shuddemell

None necessary. While no product is perfect, there were plenty of good things to mine and ideas to ponder. I, for one, don't regret what I spent and look forward to your new effort.

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...

I want to thank everyone for their patience with this project, its been years I have worked on it and been trying to promote and keep people interested.  I know that its tough to keep interest up in a product line when its so long between updates and releases.  I hope to have another out by the end of the year (a adventure module) and the following year I'll be working on putting out the Players Guide for making characters and play in the world.  Then next on the agenda is another adventure, and then the Master Guide for running games in the Jolrhos setting.  Down the road are a treasure book and another volume of the bestiary planned for release.  I hope I can get these all done, and done in a timely manner.  When its all said and done, people will have a complete campaign setting with adventures to play in it ready to pick up and run with.
 
Somewhere in the mix I want to get that Champions Begins project done and a Fantasy Hero Begins one as well.  Thankfully unlike the Jolrhos setting, other people can pitch in and help with writing and building those.

I have to agree with Lucius overall. There really is no benefit to adjusting NCM. While NCM can be used as a way to reign in out of control stats, overall, you should pay for what you get. Yes, some races will cost more than others due to conception, but that is as it should be. It's essentially an accounting trick to use NCM in that, if you use them to full effect you get what you pay for and otherwise you are penalized for "potential". Seems easier just to set campaign guidelines (and enforce them), rather than fiddling with the numbers that, in one way or another will be unfair.

Use Lee Van Cleef's "The Master" for your swordsman...
 

I have to agree with Lucius overall. There really is no benefit to adjusting NCM. While NCM can be used as a way to reign in out of control stats, overall, you should pay for what you get. Yes, some races will cost more than others due to conception, but that is as it should be. It's essentially an accounting trick to use NCM in that, if you use them to full effect you get what you pay for and otherwise you are penalized for "potential". Seems easier just to set campaign guidelines (and enforce them), rather than fiddling with the numbers that, in one way or another will be unfair.

I have to agree with Lucius overall. There really is no benefit to adjusting NCM. While NCM can be used as a way to reign in out of control stats, overall, you should pay for what you get. Yes, some races will cost more than others due to conception, but that is as it should be. It's essentially an accounting trick to use NCM in that, if you use them to full effect you get what you pay for and otherwise you are penalized for "potential". Seems easier just to set campaign guidelines (and enforce them), rather than fiddling with the numbers that, in one way or another will be unfair.

Here's one from left field .... "Nate & Hayes"

Only because Batman hangs on to the kryptonite and will use it when the man of steel gets too big for his britches...