Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TranquiloUno

  • Rank
    Standard Hero

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I mean "need" seems like a strong term but the general reason is: Cost efficiency (in some cases). Like Cassandra's example. I have a player in my game with a MF in a MP currently for exactly those reasons. He has other powers besides MF and can't use them while he's using MF so....MF in an MP.
  2. No, never. Just read the SW rules once. They sound nice from the way you're talking about them!
  3. That seems like some weird gate keeping to me. If a GM doesn't have time to run games (in the way you think they should be run) then we shouldn't help them run anything because it might result in the dreaded "linear" adventure. Which, per you, are *never* fun for players? Better if those types just aren't allowed to ever game at all until they can find the time to really dedicate themselves to the hobby then that'll definitely increase the number of folks playing Hero. Which is the intent right? Make sure nobody else but us cool guys are even allowed to look at the Hero System books until we commit to actually spending the time to really GM right, right? I'm mostly kidding here but that does seem like a weird take on things. What if I just want to get together with my bros twice a month and smash some stuff up in a detailed, "crunchy", tactically rich game system? Am I not allowed to do that because I don't have time to create my own world and my own "non-linear" plots? I'd rather go the opposite route. Tell them exactly what to do and when and how. And if they don't like that....THEN *they* can (if they want to, as they want to) change stuff. But to provide a book that doesn't provide an immediately (I mean, they'll have to read it, but...) playable adventure....who is that for? Folks that have time already? They probably don't need or want it. Folks that are already pressed for time but still wanna get their game on with their peeps? Useful to them. Also still potentially useful to the guy that does have time.
  4. I think too that it's a lot easier to adjust what exists than write the whole thing. Pre-gen characters boring? I can tinker with them easily. No pre-gens at all? Time-consuming. Even if I want to do it it's time consuming. Even if I'm a Hero System super-wizard and can basically do the stats in my head on the fly and just confirm the math later in HD....time consuming. Modules uses Setting X that I hate? I can reskin it to a kingdom in my game world, or move it to another setting pretty easily. No setting at all? Time-consuming. Even if I want to make my own game world it's time consuming. Module has Elves and Dwarves and I don't have those races? Now they are Draegarans and Serioli. And so on. If it's a Dr. Destroyer module but I run Marvel-based stuff, easy, he's Dr. Doom (or Lex Luthor) now. Dr. D's stats too crazy? Easy to tone down, but making my own master villain is time-consuming. And so on. So I think that the campaign-in-a-box (sounds much nicer that "on rails") format is nice in that is had benefits for newbies (it just runs AND it's a good example of...a working example\sample) AND also can be used by moldy, old, grognards who never touch anything that isn't "homebrew" (though surely a true grognard would never call it that) as well. I think this all probably applies to the grittier bits too. If I start with a module with pre-gen PCs and fully statted (and balanced as such) NPCs then I can tweak that balance from that starting place. But if there's no module then you end up like that guy the other week with a Superman clone who "has" to have a Dex of 36+...because the other guy has a 36 and obvs Supes is faster than him, so... Having A reference, ANY reference, even if the reference is garbage, is nice to have as a starting point. *I* think. Even for us experienced types that can manage to find time to write our own stuff it's nice to have a compatible reference that I can use. Hero Bestiary for instance.
  5. The "6th is the best, mechanically" and "signature setting" threads seemed to be bleeding and drifting and I was curious... ________________________________________________ "Hi! I'm a theoretical 5e D&D player. I'm pretty experienced (3 whole years!) but I've mostly played Adventurer's League stuff at my FLGS. I've run some of the hardcovers for my (minimally-interested\don't-read-the-rules) girlfriend and buddies and now I'm looking to try another system that isn't 5th Edition D&D." "Can you sell me on using Hero?" "How is Hero better than 5th Edition D&D?" "Some things I don't think are valuable are:" "High levels of char-gen flexibility. My players aren't going to read the rules so I'm going to make their characters for them. The PCs are likely to be archetypal types of various flavors." "Toolkit approach\flexible game mechanics. My players aren't going to read the rules and I don't really want to *adjust* anything (what would I even be adjusting to\from?), I just want to play a different game than D&D and get a sense for mechanics\flavor of Hero." "Sell me on Hero System! :D" _________________________________________________ I ask because I was reading a reddit thread about, "Why won't the players read the rules?", which led me to believe that....players basically don't learn the rules. This was interesting because it seemed system agnostic. And one of the common complaints about Hero (and GURPS, and...) is that it's "too complex" or "too crunchy". But if no player ever really reads the rules then....that's at least a bit irrelevant, right? Similarly if most GMs and players "just want to game\play" then stuff like "roll your own rules" and "endless depth of character creation (subject to points, genre rules, players, GMs, world, etc, etc, etc)" aren't really interesting either. But those are the things we Herophiles here on the Hero Boards seem to prize the most about Hero. So if those aren't draws....then: Why Hero System? PS: I didn't find a thread along these lines. There was a "Hero Does it Better" thread from about a year or two ago, but not quite the same.
  6. I mean I feel like the point of a linear adventure module with excellent pregens, so as to make it *as easy as possible*, is kinda the point at this point, no? It might still take some time, effort, and skill but at least a module with pregens would make it easier than it is now. Besides trying to sell him players on Hero, and then say, "Ok, I'm running Hero", and then running Hero, how else do new folks get brought in? I think, "Here's an easy module, with a linear plot, and pregenerated stats!", is an easier sell than, "Here's some rules and whatever. GMing is hard so, like, just give up if you don't wanna do the work, noob!". If I'm a theoretical 5e D&D player that thought Stranger Things was cool, bought the PHB, watched some Critical Roll, played a bunch of Adventurers League until I realized the limits of the system and format and want to try something better...how would you sell me on Hero? Honestly, "YOU can build whatever you want (subject to points, GMs, other PCs, what kind of game, genre, magic system, etc, etc...)!", doesn't seem like a draw for most folks. And, "You can make the rules system do whatever you want! And it's universal!", doesn't seem like one either. The other thing I think here is that real, actual, experienced GMs don't need to be told they can rewrite those linear "railroad" modules. They're just gonna do it. Heck you could probably put a Big Old Warning in the front of the module saying, "Don't ever change any of these stats or events!", and I think experienced GMs would still do it. The linear plot, example monsters\villains\treasure, and pregen PCs are all for new folks. Explicitly. Right? To get new folks interested and able to play now\today. Maybe with some cool art, a ready-to-play module, and if it's wrapped up in a cool non-D&D setting...that would probably be something folks might at least look at. I think Char Gen should be moved to the back of the book though. Lead with pre-gen oriented system mechanics and then later explain how to build stuff. IF the Hero system is cool and worth playing apart from the generic\universal and flexible\point-based parts of char-gen then I think it should lead with that.
  7. What's the first thing that confuses you? Do you have actual questions or is it all just confusing? What parts of the sheet confuse you? Hero IS, for sure, more complicated than D&D, and by the same token takes more learning on your (the general you\player\GM) part. If nobody wants to voice chat without in realtime do you have serialized off-line questions we could answer? Have you gone from the character sheet to the book and back and forth again? Like...find one thing on the sheet you don't know and then look it up? That kind of thing? My general suggestion would be to skip almost all the character *creation* (not what the stats mean) and move right to the example characters and actual gameplay rules. Then run a generic scenario with the pregens\samples and go back and forth from the book to the sheet (and\or this board!) to figure stuff out. Like if one example character has Stealth 14- then you can look up the Stealth skill, then look up how skill challenges work, then look up Dex rolls, and so on.
  8. I mean it could be trimmed down to Hero Sidekick sized, right? 5th revised Sidekick sized. ;D Ok, but when the team goes to Japan do I pay points then? When it becomes useful? And if I, the player, don't know for sure what the utility value will actually be in the future in the game do I pay points now just in case? Sure, and I'm saying: That sounds like a reasonable position but I don't really agree. You can use points to describe things. A Doctor NPC should have Doctor as a perk, right? Even tho the NPC will never get any utility of it really (because they're an NPC and won't be on-screen much. Certainly we can just not stat up that NPC Doctor too. If a player wants to buy KS: Fine Wines 15- to be a world famous wine enthusiast I can as a GM tell them there's no real need. But if they want to pay for High Society. Even though I tell them it'll probably never come up...they can. Anyway. I'm not, like, confused on your and Gnome BODY (Important!)'s positions or anything. I don't mind, as a PC, paying points for stuff I generally expect to have no mechanical effect. I particularly don't mind if I think it fits the character concept. I also don't mind, as a GM, giving PCs free points for stuff. A PC could take a Hunted and have it never come up. I'd probably try to work it in as a GM but...maybe not. I wouldn't super sweat it provided it was good fun and fit the plot and the player wasn't disappointed they didn't get to tangle with their mystery hunted. Sure. Like I keep saying: That seems like a fair and reasonable position. Also, my way of looking at it: Mechanical stats can have RP effects and RP "stats" and "effects" can have mechanical impacts. If an NPC targeted my PC because of SA (a bad thing despite my paying points for an in-game mechanical benefit) that's ok, right? Sure. Or, you now, COM with mechanics if you'd prefer that. Since you play 6th...no bigs. APG 3: The 5th-ening. Or play 6th if you prefer. Or play 5th if you prefer.
  9. Totes. Self selection. But then I also think that stats (and upvotes) suggest (and I think internet content\discussion in general) that the loud ones represent Those Who Lurk as well. If Champions gets 1 comment and 12 upvotes and Masks gets 3 comments and 60+ upvotes chances are there's a reason for it. Maybe just expressions of interest of course. But AN indicator. And another thing being that those loud ones are probably the ones running games and evangelizing systems and games. "Influencers" or "people that actually do the work" depending on how you want to look at that. Well that's a funny thing, right? The promise of "generic" *universal* systems is that you don't need to learn a new system for every game. But functionally this is already largely true in the RGP industry. PF, D&D, PbtA, FATE. You can play Starfinder instead of Pathfinder or Apocalypse World instead of Dungeon world. Even stuff like the Palladium and White Wolf games have an underlying (mostly) "universal" system at this point. Used to be you'd learn D&D to play D&D, Champs to play Champs, FASERIP to play Marvel, Traveller to play Traveller, MEGS to etc etc. Now you learn PF\D&D and you're good to go generally in the PF\d20\5e\etc family. The other thing being back in the day the options were limited. And a lot of what I understand are called "heartbreakers". If AD&D was dumb because X then you played Y because it didn't have that or Z because whatever. Palladium Fantasy instead of D&D instead of Harn instead of Fantasy Hero instead of Talislanta. But in a lot of cases there were no books at first. Hero did a lot of that, right? Justice, Inc instead of Pulp Hero (right? are they the matching genre?). Danger, Int instead of Top Secret (totally different system than D&D, Gamma World (3rd edition), etc). That sort of deal. Certainly if you wanted to play cyberpunk you were likely to jump on Shadowrun or Cyberpunk 2020 back then. Point being there were advantages to both being generic (you could adapt it for a setting\genre that didn't exist in the market) and universal (only one general rule set) then that I don't think exist now. Now there is a game for each and every little niche I can think of. I can't speak to quality of course. But they exist. So many of them! So the generic part is less marketable. And now there are a few kinda "big" base semi-universal systems out there so the universal part is less marketable. BUT, again the thing that Hero can do via the toolkit approach is craft custom rules variations for highly specific settings and genres. And you still only have to learn one ruleset and you can still get in under the hood and tinker with the universal mechanics and stuff. So it's the advantages of both the new school approach of specific settings\schticks for specific RPGs and the old school approach of having one base set of rules for a bunch of different games. Or could be. If we could find folks to evangelize it. Maybe. I guess. Seems like it would be easier to spread the good word about This Really Cool Game About X than it would about This Really Cool Tookit You Can Turn In To A Game Of Various Sorts. Even tho I personally think the transforming game toolkit is the cool part I think Those Who Lurk are probably easier to sell on cool specific genres settings\instances than A Game That Can Become Another Game. You know? Like I can tell you about a cool new movie or band. But it's hard to tell you about a movie that could be any movie or a song that could sound like whatever you want it to. Having cool examples of Hero doing cool, but specific, stuff would be easier to point to and say: This here is a great implementation of Buffy\Angel type shows! And to be clear I'm certainly guilty of buying only the main books and the "big" supplements (Ultimate X stuff) and not buying the settings books much. It seems like for GMs the draw is rolling up your own world. So the settings books aren't as intriguing. But for players the draw seems more like having a cool world and setting and characters to play in. So the basic premise of a toolkit isn't as appealing. Maybe? How's that strike you?
  10. Largely true. Tho I think we largely agree too which is funny. Was this thread actually supposed to like...cause something besides that to happen? OP hasn't really come back to "defend" his position. A position I don't think needs defending because, as LL has said, it's a preference. The Great Com Debate is so well known it's called the Great Com Debate or words to that effect. Was this really the thread were we were going to do more than explain our positions and interrogate other positions? The thread were we finally, collectively, *solve* the Com discussion? Have I not been clear that: Folks should solve it how they want to? That's just my opinion though. I don't find replacing COM with SA a big deal. Or COM a big deal. It's all good. Those are jokes to illustrate what I consider the strawman of, "But what about the guy that took Disads but gets a RP benefit when the guy that paid points gets penalties in the same situation?". Which is to provide a counter argument to the idea that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical costs. Like I said: "Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted." You're saying he's saying that if it's "just" RP then it shouldn't cost points. I'm saying it's fine to spend points on stuff that's "just" RP, even if it has no in-game in-gameplay mechanical effects. IF (if, if, if, as you say (and correctly so as I put in repeated statements that, "IF it doesn't work for you, IF it doesn't fit the play style, IF...") the players want to spend those points. Largely it seems like a preference. Every point MUST serve a mechanical function or it's wasted VS Points are used to describe stuff and so if it furthers the description it's a good use of points. OPs point seemed to be basically that, right? COM doesn't do much, so it's mostly RP, so it's fine, because it doesn't do much, so it's just RP. Right? Versus Hugh's position that COM points are "wasted" 'cause no mechanics. My position is I don't find either position really compelling and that folks should do what works for them. My point to Hugh is that: HE should play how he likes, how his players like, and should spent points how he wants to. If Hugh doesn't want to spent points on COM or background skill or other "roleplaying" things that won't help him mechanically ("wasted" points) in the game...clearly he should do that. It IS hyperbolic to suggest that Hugh is 100% focused on char-op and hates RP and only wants to minmax and smash. That's why it's a joke. Because he doesn't likely actually feel that way. Also this bit from Hugh: " So, if we will throw out the mechanical results of interaction skills (for which people paid points) in favour of role playing, will we also throw out the mechanical results of combat rolls (for which people also paid points) in favour of good role playing? The dice say you are KOd, but you role played determined heroism so well that you are still conscious, not stunned and get +3 OCV and +3 DCs on your attacks. Why not toss all mechanics and resolve everything based on role playing and character description? All that resolution mechanics do is provide an objective methodology for determining success and failure so that we can say "I am playing a serious strategic game" and not admit that this is pretty similar to 5 year olds playing "let's pretend" in the sandbox. " was a touch silly so I figured we'd both reached the point in the internet debate where we begin to disingenuously represent each others positions (even tho we both actually quite understand each others positions) for humorous effect. I wasn't suggesting we do away with mechanics, at any point. Or that we all play Amber Diceless. Or anything like that. I'm not suggesting getting rid of Perfect Pitch or reducing it's costs. I'm saying: "If you don't want to pay for it, don't. Or do it you do. Or if it fits the game, or doesn't fit the game, or It Depends..." and all the usual stuff. Maybe paying 10pts for Striking Appearance could be a disadvantage in some specific scenario ("Kill the pretty one!" or Striking Appearance Reflection or who knows). Maybe it's fine if your PC gets bonus Presence Attack dice that he didn't pay for just because he took a DF: Hideous complication. Even tho that would go against the very fundamentals of the Hero System! Benefits for Disads!!!?? *I* am ok with that in my games. Hugh may not be. You may not be. You guys shouldn't do that then. Same for COM. Again. Only 4 cases I can see. Two of which are basically irrelevant. Playing 5th, like COM: Do nothing. Playing 6th, prefer SA: Do nothing. Playing 5th, prefer SA: Use SA (use COM as a complimentary roll, or, or, or) Playing 6th, prefer COM: Use COM (and SA and, or, and, or) The purpose of the hyperbole is to extend the idea until it becomes ludicrous, right? Hugh's base position: If you spend point they should do stuff, is quite reasonable. The extended position: Points that don't do stuff (real, in-game, mechanical stuff) are "wasted", seems more open to preference. So in contrast my base position is: You can use spent points purely for RP. You can use pure RP to create mechanical effects. The extended position: Why even have points and rules if we're just gonna RP everything seems kinda silly to me. No one has suggested that as far as I can tell.
  11. You got it backwards, man. I'm the guy saying RP can be mechanics and mechanics can be RP and that folks should do what they want. I'm saying there is no conflict at all between RP and char-op. At least no inherent conflict that I see. Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted. I'm saying points spent on stuff PCs want (for RP reasons) aren't wasted at all. They're...for RP purposes.
  12. The house rules for the settings would be the benefits. Specific examples, probably genre examples, of how you can use Hero to do X or Y. Potential benefit I mean. Who really knows of course. But compare the various PbtA games. Same base rules but different abilities and GM moves and whatever the heck else in each genre product. Like let's use Shadowrun as an example. In SR cyberware reduces "Essence" and eventually to go crazy or whatever. Same for CP2020 I think. Pretty basic idea in general. In Hero we could emulate that in a lot of ways. Or not emulate it 'cause Essence and meta-game mechanical limits on cyberware are dumb and in Hero we have points to limit that stuff. But what would be fun\useful\interesting (potentially, who knows?) would be a specific way to do that in Hero and a rules set that integrates that in-game mechanical construct in to the in-game fluff\setting\world lore. Just as an example. Specific rules for specific settings to make those settings work more like we want them to. Sanity loss in CoC is another example.
  13. I mean, maybe. The threads are based on folks liking those games, because they actually play those games, which I presume is due to them having bought those games. Based on the threads, which I've already said are probably not entirely reliable for a number of reasons (self selection mostly), that's my impression. My impression. Folks appear, based on the thread content, to like more focused and atmospheric and whatever name you want to call that, superhero content. That's what I'm getting at. The superhero games that seem popular to actually play, based on those threads, are not generic-ish kitchen-sink style Marvel\DC-ish type settings. That's my impression.
  14. ....character conception? Roleplaying? Accurately describing game constructs using the Hero System? Because they wanted to have their PC have a Com of 18 because their PC was a model previous to their career as a prophet? You're saying that if a player ever for any reason spends points just because they see their character that way and wants to spend those points then...what? The Hero System is flawed because they chose a non-optimized build? You're saying that in a game where being bi-lingual never has a benefit because it never comes up that Hero is flawed because I wanted my guy to have 2pts of Japanese for roleplaying purposes? And, yah, roleplaying-wise, the FBI guy might be at a situational roleplaying disadvantage due to his not being an ex-con or being a LEO. And conversely when it comes to bluffing your way in to places and being taken seriously as an authority figure the FBI guy probably comes out ahead of the DF: Jailhouse tats guy. Also roleplaying. Roleplaying from mechanics (by which I mean descriptors). But we could do it mechanically too. Whatever seems most fun and useful and interesting to you and your group. If, to you, any points not spent on 100% combat related mechanical aspects of the system that are not 100% utilitarian and optimized then...play that way. And if, to you, you can only roleplay stuff that isn't on the sheet and cannot roleplay stuff based on inferences in-game from the mechanics...don't do that stuff. Points are a game construct we use to describe things in the game. PCs, NPCs, random stuff. For PCs the points are a limited resource and they should decide how they want to allot them based on stuff like...roleplaying, character conception, what kinda game it is, who they are playing with, and so on. I mean, sure if YOU prefer diceless gaming you should do that. Sure, that's fair. Probably part of the reason it was removed in 6th, eh? Maybe? I play 5th. Com seems fine to me. I like the (potential, optional) use of Com as a complimentary skill roll where it applies. If I don't wanna spend points on COM for either a PC or NPC....I won't. And if I think SA would work better....I'll use that. The idea that you get what you pay for seems questionable though. Most constructions and games are so specific and situational that it will very much depend. Again, is Perfect Pitch really worth 3pts? The same as a 12- professional skill? Is 3pts of Str equal in utility to base-Dex lockpicking? In a Pitch Perfect game the Perfect Pitch talent might be a real steal at 3pts. And in a game with no singing or tone puzzles a PC would have to be a goddamn moron to try to "roleplay" by taking Perfect Pitch just because their character would have it (being an opera star before the accident). I'd kick that player out of my game for being so dumb as to waste points on useless stats!!!!!! "You want your PC to just be good looking with no game effects! GO play Barbie! This is a real game with roleplaying where we pretend to be lil dudes in spandex with superpowers!" How about this: Prior to 6th where it became irrelevant (and you play 6th, right?) what issues did COM ever cause you in your games? Actual real games with real players and stuff. Often? Never? Always? Nobody bought it and it never came up? Was it OP? Were PCs blowing soooooo mannnnny points on COM they were getting smashed in combats because they'd wasted points on a roleplaying stat and couldn't afford skills and powers?
  15. Finally, Running Man: The Game: The Book Version.
  • Create New...