Brian Stanfield

Character concept should be driving and informing the roleplaying. It should also be driving and informing the expenditure of XP. Surely this is rather obvious and not at all controversial.

Typical limitations:  codes and phobias and the like are simply  ommited to memory, as are enraged and it's variants.  Hunted /hunting, DNPCs and most anything with a roll (except psych lims; for some reason, I have never had a problem remembering those) I usually role (or make a judgment call on) while everyone is settling in, but before they're actually ready to play.  That gives me a few minutes to determine when and how, and what changes I have to make to work an encounter in.  Sometimes it's as simple as replacing one character with another.  Sometimes it's disrupting enough that it's easier to toss out something that distracts from the main story and leads to a "side quest" of sorts.  And remember that just because your hunted showed up doesn't mean that there is going to be an in-game confrontation.  Sometimes he's observing you, studying your habits and looking for trends or weaknesses.  Other times, he has begun working on a long-game plan that will come to fruition in a big way somewhere down the line. 
 
Vulnerabilities and the like I simply mark in my notes where they may come into play. 
 
I can't really give you an exhaustive list of how I handle each type, but suffice it to say that if you have it on your sheet, it will get worked in regularly.  Perhaps not every session, but regularly enough that it justifies the points you gained and reinforces the concept you had for your character. 

This, exactly - the players should be making in-combat decisions based on their characters; personalities, skill sets and biases -  not exclusively on the best tactical choice.  That can influence choice of targets, selection of action, whether one delays or acts impulsively - but that will not happen if the consequences are failure.  Instead, players will look for character choices that make the characters ruthless, emotionless machines who always go for the best tactical option.
 
 
"Roleplaying" is not "character concept".  Many characters do not choose their powers.  Ben Grimm would not spend xp getting stronger and tougher - he'd rather spend it removing his Distinctive Features.  The writer (the player) does not choose to allow that, because it is not the character concept (or because the player just wants more combat capability - he isn't isolated from the rest of the world by a rocky shell).
 
Playing an Overconfident Super who holds back and delays phases, rather than leaping into the fray to stop the criminals in their tracks, because he's not sure how tough the opposition is?  That's bad role playing.

I hear you. I'm just trying to clarify and focus the frame of discussion. To my mind, narratively isolated sessions that test character builds in combat are basically wargaming sessions not roleplaying sessions. On the other hand, when characters are earning XP from multiple, ongoing, narratively connected adventures and using it to simulate character progression/development, that's when you have a roleplaying campaign. And I just feel that RPG campaigns ought to, you know, feature roleplaying, right down to the way players spend their XP. In that context, roleplaying (i.e., doing that which fits the character's concept) ought not to be thought of as optional.

I hear you, Brian, and for the record, I _did_ finally read it-- roughly two years ago.  unfortunately, it wasn't really eye-opening stuff.  At least, not at _that_ point.  There wasn't a lot in there that we weren't already doing.  Were we superior beings or gifted role players?
 
No.  Of course not.  It's stuff we'd learned through playing.  Stuff that over the years developed naturally-- like off-table / bluebook role playing.
 
Was it a good reference?  Lord, yes!  I really do wish I had known more what it was way back when (pre-internet days, when you only had the jacket blurb to go buy if none of your friends had it ), simply because we could have been leaps and bounds ahead of where we are now, and we could have gotten there without the difficulties, annoyances, and struggles that lead to us doing it as the need became overwhelming.
 
Not only did I wish I head read it a couple decades ago, it led to me occasionally picking up other "GM aids" as reading material, just to see what else someone else might be doing better, or easier, or looking for over-all inspiration.  On that note, one of the best things I read was about how to speed up combat (it wasn't system-specific, and most of what was system specific can't be applied to HERO because of it's unique Character Speed system, but even in the generalities, there were useful tidbits).
 
So on Strikeforce?  Yes; it is worth the read, and _every_ GM of _any_ system should at least read an expurgated version that covers the role-playing-specific bits.  Champions fans should read the whole thing.  And it should be read as soon as possible, for it is most helpful to newer groups, where the ideas may be new and stress-saving.  Further, it's a good idea to at least periodically pick up other such "how to play better" materials.  Even two completely conflicting viewpoints can lead to an inspiration.
 
 

"Oh, the two manatee!"

Sure, roleplaying is optional insofar as nobody is going to come to your home and take your Champions books away if you don't engage in it, but in any campaign I play in (or GM) it would not be treated as optional. Anyone is free to call their roleplaying-less Champions campaign an "RPG" but I would not agree with them.
 
Having said that, I would argue that even when players do engage in roleplaying, Champions essentially becomes a tactical wargame the moment you go into Phases and minis start moving around a hexgrid. Just the same, there is lots of room during combat for character personalities to take a central role in events and to shape outcomes. All the good Champions campaigns I played in featured good, strong roleplaying throughout the game, even during combat when playing "in character" fell at odds with tactical efficiency on the battlemat.

I don't know that I see this at the same extreme, but any change to the system carried ripple effects.
 
It seems like "an extra xp to spend on the skill" for great skill rolls, or for using the skill then missing a skill roll, favours characters with a lot of skills over those focused on other abilities.  Does the Warrior who rolls a critical hit, or hits with his sword, get a (chance at) bonus xp to add skill levels to that specific weapon, to melee combat in general, or to combat in general? 
 
We also face the guys with lower skill wanting to take a shot to get a chance to improve the skill - is that how people will logically behave, or do we create a mechanistic drive to poor role playing?  We're in the field, we know Ted has the best skill in demolitions, but let's give Charlie first dibs on trying to defuse the bomb since he can use the skill upgrade.  I am better with my sword, but I have a tick there already - I draw my bow.
 
What is "good role playing"?  Too often, it is "playing my character like someone else, typically the GM, thinks he should be played, rather than like I think he should be played". 
 
The "use the skill, get a chance to enhance it" model is a PvP concept, at its core - who can grow their character the fastest?  I find many games have shifted to be a team effort - all characters progress at the same rate.  Bonus xp (i.e. bonus character enhancement) for individual success puts the players in competition with one another.  That may, or may not, be the game model you want, but recognize that it is the game model being fostered.  You will get the game play your own play style fosters. 
 
Taking that back to role playing, in a game where any tactical misstep means defeat, likely death, or some other negative consequence, expect characters who always make the tactically best choice.  If you want characters with real character, driven by their personalities, rather than tactical effectiveness, then the game must reward,  not penalize, that role playing.  I don't find requiring the players to declare what their characters are practicing in order to be permitted to spend their xp contributes markedly to players imbuing their characters with personalities.  YMMV

I sorta feel that "good role playing" is what keeps an RPG from being reduced to just a tactical wargame, and I don't personally regard it as optional. Now, if a group isn't into roleplaying that's fine, but I know from many discussions with Steve Peterson back in the day that "good roleplaying" was always envisioned as an integral element of the Champions game playing experience (as I think it would be for any RPG, really). Yet outside of the genre sourcebook, they didn't devote much material in the rules to explaining how good roleplaying ought to fit into the game. They pretty much assumed you knew how to do that instinctively, and would do so without being told to.

To be completely honest with you, 
 
The general "feel" of HERO, at least the vibe I get, is set up the exact opposite:
 
There is no mandate to require practice or role-play of a skill's usage in order to improve it.  In fact, the Power Skill finally "officialized" in 5e (about time, too!  Honestly, who wasn't already using some variant of that anyway?   ) seems very much to support the idea of buying a skill or trick because you want to use it:  With the Power Skill, you can, on occasion, do a nifty thing.  But if you want to do it twice, you need to buy that skill or power outright before doing it again.
 
Now, that being said, let me reply in earnest:
 
I think a great deal of us require a person to at least "off table" practice the skill.  It's not part of the rules, but it _is_ part of good role playing.  I've required this myself since becoming a GM a few decades ago, and I've noticed that most players don't mind it, and some even really enjoy working with the "personal time" aspect of the game.  Because of this, when Shrike posted his Epiphany Points concept, I jumped all over it: it was a great dovetail into the way we handle skill progression (though, as I noted elsewhere, I am going to cap how many "major epiphanies" (:rofl:) you can have during the course of a session ).
 
Would I allow Epiphany Points to increase a Power?
 
I don't know.  I'd really have to think it over.  My knee-jerk reaction is "no," but I'd really have to mull it over.  I might allow a Character to use them to increase his Power Skill, if he had one, or apply them toward buying a Power Skill later.  I am almost certain that I would do this if the Character was, at the time of the nat 3, attempting to use his Power in a new or creative way.
 
Would I require practice before letting a Character increase a Power?
 
That's hard to say.  After all, much like Skill progression, HERO seems to push the other way: witness the Radiation Accident, around since what?  3e?  2e, maybe?  Where you save a dump of experience points and then suddenly splurge in a crazy-go-nuts radical change of the Character.  Sure; the presentation of the idea includes the suggestion of a story-related reason (like radiation accident, for example), but doesn't really push it.  "Buy it because you want to use it" seems to be the driving force behind the game design, and given that it has marketed itself forever on the idea of "building exactly the character you want" and taking him straight into play, it follows that if he isn't _quite_ where you want him to be, then get him there as quickly as possible so you can "more fully" enjoy using the character you envisioned.
 
On the other had, the same volume that presented the Radiation Accident presented the Danger Room, a place just for practice, but even that was filled with so many ideas of scenarios where X happened in the Danger Room that you sort of had to wonder why they included costs to build it.  But they did, which implies designer-supported practice.
 
For what it's worth, I require practice to increase a Power.  That practice may be little more than "favoring" that Power for a couple of scenarios, as complex as spending game time in actual practice with other Characters assisting, but is generally an off-table thing----  Sorry.  Hold on.
 
--- I didn't read Strike Force until about two years ago.  Even then, it was on the suggestion of a friend who told me he learned a lot.  Nothing personal to the late Mr. Alston or anyone else; I had always heard it was notes from someone's campaign (and it was), and I just wasn't interested in reading notes from someone else's campaign, so I never did.  At any rate, because of the lateness of my "education," I never adopted the phrase "blue-booking."  My GM introduced it to me as "off-table play," and I've never found a compelling reason to call it anything else.--
 
sorry.  Back on course--
 
I allow practicing with a Power to be an off-table thing.  I just like to see that the player takes his character seriously, and has invested in his character the way I have invested in his universe.  I don't get too preachy or too picky about what is or is not "enough practice," just as long as it's being done.
 
This brings up a sticky point-- at least, it's been sticky for me:
 
The Player who wants to develop a new power.  (This, by the by, is precisely how we ended up with our own version of the Power Skill umpteen years ago: to learn to use your powers in a new way).  First, I go over with the player just how he envisions this power to interact with his other powers.  If it's something of a variant of an existing power (Energy Blast into Killing Attack, for example, or Telepathy into EGO Attack), then standard practice works for me: "Study in particular that part of your telepathic connection that makes you aware of their mind; that part where "you" stop and "he" begins" etc, etc.
 
If it's a new power that's not too closely tied to a current power, but has close ties in SFX-- say, Flamethrower decides he wants to learn how to use his flame form to fly by heating himself up lighter than air and propelling himself on mighty bursts of plasma-- then again, standard practice rules apply.  "practice" a couple of sessions or a few off-table sessions, and Boom!  Whip up a new Multipower or EC (yes; I know that's gone from 6e.  I don't use 6e) and start jetting across the campaign.
 
If it's something _totally_ new, -- well, first: I am _not_ going to deny the player out of hat.  I find out why he wants this power, and how he ended up with this power (that is, if I didn't stick him into some villainous device and accidentally give it to him! ).  Typically, we find a way to work that into the very next session, and definitely into the one after that if we can't make it work immediately.  I will interrupt a well-crafted session with a surprise thing that leads to a mini-arc or single-scenario adventure if I need to.  I have no interest in penalizing my players because of something they have legitimately earned, after all.  The only thing I do require with a genuinely new power is that they first buy it at a low-ish level.  That is, when it shows up (unless instant mastery is important to the plot), I don't want to see it in full-fledged, all the EXP I had available form.  They should practice it the session in which it shows up.  At the close of that session, they can buy it as high as they wish (or can afford), with the agreement to "practice" with it at least a little more in the next session.  
 
As an example, if a player can afford his character to buy 5d of --- I don't know; say Illusion, then I would prefer he first buy 3 and practice with it so that, by the end of the session, he has "learned" how to access all 5d.  
 
I can see how someone _might_ think that this is some kind of penalty, but frankly, I do it primarily to be fair to all the other characters who have to practice to improve.
 
 
That the sort of answer you're looking for, or did I miss the point completely?
 

Well my new-to-me "spare" Star HERO showed up first.  (the one by Paula something and Sam Bowne; 3e rules, I think).
 
Guess I'll give the idea a "practice run" of sorts this weekend.  This one's _ideal_ for cutting up, too.  Cover is a lost cause, and some of the pages look like they've been wadded up and crumpled a few times.   Anything I do to this thing will be an improvement.
 
Wish me luck!
 
 

 
 

Something that I've done as a result of rolling a "3".
 
You have a 12d6 EB, you roll a "3" to hit;  I've added 6 more dice to the pool to be rolled, roll 18d6 keep the top 12.
 
Just throwing this in the ring...

I am accustomed to campaigns where in order to spend XP on an ability, you had to have been using it a lot in play. Alternatively, you could tell the GM that you were studying or training a particular ability during the "off time" between sessions. But you couldn't just spend your XP without some sort of in-game justification. I don't think this requires any formal mechanics, just a simple campaign statement akin to the previous three sentences.

There were three powers, under 4th and both 5th editions that I used to refer to "the Trifecta of Cobble.". Desolid was one of them, particularly when someone wanted to be as-close-to-immune-to-something-as-was-possible. 
 
Given the long history of this application, it is as good a start as anything else, particularly since you stated no one in your campaign can take be effective against it. 
 
However, is this going to remain status quo?  While I am not personally opposed to absolutes (I don't like them, but I'm not opposed to the idea of them), keep in mind the effect they may have on your campaign: how long before "affects desolid" becomes the norm for mental powers in your game?  On the whole, that's not necessarily bad, but whoever spent all those points on desolid is going to come short. 
 
 
Not only are those good questions, but they would help us a lot as we try to come up with ideas to help you. 
 
Is Mental Paralysis an EGO-based power in your campaign?  Would it be more effective to buy a high level of EGO Defense?  That would cover the entire spectrum of mental powers as well.  For the price of Desolid, you can get quite a bit of it.  It's not an absolute, but if you get enough, it can be effectively absolute within the campaign. 
 
If the character is only immune to Mental Paralysis, then Mental Defense only versus one power should be considerably cheaper. 
Of course, if your Campaign features MP of multiple types-- say based on CON or Flash or whatever, you will the appropriate defenses for those as well.  Nothing stops you from applying a "only versus an MP attack" limitation, of course. 
 
On this line of thought is the idea of finding some sort of cost average between Power Defense, Flash Defense, or defenses against all of whatever types of MP are allowed in your game and creating "Mental Paralysis Defense," a new power unique to your campaign (and if you decide that option appeals to you, I strongly suggest talking with Hugh Neilson for advice on costing such a thing; he has a gift for turning abstract concepts into real math). 
 
Granted, that would require GM permission (not the talking to Hugh part; that requires Hugh's permission. ;)).  Though based on comments you've made, I assume the GM is you.  If not, I apologize for the mistake. 
 
 
 
 

 
All jokes aside though, there are some ways to build some pretty powerful defenses, though most of them require GM approval.
 
Consider a combination of effect-specific defense (or power-specific defense, depending on how you model things) and Damage Reduction of a relevant type. 
 
And while HERO does have a tradition of abhoring an absolute defense, the 6th edition has gotten a bit closer: I can't recall the name, but there is a power something akin to "damage mitigation" that simply removes dice from the effect pool straight off.  Enough of that (or some combination of all of the above) gets expensive quickly, to be sure, but total invulnerability to something probably _should_ be on the pricey side, even if it is Limited to only working against one specific attack. 
 
I hope something here at least gets the creative juices flowing. 
 
Duke

As mentioned earlier, it depends on what you want critical hits to do.  Max damage is kind of the default, but not the only option.  In my games if the roll is under half of what is needed to hit, the player can roll twice for the damage and then take the greater (or lesser) of the two rolls.  That means really good To-Hit rolls tend to be more effective, which makes intuitive sense, but it isn't max damage so it isn't as unbalancing.  Also, because PC's tend to have better OCV & DCV relative to low-level thugs, it is a mechanic that mostly benefits the players.

I like the d20 solution that a max roll (or the roll needed for a crit) must be confirmed by rolling a second successful roll to hit, although that is an extra die roll.  If a potential crit only arises on a roll of 3, and you need a 3 to hit, you now need to roll two consecutive 3's - still possible, but not at all likely.  In your five minute fight, you still to pretty well to get 2 3's (1 chance in 216 rolls).  Rolling two consecutive 3s is 1 chance in 46,656.  Assuming a 2 SPD (so 10 attacks per minute), you need a 21.6 minute battle to make 216 rolls.  You have to fight for 77.76 straight hours to make 46,656 rolls.

If you have more questions about rules and what not, try the Hero System Discussion thread. Lots of good explanations and ideas there!

Yes; that was the "Epiphany Points" system Shrike proposed and we tried.  As luck would have it, I had one player get eight natural 3s using the same skill over the course of the adventure.  
 
I am looking for a susoensory medium just dense enough to float her dice.

I know what you mean.  Players that want to use them want it to be a one-way street.  I don't mind that idea in a lot of systems, but in a system renowned for its "get what you pay for" design parameters, that one way street is a lot of damage / defense (by defense, I mean the presumed player immunity to running into the crits they want to dish out) that you'd get without paying for it. 
 
But even then, that's not why I generally don't use them.  Someone earlier put it into words better than I could: the critical hit was implemented in a different system to address a shortcoming in that system.  It's a shortcorming that HERO doesn't have. 
 
But even then, that's not why I don't use them. 
 
Now I _have_ run games where making a roll by half of what you needed allowed some minor bonus: less time or more details learned or better quality work, etc, and making 1/4 or less what you needed allowed a bit more bonus than that, up to and including a meta game bonus like a die modifier the next time you use the skill or fight that opponent. 
 
I don't use the traditional "getting the lowest roll possible is a critical hit" concept for two basic reasons:
1) in Champions, traditionally, the characters are good guys. They aren't necessarily out to kill.  Someone wanting to deliver a stunning blow to subdue someone, who then scores a roll that indicates perfect success, is likely going to be disappointed to discover that he has done grievous bodily harm to someone. 
 
But even that can be worked around by simply ignoring your "opportunity" to maximize the pain.  ("can I save it for later?" )
 
The biggest reason I don't use it is because of those odd occasions where _only_ a 3 will bring you success.  It could be an attack roll; it could be a Skill or Characteristic Check.  If you _must_ have a 3, this suggests that you are doing something so far above your competency that it makes no sense to me that the only way you can succeed is flawlessly.  Say two characters are clanging swords, and one of them _must_ have a 3 to hit.  (like if I personally were to draw a sword and attack Conan or something).  I have a hard time swallowing that for a five-minute fight, I only hit him twice, but every time I touched him it was a critical hit.  Game-wise, there is nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't sit well with me. 
 
It is for this reason that I prefer the "made it by half / made it by 1/4" idea: if you are so out of your league that you need a 6 or less to succeed, you still have the chance to succeed, but there is no chance you will make it by rolling 1/4 of your target number.  To me, this more accurately simulates Skill level by leaving the chance of success in place, but removing the chance to demonstrate a superiority that isn't there. 
 
The drawbacks are obvious: if you need any number below 6, you are not going to make half your target number.  If you need less than 10, you are not going to make 1/4 your target number.  Honestly, I feel that's reasonable: a person with a high degree of proficiency doing routine tasks _should_ get outstanding results more often than someone who is much less talented (or trained, or what-have-you).  Establishing "3 is automatically critical" or a "phenomenal success" adds a bit of the spectacular; I won't deny that.   But it does it for the completely unskilled just as often as it does it for the wizened master who devoted his life to the subject at hand. 
 
Another potential drawback to the way I do it is the obvious mathematical fact that "special success" will occur much more often than do "nat 3s.". This is well-compensated for by reducing the value of the "prize.". Rather than double damage, maybe max damage, or a couple of dice of damage, or those two points of BODY needed to CON stun the opponent, and things smaller and greater.  Just a wider variety of smaller payoffs keeps the game fresh without upsetting the balance of a scenario too badly (like having the informant hospitalized might do). 
 
I'd like to take a minute to shout out to Killer Shrike, who posted many ideas on "crits," including the "Epiphany Point," which I was rather taken with.  I tried it with my youth group Sunday afternoon (wanted to try it with the Kids before dropping it on the grown ups tomorrow night). 
 
It's a neat way to reward a player for something that traditionally RPGs reward for.  However, after Sunday's game, I am going to think about adding a cap (one of the girls rolled enough natural 3s to take her MD up two levels!). I am thinking maybe no more than 2 in any one Skill, and no more than 3 in any one session.  I mean, even if you can't spend then anywhere you want to, 3 bonus eepees is a _lot_ for one session!
 
 
 
 

Thanks. But I may want to introduce players to fourth edition. It appears I have to learn 6th edition, though so as to get the book out. I did like the short PDF on how to play Fantasy Hero that was cooked up last summer. That was a good primer on Hero combat.

What’s wrong with dark? Run with it! I’d love to play that campaign. 

This idea came to me in a dream and I have adapted it for my game but I thought it might be an interesting thread.  I want to hear feedback on the idea and possible challenges/changes to the adventure seed.
 
So Viper is creating new super powered people.  One of them was this female reporter who was unknowingly pregnant at the time.  The enhancements strangely enough worked (10%), did no harm(?) (40%) or killed the patient (50%).  In this female reporter's case, the enhancement process did no harm, or did it?  After being freed by the local superhero, the reporter found out she was pregnant.  The pregnancy went OK for a while but complications near the end of the pregnancy started to show up.  The doctors decided on a C-section and that is when the horror began.  The baby was affected by the enhancement and has started to grow.  As is normal, the baby started to kick while in the womb and it was as if the mother was getting punched in the midsection by a professional boxer.  The doctors didn't understand this  but the baby's development was rather quick and they decided on a c-section.  The baby at first was puzzled by the cold air and then the doctor spanked the baby as you see in various tv shows.  Well, the baby was having none of it.  It kicked the doctor through a wall and attempted to fly back into the womb (doing a move through on the mother).  When the now dead mother's body started to get cold, it began to scream destroying most of the maternity ward.  Viper who was keeping an eye on the mother for future possible kidnapping pounced on the baby and was able to capture it.  It has quickly grown into a toddler (with an increase in powers and abilities) when the heroes find the baby locked in a vault playroom/nursery.
Super Toddler.pdf

Hrmmm, ok too dark.  My campaign is fairly dark right now (Trump as President, Viper running the US, Dr Destroyer ruling the sky and Mechanon infecting various 3rd world countries).  I'll lighten it up using the standard Supes origin.
 
I've added a 6th choice to up the story line if the scenario were something like:
 
Viper infects a large number of people of various ages to see if the super enhancement program would work.  Its works but too well in one case and a toddler gets super powers and starts running amok in the Viper base.  When the supers come upon the base, the base is in an uproar and Viper agents are asking the supers for help.

Located one!
 
Condition listed as "Fair," which is above "good," which, in turn, is above "reader's copy."  Or maybe it isn't.  I haven't heard the term "reader's copy" since the internet took over.  Yeah; I'm old.  I remember honest-to-goodness book finders: a service you paid for and these folks specialized in locating truly hard to find things.
 
But I digress.  I just ordered a "Fair" copy remarkably inexpensively, and to keep the price down, I requested shipping by canoe.  Slow canoe.  _Really_ slow canoe.  But when it gets here, I will find bits of time here and there to make sure I have an ultimately storable copy.
 
I _really_ miss my last machine: the one with Photoshop and God's personal Cannon scanner.  We used that thing for years-- did our wedding pics and invites on it.  Haven't seen a "home version" scanner even close to the capacity that thing had.  You could set it for resolution greater than the screens most of us where using!   Set it high enough, it took two hours to scan a character sheet, but when you put that bad boy into PS to clean it up, it was _majestic_ when it came out. 
 
I miss that thing.  But, for my purposes, the junky little thing on the filing cabinet will probably work.  Just wish I had PS to clean it up.
 
Ah-- why am I worried?  All the art in Western HERO (for those who have never seen it) looks like it was faxed to the publisher anyway!   You know: back when a pixel was slightly larger than a Tricuit.
 
 
Picked up a second copy of Horror Hero and Star HERO as well-- might as well give them the same treatment, right?
 
 
man, when you don't care at all about quality, these things aren't nearly as expensive.  
 
 

Some art from the interior