Brian Stanfield

Got a bit of word tonight:
 
The Horror HERO book is out of my hands and into Jason's.  He's also willing to update the Western HERO scan to a version with covers: I just have to find the time (and a better electronical box) to put it together.  Hopefully after this weekend-- I'm going to run to my brother's place and finish it up.  Not sure when Horror HERO is going up, but keep an eye out if you don't own the book or just want a highly-portable copy.  For what it's worth, I thought Western was more generally useful (and better put-together), but if you've not read Horror, it's a pretty solid book with some interesting ideas (once you get past the E.G. Marshall-esque "hosted by a character" presentation), and if you're one of the few people who aren't comfortable with the idea of "custom characteristics" as a flavor device, well this book gives official endorsement of the idea, and does everything but _demand_ you add SAN(ity) to your character sheets straight away.  
 
There.  Now you've got permission, and have had it since before your kids were born.  Go play!
 
(for what it's worth, Mental Defense, Presence Defense, and STUN Defense (Base Zero) have been on my character sheets for _years_, but you have to do what's right for you and your group )
 
 
 

All right! 
 
Looks like we _might_ get the Western HERO with covers in the store after this weekend.  No definate answer yet. 
 
Also looks like we'll be getting a Horror HERO, but no official word on that, either.  No; it's not my work (good and bad:  it's a decent job, and now I don't have to chop up the books I bought for this project, but I think with time I might have turned in a more archive grade, print-ready copy.  (and the spine). 
 
Again, no official word yet;  Jason's a busy guy, and I don't hear back immediately on things. 
 
Keep your fingers crossed! 

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. 

Hello, Phil!
 
Lord, it's been _ages_ since I've seen something from you!
 
 
 
Let's establish the hated fact up front, so we can all get the boo-ing and hissing out of the way and go straight to the pitchforks and torches:
 
Martial Arts in the HERO system is flippin' _pointless_.  It is absolutely _nothing_ more than the allocation of Skill Levels and damage elements.  The newer the edition, the more pointless it actually becomes: between hardwiring concepts like naked advantages, extra damage with links and triggers and yadda-yadda-  and even making penalty skill levels a real book-approved thing, Martial Arts has even less place in the system then it ever has before.
 
Sure: it's cool to say "I use my held action to do a double flying piñata smasher then use my phase to do a triple ultra-sault and bring my heel down in my trademark Gopher Divot maneuver!"
 
At least, I'm told it's cool.
 
Martial arts in the HERO system, from it's inception, has been nothing more than paying points for special effect, and it flies in the face of everything else in the entire system.  Maybe it was popular when it was introduced because "Oh sweet!  Now I can build a Ninja!" or maybe it was taken as inviolable because it was yet another Gospel according to Allston.  I don't know.
 
But it's unnecessary and overpriced, and always has been.  Buy ten maneuvers, half with some CV adjustment, half with some extra damage elements.
 
Compare that to a couple of skill levels with H-t-H and a couple of dice of STR "Not for lifting."
 
The entire thing is screwy, yet we are unable to let it go.  The mechanic is applying skill levels and PSLs and some extra damage: the same thing you do if you _don't_ have a martial artist or a martial maneuver; the difference being you didn't pay by the trick.
 
 
 
 

All right folks, and thank you in particular for the idea, DialN, I present UltraViolent (sic), invisible assassin and death-dealing berserker:
 
 
Thanks again, DialN;  the youth group kids are going to love it! 
 
 
Duke

Well I just bought my official copy.
 
Looks like he put it up without the covers.  

Never mind, Brian:
 
 
Take a look here:
 
 
 

@Duke Bushido and a couple of us worked on remastering Western HERO, and I’m expecting the HERO Store to be releasing it any time now. Any ideas when, Duke?

If they charge for the table space, snacks, and so on, Hero money spends the same as D&D money.  
 
If it's the FLGS that's pressuring you to play somewhere else... I assert that the "F" in FLGS for them stands for something other than "friendly".

Your "read a story" implies some big long monologue or something, which is not at all what I'm implying... but what I am saying is that everything that happens (nearly) should be all done up front with the rest of the players as audience. Something happens just to one player, off screen in their personal life, it still plays out in front of the entire group, so all the players enjoy the scene and understand that PCs story. Their characters might have no idea, but the players certainly do. Only occasionally, and usually to allow the player to really prepare a certain reveal or dramatic moment, would I be ok with GM and player going off to do their own thing. 
 
Same thing goes for whatever the players are introducing to the SIS. If a player is thinking, "Wow... BlastMan just wouldn't be ok with this, and he is terrible at expressing himself, so he's going to storm off in a rage," great... and the player can describe that... but intent is important. What does the player intend that scene to do? How will it move the drama/story/action forward? The player should explain that. "Ok... I'm storming off here because I really feel BlastMan is raging, unreliable and going to cause problems." Other players can ask questions, "Ok... so are we looking at playing out a group conflict here, or maybe you want BlastMan going rogue while the rest of the team tries their own approach?" Maybe the original player is like, "Oh yeah... I hadn't thought of that, but cool... yeah, can we do that? BlastMan will be trying to take out Destructo his way, while you guys are going in with an actual plan, and that will be a totally messed up situation. Fun!"   Or whatever. 
 
Wow... I take this VERY differently. Everybody sees every character sheet, and players will specifically do things like, "Oh... doesn't this trigger your enraged by Magic thing!" or point at their own sheet saying, "Oh yeah, this is totally a moment where I'm leaning into my "In love with the cheerleader" psych lim."   All whether or not the other characters know about it... it is about the players all having input to how things play out. It is one of the things I love about a lot of the PbtA games or Blades hacks... the PCs all have built in personality triggers and relationships and such on them... but not just in a generic way like Disads in Champs... but things that act as actual role playing compells and even like stats, where you get game effects by pulling the strings of your character. Like in a game of Cartel I just played, at the beginning every character had a relationship of some kind set with two other PCs. My PC 'had a debt' to another, which I determined because he patched her up, no questions asked, when she stumbled into his store with a bullet in her leg. Near the end of the game, my character came across his, who had been shot in the throat and was bleeding out. I was pursuing the Narco boss, but we as players both stopped at that moment, "Oh man... I owe you/you owe me!" as we both recognized this was a moment where that established relationship had to affect the game dramatically. My character totally stopped her initial pursuit, dropped everything to get this guy she really barely knew, to a hospital, and it changed the ending of the game significantly. Did that character or any of the others really know why she did that? It probably seemed like a random, out of character act to the PCs, but  the PLAYERS knew exactly why it happened and it had that very satisfying moment of "Oh yeah... this is cool drama..." that only comes from that audience/meta POV of grasping the dramatic cause and effect and thematic shifts that are happening. 

 
 
You act like no one ever has their own personality and ego wrapped up in the character they are playing? That even the best players get emotionally carried away by the pressure of the action or drama? There is a reason people say, "I do X" and "I say Y instead of "My character does X or says Y". It happens all the time, and in moments of conflict and heightened emotion, it is incredibly important that players take that moment to step out of character and reassure people, "Hey, I'm not really angry now, even though I just spent five minutes calling you all every name in the book!" I've had players who have known each other for decades nearly come to blows because a bad day or difference of opinion was affecting game play and character decisions that were really two players very angry at each other. I realized this because they were both getting really shitty to each other IN CHARACTER without breaking out to reassure "hey, this isn't real, this is role playing". 
 
In my experience, players get very emotionally invested in the success of their character, or that the story plays out in a way that they imagine... and when things go against them or the story takes a turn they aren't expecting or don't particularly like, it is much better that we are all comfortable "going meta" and discussing this instead of everyone "staying in character" and trying to show their frustration through the unexplained actions of their characters. I've been playing for 40 years now and that shit happens WAY too often.

There is ALWAYS doubt perceived at the table, IMO, when a character is going through a particularly difficult scenario or stress or complication... and unless the player steps out and smiles and says, "Oh I'm having fun here... really... my character is miserable, but not me... bring the emotional pain... this is cool..." I'll be very attuned to the fact that the PLAYER might be feeling the stress and expressing the emotions, not just the character.
 
 
Oh, this is part of the social contract for sure... and usually expressed right up front, but as you note, not all players are attuned to it. A mature response from a player might be, "I really do want to play the anti-social angry loner type, but I want to figure out how that character can be part of the story and add to the fun of the play group." Then the group can meta discuss "OK, how do we make the game work with one character always on the outs with everyone else?" And the group can come up with a way to shift perspectives between the group and the outsider or whatever.  Maybe scenes where the loner has information that he needs the others to act on, and he is like the terrible arrogant Batman type, where the other characters are like, "What a douche canoe... but he has good intel, so we'll keep working with him." But the players are all smiling and laughing because the scenes are enjoyable drama.

The likely issue here is similar to what I stated above, it wasn't just about the character... the PLAYER was emotionally invested in being the brooding, anti-social loner. The player enjoyed being a douche canoe "in character" and wasn't really concerned with how it affected the game or the others. 

Its up to the players to write and publish that stuff, or it won't get done.  People need to step up and get it on paper and make it happen.

To some extent the Champions Character Creation Deck is this.  Six pregenerated stat blocks, a dozen or so pregenerated Complications sets, and a buttload of pregenerated power and skill sets.  They're non-collectible and thus non-rarity-leveled, but you can very easily deal out a few cards to create a superhero, then snap a pic of it with your phone to have an electronic copy.  
 
Getting called to burn stuff.  More later.

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. 

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'll flip that around. 
 
"My character dismisses yours because he is a brooding, moody, secretive loner who can't come out of his shell due to childhood trauma caused when his parents were gunned down by a mugger, with him left to cry over their bodies, something he never talks about with anyone." 
 
No.
 
How does my character know that?  My character can only react to your character's actions.  Personalities should come out in play.  Backgrounds could come out in play.  There may be scenarios that bring them to the forefront.  Or the characters, after working together and forging a mutual respect, friendship, etc., may choose to share some of their history. 
 
Don't read me a story about your character.  Participate in the stories that include your character, and let his story come out in play.

So, very much yes... your many descriptions of "character development" being "the way the character changes over the course of play"... I totally agree with that.

I think that character development starts in character creation... but I'd argue often too much is done there. Often, like Cancer's comment about having such a top-down simulationist leaving no room for PCs and play... the same can be said of too much character development during creation. The player with the three novel set of background for their character, who brings them fully formed and fulfilled and just wants to "be" their idealized character...
 
I agree that development in play is what we usually want, and I still think that can happen in a single game session.

The game and the system play into that, but even something as much as "Cocky hard-ass cop in big shoot-out scenario, has a moment where he can be the kick ass dude but instead chooses to protect the bystanders and get them out of the building. Both the character and the player realizing in that moment that this is who this guy really is... wants to be... " etc.  Straightforward, but to me that moment is what makes the shoot-out scenario resonate and come alive. 

 
 
Responding directly to this... I also think that it is important to realize that RPGs are a unique experience. Where seeing a movie or reading a book or playing a video game is consumption, and filming a movie and writing a book and coding a video game are production... RPGs are both, at the same time. The players (including the GM) are creating the game/experience/story, but they are also the audience of the game/experience/story. 

While the characters may never know why he did it, the PLAYERS absolutely should. If you as the player are so wrapped up in your own head and motivations, etc., but fail to bring the rest of the audience (play group) along with you... you have failed, hands down. That kind of thing is solipsistic and detrimental to group dynamics. My character Jimmy may be utterly stunned and confused at Kyle's sudden sacrifice, but Neil the player and audience member should be emotionally on that journey with Kyle just as much as Kyle's player. Character development is that journey.

This is also why I tend to be down on "role play" (acting) because it is often solipsistic... the player so focused on inhabiting the PC that they fail to involve the audience and be the creator of a entertaining experience. It also tends to allow for the asshole player with the asshole Wolverine clone to be a complete asshole in play, and excuse it with, "It's what my character would do!" Completely unacceptable to a workable social contract at the table. 

For character development, it not just my job to allow for it during play, but to push for it in such a way as the moments where these changes comes up and are demonstrated in play are dramatic and entertaining and interesting for the player audience. Character development, to me, serves this very meta requirement of good play.

RE:
 
Endurance tracking:
 
My current youth group is the only time I've _ever_ had issues getting someone to comprehend tracking END, and even then it's just the younger ones.  I mean, players have no problem tracking STUN, BODY, and until this one group, track END.  It's not like it's totally foreign if you can track the other two, right?  My suspicion is the "youth" part: they're in a hurry to do amazing things in their magical new world.
 
My solution was this:
 

 
Combined with this:
 
 

 
 
Yes, as an American deep in rural farm country, I was startled to find a dozen 45 cm plastic rulers in my local office supply store (I mean local; the nearest chain place is ninety miles from me).  The ones I found were wider and thinner than the one pictured, and they had a narrow little slot running down almost the full length (presumably some sort of cutting guide?)  At any rate, I tucked A paper rivet through each slot and folded one tab one toward the center and the other tab toward and up around the edge of the centimeter side, making something of a pointer.  I explained to them that they put the pointer on their starting END (mercifully, the highest END was dead-on 45) and when they did anything, they slid the pointer down to indicate their current END score. 
 
Not only did it work, but they want one for tracking STUN, too.  
 
I don't think the math bothered them; I don't think that they were unaware that things cost END.  I think they got wrapped up and forgot to stop and do it.  This, being a bit more in-your-face, seems to have stopped the problem cold.  They have taken to moving the counter as if it were the most important part of the game.   Unexpected bonus:  I can tell at a casual glance about where anyone's END is at any given moment.
 
 
 
 

Yeah, normal characteristic maxima is usually for heroic level games.  Indiana Jones instead of the X-Men.
 
Defenses should generally be scaled to the attacks you'll have in the game.  Somebody who has 1.5 times the average dice in Defense is going to be fragile.  If you've got a 10D6 campaign, then a guy with 15 PD and ED (including combat luck, armor, force fields, etc), is going to take a lot of damage really fast.  In my experience, somebody with that level of defense should probably have something else as well to make them more survivable.  It's okay to have 15 PD and ED if you are a shrinker (whose DCV will normally be extremely high), or if you are mostly invisible (so people generally don't shoot at you), or are mostly desolid (so their attacks pass through you).  But otherwise you're gonna be face down in the dirt most of the time.  If you want a character who is fragile that's fine, but fragile they will be.
 
Somebody with 3 times the average dice in Defense is going to be tough.  In a 10D6 campaign, the guy with 30 PD and ED will take forever to go down.  Blast him and blast him and he'll just shrug it off.  I've found that between 2x and 2.5x the average dice gives you a good range of defense.
 
When you're building a character, you also want to make sure that they won't be Con-Stunned by the average attack roll.  If it's a 10D6 game, every character needs to be able to take at least 35 Stun without it passing their Defense plus Con.  So if you've got 20 Def, you need a 15 Con at a minimum.  18 to 20 is better, because sometimes people roll above average.  Losing an action because you got Stunned is a great way to remember how awesome your iPhone is and start checking Facebook during the game.  You don't want it to happen too often.

APG2 has an Extradimensional Space power that would, ah, fit the bill.

If you're doing a swarm, the advantages "Indirect" and Area of Effect (even a small one)" are going to be your best friends ever.  The Limitaiton: Reduced Penetration can help simulate a lot of "swarm of things"-type attacks as well.
 
Easiest thing I've found (and if you're not shopping for advice , well just skip all this.  ) is to _not_ focus on "what does the book say about swarms?!"  Hell, remember the book is written by the guy who wrote entire other books on a single simplistic archetypes (the Ultimate Brick, the Ultimate Metamorph, etc, etc,).  The book has a _lot_ to say, and on _everything_.
 
Focus first specifically on what you want the power to do:  what is the absolute end-purpose of this power?  Then go backwards-- you're still not thinking about swarms of things, okay?  Go backwards.  What Advantages or Limitations do you want the power to have?  Not because it's a swarm of things!  Ignore that!  What Advantages and Limitaitons do you want the power to have because _that_ is the power you envision?  Does it have reduced Penetration?  No?  Fine.  But keep in mind that a large attack with a couple of Reduced Penetrations is faster and easier to handle than a small attack with an Autofire, particularly if you're just starting out with the system.  Just sayin'....
 
Sweet!  I want him to have an 20d6 Energy Blast: PD with double reduced penetration.  It's pretty close to having 4d6 on auto fire, but with only one attack roll and less fiddly adjustments for each roll.  No; it's not the same, but the tradeoff is it's a lot faster to manage during play.
 
I want him to have 30" of Flight as well.
 
I want him to have an entangle.
 
 
 
By now you should have-- or very nearly have-- the powers you want this character to command. _NOW_ you can figure out how you want to do it with bugs.
 
The Reduced Pen Blast is a swarm of hornets.  Hey, you know what?  Maybe I can squeeze an AOE: one Hex in there to simulate how easy it is for someone else to get tangled up in it by coming too close!  Yes indeedy!    Okay, he flies by commanding an even larger swarm of winged thingies to carry him aloft, and his entangle is --well more hornets.  They surround an opponent, but they don't actually attack him unless he moves.  Hmm...  I should find a way to make Breakout dependent on a CON roll instead of an STR roll.  And they're hornets-- little short stingers.  Maybe add in something about how it doesn't work against rigid defenses?
 
 
See?  The special effect came _last_.  This is what the book calls "reasoning from effect:"  You can not clearly build it until you know what it does, because until you know exactly _what_ it does, you have no idea how to start building it.  Once you get to the point where you're tailoring your SFX, you can tweak the power modifiers for flavor then, but not before.
 
 
With a little practice, you'll be pulling characters out of the air in no time.
 
 

Sorry, GB(i); 
 
Still having some phone weirds after my last update..
 
 
Moving along:
 
 
 
I'm going to get booed for this, I suspect, but I have _never_ been able to view that as a valid reason to endorse the backwards to-hit roll.  Unless your entire group is some kind of thick, it isn't going to take too many hits and misses for them to have a pretty clear notion as to just what their opponent's DCV actually _is_-- at least, as clear as they would have the other way (no solid way to account for Levels, after all).  I mean, if they are only math savvy enough to do "eleven plus one other number," then they have more than enough knowledge to figure out the rest....
 
 
 

Yeah, so, I'm thinking about doing a very stupid thing: Trying to GM when I've played about two sessions of Champions myself, in different games that never went anywhere, with a group who range from "was in a D&D campaign years ago" to "has heard about this tabletop game thing, how does that work?"

Needless to say, this is an intimidating prospect, but how else do you get a group started if your friends aren't already gamers? I really don't want to give them a poor impression of the hobby/system. I've only run a single session of D&D once back when 3.5 came out and the FLGS had an open table during the all-day promotional event, but that's basically it from that end, and only been a player in a dozen or so sessions of another campaign. Swords & sorcery doesn't really grab me and I've developed a real loathing for classes and levels, so with the things locally popular being D&D/PF or endless Crack: The Cash-Gathering tournaments options have been limited, but I finally got a few folks interested in giving supers a try. So, can anyone give me some pro tips for the noob, or point me to some existing material? I'm sure it's been asked before many times, of course.

Oh, and since it does matter a bit, Champions Complete + Champions Powers (and the Hero in 2 Pages handout from MHI as a quick reference for how to do basic mechanics in play) are what it'll be based on, though I do actually have a BBB as well. I don't think it would even be a possibility without Powers to give everyone ideas and examples, TBH. "You can do anything!" is great but makes it hard for a newcomer to home in on a concept to roll with, especially for Complications related to a power theme/beyond Hunted and Code Against Killing.


Fake edit as I read things before posting this:
Brian Stanfield had a really great point in the "Sell me on Hero system" thread, part of a longer post:
"Please, PLEASE do not teach them this: 11 + OCV - dice roll= DCV you can hit. NOBODY understood what the hell this means! Seriously. I watched it happen in real time. They were able to calculate stuff and make the dice roll, but they didn’t intuitively understand why they were doing it. Teach them the pre-6th way: 11 + OCV - DCV = the roll you need to make. People get it when you are subtracting the opponent’s DCV from your OCV. It makes intuitive sense. Who cares if they know the opponent’s DCV while they are learning the game. That sort of meta-game knowledge may actually help them understand the interaction of the parts better." This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm looking for! It made the logic clearer for ME, let alone trying to explain to a total RPG newcomer.

One thing not included with the TA source book itself is the sort of detailed index one came to expect of all Fifth Edition Hero books. This one provides only a broad subject index. However, Steve Long created a separate, exhaustive combined index and glossary for the setting, the Encyclopaedia Turakiana, as a free downloadable PDF, available on the Hero Games website: https://www.herogames.com/files/file/206-encyclopaedia-turakiana/
 
That file was first hosted on a much earlier version of the Hero website, along with several other free downloads related to the Turakian Age. Among them was a summary/classification of the dominant Turakian Age gods; and a calendar for the Westerlands, a major region of the world of Ambrethel. You'll find links to those at the bottom of this archived webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20060209130204/http://herogames.com/FreeStuff/freedocs.htm
 
Continuing the parade of freebies , if anyone would like to get an advance look at what Ambrethel, the Turakian Age world, looks like, you can download maps in various sizes, color and B&W, from the first couple of links on yet another archived webpage:  https://web.archive.org/web/20060209130319/http://herogames.com/FreeStuff/wallpapers.htm
 
However, the current website also hosts free collected scans of the detailed maps from inside the TA source book, which you can download from here: https://www.herogames.com/files/category/9-maps/

 

I have a transparent hexmap I bought many years (2 decades+) ago.  I don't think the original manufacturer makes them any more, but I found this:
http://arcknight.squarespace.com/shop/clear-map-grids-colors-and-styles
 

Interesting, because yeah, I'd totally disagree. The "Protect the Queen" scenario had ZERO "role" for me to play. Just a blank slate, and I "developed" the entire existence of the character, their arc, their raison d'etre, the motivation and symbolism, throughout the game. I did not speak once "in character."

Role play would be, "Here... you are the moody loner secretly in love with the cheerleader and looking for a way to fit in" now bring that to life... play a role. Talk "in character" and play out every excruciating moment of that awkward first date with the cheerleader... because that is what they character would do.

What I described was nothing like that.
 
Character development is the "why."   Why is the character moody? Why do they love the cheerleader? Why does it matter to them that they fit in?"  "Why is any of this dramatically relevant?" 

Role play is the "how"... how they act, how they speak, how they make decisions.

I'm much, much, MUCH more interested in the Why than the How.