Hero system 7 ideas

[Christopher R Taylor]

A Change Environment setting that was just "negate environment" could work: it doesn't add anything, it just removes an environmental change such as darkness (creates light), radiation field (negates the radiation), etc.  That could be fairly cheap if carefully defined (like 3 points) but you'd have to make sure it was very narrow in scope so it wasn't a super dispel or something.

[Scott Ruggels]

I still think all this talk of a 7th edition is a bad idea.

 

I REALLY like fixed initiative.

[Chris Goodwin]

Just now, Scott Ruggels said:

I still think all this talk of a 7th edition is a bad idea.

 

I agree.  I think everyone (including me) is going to add their own ideas for whatever they've wanted "fixed".  

 

We've got six editions worth of material that's largely compatible from first to last that any of us can pull in as house rules to any of our games, regardless of what edition we're running in.  I've got various house rules documents spread out here and there made up of my own fixes and additions, and I'd bet money that every one of us has something similar.  When sitting at the table eating snacks and throwing dice, you'd be hard pressed to tell what edition a given Champions game was running under without a careful look at the character sheets.  

 

"Edition" is only meaningful in terms of what is currently available and recently supported.  

 

Just now, Scott Ruggels said:

I REALLY like fixed initiative.

 

Me too.  I don't want that to change. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I have a ton of work into 6th edition and frankly do not have the energy or time to update anything to a new edition, so this is all just an academic exercise for me (particularly since the chances of a new edition are pretty minimal anyway).  

Regarding initiative, I'm fine with fixed, it works out just fine in terms of strategy and game play and I've never heard any player complain.  But if you want you can use the Dex Roll idea suggested by our local fox. It adds a bit more complexity and time but it would create more variety if people want it.

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

I am afraid, my friend, that that's all either of us going to get.

 

The whole crux of our disagreement is that one of us believes people are actively paying attention to all their sensory inputs at all times.

 

The other does not.  I have pulled out of too many studies and given a hasty "hunh?" to someone standing next to me talking for a full minute before I was even aware of their presence.  Even at my age, I have better than 20/20 vision, and my peripheral vision is freaky acute with regard to clarity.  My hearing isn't what it used to be, but this isn't a recent phenomenon; I've been doing this my whole life.  I have ridden with too many people who suddenly asked "$@#$#!  Was that light green?!"  Anyone who has ever wanted to see a detail has had to actively look for it, put an active effort into finding it.  You have to focus on it. 

 

Actually, I think wWhere we disagree is on what the PER roll means.  To me, if you are standing around paying attention to something else when someone walks into the room, you either make your PER roll and notice them, or fail your PER roll and do not.  If you were, instead, sitting in a chair facing the door waiting for someone to come in, you would have a much better PER roll.  In fact,, I would probably allow auto-success for that, just like I would not make you roll a Climb check to ascend a ladder.

 

Someone with a better PER roll is less likely to be distracted enough to miss something.  That might be a result of especially acute senses, or it could be the result of more actively paying attention to all sensory inputs at all times, or it could just be that your passive "attention" is better than that of other people.

 

But if you could hear something, you get a PER roll, and if you could see something, a PER roll determines whether you do.  You are not required to turn your ears on, nor are you assumed to stand around with your eyes closed unless you state that you are looking around you.

 

tl; dr - A PER Roll does not require you be actively focused on sensory input.  It determines whether your passive perception picks up on the input.  Active searching would provide bonuses.

 

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

While I've never thought Maslow's hierarchy was as completely accurate as he did, there's a simple fact about paying attention:  The first thing you look for is where you're moving / what's moving toward you.  Then you look to see if it passes your definition safe.  Then you check for obstacles.  And at that point, you plot a course and run more or less on autopilot, moving your mind to the next job.  It's not that you have failed a perception roll; it's that your mind has decided "I have perceived enough for my needs here; moving on.  There is something else that pushes you to "look harder;" to go to that effort of a genuine PER roll.  

 

I am back to "you do not need conscious effort to make a PER roll".  A base, unmodified PER roll determines whether you see that gang member creeping away with a big sack of money from the bank while you are engaged in combat with his Supervillain leader and three more gang members, or whether you hear that squeaky floorbooard in the kitchen while you are watching TV in the dining room.

 

If you had to exert conscious effort to make a PER roll, you could never wake up from perceiving a noise while you were asleep.

 

Something moving in your direct arc of vision should be very easy to see - a PER roll is not required to see Ogre rushing up towards you, or hear the THUMPS of his feet as he runs forward.  Someone creeping up behind you, or passing through the bushes behind Ogre?  Not so easy to see, make a PER roll.  Not "no, you have no chance to perceive that - you are looking at Ogre", but if your PER roll fails, it may be a consequence of having been too focused on Ogre.

 

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 Anyone who has ever wanted to see a detail has had to actively look for it, put an active effort into finding it.  You have to focus on it. 

 

Going back to this.  How many people have searched their house looking for something - your glasses, your phone, your car keys - only to give up, then later walk past a room you remember thoroughly searching and OH - THERE THEY ARE IN PLAIN SIGHT.

 

So no, you do not always find it with active effort, nor do you always miss it if you are not focused on it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

How many people have searched their house looking for something - your glasses, your phone, your car keys - only to give up, then later walk past a room you remember thoroughly searching and OH - THERE THEY ARE IN PLAIN SIGHT.

 

Gnomes.  I blame house gnomes, its their idea of a joke.

[Duke Bushido]

So.....   we _can't_ agree to disagree?  I really don't have enough time in the day or lifespan left (I know they _call_ it middle-aged, but I'm _not_ going to live to be a hundred-and-twenty; who's kidding who with that "middle-aged" nonsense?) or even enough interest for us to keep running this same circle over and over.  

 

Enjoy it, Hugh.  I bow out.  I concede that I think differently than you.  I don't concede that I can't change you mind, simply because that was never my intention.  I admit that I probably couldn't, even if I decided to _make_ it my intention.  Even without concession, I accept on that I have been offered nothing that changes my mind.

 

As before, I have enjoyed this as much-- and possibly more, simply because time and distance diminish memories-- as I genuinely do, and I thank you for the pleasure, but I am bowing out.

 

Cue the snipers.