in Highschool, are all now in our 50's.  it's an automatic fail to make a "Nostalgia" project for a niche audience. The presentation, has got to match the times. It will not work to have Pen & Ink B/W  illustrations any more, when even highschool kids now are near masters of Photoshop.The presentation now, has to match the current public Perception of Superheroes, which is the MCU< and the DCU.  Comic books themselves are in a decline (for reasons I won't discuss here, but you can find it out with some research)< but even so, the ones still selling are color. If we want to capture new imaginations,l things have to be written and drawn for contemporary audiences, and reflect what the public has already been paying for.  Re-hashing  art styles from previous Decades will just serve to make things look dated and cheap.  Even the artist active back then have improved. Storn Cook does great color work, now and does a lot more subtle character work.

So the template we should be going for is a presentation that reflects what is going on Now, with the best of Superhero Entertainment. We have to think Movie, rather than Comic-book, for it to succeed in the current and future market (until Superhero Movies go away, because of audience fatigue, like what happened to Westerns 40 years ago.)

 

The Love for the Silver Age of comics may be in inspiratiion for many  of us, but it has the stink of old fish for the kids today. Also the heroes today act differently. The Batman TV show satirized the tropes of comics, the show runners read 20=30 years before, but when Marvel started observing issues and topics in the real world, their sales surpassed DC, and stayed that way, until nearly the present day.  Our competion for audience attention is the screen, So we need to keep things attractive.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

Agreed on all counts, Sir.  Even if that Western one hurt a little.

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Agreed on all counts, Sir.  Even if that Western one hurt a little.

 

 

I know it’s after dinner time on the east coast, as Duke The writes novels. 😁

[Duke Bushido]

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think you weren't the only one.  I think everyone forgot him, including the people who were writing the adventures.

 

A comic book writer would find him incredibly useful, since he's the only one in the group with any real investigative ability.  Basically he'd be the one finding out the information the team needs to do its job, and I see him as being almost never in Jaguar form (since he doesn't like it) and almost always as PI dealing with the street and using his skills until he cannot avoid shapeshifting.  Just like Obsidian would be the one who handled the press and authorities (since his diplomatic and court training would make him skilled at this), and Solitaire would do the research for the team, since she's scholarly.  Once in a while Quantum would go around with Jaguar for street level stuff.

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke, I agree with skills, too many can be overkill. I like  the 4th ed builds. Most have a few skills to round out and that’s it.  The only skill monkey was Jaguar in human form and that was cause he was a Detective.

[Ninja-Bear]

Here is my idea for a free scenario. Background is that Muckman was a local HS science teacher and suspected that a “Evil” corporation (which I don’t have a name yet) was dumping pollutants into a local pond. The troublemakers were local toughs that did questionable jobs for money. They’re not killers either. What happened was muckman snuck in close to get photo evidence of the dumping and the troublemakers tried to catch him. Of course there was an explosion at some point and well with the odd mix of chemicals and everyone’s DNA being different, you got different powers. Now muckman doesn’t remember too much about his former life however he will attack the company that did the dumping. (He just doesn’t know why). So the investigation is of course why is there “random” attacks? Also he will attack on sight any and all the Troublemakers. Now in this mix, the Troublemakers are hired to capture muckman. That’s the gist of it. Can the heroes stop the rampage? Can they help muckman? Can they bring the villains to justice?

[Duke Bushido]

I like it: it's simple, clear, and still has potential to showcase some skills and get in some combat training.

 

Steriaca (which, ironically, I may have just misspelled) has started a Dome City thread to flesh out his ideas.   The nature of a forum precludes direct conversation, so I will ask for a bit of forgiveness right away:

 

I am going to take a moment to see if we can piece you ideas into the Hepzibah, Colorado ideas being bandied about on the Dome City thread.  Forgive me the liberty, and if you don't approve, then by all means say so and I'll redact immediately.

[IndianaJoe3]

22 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Skills has _always_ been a horrible, horrible weak spot in HERO, and that is specifically _because_ of the open-endedness of the skills.  When you get right down to it-- when you really study it up right, it becomes clear that the book doesn't offer _any_ skills, really, but instead very, very narrow _categories_ of skills, as it's up to the individual group to determine just what the actual skill _is_.  I hate to say it, as I loved the idea behind it, but 4e was the beginning of the end for the "Skill System" in HERO, particularly with the introduction of "Combat X."  No no matter what the skill was, it didn't cover the combat version of it, or there wouldn't be a combat version of it, would there?  GMs scrambled to see just how far apart they could tear each individual sub-skill, and it just went nuts.  Yes; we can all agree how a skill works _within our group_, but will never agree as a whole simply because different people will find different aspects of the skill to be more or less important (and thus needing or not needing their own listings).  Honestly, I think for a beginning group, it's better to keep skills nice and fat and liberal: if it seems like you  _should_ know something about it, then probably you do.

 

I agree that skills have become overly granular by default in 6e. My, "7e" design notes prune the skill list by ~25%,  merging skills (Acrobatics/Breakfall, Criminology/Forensic Medicine, etc), replacing with Talents (Lip Reading, Ventriloquism, etc), and eliminating some in favor of a Professional Skill (Forgery, Weaponsmith, etc).

 

I think the split between the combat and non-combat versions of Driving and Piloting came about because Transport Familiarities (at the time) did not provide a mechanism for a skill roll. Now they can simply provide a roll at 8-, like any other Familiarity. (I thought this was the actual rule until I looked it up.) Other skills already have a suitable mechanism, so there's no need for Combat Lockpicking or Combat Paramedic or whatever.

 

ETA: I looked under Transport Familiarity - it is the actual rule.

Edited July 20, 2019 by IndianaJoe3
Correcting a rule mistake

[Duke Bushido]

If the defining difference between Driving and Combat Driving is the ability to stay cool under mortal pressure and avoid getting shot, then the groundwork is laid for combat first aid, combat speed reading, and combat everything else.  Luck, for Pete's sake.  A complete intangible and poorly defined thing--so bereft of a mechanic that we have X-hundred threads discussing ways to actually pin it down, now has a combat-specific version. 

 

The root of the problem is that HERO leaves the specificity of the individual skill up to the GM, where the final result depends entirely on how anal retentive he is.  Some of the official writeups almost suggest that anal retention is far more important than ease of play, which doesn't really help the problem. 

[IndianaJoe3]

22 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

If the defining difference between Driving and Combat Driving is the ability to stay cool under mortal pressure and avoid getting shot, then the groundwork is laid for combat first aid, combat speed reading, and combat everything else.  Luck, for Pete's sake.  A complete intangible and poorly defined thing--so bereft of a mechanic that we have X-hundred threads discussing ways to actually pin it down, now has a combat-specific version. 

 

The root of the problem is that HERO leaves the specificity of the individual skill up to the GM, where the final result depends entirely on how anal retentive he is.  Some of the official writeups almost suggest that anal retention is far more important than ease of play, which doesn't really help the problem. 

 

I have never played in a game where the GM had any skill broken down into combat and non-combat versions beyond RAW. There wasn't any apparent need for it.

 

Luck and Combat Luck have nothing in common but the word, "Luck." I agree that the power, "Luck" is ridiculously ill-defined and should probably be scrapped (or moved to the APG). "Combat Luck" is effectively a mechanic for plot armor to explain why a nominally unprotected character doesn't get injured in a dangerous environment. 

 

Finally, some skills (particularly Background Skills) are vaguely defined because of the open-ended nature of the Hero System. Characters in a police procedural game might need fine distinctions between skills to differentiate between characters that might otherwise be identical. 4-color supers don't have the same requirement or the same focus, but the rules have to support both genres.

[Duke Bushido]

52 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I think the split between the combat and non-combat versions of Driving and Piloting came about because Transport Familiarities (at the time) did not provide a mechanism for a skill roll. Now they can simply provide a roll at 8-, like any other Familiarity. (I thought this was the actual rule until I looked it up.) Other skills already have a suitable mechanism, so there's no need for Combat Lockpicking or Combat Paramedic or whatever.

 

ETA: I looked under Transport Familiarity - it is the actual rule.

 

 

Right.  This has been the rule since at least 3e.  We've always played it that way (well, in supers, anyway; it's a 6 or less in Heroic for us: character advancement reasons, and to demonstrate that a familiarity is _not_ the same as a skill; the 6 or less demonstrates a real knowledge gap and makes it nigh-impossible (nigh; not totally) to get a "complimentary" bonus off of a familiarity. 

 

Gah- digression!   In 3e, I can't off the top of my head think of an instance where it's spelled out specifically that Familiarity = 8 or less, but I can think of at least two instances (Star HERO and Fantasy HERO) where a bit of deduction following through the Skills section strings together the idea that a familiarity is an 8 or less.  Start with Everyman skills and read through the whole section a couple of times and it presents itself.  It's something along the lines of "everyman skills are 8 or less;" Everyman Skills are Familiarities;" another statement or two along those lines, and when you put them all together, you end up with" familiarities are 8 or less. "

 

Don't have time to look it up, but I think 4e codified that more solidly, as well as cosifting that Everyman skills are, in fact, familiarities. 

 

Though I have always had issues with" must buy Familiarity with blades to use a sword. ". Suppose my character trained for years to lean how to use his sword?  He didn't study axes, or daggers, or greats words, or bastard swords, or cutlasses-- he just practiced extensively with this one particular category of sword.  Why can he not buy" sword, 11 or less" without first being familiar with the whole category? 

 

No; don't answer that!  I've done enough damage to this thread already with wandering focus. 

[Spence]

2 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I've done enough damage to this thread already with wandering focus. 

 

I don't think it is really possible to derail or damage this thread any more than it already is

[Chris Goodwin]

Combat Driving and Driving are the same Skill, as are Combat Piloting and Piloting.  They were scattered through different 3rd edition books, but there wasn't any book that had both combat and "noncombat" versions.  At least a couple of them had "Combat Vehicle Operation".  4th edition had Combat Driving and Combat Piloting, along with Transport Familiarity

 

Transport Familiarity specifies that if you don't have the appropriate Combat Driving or Combat Piloting skill, you can't perform "combat" operations.  So, I guess, maybe that's... kind of what you're thinking of?

 

(I just realized in my Master Skills spreadsheet I messed this up in a few places. Mah bad, as the yout's are saying these days.  4th through 6th editions have only Combat Driving and Combat Piloting along with Transport Familiarity.)

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

Hmmm.... 

 

I'll have to take a quick thum ING through the books when I get done. 

 

It may well be that my own list simply duplicated them as separate skills when the names changed.  (as noted before, we crib some new things from subsequent editions.  Rather than thumb through every book, we just keep a running list tucked into a folder.) 

[Ninja-Bear]

Well to touch on what Duke said. (And I think it has to do with the old Package Deal mechanic) is buying several smaller skills, such as KS or PS which I feel could have always been combined. For example take Priest. It’s suggested to have KS Religious Dogma, KS procedures and PS Priest. I would just lump all three together with PS Priest.

 

Now personally if a game group feels that splitting skills say gambling into smaller parts is important then that’s fine just it shouldn’t be in the main rules imo. 

[Spence]

I pretty much stayed with top level skills and ignored the micro-dicing. 

Archeology instead of Egyptology you might say.

If a player feels that their character identifies as the Egyptologist, buy +X skill with the specialty.  

 

I do still divide criminology, digital forensics and medical forensics.  I like to run investigative games and this spreads the deduction out. 

I also have removed the skill Deduction. 

 

Full disclosure, I play a lot of GUMSHOE games and really like their investigation rules the use of investigative skills and point buys.  I have created a version for my Champions games that I call Epiphany Points.  This means that investigations are not stumped by a bad die roll.