Christopher R Taylor

Given I started doing this in the late 80s, I am not sure where the connection to D&D would be.

Yeah I agree, Elemental Control was basically a bonus for building a character well, which is kind of a bonus in and of its self.

I have a chart of items and things like property, favors and such that players roll on when they make characters, as heirlooms. I don't concern myself with the cost, since everyone gets one, its just a part of the campaign. Often I'll give some other freebies as well such as a number of points in background non-combat skills equal to the character's INT score.

Unfortunately I'm seeing it happen. I have a friend who's been playing Hero since the early 80s and now he's looking for a simpler system (he's trying out Savage Worlds right now). I think the desire to have a rule for everything that GMs used to guess or hand wave in the past starts to snowball and get out of hand in any game system. The thing is you don't HAVE to use all that stuff in Hero, and building a character is no more complicated now than it ever was. There are more options, but when I started playing Champions in 1983 there wasn't a handy Hero Designer program, either.

I think it would be a terrific product, but the way the gaming industry is now, publishing something without a ready audience is just a waste of money

A big thank you to everyone for your purchase of The Fantasy Codex, I hope you find it very useful in your games as both player and GM!

A big thank you to everyone who's bought a copy of the Lost Castle, I hope it gives you plenty of gun in games over the years. I have quite a few more long and short-form adventures in the works, from a mystery in a mages tower in town to a long journey through the mountains to a lost hidden elven kingdom!

The rules would need to cover all kinds of combat, but probably you could give basics on certain things then focus more clearly on them in supplements. The main rules can touch on air combat and maneuvers, then have more detailed ones for WWI War Hero, for example.

Before a certain point, maneuvers were incredibly important as well, and even up into the Napoleonic era they still had their value. That kind of historical thing would have to be part of the rules, but it could wait for era-based sourcebooks rather than the main rules. Stuff like the shield wall from Fantasy Hero and Roman maneuvers, Alexander's use of cavalry, the infantry square to deal with charging horses, etc. There have been several attempts at mass combat rules, its true, and they work but never have had a good feel to them. Each system technically achieved its goals but didn't play out very fun and that would be where changes could be made.

Yeah the deciding factor I think is the market, not the existing books. If there's enough interest, then a separate line is justified. That is a good point Red, a book that covered warfare, mass combat, and concepts of the battlefield for any setting would be more useful and have a broader market appeal. The big advantage is that if its mostly conceptual and ideas rather than specific gritty rules for a given setting or type of campaign the more broad its appeal across gaming platforms.

Well in the Sindbad movies and Conan books there were plenty of monsters but few people knew or could use magic. So you'd want a low magic campaign with freaky creatures and maybe a few very rare magic items with limited uses or heavy drawbacks. If that's what you're after a bestiary or two, and a very simple magic system is fine.

Possibly although I see it as a separate and distinct product line, not dealing with spies or vigilantes. Dark Champions covers too much ground already.

I agree, I think the "unusual setting" has to be handled better than it usually is. Instead of being an excuse to pore through bestiaries for what lives there, it should be distinct by its location and challenges but not contrived. I was thinking more something along the lines of a quest across the ocean (and perhaps under the surface) rather than across the forest, or a jungle rather than mountains.

I recommend both the Grimoire and my book, there's very little crossover and it gives you a mountain o' magic

I wonder if there's any market at all for a Hero System sourcebook for wartime role playing. You'd need basic rules for how to run a campaign, tips on making it gritty or cinematic, rules for things like "courage under fire" and basic command structure information. The main book could have a specific war setting with some adventures (WW2 probably a good starting point) and you could put out sets for Napoleonic, Vietnam war, Desert Storm/War on Terror, Indian Wars in the American old West, 100 years' war, etc. Each sourcebook would have the difference forces, equipment, timeline, history, and adventures. I'd be interested, but I don't know how big a seller it would really be.

Its a pdf you can buy from Hero Games in the catalog, almost 1000 spells and a magic system plus tips on building spells and using magic in your system and more. The Compendiums were additional helpful information and spells for 4th edition Fantasy Hero (I wrote a few spells for that too). Some good stuff in it, but the latest edition should have all you need in terms of ideas and information. Of you could wait a bit for Fantasy Hero Complete, should be out some time late this year. It will have a settting, spells, items, and all you need to run a FH game. if you need adventures I have a few on my website, they're built for 5th edition but they're free.

You'll need a magic system, if you're going to have any magic, and I humbly suggest my Fantasy Codex for that

A few old grizzled mountain men types could be fun; did Jim Bridger really die before then, or just fake his death? Do you want to go really wild with guys like Pecos Bill and John Henry? Tall Tales give some fascinting possibilities. Hopalong Cassidy, and the Sacketts from Louis L'Amour's series would be interesting options as well. Tell Sackett was a legend.

I've always used a real city for my campaigns because its easier to describe and familiar to players. These days with the world's largest research library at your fingertips (the internet) for very little price, its so easy to get information for a real setting its silly to break your brain creating a new one to compete. Unless you're going to publish your campaign, there's no danger of lawsuits, hurt feelings, or conflicts.

I actually don't mind when mages have more defenses than melee types for three reasons. First, the melee types are a lot tougher under the defenses so they tend to fold up when their shield spell is breached rather than say "ow." Second, when a mage is interrupted casting a spell, terrible things often happen to them, which a warrior doesn't have to face. And third, when you stun a mage, most if not all of his magic will tend to shut off, and a suit of chainmail stays in place. So the mage with 15 resistant PD is not really better off than the warrior with 6, overall. A good mage is going to shine because of their non-kill spells though, yes. In fact, in my world and magic system, utility is emphasized over booms. You can blast that guy for 6d6 fire damage... or float him in the air half DCV for everyone to use as a pinata. Which is better?

It depends a lot on the kind of game you're running in terms of lethality and what threats people face. If 4d6 KA is not uncommon in the game, there are going to be a lot of dead PCs or fudged die rolls by the GM (average body to the head = decapitation). If that's the kind of game you're fine with and the players like, good. If you want a different sort of game, you're going to have to be careful with what damage players can do. There's always the problem with escalation if you aren't careful as a GM. Upping the defenses of the bad guys to deal with the increased damage of the players makes them want more damage which leads you to... well you get the idea.

I've found it more interesting when players cannot easily count distances, so they have to estimate. That said you can usually tell off the top of your head if you can reach someone and guesstimate range at least in terms of how likely you are to hit without needing a rangefinder, so there's arguments for both sides.

I agree that the damage output between mage and non mage needs to be carefully considered; certainly letting someone use martial arts maneuvers and skill levels with a 2 handed sword to do 3-4d6 damage or more will be trouble for your campaign. Its part of the juggling act as a GM to keep all those factors in mind and make sure they don't stack up too much. At the same time, the mage who can start fires, levitate, blast things 500 feet away, read minds, and create food has a lot more utility than grog who can hit things with his hammer. So if the non mage characters are doing a bit more damage, that's reasonable given their limitations.

I suppose its not surprising that sandbox does well, since the way the poll is listed it is targeted at GMs who would run a game. The surprising results so far are how well "Over the mountains and through the forest quest" is doing (I'd have thought it would be too cliche and dull to people) and how poorly unusual settings is doing. It seems like people prefer their fantasy familiar

In our games we have a hex mat for close up action and movement, and use measurements for range and long distance action, so its kind of a blend of techniques. In the pdf I suppose it wouldn't matter if I had both hex and grid maps, but I think people might be confused or annoyed that there's two sets of maps for little reason. I don't know if Hero would carry two versions of the book or not.