Killer Shrike

Currently using 6e for Fantasy Hero with some carry-overs from 4e that I thought were handled better (Encumbrance, Weapon & Armor charts).
 
Getting used to the decoupling of Primary stats from Figured stats was a bit of a mind blower.  Now that I've gotten used to it I can see that it allows for more character customization while eliminating the sell-back exploits of earlier editions.

1.  We play 4th edition with elements of 5th incorporated into it.  Sort of a 4.5 edition.
2.  It's a great system for superheroes.  We don't really use it for heroic games because I don't think it does those games very well.
 

I'd suggest adding Killershrike's Cyberpunk stuff to your Cyber Ombnibus book. 
 
http://www.killershrike.com/MetaCyber/MetaCyberSetting.aspx
 
It would have to be copy/paste of his web content but it's really good stuff (as is all of Killershrike's content)

Agreed. There is still room for further refactoring, but given the givens I think it unlikely to happen officially. 
 
 
Personally I think grappling is a little clunky but works ok (using the extended Martial Arts rules for Grab and ?, etc).
 
I don't want to see a zone of control or attack of opportunity type of mechanism added to the system, I prefer utilizing held actions or custom abilities for that sort of thing.
 
 
Same. I don't like training wheels or arbitrary "just because" rules (such as why can't CE be used for positive effects; why not?)
 
 
I'm a big believer that the sales problems the Hero System has traditionally had stems largely from the fact that they tend to not make products for PLAYERS to buy...their product appeals almost overwhelmingly to a very specific kind of GM. They also tend to favor "perennials" such as core books and genre source books. I'm a hardcore fan but I'm only going to buy one copy of Fantasy Hero per edition and even then maybe just the pdf if the content is mostly a c&p plus edition tweakage. 
 
 
This is my opinion, but I think a lot of it comes down to posture.
 
Lets say you and I and a few other posters are DoJ, the era is 5er, and we've just gotten an influx of cash from a video game related windfall. We decide to use that money to publish a new edition of the system. Around this time, our primary competition for our main money making line of products is a d20 based supers game that puts out relatively slim full color books, usually hardbacks. 
 
At this point through long years of hard work, we've managed to put out a huge amount of very thorough books across a wide variety of genres and subgenres as well as a pretty comprehensive line of "ultimate" niche books and core rules. We arguably now own the "crunchy heavy weight universal game system" perch, having surpassed the traditional rival for that slot just by sheer volume and tenacity if nothing else. However a recurring criticism of our product line is that it has a tendency towards a dry no-nonsense business like writing style and a lack of visual flair. For some product lines this is less of a detriment than others, but for the very visual supers genre and its demographic of visually oriented people who prefer to read things in picture form, it is a very jarring mismatch.
 
Going into this next edition, it is very important to us that we have full color hardbacks with art that will hopefully resonate with the highly visual superhero rpg fans; we have a leg up here because for superhero content at least we can use art assets developed for the same video game we got the cash from in the first place. 
 
So, what we'll do is, double down on what has been working for us so far...big chunky books even more chock full examples, rulings, options, and so on, than before, PLUS in color and with color interior art. The book will be thicker, but no big deal, we can print the design time rules in one volume and the run time rules in another volume. This may even be beneficial as some players who otherwise might not buy the book and just use their GM's copy might decide to buy the character creation volume.
 
The people who like us for our chunkiness will be even more happy. The people who are put off by stern black and white walls of text will find the pretty color pages more inviting. Seems foolproof, what could go wrong?
 
____
 
Ok, now lets groundhog day that, knowing what we now know with the benefit of hindsight.
 
Maybe instead we kick off the 6e era by releasing Champions Universe Complete, Turakian Age Complete, Alien Wars Complete etc, up front. They are relatively concise books by Hero standards, maybe an inch and a half across the spine. They each contain the necessary setting information for immediate play, with a playable version of the rules with the proper "presets" of options selected, plus enough content in the form of templates, gear lists, etc, to immediately start play with, and an abbreviated character creation via 8 to 12 partially customize-able templates.
 
For the product lines that take off in this format, print splat books in all the usual ways that game companies tend to do, plus an adventure here and there. Someone always says "but adventures don't sell well", to which I say "loss leader". GM's running the one copy of an adventure the group owns tends to lead to supplementary purchases of other stuff, an engaged player base which draws more players, and of course maybe even the one copy of the adventure the group buys to run after this one is done.
 
I imagine I don't have to explain what this would look like, because nearly every other game markets themselves in that way.
 
But that's not Hero! rings out the cry. Worry not, true believers! The text-only version of the full system is available as an SRD online, for free. How do we monetize that? Well, there's the Limited Edition Full Color Hardback 2 Volume Core Set, for starters. What does that look like? Well, it looks exactly like the 2 volume set we got. What's different about it? Consumer perception. 
 
The casual set, both current and hopefully newly attracted, are happy with the various buy and go setting + micro rules books. The hardcore set is happy because they have the massive 6e tomes of thoroughness, ownership of which proves their leetness.
 
Of course no one knows how it all might have gone down, and we don't know the inner workings of DoJ or what challenges they had to overcome to accomplish what they did. I assume the challenges were harrowing, and I'm personally deeply impressed by what they achieved during both the 5e and 6e eras. It's staggering in scale. It is also true that the rpg industry and the print industry were (and are) going through a brutal period of being disrupted by emerging technologies and changes in interests towards other media.  But I think it is possible that a different approach that was more sensitive to the marketplace and player base would have had a better outcome in the long run. 
 
I imagine that you imagine that I imagine that we are imagining along the same imaginary lines.

Exactly. People bring whatever assumptions they may have with them when they come to the Hero System from other systems...and also from other editions of the Hero System itself.
 
Personally I find it best to engage with a game system new to me based upon what it is, rather than what I expect it to be based upon past experience with other game systems or previous editions. I may or may not like it, but I try to give it a fair shake on its own merits.

Good grief Duke - you churn out the words!!  ?
 
 
I understand what you are saying.  There was a very deliberate decision made in 5th Edition to try and clarify what the HERO System is, a generic set of mechanics that could be utilised to deliver a game in multiple genres.  Those genres were then described (with guidance on how to apply the HERO System) as how to play a game within those genres.
 
That is where things diverge - the actual rule options in one set of books and how those rules might be applied in a different set of books.  The Big Blue Book combined the HERO System with the Champions genre book.  I reckon 5th Edition and Champions covers the same ground but better.  6th Edition further evolved the rules, breaking things down so that different genres might be more closely emulated.
 
I think the big mistake people make with HERO is that they think they need to use the rules that exist or have watertight arguments on what they will or will not allow players to use.  The genre books missed a trick in that they did not begin with an overview of the things that they would utilise and the things that they would gloss over (for the betterment of the game experience).  HERO suffers when the GM does not put in enough thought into what they will and will not utilise in the game they want to run.  Hugh's vision of games Powered by HERO would do that for the GM.
 
In first edition Policeman 14 or less covered much of the detail that might take 10 lines of skills in the usual 6th Edition game - separating out all of the elements of being a policeman.  If you want transfer - you know how it is built in 6th Edition - you can simply write 3D6 END Transfer.  You know how it works.  If you want instant change, you can write instant change - you know how it works.  There is no NEED to play the maths games.  There is no requirement but it means that you, as GM, have (if you want) a greater insight into how everything hangs together.
 
6th is only huge because it contains shedloads of design information - things I would scour magazine supplements to gain are all in 6th Edition as standard.  
 
I reckon I play HERO.  I will bet I dont play pure 6th, there will be elements of almost every edition I have played and forgotten/ignored changes in later editions because I like how it plays.
 
Would I like a Golden Age book that does not facilitate me to write a Golden Age campaign but delivers a version of the rules that push the bold strokes of four colour comics, broad skills that have little detail and a fast and loose way of playing?  Absolutely.  Huge time saver.  Would I buy a game that better emulated Bond - giving talents that are bought as black boxes and delivers the feel of a spy game (possibly writing out the SPD chart as an explicit thing because everyone has the same SPD by design)?  Most probably.  I reckon my group would love that game.
 
The other reason I would buy those games ahead of other systems that do the same is that I would know they were both built on a consistent base and that,with a little bit of work, I could consistently add elements to those games that I wanted, properly costed.  In other games it would simply be changes made by sticking a finger in the air.
 
Dont peer too closely at the detail.  Pull back, ignore the stuff you don't want, aren't interested in.  The system is robust enough to cope with that.  
 
6th provides you with more options than previous editions, no one says that you have to use them all...
 
 
Doc

Well, you're assuming the background of the player. They could be coming from any game at all, or no game. 
 
Even if coming from D&D (I'm not familiar with 5e, but historically speaking) a character can't just buy hit points or AC. They have to get them from base stats and leveling, plus any gear they can buy or plunder. Coming to the Hero System, that's not true. A character can directly buy resistance to death and unconsciousness and getting hit and whatever. Yay! If you gathered the 5 people who have introduced the most other people from D&D et al to the Hero System, it is possible I'd be among them. So, I've been over that particular stretch of ground often enough.
 
But you missed my point entirely, which was that a player coming into the Hero System in 6e lacking prior knowledge of earlier editions and the fact that those earlier editions had something called "Figured Characteristics" would  not somehow, Creskin-like, intuit that such a thing should exist and more specifically the particular (mathematically bad) set of calculations that drove them.
 
Thus, while in the minds of people with a prior experience with the Hero System, there is a construct labeled "Figured Characteristics" plus whatever that means to them regarding how it worked and whether they like it or not, that is not the case for a player new to 6e and thus it would not occur to such a person that there was such a thing or that it had been removed. The idea of it has no meaning outside of the people who already know about it. That's the whole point.
 
Instead, such a player looking at what the rulebook "Characteristics" section actually tells them, would likely figure out that the things called "Defense" described as reducing the damage taken from a certain kind of attack might be good to buy up a bit. Similarly, all the other characteristics.
 
The "figureds helped players not make gimped characters" line of argument has never made sense to me, because it pretends a) that the book doesn't tell players what each characteristic does and why a character might consider buying each characteristic, and b) that having read the blurbs for each characteristic (or even just seen their names and guessing the general idea of what each is for) new players are somehow too dumb to figure out what they want for their characters. And even if a player does come along and make a 6 SPD character with 10 DEX or something like that, so what? Best case scenario, they might enjoy playing an impetuously quick but clumsy character, worst case maybe they'll learn something and grow in understanding of the game that will benefit them as they make more characters in the future. 
 
However, while I'm more than happy to have a general game design conversation (I love game design conversations), that's not really what I want to talk about in this thread. I think you may have read more into my comment than I meant. If you want to email me or start up a general discussion thread on game design, I'd participate in a conversation about it in general, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread.

Well, you're assuming the background of the player. They could be coming from any game at all, or no game. 
 
Even if coming from D&D (I'm not familiar with 5e, but historically speaking) a character can't just buy hit points or AC. They have to get them from base stats and leveling, plus any gear they can buy or plunder. Coming to the Hero System, that's not true. A character can directly buy resistance to death and unconsciousness and getting hit and whatever. Yay! If you gathered the 5 people who have introduced the most other people from D&D et al to the Hero System, it is possible I'd be among them. So, I've been over that particular stretch of ground often enough.
 
But you missed my point entirely, which was that a player coming into the Hero System in 6e lacking prior knowledge of earlier editions and the fact that those earlier editions had something called "Figured Characteristics" would  not somehow, Creskin-like, intuit that such a thing should exist and more specifically the particular (mathematically bad) set of calculations that drove them.
 
Thus, while in the minds of people with a prior experience with the Hero System, there is a construct labeled "Figured Characteristics" plus whatever that means to them regarding how it worked and whether they like it or not, that is not the case for a player new to 6e and thus it would not occur to such a person that there was such a thing or that it had been removed. The idea of it has no meaning outside of the people who already know about it. That's the whole point.
 
Instead, such a player looking at what the rulebook "Characteristics" section actually tells them, would likely figure out that the things called "Defense" described as reducing the damage taken from a certain kind of attack might be good to buy up a bit. Similarly, all the other characteristics.
 
The "figureds helped players not make gimped characters" line of argument has never made sense to me, because it pretends a) that the book doesn't tell players what each characteristic does and why a character might consider buying each characteristic, and b) that having read the blurbs for each characteristic (or even just seen their names and guessing the general idea of what each is for) new players are somehow too dumb to figure out what they want for their characters. And even if a player does come along and make a 6 SPD character with 10 DEX or something like that, so what? Best case scenario, they might enjoy playing an impetuously quick but clumsy character, worst case maybe they'll learn something and grow in understanding of the game that will benefit them as they make more characters in the future. 
 
However, while I'm more than happy to have a general game design conversation (I love game design conversations), that's not really what I want to talk about in this thread. I think you may have read more into my comment than I meant. If you want to email me or start up a general discussion thread on game design, I'd participate in a conversation about it in general, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread.

I have nothing to add, nitpick, or debate on this, just wanted to say: great post, well articulated.

Straight off the bat, I believe 6E is the best edition of HERO mechanically. I would not say it is the best it could be, but it is better than the previous editions. Most of the problems I have with 6E are not mechanical but rather with presentation.
Presentation
Again, I will declare it from the start, I love the two big-blue 6E books. I find them beautiful and neat and as reference manuals, they are golden. When it comes to look at general rules though, Champions Complete or HERO Basic are much more convenient.  Behold hindsight 20/20, with better production value (and completeness for Basic) they could have been the equivalent of HERO Rulebook and Champions BBB for 4E. I would have seen them both on glossy paper, full color and using the layout template 6E1 and 6E2 use while the two big books could have been softcover and black and white (what they now are in POD I suppose).   
But my main presentation problems in 6E are on the character sheets. The wall of characteristics is horrible and with just a better layout could be easily avoided. Categorizing them like it was previously suggested in this thread would go a long way to make them look less intimidating. At the very least, grouping them slightly differently (example below but somewhat messed up) would definitely help.
CHARACTERISTICS
STR           40       17-         STR Dice 9d6, Lift 6.4tons
DEX          36      16-
CON          19       13-
INT            18       13-         Perception Roll 13-
EGO          15       12-
PRE           13       12-         PRE Attack 2½d6
 
OCV           10             OMCV      3
DCV           12              DMCV      3
SPD              5              Phases     3, 5, 8, 10, 12
 
PD              12              Total         12 PD/0 rPD
ED               9               Total         9 ED/0 rED
REC           10               END         40
STUN         40               BODY       12     
 
MOVEMENT
Running 12m (24m)         Swimming 4m (8m)
Leaping 30m (60m)         Swinging 40m (80m)
 
Another issue brought up previously is how some powers were deconstructed and need now to be built from other powers. While I have no problem with the approach, I would have preferred if they would have defined and used a simplified nomenclature on published character sheets (basically what they did with Talents). A few basic write-ups would have benefited from it (Force Field, Instant Change, Transfer, Super-Running (you know, the one not built with Running but with Flight or Teleport), etc…). In short, I would have liked if they looked for a way to declutter the character sheets and make them look more appealing, more fun (and yes, I would be totally happy not seeing Real Cost per line item and the advantages and limitations +/- values).
Legacy
Another aspect that clearly irks long time HERO fans is the loss of some legacy components. The two examples constantly referred to are Comeliness and Figured Characteristics. In both cases, I was initially against their departure but after the fact, my opinion is that the game is better without them.
Comeliness was not doing much mechanically and every attempt I have seen to give it a purpose were heroic efforts for sure but ultimately unconvincing. I much, much prefer Striking Appearance as a mechanic. That being said, I agree that adding Comeliness in a sidebar as a potential new Characteristic would have been a must. It is clearly important to some of us and we should respect that.
Figured Characteristics were a tougher nut to crack. The challenge is to balance a linear point cost progression per characteristics with what is fundamentally a breakpoint progression of abilities. Some benefits of characteristics increase every +1 but others only in +2, +3 or +5 increments. GURPS can balance its Attributes with its Secondary Characteristics by the simple fact that most benefits progress on a +1 for +1 basis. ST is equally divided in three components, Lifting, Striking and Hit Points, +1 in ST means +1 in all three components and the sum cost of the three components equals the total cost for ST. Trying to balance that in HERO was next to impossible and at best could have been better approximated than in previous editions (this is what I was hoping for while 6E was being developed). In the end, figured characteristics were not figured anymore and it suddenly became much easier to build any concept desired without worrying with point efficiency.
But something was lost. Call it guidance or verisimilitude but the fact remains that a deeply entrenched paradigm, the relation between Characteristics and Figured was erased. Again, a few solutions were possible. First, a sidebar re-introducing Figured Characteristics with better balanced costs could have been added. Second, and even easier, a sidebar could have introduced “suggested values” for Secondary Characteristics based on Characteristics (example below).
  Base Cost Suggested Value OCV 3 5 DEX/3 DCV 3 5 DEX/3 OMCV 3 3 EGO/3 DMCV 3 3 EGO/3 PD 2 1 STR/5 ED 2 1 CON/5 SPD 2 10 1+DEX/10 REC 4 1 (STR+CON)/5 END 20 0.2 CONx2 BODY 10 1 10+STR/5 STUN 20 0.5 BODY+STR+CON)/2
 
From a cost perspective, nothing would change. You would still buy STR at 1 pts for +1 and no Secondary Characteristics would be automatically recalculated. If you wanted to bring your Secondary Characteristics in line with the suggested values, you would still need to buy them up. Suggested Values would simply give an indication of how the Characteristics could influence the Secondary Characteristics and the player would still have full power to buy them up their desired values based on their concept, may it be the suggested value or something else. Unless of course a campaign strictly enforces them.
I haven’t touched on mechanics at all in this post. Hopefully will have time to do so later.
 

I consider both the runtime and design time mechanics to be, collectively, "the mechanics" of the game and thus I refer to the combination of both in my position.
 
I agree that the fundamentals of the engine have not changed. But the teeth on the gears have gotten a bit finer and some refinements have been made over the years.
 
 
I had a lot more fun in the 4e era. Both when playing HS games and in life in general. Similarly, my first wife was more fun, my second wife was more impressive, and my now wife is more perfect in every way just in case she reads this. I can appreciate them all for their wildly differing merits.
 
 
So, as a kind of engineer I have a more finely tuned differentiation between "COMPLEX" and "COMPLICATED" than most people. I suspect that  most people often say "complicated" when what they actually mean is "complex". The essence of the difference is "complicated" is nearly always bad ("difficult"), but "complex" comes in two forms: needless complexity and purposeful complexity. Needless complexity benefits from being decomplected (ie being simplified, being broken down into smaller / simpler components, or being gotten rid of entirely). Purposeful complexity serves a purpose, is not necessarily difficult, and provides value to offset its existence...this is "good" complexity, the stuff that generally makes things work. 
 
Both complications and complexity can be a barrier to entry (and other things) but purposeful complexity tends to bear out and reward those not put off by it.
 
You yourself are a recurrent decomplector; for instance your desire to break Foci down into its constituent components (which I agree with in spirit) is a perfect example of an attempt to decomplect (or decompose or decouple in more established speech) something that looks to be needlessly complex.
 
 
Yes, and thus from a mechanical standpoint, positive progress has been made viz delimiting the system.

I'm going to try to tease this apart a bit...
 
I've gathered that you are a pre-4e guy from other posts. I personally did not play 1e thru 3e. I do own some of the games of that era which I acquired later as a curiosity, but never played them. Of the ones I am passingly familiar with, they were definitely games, what I would today call a "boutique game" in the sense that they catered to a specific niche or subgenre. But regardless of labeling or categorization, they were definitely games first, with rules to support the playing of those games.
 
4e went a different direction and harvested those games to create a generic, universal, role playing system. Perhaps they realized that some other game company had kind of eaten some of their lunch, but I digress. We'll just call it a "universal" game system.
 
Universal game systems are not games. They are not meant to be played as a game. They have no default content or bespoke mechanics for specific special snowflakes suitable for a specific setting and nothing else. Instead, they focus on providing a framework of rules to be applied to conceivably any game in a variety of genres (perhaps all genres depending on the ambitions of the game designers). They are fundamentally aimed primarily at GM's in the more old school role as combination amateur game designers and arbitrators (as opposed to the more mainstream later trend towards GM as merely facilitators). Their "value proposition" is not "this a fun game in and of itself that you can just buy and run sessions with in our prepackaged setting using our prepackaged content". The value proposition is "you can use this framework to make and run any kind of roleplaying game you want to, and you and your players won't have to learn a different rules system every time you switch genres or settings". 
 
So, the purpose of the core rulebook of a universal system is not to be fun or fluffy or flavorful, its purpose is to be functional and balanced and broadly applicable. Its primary audience is not players or even casual GM's (who, really, would be better off playing a more prepackaged game) but rather propeller head GM's who specifically seek out universal systems because they place a high value on a toolkit type of system that provides them with the tools to craft the games they want to run. 
 
In a universal game system product line, genre books and settings and supplements are the proper home for the fun and fluffy and flavorful. 
 
Now, as many (including myself) have said over the years, DoJ were slow to cater to the market of GM's and players who wanted a prepackaged setting with sufficient rules to run with bundled with IP. Looked at more charitably they stuck with their core competency and were quite successful at it for a good stretch of time. DoJ turned out a staggering volume of mostly high quality products for many years. I've always been impressed with the output and overall consistency. However, sadly, excellence does not always translate into profit. There's a reason why there are fewer top quality steakhouses than there are fast food joints. Catering to the lowest common denominator tends to pay off bigger than going the other way. Alas and alack, we live in an imperfect world.
 
 
Yes, I remember the Fuzion system. It was not a HS game, it was Champion IP on a different game system. There were actually some good ideas to be found in it, but the execution was bungled spectacularly. Apparently the kinks in the Fuzion system did get smoothed out and it is used by a number of boutique games...for some reason it took root in the anime space.
 
 
Are you grounding this in a comparison between 5e and 6e or between pre-4e and 6e?
 
Because, if you are coming from a 5e to 6e perspective, this just doesn't track. Most of 6e is copy and pasted from 5e and then elaborated on with FAQ entries and posts from the rules questions subforum. The actual systemic changes are few. Compared to edition shifts in most other roleplaying games, where often a new edition is nearly or entirely a new game, the shift from 5e to 6e is relatively mild.
 
 
This has been the case as of the publishing of 4e, so nearly 30 years running now, and it was directly stated in the 4e rulebook that this was the game designer's intent. This is a direct quote from the 4e rulebook:
 
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The main object of the game is for the players and the GM
to have fun. We like to think of the Hero System as a Game
Construction Set, where each GM can create his own unique
campaign world. Perhaps it's based on a favorite novel or
movie, or a combination of several sources, or a completely
original vision. In any case, the Hero System lets you
customize it.

Designing a set of roleplaying rules is a process of making
numerous decisions. How do we represent combat? What
numbers do we use to determine your chance to hit? In
constructing these rules, we used a relatively simple set of
guidelines. We wanted to keep the mechanics simple,
encourage roleplaying, and create a flavor similar to that in
books, movies, and comics. Most important was giving the
game the "flavor" of a good action novel or a movie. When
realism conflicted with that goal, we put realism in second
place. Then we tried to reduce the rules to the simplest set
of numbers we could come up with, so that the game
mechanics wouldn't get in the way of having fun. Finally, we
tried to put in rules that would encourage storytelling on the
part of the players and the GM.

Above all, we wanted the Hero System to be flexible and
open-ended - capable of simulating any real or fictional
situation. This flexibility means that there is potential for
"minimaxing" and distorting the rules. We could have put in
a lot more "don'ts", but that's not the way we wanted the rules
to be. We would rather let you make your own decisions
about what is permissible. If you want to allow the characters
to travel through time, it's silly for us to say "no you can't."
After all, you've paid your money for the game, so why
shouldn't you alter it any way you please? As a consequence,
we've asked for a lot of decision-making from the
Game Master. It may be difficult for you to tell your friends
that no, they can't have a character with Extra-Dimensional
Movement or Precognition. But they'll probably understand
if you explain your reasons for your decision.

This leads to the most important design idea we worked
toward: that we wanted a game that could stimulate everyone's
creativity. The HERO system is intended to be a tool
for you to use in designing your own campaign game. We
hope you'll use it that way.
 
 
 
Um, yeah, it's a thing for playable-games-with-settings using a universal rules system to indicate something like "powered by Fate!" or "GURPS Wildcards" or "d20 compatible" whatever. This has been a thing nearly as long as there have been universal systems. It's exactly the same as a video game using a particular generic video game engine, like Unreal or Unity, saying so on its marketing and a loading screen.
 
 
You know you don't have to read it cover to cover, right? Just read the chapter intros and the "characters and the world" chapter, and the first few pages of the combat chapter. Then pick a character you are familiar with from entertainment or an earlier edition game and then try to make a 6e version of that character. There are lists at the beginning-ish of each relevant section of the book that you can quickly peruse, then pop over to the write ups for things that seem likely and read those snippets. You will likely have a working character pretty quickly. Make a second character in the same way; should go a little faster now. Then set up a little scenario where one of the characters you made attacks the other character you made, working thru the necessary combat rules as you go.
 
Some games I just skim as a scholarly exercise looking for interesting bits of game design, but if I decide to give a game a try this is what I do to learn the rudiments of the system quickly. If I like it, I'll go from there and deepen my knowledge. If I don't I move on.
 
 
Abstract base mechanics that you modify with pros and cons to model a particular effect is the essence of the Hero System power model and is kind of the thing it is recognized as innovating. So...you're saying you don't like what many would consider to be a fundamental feature of the game system.
 
 
Not sure if serious. Yes, a generic game system is generic. On purpose. 
 
 
So, yeah, I think you might like Basic if you did like 4e. It's a sort of spiritual successor of Hero System #500. 
 
But, I'm actually surprised that you are a Hero System gamer...because you seem like you'd prefer something more packaged or simplified. I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it in a congenial there's probably a game system out there you might be happier with sort of way.
 
Although, maybe that game is Champions 3e and you've already found it.
 
 
Ya, I saw Sean related activity. Having been gone myself I didn't realize he had been gone as well. 
 
I've been working and raising kids and playing other games, mostly. I'm currently on a hiatus between gigs, so sort of revisiting some old stomping grounds. 
 
 
Yes, I noticed your posts. I didn't have anything new to contribute so I didn't comment, but I appreciate hearing when people get value out of some of my contributions. I'm glad it is working out. My players always enjoyed it. 
 
 
It's definitely more appropriate to a campaign with a cinematic or superheroic tone.
 
 
Well, for heroic / more realistic campaigns I find that a Skill Maxima is useful to discourage over specialization. It has proven to work well in heroic games. I think I first encountered the idea in the Valdorian Age.  A Skill Maxima works exactly like a Characteristic Maxima; a character can buy up to the maxima at normal price, and then pays a premium to go over the maxima.
 
On that note, when laying out the campaign guidelines for a new campaign I use a "paradigm" chart of options with more cinematic / superheroic things on the left and more gritty / heroic things on the right. I fill it in opting for one side or the other to help dial in the setting. One of the line items is "Skill Maxima". Here is an example of one:
 
http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm_Assumptions.aspx
 
 
You, drift off subject? Never! ?
 
 
Ok, I'll admit that I laughed a bit. Solid burn. However, I would point out that 6e is simple, to the extent that any version of the Hero System can claim that. In the same way that geometry is simple. You may have fallen in love with geometry via Euclid but find topology or differential geometry to be hopelessly embellished; never the less they are still simple in their fundamentals and extend geometry's power to handle more complex problems.

As I  mull over COM (and its sister stats that should have been added if it was retained, like Buff* and Height**), I'm struck by how hung up we get with the term "Characteristic".
 
It's been pointed out above that six characteristics (STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO, PRE) can be analogized to the 6 D&D characteristics.  The suggestion that grouping them differently might make the game feel less complex, and more accessible.
 
Why are certain things "characteristics"?  We put STUN, BOD, END and REC in this category, but D&D doesn't call hit points, or non-lethal damage, "characteristics".  Maybe we rename these "Health".
 
The suggestion to pull CVs out seems similar to AC and Base Attack Bonus.  "Attack/Defense"?
 
SPD is an odd one as few games have variable actions for characters, but it's just actions in combat.  Maybe it stands alone, like D&D Initiative.  Or include it with Initiative derived from DEX and Lightning Reflexes.
 
What about PD and ED?  Why are they not Defense Powers that all characters have a default starting amount of?  Why, because you don't get "base powers!  HERETIC!!  D&D has save bonuses, damage reduction and resistances to energies, many of which are only available to some characters.  Why can't PD and ED be similarly relegated to Powers?
 
Don't we?  What are running, swimming and leaping, then?  They are movement powers.  D&D has movement speed as well,  which are not characteristics.  If everything must be a characteristics, should these not be characteristics?
 
None of this would change the way the game runs at all.  It would simply change the presentation, chunking up both the character sheet and the rules.
 
Expanding on this, what if Powers were not presented en bloc, but by category?  Would it feel less intimidating if we had Movement Powers, Attack Powers, Defense Powers, etc. rather than one enormous alphabetical list?  Look at the D&D glossary and tell me that they have fewer, or less complex, game elements.
 
This is (sorry, KS) deviating from the question of mechanics, but we seem to have great difficulty differentiating "mechanics" from "presentation".
 
* Buff - looking physically fit.  Many people react better to buff people.  But while a pretty (high COM) girl can twist a nerdy scientist around her little finger, a fit (high Buff) girl is dismissed as a brainless jock.  Clearly Buff and COM should be separate characteristics.
 
** Studies have shown, or so I am told, that there is an unconscious bias to tall people.  Probably need a Slim stat as well, maybe a few dozen others.
 

I first started playing Champions/Hero System with 3rd Edition in the late 1980s and over the years collected earlier edition books followed by 4th, 5th, and 6th Edition. In terms of 6th Edition products, I have Champions Complete, Hero Basic, and Champions. Am not sure if there is an overall reason why 6e is disliked, but here are two observations for your consideration that I gathered from my own experience as a customer and from talking with the dozen or so players/fans I meet in game conventions over the years when I run Champions:
 
1) In terms of style and graphic design, Champions 6th Edition products seem dated compared to other superhero game systems. Champions Complete's cover and interior b&w art was average and the soft-cover binding was okay, but previewing it next to other games like Mutants & Masterminds, Icons, or even Savage Worlds: Supers on the display rack, there was a distinct different in quality in terms of style. While some in this forum liked the textbook design for the 6th Edition rule book covers, the fans I spoke to in person didn't care for it (myself included). People still do judge a book by its cover to see if it's even worth previewing or passing on it outright.
 
2) The amount of rules made it difficult to introduce new players to Hero System. I had Hero Basic, but others had saw how many other rule books there were to get started for 6th Edition and were immediately turned off. A common occurrence was that the players had previously played Champions until <insert edition number here> for one reason or another but then stopped, most commonly due to the excessive rules being piled on in later editions.  The Champions Now kickstarter is drawing upon 3rd Edition or early rules for various reasons, drawing a mix of support and criticism of Hero Games senior staff being out-of-touch as to what their fans want as mentioned in other discussions. Even now, my go-to system of superhero games for brand-new players has been Icons and not Champions, and that's even with simplified versions of characters that I created (4th Edition versions). 
 
People who still play Champions/Hero System are going to choose their favorite edition and pull aspects from others accordingly to round out their campaign. It's unrealistic to convince them which is better than the other (or vice versa) in terms of game mechanics. Some like the simplicity of 3rd Edition and earlier (hence, Champions Now that's under development), some like the completeness of 4th Edition (BBB with George Perez cover art), others like the detailed comprehensiveness of 5th Edition (sourcebooks are extremely well done), and others like the new mechanics of 6th Edition (e.g. no "freebies" from Figured Characteristics).

I think I addressed this, but yeah, if you don't care about mechanical bestitude a thread about mechanical bestitude is probably not your cup of tea. 
 
However, you obviously do care about the game itself and its viability to attract and keep players, and you obviously feel that the company's overall direction in the 6e era was detrimental to the game's ability to remain strong in the marketplace.
 
It may surprise you to know that I basically agree with you on that topic (though you would likely say that you don't care if I agree with you or not, and that's your prerogative).
 
However, I separate how I feel about the one thing (quality of system) from how I think about the other (market positioning), and other 6e and DoJ topics as well. I can appreciate one while bemoaning another. 

I can well understand that you feel that you lack the energy or time or inclination to "debate" or discuss this sort of thing. I will point out that it is an elective activity, no one inclined you to expend the time or energy to read any of this, craft and discard drafts, click likes or dislikes, or finally post. It suggests that you have some strong feelings about the current state of the game, perhaps even bitterness, and your professed lack of caring is a defense mechanism to avoid having to admit how much you actually do care.
 
I too am saddened and disappointed by the state of the game. I don't think it had much to do with the 6e core rulebooks themselves, I think the problems had already been well established in the 5e era, but the company got boosted by the Cryptic deal and was able to keep going for a while. Eventually the boost wore off / was spent and the weight of it all dragged them down. I don't know that for actual, that is just my observations from the outside. 
 
As the reason why I started this post in the first place was to understand what's behind the vitriol of the trend towards anti-6e commentary I had noticed, when in my mind I think of "6e" as the actual rules themselves, absent other considerations, I think your post might offer a clue that some of the disgruntlement and harshitude in the mix vis-a-vis 6e is fueled or amplified by some people's unhappiness with the decline of the game in the marketplace in the 6e era rather than purely a dislike of the 6e rules themselves. So whether you care or not, I appreciate your post; it has given me a clue towards better understanding the prevailing attitudes.
 

So, in 4e Encumbrance a character with 20 STR could ignore the END loss of carrying up to 25 kg, but not the -3 DCV / DEX penalty.
 
In 5e, a character with 20 STR would still not spend END or suffer a movement penalty when carrying up to 96 kg and would suffer only a -1 DCV / DEX penalty. However LTE, mentioned as an aside in 4e, is more tightly integrated with specific values directly mentioned, and there is also a suggestion that a character losing END to encumbrance may not be able to get recoveries if the GM so decides. But, yeah, a high STR character is less troubled by Encumbrance than they were in 4e, almost to the point of it not being a problem at all.
 
In 6e, the 5e section is basically copy and pasted, and then extrapolated upon with more detail, edge case coverage, etc (which is a true statement for much of the rules text), but works the same. 
 
So, if this is an issue for you, then it isn't a 6e issue, it is a 5e issue. 
 
However, having said that, what is important is not a chart of specific values, it is the idea that carrying things is tiring, and a mechanical definition of what that means (in this case, movement, Dex and DCV penalties, lost END and LTE). How much a character's STR or other attributes should offset those penalties is merely an implementation detail. 
 
If you basically agree with the mechanical impact of being encumbered on a character but disagree with the effectiveness on STR in reducing that impact, it is the work of a few minutes to knock out a table with more agreeable values (or just use the 4e one if you like those numbers better).
 
You could also go a completely different route if you prefer; for instance back when I ran my long running FH campaigns I used an alternate arms and armaments system which included armor proficiency etc ( http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.aspx#DEFENSES ). It was dialed in the way I wanted it and worked well for my groups. However, if I were going for a different feel for a different campaign, and wanted to dial up more realism I might handle that by dialing in a harsher Encumbrance or I might handle that by dialing down available character points (making high STR less common by lowering the tide across the board) or dial down NCM, or add a STR Min for armor, or whatever I thought would accomplish the outcome I was looking for. When using HS I always turn the dials to adjust things to exactly what I want for a given campaign, and have done that in 4e, 5e, 5er, and 6e. The toolbox nature of the HS is my favorite thing about it.
 
This is very much a "season to taste" thing, IMO...dialing in realism is a campaign to campaign consideration on all fronts. Encumbrance, being a "simulation of reality" subsystem falls into this consideration.
 
As far as a comparative analysis between editions, I recall 4e FH (which I played and ran a lot of) as being generally grittier, whereas when we upgraded to 5e things got a little more capes and plates. As far as Encumbrance specifically goes, I mildly prefer the 5e / 6e implementation as it is a bit more polished and scalable as it uses percentages vs flat weights, and includes movement penalties which seems logical. Overall, it seems like a more polished treatment to me than the 4e version.  
 
6e vs 5e doesn't really add much, but the graphing of weight to STR provided is arguably better for players who are mathically challenged or don't want to whip out a calculator.  
 
 
Weapon / Equipment lists are just examples of power constructs to me...the are nothing more than pregenerated content in the same way that published characters are just pregenerated content. They may be useful as examples, or not, but they are not the "system", they are a product of the system. In the same way that a hot dog is not the hot dog factory, a published power construct called "sword" is not the power building system that allowed it to be produced; I or someone else can flog that same power building system to implement a different power construct and call it "sword" or "Ularean Arming Sword" or whatever.
 
Anyway, I also did not care for pregenerated weapon content in 5e FH which is what motivated me to write up the alternate system I mentioned previously, which was focused on making every weapon and armor have a distinct purpose / effect. 
http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeArmsArmament_Weapon.aspx
 
In later years, I went the other way and dispensed with weapon and armor lists for gear based campaigns, and just churned out custom weapon / armor (and gear) item by item as needed when making characters. At that point I was basically entirely Hero Designer based so we'd use Prefab files for a given campaign among the group which fully dispensed with the need for a gear list...just printing out the prefab provided a gear list if needed. Here is a basic example of this from 6e: http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm_Gear.aspx
 
 
 
This was also true of Force Wall, which Barrier is a copy & paste then modify version of. The more significant issue is that Barrier is Instant vs Constant, making it less taxing on a character. 
 
I always treated FW as a Yield sign power, and Barrier even more so. I was always careful to encumber PC power constructs based on either with sufficient limitations to keep it from breaking the game. 
 
From a comparative edition analysis perspective, I think that the 6e version is overall a move in a better direction because it finally decouples the mechanic from the sfx. In practice it didn't go far enough; I'm not convinced that entangle and barrier are not really the same power crying out to either be made unified or for one to replace the other entirely; but progress is progress.
 
 
Yes, the verbosity is unarguable. However, for games run at my own house it was a non issue, and I would take an abridged version for ease of reference when gaming elsewhere, and by the time 6e came out I had transitioned into pdfs on a laptop that I used at the table (in fact, most games I had HD open in the background with relevant characters open, and would "print preview" character sheets via an html export format as necessary rather than print them out on paper before a game session), so the physical bulk of the books was not an impediment for me usually. 
 
I do wince every time someone carelessly opens one of them; I am terrified the binding will split.
 
 
It's been my experience that "normal players" wont read a rulebook for any game no matter how thick or thin. It's been my experience that "normal players" are generally lazy and will exert the minimum amount of effort required to play a game, showing up (maybe on time, maybe even remembering to bring their copy of their character sheet) and expecting to be entertained. It's been my experience that "normal players" learn how to play a game (usually poorly) via osmosis and repetition in real time as the game is being played over multiple sessions...sort of an OJT.
 
It has also been my experience that good players  are committed to the game and take the initiative to learn and get better at the game by a variety of means because they personally want to.
 
A good player who really wants to learn the game but is not a strong reader or is intimidated by something as trivial as the width across a book's spine, is usually ok with reading 6e Basic (or Sidekick before it), or maybe one of the "Complete" books. If not, they can pick it up at the table as the game progresses. 
 
Wasn't an impediment to me, though I wont lie, I silently judge people who balk at the thickness of a book. My favorite author is Neal Stephenson, I read technical manuals and computer science books for fun and profit, I've gotten rid of more books that I've consumed and discarded than many small libraries even have on their shelves. Reading is like my super power. It is not the size of a book that I care about, but rather it's tediousness. 
 
Also, the 6e core rulebooks are laid out and presented as reference works, much like an encyclopedia or a medical or legal reference. Though some sections are a bit more discursive, for the most part they are meant to be used by looking something up in the index, flipping to the referenced pages, and following any in text page references from there as necessary until your question is answered or your rules dilemma is resolved. 
 
Admittedly, like the boiled frog in the parable of making frog soup, I was in the pot while the heat got turned up and thus acclimated. In other words, coming from less verbose editions, I assimilated the core concepts of each edition and any differences over the previous edition in an organic way and thus was not faced with the prospect of trying to learn the system for scratch from two large tomes. 
 
Anyway, yeah, the density of the text, which was kind of played for laughs in the 5e and 5er era (remember the bullet-stopping video?), progressed to the need to split the book in 6e. My solve for the issue was just to buy a lot of copies of 6e basic and give them away, in the same way that I bought a lot of copies of Sidekick and gave them away during the 5e era. Players appreciated it, and it was the right amount of knowledge for most newbies. 

Ahoy, shipmate! Or gangway, swabby! As you prefer. (I'm a former Marine)  
 
Yeah. I don't know if 4e was intrinsically "funner", but I do know that I personally and definitely had more fun when playing and running 4e games. However, I think that was largely a product of where I was at in my life when playing 4e. High school followed by the military, followed by easy success as a software developer during the glory days of the dot com boom, no kids, the energy of youth, a succession of good gaming groups...it was just a good time in my life despite the hardships and tragedies and so on. Certainly it was more eventful...the lows may have been more frequent but they were short lived and the highs were stratospheric. 
 
If someone were to make the statement "4e was the most fun version of the rules!" I might nod and privately agree that it was for me as well based upon my own life experience. But lightning in a bottle is difficult to capture, even harder to contain. I don't think that if I were to start up a new 4e campaign I would magically recapture that fun in the current time frame; I think I would constantly be irritated by the grit of running into things (or gaps!) in 4e that were improved upon in 5e, 5er, and 6e.
 
It would be an interesting experiment however. If you do move forward with your campaign, I'd love to read a campaign log or similar of it.

Figured Characteristics vs. Non Figured Characteristics
I was originally in the figured characteristics camp until I used the non-figured characteristics for a few games and found it wasn't bad.  The best thing about it now, was the ability to aid OCV or DCV without affecting one's position in the tripsheet.  Another advantage I've found is that many times when instructing new players to the game, the question would come up "Why is my Dex/Str/Con so high?"  The answer would be, "Because its more efficient".  By uncoupling that, the Hulk doesn't need levels or a high Dex to get the great OCV, he just buys a great OCV.
 
Transfer
I do feel that transfer should have stayed in but maybe with a higher cost much in the same vein as why Regen was brought back; it's annoying to buy two powers and then have to laden them with limitations to link them when the original implementation worked and no one really complained.  Is it a deal breaker?  Not for me, but it is annoying and I understand why it was done, I just don't think it really needed to be done.

huzzah!
 
My 6e Basic showed up today!  (And I got off work like 90 minutes early!)
 
Man, it is _thin_.....    I'm happier already.
 
Note:  I am not reading anything in this thread since my last post, and only posted this here because I mentioned that until I read  6e Basic, I don't want to respond directly to questions posed by someone who has read only Basic and CC.  Basic might give me a different outlook on it.  Realistically, I don't expect to.  For my love of the game, I really hope it does.
 
(though it won't get read until I can get the scanning thing back on track, so-- carry on, I guess?)
 
 
 
Duke
 

I view both the MA maneuver creation rules and ranged MA as more "core" than APG because I believe the ability to design maneuvers should be in the system. 
 
I would include some APG material in Core, if it were my choice - things the core rules cannot reasonably achieve.  For example, the CE to STUN, and to Suffocate, which provide effects fairly common in the source material, and pretty much impossible to pin down in the core rules.  Most, however, belongs in "optional rule" territory.
 


For me, magic stops feeling like magic when it is governed by specific rules enabling me to know exactly what it can and cannot do.  Such definitions are essential in game rules, so we lose much of the "magic" feel.
 


My inclination was to revise the cost of Figureds (STUN, REC, END), revise the formuli a bit and end up with cost-balanced primaries and figured.  That would also add "no figured" being a limitation that removed the cost of the figureds from the specific stat (so a much greater limitation for CON than for STR or BOD).  Steve's point, that once we balanced the costs we did not need figured's, makes sense to me, though.  I argued for decoupling of CVs - it made no sense to have "figureds you cannot buy directly" , and even ;less when we decoupled the other figureds.

 
 
I'll go out on a limb and guess Steve decided that Transfer was either a sample "New Power" or a sidebar ability, and he chose the latter.   A couple of examples seems like enough to me, but I could see adding Transfer, or replacing one of the others with Transfer.

KS if I remeber correctly, I heard that when Steve Long wrote 5th, there was still some sacred cows so to speak that he couldn’t touch. Btw I don’t miss some of the cost minimums either-say you must buy  10” flight iirc Because then you needed GM permission to buy less.

Massey gives the example that Damage shield worsen from 4th (Damage Shield +1/2) to 5E (Damage Shield +1/2, Continuous +1) and I agree. However, because we are talking 6E, Damage Shield actually improved and became Damage Shield +1/4, Constant +1/2, No Range -1/2. Much better than 5E and actually cheaper than 4E (in Real Points but not in Active Points.

It's not as impossible as you seem to think. Notable, of course, but not unicorn shitting rainbows impossible. On the KD (known distance) rifle qualification course, we had up to 60 seconds to put 10 rounds into the black on a "dog target" (head and shoulders) at 200 yards sitting and at 300 yards prone. It wasn't difficult; I did 10 out of 10 at both distances and with time left over every time I qual'd, and I was only a marksman level shooter.

Firing at a full-sized person from closer range would be faster. We did something similar on close quarters shooting drills. This video is from the current era, but it's similar enough to how we did it 20 years ago to demonstrate the point.
 
 
 
Practically speaking, there is also the fact that pistols are less accurate than rifles. It's pretty normal for pistol battles to have many more misses than hits. A rifleman with even basic marksmanship ability and fire discipline is very dangerous.
 
 
 
_________
 
Games are not like real life (obviously). Real life is not perfectly predictable per a SPD chart going in DEX order. There is a lot more chaos and friction than most game systems "simulate". But letting that pass you're making some assumptions...that people are interchangeable.
 
"So you have a grunt with a rifle, probably speed 3 or so, against grunts with pistols who were probably at minimum equivalent to him in training -- speed, OCV, DCV, etc."
 
The likelihood of 7 soldiers all being equivalent is spurious; there would be variation. Perhaps our hero was exceptionally fast (or hyped up on adrenaline and fear) and was operating at a faster reaction time than normal thanks to the heightened situation; and perhaps at least some of the antagonists he got the drop on were slow, or caught off guard, or sleep deprived, or malnourished...were they all aware of the protagonist and had their weapons drawn and pointed at him and were they in an optimal spread such that they all had clear line of sight to the protagonist without risk of friendly fire? Or were some of the baddies looking elsewhere, didn't have their weapon drawn, didn't have a round chambered, didn't have their weapon's safety disengaged, couldn't fire without hitting a friendly fighter, etc? Did any of them freeze up or go into fight / flight mode? And so on. 
 
 
 

As someone who came late to the 6th edition party I can totally see the hate for the 2 tomes that make up the core books.  When I started to consider moving from 5th to 6th I was completely lost with regards to what books to even buy.  I had to ask on these forums for suggestions on what people deemed critical.  I'm glad I did because I ended up up getting some really good advice.
 
The single best piece of advice I was given was that all you really need to run is the "Complete" books.  I've read both Champions and Fantasy Complete cover to cover, no exaggeration.  They are really all you need to run a game, yes they are missing a setting but from a rules standpoint they are all you need.  I have the core books as PDFs only because they were unavailable to me from the site store at the time.  I open them up once and awhile, usually during character creation or after a game to look up rule I'm not familiar with...that's it.  I would never read them cover to cover unless I had them in print anyways but I would only read them cover to cover for my own personal edification not because I felt they were mandatory reading to play.
 
I treat them like Encyclopedias (God, I'm dating myself) in that they're good to have on hand for reference and research but I don't feel the need to read them when more concise and digestible books exist that give me what I need.  I don't hate them because they're dry or not what I think they should have been.

I'm up for re-classification.  I have broken things into four groups, the first impacts on the starting rolls for skills, the second is all about acting/reacting and how effective that might be, the third is about the condition of the character and the last is outside combat because those numbers are routinely advantaged in some way where other numbers are not.
 
Characteristics = STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO and PRE
 
Combat numbers = OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV, SPD
 
Health indicators = STUN, BODY, END, REC
 
Defence numbers = PD, ED, PowD, Mental D, Flash D (all potentially advantaged with resistant, hardened etc).
 
You think breaking them up into groups like this would help in presentation terms?