Simon

Open the Start menu and type "cmd" into the text field at the bottom (typically labeled "Search programs and files")

1. Have you installed Java on your system?
 

2. Assuming yes, where is it installed? (i.e. does the file "C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" actually exist?)

3. What is the output when you run the following at the command line:

java -version

ftype | find "jarfile"

That command simply looks up the association with jarfiles on your system.  It looks like it didn't return anything, which would be the problem -- your system does not have Java properly configured (a common problem under Windows of late)

ftype jarfile="C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "%1" %*

You need to execute this command.  

It seems that there are some rather nasty updates to either Windows itself or Java running under Windows that is removing the file association for .jar files for a number of users.  It is not clear at this time why this is happening, but it is preventing people from running HD by double-clicking on the HD6.jar file (or any shortcut they've created).

I'll use this thread for troubleshooting this issue with folks -- the fix information in this post will be edited as needed to help out.

The following is the most direct way to check and/or set the file association for .jar files under Windows:

1.  Open a command prompt (Start -> Run... -> cmd)

2.  To check the file association for jar files, enter the following (please post the output of this command in this thread if you are still having problems):

ftype | find "jarfile"

3.  To reset the file association for jar files, you would enter the following, replacing the path to javaw.exe with the absolute path to the file on your system :

ftype jarfile="C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "%1" %*

And yet here we are.

You asked about errata. You were given a solution. It's not really a concern for me whether or not you want to go with that solution... It is what it is.

The latter.

Typically in the book itself.

If you're after corrections, if it's a simple typo, then you know the correction already.  If it's an ambiguity or misstatement of a rule, the search function on the forums is a good source.  If that doesn't turn anything up, simply ask in either the 6th Edition Rules Questions forum (where Steve Long will answer) or in the Hero System Discussion forum (where everyone else will answer).

So your complaints effectively boil down to a belief that 4E was the "perfect edition" and that people were wrong to add to it, change it, and grow it over the 20+ years since 4E came out.  Since no one is telling you that you can't play 4E anymore, your complaint would appear to be that the bulk of the users here (and the company that produces the rules) don't share your opinion.

You can:  

1. accept that others don't necessarily think the way that you do and live happily ever after playing what you feel to be the perfect ruleset.

2. refuse to accept that others don't think the way that you do and attempt to convince them that their opinions are wrong and yours are correct.  You will want to be very careful in how you approach that here.  Significantly more so than you have been thus far.

3. accept that others don't think the way that you do and spend some time actually talking about and considering their opinions -- you know...actually learning about why changes were made.

Let's start with the end, shall we?  I'm always somewhat mystified at the thought process behind someone new coming in and trying to pick a fight with the moderators of a site.  Do you really think that will end well for you?  Do you think that you'll look like a hero, standing up to the Powers That Be? In the interests of your own longevity on this site, I would strongly recommend losing the attitude.

You'll also want to pay attention to language.  Pro tip:  if you have to apologize (ask pardon) for your language, you should perform some editing before posting to remove the need for said apology.

We'll treat both of these issues as a "verbal warning" this time, since you're new.

As for the points that you raise, they don't really seem all that well thought out, honestly. You seem focused on points.  The point costs have generally gone up between editions.  Rather sharply.  At a general level, this provides greater granularity within the system.  When your base unit of measurement is a point, if there are only 10 points' difference between an average human's strength and, say, Supe's, each point amounts to a large increase in the individual's strength.  If there is a 100 point difference, you have greater granularity and greater ability to fine tune the strength of the character to reflect exactly what you want.

Saying that a system is bad because it requires more points (an arbitrary measurement at even a conceptual level) to accomplish/build the same character is like saying that English units of measurement are better than metric because there are fewer tick marks on a ruler.

If your gripe is with the change in cost of individual abilities relative to others (in the same edition), you're talking about game balance.  You'll find a plethora of threads in these forums discussing exactly that, and debating the merits of the individual changes/adjustments and the overall effect they've had on game balance.  

At the end of the day, it's a game.  Don't like 6E rules?  Don't play 6E rules.  That's easy.  But I'd recommend going back and taking what I said about picking fights around here to heart...

No, it has not (yet).

I think this followup is in two parts...

1.  Should an Entangle be considered a Defense Power?  Within HD, that's currently the main restricting factor that I show in Impenetrable -- that it applies to Defense Powers.  If it's a Defense Power, then there's a fair number of other Modifiers that HD will need to allow...

2.  Assuming that the answer to 1 is "partially - the PD/ED aspect should be considered a Defense Power" (note:  BIG assumption there...) should the cost/value of Impenetrable apply to the Entangle as a whole or somehow apply to just the PD/ED component of the Entangle?

I do hope you're enjoying the show. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

What'd you just call me?!?

And... Balabanto will no longer be contributing to this thread

For the rat:  one way to take the arguments that erupt about something as silly as version differences is that the people arguing (by and large) really care about the system and their version of choice.  That's a sign of a good system, IMO.

That's not to say I'm going to allow the arguments to continue (at least, not in a way that leads to personal attacks), but it does mean that you're dealing with people that actually care about the system and have come to love their particular version of that system enough that they feel the need to defend it in a public forum.

My job is to make sure that any passion they feel about a particular version, rule, character, whatever is directed appropriately.  

So...sorry about the loss of PaycheckHero from this thread, but hopefully useful discussions will continue.

Let's do things this way:

PaycheckHero:  stop posting in this thread.  Now.  You've been warned for one of your posts, but you continue to push the bounds (as well as the buttons of other members).

Everyone else:  cool it.  It's a game.  Said game has different versions, each with variations on the same core rules.  Debate the merits of various changes all you want, but lay off of each other -- you are all playing the same GAME.

Hyper-Man nailed it -- a Jetpack (or anything else that possesses it's own movement rather than simply aiding a character's existing movement) should be built as a vehicle.  This allows you to dictate the max speed, maneuverability, etc. the way you would expect.  It also makes the use of said vehicle fall inline with the rest of the system (does the character have a TF with that class of vehicles, etc.)

For MP:

A character can change the way his Multipower

reserve points are distributed or allocated

as a Zero Phase Action. However, unless the

GM permits otherwise, he may not distribute or

allocate reserve points more than once in a Phase.

For example, he could not allocate reserve points

to a Teleportation slot at the beginning of his

Phase, make a Half Move with Teleportation, then

re-allocate points to his Blast slot and attack with

the Blast — having allocated his reserve points

once already at the beginning of his Phase, he

cannot change that allocation until his next Phase

(or unless he Aborts to do so in a later Segment).

and for VPP:

Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase

Action: Changing powers with a Skill Roll

takes no appreciable time; the character can

change them whenever he can perform a

Zero Phase Action. However, unless the GM

permits otherwise, the character may not

distribute or allocate Pool points more than

once in a Phase.

 

Realizing of course that that's not how zero-phase changes work, correct?

You get to change it once in a given phase/action.  Zero-phase just means that it can occur at the beginning of your action and does not take up any time/portion of your action.

Please spend some time thinking about the differences between an open-ended rule system like HERO and the deterministic rules engine needed for any game/electronic offering.

I suspect that you'll find that it is not possible "mechanically" as you propose.

Incorrect.

That would be the dollar amounts needed to get another Champions Online clone up and running.  NOT (repeat: NOT) Hero System.  The underlying engine would need to be written to support the rules.  

So start adding in those millions of dollars.

Then start talking about hardware, ongoing development, and employees.

And hosting.

And you haven't even begun to address INTEREST.  Or feasibility.  Whose interpretation of the rules will this mythical system be working off of?  Yours?  Someone else's?  Even if you were to be gifted with a completely tweakable engine that you could somehow customize to a mythical interpretation of the rules that everyone agreed with, you haven't even developed the reason that people would leave the multiple existing platforms for your system.  The market is not there.  At all.

The whole idea is full of fail.

MMO = MASSIVELY multiplayer online (game).

In order to even be feasible as a starting "seed" you need thousands - tens of thousands of users.

Starting your numbering at dozens is about the same as "none" -- it shows a complete and utter failure of the support needed to even begin thinking about something like that.

No.  Make a license-able game mechanics engine for RPG's.  With default campaigns to start with.

 

Players can buy HERO System Game with the default campaigns, and toolkit their own campaigns like NWN did.  Game-makers can license the HERO System Mechanics Engine to make their own games, and not have to create the game mechanics whole-sale.

So spend millions to make the game engine and then more millions to make an actual marketable game?  That sounds even less reasonable.

Where are the people going to come from to develop your game engine?  What are you going to pay them?  Where are the funds going to come from?  Where's the (rather extensive) hardware going to come from to support your MMO?  Where are the funds going to come from to purchase it?  Who's going to maintain it?  Where are the players going to come from for your game?  How many players do you think it would take to make the game succeed as an MMO if you were to give it away for free?  What would you need to charge players in order to meet your monthly operating costs?  What would you need to charge players in order to meet both your monthly operating costs as well as make up for the initial investment in development time?  How about ongoing development and enhancement (or did you think that the system will sell and stay current for more than six months without a steady and constant stream of upgrades)?

Where to even start?  Let me explain...no...there is too much.  Let me sum up:

1. HG has zero knowledge, experience, or "street cred" in the MMO industry.

2. The underlying engine (CryEngine, in your example) is what DETERMINES THE RULES.  You don't layer game rules onto the underlying engine, you build the underlying engine to define your rules and mechanics.

3. The need to keep up with the market means that you need to assemble a relatively large team to build the project in a short timeframe.  This means you're talking about putting together and supporting a relatively large corporate structure.  Without the experience, knowledge, or funding to do so.

4. The nature of an MMO requires a large setup of networked servers to handle the load balancing and general operations of your game system.  This translates to many thousands in monthly outlay...and doesn't even touch on ongoing maintenance and administration of your systems.

5. The nature of an MMO requires a certain "seed" population to take off and succeed.  If you were to get the ENTIRETY of the HG fanbase to buy into your concept (note:  this is laughable at best), you would be on the VERY light side of the starter seed.  That is not the makings of success -- it's a recipe for utter failure.

The list goes on....but this is beyond pointless.

*facepalm*

Why not, rather than an MMO, it be a "toolkit" for other MMO / RPG creators?

 

In other words, you build the engine, then some sample campaigns with multiplayer support, and let someone else "turn it into an MMO" should they desire.

 

Again, HERO System as a toolkit to create games; rather than a game in and of itself.  Which is exactly what HERO system is for pen and paper

So, in a dwindling market, you'd suggest that HG take up a new line (development of an MMO engine), which would require the lionshare of the investment required to launch an MMO (read: MILLIONS of dollars), knowledge of a business line that they have NOTHING to do with, and would place them in competition with some of the major players in the industry.

That would have to have one HELL of a business justification behind it.  I'm assuming you've done the basic math, yes?  Actually...nix that...I'm assuming nothing of the sort, as even the most basic of business analyses would show this to be a HORRIBLE idea.