shuddemell

Nearly as long as I have, but I still have my first edition blue book...

This is more what I am thinking, not really change the mechanics so much, but rather presentation and attach it to an attractive or even popular setting. I believe that very few players want the toolkit, but for those of us who love to world build, it is essential. Yes, both of these can be satisfied with the same rule set, actually with the rule set the way it exists today. This is why I don't believe a major overhaul is necessary or even desirable, but rather things that use that as a base, but gloss over the nuts and bolts in presentation. The 2 volume set of 6E and even CC are the reference materials that the GM uses to world build, but things like Narosia (when it comes out) will be the things that MIGHT popularize Hero. Ragitsu point is well taken as well though, because what you will end up with is power constructs that no one (except the author) can verify if the mechanics aren't spelled out. This isn't necessarily a problem per se, but it will be a challenge to those of us with a desire to tinker with things. Which, btw, I think is exactly what draws most of us to Hero in the first place. We want the full "Snap-on" set of tools, when most are just handing out a generic screwdriver and wrench. It would certainly cause interesting discussions (read arguments and fights) with game masters and rules lawyers... (I would certainly insist on an appendix for settings and splat that details constructions, so that those with the need or desire to know would have the information without having to recreate it)

Hero Designer is the Turbotax of RPG's...

Well put hyper-man. Scott my memory was hazy on the timing of Fuzion... Seems longer but is obviously just the cobwebs in my brain...

Actually, my thinking on the complexity of Gurps has to do with the way they handle things, too many exception rules and corner cases spread among way too many books. Otherwise, the system overall is very good. Yeah the vehicle book required a cube or cube root if memory serves, not that it poses a problem to me, but it does put some people off.

Didn't say it didn't sell at all, but I did say it doesn't approach the coffers of PF and D&D and it does not..I even call it relatively successful. Your response is somewhat hyperbolic. My impression of SW is that some of it was too abstract or glossed for my taste, but it really wasn't the point I was making at all. Fuzion didn't feel like Hero to me at the time, your perception of it notwithstanding. Just because you feel it played exactly like Hero doesn't mean I or anyone else shares that opinion, then again they may, I just don't. A single roll mechanism does not a system make. I am hardly a Fuzion hater, but I didn't like it and probably still wouldn't, though if a new version were released I might look at it. Wouldn't buy it sight unseen, but would give it a shot provided someone was running it around here, otherwise there is hardly any point in it at all. And that is my real point, most people won't switch, unless someone else runs it, they like it and can get some use out of the game.

One issue with this is that, when they replace the planks, they put in ones the same size that fit, not attempt to fit a sheet of plywood into the spot for a 2x4... So to answer ambiguously, yes it is the same and yet it is not....

Yeah, I get where you are coming from with this. The reason a lot of people (especially us grognards ) compare it to Hero is because Hero was a subset of it at one time. It left a bad taste in many people's mouths at the time. Being the early 90's (if memory serves) it was quite a while ago, but the real complaint I (and many others had) was that it didn't really feel like Hero at all to me, character creation was a nightmare (this coming from a dedicated Hero-phile...) and when played it didn't feel like Hero at all. My personal opinion is that Steve Long saved Hero from the ignominious death the Fuzion suffered. So yeah, a lot of us remember it less fondly to be sure. As far as doing better today, I doubt it. Not because of the system per se, but because of the niche market that is being served. There is only so much market share to go around, and even ones that seem relatively successful (say Savage Worlds) are never going to approach the popularity or ubiquity of the big two. Honestly, around here, I know of no one that plays SW, or many of the other excellent but "tiny" systems there are. I would jump at a chance to play Runequest again, or even Gurps if there was enough to play with. Almost everyone plays PF or D&D. Now yes, I kind of live in the boonies by many people's standards, but if I am going to play in the weeds, I am going to play what I love. Certainly, there are probably some good ideas in Fuzion, as there are in most games (I will even say I got some good ideas from Aftermath, and most people considered it unplayable due to weird complexity. That is part of my issue with education and math, everyone calls something complex when they haven't tried it, and that is ignorant in the extreme, and again we are back to excuses... All that notwithstanding though leads me to believe that you cannot change enough players or recruit enough new players with Hero or with any of a dozen other systems to make them successful. If by successful, we are talking about the brand/game surviving, if we change it too much, it hasn't really survived at all, it fell to the LCD. Thanks though for challenging my assumptions about game mechanics and allowing me to look at them from a fresh perspective. I won't say my position has changed much, but at least it got me thinking, and that more than anything is what we all need.

I find this attitude a bit arrogant, that it is a mental block (I read stubborness or psychosis) rather than a well considered attitude, and that us old folks were unable to deal with this supposed innovation, as if everything improves with time. By and large, I don't see people getting anymore savvy than they were then, and honestly I see the level of education and mathematical skills in the general population going down, not up.

Yeah, I understand that is not the intent, but I really don't find Hero hard to understand and am puzzled at those who do. What I do think is that so many of the proposed changes are either sort of "cosmetic" (for example - roll high, roll low) or of such scope that it isn't Hero anymore. Then again, I am overall pretty happy with Hero the way it is. I like a toolbox that allows me to build what I want, if I want it prebuilt to someone else's standards, I would play the more "canned" systems. That is my preference, but taking a system that is intended to be used the way Hero is, and dumbing it down to the point is will appeal to the LCD is another matter entirely, and in this case, I don't think everyone can have their cake and eat too... so to speak.

Sadly, it seems to me that the necessity of having every stat correspond to some given increase is often a min/maxer sort of thing anyway. Once again, too, the MOST popular systems don't have this and they get plenty of players. Seems like a non-issue, not an issue of "grognards" holding up progress. I too wonder, really how much influence any of us really have on the final decisions. Plus it would seem to me that those that might complain loudest might also be those with the most invested, so it is understandable... My question is simple, is a complete retool of the game, essentially making it Anti-Hero getting any of us where we want to go? BTW, I agree completely with NuSoard Graphite, was not impressed by Fuzion either... stopped playing Hero until 5th came out.

One thing about the term grognard (originally meaning old soldier) used to mean something like this... Someone who enjoys playing older war-games or roleplaying games, or older versions of such games, when newer ones are available. If you mean by that, that we prefer to play the older games just because they are older, it does not apply to me. If you mean by that, that I prefer to play a game that I find better for whatever reason, even if it is an older edition, then yes I am a grognard. But you will note that I am playing 6E, and not FRED, so that alone denies the idea that I will not move on if there is an improvement. With Hero, in particular, I find that our constituency is very accepting of ideas, if they deem them good ones.. though there is often disagreement over what is good or not.

Stacie, I agree that the presentation could always be better, and perception is 9/10's of the problem at a certain level. Presentation, especially given the idea that you are looking for a redesign based on appearance has the large problem that it requires a lot of money to do that. If you look at what Derek did with Champions Complete, he did an exceptional job removing a lot of the extra examples that added a lot of air to the page count, but it was done on a budget. Everyone would love to be able to reproduce the book with great art, paper, with great authors writing the color text to make it just so. That all takes money, time and lots of both. I work as professional graphic designer and prepress technician, so I know what it takes to get things printed. In the past 3 years paper costs have increased over 70%. Also, if you look at the market share, based on sales numbers, only Pathfinder (and as a result has tons of money behind it) is really doing well at this moment, also it should be noted with D&D and all the rest that NONE of them have really innovated after their initial design, even those that completely redesigned at some point (Runequest comes to mind, and a great system at that) still are essentially the same system, with perhaps the exception of 4E D&D.. and that was received so poorly it almost tanked the brand. All the rest of the systems are essentially niche productions, and unfortunately our niche is tiny. I also get that you were "spitballing" ideas, and from an academic point of view that is useful, but other than that, a lot of what you suggest would require such an overhaul, you might as well start from scratch. Bigger numbers really don't mean harder math, so also a perception issue, and as a no brainer it only applies to those whose viewpoint on the math is uninformed. Heck, with software and calculators, these people don't even need to understand the math, but just push the buttons. I personally, far prefer having the math, rather than book upon book of tables, which is primarily a tactic to increase page count and make more product. Ultimately, the greatest strength of Hero... its ability to craft anything and everything, make your sandbox just so is also its greatest weakness.. you have to craft it all, and understand how that is done. Very few people are willing to do that. Changing this mechanic here or there won't change that fact. Gurps is also a good example of a good game system, but their mechanic hasn't really changed that much, and Gurps has an image of complexity that is well earned as well. Their main strength is the volume of publishing of source material, of which I have bought a good bit, not because I play GURPS anymore, but because it is typically quite good for general use. No, I also get that you like Hero, and perhaps my comment was a bit harsh, and I didn't really intend it to be. You obviously wouldn't spend the time you have discussing it if it didn't mean something to you, so I apologize if I offended you in that. I am just saying that only if you remove what makes Hero the game it is will it address a large portion of the criticisms of the system and then spend years upon years of dispelling the off-perceptions will it make a difference, and even then, what have you got? Lowest common denominator... I mean, honestly D&D and Pathfinder are flawed and broken in so many ways, that if people were only going to play the best system, it would be neither of these (keeping in mind that best is highly subjective). They play them because they are the most POPULAR and have the most money behind them. It is quite analogous to the film industries, Hollywood by and large produces tripe, and many independent and foreign films are of much higher quality, and yet the world consumes Hollywood's output at a margin that is hard to rationalize if quality were the issue.

Exactly this, though since I have changed my mechanic to 7+STAT/3, including perception rolls, this helps with this issue as well.

Stacie, a large number of the changes you suggest really are just cosmetic or worse. Consider condensing the STR as you suggest, you actually make it less granular, not really improving anything. Changing the names of the OCV/DCV, how is that better in any measurable way? Other than perhaps it makes more sense to you for whatever reason... BTW, there isn't any figuring to be done concerning where the breakpoints occur, it should be obvious, dividing by 5 will give you breakpoints at every 2.5 points (simply because division gives you a rounding point (.5) at that point). If you divide by 3 it is at every 1.5 points. The math is simple, shifting it around or hiding it in ranks it doesn't really change it, it just makes it less obvious to the less mathematically savvy. You also say characters would be cheaper like that matters at all. Really, the amount of points matters little except in comparison to other characters using the same system. So if all characters are cheaper, what have you gained? Nothing really. The character point cost is a subjective metric within the system to maintain a semblance of balance. Larger numbers of points actually allows more fine tuning of the cost than does a lesser number of points. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but based on all the things about Hero that seem to bother you (and aren't really any better in other major systems) I would almost have to ask why you play Hero at all. It almost seems like change for change sake, rather than a particular improvement. Lest anyone think otherwise, I am not against changing it to make it better, but I think the changes have to be considered on a more global basis, i.e. not just change any particular peeve that someone might have, but rather if it will improve game play in a way that makes it more fun or at least more precise.

I think that Lucius hits the nail on the head in at least one instance, it is the percerption of complexity rather than actual complexity. From what I have seen though, that is their EXCUSE for not playing, not necessarily a valid REASON. As Hero is a toolkit, any of these changes are possible under the current structure. In fact, in my heroic games, I have tried adjustments to how skills are calculated to 7+STAT/3 or 5+STAT/2 (BTW if you limit stats to the 3-18 range, you can use the stat as a straight roll, making every point significant... but this makes anything over 18 problematic, trading one set of problems for another really), making the stats have more breakpoints in the lower regions. I also have tried getting rid of the killing mechanic by just using the same number of dice as the normal attack and applying defenses appropriately. I also set all my base rolls at 10+ rather than 11+. It can be interesting and fun to try these variations, but aside from the last, the remainder are gimmicky and really don't simplify or make the game significantly better. Any game that divides a stat to arrive at another number will have breakpoints. This too, is an EXCUSE rather than a REASON. I expect that if you got honest answers from current players of other systems, the vast majority would have to admit they WON'T change their system regardless. Most won't admit this, because of course, everyone wants to look reasonable and open, but with most things in life, they prefer what they are used to rather that what is or at least might be better. Changing Hero to suit them is a dog without teeth, because even if changed, it likely won't gain a bigger market share or even better notoriety. The lie that is the "complexity" of Hero compared to other games has already done its damage, and likely cannot be overcome, except by running games that these people want to play in. Settings, competent and fun game masters are the best way to pioneer for Hero. I had hoped the franchise of MHI would help the brand some due to that, but I think the snowball that is D&D/PF is already gargantuan and its momentum unstoppable. Pathfinder was a fluke, primarily because it really is a differently polished D&D clone, and it hit at a time that could exploit the disappointment with 4E. In other words, change Hero to your hearts content if it makes it a better game for YOU but you won't convert the unwashed masses...

On the other hand, canned powers, et al are fine, and I think products like Narosia (if it ever is finished), The Fantasy Codex, and the like go a long way to making it plug and play, and I don't see a problem with that at all. Not everyone needs to see the nuts and bolts, BUT once again, if it feels like D&D and looks like D&D, why would anyone change when they are already playing the real thing, rather than a come lately retool of Hero. I just don't see it happening, wish it would, but in my experience it is just as likely as monkeys shooting out my butt.

True enough, we don't have to throw out the bathwater, but watering Hero to the point it isn't Hero does just that. I just don't believe even simplification will do what everyone seems to think it will. Because, at a certain point, people are just going to say, what is the advantage of this over say M&M or ICONS, or whatever. Honestly, what Derek did with CC was quite good, and from what I have seen, those that complain about Hero aren't going to try it now that it has gone from 700+ pages, to 200 or so pages. After all, if you look at it, D&D, PF and many others have way bigger page counts if you count all the splat everyone want to use. I don't think it is page count at all. You aren't going to convert those that play another system, have thousands invested in it and all their friends play with just simplification. You aren't going to convert them at all. And though they are willing to do some math, for some reason the simple fractions of Hero flabbergast many to the point I weep for the dismal state of their mathematical skills. It is no wonder the US has fallen so far behind in the sciences. What will likely happen, and has with some already, is that they stick to the version of Hero they like. I know a few folks that absolutely refuse to play 6th Edition... just because there are no figured stats anymore and no comeliness. So radical changes may attract a few noobs but likely in the numbers it will stop grognards from playing the current version. I will say this, HERO is no more complicated than PF or D&D, it is just complicated in a different way... that cannot change without changing its basic nature, and then it isn't Hero.

Obviously, that would be a subjective measure. I mean for some, a good portion could go, and some not. My thoughts on this issue have come to the point that I really don't think that the type of game Hero is will appeal to many neophyte gamers, for a variety of reasons. The main issue, from my perspective as a gaming curmudgeon, that the new crowd wants it easy and spoon fed to them to play. If that satisfies them great, but I sincerely doubt Hero as we know it will ever fit the bill. God forbid they have to do math or read more than a page or two to play. The fast-food media culture have changed expectations of entertainment a lot since I began gaming in the 70's. We were willing to work for our fun, and though there are still some that are, for the most part, everybody seems to want everything pre-canned. It explains (to me at least) to a large degree why Pathfinder started kicking D&D. The adventure paths were a pre-canned path to 10-12th level bad-assery which didn't exist when I began. I mean, my favorite AD&D character go to 13th level eventually, but only after about 6-7 years of consistent play every other weekend, and we all worked hard for it, especially the DM. Now they just follow the numbers and viola! It is the difference between paint by numbers and actually learning to paint... worlds of difference, but the superficial gloss appeals to many. The granularity issue on the other hand is easy to fix without really "breaking" either the rules or the spirit of Hero, but it would involve more rules and they are too complicated by the neophytes standard already... You can't please everyone...

Well, these are certainly the bulk of the arguments I have heard concerning Hero, however if all of those were addressed, it would hardly be Hero anymore, at least by my reckoning. Personally, the game that would come from this, I wouldn't want to GM, or likely even play. To appease everyone, you would hardly please anyone. Just the way it goes, but I hardly think turning the game into something completely different would "save" Hero, maybe it would save the financial entity and company, but the game system as I see it would be kaput. This approach is not only throwing out the baby with the bath water, but hitting it with the tub to boot.

I would certainly be interesed in this project. To reiterate a previous question, is there a way to get some of the old issues for comparison, style, et al?

Chris, Just bought this yesterday, and so far looks great. I would eventually like a copy with a cover though...

Sorry, if you look in the fourth paragraph, I allow for -2 for each attempted additional spell. So I don't limit it specifically, but rather let the odds take care of it. Note that the magery score can be made higher to make multiple spells more likely to be successful. I probably included too much info, but wanted to give it some context.

Here's how I set up my high fantasy magic system: Any spell casting character MUST have a Mana Pool (defined as an END reserve) to be able to cast spells. If their mana pool is depleteted, the END of the spell is doubled. It should also be noted that if a character’s mana pool is drained to zero or suppressed to zero, they CANNOT cast spells until they have at least 1 point back. This is different from it being depeleted by the character, wherein they can still use spells, albeit at double endurance. This isn’t true if the character has innate magical abilities, only if they cast spells. Therefore, for example, a dragon’s flight, though probably magical in nature, does not require a mana pool (it draws from the creatures END as normal). If, however, the dragon knows magic, those spells draw from the mana pool, and from personal END at 2X END Cost. The mana pool is built using a supplied prefab, and the modifiers cannot be changed without my expressed permission. A character must have the Power Skill - Magery to cast any spells. This indicates their basic proficiency with magic. You may buy familiarity with this skill, but it makes for a poor mage. Each individual spell is a skill, using the (KS) knowledge skill guidelines. Skill with an individual spell can NEVER exceed the character’s Magery skill. As such your Magery skill determines your maximum proficiency in spell casting. The aforementioned Mana Pool is built as an END Reserve, which can have no greater than (Magery • EGO/2) points of END in it. Therefore, if a character had Magery of 13-, and an EGO of 12-, then the mana pool would top out at (13 • 12)/2 = 78 points of END. It is afforded a -1/2 limitation that it may only be used to cast spells. You may of course, buy less than the maximum, but never more. The character may not cast any spell with a real point cost of greater than (Magery + INT). Typically, extra time, components, gestures and incantations can be used to bring the spell to a manageable level, but real cost MUST be less than or equal to (Magery + INT). Your Magery roll may be used to change certain aspects of a spell, especially if you wish to truncate it somewhat. You may use your Magery skill to eliminate the need for gestures, incantations, and extra time. To do this, your magery skill must be in excess of your skill with the spell, and if it is, for each element you attempt to eliminate, you must subtract an additional -2. This includes casting multiple spells, each new one is at a -2, and failure on the roll requires a reroll for already continuing spells. For example, let us say we have a mage with 18- Magery, and skill with a simple Spellbolt of 15-. Now, as the spellbolt requires both gestures and incantations, and our intrepid mage is bound and gagged, he must somehow manage it with these hindrances. A spellbolt has 20 Active Points and 10 Real Point cost. So as such he would normally need to roll 15 - 1 = 14-, to cast the spell, but since he is removing 2 limitations, he must roll first 18 - 4 = 14- to make the modification, and then 15 - 1 - 4 = 10- to sucessfully cast under these circumstances. IF you use your magery skill in this fashion, the END cost of the spell will be at FULL value, based on ACTIVE POINTS/5. Reduced END or Zero END advantages notwitstanding. Cantrips — If a spell has an active point cost less than one-half of the Mages Magery Score, it may be cast as a cantrip, with no endurance cost. The mage still must make a Magery roll, but it is at +2. Divine magic works in a very similar fashion, substituting Divine Favor for Mana Pool, Power Skill: Priest of Diety X for Magery, KS: Prayer for KS: Spell, and PRE for INT. The primary differences will be the modifiers on the prayers, which will differ somewhat from spell modifiers. Limitations will be things such as “In accordance with dieties will” or “As long as cleric is maintaining proper behavior and ethics appropriate to diety”.

Tasha is definitely right about Good Reader, it is WAY more robust than iTunes, plus it gives you a fine manager and other tools which make it well worth the $5 price tag... I too have all my active gaming library on my ipad and it makes my gaming load equivalent to a small bookbag, rather than a trunk full...