Chris Goodwin

Your +5" of Running should have an END cost of 1 (3e p. 32), unless you're marking the total END cost for her total 11" Running, which would be 2.
 
I really ought to try to work some more on my 3rd edition rules template for Hero Designer.  That would probably prove helpful! 

If it were the case that there were a rule stating "Only characters who have been formally trained in Acrobatics may take the Acrobatics Skill" then you'd have a point.
 
But when you say "In the current HERO System rules Peter Parker would only have the "untrained" Acrobatics skill" you are simply mistaken. There is no rule stating "Peter Parker can't have the Acrobatics Skill." Nor does having that skill signify "training" necessarily. Having the Skill means you can do acrobatics. Maybe you can do acrobatics because you are an olympic gymnast or a circus acrobat. Or maybe you can do acrobatics because you were bitten by a radioactive spider.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Maybe I have Breakfall because I've fallen off a palindromedary so often.
 

It could be done with 4e, 5e or 6e, and it was, at least to a large extent, 1e through 3e.
 
Make ACTUAL GAMES that use the Hero System as their engine.  Take that system, with its array of dials and switches and possible ranges of ability, and publish a game that uses the system - that sets the dials and the switches to create the feel desired for the specific game, and presents only those aspects of the rules which are needed to run that game.
 
Perhaps we want a Fantasy game.  It will be Heroic.  So we set our starting characters at 175 points, and 50 points of complications.  Done.  NO OTHER OPTIONS.  You can choose to use different CP, but our game does not.
 
What should their characteristics be?  Perhaps we state outright that no PC can have stats higher than a 20 in any primary characteristic, that few would ever have less than an 8, and that most would have half their characteristics (at most) above 15, and no more than 1 or 2 above 18.   Maybe some races are 3 points higher in one stat and 2 points lower in two others (or what have you).  The point is that we MAKE A DECISION and that is how this game is played.
 
Similarly, we set standards for the secondary stats like defenses and SPD.
 
Maybe we impose greater restrictions - characters cannot have more than 15 in any Primary and similarly set caps for each secondary.  They may then take a single Race template, and up to two Profession templates.  Elves are Agile (+3 DEX), Rogues are Agile (+3 DEX) and Acrobats are Agile (+3 DEX), so an Elf who is both a Rogue and an Acrobat, and buys 15 DEX as a base, can have a 24 DEX.  But none of these templates are especially Hardy, so the best CON he may have is a 15 (maybe some races or professions even have a reduced characteristic).  Maybe you can have as many Professions as you can pay for.
 
We set Skills, and perhaps a starting character may buy only base skills (no extra bonuses), so if you did not invest in DEX, your best agility skill will be 11-.  Some may be in Professions, and maybe we allow for up to X skill levels (or maybe starting characters only get skill levels from Races and Professions).  Perhaps we rename or remove some skills, and set parameters on others.
 
Let's add some Perks and Talents which might be part of those templates, or could be acquired separately.
 
Now, we probably want some Powers, but perhaps we do not call them this.  Maybe we have Extraordinary Abilities, Supernatural Abilities and Spells.  Maybe we have more than one kind of spell.  Perhaps you can only buy pre-fabs (in fixed amounts, or variable amounts - e.g. you decide how many d6 your FlameBolt will do, but a Mystic Shield is always 4 rPD, 6 rED).  Maybe you need specific professions to purchase from certain lists.  We also define our magic system here.
 
Now, if all Wizard Spells require a Wizard Staff, Gestures and Incantations, we don't need to say that in every wizard spell - we just apply those limitations.   Maybe the occasional Wizard Spell can be cast without an Incantation (price it that way, and specify that it is one of those rare exceptions).  Perhaps very skilled casters can overcome these limits (powers built with naked advantages).  No need to spell out the builds.  They could always go in an appendix, or online, but that's not essential.
 
Ditto complications - maybe we remove some we dislike for this game (e.g., no Hunteds; the PCs will make their enemies as they go).
 
We provide the core rules - but maybe there is no Radar in our magical realm (so we leave that sense group out).  Perhaps Blindsense is common, so we write that up using Detect and include it. 
 
We include the combat maneuvers we want, and exclude those we don't.  Perhaps our game will use velocity-based DCV, so we include those rules, and vehicles and mounts, so those rules stay.  No Bases though - PC's don't get to buy a castle.  Maybe we'll include them in a later supplement.  Include those combat rules we wish to use - maybe some maneuvers are not in our game.  Maybe there are no martial arts - simulate them with skill levels, Limited bonuses to CVs and/or DCs, etc.
 
Now, toggle the switches - either we will use wounding or we leave it out.  Same choices for hit locations, Impairing, Disabling, Knockdown/back, Bleeding, Critical Hits - at the extreme, maybe we implement the "ignore STUN" option.  Maybe we include Interposing. 
 
Perhaps we decide characters never recover in combat (reprice Recovery as it is for BOD only, or remove it entirely; a few minutes' rest restores all STUN and END, but running out in combat means you are out).  Maybe we remove END.  Unless we use Long-Term End, we remove those rules as well.  We choose the model of Pushing to be used, and that is the only model in the game.
 
Some environmental effects, like radiation and zero gravity, are not intended for our game, so we leave them out.  Others reflect only those elements relevant - we don't need lasers or electrical outlets, but we have lightning bolts and flaming oil and torches.
 
Maybe we exclude underwater for another supplement, or perhaps we deliberately leave out things like pressure, the bends, etc. - those don't happen in this magical world.
 
Clearly, we will need weapons, armor and maybe rules for magical gear.
 
The point, of course, is that this is not "A system to build any game you want" or even "a system to design your own fantasy game".
 
It is ONE Fantasy game, powered by the Hero System.  You want to do some customizing?  Well, pick up the full system rules and customize to your heart's content.  But our game will stick with the rule book, and any supplements we may decide to publish later.

I don't see why we need to cede the "lower end" to GURPS.  I'm telling you, with the right set of options -- all of which already exist in the 4e, 5e, and 6e core rulebooks  -- we can handle gritty, non-cinematic stuff just fine.  I've played in many a campaign that did.  

No, 3rd.     
 
Maybe two "incomplete" versions.  Champions and Hero?  Champions Incomplete would have a cut-down skill system, but a full set of Powers, and combat options optimized for supers.  Everything you need for supers, but not much more.  Hero Incomplete would have the full set of Skills, assume Normal Characteristic Maxima, and the advanced combat options (Hit Locations, Impairing/Disabling, Bleeding, etc.) with maybe a cut down set of Powers optimized for fantasy.  Follow that up with encyclopedic references: equivalents of 6e1 and 6e2, Ultimate-type books (maybe for Skills, Powers (with a focus on building "power systems" -- magic, psionics, tech including high, low, and alternate such as steampunk), maybe a book of profession and race templates suitable for modern, fantasy, and SF).  Make "final" versions of the genre books with little to no game mechanics, then put all of the game mechanical parts (characters, power builds, NPCs, and so on) into separate supplemental volumes.  
 
 
Agreed 100%.  I've been hoping for years that the HERO System would go OGL, and we really, really do need a content partner system like DrivethruRPG does with Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, and others.  

I don't see why we need to cede the "lower end" to GURPS.  I'm telling you, with the right set of options -- all of which already exist in the 4e, 5e, and 6e core rulebooks  -- we can handle gritty, non-cinematic stuff just fine.  I've played in many a campaign that did.  

I am close to having the hero system supported and ready to release for TTS.
 
Have most probably 2-3 things to finish.
 
 

Yesterday Brennall and I spent time on Discord & TTS to see all the work he has done.  I have to say I am very impressed.  He is very close to creating an extremely usable/viable way of playing Champions (any Hero genre really) using TTS that really could pave the way to bringing new players into the game.  They would only need a good GM, who knows the Hero System pretty well.

I don't see why we need to cede the "lower end" to GURPS.  I'm telling you, with the right set of options -- all of which already exist in the 4e, 5e, and 6e core rulebooks  -- we can handle gritty, non-cinematic stuff just fine.  I've played in many a campaign that did.  

I don't see why we need to cede the "lower end" to GURPS.  I'm telling you, with the right set of options -- all of which already exist in the 4e, 5e, and 6e core rulebooks  -- we can handle gritty, non-cinematic stuff just fine.  I've played in many a campaign that did.  

I always liked the idea of OGLing the rules.  One could argue that the success of D&D is at least in part to the magnificent PR stunt that was OGL.  We need an online SRD to go along with it and a genuine effort on the part of DoJ to support fan made content as vigorously as Wizards do.  That means creating channels to distribute and possibly peer review fan made content.
 
I personally would love to have the ability to embed an SRD into the HERO System Mobile app without risking legal retribution.  It would open up a lot of possibilities for developers like me, granted this is a selfish request but I think it's worth risking looking selfish this time.
 
I feel like there needs to be zero or as low as possible barriers for entry for players, GMs and game designers to get into HERO.  Right now, the perceived barrier is high because if the 2 tomes and lack of a baseline setting in either.  It's intimidating, but at least the * Complete series of books makes it better.
 
On the topic of settings I also feel it's imperative to take an opinionated stance that this system is about supers at it's core.  Don't get me wrong, I love the systems ability to scale up or down and to suit the genre but this game was made for supers and does supers so well that it would foolish to not use this as the selling point.  To put it another way, make the Champions setting the default setting that ships with the rules.  
 
In summation: OGL the core rules (just enough to cover the basics) and publish them online for free, make an SRD, create and sell a Champions core book, create APG and the tomes and sell those marketing the APGs to players and the tomes to GMs. 

Samo Hung?
 
That fella could do _insane_ things, even when morbidly obese, and well into his golden years.
 
Again, choreography, but the fact that he was doing all that stuff with the body of an elderly Wal Martian is mind-numbing.
 
 

A question I was getting at earlier, but never really articulated -- my fault -- was:  does the Cover maneuver cause someone to freeze and go to 0 DCV, does it presuppose they're already freezing and 0 DCV, or does it even care whether or not they're at 0 DCV?  
 
The version in Danger International seemed to assume that if you successfully used the maneuver, the target would drop to 0 DCV.  Which may or may not be relevant to what it does now, except that we're assuming that, at some point, the target does drop to 0 DCV.  
 
But... if you're attempting to Cover someone who is at full DCV and attempting to avoid being hit, then you're not, strictly speaking, attempting to Cover them.  You're attempting to attack them.  
 
It seems to me that the essential components of Cover are: the ability to roll the Attack Roll before actually using the attack, the target's inability to resist or avoid the attack except for in a particular set of circumstances, and the target already being at 0 DCV.  
 
The target's inability to resist or avoid the attack seems to be baked into the maneuver... but we see plenty of fiction where the attacker does in fact either miss their Covered target, or their target is able to do something to either escape or turn the tables on the attacker.  (How many times does the covered target, within HTH range, stomp the attacker's foot, elbow them in the gut, or otherwise throw them off?)
 
The target being at 0 DCV... the Cover maneuver always has, and in my opinion should, assume that the attacker yells "Freeze!" or something similar.  The appropriate thing to do here would be to roll a Presence Attack to see if the target in fact freezes, but that doesn't seem to be specified in any version of Covered, from first to now, with the exception of the one in Danger International.  (All of the other historical versions are more or less the same from first edition to now.)  
 
The other question that seems to be asked is: what if someone uses a Power to attempt to interfere?  The maneuver doesn't specify; we can always fall back on the trio of common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects.  The maneuver never existed in any version of Champions prior to 4th, so I would guess that it's not necessarily a superheroic level thing to happen.  Does it happen often in superhero games?  I know it's reasonably common for a villain to say "Freeze, or Lois Lane gets it!" and to hold her covered, but that's between NPCs, so is it something we really need a mechanic to cover?  Characters who can bounce bullets aren't likely to be fazed when a thug or a cop points a gun at them and says "Freeze!"  (The scene from The Incredibles where Bob and Lucius are facing down either security guards or cops, and they tell Lucius to "Freeze!", is a good one to note.)  
 
The additional questions I have are as follows.  Why does resolution happen at the time the maneuver is declared, rather than at the time it is resolved?  Does the attacker know that the Attack Roll is successful (from their in-universe standpoint, whether they hit or not)?  A further question is that, often, in non-superheroic genres, a 17 or 18 rolled on an Attack Roll with a weapon that has the Real Weapon Limitation means that some kind of mishap occurs: the gun jams, or something similar.  Does the attacker know that that will happen when he pulls the trigger?  I would suggest that the attacker doesn't know either whether the attack will hit or not, or whether the mishap will occur, when he pulls the trigger, and that -- therefore -- the Attack Roll should not be rolled when the attack is declared, but rather when it is launched, triggered, or otherwise used.  And, to me, an Attack Roll that you roll at the time the attack is resolved is an ordinary attack, rather than an attempt at the Cover maneuver.  Rolling the Attack Roll before the attack is triggered seems to me, from a meta standpoint, to give the player or GM information they logically shouldn't have and shouldn't be able to base their further actions on.  
 
All of the questions I asked above tend to lead me to a conclusion: the Cover maneuver either shouldn't exist or shouldn't do what it claims to do.  I'm far from certain myself what it's intended to do, nor whether what it claims to do is in fact what it's intended to do, nor am I certain that anyone else in the discussion is any more certain than I am.  
 
My feeling is that the Cover Maneuver, in order to work as written, must either follow a Presence Attack to cause the target to freeze and drop to 0 DCV, or must be used against a target who is already at 0 DCV.  Also, that the attacker won't know whether his attack will hit (nor any additional effects, such as the gun jamming, etc.) until and unless he actually "pulls the trigger", whether that's an actual trigger for a gun, or however the attack is loosed, therefore the Attack Roll shouldn't be rolled until then.  And, given that fiction is full of plenty of cases where the attack is somehow interrupted, avoided, Dodged or Blocked, etc., we shouldn't privilege Cover over any other attack maneuver. 
 
If the answers to these questions were obvious, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

It's not "it always hits" though.  You roll to hit when you first point the attack at them, and then if it hits you get to "save" the damage until such time as you decide to inflict it.  The current verbiage doesn't say anything about whether the target is resisting, and in fact in the example in 6e2 the target is at full DCV.  Which to me doesn't make sense; to have someone Covered, they need to not be moving, resisting, or otherwise at full DCV.  Or at least willing to freeze, which is where the PRE+10 Presence Attack comes in.
 
If someone is at full DCV, and they're ignoring your order to "Freeze!", and you're trying an attack roll against them, you're not properly attempting the Cover maneuver against them.  You're attempting an ordinary attack against them.  

To answer your questions...    I'd say generally speaking, these are good ideas.  However, if I were you, I would pick up the HERO System Equipment Guide if you have not done so already, in order to avoid reinventing too many wheels.  There's a section in there on modern firearms, including builds, ammunition types, scopes and other targeting aids, etc. etc. etc., statted up with point costs and so on, along with many, many optional rules.  

Aftermath is indeed the reigning grand champion of slow combat.   

Hero combat may be slow, but it's also the only RPG I've ever been able to play entire sessions of -- including combat -- without anyone at the table having to crack a book open, and that's also without using a GM's screen.  Never seen that in any other game.  (As a counterexample, with my D&D 5e group, I've used Hero Lab, which is character generation software for multiple systems, including D&D 5e (but not including the HERO System).  It gives the option for printing out the full text of character special abilities and spells.  Even in that game, despite having that complete text printed out, we've still had to refer to the books multiple times during a session, including noncombat time.  When I create D&D characters, or use pregens, I go through the character sheet and write down the page numbers for everything I may need to refer to during the game, so that I don't need to go flipping through to look for them.  I'm willing to assume the difference between them is familiarity, but despite a huge gap in actually playing any Hero System game between 2009 and 2018, and very sporadically between 2003 and 2009, I was able to jump right back in like I'd been playing weekly.  
 
Hero may have a lot of exception-based play, but it's all logical exceptions, organized within subsystems and frameworks.  For instance, the combat maneuvers may provide exceptions to some rules, but they're small enough to be expressed with keywords -- things like Abort, Prone, +v/10 damage, and the like -- and modifiers to OCV or DCV.  Those have also always been written on the standard character sheets, so everyone has them to refer to, along with blank spaces to write down your specialized maneuvers, or for the software to print them from export.  
 

What I would do with a hypothetical Seventh Edition is avoid it like the plague.
 
By this point the rules have been combed through, deconstructed, revised, game-balanced, clarified, optionized, and hair-split to within an inch of their lives. There are no more pressing problems in the system that need to be addressed. Any further modifications would simply reflect the personal opinions and preferences of whoever was given responsibility for creating a new edition; and we all already modify the RAW to suit our preferences anyway. For alternative ways of doing things, we have earlier editions to draw from.
 
I see no need and feel no desire to invest time and money learning yet another iteration of Hero.

https://youtu.be/zrJpNR9AkMs
 
Next video detailing the development of a Hero System module for Tabletop Simulator. This episode is about scenery.

I am sticking with "it depends".  The team can lose, with the game still being fun.  This is especially so in most Supers games, where "we lost the battle" tends not to mean "we lost the war" or "the characters are dead - make new ones".  If losing is never fun, then the Talisman games we used to play, 8-10 of us, back in the day, must have been 80% to 90% no fun, as there could only be one winner.  Yet everyone (even the guys who just never won a game) wanted to play again next time.
 
In RPG's, it can be pretty tough to define "losing", as the game goes on regardless.
 
 
First, I will note that this did not happen in a storytelling game.  It happened in a "zap, you're dead" variety of a typical Gaming-focused RPG.  "Oops, you did not make perfect tactical decisions so you are dead.  Make a new character and try to play smarter next time."  Worse is the "random chance RPG", a great example being those early-edition D&D artifacts where you roll randomly and either gain great power or have your character crippled or killed.
 
In a storytelling game, the term "fail forward" comes up a lot.  Yes, you failed (lost), but that should advance, not end, the story.  In a storytelling game, I would not expect a character to be vaporized out of the gate.
 
 
One could also assert that your approach was weaseling out of the effect of the Mind Control.  You were told to dance, and you were affected by the mechanic of Mental Paralysis, which prevents attacking.  Yet you argued your way into not actually being affected by the Mental Paralysis mechanic.  Hard-core tactical gamers would scream bloody murder if such an interpretation were used against them when, really, by the rules, they had earned their victory.
 
 
Again, I am coming back to "it depends".  My understanding (I play tactical, not storytelling games - I am too lazy to make up creative narratives after every die roll, so I often rely on the mechanics to adjudicate the degree of success and failure) is that storytelling games are broadly flexible.  So, in a storytelling game, I could certainly see a chain of events as follows:
 
Thumper:  Dragon Master attacks Toe Tapper with the intent of defeating him to turn him over to the authorities.
GM:  Ok - roll to Have a Fight
Thumper:  Ugh!  a complete failure.
GM:  OK, as your character closes in, Toe Tapper flashes out with his cane, and DragonMaster is consumed with an all-encompassing urge to dance, to the exclusion of all else.  Toe Tapper chuckles at your dance moves.
Thumper:  Wait, Dragon Master is a master of all martial arts - including Capoeira, a Brazillian martial art developed by slaves who had to hide their practice as dance moves.  He will try to "dance fight" and whup Toe Tapper's butt while shaking his own.
 
Hey, what a great storytelling moment.  Either DragonMaster should get an appropriate roll to pull that off, or it should just succeed automatically since it both flows with the direction in which the story is being told and is just plain cool.
 
Kind of like a Hero game where my character rolls a successful Investigation skill roll.  Does it mean the whole mystery is laid out and explained for us, or does it move us one step closer, advancing the story?
 
MOVING OFF-TOPIC - We've talked in the past about different game focuses, and how Hero could be modified to accommodate them.  Hero RAW focuses on combat as the main problem resolution mechanic.  As a result, it has a super-detailed, crunchy, granular set of combat rules.  But what if we wanted to play a game of court intrigue, where most problems will be resolved through social, not physical, combat?  Well, we really need a similarly granular set of rules for social interaction/conflict to  build the same level of drama and interest.  At the same time, we don't want 2 hour combats, so we could relegate physical combat to the Skills System (make opposed Dueling/Brawling skill rolls; make an Assassination skill roll at -6 due to the Duke's castle defenses).  Storytelling games, to me, really reduce all task resolution to simple, non-granular systems. 
 
Not nearly as much room for tactics, and very little granularity.  But also no grindy, endless combats - the story keeps moving.
 
Can we envision bad storytelling games/GMs/players?  Hell, yeah.  Can we honestly say we have never seen a bad Hero game/GM/player?  I certainly can't. 
 
Are there some people who just can't stand the storytelling approach and want those more detailed mechanics?  Absolutely.  Will some other people hate the lengthy, granular Hero combat system no matter how well it is used?  Sure.  Hell, we have  a thread going on right now where someone just suggested 4e was the perfect level of rules, and subsequent editions have too many rules, so the optimal level of "crunch", even within a game system which, at its core, has not changed a lot through the editions, is not the same for every gamer, by any stretch.
 
Seems like I am back to "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks".

Currently I'm at work on another novel, so my gaming books are on the back burner but I've started work on this new module and have been working over the years on it based on an old game I ran in this setting.  The core concept is that this is a huge forest on a key trade route between two major cities.  Long ago there was a kingdom there, which fell under mysterious and awful circumstances.  From then on the forest has been suspect and over time its gotten worse and worse.

OK pretty pedestrian so far, but what I'm trying to do here is make a large sandbox adventure area for a campaign to run about in quite a while, whether trying to find out what went wrong or just to have a place to adventure.  And there's a problem with the forest: its corrupted by fell forces.  And the first interesting bit I'm working into it is based on an idea from the old Avalon Hill game called "Magic Realm."  In that, the game board was built of hexagonal tiles to make a different layout every time.  And the tiles could be enchanted by casting a spell on one of them, which flipped it to the other side, revealing a slightly different layout and some other effects.
 
So I'm working that into this adventure where you can "flip" map sections you're in to cleanse it from fell influence -- temporarily at least -- which changes things about it, such as encounters, types of creatures and herbs in it, and more.  There's a lot more to it but that's a teaser to what makes this more than just another evil haunted wood scenario.
 
Over time I'll touch into this post and add bits, and when the novel is done and at the editors I can start to write again on it, building the scenario.
 
Stay tuned.

It is not available in the workshop yet, I still have a number of items to work on ... turn / phase management, flying stands, scenery management, update-able character sheets etc. 

Second video of the Tabletop Simulator Hero System module
 
 

I have been working on a Workshop mod for the Hero System.
 
 
Here you can see the dice roller (with body counter) in action in TTS
 
 

First Edition, p22, second column.  In the first two editions, it's called "usable on others," which is a bit vague.  It remains unchanged in 2e,
 
It's poorly worded, as Chris points out in the 3e rules, but the examples given are defensive and movement powers, suggesting that the intent is more sharing powers than forcing them on someone, though the requirement to make an attack roll against he person to whom you wish to give the power....  doesn't really clarify things much.