TranquiloUno

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.
 
 

I think this is true to a degree and a negative reputation that hasn't been dealt with to another degree.
 
Because the system is so open ended it lends itself to unnecessary complexity.
 
With my current Saturday group I've been easing them into the rules one by one as their comfort grows.  For the early sessions we hand-waved END tracking and several other factors for the sake of simplicity.
 
D&D 5e which has absolutely exploded due to its streamlined changes AND hitting the free marketing jackpot with Critical Role switching to their system isn't THAT much simpler if the GM intends to match it.
HERO presents it's primary stats, previously figured stats and combat stats in one big block.  It's a wall of text and intimidating.
D&D has almost exactly the same number of things to track, but they're dispersed and packaged more neatly not really less in number.
 
HERO - STR,DEX,CON,INT,EGO,PRE
D&D -   STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHA
 
HERO - PD, ED, REC, END, STUN
D&D - AC, Hit Dice, Exhaustion Levels, Spell Slots, X per short rest, X per long rest
 
HERO - OCV, DCV, MOCV, MDCV
D&D - To Hit Bonus from Stats, Proficiency Bonus, Saving Throw 1, Saving Throw 2 - 6
 
Where I REALLY see players struggle is in building their own custom powers.  It's like playing D&D where the spell book is a math test.

Ahoy, shipmate! Or gangway, swabby! As you prefer. (I'm a former Marine)  
 
Yeah. I don't know if 4e was intrinsically "funner", but I do know that I personally and definitely had more fun when playing and running 4e games. However, I think that was largely a product of where I was at in my life when playing 4e. High school followed by the military, followed by easy success as a software developer during the glory days of the dot com boom, no kids, the energy of youth, a succession of good gaming groups...it was just a good time in my life despite the hardships and tragedies and so on. Certainly it was more eventful...the lows may have been more frequent but they were short lived and the highs were stratospheric. 
 
If someone were to make the statement "4e was the most fun version of the rules!" I might nod and privately agree that it was for me as well based upon my own life experience. But lightning in a bottle is difficult to capture, even harder to contain. I don't think that if I were to start up a new 4e campaign I would magically recapture that fun in the current time frame; I think I would constantly be irritated by the grit of running into things (or gaps!) in 4e that were improved upon in 5e, 5er, and 6e.
 
It would be an interesting experiment however. If you do move forward with your campaign, I'd love to read a campaign log or similar of it.

I would say the "success stories" above - I build the characters and the players only learn the rules as needed, not en masse - is a "game powered by Hero System".  They are not learning the system (at least not out of the gate).  They are learning the game that the GM designed using the Hero system.
 
To me, that is a big part of the challenge - Hero is not a game.  It is a game design system.  Champions 1e/2e/3e was a game.  So was Fantasy Hero 2e/3e, and Espionage, and Justice Inc.  They took those aspects of Hero System needed to create the game, set the ground rules and campaign expectations, and often built the abilities as pre-fabs.  You could then sit down and play the game.
 
Hero System 4e brought all the rules you might need into one big rulebook.  5e and 6e continued that movement.  But we no longer had "a game".  We had a game design system that was genre and system neutral, and some sourcebooks on how to use that system to build a game/setting in a specific genre.
 
But we did not have a game.  Hero lets you build your own game.  As a result, there is a significant up-front investment needed by someone, whether everyone in the group or at least the GM, whose "Game Powered By Hero System" will be played.
 
I wonder whether the 6e volumes should have been swapped.  Vol 2, which has the game play rules, might have a brief discussion (no point costs) of Characteristics, Skills and very limited discussion of Powers et al, so players have the basics of what makes a character, but  not the design system.  Then they learn how to play the game - the combat mechanics, skill resolution system, etc.  Vol1 - character construction - is more like a GM Guide - you can use this to design the abilities available in-game.  If you have an experienced player, or group, they can be allowed to design their own powers, spells, feats, talents - whatever is appropriate to the game you are playing.  This would make it more clear that the System itself is not a game, but a system with which you build your own game.
 
Then, hopefully, we also publish some games - which have pre-fab abilities, expected power levels, etc. built into the game itself, and do not focus on the design mechanics, but on the game itself.

You could have created a character of a given concept in any edition of Champions or Hero, and they would have played similarly.  You can certainly game the rules, but then you always could and always will be able to: even actual reality is played better by some people than others.
 
The difference would be that in 1st edition Champions the character would have been mechanically woollier (to use a technical term), 6e more precisely defined.  You had to bend the rules or just make stuff up in Original Champions to get some of what you wanted, 6e has almost all of the bases covered, but they are both recognisably the same system, which is remarkable: almost every other game system that has run to several editions that I can think of has made major changes to the way it works over the years.
 
We should probably rejoice now.

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.
 
 

So...much...to...say...
 
Do we need COM?  No, we don't need COM.  I liked COM and I'd have preferred it to be left in as a sidebar, perhaps with other optional Characteristics, like Passion, Soul and Spirit (sort of Str/Con/Dex for magic).  Hero is all about options and building what you want.  I mean I almost always spent a few points on COM, even though it never really did anything in the games we played, just for colour.  I can do without it or build it with limited PRE, but it was a useful shorthand for 'good looking'.  Ah well.
 
Figured characteristics, pretty much the same.  I liked figured characteristics, but I can build characters without them easily enough, although that took a little getting used to.  It even makes sense that we do it the 6e way, for the reasons that Hugh and others have expounded.  I'm not sure they would have been easy to leave in as an option though because that would substantially change the point cost of characters.  OK if everyone is built that way, less so if only some want to do it.  I still remember my mind being blown by the character Ogre in 3rd edition who was Dex 18 (24 points), Spd 4 (12 points) and had 3 overall combat levels  (24 points) - yeah, I can remember that from decades ago, can I remember where I put my keys?  Anyway, that made him OCV/DCV 6 + 3 levels, which inevitably went into OCV.  If you binned the levels and increased his DEX to 30, you would be spending an extra 36 points (30-18)*3 but you got back the 24 points from the skill levels and didn't need to spend the 12 points on SPD, so that was 36 points saved.  Ogre was now DEX 30 and had OCV/DCV of 10!
 
So, yeah, I can see the sense in getting rid of figured characteristics.
 
I think some powers are probably better and some worse, from my point of view.  I’d be surprised if even the most ardent fan of 6e didn’t have some gripe, however minor.  In a way, I don’t think that 6e went far enough in breaking everything down and putting it back together more logically.  I’m not a fan, for example, of compound modifiers, like Focus, which means that your Magic Stick can be taken away from you but you get UBO, sorry UOO, for free.  There are other examples.  Many other examples.
 
I think that 6e probably is the best Hero has so far achieved, mechanically, but, at the same time, I don’t think that Hero is as good as it could be – and I’m not just talking tweaks.
 
Things like the way that grappling works, to the complete lack of a mechanic to address ignoring opponents in combat and acting as if they were not there.  I’m also not a fan of balance as a justification for a rule.  I’d rather we have a realistic rule (for a given value of ‘realistic) and a sidebar on how to mitigate the harsh.
 
I also don’t think that you can entirely divorce substance from style.  “Technically a great game!” is never going to sell, and I want Hero to sell, so lots of new content comes out.  I have a much longer list of gripes here, which I will not rehearse in full, but it starts with the constant repetition of the phrase ‘unless the GM decides otherwise’, or something similar, followed by the fact that Book 1 was Character Creation.  Can we say “Barrier to entry”?  I have suggestions.  I imagine you can imagine.
 
 

That's still the first step though.
 
You know how long I played D&D before I actually read the books?  I think it was years.  This was back in 2nd edition.  I picked it up in bits and pieces.  I'd read just enough to build the character I needed (and sometimes not even then).  I remember being really surprised when somebody told me that thieves couldn't take weapon specialization.  This was, of course, halfway through a game where I'd taken the specialization like two levels earlier and suddenly the GM noticed.
 
Somebody who is playing one character over the course of the campaign will learn things about the system when they are ready to spend experience points.  "How do I make my energy blast bigger?  Oh it's here on page 206?  Okay..."  Or they'll want to add a power or a new skill.  Let them digest it in bits and pieces, that usually works well.

My experience over the last few years running Hero for folks has been: They won't read the rules. Like...at all.
Or at least not enough to actually seem to grok them. Experienced gamers too for the most part.
There does seem to be a kind of effect where after a point the WALLOFTEXT seems to turn off new folks brains. Like they just can't even.
Not sure why that is. It might be the character creation prior to mechanics organization of the books.
 
I don't tend to get the impression new folks look at a D&D players guide and just can't even. You don't have to learn all the spells and effects up front. In fact that stuff is all listed in the back of the book.
I think the delicious point-based freedom of Hero tends to melt brains because of a generalized lack of specific guidance (like D&D or other class\level or archetype or what have you based games) once you hit the powers section.
Like in 5e D&D you can pick from a pretty small list of options, all of which have nice clear evocative names. And start with easy, simple, level-matched pre-built abilities that give you a general sense of the class and the system.
In Hero we just keep repeating, "Whatever you can imagine!", which is true, but not helpful for new folks because they'll need guidance on how "whatever I can imagine" integrates to "actually playing an RPG".
 
I think this causes problems even for experienced gamers. And I think the separation of rules from world\game info causes problems as well.
At least conceptually, for folks new to Hero, by comparison to other RPG products.
I can see how my 1st level Fighter stats compare to a 1st level Wizard. And I only have to remember by 1-2 1st level abilities in order to play. AND I can get a sense of how the game and the world and the mechanics are kinda interact from that. My starting Chain mail is "ok" and I can clearly see in the book that there is better stuff. I can see how much damage I can do and also see what it's likely to grow to over time.
For Hero, "It could be anything! Depends on the campaign!".
 
Which again, is true, and I like that very much, personally, but in terms of teaching new folks the rules isn't super helpful.
 
There's at least a perception of a large upfront cost to having to learn ALL of Hero before you can really play or even start building characters and having them fight monsters\smash evil\save the galaxy.
And I think a lot of folks, even experienced gamers, would rather make a cool lil dude to play in the game and then go fight monsters than they would read an entire set of rules, end to end, before being able to even start doing that and then have to spend a good chunk of time making their lil dude and still not really have solid guidelines for if the characters they are making or good or "right".
 
So, IME recently, it's more what I said in the first line, me running Hero for other people. Not so much all of us playing Hero. Which is mostly fine. I've had players in D&D games that wouldn't really read the books and still didn't quite understand which dice to roll when and so forth after several sessions of play.
 
 
 
 
 
 

I had a steady Saturday D&D 5e group for almost two years and decided since we had burned through all of the main books that we could use a change of pace.  I'd grab one of the Pathfinder Adventure paths and run us through that.
 
Since we were going to be trying out something completely new I sold the very steady player base on the idea of trying out Fantasy Hero since I like the HERO system mechanics so much better.
 
I knew there'd be some exploding heads if I didn't ease them into it so we did a couple of mock combats with characters I built for them in HDv6 based on character concepts they told me about.
 
Things went pretty well and to avoid the +10 levels with swords to make eye shots at +2 OCV issue I pre-emptively resurrected the Combat Effectiveness Calculator (Turns out it was Adventurer's Club #3 Character Rating System...) as best I could from 3 decades old memory to keep everyone relatively constrained both by campaign hard caps and a total combat effectiveness.
 
It took the players a few sessions to get their heads around attacks that do normal, vs. killing, vs. use-hit-locations, vs. don't-use-hit-locations and the much larger array of combat maneuvers that are available.
 
The one thing players really like is that their characters are 100% THEIR characters.  The lack of class constraints and the flexibility of the system is the key selling point.  The interaction of armor in Fantasy Hero (makes you resistant to damage, but slower & easier to hit) resonates well with the group as does the damage scale.  Our Dwarven Rogue Explosives expert took a single heavy longbow shot to the shoulder (11 BOD, 33 STUN minus his heavy leathers (3 DEF)) and was nearly out of the fight.
 
The current cast of misfits in our War for the Crown run:
1-  The Fire Witch (my wife) - mad social skills and the desire to set everything on fire.
2-  Arden the Witcher - Player loves this build to death.
3-  Bolin the 2nd to Last Airbender - Defensive CC expert with barrier, heals and stretching (sfx water appendages for MA moves).
4-  Udyr from League of Legends.  I spent a couple of hours in HDv6 making all of the active/passive/lingering effects work right.  Most labor intensive character I've ever modeled.
5- Darran Redbeard - Dwarven Sapper and grenade happy rogue.
6- The fallen angel Gabriel from the Prophecy movies.
 
You can't do this very easily in most games.  The players are having a blast and the hexman dice really helped with counting BOD/STUN on normal attacks.

Well, sure, that's why I was curious for character concepts that are enabled by 6e (neater and cleaner). You've given me a couple. Thanks again for that.
 
6e does seem the logical endpoint of things. Divorcing CV from Dex and so on. So it's certainly more mechanically detailed by default in character creation.
I'm just not sure that's "best" "mechanically". It's certainly more fiddly. 
 
Like you I'd like to know what Killer Shrike means by that. Then I can try to change his mind. ;D
 
I mean if the character doesn't pay for the skill (lockpicking, let's say) then they might not even be able to attempt it, depending on the GM. 
And...who says he has to have a high Dex to be good at fighting? Buy him some combat levels to represent his skill in fighting. 
 
Ben Grimm is a terrible example for exactly that reason. Football star, veteran, test pilot. He's got excellent reflexes and he's highly trained in various ways. 
But him aside, my point isn't that 6e doesn't allow finer granularity by default for these edge cases, it's that I think I can do all that in 4th or 5th. Accomplish the same effect. So I can get to playing. 
 
If Shrike feels having more granularity by default is mechanically better (and I think that's a very reasonable position) then 6e is probably superior.
But if "best"\"better" means generally being able to easily replicate any weird corner case a PC can throw at you then...4th is fine too. 
 
As far as historical norms in published products and average games that I haven't played in regarding Speed scores....I guess I'm in favor of limiting them? 
 
It's no problem for me if Thing, Wolverine, Cyclops, Punisher, and Tony Stark are all Dex 12. And speed 3. And are some of the greatest fighters in the world because they have spent XP on tons of levels. 
 
Disad for Rogues to keep their CV down? 5pts for every -1 OCV penalty when they aren't in favorable conditions. 
"Gun shy" or "Prefers to attack from the rear" or "Not a Fighter". 
 
Anyway.
 
Yah, sure, if better balanced point spends, for some kinda arbitrary meta-rules-based character concepts, is "better", then I'd say that's a strong case for 6e being best.
For sure. That kinda of super detailed edge case stuff does seem better suited to 6e. 
 
I'm more about: I don't know if any of that really benefits playing the game. So "best" seems uncertain. 
 
I'm more interested in a rules system that I can fairly quickly create highly customized characters with and then get to gaming. While gaming it's nice to have a solid framework for skills, combats, and such in addition to the skeleton of the system that drives XP based progressions. 
 
4th worked for me for that, 5th does now (and I'd be strongly inclined to switch back to 4e Shapeshift if it ever comes up from a player in a game), it all seems good.
 
6th seems more detailed. But I'm not sure that's better.
Neater and cleaner to create some of the stat relations you're talking about. Point breaks re: Figured look good too.
 
But "best"? 
 
For what value of "best" and "mechanically"?
 
 
 
 
 
 

Well, sure, that's why I was curious for character concepts that are enabled by 6e (neater and cleaner). You've given me a couple. Thanks again for that.
 
6e does seem the logical endpoint of things. Divorcing CV from Dex and so on. So it's certainly more mechanically detailed by default in character creation.
I'm just not sure that's "best" "mechanically". It's certainly more fiddly. 
 
Like you I'd like to know what Killer Shrike means by that. Then I can try to change his mind. ;D
 
I mean if the character doesn't pay for the skill (lockpicking, let's say) then they might not even be able to attempt it, depending on the GM. 
And...who says he has to have a high Dex to be good at fighting? Buy him some combat levels to represent his skill in fighting. 
 
Ben Grimm is a terrible example for exactly that reason. Football star, veteran, test pilot. He's got excellent reflexes and he's highly trained in various ways. 
But him aside, my point isn't that 6e doesn't allow finer granularity by default for these edge cases, it's that I think I can do all that in 4th or 5th. Accomplish the same effect. So I can get to playing. 
 
If Shrike feels having more granularity by default is mechanically better (and I think that's a very reasonable position) then 6e is probably superior.
But if "best"\"better" means generally being able to easily replicate any weird corner case a PC can throw at you then...4th is fine too. 
 
As far as historical norms in published products and average games that I haven't played in regarding Speed scores....I guess I'm in favor of limiting them? 
 
It's no problem for me if Thing, Wolverine, Cyclops, Punisher, and Tony Stark are all Dex 12. And speed 3. And are some of the greatest fighters in the world because they have spent XP on tons of levels. 
 
Disad for Rogues to keep their CV down? 5pts for every -1 OCV penalty when they aren't in favorable conditions. 
"Gun shy" or "Prefers to attack from the rear" or "Not a Fighter". 
 
Anyway.
 
Yah, sure, if better balanced point spends, for some kinda arbitrary meta-rules-based character concepts, is "better", then I'd say that's a strong case for 6e being best.
For sure. That kinda of super detailed edge case stuff does seem better suited to 6e. 
 
I'm more about: I don't know if any of that really benefits playing the game. So "best" seems uncertain. 
 
I'm more interested in a rules system that I can fairly quickly create highly customized characters with and then get to gaming. While gaming it's nice to have a solid framework for skills, combats, and such in addition to the skeleton of the system that drives XP based progressions. 
 
4th worked for me for that, 5th does now (and I'd be strongly inclined to switch back to 4e Shapeshift if it ever comes up from a player in a game), it all seems good.
 
6th seems more detailed. But I'm not sure that's better.
Neater and cleaner to create some of the stat relations you're talking about. Point breaks re: Figured look good too.
 
But "best"? 
 
For what value of "best" and "mechanically"?
 
 
 
 
 
 

My, oh my, oh _my_ but I do _not_ need to be doing this right now.
 
But the compulsion....    it's maddening.....
 
 
 
Thank you, Hugh; I appreciate your taking the time and patience to point that out rather than come screaming down like Odin on high, as is the case on so many other forums.  You, like most other folks here, are an excellent conversationalist, and it is very much appreciated.  However (as I quoted below; I couldn't get it worked into the middle of the stuff of yours I quoted here and immediately below this, I'm afraid), I was intentionally refraining from commenting on anything "purely mechanical" until I have my copy of Basic in my hands and have had time to read it.  Yes; Iv'e read the two "big boys," but as I mentioned: trying to clear those from mind and focusing purely on what's in Basic...  there is a chance that it will change _my_ mind.   And if nothing else, it will put me more in touch with the position that Killer Shrike is currently in: I will have read the two books he considers to be "6e."
 
Hence, my digression.  I was trying hard not to join the thread at all, but he practically dared me to.    ( I kid; Shrike's as great a conversationalist as you are, and I'm fairly certain my occasional anachronisms offer up tags saying "he doesn't mind being made an example of.")
 
 
 
Right.  And there are rules in the Players Guides that are -- well, official rules.  While they might be considered "optional" or a "fresh angle" or something like that, the fact that the author references _this_ material-- the stuff in the Player's Guides-- suggests that they aren't so much "optional rules" and after-the-fact errata to the main rules.  And of course, there has been more than reference to the possibility of a third APG.  Should there be a 7th edition, likely we'll see a majority of these guides moved into "core rules" status.  I can't remember at the moment, but is there not a Martial-Arts-specific book for 6e as well?  I don't know if it qualifies as "core rules"-- well, let me rephrase: I know that the two books are still considered officially "all you need to play" or "core rules of the HERO system" of whatever you might like to call them (I like "core rules" because it's easier to type ), but if history repeats itself, any Martial Arts book will become more canonical to the majority of players than any Player's Guide will.  At best, the official core rules are two large books.  At worst, they are _five_ large books, with the author periodically mentioning the need of a sixth.
 
The short version: I agree with you.  Presentation is a not-unsizeable problem for pitching the HERO system.
 
 
And that was just to confirm that I had no intention (and still don't, as I haven't read Basic yet) of weighing in specifically on mechanics.
 
 
 
This I quoted on accident, and can't make go away.  I responded already, but since it's here again:
 
Thanks, NB, but I've already got that book.  I appreciate you looking out, though, Sir; it's never unwelcome.
 
 
I quoted you, Doc, to mention that this always _could_ be done, but someone (a couple of someones, I think) addressed it already (but I  had it in "quoted" section by the time I got there and didn't want to start all over again).
 
So I can convince myself I didn't just kill all my "computer time" this evening reading this thread instead of finishing up my scans, I will add something that I didn't see touched on:
 
The reason you didn't see this sort of build a lot in every group wasn't that it was impossible or even particularly hard to do.  The fact that you _did_ see it in some groups demonstrated that.  The reason that you didn't see it in every group was that some people are less willing to build..  well, for lack of a better term, let's say "strictly to concept."  There are those people who, no matter what the concept, will look at a couple of models to get what they want and say "bump that noise!  I can spend the same / similar points this way and get a whole lot more out of it!"
 
if I want a gymnast, why buy up a gymnastics skill to represent years of study and practice, when I can simply buy up DEX and get all this other great stuff with it?!  And if i'm getting all this for free, then why would I bother selling any of it back?  Let me just change my concept a bit and it all makes sense.  Deadly gymnast.  Gymkata!  (man that was an awful movie).
 
Discrepencies in OCV and DCV were easily modeled with Skill Levels.  (though as Hugh noted at some point in this thread, skills progression is still just as out of whack as it ever was.  For what it's worth, I think because of the new Characteristics models, Skill costs, skill progression, and Skill Levels end up being rather less balanced than they ever were, but again-- I don't really want to get into mechanics until I can fully see where Shrike is coming from-- that is, until I can read Basic.  Granted, this thread will be as dead as the "least favorite edition" thread by then, I suspect, but my pet project is my priority right now.
 
 
 
I love ya, Doc; I really mean that: you've always been one of the first to help anyone, including helping me, and you are always a joy to converse with.  But in this, we'll have to disagree.  I will accept "differently balanced," but I don't see any real long-term gains.   To qualify that, let me add "in the games I tend to run."  I can't speak for other groups, but I just don't run into a lot of point-misering or combat-tweaking in my games.  I don't know if it's the way I run or if it's simply the way the group indoctrinates new players, but with one single exception in all these years (I'm sure I've mentioned Davien -- by name, in case he lurks here  -- who was the single-most stand-out rules rapist, point-squeezing, all-my-skills-are-for-killing disagreeable sack of irritant ever to sit in at my table.  And that's saying a lot, because he wasn't really the only "power gamer" we've ever had.  He was just _gifted_.  Make the Harbinger look like Fred Rogers), my groups are pretty big on building strictly to concept, even if they occasionally kneecap themselves just to add a bit of flavor or extra challenge.  You remember how excited I was in the one-armed Fantasy character thread?  That's the kind of groups I have: concept first, screw effectiveness that goes against concept.
 
 
By its nature, in something like this: a building system of sorts, sophistication usually requires a bit more complication.  Now to an extent, I accept that no conversation will sway either side on this: there are those (like me) who will point out that given the rep of HERO outside the fan base, additional complication is a bad move for long-term survivability, and there are those who will defend the increased complication as necessary to improve simplification, akin to pressing a button to open a garage door, when before you had to get out of the car, open the door manually, get back in the car....    It's simpler; yes.  But getting there required adding a breaker, more wiring, a complicated electrically-powered mechanical gizmo that's going to require some maintenance, a sensor, a circuit board, etc.    So point-blank, I accept that this is a no-win area of discussion, and offer no challenge to any claims from or for either side.
 
 
And that empty bit is still there because I can't make it go away.  Sorry about that. 
 
 
 
I see the point.  Doesn't mean I agree with it (non-confrontational; I can't find a phrasing that can't be misread as confrontational.  Forgive the sound of it, please, and focus on the meaning).  But yes: PRE didn't have a solid definable mechanic.  If we kept PRE, what's the limit?  We could add some kind of "Luck" power with a poorly-defined GM's discretion cop-out kind of mechanic.  Makes about as much sense as PRE did.  
 
 
okay, I'm going to leave that, simply because I can't make the box go away, even if I delete the contents.  I'm also going to say that when I quoted it, I was going to comment-- especially to the skill levels and skill pricing comments, but I have thought better of it, simply because I _did_ tell myself (and you guys ) that I really _don't_ want to get into the mechanicals until I read Basic-- until I really have the best-possible understanding of where KS was coming from when he issued his invitation.  That is, I really want to be fair not just to my own thoughts, but to his position as well.    So I'm going to leave this unaddressed, at least for now.
 
 
Obviously, we will never know, as it didn't happen that way, but would like to think that might have been easier to swallow rather than flat-out nixing it and offering as a replacement "unusual looks."  You know, not everyone is striking; not everyone has looks so great or so awful that they will get a ---
 
never mind.  I've been warned that this is a can of worms best left unopened.  But I will say that, after having nixed it, offering a binary replacement was a bit of a salty icepick to the hemorrhoids for fans of COM, particularly from a system marketed from the ground up as "build anything you want."
 
 
Well, I have no learned that quote-in-a-quote won't quote.    Imagine that.
 
But I trust you know the limitation you referred to.  And yes: that's a workaround for those who don't want to fill two lines on a character sheet with rather lengthy list of modifiers to make it work.  For what it's worth, though, it's not a limitation I would allow, and especially under 6e.  Not because my distaste for 6e would drive me to penalize myself, but because, from what I've seen and read so far,  "the text" is insufficient: CC, FHC, Basic, and "core rules" seem to have different inclusions and unclusions (probably not a real word  ).  At least specify which text, just so we're both on the same page.  Even then though, as  a matter of habit, you will have it written out, fully, somewhere before I approve it.  I don't mind the idea of simply putting the name of the power and relevant costs on the sheet, but somewhere you will have a spelled-out definition I can discuss with you before I approve your character.  I'm not looking to derail this thread (and don't think it's possible, really), but that just kind of needed saying: that part of the conversation  (how long do power descriptions have to be?) seemed to be losing focus on the fact that at the end of the day, you have to bring out all those details for review, and for the math to build it, no matter how little you get away with writing down.
 
 
Agreed.  I can't say I would have been thrilled (again, we will never know, since it didn't happen, and any opinion I have on how I _might_ have felt is undeniably tainted by how I feel about the way things ended up), but I'd like to think I would have been a lot more "okay" with it than I am about how it ended up.
 
 
I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it went down.  I wasn't there, so I can't know (I'm pretty sure the SETAC guys were sworn to secrecy ), but I don't think it went quite like that.
 
 
 
Sorry, NB; I didn't realize I had quoted two different examples of this.  I addressed this in a reply to a quote from Doc Democracy above, if you're interested.  (I wouldn't be, but I don't think I would have made it this far into a post, either.   )  Looks like I did a third one with another quote from Hugh a bit down the page from here.
 
I gotta stop using this board as a sleep replacement.
 
 
 
If you consider how much adding a string of "cans" and "cants" and math functions behind the name robs that feeling of "magic spell," then yes: it compares unfavorably to _any_ magic spell from any system from any game built to incorporate magic as a theme.
 
However....
 
This is not a problem unique to 6e.  Certainly 5 and 6 exacerbated this problem, but they did not create it.  This is one of --and perhaps the biggest-- the motivators behind me allowing players to have a separate record of the _actual_ power build while putting only the name of the power / spell, it's effect (in dice or what-have-you), and relevant costs in actual points and END costs).  Because of the popularity of fantasy-- even those of us beyond-burned-out on fantasy are familiar with it-- these build sheets are affectionately referred to in our groups as "spell books," even if they're lists of weapons builds or super powers.  
 
 
 
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.  Based on your history, I'm going to assume not, but based on the idea that a game with a Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't sell well----   
 
Well, you aren't stupid, either- at least, not that you've ever demonstrated, so I'm confused.  Seriously.  I'm going to run with "you are being sarcastic," so if I am totally off-base, at least you'll know why.
 
With the current iteration, we have two giant tomes _before_ we get to the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's guide (APG 1 and 2).  We also have (I believe; I should have been asleep before I even logged on) the Martial Arts book, and a game author mentioning the need for an additional Player's Guide.  That's a lot of giant tomes to pitch.  I daresay that stacked up against 2 giant tomes, well, two seems more affordable.  And then there's the reputation HERO has (deserved or not) for unnecessary complexity, and those four-to-six giant tomes start looking like a bad way to invest a mortgage payment.
 
 
You yourself told me once-- it was over a misunderstanding of a comment that I had meant negatively-- that one of the best things about 6e was that it opened up even more ways to build a particular end result.  I'm not certain why, from that point of view, an optional rule to retain figureds or COM or anything else strikes you as less than reasonable.  No; I'm sorry.  I've had words put in my mouth before, and I don't intend to do it here: you say that you disagree it would be a good idea; you do not specifically say that it is a bad idea.  However, it does come across as you holding the idea in a negative light.
 
That's fine, though: it's all about opinions, ultimately.  I would simply like to point out that "we don't need figureds anymore" depends _heavily_ on believing that the pricing _is_ fixed.  It's changed, and it's all matchy-matchy-er, but "fixed" is still a judgement call, based on opinions of the in-game value of each aspect.  Currently it is "fixed" almost exclusively with regard to math, and honestly-- that's as far as it can ever get.  This is because every play group, play style, and player is going to have a different favorite, and a different "important thing" Characteristics and build-wise.  Some things are going to be inherently more important to some groups than they are too others, and ultimately there will never be universal agreement that Characteristics are "fixed."  I remember the most common example way back when was the idea that STR was "underpriced."  To this day I maintain that it was overpriced, simply because, as Massey pointed out, if you didn't buy a hell of a lot of it, you simply never got the "free values" that so many people were up in arms about Strength giving away.  You tied up a bunch of points, but at the end of the day, you'd be more "cost effective" spending them on a good ol' fashioned energy blast in the majority of situations we encountered during actual play.
 
 
Skill levels.
 
 
 
 
Been at this a couple of hours now, and forgot what I wanted to respond to in the original post, so I'm just going to ask a general question:
 
What is the intrinsic value in changing "Ego Combat Value" to "Mental Combat Value," particularly in light of defining mental powers as working versus Ego?
 
 
 
 
Sean, my friend, please forgive the bluntness: at this point I just want to power through and get to bed.
In what game do you want to roll low for damage?
 
 
 
Not when you stop to consider that Multiform, which most generally involves a shape shift, and often a substantial one, is most certainly not.
 
 
 
I am sorry, Massey, but as above, I've been here so long on this I no longer remember what I wanted to reply to.  I would like to point out that I agree with most of what you said.  However, since I can't remember what I was wanting to dig out specifically, I have deleted the content of the quote entirely in the interest of shortening this post (though it's clearly far too late for that).
 
 
Ditto, with apologies to both of you.
 
Good night, Amigos.
 
 
 
 
Duke
 

All the arguments have already been rehearsed, and are dependent on taste anyway, so there's nothing new to say here.
 
The lack of George Perez art is an objective fact, but I'm not sure it counts as "mechanically".
 
OK, so while there's nothing new to say here, I'll say the old stuff one more time:
 
6e (and 5e, really) are, for me, beyond the point of diminishing returns. In fact, it would be fair to say I haven't read either of them, except to look up specific points.
 
I nearly wrote: "If I hadn't been playing since 1e, I wouldn't be able to play the game." The problem with that is that I learned to play 1e through playing with other people who had already read the rules. (I read the rules after that.) But still, at some point, somebody has to read the rules first, especially if the game is to spread beyond its existing base, and the rules are a splendid case of tl;dr.
 
One of the reasons for that tl;dr is that, for any particular game, most of the rules are irrelevant.
 
Learning to play a Hero System based game from the 6e rules is like trying to learn English from a dictionary.
 
There has to be a better way.

Justice Inc. was probably the closest to getting it right - a good blend of clarity, brevity and flavour.

Yeah, but you knew what I meant
 
That's the thing though: mechanically, building a character that can shapeshift is no longer a matter of deciding how many different shapes they can assume, it is deciding if they still look like their normal selves in infra red and sonar .  If you just want to look different to normal sight but like yourself to other senses, that's Self Only Images, to my mind.  Or if you want to look like something different to long range radar, ditto.
  
I mean, I can not think of a single example of a shapeshifter that looks like its normal self on sonar but can actually fit through a six inch hole because it is long and thin to the touch group.  That might allow you to do some interesting things but is very very unhelpful if you are trying to actually run a game with a shapeshifter whose player did not think of all that.
 
I mean, they shouldn't have to.  It is a conceit too far and an overlap too far.
 
I like 'sensical' though.  I might steal that.

I jokingly answered earlier in the thread, but now I'll answer for real.  This is going to come across as kind of rude.  Sorry.  No offense meant to anybody here.
 
 
 
6th edition is inferior because it is designed by a committee, based upon a false promise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying system.  It's the product of endless tinkering without an achievable goal or a clear direction.  I'll try to flesh out what I mean by all that, but some of it is conceptual and may be rather hard to explain.
 
Everything up to 4th edition was led by the original designers, and there's a logic to how everything was costed.  Power X is about twice as good as Power Y, so it should cost twice as much.  There's a basic concept of balance built into it from the very beginning.  All the powers and characteristics are roughly scaled with one another.  It's not perfectly executed, but it's pretty close.  Moreover, there was a philosophy to how it was balanced.  They valued certain abilities more than others, and so those were costed higher.  These ideas were internally consistent with each other.  Combat abilities are more valuable than noncombat abilities.  Flexible powers are more valuable than those that are more limited.  Therefore these things cost more points.  If you built characters as they intended, and played the game as they intended, it had a wonderful balance.  4th edition Champions was almost perfect.  And again, it was true to its philosophy.
 
Now with a system as complex as Champions, you'll never get a perfect balance.  There are just too many moving bits and pieces, and a powergamer will find the most efficient builds possible, while a person who has never played before will waste points on things that may never come up.  That is unavoidable.  But later editions didn't understand that.  5th edition, 5th edition revised, 6th edition, Champions Complete, all of them have tried to tweak the system to achieve some perfect balance that just isn't possible.  And the biggest problem is, these changes didn't follow the original pricing structure of the system.  The changes were made by people with a different philosophy of how the system should work.  And those changes don't quite mesh with the underlying system.
 
As an example, let's go to 5th edition, written by Steve Long (somewhat prophetically named when you see the size of his manuscripts).  He had his own ideas about how the Hero System should work, and he modified it.  Adders became much more common.  The pricing structure for some powers was changed, but not for others.  And while some of these changes were arguably good, others were not so great.  It was clear that he was seeing the system in a different way from the original authors, but it was a modification of their system and not one built from the ground up with his own ideas.  Long's philosophy appeared to be based around trying to make everything fit around a certain core set of game mechanics.  Instant Change was removed as a Talent and modified to be a "My clothes only" Transform.  Shapeshift was turned into a sense-affecting power.  But one of the most glaring examples here is Damage Shield.  In 4th edition, Damage Shield was a +1/2 advantage you applied to a power.  If anybody touched you, or if you touched anybody, they were hit with that power.  When 5th edition hit, it suddenly required you to purchase the advantage Continuous (+1).  But, you didn't actually get the benefit that Continuous granted, which is that somebody hit with a Continuous power will be affected by it every single phase.  No, you had to pay a +1 advantage tax because now you've got to change your Energy Blast to a Constant power before you can apply Damage Shield.
 
Why is this a problem?  Because it's a different game philosophy stacked on top of the previous one.  While both follow the idea of "you get what you pay for", 4th edition was more focused on comparative effectiveness, whereas 5th added costs with the idea of making powers conform to a certain format.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with Damage Shield in 4th edition was 75 points.  That's the same as a 15D6 Energy Blast.  Quite expensive, but you got the benefit that you could hurt your enemy when it wasn't your phase, without an attack roll, depending on what they did.  Still might be too expensive though.  In 5th edition, you had to buy it Continuous first.  So now that power became 125 points, the same as a Twenty-five D6 Energy Blast.  No power-gamer in the world would choose a 10D6 Damage Shield over a 25D6 EB.  The two aren't remotely comparable.  There are other problems as well.  The cost of Major Transform had previously been based upon the cost of RKA, the logic being if you can kill them, you might as well be able to turn them into a frog.  5th ed wisely dropped having Cumulative be a +1/2 advantage (RKA is cumulative by default), but it added requirements that you had to pay more to affect different types of targets.  Instead of "turn target into frog" the standard Transform became "turn human into frog".  To affect any target, you had to buy another advantage. 
 
In this way, the cost structure of 5th edition became less consistent, more concerned with form than function.  Abuse wasn't eliminated at all, the nature of the abuse just changed.
 
I wasn't active on the boards during the time that they were soliciting suggestions for 6th edition.  I think I had an account here but I had wandered off.  But as I understand it there was a lot of discussion about what changes people wanted to see made.  And while I like most of you guys just fine, good lord do I disagree with a lot of you over how the game system should work.  I see questions on the Hero System Discussion page, and many of the suggestions are overly complex and extremely point inefficient.  But some people feel like they've got to dot those "i"s and cross those "t"s.  Again I wasn't involved in any of the discussions, but when I flip through the 6th edition book, I'm reminded of the adage "too many cooks spoil the broth".  6th compounds some of the mistakes of 5th edition and doesn't look back.

Long story short, 6th edition is chasing the white whale.  Players have complained about small cost discrepancies with things like figured characteristics.  "Strength is too efficient!"  Yeah... kind of.  Buying your strength up is efficient, except unless you're a brick you're still paying for dice damage that you aren't going to use.  In a 12D6 game, buying a 30 strength isn't abusive, because a 6D6 punch isn't enough to get through anybody's defenses.
 
Buying up primary characteristics to boost figureds tends to result in a small point savings, relative to the overall cost of the character.  A 350 point hero with high primaries may end up saving 20 to 30 points versus a character with lower primaries who bought up his figured characteristics.  This is a real discrepancy, but it's less than 10% of the character's cost.  6th edition separated primaries from figureds, but then they were faced with the idea that maybe figureds were overcosted to begin with.  So Stun and End became a lot cheaper.  But then the cost structure of Endurance Reserve was all screwed up, because you could just buy regular End for really cheap.  The limitation Increased Endurance became an easy way to save points, because the price on that didn't change, but End itself is way cheaper.  Which means that the value of the Charges limitation is all screwed up now.
 
You can't change one fundamental aspect of the system without affecting the others.  And that's what they did in 6th.  Recovery became 1/2 cost, Endurance became less than 1/2 cost.  That means I can pump both those stats up higher than a 5th ed character, and take x2 End cost on all my powers for a -1/2 (or x3 for a -1) for significant savings.  You went from somebody saving 20 to 30 points (between 5-8% of total character cost)  by buying up their primaries to saving between a third and half on their primary power set.  6th edition is rife with problems like that.

90 seconds!? But that's like over 7 turns!? Of course they're tired. ;D ;D ;D
 

90 seconds!? But that's like over 7 turns!? Of course they're tired. ;D ;D ;D
 

OK.  There is a community here that has grown up with multiple versions of this system.  Each of us will have a golden period they remember that makes the system at that time shine in their brain, it is also, likely, the time when they had the greatest knowledge of a ruleset.  For me that was probably just prior to and after publication of the BBB.  I had a group of five players and we played multiple times per week and lived superheroes, burning through a huge number of 4th Ed published adventures.
 
I have played HERO much less since then but despite enjoying a number of other systems, this is the only game forum I frequent regularly.  This is the only system I think in.
 
I have picked up each edition as it is published, every publisher needs to update its ruleset to keep it fresh, to make it new for new audiences and to provide something for long-standing fans to buy.
 
HERO is distinct in that it does not have lots of black box surprises that can be added to new editions to make it new and shiny and different.  It simply seeks to achieve a better mechanical balance between the various powers and effects it provides.  Characteristics were one of the remaining black boxes, 6th Edition removed those and made more archetypes available without going through the sellback contortions that figured characteristics would require to get, for example a gymnast that was a poor combatant, and to remove the incentive for almost every player to buy raised CON and STR due to their figured characteristic value.
 
What drives the impression of complexity is the amount of explanation and example provided.  Champions Complete shows that the explanation can be removed to expose quite a simple system that is not hugely different from its roots, probably just more flexible and balanced.
 
I do think that Steve missed a trick.  The focus was on character creation, something each edition has done.  What remains almost the same as those very first poorly typeset rulebooks is the core system.  It remains a sophisticated point buy system resting upon an ancient game, I think that some of the rules could have been updated and made the core system as sophisticated as the character creation has become.
 
I think, mechanically, 6th is the best in character creation.  I think it is a tough call when you talk gameplay after character creation as that has not significantly changed.
 
Doc

First: I really admire your dedication to themed sigs!
 
Next:
In that Figured will assume non-default values relative to the primary characteristics I find them simpler.
In that a player now has additional choices that they MUST make I find that more complex. But, again, mostly for new people.
An experienced player might not really notice or care that they have to buy non-default DECV separate from OECV (or whatever).
 
I can't really...I don't really see the point in getting too in to the weeds on theoreticals but if I'm a new player and want to play a Mentalist then I just have to see Ego, realize that's "the mindpower stat" and dump points there (in 4th\5th).
In 6e they'd need to know how both the stat value and the DECV and OECV are likely to figure in to combat calculations\power effects and figure out where to buy them at.
 
I don't think it's a HUGE OBSTACLE to....you know, anything, differences between versions are so small as to be nearly ignorable or disappear in to house rules and such, I just think it's somewhat more complex for a theoretical new person.
 
I realize that part of the charm of Hero is doing your own thing your way. I don't think that super needs to be restated a lot for experienced players (ie, everybody on these forums).
So to make D&D comparisons seems...tenuous. That said: In D&D if I want to be a warrior I put my points in Str and I'm (basically) done. In 5e I put my points in Str and Con and I'm basically done. Sure, sure, combat levels, non-default Dex values, etc. It's Hero after all.
But if I have to figure out, as a new player, both where to put my points in stats and then also where to put my other points in other stats, the relationship of which might not be clear (like in 4th Dex 15 = pretty good in a fight, in 6e...what is a good OCV\DCV? What's my scale of comparison? (as a new player)).
 
Like I said, I dunno if it is worth getting to deep in to how a theoretical new player might find things, but at the same time I think looking at how it effects experienced players isn't AS big an issue (I know OCV\DCV 5 is a middling value and decent for Fantasy Hero, or whatever).
 
I think that for new players it's good to have some guides for things in the system.
To use White Wolf as an example the stats are from one to five "dots". So I can know my Dex of 3 dots is pretty good and my Dex + Gun is 6 dots and that's good too.
I think Hero can be...problematic for new folks, even experienced gamers (not experienced *Hero System* gamersm but well rounded experienced in other systems gamers) because of it's free form nature.
 
"What do you want to play? It can be ANYTHING!?!??!?!!?!?!!", leads to, "Ok, but, like...what should\can I play?".
 
Decoupling figured char, to me, seems to make that kind of guideline less clear, potentially, to new folks. While at the same time not providing real benefits to experienced folks.
 
But it's pretty minor. It just seems to add complexity (additional things to track and spent points on, instead of having those things effectively auto-scale with the stats) over 4e.
 
 
Ultimately, of course, you are correct. My opinion is probably not universal.
But then it comes back to what I'm asking Killer Shrike: What makes 6e "the best" mechanically for....?
 
New folks? Old heads? Perfect abstracted char-gen? Actually playing the danged game?
 
As I said before: 6e seems like a very logical end point of the Hero System based on 4e ideas.
To me as a Hero player\GM...that's fine, but also...it doesn't add anything to my player\GM toolbox.
I get nothing functional from 6e as a player (maybe I'm not just making insanely complex enough builds and fiddling my DEVC\OEVC bits enough or something).
And I get detriments, when trying to get new folks to dig on the rules, as a GM, while, again, not really gaining anything.
 
To me, personally.
 
So for Killer Shrike to make his case for how\why 6e is mechanically "best" I'd be interested in hearing what is gained, in games, in actual play, in 6e over 4e\5e\r.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

You seem of the opinion that using Figured Characteristics is "simple" and not using them is "complex." I note that this is not a universal opinion.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
I am of the opinion that every tagline of mine should include at least one palindromedary. This is probably not a universal opinion but I happen not to care.

I guess I'd be wondering "Mechanically" "Best" for....what?
 
Resolved: Any version of (almost) any RPG has rules that you can run a game with. (the actual important thing, playing the game)
Resolved: Any version of (almost) any RPGs rules will not survive contact with the enemy\players. (the less important thing, because rules will always be adjusted)
Resolved: The actual in-game stuff, specific to the group\characters\genre\setting\play-style, will be much more impactful than the actual rules.
Resolved: Running games is the actual thing that really matters.
 
 
So then, for 6e, what is it best at? And "best" compared to...?
 
What can I do with 6e that I can't do with 4e (or 5e\5er) that will improve or effect most\some\the "average" game? What's "best" about it?
 
I'd say 6e makes character creation slightly more complex for us Hero System veterans and somewhat more complex for new folks.
 
Resolved: Old-heads don't really matter to be honest. We'll modify things as we see fit. We're comfortable with the rules already.
 
So in this sense then 6e introduces complexity that...was anybody asking for this? Did old-timers find Figured Char and un-decoupled Dex\Ego CV so constrictive we couldn't run the games we needed to run?
 
Introducing complexity to a rules system and providing no real benefit to either new folks, or old folks, doesn't seem "best".
 
The 6e stuff in general makes sense as a logical end point of the 4e beginnings. IMHO at least.
 
But I don't think it really does much of anything to enhance average\general game play. IMHO again.
 
I also think, I mean, you know, essentially only us weird folks that give a funk about the rules actually read, post, care about the rules. So it's mostly going to be idiosyncrasy in terms of "best" rules version.
 
To me the advantages (+2?) of Hero are:
 
I can build stuff I want instead of picking stuff from lists that other people thought up.
A fairly clean and universal game engine (not char gen) that you only learn once.
 
6e added more fiddly bits to the "building stuff you want" but didn't really allow me to build stuff I couldn't already build.
The game engine doesn't seem to have changed significantly.
 
So...I can put time in to learning the differences in rules versions so I can...run the games I'm already running? Is that the best use of my time?
 
 
But...change your mind?
Well, sure, how about: What kind of games are you running now in 6e that you couldn't ever do before? How has 6e changed the actual games you are actually running for the better?
 
I will speculate baselessly that: A) You run fun games that your players enjoy and B ) You ran fun games in 4e and 5e as well.
 
So...for any additional work that would go in to learning the updated system, re-stating anything that needs re-stated, what's the IRL fun or ease of use that you're getting with 6e that you don't with 4e?
 
Like...just cost\benefit if I spend X hours learning rules and stuff which doesn't make actual game play better then couldn't I have spent those same hours running games, prepping for games, writing up stats and NPCs (I realize you, Killer Shrike, have stated up a bazillion NPCs and PCs and every other gawddamn thing under the sun, but you know what I mean) then...is it best?
 
Or maybe you meant specifically 6e is the best *Mechanically* of all Hero versions. IN which case...can you MAKE *your* case for that? What are the mechanics in 6e that improve over 5e in terms of game play?
 
 
 
 
 

Well if you think that I am a troll rather than a long standing supporter for the game and those who play it, and that I am trolling rather than asking people who don't like 6e to itemize the problems they have with the ruleset that cause them to express a general dislike for it at one end of the spectrum up to using terms like "detest" at that other end of the spectrum, then you misunderstand me.

I'm not attempting to troll you (or anyone else) Christopher. I've been away from these board for a while, and coming back to it I notice a trend with the posters currently active where a noticeable subgroup seem to hold 6e in poor regard. As the opening post stipulates, I want to start a friendly forum for reasonable discussion for people to put forth their talking points for why some other version of the rules is a better version of the rules.
 
You are of course free to not participate in the discussion if you don't want to, but popping in to participate by accusing me of trolling seems counterproductive on the one hand or perhaps some might say a bit trollish in and of itself on the other. Name calling has a tendency to propagate, I suppose. But if you have an opinion about why 6e is not the best mechanical version of the rules, I would like to hear it if you would take the time to type it out.

90 seconds!? But that's like over 7 turns!? Of course they're tired. ;D ;D ;D