Alcamtar

That's where I am. With 5E I was already teetering on the edge of "I just don't have time for this" but it was okay because I *knew* the system and I loved it as it was. 6E changed it just enough to be unfamiliar again and I have to convert everything, relearn the skills and powers and point balances, and plus it changed some things I loved. The changes seem small but they were enough to break the camel's back.
 
I just don't play heavy games anymore. I ditched 3E, ditched pathfinder, ditched GURPS, even Savage Worlds and 5E D&D are borderline these days. Hero was the ONLY rules-heavy game on my shelf that I played and it was only because of familiarity that it remained... I could play it fast because I had it memorized, though prep still took too long. Honestly if 7E returned to a 4E level of bloat, brought back figured characteristics and stuff, I'd probably play it again, but I doubt that will ever happen.
 
I did buy the 6E bundles because the price was right to complete my collection.
 

There have been quite a few low-priced game bundles put out recently, including an excellent one of Hero 6E books.  Even for a Hero veteran like myself, the mechanics-heavy front end is a deterrent.  I'm still tempted to buy the 6E bundle just because you can use it to build literally any game.  It's just been so long since I've been part of a group that I don't know how effectively I can dust off those old cobwebs anymore.
 
Strangely enough, I do still laugh at my first-ever Hero game, where I got to roll the dice that literally blew the head off my first character.

OSR has been my go-to for a solid decade now. Hero was in regular cycle up until 2009, and I ran an on/off game for a short while in 2015 but these days it is mostly a nostalgic memory, though I still collect books on occasion and sometimes think about how to build this or that.
 
That said, with Hasbro going cancelling the OGL I'm shopping for new game systems. Two days ago I sat down and read some Hero books for the first time in a while. Time will tell where I end up. Maybe I'll try to 5E demo for some newbies and see how it goes.

OSR has been my go-to for a solid decade now. Hero was in regular cycle up until 2009, and I ran an on/off game for a short while in 2015 but these days it is mostly a nostalgic memory, though I still collect books on occasion and sometimes think about how to build this or that.
 
That said, with Hasbro going cancelling the OGL I'm shopping for new game systems. Two days ago I sat down and read some Hero books for the first time in a while. Time will tell where I end up. Maybe I'll try to 5E demo for some newbies and see how it goes.

OSR has been my go-to for a solid decade now. Hero was in regular cycle up until 2009, and I ran an on/off game for a short while in 2015 but these days it is mostly a nostalgic memory, though I still collect books on occasion and sometimes think about how to build this or that.
 
That said, with Hasbro going cancelling the OGL I'm shopping for new game systems. Two days ago I sat down and read some Hero books for the first time in a while. Time will tell where I end up. Maybe I'll try to 5E demo for some newbies and see how it goes.

OSR has been my go-to for a solid decade now. Hero was in regular cycle up until 2009, and I ran an on/off game for a short while in 2015 but these days it is mostly a nostalgic memory, though I still collect books on occasion and sometimes think about how to build this or that.
 
That said, with Hasbro going cancelling the OGL I'm shopping for new game systems. Two days ago I sat down and read some Hero books for the first time in a while. Time will tell where I end up. Maybe I'll try to 5E demo for some newbies and see how it goes.

I think what makes Conan tolerable is he is essentially a Robin Hood type character: he mostly preys on corrupt sorcerers, nobles, and other neer-do-wells. But he is honorable towards women; in Beyond the Black River he is protective of the settlers; when there are two sides he almost always ends up on the right one. I don't recall him ever preying on ordinary people. On the other hand he doesn't give his unjust gains to the poor either; he just takes them from other people who don't deserve them either. He's also a mercenary and a lot of what he does is either fulfilling a contract, or climbing the ambition ladder. Again not the most honorable profession, but he pursues it in a generally honorable fashion. When serving a good Lord or Lady he's loyal, and twin serving a wolf he follows the wolf's code. Basically he double crosses those who double cross him, he baits them into it often enough but their own corruption is always their downfall. You root for him because you know he's not going to cause much collateral damage among innocent people, but he's going to ruthlessly clear out everyone else who is similar to himself. And really as Lords go he wouldn't be such a bad one because he's relatively benevolent and disinterested, he just wants to be top dog but has little interest in throwing his weight around, or indulging in foul degeneracies.

I think what makes Conan tolerable is he is essentially a Robin Hood type character: he mostly preys on corrupt sorcerers, nobles, and other neer-do-wells. But he is honorable towards women; in Beyond the Black River he is protective of the settlers; when there are two sides he almost always ends up on the right one. I don't recall him ever preying on ordinary people. On the other hand he doesn't give his unjust gains to the poor either; he just takes them from other people who don't deserve them either. He's also a mercenary and a lot of what he does is either fulfilling a contract, or climbing the ambition ladder. Again not the most honorable profession, but he pursues it in a generally honorable fashion. When serving a good Lord or Lady he's loyal, and twin serving a wolf he follows the wolf's code. Basically he double crosses those who double cross him, he baits them into it often enough but their own corruption is always their downfall. You root for him because you know he's not going to cause much collateral damage among innocent people, but he's going to ruthlessly clear out everyone else who is similar to himself. And really as Lords go he wouldn't be such a bad one because he's relatively benevolent and disinterested, he just wants to be top dog but has little interest in throwing his weight around, or indulging in foul degeneracies.

I think realistic armor would mostly be an all-or-nothing affair. Either you bypass/penetrate and do damage, or you bounce harmlessly off. Bludgeons might transmit some impact through the armor; truly armor piercing weapons would just have a greater penetration chance.
 
How to model it effectively, I don't know. Maybe D&D was on the right track with AC.

He-man is especially appropriate since he never actually kills anyone with that magic sword. It is obviously STUN-only.
 
The elves in The Silmarillion are absolutely champions-level superheroes, standing up to Morgoth himself.
  The portions of the Thor movie that took place in Asgard and Jotunheim depict a fantasy champions world.
  There is the anime interpretation of Dante's Inferno for inspiration. The comments on Youtube are priceless.
 

I like to make a short list of disadvantages that I, as a GM, and most likely to call upon during a game, to help focus thinking.
 
You could pick up a free resource like 5 point fudge that has a list of pithy one liner Faults. Pick the things on the list of appeal to you and leave off the ones you'd rather not call attention to. (You could also use something like Gurps Lite; personally I find the colorful and witty fudge list to be more inspiring)
 
You can either stat them up yourself to show how it's done, or just leave them as seeds. Another option is to provide prefab templates: partial formulas that they can customize.
 
Sometimes when I want to do something very specific with the disadvantages, such as alignment or things very closely tied to the game world or magic mechanics, I'll stat those up specifically in advance.
 
https://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fudfive7.pdf

Cowboys were not more violent than anyone else. Most of them ordinary people, peaceful and just trying to find their own space and make a future for their children.
 
But wherever people gather there's always a certain unruly element. Whenever you gather a bunch of unmarried men they'll tend to be especially unruly. Women tend to be a civilizing influence.
 
In the old west we saw this in mining towns, lumber camps, railroad towns, ranch houses, etc. Men get to drinking and gambling and brawling out of boredom and restlessness and trouble ensues.
 
The problem we have in RPGs is that it's not interesting to play peaceful family people doing their job every day. What's interesting is when you have to strive and fight; but for the most part, those who live by the sword are already engaged in questionable activities. Either that or they're living in a crazy frontier area, although those crazy frontiers are not sustainable for very long, they tend to be short-lived transitional periods.

I don't think it's actually doubled END. There are two END costs in play, one for the power and (optionally) one for the extra strength.
 
So if you have a 2D6 HKA weapon, that is 20 active and it's going to cost you 2 END just activate the power at STR zero. Even at zero strength you can do 2D6 killing for two endurance.
 
The +1 DC for 5 STR is not based on the active cost, it's built into the HKA. So STR 15 character could then apply up to 15 points of strength and bump it up to 3d6, for an additional 3 END (for the strength). It is still a 2D6 power, and the 5 END cost is coming from two different things, AP and STR.
 
That is how it would look if you dropped both the 0 END and the STR min: The same as any other HKA.
 
The 0 END neutralizes the base cost for acting activating the power. So now the character can use the weapon for free at zero strength, and use 15 STR for +1D6 at a total cost of 3 END.
 
The strength minimum effectively applies a limit to how much strength you're allowed to use. So a STR min 10 means you can activate the HKA for zero END, but you must effectively reduce your strength by 10 for the purposes of how much strength can be applied to the HKA. In the example above it means you can bump your 2D6 attack only up to 2D6+1, for +1 END. It's more of a limit on how much you can push then on how much END it costs.
 
But answering your question, it would just be like a normal "power" HKA. The +1 END for +1 DC would not change because that's based on the cost of strength, and built into the HKA itself.

I unexpectedly received a box from my mother containing the notes and character sheets from my long-running "old school" D&D campaign. This game ran for years, from childhood to young adulthood. I haven't seen this stuff in 20+ years. After the nostalgia wore off I though "I really need to translate this into hero (something I considered doing "way back when") and reboot it yet again.
 
Post One. Real World History.
 
My early D&D campaigns were shared with an eponymous co-GM so that we could both play. We originally used Lankhmar as its base city. We didn’t know much about Newhon. Our only reference was the Newhon Mythos section of Deities & Demigods (1980) and a beat-up copy of Swords and Deviltry. We decided that the Northmen, in addition to Kos, worshipped the Finnish Pantheon, while Bacob and Hecate became Lankmari demigods. That covered religion.
 
We ran a lot of modules. Newhon’s Great Salt Marsh and Sinking Lands were perfect stand-in locations for a lot of the 1st edition modules from “The Known World” and the Hool River / Marshes region of Grayhawk. These modules often featured reptilian or amphibian monsters. We saw far more Bullywugs, Lizard Men, Sauhagin, Troglodytes, and the Yaun-Ti than we did the standard “evil” humanoids.  They also seemed to fit better with Newhon’s weird pulpy groove.
 
It didn’t occur to us not to include demi-humans, but with the exception one long-running dwarf and elf, the vast majority of player characters were humans with a smattering of half-elves thrown in. There were an awful lot of fighters, thieves, and fighter-thieves. No one liked playing clerics and, with the exception of a long-running illusionist, we had few mages, and none of those advanced past the mid-level range. Our heroes were very much “freebooting mercenary adventurers” and “loveable rogues.”
 
Most NPC mages were Fire Mages, Snow Witches, Necromancers, or Scribes and Alchemists (Dragon Magazine). So, magically speaking, the traditional D&D wizard acting as “mystic artillery” was not a prominent fixture in our games. We weren’t too far off the S&S mark. Our characters relied far more heavily on potions, scrolls, dusts, powders, and disposable items (e.g., wands). Permanent magic items were rare and often were often cool “utility” items rather than weapons and armor. That was the zeitgeist for magic.  
 
When Lanhkmar: City of Adventure (1985) was published we snapped it up. It was much clearer about how Newhon should differ from generic D&D. I had also read Swords Against Death at this point. Over time we derated demi-humans as new PCs and either removed those races or sidelined them to the hinterlands along with the more common “evil huanoids.”. One long-running and nigh-iconic half-elf PC became “some demigod’s bastard.” We also implemented the supplements interesting, if not-quite satisfactory, system for “white” and “black” magic.  
 
We then decided to play-through a series of desert-themed modules and homebrew adventures (including a pastiche of Tower of the Elephant). These were set on the far bank of the Eastern Sea. I hadn’t done much reading that would cover that part of Newhon, but I had read Thieves’ World and had Chaosium’s Thieves’ World boxed-set (1981), so we used Sanctuary as our base city with a handwave towards it being on the frontier of the now-decaying Rankan Empire. Hyperborea’s Shadizar and Sukhmet also made appearances. One notable interpolation was that the Scarlet Brotherhood made an appearance as the shadowy hand of fallen Quarmall.  The campaign closed with the heroes returning to Lankhmar.
 
The rebooted Lankhmar campaign focused more on character-driven stories and personal drama, which often vibed like a “D&D Telenovela,” but around this time the shift to 2nd edition was taking place and a lot more Lanhkmar materials were being published for D&D. I had also read a lot more thieves world, farfd and gray mouser, and conan stories at this stage. I ran the homebrew stuff (the 1985 book has pages of maps with places to record homebrew notes for locations) while one of my players ran the modules so that I could trot my own characters out every so often.
 
The rebooted game was much truer to the swords and sorcery milieu in general, and Newhon in particular, but we also managed to work in some eldritch and gothic horror elements, which jived really well with Newhon’s “weird.” Beholders, mind-flayers, reanimated flesh golems, necromancers, and the occasional vampire were a thing in this game. Anyhow. That’s the history of my long-term campaign and how it developed (without going into the character's crazy backstories).
 
Next up: What old-school modules were played alongside the homebrew adventures?

Awesome thanks. I was pretty sure I couldn't just sit there for 26 years without someone doing something with it.
 
 
 
Egad.

6e powers haven't changed enough to make them irrelevant.  If you wanted to simulate them through 6e powers, you'd pretty much use the same route as you would have used in 4e.  I'd also recommend the Incomplete Character rules by James Jandebeur, which can be seen in Digital Hero #10 (or on the Wayback Machine here.  He started with the Spirits rules as a basis, looked at what they had in common with Vehicles, Bases, Computers, AI, and so on, and synthesized them into a pretty decent rules package.  

YES! Nearly everything in there looks intriguing. Looks like a lot of D&D convertions (which are both useful and interesting to see someone's take on it), interesting sounding original creatures. Shard sounds like something from Shadow World. Rust Slug? hehe
 
Also the Appendices look very cool and useful. Biomes? Useful bits? Chaos effects? Weird skies? All awesome sounding stuff.

Very cool, I like it. It's interesting to see different types of weather statted up as well as some very bizarre ideas for environments. Could definitely see using this is a sourcebook for other planes; the idea of magical lands hadn't really occurred to me, I find it intriguing.

Both are "official."
 
Fantasy Hero Complete is the "replacement" for 6E, since 6E went out of print and the market didn't justify another print run of color hardbacks. Additionally, some people preferred the all-in-one format of the original 3E Fantasy Hero or the 4E BBB, and a trimmed-down set of rules might appeal more to modern gamers. At least that's what I understand the reasoning to be. The actual rules are the same between 6E and FHC.
 
The Complete books are similar in concept to the old Hero System Basic Rulebook. The HSBR omitted some rules to fit it all into one book, and was criticized for omitting enough "essential" rules as to be unsatisfying to play. The Complete books retain the "complete" rules, but reduce the size by stripping explanatory text to a bare minimum, and removing almost all examples.  For example Fantasy Hero Complete contains 11 monsters, 13 spells, 5 potions, one staff, one armor, one ring, one scroll, one sword... the emphasis is on giving one how-to for each category of thing you might build, but leaving it to you to do the actual building. It doesn't present anything resembling "enough common stuff to get you started" and makes no effort to do so. Half the example monsters are weird and unique things you'd use once in a blue moon, if ever.
 
Fantasy Hero 6E is the opposite, going into great detail on virtually every aspect of fantasy campaign building. Where FHC has old school black and white line art (and not much of it), FH 6e is full color with lavish illustrations and layout. In presentation and content, it is the pinnacle of the Fantasy Hero game line, probably never to be equaled again. Of course the downside is that it is like finding something in an encylopedia. There is a lot of stuff to wade through to find the details. And it still doesn't include magic items, spells, or monsters... those are in add-on books.
 
FHC is everything you need in one minimalist package, but it's all DIY. FH6E is the ultimate plug-and-play reference, almost no DIY needed.
 
As others have noted, if you have 6E hardbacks you won't find anything new in FHC except a few examples on how to build stuff, and of course the legendary "how to build a fantasy campaign" essays. But if you have an older edition of Fantasy Hero you already have this stuff.

Personally I prefer to use FHC, just because it's smaller and easier to find stuff.  I do have a deadtree FH6E but almost never use it, because most of what's in there is not useful for my campaign, and the few things that are useful are hard to find... like a needle in a haystack.  I don't own the 6E grimoire, but the 6E bestiary is useful at least as a starting point.
 
As far as the 6E rules, I prefer very brief explanations for things like skills or powers, because as an experienced GM I can adjudicate things for myself, and actually prefer not to have to look up some official ruling. (I have a hard time ignoring official rules if they exist.) Also my 6E books were expensive and are irreplaceable, and the spines are already breaking, and I prefer to preserve them as long as possible. I keep them around for looking up picky details or options that are not really covered in FHC, but FHC covers 98% of what I actually need in play. I consider DIY a major selling point of Hero and I'm content with a stripped-down toolkit. Another really nice feature of FHC is a very complete set of reference tables, all presented together on 7 pages in an appendix. All the skills, powers, maneuvers, etc. If you know Hero 6E, these tables are all you need to look up stuff during play.
 
Hopefully this information is helpful in deciding what will be useful for you.

In 6E1 page 178 there is an example of exactly what you describe: +40 STR, Reduced END, Only to Lift Objects. Computed as if it were any other power.
 

Yup, Xotl put it together a few years ago after this long discussion. It’s really quite well done. 

Sorry. This PDF posted by @Xotl, who is perhaps the author as well?
 
 
 

Nice witcher write-up.

All I know is the 375 pt elf in my last campaign was tough as nails.

Not even close.  Numbers behave themselves.   A +1 to a target number that you want to roll that or less, is no different that +1 added to the roll that you want to roll a target number or higher.
 
"I need an 11 or less."
"But because of circumstance X, you get +1."
"So I need a 12 or less."
 
"I need to roll 10 or higher."
"But because of circumstance X, you get +1."
"So I add 1 to my roll."
 
The latter is no less intuitive, and for many people, it's more intuitive.
 
With roll-high, you set a single difficulty level, and each character's own modifiers, skill level, and other circumstances are applied to the roll.  With roll-low, each character has his own target number, and then more modifiers may be piled on top of that.
 
The GM decides that every member of the party needs to make a Climbing roll.  With the roll-low system,
Mountaineer Mike has a 14- roll,
Climby McClimberson has a 15- roll, but he's injured so he takes a -3,
Joe Genero has an 11- roll.
Feeble Felix has an 8- roll, but gets a +2 because Mike and Joe are helping him.
And everyone takes an additional -1 because of the strong winds blowing.
 
With a roll-high system, the GM sets the target number at 11, due to the strong wind blowing, so everyone needs an 11 or higher.
Mountaineer Mike has Climbing +3.
Climby McClimberson has Climbing +4, but takes -3 due to injury.
Joe Genero makes an unmodified roll.
Feeble Felix is at -3, but +2 for being assisted = -1.