Duke Bushido

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 did admin on a forum for a couple of decades. I _totally_ believe that. Godspeed on getting everything straightened out, Sir. Duke

You can go ahead and notify the insurance company of your losses, because this has been _stolen_ from you.

uhgng.... Ugh.... Oh, wow. This is.... this is a lot heavier than I thought it would be.... Be a real shame, though, if I accidentally dropped it right here.....

Thanks for the thought, TD, But I can't take credit for actually _writing_ any of those: I just converted them for my own amusement. Though I am pretty sure I have a jackelope write-up somewhere (i kid: I _know_ I do.) I believed in those stupid things until I was like twelve. -- in fairness, though, I grew up in Circle, Alaska. It's not like I had a lot of reason _not_ to believe in them. I mean, a large portion of the mammals I saw regularly had horns or antlers of some kind or other. I was absolutely _crushed_ when I learned they weren't real.

Well so much for that crap.....

Thank you, Hugh! I'll have to practice it later, though: I've _no_ intention of getting in as deeply as I did last night. Yes; I am not disputing that: certainly a game can be played with what's in just the two books, and for years and years and years. But the commonality of the APGs being referenced for official rulings suggests that they are at least as official-- wow. How do I say this correctly? I could go with "you know what I mean," but I think history has shown how poorly that works in the written word. it demonstrates that they are to be viewed with the same weight as the core rules? Officially endorses them as actual canonical rules? I wish I could express that better. I guess we can do with "you know what I mean." Ugh. Realistically though, I accept that they are not "mandated as essential to the game." I just see a great deal of suggestion that they should be. Well this goes back to the APG thing: Do you think they should be core rules because you like them? Because you personally _want_ them to be? (I'm not being as ass here; I'm asking you to think about your feelings on this before answering. That's all.) Or do you find them to be necessary for creating and running a successful campaign? Are there concepts that can't be built without it? Are they more valid than anything in the APG, or truly essential to the HERO System experience? For what it's worth, I think they should be simply because the vast majority of HERO players (myself and others (maybe) excluded) find martial maneuvers, etc, essential to their appreciation of the game. For what it's worth, I find them to be a set of the .... What's the most correct without sounding like I'm trying to insult the idea? Objectionable? Disliked? Let's go with "objectionable." Personally, I find Martial Arts to be one of the objectionable things that led to so much consolidation in 5 and 6: it's a special set of one-off rules specifically for that thing. Like Instant Change, Transfer, and a few others: because they had special, one-off rules, they were torn apart and cobbled out of something else in an attempt to force some kind of "universal power." If the others can't be core rules, then MA, as done at least until 5e (I openly admit that I have not read 6e MA, for a number of reasons, not the least of which are expense and a general lack of interest in HERO martial arts system. If I can ever find an inexpensive used copy, I will probably read it, simply because, no matter what I think of the current rules set, I _am_ a HERO fan. It's like patriotism: it doesn't have to make sense; it's just how I feel ) Two quick things here: Yes: I know I can grandfather in these powers as-is. I know I can use the existing official powers to cobble up the same effects. 2 (I didn't number that first one; sorry-- on a small roll and trying to stem it) you asked in a previous post if a HERO-designed spell was different from a D&D spell. I said "yes," and here's more-or-less why: It doesn't feel magic (which, thinking about it, may be a _huge_ part of why I have so much less issue with Fantasy HERO than any other fantasy game). I wish I could express this technically, but that's an odd thing about impressions and feelings. I will, however, attempt to offer and example: Given: I am not especially comic-book savvy. What I know has been picked up by years of gaming with people who are, my nieces and nephews, my own kids, and the movies of the last decade or so (well, since Iron Man, who I always liked. Him and Flash). The two big guns of comics are Marvel and DC. Marvel likes to break everything down into some sort of pseudo-science. That's fine: that's their schtick. They like the sci-fi angle. DC doesn't do that nearly as much: It's freakin' _magic_, okay? When a DC wizard says some backwards words or whatever, magic happens, and there's no real reason for that other than "I know how to do magic." Marvel wizards do something that creates a resonance with something else and irritates the space-time continuum until it forms an ectoplasmic scab that can be peeled back to gain access to the nervous system of some multi-dimensional brain which will respond by sending it's "demon-like anti-bodies," and some special amulet effectively hypnotizes it so that it will do your bidding... One sounds like magic. It feels like magic. One sounds like--- well, _technically_ magic, in that there's no other way to make any of that happen, but it has science written all over it (badly) in that it has to be broken down and explained and presented as something that makes a kind of sense, something that anyone can probably do, given the right equipment. And that's huge. That's the difference between "Instant Change" and "Transform, Minor, self, clothes-only; uniform and clothes you were wearing only." I mean it's _huge_. Granted, it's not huge if you derive the bulk of your enjoyment from formulas, ratios, real values, or -- well, if the "meta" of the game is the most important part of the system to someone, it won't matter much. We can talk mechanics all day (which I'm still trying to _not_ do until I can read Basic), but easily half of my issues with the mechanics are the _massive_ change in the _feel_ of the game that the have created. The same thing happens each time some power or construct with a unique rule or set of circumstanced gets replaced by a cobble from something else: The end result is the same, but the _feel_ is not. Those things are no longer special; they are just something you bent, folded, prodded, and stretched out of something else. Years ago, I posted the comment that in order to achieve a perfectly balanced game, you needed a character with two abilities (and possibly a name): Affect Environment and Resist Environment. It got laughs (not the original intention) and it got a few insults and derisive comments (also not the original intention, but hey-- people are like that sometimes), but ultimately, that's what beating everything into a price-perfect, mechanics-perfect "balance" leads to. Dull. Those four-stat role playing games with a deck of cards deterring "yes" or "no" and you pull whatever you want out of thin air, because none of it matters since it's all the same. 3) because I forgot I had a third; I apologize. I've brought this up before, and as before, I'm not going to pursue it too far (or at all, since -- and please, I ask that _no one_ take this personally: I'm not huffing off; I swear it. I just have too much to do with the small amount of evening time I have to come back to this incredibly interesting but unbelievably time-sucking thread. I wish I did have the time to enjoy it, but the timing was just awful for me) and the responses are generally along the lines of "well it's really what the first guys had in mind." I don't doubt that. I can't really, as I've never met them and likely never will. I openly admit that I'm jealous beyond measure of those who have. I also postulate that as a defense, it's invalid. If we believe Lucas, the three or so "revisions" he has made to Star Wars were his original intent. He _intended_ for Greedo to shoot first, so he re-did the movie and made it happen. Did it make the movie better? Did it make Solo a better character? Rehtorical. I don't want to side-track this further. He added Storm troopers on lizards and some other CGI that really didn't look like it belonged there. His original intention. Again, did it make the movie better? Did it make it more enjoyable, and easier to lose yourself in? The guns disappeared from ET. That was just weird. I don't know if that was an original intention or not, but it happened. The guy who made a bajilion dollars on Post-it notes was looking to make a high-pressure, nigh-unbreakable glue. The guy who invented Saran Wrap--- I don't remember _what_ his original intention was, but it wasn't helping my leftovers postpone toxicity. Either way, these people had an original intention and ended up with something unique and wonderful. I don't think any of these creations would be improved by chucking out the results and continuing to pursue the original intention. I think something that's already wonderful ends up losing out. Point of order: (I think that's right) I did not disparage anyone. I humbly apologize if it came off that way; it certainly wasn't my intent. My comment was intended as something along the lines of "some people aren't willing to stick so tightly to a concept that they lose cost effectiveness." That's all. Some concepts, upon beginning, end up not being worthwhile, for whatever reason, to complete down to the most specific detail, and at some point players will strike a compromise with themselves between getting the end result they want and budgeting. Nothing wrong with it, and we've _all_ done it. I thought the inclusion of the word "strictly" would let that come across: they _are_ building to concept, just not as _strictly_ as they might have wanted to at the outset of character generation. No biggie. You are absolutely right, and thank you. Thank you for the correction, and thank you for not leaping all over a simple mis-speak as the reason everything I have ever said is totally invalid. I love the people here! Like COM, or so I'm told. Honestly, I don't think it needs more mechanic or more specificity or more "make it a six-modifier derivative of something else." Like so many other things, it is my sincere belief that it is _better_ with a unique mechanic, because "Luck" in the sense it is used in the game _is_ a rather random, who-knows-how-that-happened kind of thing. Turning into "Transform, Major, entire history of the universe where events leading to this specific moment alter the outcome of the character's die roll by -6" or some such thing, or putting a character-controlled "switch" on it take away from that "the universe is smiling on me and I like it" feeling. There is no need to defend Steve of the SETAC here because, Brother, I had no _doubt_ that it wouldn't have gone down in such a manner. Whatever I think of his newest incarnation of the game, I have never at any point doubted that he truly loves it, as much as I know I do, and I know he values the opinions of other folks who could be considered.. well, it sounds odd for a hobby, but "expert-level" knowledgeable of the game itself. No; I don't think anything he did was as much as a thumbed nose. If nothing else, not taking advice was most likely him volunteering to be the bad guy so no one else had to. Thanks for clarifying. I suspected, but it seemed so out of character for you in an otherwise-sincere conversation (you know: before the yelling and condemning start when people refuse to admit to themselves that even though they have nothing more constructive to add, they aren't willing to listen anymore, either. I will accept your word on this, as I haven't play tested 6e at all except in my head. As I noted, I am more-or-less in agreement here: when the SETAC was happening, I was rather hoping to see Base Characteristics cost-adjusted to resolve this issue. Boy was I surprised. Thanks for that tidbit, you old Softie, you. ;D Seriously though: thanks for that tidbit. It tells me that weren't simply outright opposed to Figureds, even if you didn't care for them. Why is that important? I don't know. Just more of that "feel" stuff, I suppose. Thanks for the support of COM, too. Not disagreeing with you. Sort of a side-eyed way to point out that for all the emblandening (it could be a word!) of power names and descriptions (accept for "Blast." Why is that not "Ranged Attack" or "Ranged Normal Attack" yet?! Sure, you can blast someone with a gun, colloquially, but you can't blast them with an arrow or a sling.), it seemed really odd not to rename all the "EGOx" powers. Personal weakness: I just can't resist a sincere, civil exchange of ideas or opinions. Promise, it'll be the last one in this thread, simply because I'll never get my scanning project advanced if I don't keep my sorry butt out of this thread! The truth, though, is as soon as I realize something I say _might_ lead to a question, I try to provide clarification on that, too. I work very hard on not being too terribly vague whenever I can avoid it. I do it, ostensibly, to add clarity and prevent misunderstandings. I have no idea if it actually works. So, for productivity-related reasons, I announce here that I won't be back to this thread, even for a read, because it's too tempting to keep participating. You guys are _awesome_ at civil exchange, and it's such a welcome change of pace to the rest of the internet. Doesn't help it's about a subject very dear to me. With that in mind, no one need feel compelled to respond to anything I've said, unless you want to open it up for discussion amongst people who aren't me. (and, nothing personal, but I'm going to have to "unfollow" the lot of you, just to get rid of that little tempting announcement I get when someone puts something up here) Totally get that. Also, I am assuming that's a typo and you meant 4e. Yep. Got that, too. Please, though, please continue. (I must be tired; that gag was a lot funnier to me than it should have been) Oh Lord, yes; this very exact thing. But to be fair, the examples in the book support that very assumption. Look at how many powers are built _seemingly_ (he added, so as to not be accused of saying something he did not ) around the idea that "this Advantage or Limitation can be used in this situation and therefore we are going to apply it" as opposed to "this is the concept; which modifiers most easily help me achieve it?" Killer Shrike did a real good one (I think) with his recreation of "Find Weakness" (something that, like so many others have confessed, I don't really miss to begin with, but the rules aren't just about me, obviously. Slap a Stop Sign on it and put it back. Agreed. Whole-heartedly agreed. Agreed _mostly_. That is to say, there are currently three "games powered by HERO" that I'm aware of (MHI, CC, FHC). MHI and FHC come closest, which honestly makes sense, since CC is Supers, and with Supers, well-- it's no-holds-barred when it comes to special abilities. But still, even FHC goes more into the HERO System over-all than it really needs to just to be a Fantasy Game. More accurately, while presenting decent Fantasy themes, etc, it kept recalling the generic nature of the HERO System to the forefront. Perhaps that's a slightly more accurate assessment. Granted, this may have been a licensing requirement; I don't know. However, I _do_ agree that such a concept-- games powered by HERO-- that focuses specifically on those rules the author finds relevant to his game. However, to me this re-enforces the need for optional rules (like the above-mentioned sidebar for figured characteristics) in the core rules volumes, so that the author might more-specifically tailor the game he imagines. I mentioned before that I try to be open-minded, and I can't blame that issue on 6e. That has _always_ been a problem with HERO: the skills stop where you say they stop, and that's going to vary from group to group. The folks who prefer the super-crunchy, ultra-precision approach: well, skills are going to get broken down, possibly ad infinitum, with the end result that a skilled individual is going to be some kind of expensive. Then there's the technical folks: the folks who _know_ that you don't just take "crack shot" as a skill, that it is not even going to be group-relevant (crack shot with pistols, for example), but unique to each individual weapon because of whatever reason they will likely know better than I do. Perhaps it's a maturity problem: when I was twenty-one, skills were easy. I didn't know enough about most things to get really carried away with breaking them down further and further, making each aspect a specialty. For example, "Detective work" made perfect sense to me. The real-life forensics shows and detective shows came about, and I learned a lot more. "Physician" was perfectly acceptable once upon a time. Now you've got specialties, sub-specialties, research, and don't go to a GP for so much as a hang nail. It's not a 6e problem. It's a HERO, "make exactly what you want" problem, compounded by both player creativity, GM demand, and the real-world knowledge of everyone in the group. No matter what, we like to push and push until we get something as "real" as we can. Personally, I think adding things like "Familiarity" and "Proficiency" actually made this problem worse, via the implication that a general knowledge base was not good enough to be an actual skill, leading to the idea that to be a "real" skill it had to be specialized down to "Suckling: Left hind teat, 14-". For what it's worth, more than another Player's Guide, I think HERO-- any edition-- would benefit greatly from a _GM_ guide, or at least a hand-holding "how to build a campaign" guide, _especially_ for new players, even if they have extensive experience in other systems. An advice book, though, perhaps, for example, demonstrating how to manage different "levels of realism" via creating skills: the sort of theme or feel that would lead to "Physician" as being just as acceptable as "Kidneyologist." But I won't blame that on any edition, save the first, which created the problem, then all the ones after the first that never had any solid advice on how to resolve it. Notice I don't think we need a mechanic or a rule to do it for us; I just think some advice would go a long way here. I agree, and I don't. No; I don't want to be a contrarian. No; really. I don't. But unless you "Create this power from whole cloth," (by which I mean "import" ') ) _then_ you don't have a problem. You fly totally in the face of what the new edition is about, which is also okay: it's your game, after all. But if you use it in terms of a specific edition which doesn't already include it, then you have build it _somewhere_, just to make sure it follows the terms of that edition. When you get right down to it, the changes made in 6e are largely _because_ of the "maths game." There exists a set of players of unknown size and unknown percentage of total players-- perhaps a small number; perhaps almost all of the players-- we will never know for sure because we can't poll all of them-- to whom the maths game (I'm practicing, but I'm American enough that "Maths" sends up all kinds of "wrong" alerts in my mind. Weird, since "Mathematics" doesn't bother me at all. ) _is_ the point of the system, or perhaps better stated, their favorite part of the system. The author of the last two editions seems to be in that camp, given the direction he has taken the game: it's more number-balanced and whatever other qualities of maths are attractive than ever before. The same could be said of uniformity: more disparate things are being jammed into single mechanics or group mechanics than ever before: the number of "stand alone" mechanics is lower than ever before, and the number of powers is higher than ever before. So clearly, more uniformity. And uniformity, of course, makes it easier to do the maths all back and forth. For me, that's.... well, it's not directly _opposite_ of what I liked about HERO: there were some maths issues I had (mostly those that lead to "cost effective" builds, as discussed briefly above in a couple of places, by many people), but the move to uniform mechanics certainly _is_... well, again, not opposite, but --- doesn't matter. I won't be back to discuss it any time soon anyway. Maths. Nope. Still feels wrong. Sorry, Doc. I really tried. I am told that my supers campaigns are all essentially that. It's habit now, what with decades into the setting and feel, but it started by accident: I knew nothing about comics except what I _thought_ they were, and that was pretty much it: simple stuff from my childhood like Captain Marvel (the real one) bopping Dr. Silvana on the noggin, etc. Funny how that turned out. Again, I'm totally for the "games powered by HERO" concept. While it was meant as a quip, I think Hugh may have inadvertently created Saran Wrap Post-it Notes (regardless of what his original intentions were. ) understood. One of my primary grievances is the _elimination_ or twisted alteration of what I want to use. Though I freely accept that I may well be a minority casualty. Certainly I am on this board. Given results of the polls I've seen since I came back by the board, though, I don't think we've got more than fifty-ish regularly-active members, though. One out of fifty makes me a statistical hiccup, I think, as opposed to a legitimate subset. You're a heck of a guy, KS. Much respect to you. If it helps, feel free to skip me, simply because I can't afford to come back to this thread anytime soon: it has cost me two full evenings already, and I'm falling behind on promised deadlines. I know the feeling! that's why I'm bowing out now. I have argued before (unsuccessfully, you should know, to perhaps prevent you from expending a lot of effort there) that there seems to be a subtle-yet-pervasive drive to rule and mechanic the role-playing aspect into irrelevance. I'm not saying "there is a conspiracy to eliminate social interaction." I'm just saying it sure _feels_ like it. Fact is, not everything needs a mechanic. In fact, some things, like the reaction to someone who's kinda cute, or homely, but with a twinkle in his eye, can _not_ be done with a mechanic, as it is purely social interaction, and like Soylent Green, will vary from person to person. Ditto. Doubly-dittoed (two whole copies! ) when people can't agree on what "balanced" is, or what needs balancing. Something wins; something loses. In this case, the direction of "balance = maths (Still trying, Doc! )" was chosen. Maths does not directly equate to things that aren't number... able? Let me try again: assigning numerical values to words first requires that everyone agrees on the numerical value of each letter, then you can total them and get the value of the word. Except for those folks who think that each number represented by the letter should be a _digit_, and reading those numbers as digits is how you derive the numerical value of that word. Though doing either of those things means we've completely left behind those people who think the numerical value of the word should be based solely on the number of times it appears printed in a given newspaper on a certain date--- Or, put the way that I mentioned up-thread somewhere, before we can agree that Characteristics are now "better balanced," we have to agree that they are now priced correctly. Ultimately, that, too, has to be based on someone's opinion, and someone else will always disagree, often for equally-valid reasons that are different from the first guy-- it's all infinite regression, and honestly, the only "balance" I can effectively judge is if each player had the same level of fun (which is also subjective, I'm afraid), and that has precious little to do with whether or not a single point of STR is properly priced against a single point of Mental Defense or Flight. Numbers are not subjective; this is one-hundred percent true. Assigning them to subjective things, however, does not make those things less subjective, no matter how much maths we do. (Okay, now if one you British folks would pop me a note: I am one-hundred-percent certain "how much maths we do" is completely incorrect. Am I right?) (This laughter is not a "ooh, Burn!" or any other sort of pile-on derision based on that comment. This laughter is because that comment was funny as hell, in any context. ) Dammit. Another entire night shot on this one single thread. Crap. Good night, all. Duke

If you're considering a second edition, and you're interested: it's _not_ great stuff; it's something I did for myself after discovering GURPS Old West-- I pulled a lot of scenarios from Boot Hill and a couple other Western games and converted them to HERO 4e. I can't say I can find the quickly, but I expect I can find them _eventually_. Fair warning: it's not great stuff (the stuff in Western HERO was better), but I can send it to you if you're interested.

Edited, because something went horribly wrong, and I'd rather delete and go to bed than try to re-do it.

Oh, it was _awesome_ how unexpected and hilarious that was, wasn't it?!

My, oh my, oh _my_ but I do _not_ need to be doing this right now. But the compulsion.... it's maddening..... Thank you, Hugh; I appreciate your taking the time and patience to point that out rather than come screaming down like Odin on high, as is the case on so many other forums. You, like most other folks here, are an excellent conversationalist, and it is very much appreciated. However (as I quoted below; I couldn't get it worked into the middle of the stuff of yours I quoted here and immediately below this, I'm afraid), I was intentionally refraining from commenting on anything "purely mechanical" until I have my copy of Basic in my hands and have had time to read it. Yes; Iv'e read the two "big boys," but as I mentioned: trying to clear those from mind and focusing purely on what's in Basic... there is a chance that it will change _my_ mind. And if nothing else, it will put me more in touch with the position that Killer Shrike is currently in: I will have read the two books he considers to be "6e." Hence, my digression. I was trying hard not to join the thread at all, but he practically dared me to. ( I kid; Shrike's as great a conversationalist as you are, and I'm fairly certain my occasional anachronisms offer up tags saying "he doesn't mind being made an example of.") Right. And there are rules in the Players Guides that are -- well, official rules. While they might be considered "optional" or a "fresh angle" or something like that, the fact that the author references _this_ material-- the stuff in the Player's Guides-- suggests that they aren't so much "optional rules" and after-the-fact errata to the main rules. And of course, there has been more than reference to the possibility of a third APG. Should there be a 7th edition, likely we'll see a majority of these guides moved into "core rules" status. I can't remember at the moment, but is there not a Martial-Arts-specific book for 6e as well? I don't know if it qualifies as "core rules"-- well, let me rephrase: I know that the two books are still considered officially "all you need to play" or "core rules of the HERO system" of whatever you might like to call them (I like "core rules" because it's easier to type ), but if history repeats itself, any Martial Arts book will become more canonical to the majority of players than any Player's Guide will. At best, the official core rules are two large books. At worst, they are _five_ large books, with the author periodically mentioning the need of a sixth. The short version: I agree with you. Presentation is a not-unsizeable problem for pitching the HERO system. And that was just to confirm that I had no intention (and still don't, as I haven't read Basic yet) of weighing in specifically on mechanics. This I quoted on accident, and can't make go away. I responded already, but since it's here again: Thanks, NB, but I've already got that book. I appreciate you looking out, though, Sir; it's never unwelcome. I quoted you, Doc, to mention that this always _could_ be done, but someone (a couple of someones, I think) addressed it already (but I had it in "quoted" section by the time I got there and didn't want to start all over again). So I can convince myself I didn't just kill all my "computer time" this evening reading this thread instead of finishing up my scans, I will add something that I didn't see touched on: The reason you didn't see this sort of build a lot in every group wasn't that it was impossible or even particularly hard to do. The fact that you _did_ see it in some groups demonstrated that. The reason that you didn't see it in every group was that some people are less willing to build.. well, for lack of a better term, let's say "strictly to concept." There are those people who, no matter what the concept, will look at a couple of models to get what they want and say "bump that noise! I can spend the same / similar points this way and get a whole lot more out of it!" if I want a gymnast, why buy up a gymnastics skill to represent years of study and practice, when I can simply buy up DEX and get all this other great stuff with it?! And if i'm getting all this for free, then why would I bother selling any of it back? Let me just change my concept a bit and it all makes sense. Deadly gymnast. Gymkata! (man that was an awful movie). Discrepencies in OCV and DCV were easily modeled with Skill Levels. (though as Hugh noted at some point in this thread, skills progression is still just as out of whack as it ever was. For what it's worth, I think because of the new Characteristics models, Skill costs, skill progression, and Skill Levels end up being rather less balanced than they ever were, but again-- I don't really want to get into mechanics until I can fully see where Shrike is coming from-- that is, until I can read Basic. Granted, this thread will be as dead as the "least favorite edition" thread by then, I suspect, but my pet project is my priority right now. I love ya, Doc; I really mean that: you've always been one of the first to help anyone, including helping me, and you are always a joy to converse with. But in this, we'll have to disagree. I will accept "differently balanced," but I don't see any real long-term gains. To qualify that, let me add "in the games I tend to run." I can't speak for other groups, but I just don't run into a lot of point-misering or combat-tweaking in my games. I don't know if it's the way I run or if it's simply the way the group indoctrinates new players, but with one single exception in all these years (I'm sure I've mentioned Davien -- by name, in case he lurks here -- who was the single-most stand-out rules rapist, point-squeezing, all-my-skills-are-for-killing disagreeable sack of irritant ever to sit in at my table. And that's saying a lot, because he wasn't really the only "power gamer" we've ever had. He was just _gifted_. Make the Harbinger look like Fred Rogers), my groups are pretty big on building strictly to concept, even if they occasionally kneecap themselves just to add a bit of flavor or extra challenge. You remember how excited I was in the one-armed Fantasy character thread? That's the kind of groups I have: concept first, screw effectiveness that goes against concept. By its nature, in something like this: a building system of sorts, sophistication usually requires a bit more complication. Now to an extent, I accept that no conversation will sway either side on this: there are those (like me) who will point out that given the rep of HERO outside the fan base, additional complication is a bad move for long-term survivability, and there are those who will defend the increased complication as necessary to improve simplification, akin to pressing a button to open a garage door, when before you had to get out of the car, open the door manually, get back in the car.... It's simpler; yes. But getting there required adding a breaker, more wiring, a complicated electrically-powered mechanical gizmo that's going to require some maintenance, a sensor, a circuit board, etc. So point-blank, I accept that this is a no-win area of discussion, and offer no challenge to any claims from or for either side. And that empty bit is still there because I can't make it go away. Sorry about that. I see the point. Doesn't mean I agree with it (non-confrontational; I can't find a phrasing that can't be misread as confrontational. Forgive the sound of it, please, and focus on the meaning). But yes: PRE didn't have a solid definable mechanic. If we kept PRE, what's the limit? We could add some kind of "Luck" power with a poorly-defined GM's discretion cop-out kind of mechanic. Makes about as much sense as PRE did. okay, I'm going to leave that, simply because I can't make the box go away, even if I delete the contents. I'm also going to say that when I quoted it, I was going to comment-- especially to the skill levels and skill pricing comments, but I have thought better of it, simply because I _did_ tell myself (and you guys ) that I really _don't_ want to get into the mechanicals until I read Basic-- until I really have the best-possible understanding of where KS was coming from when he issued his invitation. That is, I really want to be fair not just to my own thoughts, but to his position as well. So I'm going to leave this unaddressed, at least for now. Obviously, we will never know, as it didn't happen that way, but would like to think that might have been easier to swallow rather than flat-out nixing it and offering as a replacement "unusual looks." You know, not everyone is striking; not everyone has looks so great or so awful that they will get a --- never mind. I've been warned that this is a can of worms best left unopened. But I will say that, after having nixed it, offering a binary replacement was a bit of a salty icepick to the hemorrhoids for fans of COM, particularly from a system marketed from the ground up as "build anything you want." Well, I have no learned that quote-in-a-quote won't quote. Imagine that. But I trust you know the limitation you referred to. And yes: that's a workaround for those who don't want to fill two lines on a character sheet with rather lengthy list of modifiers to make it work. For what it's worth, though, it's not a limitation I would allow, and especially under 6e. Not because my distaste for 6e would drive me to penalize myself, but because, from what I've seen and read so far, "the text" is insufficient: CC, FHC, Basic, and "core rules" seem to have different inclusions and unclusions (probably not a real word ). At least specify which text, just so we're both on the same page. Even then though, as a matter of habit, you will have it written out, fully, somewhere before I approve it. I don't mind the idea of simply putting the name of the power and relevant costs on the sheet, but somewhere you will have a spelled-out definition I can discuss with you before I approve your character. I'm not looking to derail this thread (and don't think it's possible, really), but that just kind of needed saying: that part of the conversation (how long do power descriptions have to be?) seemed to be losing focus on the fact that at the end of the day, you have to bring out all those details for review, and for the math to build it, no matter how little you get away with writing down. Agreed. I can't say I would have been thrilled (again, we will never know, since it didn't happen, and any opinion I have on how I _might_ have felt is undeniably tainted by how I feel about the way things ended up), but I'd like to think I would have been a lot more "okay" with it than I am about how it ended up. I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it went down. I wasn't there, so I can't know (I'm pretty sure the SETAC guys were sworn to secrecy ), but I don't think it went quite like that. Sorry, NB; I didn't realize I had quoted two different examples of this. I addressed this in a reply to a quote from Doc Democracy above, if you're interested. (I wouldn't be, but I don't think I would have made it this far into a post, either. ) Looks like I did a third one with another quote from Hugh a bit down the page from here. I gotta stop using this board as a sleep replacement. If you consider how much adding a string of "cans" and "cants" and math functions behind the name robs that feeling of "magic spell," then yes: it compares unfavorably to _any_ magic spell from any system from any game built to incorporate magic as a theme. However.... This is not a problem unique to 6e. Certainly 5 and 6 exacerbated this problem, but they did not create it. This is one of --and perhaps the biggest-- the motivators behind me allowing players to have a separate record of the _actual_ power build while putting only the name of the power / spell, it's effect (in dice or what-have-you), and relevant costs in actual points and END costs). Because of the popularity of fantasy-- even those of us beyond-burned-out on fantasy are familiar with it-- these build sheets are affectionately referred to in our groups as "spell books," even if they're lists of weapons builds or super powers. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. Based on your history, I'm going to assume not, but based on the idea that a game with a Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't sell well---- Well, you aren't stupid, either- at least, not that you've ever demonstrated, so I'm confused. Seriously. I'm going to run with "you are being sarcastic," so if I am totally off-base, at least you'll know why. With the current iteration, we have two giant tomes _before_ we get to the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's guide (APG 1 and 2). We also have (I believe; I should have been asleep before I even logged on) the Martial Arts book, and a game author mentioning the need for an additional Player's Guide. That's a lot of giant tomes to pitch. I daresay that stacked up against 2 giant tomes, well, two seems more affordable. And then there's the reputation HERO has (deserved or not) for unnecessary complexity, and those four-to-six giant tomes start looking like a bad way to invest a mortgage payment. You yourself told me once-- it was over a misunderstanding of a comment that I had meant negatively-- that one of the best things about 6e was that it opened up even more ways to build a particular end result. I'm not certain why, from that point of view, an optional rule to retain figureds or COM or anything else strikes you as less than reasonable. No; I'm sorry. I've had words put in my mouth before, and I don't intend to do it here: you say that you disagree it would be a good idea; you do not specifically say that it is a bad idea. However, it does come across as you holding the idea in a negative light. That's fine, though: it's all about opinions, ultimately. I would simply like to point out that "we don't need figureds anymore" depends _heavily_ on believing that the pricing _is_ fixed. It's changed, and it's all matchy-matchy-er, but "fixed" is still a judgement call, based on opinions of the in-game value of each aspect. Currently it is "fixed" almost exclusively with regard to math, and honestly-- that's as far as it can ever get. This is because every play group, play style, and player is going to have a different favorite, and a different "important thing" Characteristics and build-wise. Some things are going to be inherently more important to some groups than they are too others, and ultimately there will never be universal agreement that Characteristics are "fixed." I remember the most common example way back when was the idea that STR was "underpriced." To this day I maintain that it was overpriced, simply because, as Massey pointed out, if you didn't buy a hell of a lot of it, you simply never got the "free values" that so many people were up in arms about Strength giving away. You tied up a bunch of points, but at the end of the day, you'd be more "cost effective" spending them on a good ol' fashioned energy blast in the majority of situations we encountered during actual play. Skill levels. Been at this a couple of hours now, and forgot what I wanted to respond to in the original post, so I'm just going to ask a general question: What is the intrinsic value in changing "Ego Combat Value" to "Mental Combat Value," particularly in light of defining mental powers as working versus Ego? Sean, my friend, please forgive the bluntness: at this point I just want to power through and get to bed. In what game do you want to roll low for damage? Not when you stop to consider that Multiform, which most generally involves a shape shift, and often a substantial one, is most certainly not. I am sorry, Massey, but as above, I've been here so long on this I no longer remember what I wanted to reply to. I would like to point out that I agree with most of what you said. However, since I can't remember what I was wanting to dig out specifically, I have deleted the content of the quote entirely in the interest of shortening this post (though it's clearly far too late for that). Ditto, with apologies to both of you. Good night, Amigos. Duke

I think it's valid that he might be walking around bare-faced and they don't actually know he is, beyond "the guy inside the Defender armor." A parade of famous people could walk right past me and I never know. I am reminded of a cartoon I watched with the kids many years ago: the Justice League (not necessarily the name of the cartoon, but it had that character roster) was being infiltrated by Lex Luthor, who was using some kind of "put my mind into other people" device. His goal was to get into (I think it was) Superman's head and control him to do something horrible. Somehow... He missed. He ended up inside the Flash. At one point, he steers the Flash toward the restroom and announces "well at least I can learn the true identity of the Flash!" (or words to that effect). He stands in front of a mirror and rolls back his hood, leans close in the mirror and studies himself for _easily_ twenty seconds of precious screen time. "I...... have no idea who this is." I nearly choked laughing. Yeah, sure: the Flash's alter ego isn't famous (please correct me if I'm wrong), but the odds are that Luthor could walk right past him and not recognize him again later. Even the really attractive celebrities all tend to look like each other and a million other people that outside of something to "clue you in" to their identity: famous role or costume, hanging with a group of people both unique and known to keep his company, etc.... Clark Kent looks kinda like Superman, but it's clearly not something you pick up on right away. Duke

I was doing my best to catch up on what transpired while I was away, actually. Though technically not a new user, and if anyone was wondering, most of the pics from the first _several_ hundred pages simply aren't there anymore. You can't even "open in new tab" on them. Don't know if it's a forum issue, someone took them down, or if there were bad links. Either way, it's not a terrible loss: the internet is filled with funny pictures; It was just kind of nice to have a hand-picked selection.

I'm afraid not: time constraints keep me from bothering to put up a website (one of those "tell us what you want and we'll give you template") type sites, because knowledge constraints keep me from doing myself. That, and everything I'm doing for this project is on someone else's copyright. It's my plan to turn them over to the copyright holder (in this case, Jason Waters) when they are complete for him to disseminate or not in the manner he sees fit. I have no foreknowledge, but I suspect they will end up in the store on this site, priced as reasonably as the other 4e stuff (which is incredibly cheap, if you haven't looked there yet). Dukes is

Dude, take it from me: in a world where comeliness matters (like the one we live in), being ugly is one hell of a hindrance. When the doctor first told us it was going to be twin girls) couldn't sleep for two nights. I cried all night, begging God on my soul that they not look like me. You don't have to be "striking," just a little prettier, to make a world of difference. Same goes with ugly. You don't have to have much of it- doesn't even have to be memorable or scary-- for things to be far more unpleasant than they are for the bulk of the people you see every day.

Oh, man-- I hope you managed to pick it up anyway. It's pretty good. First thing I've ever read by Surbook, and was actually rather surprised as how much I enjoyed reading it. That boy's got skills.

Thanks, NB, but thus far, I have (as far as I know) all of the "one thin book" games built with 6e, to include FHC. And yes: I found the same book/PDF deal. Very nice. What the Crack?! My space bar is working again? Dude, I have _got_ to get a new keyboard..... And go to bed before I say something offensive. Night, all.

Well if you're going to call me out by name like that.... Nah; I kid-- I've got big shoulders. And I'm certain that you know I'm always a willing example. (nice to see you back, by the way) I really don't have time to get too deeply into it right now, and as I mentioned, I have scored a copy of the Basic Rules, and I really do want to see if I feel better over-all about 6 after I read that. Being honest? I don't expect I will, over-all. But there is the chance that I will find the presentation much more suitable to actually learning / teaching the game. Which brings me to an abbreviated list: As mentioned by someone else above, the changes break the feel of progression. Yes: the argument can be made that "this is the next logical step." I don't agree because it doesn't feel like a step in the game that I've always played as much as it feels like a veering off. I wish I had a better way of expressing this, but it doesn't _feel_ like any of the changes were made to streamline play or increase enjoyment of the game; it feels like a purely gamist exercise in math. Sure, there is value to that for a lot of people. I'm just not one of them. i get more joy out of playing the game than I do analyzing it and breaking it down to the ittiest parts and measuring them, then breaking down further any that might be bigger than the smallest. 6e feels like it was written by and exclusively for the the folks that derive their enjoyment of the game from that aspect. That aspect doesn't help me play or enjoy the game, but I still pay the verbiage tax any time I want to look something up. Don't take this for a pointless insult, because I mean it as the truth, and the vibe I get when I read it the first time and very few times I've flipped back through it: Remember when Champions: New Millennium came out? How we all ran out and bought it and got halfway through and thought "Oh Dear God! We had something wonderful! Don't let this be the way it dies!" That's it. That's the feeling I got reading it, and the feeling I get when I reference it. It doesn't vibe "next logical step" as much as it does "here's someone else's version of it." Kind of the American Godzilla (of which I will proudly stand as the only living fan! ) The "Complete" books kind of drive home the next point, which actually I think Hugh put into words way better than I ever could (which is to say, "succinctly." ) I didn't find it at a quick scan, so I will have to paraphrase: It's not a game anymore. It's a system from which games can be built. I'm a huge advocate of the "one thin book" approach (which is part of why I think "Basic" has a shot at altering my opinion of 6e). To this end, I have fully supported and purchased Monster Hunter (don't like the original source material, but I want to support both HERO and the OTB approach), Champions Complete, and Fantasy HERO. (I also bought Lucha HERO, but it wasn't until I opened the mailer and noticed the cover that it was a 5e product. Still, lots of fun, and if they do it for 6, I will probably support that, too). The games made from the system are actually more appealing. Yes, MHI reads pretty dry, and they all read heavily compressed, but the fact is that I can see myself enjoying those games (except MHI: the source material is so over-the-top macho it out-luchas actual Luchas). But they don't feel like HERO. They feel like they should say "inspired by HERO" or something like that. I must add this, if only for honesty: I came to understand more about 6e by reading CC and FHC (MHI was a bit buggy) than I did reading the two tomes of actual rules. I've been playing this game since '81, and was lost in the rules of the latest edition. There were a number of reasons-- the short list is 1) really, really dry. Text book dry. And I've been shot at for this point in the past, but the fact is that after a thirteen-hour work day, coming home after my wife has left for work, having to cook and feed myself and the kids, then knocking out house-related tasks while cycling the kids through the tub and helping with homework, then dammit, if you want me to read you, then do _not_ do everything within your power to knock me out cold. No; it's not a mechanical issue per se; it makes it extremely difficult to learn with the mechanics actually _are_, however. The last thing I read that dry was a microbe text back in .... was it '88? either way; doesn't matter. But I've read enough other stuff by Steve to know that he _can_ write lively text. Sorry; I'm going to wrap this up. I'm getting a bit groggy, and I've got work tomorrow. The text is spread out-- way, way out. Yes: there are many, many examples. How many of those would we not need if the book wasn't trying to hard to reduce itself to components and sub-components, and turn power builds (like armor or Force Field) into buy this one thing, then modify the Hell out of it. Boom. Easy-peasy. Reducing everything to perfect equality requires the assumption that there _is_ perfect equality. It also requires you step everything way, way back into the totally generic. This means that anything that isn't in and of itself already totally generic can only be built; it can't be bought. You can't buy armor: you have to build it. It will take four modifiers and a line and a half on your character sheet. A force field will probably cost END, so that's two whole lines. Well the "ENTER" button on my keyboard just died, so I'm done sooner than I thought. Forgive the massive block of text that's going to follow as a result. Well, space bar still works. That's something, I guess. Anyway, the idea that everything must be built-- if you don't want anything more than some characteristics, a nondescript blast, and some flight, you're going to take one thing, apply mixed handful of modifiers, some math (no different than before, really, save that you're no doing it in new places, and more often in the old ones), and write up the whole shebang. Now all these things go together. The dryness and excessiveness of the text. The fact that if you are _not_ already familiar with how HERO does things (and even a portion of those of us who _do_), and all this comes at you out of the blue: seven-hundred or so pages of "the super-generic, mechanically-perfect system," and trying to figure out what it what, what does what, how to add and cobble, how to work modifiers-- as in how to select them, which ones do what, which ones for which specific result-- "how to build Force Field" with Resistant Defense-- how to know that "Resistant Defense" is what you want, even!--- All of this, and more, is going to come together and hit the potential new player square in the "who the hell has time for this?!" gland. Fortunately, there aren't that many game shops left, so he's not as likely to see M&M, V&V, SAS, or any of the _much_ more user-friendly supers competitors on the shelf next to it. Maybe that's another part of it. Everything 4e and back was easier to thumb through, scan through, and soak up in the first or second reading. 4e took a bit more reading than anything before that, but it was also the single most user-friendly edition to date, what with the first of HERO's now-trademark indexes / table of contents and the meticulous attention to layout. 5e tried, but there was so much more material, and the layout was.... odd? Different? Well, no; it was _similar_. It's just that each "quick run through of what this thing means" sections became so large as create a major disconnect between sections. 6e, as a reference, or as something you're trying to teach yourself without ever having played HERO before, is downright user-surly. There's more, some even related directly too mechanics, but I'm too groggy to carry on, and as I stated, I really want to give Basic a chance; venting my dislike with the current rules is not going to help me keep an open mind. Fortunately, to chop up and address a couple of other things in your quote post, I had to start at the bottom, so the rest of this is a bit more legible. Actually, yeah-- were _have_ you been, anyway? Sean Waters popped back up after you left; I hope you haven't missed him. Just as an update: I've incorporated your idea for skill advancement through allowing skill-specific EP for critical successes into two of the three games I'm running. The control group is a well-established campaign with players I've had for years. They seem to appreciate it-- anyone likes a little extra experience, right? The other is my youth group, which had only had a handful of sessions prior to introducing it. As I was easing into the rules, a few at the time as they caught on, I don't think they noticed anything out of the ordinary, so not a lot of feedback there. For what it's worth from the GM's point of view, I think it might be better suited to supers (my youth group), who are spending EP on every aspect of the game, and where really high skill levels are part of the theme. In Heroic, if there aren't a lot of skills in play (i.e., a GM who doesn't get too deeply into hair-splitting, like turning "Biology" into "human anatomy," "immune system science," "microbiology," "physiology," and ten other houses), a character can become "super skilled" well in advance of what the GM might have hoped for. I have curbed this a bit by awarding those bonuses at the end of the session: if you got a natural 3 during the session, you get that bonus EP. If you got _four_ natural 3s on that same skill during the session, you get a bonus EP: one bonus EP for the skill in which the nat 3 was rolled. If more than one, then it's the one that got the _most_ nat3s, or if tied, then the first one. I will allow 2 bonus EP this way: one per skill per session. if you got a nat3 in three skills, I'm sorry: only the first two get a bonus point. Not trying to drift off the subject; I just thought you might like an update from someone who has tried it. I really like it. I expect it will be a standard part of everything I do going forward. Thanks again. Crap! I did all that in the wrong spot! I was going to (sorry; RETURN button is still out) add one last thing: the mechanics are not the only reason I went with HERO way back when, and not the only reason I stayed there. Believe it or not, the simplicity of HERO and how quick it was to pick up and understand immediately-- that was a large part of it. 5e stabbed it a little bit, but it got better with re-5. 6e handed the corpse of simplicity to simplicity's children and laughed.

That is one that our stalwart supporter Ravenwood has provided for this project. Tell you what: when I finish Western and AC 1, I will try to tend to AC3 before doing the rest of what Ravenwood has provided ( 1-8, if I recall correctly) Duke

As much as I would love to jump in here and pretend we could change your mind, I recently discovered HERO Basic was available in print, and found a print copy for sale. When it arrives, I intend to work reading it around my scanning project (somehow). As much as I detest 6e, I want to see if the presentation in Basic changes _my_ mind. Sure: I am an opinionated crotchety old curmudgeon. But I pride myself on being as fair as I can, and as open minded as I can. Duke

Sure. Nothing makes me feel safer at highway speeds than sacrificing peripheral vision.

Power. Extortion: gaining leverage against someone. Might start out as favors or backing, but once that special congressman has slipped down the slope.... On to the next one. Do their bidding, work behind the scenes on their behalf.. And when you have enough on them, then you have leverage. Local DAs, state governors--- the long game is coming the man behind the scenes. Making a fool of X , where X is someone related to said villain's background (and is usually a player character, though any prominent figure on your game world will do). Getting the 'mobile out of hock. (yeah.... that was an odd night) Actual, honest-to-Pete destruction of something: Some one. Some agency. Some political party. Some ethnicity. Earth.

Either I'm _not_ crazy, or we all are. Duke

And most important of all in a four-way fire fight: reload time....