TranquiloUno

The easy way to do this would be campaign maximums of various kinds. I do think the superhero legacy fits in there since (for the most part with plenty of exceptions and special cases and all of that) most heroes are more or less static in the source material (again with exceptions, special cases, and other caveats). Cyclops has eyebeams, Wolvie has claws, Punisher has guns, and so on. I think this is also emulative of other genre fiction. James Bond rarely picks up entirely new martial arts. Legolas didn't decide he'd be a bit more fun to play with a small VPP for elf-magic tricks. King Arthur doesn't usually decided he needs more points in Bases because Camelot is getting boring. We can certainly say that maybe Samwise Gamgee leveled up of the course of LOTR, but...he didn't really acquire anything new. Or we can say that Picard\Worf\Kirk go though character growth and change but...did they really "level up"? But then also I think it works in the reverse. The D&D expectation is that folks will improve *dramatically* over time. And part of the reason for that is because the badguys are going to scale up dramatically themselves. That doesn't have to be true in Hero. Aragorn doesn't have to spend XP on CSLs and more stats and more stats and more stats. James Bond doesn't have to pick up some weird OIF Regen and Combat Luck x3 just because he's got points sitting around. Same for the lich stats. Are there even "normal human" fighters at that point level? But I do agree that the rules themselves are, as is typical, unhelpful in that regard. "You could do anything you can imagine, maaaaaan!", isn't actually useful guidance for much of anything. I don't have any of the books "running the game" sections memorized but...is there discussion of this anywhere? How\what\why to limit\use\shape advancement over the course of a game?

I think the key question is if you want to specifically emulate the specific D&D spell SEE Invisible. Or if you want to do it Hero style and emulate the effect of See Invis and then wave your hands and say, "the special effect is they see the invisible", right? Also questions like: Is this an exercise for NPC usage as a construct? Or does it need to be point efficient because a PC is wanting it? Like you could go with Spatial Awareness (only to detect invisible) or something. Or slap Penetrating as a naked advantange on the AP of base sight and call it good. ;D You could go with an AoE Invis Suppress limited so only the caster\recipient of the spell get the effects (maybe...IPE on the Suppress of Invis?)

This is a good answer!

You could even do it easy. +X to Per rolls only to detect threats or similar. Enough of a bonus to give them a typical DS range roll to detect stuff even tho the penalty to the Per roll would normally make it impossible. So Wolvie\Punisher might have Per 12-, +6 only to detect danger\threats. So if a sniper two miles away is a -8 Per check they'd still have decent odds to spot him. Someone has already suggested that in the thread I'm sure. But it seems to get around a few of the issues with some implementations.

Is it an issue in your game? Like a bunch of PCs\NPCs with OAFs and Invis jackin' up your plans? I can see the reasoning\read the rules about Obv focii but if it doesn't fit the genre or isn't interesting or fun: Dump it! How much is it coming up though? What sort of player cheese is this oriented around? I'd just (well...I do, so...) make Invis work like I want it to and ignore the focus rules.

This is obvs mostly GM interpretation (I think). I dunno if there is anything in the rules about it. So with that said: Let's say Mind Link Max has setup mind links with 8-12 folks. Let's say that one of those he's created a link with is suddenly murdered from behind. Does Mink Link Max detect that the link drops? Or...does it even drop when the target dies? Mink Link seems to suggest that one side can drop a connection, but also seems to imply that either side can maintain a connection even if the other one isn't. Question 1: Would either\any side of a Mind Link notice if the link drops? Passively drops I guess. Not a sudden interruption mid-convo, more like do you notice it's dropped when you wake up the next morning if somebody died while you were sleeping or similar? And then I was surprised to discover that the mind link is supposed to be a mesh network (or maybe it's a star topology?) where everybody can hear everybody and point-to-point comms require a roll. Question 2: Do you run Mind Link as a "party line" or discreet links between participants? Question 3: Assuming you run Mind Link as the rules describe what would you charge for the links being point-to-point at all times by default rather than party line style?

It's nit-picking but Daredevil is not, to my mind, the canonical example of Danger Sense. Spiderman is. Daredevil has 360 Ranged Spatial Awareness and a huge Per bonus and a bunch of other souped up super senses, but "danger sense" is not really among them. I mean...I think a player could argue they want to build him that way, but to me there wouldn't be a reason (IF and only IF we're trying to replicate the comic character) to do so. I'd be more inclined to give him Per rolls to notice things and maybe even some Lightning Reflexes based on hearing the targets heartbeat increase just prior to attacking, but not Danger Sense. DD replicates some common Danger Sense applications with insane Per and enhanced senses IMO. He's hard to sneak up on because he's got radar sense. He's hard to surprise because he can hear ambushers heartbeats. He's hard to trick\trap\bomb because he can hear the oversized mechanical timer ticking down, or smell the nitro in the dynamite, or sense the slight depression in the floor over the pressure plate. Plus practically I figure a DD clone is gonna spend so much on enhanced senses already charging him for Danger Sense too would be uncalled for.

For sure. Also if you add the "not currently playing" folks to the total of the "not 6e folks" it's more 17 to 16, which seems more accurate based on the feels of the board. I think you point out another issue in that...if the new rules are new but you're not touching on them (nobody took an EC anyway, no Shapeshifters so the changes don't come up, whatever) then are you really playing\using that version? If you play\use 6e but turn off most of the 6e parts then...are you playing 6e? Or the reverse where I'm playing 4e but since 6e can be turned in to 4e by re-enabling Figured, ECs, and whatever else..so if I'm playing 4e then...aren't I really playing 6e with some house rules? Obviously it doesn't really matter much in the end but I do wonder how many '4e' games are '3.75' games or '6e--\++' games and so on. Heck if I'm playing Fantasy Hero and not using Impairing wounds and hit locations...am I even playing Fantasy Hero? ;D

Does the computer do other computer stuff? Could you build it as an automaton?

The most interesting part of this is that Killer Shrike has a very successful thread premised on the idea that, "... I see grumbling and shade thrown on it here and there by various posters...", re: 6e. And yet it certainly seems like, both from the above survey and the FB Hero group, that most Hero players are 6e players. Of course Hero is quite prone to being used in variable formats. My 6e might not be Toxxus' "6e with some 4e stuff" and that probably isn't RDU Neil's "underlying 6th ED as the baseline", and so on. So in a way you could be playing 6e while playing 4e (just add Figureds and ECs back basically) or playing 5er while playing 6e because your GM wanted to decouple Figureds and remove ECs and make O\D\M CV it's own stat. And so on. Anyway. Looks like most Hero players play 6e at this point.

I guess to me the question from the other thread is: Can you build effective satisfying (and effective) characters WITHOUT an MP, in 6e, and not feel effectively second fiddle to characters that used MP (or VPP, really, both are just frameworks to save points in the end)? Maybe KS or somebody would be up for some examples there. If two folks both make 250pt Fantasy dudes or 400pt Superhero chicks, one with, and one without, MP, can the non-MP characters still be AS effective (surely they can BE effective) and as interesting to play while also sticking to the concept?

1) That's unclear, to me. "Supposed to provide" seems loaded. Particularly in a tookit system where, "it can be whatever you want, man!!!!". I think I see it used most in a way to add extra aspects of a particular power. In a way it's an effect of the Champions style construction. In a different game you might just have "Flame Powers" and sometimes you can use them to kill or to blast or to create balls of fire or fly or make walls of fire, all one power. In Hero you'll need an extra power for every sub-power your power has. Even if they are the same power. I think it's supposed to provided a cost break for concepts that are compatible with it as a concept. But not TOO much of a cost break, but also still a cost break. Basically I think it's there to provide a cost break to encourage Superhero stuff like having more than just one "power blast" that you blast over and over when blastin' evil. 2) Also unclear. "Too" cost effective for....? I agree with Toxxus that NOT using one is usually a sign of a poorly optimized build in most cases. But "too" cost effective seems like another of those Heroisms. It's up to the GM to ride herd on his cats\PCs to continually keep things mostly balanced for most of the PCs he's running in his (or her!) game. Unlike other systems either nothing or everything occurs in a vacuum in Hero. In D&D or something we can say, "Oh X class gets twice as many spells\abilities\thingies as the other class, that's too effective". But in Hero maybe that's fine. Maybe that's what we wanted in the first place and why we stopped playing D&D or whatever. If it causes issues in your\my\some games then maybe it's too cost effective. Or maybe the GM is weak. Or maybe the group is "doing it wrong". But if it enables cool character concepts and promotes good and enjoyable games then...even if it's "too" cost effective, it's still good. Right?

I'd have to divide this up along a couple axis. But first, as some others have said, is meeting with the players, either having and pitching a concept, or having a freeform discussion about what we even want to play\run, and all of that stuff. The prep work requisite in Hero that I don't think is AS required in other games (still need to talk about the game style and blah blah blah, but the character creation stuff probably less so (probably)) basically. But I'm kinda taking that "as read" as it were. In that I probs wouldn't be calling for character builds\giving char gen info out if we haven't established what game we're playing. So...with that said.... I'd sort the players along a couple of axis. The "will learn the rules" versus "just wants to play the game" axis would be first. For players that aren't likely to learn the rules I'd just give them the basic campaign pitch, any lore or reference info I have available, and then go to a session zero\character creation session to get concepts and then, probably, do their build for them. This is a nice option because by building all the lil imaginary dudes myself I can make sure they are about as balanced as I want them to be. For players that are likely to look at and use the rules I'd probably divide them again in to "Hero-naive" and "Hero experienced" groups. For players that know Hero, and know the rules (at least well enough to make a lil imaginary dude), I'd give them some ranges and maxes for various stuff (AP, Def, stats, you know, all the usual) and then work with what they turned in. I'd expect players like this to understand gaming in general, and Hero in general, and per the first point, I'd expect that player to know what type of game we are playing (style, genre, flavor, tone) so they can design a character they think is fitting. For players that know Hero, but aren't really in to rules, I'd give them similar caps\maxes and guidelines, have them come up with a basic concept using as much Hero terminology as they possess and then rewrite it for them to meet campaign specs (probably mostly by eyeball rather than hard values). IME the case of "Knows Hero, likes rules" is pretty small (unless you've found a group of other Hero devotees) so essentially I'll end up writing most\all of the PCs. So the dials and settings and levels and levers and all the other GM stuff is mostly something I need to consider in my own head rather than something I need to specify to the players for their own use. Due to that I'd spend more of my time as GM trying to communicate the in-game world, the flavor\type of campaign (which they should already be agreeable to, but just to reinforce...), and trying to use those to inspire an interesting concept from the players than I would worry about mechanical caps. Another factor in this is that Hero is nicely made for general point-based balancing (yay!) but IME in actual play this is less relevant due to actual play factors. Like...as long as the PC "fighter" feels like a good and mighty fighter (or whatever matches the game at hand) then I'm less concerned with everybody having the exact same points and utterly balanced out CVs and APs and such than I am with the players each getting a niche to occupy and feel effective in. Same for Supers games. If the mentalist feels like they are cool and useful and feel like they can do stuff in game that more or less matches their concept and feel like doing those things is effective and useful for the group...cool. Maybe it's a sub-optimal build. Or maybe it's over the APs\other limits in some ways but due to being the only mentalist (or whatever) it won't effect the game hugely in unplanned ways then...it's fine. For me, for my purposes. Since I don't generally run for groups that are larger than 4ish folks I don't worry too much about highly specific mechanical limits that I communicate to players prior to character creation. Just...isn't really needed. If I had two or more players that were real Champions points wizards, that both wanted to play the same concept, and were going to get in to a min\max point battle for supremacy\efficiency, then maybe I'd want to communicate more mechanical and non-mechanical info to them (like: "Don't both play the same concept, please. Or figure out between yourselves how that's gonna be enjoyable for you both."). Specific to Dr D's question: " What do you have to do, as GM, to make that as clear as possible to your players?" I'd talk to them. During the pre-game\session zero. To make sure we're all on the same page as far as what we're doing. Then, if any of them actually know the rules and want to make their own lil imaginary dudes, I'd give them some general guides and let 'em work and see what they brought back, and then adjust that as needed. BUT, since most of them are unlikely to know the rules, unlikely to read them, and unlikely to learn them enough to figure out how they interact with combat and other typical adventurin' stuff generally I'll just gather concepts and make characters for them.

Great stuff! Thanks everyone! Follow up: All these "doing political stuff as concrete combat maneuvers with real mechanics" ideas. Have any of you actually done this in Hero? I see Pendragon mentioned. Are there any other systems where things work this way that folks have actual experience with? How about actual games where a IRL person without the (social) skills their character has been played in the way suggested? I think some of the Fate or whatever systems have ways for characters to take disadvantages based on their build to earn "Fate Points" that they can spend later. So per RDU Neil and some other suggestions the way to get around the sting of removing player agency is to get them onboard with it by giving them a bennie later one. The (I think) Fate system however isn't quite the same as what's being talked about here. Like in a fight maybe I die, but most likely other interesting stuff happens. If I get "killed" in social combat do I now have to betray my friends (or whatever the thing is, work for somebody we hate, do stuff neither the player or character want to do) forever? Or can I recover from being socially dead? Seems like if "social" is going to be emulated with combat systems then recovery and such should also work the same? Just wondering if folks have actually played games like this, using Hero, or if it's mostly theorycrafting (which is FINE!) and\or other systems which are more designed around those ideas.

Yes, thank you! I actually have that one in hard copy and I'll have a look shortly. Or now.

It was you. Thanks for the reply! Interesting! I wouldn't have thought to try to simulate it (social scheming, etc) mechanically like that. Is there a system you have in mind here? Or an existing system that you've played that you feel IS about politics in the sense you mean? I see Dogs in the Vineyard mentioned a lot in these types of discussions (but never Underground...) but have never played it. It seems more like a unified mechanic than the sort of multi-faceted tactical thing that I think it sounds to me like you are suggesting. 8D Does it produce those sorts of interactions? Wonder if it could be simulated in Hero....

Ooh. Always check that spelling before posting I guess. My answers probably go like: 1) Political games should focus on stuff besides combats and fights and exciting action\adventure tropery. Not that there would be NO fighting or chases or whatever, just that "action" should be more about learning info, influencing allies, gaining access and influence, and so on. 2) As discussed in another thread I think the main thing would be answering questions like: How do PCs determine if they are being lied to\how do the PCs lie successfully? And having a system\house rule to make sure PCs will know that's a consistent mechanic. 2pt2) I'd probably just use Talents and Skills, and, of course, roleplaying. I don't know if I'd add anything special. 3) Pretty much all of the ally-making, influence gathering, and so forth would be handled largely via roleplay. Important to the game but not important to simulate mechanically. 4) I don't have a good answer here. Part of the reason for the thread. When I think of a "political" game I guess I'd default to thinking of Amber (the diceless one) and some LARPS I've played. Political games are, to me, about wheeling and dealing and many things going on at the same time and trying to forge alliances and so on. I think Hero would work fine for that but I'm curious if other folks have issues with it or other reasons to pass on using Hero for a "political" or "intrigue" oriented game. What say you all?

Someone in the "6e = teh bestest mechanics" thread said this: "Hero is not suited for your political game..." Not wanting to derail that discussion I'll ask here: First part: What does an "intrigue" or "political" based game mean to you? What would it include or not include? What would make a game "political" as compared to say a normal fantasy game with treacherous Imperial courts or compared to a cyberpunk game with treacherous corporate turds? Second part: What mechanical effects would you want in such a game? (Mechanical effects re: intrigue\politics, to be clear) Second part: Part two: How would you model those effects using Hero? Third part: What non-mechanical stuff would you definitely use but not bother simulating in game mechanics? Forth part (optional): Is Hero suited or not suited, mechanically, as a system, to political\intrigue type games? Why or why not?

Using 5e\5r\Sidekick. I missed 6e when it came out and couldn't find the books for non-insane prices on ebay and hadn't realized what CC\FHC were\that they existed. So I scavenged up 5e rulebooks online and we use those. After hearing about CC\FHC and a few of the differences 5th->6th I figured I'd keep using 5e because the changes didn't seem relevant\better for my purposes and since I'd already started the campaign. By the same token I can't imagine switching were I to start a new campaign with the same players (or if they wanted to run one of their own) for the same reasons. Time invested, have all the rules books I need at this point, no benefit to the changes for my purposes. Same situation 7-8 years ago the last time I ran a Champs campaign. I'd happily play any edition, happily, and own back through 4th (missing a non-pdf 6e1 but using CC\FHC to...complete? things ).

Specific to this point alone: Most other games (GURPS and D&D certainly) do increase other stuff with stats tho, rite? If I spend my stat bumps on my prime req in 5th edition D&D I'm doing so specifically because it will increase my to-hit (OCV), AC (DCV), HP (Body), spells allowed\prepared, Initiative, and so on. Not all at once of course, but the nature of stat bumps in that system is that they do produce secondary benefits. I don't increase my Dex just to be a better Rogue\thief, I increase it to be a better rogue, better at fighting, and better at all relevant skills, AND to go faster in combat. Same for GURPS, right? I boost my Dex and allll my Dex skills go up. I boost my Str and I hit harder, get more HP, and increase my "encumbrance" stat. I think the linkage between stats and "other stats that aren't called stats but are still actually stats" is honestly fairly fundamental to a lot of or even most RPGs. Specifically I think the classical RPG model is that, "Your base attributes, unrelated entirely to skills, fundamentally do matter". More Dex means something, because Dex means something, and increasing that thing effects other things (AC, to-hit, OCV, Dex rolls, base thief skills, etc, etc) because that's how Dex is defined in the system. A theoretical Hero newb coming from an exclusive 5e D&D background may well wonder why they would bother increasing Dex if they don't get any AC or ranged to-hit benefits. Or think it's strange that boosting Con won't also boost HP\Body. If I'm more dexterous why aren't I more agile at avoiding attacks? If I'm "tougher" why didn't I get tougher to kill in fights? Potentially. Easy to explain that it doesn't work that way. But conceptually, in most RPGs, I think stats do have more of an effect than just on the stat itself. Right? Honestly seems weird we only have "Dex" when we could easily have say: Manual Dexterity\Fine Manipulation and Agility\Gross Motor Kinesthetics or something. Why should my character being a graceful dancer mean I can pick locks better? Or why should my being a surgeon\concert pianist mean I act sooner in combat or am able to sneak around in the shadows more effectively? Kinda the same idea as, "Why should my elite level gymnast be good at base attacks\fighting just because he's phenomenally physically coordinated and fast?" Point being: I think a lot of other games kinda do have secondary\figured characteristics based on single primary stats. And I think that occurs because a primary conceit in most games is the idea that base attributes matter and effect other things and often are the only real important things (like in Hero where stats matter more for their base stat roll than do the skills that apply to that base roll). Obvs 6e separated much of this out to some extent. Which is fine. But sometimes it seems counter-intuitive to me that Dex (which FHC says represents, "agility and reaction time" and 5e adds, "it also represents accuracy") which represents reaction time doesn't influence my Speed, which is...kinda also reaction time? And it doesn't impact my combat value even tho it represents agility? Meanwhile boosting my Int does improve my secondary ability to perceive and notice stuff. Because Int includes, "perceptiveness". But...should it? Does a high IQ mean you notice fine details? Even if a high Dex doesn't mean you're more accurate (but are more "agile")? Why does improving my memory and reasoning mean I am more likely to spot tracks in the mud? Or Strength even. If I improve my squat why does my ability to pound a heavy bag go up? Surely damage and weight lifted aren't really related most of the time. Surely Per should be it's own stat and Dex should decompose in to Dexterity and Agility, right? And now 7e can be the mechanically best edition of Hero because we've further decomposed and atomized our stats and now we can finally have that supergenius that isn't also Sherlock Holmes and the brilliant ballet dancer that isn't good with her hands!

Ah! Well then, yes, probably. I do think 4th->5th->6th shows a steady design progression which does make (logical, for Hero) sense to me. Even if I don't get a lot out of it personally. It's certainly got more stuff, or potentially more stuff, and spells tons of things out. I'd probably say it's the most mechanically rigorous and extremely explicit version of the rules. Just 'cause "best" seems so loaded. But that is for sure some semantic meandering of no real relevance. 6th definitely feels like the natural continuation of 4th. Pretty much the same. Bought the ICE Hero System with the barbarian and Quantum on the cover in Jr High. Never looked back. Though it does make me look sideways (side eye) at other game systems sometimes. ;D (Like when D&D produces some new sweet entire rules book so you can have sidekicks and I see a bunch of press articles about how cool that is for example) And this, I think, is one of the problem(s) kinda. It's "just" progression and refinement of the same kinda idea. "Problems", I guess meaning, "reasons for reduced acceptance among existing fans", in this case. It's not the old version, which we all liked\used\modified, so we gotta deal with changes to a working system, but then also...it's just more of the same. More essentially optional rules and systems to use or not use as desired. I def agree with all of this, except maybe the last line. And even then, like I said above, I do think 6e is a logical progression of that distilling and refining. I guess...it seems like pouring your top shelf vodka through a Britta filter. It's more pure now, but also...it was already great. But it IS more refined. But...in a system that was already loaded with systems to turn on and off as needed are more systems to turn on and off actually reason for a rules update? I'm sure an APG for 5er that did away with Figured Char would be possible. Or a way to decouple Dex and CV. And...that's kinda how 6th and even 5th revised feel to me. Optional systems, that are now turned on be default, even if you don't need or want them. Which is fine! Just turn 'em off again, right? The Hero way. I would try it if I had a new game to run and some players I thought would read the rules on their own. I don't have strong feelings about it one way or another and, honestly, feel a bit silly posting in this thread since my honest take is: Meh. It's a weird thing, to like\love Hero, but then be ambivalent about new\more\better rules. I guess to some folks it feels like the upgrade is forced and also unwanted. Don't like the new car smell or whatever. So there's some "resentment" towards that. I had a gas-guzzling old truck, very comfortable. Now I've got a slick, shiny, hybrid, but it's cramped feeling and doesn't sound right and wants to help me do things I don't wanna do in the first place. I like looking at the new fancy car in the showroom but I'll keep driving the one with a seat shaped exactly like my ass, so to speak. ANYway....yah, 6e does seem mechanically "best", in terms of completeness and explicitness and atomization of the rules and so on. But I don't know if I consider it an improvement. But it does feel like a progression for sure.

Hmmm. Agree to disagree. Just because published materials had silly stat inflation doesn't mean I need to do that. Losing utility of prior writeups...doesn't really make one or another rules version mechanically superior nor is it something I honestly personally care about. My point is: I don't think it IS markedly different. At all. I think the "actually playing the game" parts are functionally identical for my purposes. "Neater and cleaner" however you have convinced me of. I find, "What's your actual character concept and how can we effectively model that in the system so you get the results you want", to be fairly intuitive and balanced across all version of Hero I've actually played (4th and 5th) and I suspect that is still very much the case in 6th. Like, in your example, you've chosen to deliberately play a character who is bad at certain things. So you've taken Disads and such to reflect that. So you can play your concept. Because, we assume, playing a Rogue who isn't (as) good at fighting is what you are wanting to play. Maybe you get a point break, but..if we're playing standard fantasy stuff then you being a good rogue won't impact me being a good druid and neither of those will both the fighter. But so long as you get to play your concept, and the in-game effects of that concept match up to how you think it should work it's all good. I think you're counterpoint may likely include: In prior editions with figured stats PCs that know what's up can cheese things around to make their characters more efficient than other characters and functionally be better in every way. My counter point would be: I care less about theoretical build issues than I do playing the game. And I'm happy to have a GM give feedback on PCs being too good, too cheesy, too efficient or otherwise overshadow other players. To me that happens, can happen, in all games, and the only real thing to stop it from happening is...a GM. Which most games have. But, yes, you've sold me on neater and cleaner, for certain (what I consider) fringe case "concepts" like "guy who is average at Dex but good at fighting, but not as good at defending, but definitely isn't using skill for any of that". So, again, thanks for those examples. Much clearer now.

Definitely agree it's the first step. I just find that most of my players (and also in the past, when new non-Champs folks would join Champions groups (again, adults, gamers, who don't mind reading, or playing other complex RPGs and boardgames)) don't make it past that step to actually learning the system. And that's kinda what I mean about, "read just enough to build the character". In AD&D 2e you can just roll stats, pick a race and class, and a weapon, that's all you need to know to build a PC at 1st level. In Hero that seems to me to be much less true. The general guidelines in the character creation section for sure point the way (and provide, uh, guidelines) but in terms of stuff like, "Did I do this right?", less so. Like your example, Rogues can't take Weapon Spec. In D&D. But in Hero they sure can. Or not take it. Or spend way more points on it than the "Fighter" did and end up being much of a Rogue, but then in Hero there is no "Rogue" for that matter. And so on. Like I said, I agree with you. Gotta start someplace and you can totally game without knowing the whole system. For sure. I just think the way Hero is setup it discourages folks from engaging fully with the rules because they, kinda sorta, need to know most all of them.

I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm talking about folks in their late (very late) 30s who have been gaming since they were kids and read actual books and stuff in their spare time.

This is my experience as well. Build their guys for them, tell them what to roll, tell them when to roll, give them a general sense of their stats\powers\skills. And, yes, sure, we can play at that point, but I don't really think they have been taught the Hero System at that point, you know? That, for me at least, is kinda the sticking point. Getting them from, "it's a skill, roll low, check your sheet under skills", to actually, say, building their own characters, using campaign guidelines, without needing much\any guidance or handholding, that seems harder. Partly that's just the nature of RPGs. Most campaigns last a while, so most players only end up with one character, so they don't tend to spend a lot of time making characters for fun and pleasure. Similarly once I've built their dudes for them they usually don't tinker with them much (again, partly game related, since characters aren't being redesigned very session or gaining enough XP to buy new and exciting powers every time...not much to tinker with once play begins). And\or because I built their characters they'll just tell me what they want to do with their XP in general. Again, no real tinkering or learning the rules. But then if I don't assist them in doing those things...they probably just won't happen. The games are fine. The players are enjoying themselves. I don't have any particular issues with it because I know the rules and I'm running the game. But...doesn't seem to really help players learn the actual system. Combat is kinda the same way. All these options available, combat maneuvers and such, all the fun Hero stuff. But the players don't know, so they don't try to use them, and if I suggest they use them then....they don't really learn them, they just say, "ok, sure, sounds good". Like using Brace or Set or something. "Your character can Brace\Set\Dive for Cover in this situation, it works like this." = "Yah, ok". But it's not like they are asking, "Can I brace my gun on a wall to reduce my range mod?" or "I saw that Brace is a move I can do, will that work here?". It's tricky to get it in to bite-sized chunks that players will actually swallow. By comparison if I wanted to read ALL of the Paladin abilities in D&D I can read through the level progressions, look at the spells by level, and stuff like that. Or in Vampire or something I can just read this or that vampire discipline (and there are probably only 5 things to read and none of them are going to be in code like "RKA, +1 Stun Mod, NND, No Range, RSR") I'm certain players can undertake this same activity in Hero. Just read the skills section. Now just browse the combat moves. Now construct a wizard VPP and play around with 30AP powers. But...they don't seem to. So on the one hand I think helping the players\doing the work for them can certainly get a group playing in minutes (like any RPG, "Here's a sheet, let me know when you want to do stuff and I'll tell you what to roll") but on the other hand I think it may actually be detrimental to getting them to learn the rules. But then on the third flipper I think that given how GM control and campaign guidelines work in Hero often it may be easier for the GM to do most of the work. Like I'll always know if I consider a new character balanced and effective, and I won't be trying to cheese anything for points or build abusive game-breaking stuff. It's almost...like...if somebody likes what Hero embodies you won't have to teach them the system, they'll do it themselves (I see new forum users here basically doing this, mostly GMs, obvs) and if they just want to play a fun game where they can make THEIR character THEIR way and not pick from lists and stuff then...do they really need to learn Hero? Or just know what to roll and when?