Altair

For sure! I was thinking more of Skill Levels at the "Overall" level. And in truth, I missed a lot of the in-between things - like your "woodlands expert" example, which are really quite cool. We had a mini character creation jam last night, and the player who had first introduced the concern about Skill Levels, made a character with 3 ranks in Skill Levels: Overall. And it didn't feel weird - just like, I don't know, effort. What are they focusing on? That was really the big thing for me - I had difficulty mapping the mechanical concept of overall skill levels to what they were supposed to represent. And then when I saw them in context, they weren't as weird for me. And I had a player making a character with a lot of skills - some unholy amalgam of Carol Danvers, Nick Fury and The Gorram Batman. As for "1 rank in a skill," that's my brain doing shorthand from other systems; I mean what you guessed. Skill roll at the characteristic roll, but not improved further. I still like the granularity of the knight with Oratory at < 14, Courtier (I like that) at < 12, and Breakfall at < 17 ("I am tired of falling off my horse") - that tells me a lot about that character - but there's nothing wrong with adding two levels of Exemplary Knight to that; in fact, there's a lot that's great about it. I'm finding myself more and more okay with it as I get more context. Thanks, Lucius - this was actually really helpful!

Yeah, there were definitely plenty of moments in discussion where we looked at each other, and then checked the forums. I seem to be filling the role of "person who answers questions" even though I don't have many answers. All told, I think if you've got #4, this is not that big a deal. It's getting someone to the point where they can fill that role that's tricky.

Pretty much this. HERO can be pretty daunting, but from what I can gather, it's much more internally consistent than say, D20, which makes no sense. You learn it, because it's there, but D&D is actually a pretty terrible first roleplaying game from a mechanics standpoint. HERO's actually not that complicated, but its content isn't always elegantly communicated. That's not a criticism of DOJ, which is 3 people as I recall, but an observation. Companies like Fantasy Flight and WoTC have departments dedicated to visual communication; of course they're good at this.

So! I had this long, thoughtful reply all typed up. Then I accidentally hit "back," and it is gone forever. Short version! Skill levels sound great for games where skills are not as big a part. Abstracting away parts of the system you don't want to focus on is an excellent choice. The skill system is probably going to be a big deal in any game around these parts, so removing that option lets it shine more, which is what we want. Options are good! It's like, 3 CP to buy a skill at 1. In the grand scheme of things, that's not that much, though it can certainly add up. And if that's something you want abstracted, then it should be done so. In some games, a Man of Steel's power set might be abstracted to a skill called "It's a bird! It's a plane!" which you would just roll whenever using those powers. Abstraction is very cool when you want it (and on some level, it's interesting that I'm advocating against it for my own case - this is usually the other way around), but when you don't, it can take away a part of the game you enjoy. Hence, we're not terribly interested in Skill Levels Or VPPs, as it turns out! Multipowers seem much more in-line with what we'd want - and yes, I realize that a good VPP answers my question of how to handle very improvisational and creative use of power sets - I just feel like there are too many moving parts to make the payoff worth the time invested. This probably changes with years of experience! We don't have those yet And yeah, writing out the different levels of a given attack is something I tend to do in games like Pathfinder (Attack, Power Attack, Power Attack against Challenge Target, etc.) and I think I'd be much the same here. Cool! Thanks all!

I also realized that it might be useful to elaborate a bit more on the group's preferred play dynamics. I know that HERO, and Champions specifically, tends to run pretty combat-heavy. I know that some have talked elsewhere on the forums about the combat/noncombat balance, and things like that. It really depends on the game, but I'd say we probably spend somewhere in the 5-25% range on combat in most games. A game with a focus on combat might get higher, and the big casual Pathfinder game is probably that in reverse, though I don't play in it. SO! The skill system is much more likely to get a workout than it might in a punchier game. Context!

Sorry, that was actually a little unclear - I was ranting about a thing in the middle of describing other things. Actually looking at the mechanics, they're incredibly simple - bump up your roll under # by x - looking back, I'd conflated them with some of the other mechanics, like Aid, and my initial confusion with Damage classes. Posting while having these conversations led me to mix up some of my questions/concerns. So, some clarification. The issue with Skill levels wasn't one of complication, but of concept. As one of my friends put it, "what's keeping people from just buying proficiency in skills, and a bunch of skill levels to use as needed?" I dislike the idea pretty strongly. One of the big draws for HERO its ability to represent characters with a high degree of granularity - if the system incentivizes not doing that with skills, then I'm less than thrilled. Maybe I misunderstand it - but outside of some edge case where it really makes sense, I'm not a fan at this time. Combat Skill Levels, once I figured out what they were, are sexy as all get out. Like a martial artist dropping into different stances, or a fencer changing their profile. CSL's are one of the coolest things I've run into so far. Same for MSLs and PSLs. All very cool. Generic skill levels just aren't appealing to me. It seems like an attempt to obviate the existence of the skill system, and I like the skill system. For people who like and use them, would you be so kind as to elaborate on why? If there's something awesome I'm missing, that would be good to know!

That's pretty cool, though even more streamlined than I would like. But yeah, that's something you could show to someone, and they could play the character right then. Almost make HERO look rules-light! I'm working on a couple characters, I'll post some of what I've got when I have something remotely finished

Yeah, we looked at a lot of those kinds of tweaks. Assigning skill levels in a given phase was one of the early things we looked at - the thought was that might bog down gameplay if it was happening during combat. Assignable outside of combat as an assumed limitation might make those more palatable to start. I imagine that once some degree of system master has been acquired, this gets easier, and we might want to start adding options back in. Pretty much! It's a bunch of cool options, and those are things I definitely want - but - calculating DC on the fly sounds like a pain. Our thought was to just pre-calculate the DC for a given attack, so you can just look at what you're adding, instead of trying to remember how many CPs worth of strength go into the formula. Is that kind of thing just common practice? How do other tables deal with Damage Class? Is it just not that big a deal?

Heh. Yeah, when delving into Hero with my mates last night, we pretty much came to an understanding: no powers/abilities that require doing character creation-type calculations at the table. So on first glance, that was anything with percentages, and VPPs. Honestly, the physicist* & I had a rough time with Damage Class at first - and frankly, further clarification would be nice - because it looked like its function in play was tied to those "character creation at the table" mechanics we so dearly wish to avoid *the main group that discusses mechanics for fun is myself, a physicist and a computer scientist. People joke that once you get a masters degree, you start building characters for fun

Makes sense. I also suppose that, especially with a supers game, that recurring villains would absolutely be feasible. I've found that PC's make it challenging to use the same antagonist in repeated encounters - it's a skill I've definitely put work into, but still needs some finesse. But in a D&D-type game, it's tricky to do without resorting to extra-mechanical shenanigans.' About 70% of the time, I completely build out my main antagonists. The other 10% of the time, I'm either running something very simple that I've internalized thoroughly (Fate), or I regret my life decisions pretty quickly. Also! Context, context, context seems to be the name of the game. Which is good! Went out to dinner with my primary gaming group tonight, and we chatted about how you might stat up different characters we know in CC. It was lots of fun, if nothing else. Also, the Power Skill. How did I miss this until now? It's exactly what I wanted. Thanks!

I think the concept of the tutorial game is underutilized. There's a non-cynical answer to why video game tutorials have taken root, and it's that learning-by-doing is engaging. (I can get a bit tangent-y on this - my late academic mentor was big on researching video games - I will go on all day if not stopped.) The new Star Wars game, by Fantasy Flight, Edge of the Empire? I picked up its beginners' box when that first hit market (it came with the funky dice) and wow was I impressed. It did a great job of introducing concepts in a fun, organic way, and teaching the mechanics of the game through play. I thought it was freaking fantastic. And it introduced concepts in a way that helped them stick. In fact, I feel like every game could use such a product. If my current work goes well enough, I might try my hand at writing some, see if people like them. But yeah, the point is that a lot of people really dig something different in the user interface of the game. One of my friends never puts anything down in shorthand - the numbers just live in his head, and it messes him up if he deals with the results and not the formulas. I tend to work in the opposite fashion.

@ Doc Democracy - so basically, use a Savage Worlds-type system for tracking opposition? That's honestly how I do most combat GM'ing - as said before, I tend to play it by feel. It's good to know that dong so does't negatively impact verisimilitude - that's honestly my big fear with all this. With Fate, Savage Worlds or the like, you make up some stuff on the fly, and it feels normal - because that's pretty much what everybody is doing. Suppose I'm running a supers game, and Doctor Dastardly is going to rock our heroes with a shiny new heat ray. The characters, and indeed, the players, had no idea this was coming: it's a momentum shift moment. In Fate, he rolls and adds a single-digit number to the total. Barring invocations, or created advantages, that's pretty much it. Players might assume that he's adding his shoot skill, or maybe he's got a special death rays skill or some such. If he uses it to weld a door shut, let's say, it's the same skill, he's just using the create an advantage action instead of attack. Cool. It's simple and quick; which are selling points of the game. In Hero, I'm not as sure how to do that. The first one, I think, you know, it's some dice. Energy - it's basically a blast, or some kind of RKA. I get more familiar with those, and we're probably ok, yeah? Hits DCV 8 or whatever, does 14d6 or some such. If it's not too out of line with what people have seen or built themselves, maybe that doesn't stretch suspension of disbelief. It's in the utility powers that I worry a bit more that they'll see the wires and harness, so to speak. Does that make sense? More to the point, is it rational?

Oh wow. Thanks, all. Lemme go down the line here. @ Crusher Bob: Y'know, after talking about how daunting that sheet is, I went into it and immediately found some really useful ideas. It's presented very well, and that really helps communicate the info. And for sure, I wouldn't dream of trying an RPG of this complexity without my beloved spreadsheets And yeah, I'm really big on trust and social contracts as a gamer; often times my campaign documents are much more informal, but they definitely exist. @ Bluesguy: Yeah, I'd gone through that thread, some good things to think about, for sure. Context is so huge, so starting with known quantities is really useful. Like, ok, I wanna make a swordsman, pretty strong and precise. He's got a strength of 18, so... is that a lot? Is that comparable to an 18 in D20? (I use this example, because as near as I can tell, it is pretty comparable - that was an "a ha" moment for me.) As to the HCM, I'm a little leery of spending another $25 on some software for an RPG when I just did that. Kudos to you for making a cool thing, but I'm honestly not thrilled with the price point. Maybe if I run Hero games regularly for years, that'd b a reasonable investment for me, but as it stands, I already feel like I spent too much on software. (NOTE: this is not a criticism of you! As a fellow musician & creator of RPG supplements, I know first-hand that pricing is weird, and often has nothing to do with creative. Certainly no animosity ) @Indiana Joe: Yeah, it's looking like relativity is the thing here. Thanks!

@Scott Baker Thanks! As a GM, I tend to play it by ear; much more jazz musician than orchestral composer. It's encouraging to see that Hero can support that On that note, one of the things I'm curious about is flexibility. Hero seems to have a very rigid implementation of abilities - how does this handle improvisation? I know that there are some options for occasional extraordinary (in a literal sense) effects, but players are encouraged to buy them with CP if they become common? So, how do you model something like Spider Man's highly versatile webbing? I've seen a lot of (very cool) frameworks for a lot of the core webbing powers, but there's an awful lot of utility that isn't represented there. I guess the thing that I'm worried about, is that the very specific nature of Hero powers might stifle creativity in players. Is that a problem that people have run into? Is there more versatility to existing powers than I'm grokking? Have I gotten on anyone's nerves yet?

Thanks! When running other detail-intensive games, (Shadowrun and Pathfinder, mostly) I tend to have a google document open with a bunch of quick reference links, and some simple combat stats, so that shouldn't be too difficult. Whumf. That's a lot of document. On one hand, you're correct, it looks pretty comprehensive. On the other hand, I'm bumping up into the "textbook" issue - I'm not sure I want to go through 20 chapters of house rules to get something reasonably balanced. Are there any quick and dirty guidelines to keep in mind that don't require as much investment?

Hi! So, I've been increasingly interested in a game that plays fast, but has very detailed and granular characters; it's something of a Maltese Falcon/Holy Grail situation for me. I played in a Hero 5th game back in the mid-aughts, in which I had basically no idea how my character worked, but playing Teenage Gypsy Hulk was more fun than it had any right to be, so I went out and got a copy of Hero 5th. After a couple years of trying to get into it, I eventually sold it. It just seemed... dense to me. But I've been looking for something in this range for some time now, and over the holidays I picked up Champions Complete, and after a bit of time, have gotten really excited about it. Over this past week, I picked up Hero Designer, and a .pdf of Fantasy Complete, and have lurked about this forum. So! Is there a question here? Why yes! There are, in fact, several (even discounting that last one ) Firstly, while I know the system seems very streamlined to those with a lot of experience, it still tends to look like a series of equations when I get a character sheet. What are some ways to get players (and a GM) the essential information, while obfuscating the peripheral details? (Disclaimer: I know that it can upset some people, but I'm not super big on doing a lot of calculations in gameplay. It's not that I can't do math - I'm very comfortable with multivariate statistics at the post-graduate level, thank you very much - but doing too many calculations at the gaming table tends to snap me out of the flow of the game. Not everybody works like this, I know! But I seem to. As such, I tend to favor simple, clean readouts for gameplay - it's just less jarring to me. Sorry if this seems like overkill, but in reading some of the other newbie threads, there seems to be a lot of vitriol aimed at the thought that someone might not enjoy table calculation. I just wanted to get out ahead of all that fire and hatred.) Secondly, is there a recommended way to introduce the system? I know some people have floated the idea of heroic, 150 points or so... is that about right? What are the advantages in doing so? Thirdly, is there a good GM shorthand for modeling NPC's? Admittedly, the time that it takes to build a character is a selling point for me as a player, and kind of frightens me as a GM. Anyway, thanks! And Hi!