Brian Stanfield

You'd think that with all the experience people have with TTRPGs now, what with D&D 5e's massive popularity and all, that sandbox gaming wouldn't be such a bewildering boondoggle. At some point we should be able to treat new Hero customers as though they aren't new to TTRPGs, but merely new to the Hero System. A book like FHC does a perfectly good job explaining the system, and it shouldn't take much more than a decent setting book with some plot hooks to get a competent GM's creative juices flowing so he or she can prepare a campaign and construct the adventures the players will go on.
 
(Cries of "But I don't have time to make up adventures or craft a campaign," will be met with, "Then you shouldn't be the GM," so don't even go there.)

This is definitely something the GM will have to consider.  If characters can pay points to start with magic items, but don't have to pay points to keep ones that are found, I would suggest that fairness would dictate that those who paid points to start with them should get those points back.  Alice, a 200 point archer who has spent 20 of her starting points on the Bow of Projectiles, and Bob, a 200 point fighter who has found the 20-point Axe of Spikiness, should both be considered, effectively, 220 point characters.  
 
I would suggest that Alice gets to "withdraw" the points she's paid for the bow, at the same rate as she receives XP.  In other words, if she receives 3 XP for the session, then she should get 3 of her spent points back from the bow, at the same time.  Those wouldn't be considered XP; they would be a cost reduction applied to the bow's cost, which would reduce her total points.  Assuming the point in the campaign at which both have received a total of 20 XP, that would make Bob a 200 point character with a 20 point axe and 20 XP, and Alice a 180 total point character, with a max of 200 points (leaving her 20 points unspent) and 20 XP.  If she later spends her unspent points from the bow, she would then be at the same point level as Bob: a 200 total point character with a 20 point bow and 20 XP.  
 
 
If both the bow and the axe have the Obvious Accessible Focus Limitation, they should have equal chances of losing their weapons.  In the event Alice loses her bow, she would get the entire 20 points back at once that she spent on it (or whatever she hasn't gotten back through reimbursement as above); if Bob spent no points on his axe, he would have nothing to get back if he loses it.  
 
 
If they both have a -1 OAF Limitation... getting a Focus taken away is part of that.  Neither of them should be angry, and whether one or the other gets taken away shouldn't be based on whether it's fair that Alice has paid points and Bob hasn't.  If Alice's bow gets taken away (assuming it can't be recovered), Alice should get those points back, at least whatever she hasn't already gotten back as mentioned above.
 
 
That would be "loss prevention" for the points, true.  Assuming you're using Independent in your games (the general "you"), would you allow a character to regain their lost points by buying off the Independent Limitation on a lost item?  I absolutely would.  But I'd require the character to front the difference.  If a 20-point item had a cost of 12 points with the Independent Limitation, meaning the character paid 12 points for it, then at the time at which they were able to spend the 8 points to buy off the Independent Limitation, they'd get the full 20 points back.  But they'd have to have the 8 XP first.  In case it's not obvious, I've been assuming throughout the thread that Independent is not in use.
 
By the way, it's always been a rule that in order to have a magic item (weapon or otherwise), you have to pay for the entire thing, not just the cost difference between the mundane and magical versions, even if you would otherwise not pay points for the mundane version.  GM's option, to be sure, but it's the default RAW.

For those new to the board, here is my most unpopular opinion ever:
 
 
 
 
I have absolutely _no problem_ with this.
 
Yep.   I made the mistake of saying that out loud during early debates on "Independent" way back when, and it proved to be the most evil possible thing a person could utter in this particular fandom.  
 
Worse yet:  We've been doing it since the 80s.
 
And unimaginably impossible follow-up:
 
It's never _been_ a problem.  Not once.  It doesn't happen a _lot_, or even particularly _often_, but it does happen.   I've even let players burn an EP or two to make outrageous changes to die rolls at critical moments.  Again, not often, but sometimes it's just there.
 
And it has never been a problem.  Not once.
 
Believe it or not, this actually started under my first Champions GM with that old "Powers for Champions!" article in Dungeon Magazine-- the one with Bouncing, etc?  The "Extra Life" power: buy it and permanently lose 2 EP, but here's the great thing it does....."
 
The thing, I think, was timing.  When we were first exposed to the idea, there was no internet.  There was no "let me bounce this off a couple hundred complete strangers I will never actually sit down and play a game with due to geographic distances, etc.  What they have to say is crucial to how we play our game."   There was just our little group of six, and Hell-- the tradeoff seemed _more_ than fair:  get out of Dead free card?  Lose two EP?  Two EP that I'll likely replace in the next session?  Sign me up!  Maybe it's because none of us were studying to be accountants or software gurus or what-have-you: we didn't _need_ a balance sheet that perfectly tracked where all our earnings went.  And seriously, it wasn't like that four-point pea shooter was going to break us anyway.  We could drop four more EP on another one, if we wanted, or we could drop two hundred Federated on one in the next port we stopped at.  Either way.
 
Maybe it's because we _never_ spent EP the minute we earned it.  We were all (and still are) "terrible" about banking it until we're ready to do something with it.
 
So it's "meta."  So what?   As LL said in the current "which edition" thread, it fits a sweet spot for us personally.
 
 
I didn't mean to ramble on so much about it-- particularly knowing how unpopular it is.  But every now and again, I just feel it needs to be said.   Same book; different book; only one book:  doesn't matter.  None of us are playing the exact same game, and likely we never will.
 

Yeah. 
 
No pressure. 
 
Looks like my home repairs are going to get rained out this weekend.  I hope to get back to work on it during my "break." 

Best thing to happen to HERO System in a long, long time. Thank you, Jason!
 
(It's funny. I was just looking over the events at Gen Con 2019, and noticed that HERO System was the eighth most popular game there, if you aggregate games run for Champions, HERO System, and Justice, Inc. It had more events than Savage Worlds. Far more than FATE. HERO's a good system that people enjoy. It just needs some love. Hopefully this new program will do it.)
 

DriveThruRPG has asked me only to release the exact terms of the upcoming program to a select few fans for the purpose of getting some material ready before launch.  So, by-and-large, this *is* the press release - though I will  "front page" it as well, and also post links to various groups. Basically, if you contact me by email because you wish to participate in advance, I'll provide the exact information. 
 
The rest will become public mid next month when they bring it live. 
 
Jason@herogames.com

Hero Games will be launching a fan-driven community content program on DriveThruRPG in about a month, similar to Dungeon Masters Guild and Storytellers Vault. It’s going to be called Hall of Champions, and it will allow you to publish your own work on DriveThru for profit under the banner of being a Hero Games product. (Though solely for commercial purposes on DriveThruRPG.) You’ll be allowed to publish using any version of the Hero System you like from 1st to 6th, including Champions Now. You will also be allowed to use both intellectual property that belongs to Hero Games, as well as the Champions Universe, which belongs to Cryptic Studios. The program will supply artwork and templates to work from to make the entire process as easy as possible.
 
To being with, what I’m looking for are some initial fan contributions from you guys so that we have a certain number of products ready to go at launch. I’ve already received commitments from two of our third party publishers, but could use a bunch more from fans. There are (of course) significant rules governing the community content program, which I will share with you should you contact me. If you have work you would like to contribute, it needs only be in PDF form and have a JPEG cover image available. (This can simply be a copy of the front page.)
 
Thank you as always for playing the Hero System, and I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Jason Walters, Publisher
jason@herogames.com

Once you learn to use the program (definitely read the documentation) and write up a few characters, you’ll never go back to paper and pencil. Seriously. It’s that useful!

Once you learn to use the program (definitely read the documentation) and write up a few characters, you’ll never go back to paper and pencil. Seriously. It’s that useful!

If you're responding to my idea above, @mallet, it really isn't a "buy and play" concept. I'd expect a great deal of open-endedness in that sort of adventure to help alleviate some of the problems you (rightly) point out. Let the professionals figure that out.
 
What I'm envisioning is simply a free pool of stuff other people have successfully played and are willing to make available to other people on the forums. Each contribution could have a cover page explaining some of the constraints, assumptions, and expectations in that particular adventure so people could make an informed choice. And, as always, they could be customized. It's usually easier to tweak something already made than make something from scratch. 
 
A pipe dream, indeed, but not all that far-fetched if people agreed to do it. Many people are already posting their campaigns in the forums already. It would be nice to centralize it all so we can find pre-made and pre-played adventures if we find ourselves in a pinch.

I appreciate your point, and agree with it, but that ain’t going to happen any time soon. My point is that if we start with baby steps and a steady stream of “fan produced” adventures, available in a central location, perhaps enough of a demand could kickstart some “official” material. Not likely, but better than rubbing two wet sticks together and hoping. 

It’s funny you guys bring this up, because I had a friend create a noire-type anti-social asshole character for a globe-trotting Pulp HERO group. He kept trying to say, in character (not as the player), “I’m antisocial and I don’t really like people,” or “I don’t really care or need anyone else.” They were all a bit over the top and a bit too obvious. Everyone rolled with it in game, but I felt compelled to pull him to the side afterwards and remind him that his character is in a group in the game, and he should think of a really good reason why he’d even be in a group, and why that group would even want him in it in the first place. A little conflict could actually be fun, but it had to make sense. If that didn’t fit his character, I suggested he save that character for another time and rethink a different character for this particular in-game group. 
 
I don't want to force my players to do things they don’t want, but I think it’s only fair that they at least have some kind of reason for playing with the group of characters. As players, they’re all cool with each other. It’s just that this particular character conception needed some tweaking. 

I really like this! Cool idea.
 
 
Yeah, what he said.
 
 
I am currently refreshing my memory - learning 6e, so I will keep this in mind whilst I learn! 😄  Having conditions be a part of the rules I believe makes it helpful to understand. It also lends to creating things like reference card decks you can handout to players during the game to remind them.

Hero already has some of its own "conditions":  Stunned, Unconscious (various levels: 0 to -9, -10 to -19, -20 to -29, -30 and below), Dying (below 0 BODY), Transformed, Bleeding, Impaired/Disabled (hit location), Suffocating, Flashed (targeting sense), Prone, Covered, Braced, Set, Restrained (Entangled/Grabbed), probably some others I'm not bringing to mind at the moment. 

Hero has a number of game elements that are effectively its equivalent to Affliction: Change Environment, Flash, Transform, powers with the Usable On Others Advantage.  Change Environment in particular has gone from being largely based around environmental effects to an all around "force roll and/or apply penalties" power, and can also be used to directly apply some conditions (Stunned, Suffocating, Prone).  Flash is the "apply the Flashed condition" Power.  A lot of Transforms are built as "target to target that is (X)".  
 
It might not be a bad idea for us to have a "cheat sheet" with conditions broken out: the effect, how it is applied, how to recover from it.  They're strewn throughout the rules -- in the sections where they're most likely to be needed, true, but a reference sheet might be good to have.

one way to implement Conditions in HERO is that each Condition had a 'BODY' cost. Each time someone gets hit for BODY, they can declare they have this Condition and get these BODY points back.
 
of course, the more the condition hampers the character, the more BODY they get back

Not a wet blanket at all, but perhaps misunderstanding my reason for posting (or not caring). I totally share your pessimism about the product line. I just thought I’d offer up a writing that I know offers some insight into the discussion at hand. Does it solve the problem with HERO System? Not one bit, unless Ron is planning on offering up a bunch of supplemental material next. But it does answer to the debate for the last couple of pages. 

Conditions exist in several game systems. d20, new Worlds of Darkness / Chronicles of Darkness (CoD), Mutants & Masterminds (MM3e)... the basic premise is - instead of tracking a bunch of different "hit point" tracks, you have "states" that affect the character based on in-fiction things that happen to them. For example, you could have a Condition called "uneasy" [after a frightening experience, you feel uneasy until you have a chance to rest in what you consider a safe environment. You have -1 to all checks until the Condition is removed]. This is not a real Condition anywhere (yet), but I'm spitballing as an example. In MM3e, these conditions are closely tied to the damage/injury system. Everything is a save. Depending how badly you fail your save, you take "Conditions". The GM can also assign Complications based on severe trauma as desired (especially if you want a "grittier" feel). Conditions could map to supernatural corruption, injury, health or even emotions. GURPS/MM3e Affliction power is like an attack but does varying levels of distraction to outright pain to instant death. At a basic level, you itch. The next level you feel moderate pain. Then you feel severe agony. If you fail hard, you have a heart attack. It's generally configurable so again I'm summarizing blindly to illustrate - there are lots of "things" in this power (itching, ecstasy, agony, sneezing, coughing, retching, seizures, etc.). It's an attack that doesn't do direct damage. You end up "distracted" or "immobilized" or "paralyzed" or "unconscious". By defining conditions up front, you can summarize Affliction levels in the power and how it applies and then let the Conditions contain the "rules" for how it impacts the character. HERO games have a lot of back-and-forth in combat. It favors "taken out" as the most common end state vs. "killed". Which is fine. But for a Heroic game with some grit, I would want characters that take a bunch of Stun damage in the combat to walk away "bruised" and have that last for a specified period of time until healed. If you lose say half your Body in an encounter you have the "Injured" Condition, which again lasts a specified period of time until healed. So instead of relying solely on Stun, Body and Endurance you have some lasting "narrative" effects that remind everyone of their fragility. 🙂 In Mythras a Passion works very much like a skill (Mythras is a d100 % game...). Except it relates to relationships, friendships, motivations or obsessions you have for someone or an ideal or perhaps a cult. When you and the GM agree that a Passion applies to a check, you add 1/10 the skill as a bonus to the skill used in the check. In certain circumstances based on in-game actions / decisions these Passions can increase or decrease. These are loosely derived from Pendragon's spiritual traits (IIRC). I would make these work like Complementary Skills on rolls we felt the Passion applied to. (also, I misspelled "complimentary". ooops). The basic Apocalypse World GM advice is based on two awesome tidbits - the Agenda, and the Principles (I'm taking liberties with the wording as to not copy EXACTLY the words from the books...). The Agenda Make the world seem real. Play to see what happens. Make the Heroes lives dangerous & scary (or adventurous & challenged OR heroic & complicated... you know, bring the things to the session that fit what you're running and don't be boring...). The Principles Put "the important thing" in everyday situations. If you are doing supers, then put harrowing shit in everyday situations. Or maybe you got some Men in Black going on, so you put "Sci-Fi Weirdness" in everyday situations. Just put it in there. Don't be passive. The players can watch National Geographic's Earth 2 when they get home. Address yourself to the characters, not the players. Nothing pulls you out of "the moment" like using people's real names! Use the GM "Moves" (the suggested actions you take when you get to make a move) but never use their names. This applies to the players too. Don't just Block, describe what it looks like. This advice is already dripping from the pages of HERO so... Be a fan of the characters. Build up the details (Mythology, History, Color) of the world as you play. Nothing is safe. Kill onlookers, maim all the people in the falling building, blow up cars and buildings, rocks fall everything dies and the characters are looking around wondering what's next. See any Avengers movie for examples. Don't be afraid. Go all George R.R. Martin ALL the time. Weeping is an acceptable outcome. OK, just kidding, I may have got a little worked up there... Give everyone they meet a name. Make NPCs and Villains and Baristas seem real / normal / plausible. Ask questions and build on the answers. You don't have to know everything. Ask the Curious Kitten what they think. Then build on it. "Is there a fire escape in here?" - "I don't know, tell me - IS there a fire escape in here? Where it is located? What does it look like?" Then go with it. Ask yourself - would putting a fire escape in here really be a BIG DEAL? Probably not. Make Fun - Not Bore. Sometimes give the Heroes EXACTLY what they earned, rather than everything they hoped for. You saved the princess but the castle is ruined and she really does NOT like the way you ruthlessly killed the Dragon and she's going to tell on you. Think about what's going on "off-screen". Events happen. People do things. The world should move outside the scene / moment the PCs are playing in. This should generally inspire some foreshadowing... One of the "moves" for GMs is "Announce future badness". Example: "the sky darkens and off the distance you hear a violent rumble..." You don't have to decide what happens. This is similar to #8. "I drink the unidentifiable green stuff in the vial... what happens?" (I wasn't prepared for this!) "Well, YOU tell me what happens. Based on what you know, describe what it does to you". Then run with it. This is like "forced improv". You know all those GMs you envy who can just pull things out of nowhere? Keep practicing this and that GM will be YOU in a few months. There are NO wrong answers, just GO with it. Everything is a threat. Or Everything is a mystery. Or Everything is a challenge. Basically, you don't need to go into the harmless fern. "It's a typical office with desks, computers, fake plants and terrible lighting" BUT maybe the fern is a mindless alien creature feeding for its inevitable growth... "as you walk by, the glistening fern reaches out with carnivorous frons and attempts to engulf you!" See? Now the fern is a threat. Not boring. To put it another way - Drama is Conflict! The concept here is to a) not confuse the players and b) not hide the clues and c) solving a mystery is WAY more fun than being wanked by it. The mystery doesn't need to be super complex. You are not Machiavelli and likely neither are your players. Maybe 3 important facts (clues) are all that's necessary to deduct what happened. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Don't be offended. I call myself stupid all the time. If the characters possess a skill that would find a clue, just give it to them!! You can roll and embellish the information on that clue depending on how well they roll. When you devise your mystery you should note some ideas on WHAT to embellish... NEVER I mean absolutely never I don't care how old school you are or how fun it is to feel smarter than every person in your circle of friends - NEVER withhold a clue. NEVER. If you absolutely HAVE to skip a clue in a scene because your NERD-compulsions won't allow it then find a way to slip it in the next scene or a later scene. NEVER. Withhold. A Clue. So serious here. How many mystery novels have you read where the antagonists DON'T solve the mystery? Zero? Yeah exactly. Now, imagine your playing in your game and four sessions later the aliens invade the earth, everyone is captured and the last thing the dying heroes see are the Prison Mines of Artox 6... Who's showing up to your next game? Exactly. You want them to solve the mystery! See Principle #4 above. Also note I didn't say just hand it to them in a Cliff's Notes summary before the game. They should still work for it. Just don't OBFUSCATE it under layers of boring mundane set pieces drowning in boring rules expositions. Whew. That was a lot.

There's an obvious question here, isn't there?
 
Maybe we should ask Ron and Jason.
 
In fact, I just did, in the Kickstarter comments section.

Not a wet blanket at all, but perhaps misunderstanding my reason for posting (or not caring). I totally share your pessimism about the product line. I just thought I’d offer up a writing that I know offers some insight into the discussion at hand. Does it solve the problem with HERO System? Not one bit, unless Ron is planning on offering up a bunch of supplemental material next. But it does answer to the debate for the last couple of pages. 

I almost feel guilty for mentioning this again, but the best received fantasy game I ever ran started off as a Western (having just gotten Western HERO ;)) and drifted into an occult horror/fantasy almost on accident.  We were all sort of disappointed it had to end.   but the fact was it was starting to get repetitive and familiar, and we all agreed we would prefer to remember it as a big hit than watch it M.A.S.H itself into a sad and tired thing.... 
 
 
 

This is very true, and why I've all but abandoned HERO for actual play. The fact that it became a system for engineers and coders to play around with how sophisticated their builds could be... and not really an RPG for actual play... has eventually worn me out. I'm actually writing a PbtA style RPG for supers that rejects this mentality completely... and embraces the above. Mechanical sophistication and complexity is often the bane of a good game.

An issue I can see with Champions Now is that Ron's vision of the game makes it difficult to publish adventures for. It's very DIY, with every campaign being different, and worlds being built up from the bottom.
 
Creating an official setting runs directly against that. Individual adventures could be OK, provided that they are presented as an aid to the GM's imagination, not as a replacement for it. Campaign length adventures are probably right out.
 
I do have some ideas for what could be done, but I am waiting to see the final product first.

On this point, have any of you played with the "X" card? This is usually used in Con games... where it is just a card sitting in the middle of the table with a big black X on it. Everyone knows that if someone reaches out and taps the card, play stops... whatever was being done is rewound until we are at a point where the offending bit started, and play goes in a different direction from there. The player tapping does not have to explain why, just that "I don't like that" and it backs up.

In Drunk's story, the other player could have used the X card and such, but as much as it is around in Cons, I've never used it in play with people I really know. Still, just the concept... "Things may arise in play that are uncomfortable/disturbing to a player... X card nixes those, out of hand" gives people leeway to stop things.

Interesting that I've never seen it used in some game that got pretty dark and ugly. In fact, the only time I saw it used was around one player Xing out certain actions of another player because the game was very serious and those actions were silly and whimsical and broke the "feel" of the game.

Again, I'm not sure I'd suggest it for a regular play group, but the mentality of play it generates simply be being there... which is, "Hey, consider how your game actions might affect the players" is real.

re. Communication at the start of a campaign; at the formation of a new gaming group. Yes. Absolutely vital. I agree with you completely.
 
But even if this is done, done well, with the best of intentions by all parties, agreements are reached and understandings made; down the track situations will arise in which breaches of these trusts will occur. They just will.
 
I referred to an incident in my previous post in which I had contributed to de-railing a game session. Allow me to expand.
 
Situation: Playing with people I have known and gamed with for years. But I only get to game with them occasionally as I moved away for work some time back. On a visit back we were playing a game in which I was "guest-starring." The GM asked me to play a character who was indicative of the darker world behind the Silver Age 1970's comic book style that the other characters represented/inhabited. He suggested  a former Nazi rocket scientist. I was uncomfortable but what the hell, I like to be a team player and give the GM support. I went to great lengths to inform people what my character was AND that he was never an ideological Nazi. Like many people he joined the party because that's just what you did if you wanted to get ahead. He had some wrong headed bullshit ideas, but wasn't an actual genocide defending s#!tbag. I did my Communication 101.
 
In play I made an IN CHARACTER remark that was racist but that I felt was appropriate to the character. One of the other players was very hurt by it. And rightly so as it spoke directly to her personal experience. Obviously I was an idiot. What I should have done was stop first and check with her and the other players if where I was going was okay with them. I didn't and it wasn't. Much more hurt was done than losing out on a bit of (lame) drama.
 
So for all that I like a good immersive experience something I need to remember and put into practice is:  Communication is an ongoing process. It isn't done once and then everyone is dandy. Ya gotta keep working at it.
 
 
 

yeah... it is unfortunate that RPGs have turned "character development" into "leveling up."  I still think of it from a literary POV, where character development is the whole point... to experience the growth of the characters, changes in their values, mores, expectations and beliefs, through the fictional events. I've seen some RPG related quotes about "Character development is bullshit. Character growth is what is important."

Again... a shift in the meaning of terms based on context. A discussion of leveling up vs. growth could be fun, but actually a different thing altogether than what we've been talking about here. Either or both is possible in either style of gaming we've been talking about. Leveling up vs. growth is one of the "goal differences" Hugh was mentioning... not necessarily a style play.