TranquiloUno

Yeah although it is amusing to me to watch people argue that leaving in an existing Hero stat that has been in the game since the first typewritten pages before 1st edition is somehow excessive or adding too much.

Sounds like a reasonable theory.
 
Back around the turn of the millennium, there were dozens of quality fan-created websites for Fourth and Fifth Edition Hero one could point to, covering every genre, with both original settings and Hero adaptations and conversions of established settings from books, movies, television, even other games; everything from D&D, to Star Wars, to feudal Japan, Marvel and DC supers, Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dragonball, Highlander, Call of Cthulhu, Lord of the Rings, Wild Cards, Shadowrun, Star Trek, Jorune, Robotech, Gamma World, Mutants and Masterminds... Most of those have disappeared into the aether by now, and there hasn't been a surge of Sixth Edition material to replace them.

I don't think personal websites are as common any more as they were then, so at one level that's not a problem. But, on the other hand, blogs have replaced them to a far extent, and where are the Hero System blogs?
 
Of course, at that point I have to ask: where is my Hero System blog? Hmm.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the people who post to those threads are among the more motivated of gamers, and more willing to express their opinions. We see generally in society that the most vocal proponents of any position tend to be only a small portion of the people involved.
 
Just based on sales, "generic universal" games seem to be in decline in popularity within the tabletop hobby. It's possible that's a pendulum effect which may reverse at some point in the future. Some things go out of fashion for a while, then return, like vinyl records.   But like vinyl, tabletop RPGs facing competition from computer games, will probably never regain the popularity of their heyday.

The house rules for the settings would be the benefits.
Specific examples, probably genre examples, of how you can use Hero to do X or Y.
 
Potential benefit I mean. Who really knows of course.
 
But compare the various PbtA games. Same base rules but different abilities and GM moves and whatever the heck else in each genre product.
 
Like let's use Shadowrun as an example. In SR cyberware reduces "Essence" and eventually to go crazy or whatever. Same for CP2020 I think.
Pretty basic idea in general.
 
In Hero we could emulate that in a lot of ways. Or not emulate it 'cause Essence and meta-game mechanical limits on cyberware are dumb and in Hero we have points to limit that stuff.
But what would be fun\useful\interesting (potentially, who knows?) would be a specific way to do that in Hero and a rules set that integrates that in-game mechanical construct in to the in-game fluff\setting\world lore.
 
Just as an example. Specific rules for specific settings to make those settings work more like we want them to.

Sanity loss in CoC is another example.

I don't see Comeliness and Striking Appearance in conflict at all, they're just two different ways to approach the issue -- you could even use them in conjunction if you wanted.  SA gives you a mechanic for imposing results on die rolls, COM gives you a relative stat for role playing interaction.  They both have their place, and can be used by GM's.

My only argument is that it ought to be considered an optional rule rather than flat out banned from the game or deleted.  Something GMs can use if they wish, or not, especially given the genre variations.

Since the OP, Christopher R Taylor, is being referenced here, it may be helpful to reproduce his post:
 
 
 
Now let's consider the description of the Striking Appearance Talent, from 6E1 p. 116:
 
   "A player can describe his character’s appearance and attractiveness however he wants, but the description has no effect in the game. A character can be “one of the most beautiful women in the kingdom” or “so ugly he can only get a job in a circus sideshow,” but that provides no modifiers to Skill Rolls or any other in-game benefit.
   Characters who do want their appearance to provide a specific benefit in the game can buy this Talent. It provides a bonus to Interaction Skill rolls and Presence Attacks, but exactly which ones depend on how it’s defined. If a character’s defined as “beautiful” or “handsome,” then the bonus applies to many uses of Skills like Charm, Conversation, and Persuasion, and to Presence Attacks that might work better coming from an attractive person (such as, “Won’t you please help me?”). If a character’s defined as “ugly,” the bonus applies to many uses of Interrogation and to Presence Attacks based on fear or disgust.
   Each +1/+1d6 that can be used against all characters in appropriate circumstances costs 3 Character Points, and must be defined as “attractive” or “ugly” when purchased. If the character’s appearance only benefits him with regard to a limited group of people (for example, only Denebians regard him as attractive, to all other species he’s ordinary-looking), Striking Appearance costs 2 Character Points per +1/+1d6.
   Characters can purchase Striking Appearance multiple times, thus indicating relative “levels” of attractiveness — a character with +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance is prettier than one with only +1/+1d6. If desired, the GM can establish an “upper limit” on this so characters know what it takes to be “the fairest woman in the land” or “the ugliest mutant in America.”
   If a character wants to make another character more attractive (or uglier) as an attack, he can do that with a Cosmetic Transform."
 
And from the accompanying sidebar:
 
"The GM determines whether Striking Appearance applies, and to what extent. Not all forms of interaction between characters can be influenced by a character’s attractiveness (or lack thereof). and in many respects “beauty” and “ugliness” are highly subjective; what one NPC finds attractive might not interest another at all."
 
The implications of these statements appear to support a character's appearance functioning in a Hero System game more or less as Christopher describes Comeliness, suggesting that COM does not add something to the experience of Hero gaming that it otherwise lacks. So we once again come down to what a particular game group likes and prefers, rather than an inherent fundamental distinction.
 

Espionage, Justice Inc, Danger International, and Star Hero 1e.  It's not in Fantasy Hero 1e, nor is it in Robot Warriors, and I'll admit to being slightly surprised at the latter two.

COM 10 doesn't change from 5 real. 
On the high end: COM 20 drops to 6 real from 7 real, COM 30 to 8 real from 10 real, every 10 COM thereafter +2 real instead of +3 real. 
On the low end: COM 5 drops to 4 real from 5 real, COM 0 drops from 4 real to 3 real. 

I really feel like I'm becoming a repetitive downer on this thread.   The Valdorian Age and Tuala Morn were both distinct self-contained settings which modified and tailored the default Hero System rules to reinforce a particular style of game play; the former for the well-established Sword and Sorcery sub-genre, the latter for a Celtic-myth-inspired setting which has rarely been done for the TTRPG market. Scott Bennie did much the same for supers with his Gestalt: The Hero Within. Hero System was also licensed for the well-established Traveller sci-fi game world. If you look through the website store you'll see plenty of third-party products with distinctive and inventive settings, for fantasy, sci-fi, post-apoc. There's no lack of interesting setting concepts using Hero; but if you target your product for a particular type of game, you're also targeting that fraction of the gaming audience interested in that type of game. The big sellers like D&D and Pathfinder use the generalized, bog-standard setting conventions most gamers are familiar and comfortable with.
 
Things like the settings above have appeal and are worth doing, and may draw in some new players. But none of them have a track record suggesting they're a magic bullet to turn Hero Games's fortunes around. As several folks on this thread have pointed out, the trend in RPGs right now seems to be away from the "toolkit" approach which has always been Hero's greatest strength and most distinctive feature. But if Hero game designers hew too far away from that, they'll have to play catch-up with all the other games already doing so. Maybe something like that could catch fire with the buying public, but without investing the money and time to produce it first there's no way to tell.
 
I don't think I can do much more here than depress myself and everyone else, so I'll shut up now.

That's actually part of my head-canon as to why all the super-tech in superhero universes hasn't caused more changes.  Most of the economic benefits that have occurred from a higher tech level have been offset by increased insurance and security costs.  And the money siphoned off to pay for supervillains and their organizations.
 
Which isn't quite how economics works, but it's close enough to be plausible.

The current game I'm running magic is incredibly commonplace and works under a specific set of rules. In the empire, magic has reached the level of science. Most common people can use basic magical items made for every day convenience. Lights, stoves, water purifier, money verifier, etc. All of these things are simple, handful of uses, and needs a recharge type of effects. There are no "permanent" magic effects. If they wanted to "buy a torch" while in the empire, then they are simply going to buy an alchemical item that generates X amount of light for Y time. I wouldn't even bother to stat it up. If they are outside it (which they mostly are, since they asked for a travel and see the world game) then they buy an actual torch. Because of this, most of the generic stuff is kind of hand-waved since it isn't important to the story we're trying to tell. 
 
The PCs are all magic users, each with their own specific set of rules their magic operates under. Because they are reliant on their own abilities so much, not a single one of them has asked about buying or acquiring ”magic items”.  Could also be because they don't have an Invester/Alchemist in the group.
 
Granted, the whole point of the setup is to see what happens when a group of people with a solid preconceived idea of how magic operates meets things that break those rules. Eventually they are going to come across something that appears to be permanently enchanted. Magic that doesn't operate correctly. Those specific things, as magic items, serve the story first and might also not need to be statted up.
 

In Hero, there are multiple ways to solve a problem.  All solutions are correct.  All solutions are incorrect.  Go, sit beneath a waterfall, and meditate on this until the water dries your mind.

Because normally the is one SPD - 3, with one 2 and one 4 as outliers. This way they are 3 - 2.5,3,3.5 - with 2 and 4 as outliers. So there are 5 viable SPDs rather than 3. 

If I was in charge (and had lots of money to blow), I'd make some little stand alone games, with a stripped down version of the Hero System in each of them.  A fantasy game with pre-made spells (and no Powers section), a horror rpg where characters are competent normals, etc.  Hero would run in the background, but really it's about nice looking art and a cool theme.  See what sparks interest.  If something sells well, bring out supplements for it.  Don't try to convert people to a new religion just yet.  Instead let them have fun playing the game, not reading a set of encyclopedias to figure out the rules.
 
Then, eventually, you come out with Hero System 7th edition.  Much thinner than the double volume 6th.  Hero System -- the game you've already been playing.  Something like that.

Actually, let's analyze the book-value of COM.  FRED says "COM Rolls are sometimes used as Complementary Rolls to some Interaction Skills in situations where a character’s appearance (good or bad) might influence what happens."
We can model that via  a series of Interaction Skill Levels (hereafter ISL) with the Conditional Power "Only where a character's appearance might influence what happens" Limitation and the Activation Roll Limitation*.  Let's call the former a -1/2 by assuming that prettiness doesn't matter over the phone but does work against both genders.  There's no rules in FRED for 7- or worse Activation Rolls, so we'll apply the "lesser effect" clause and cost them as 8-**.  An ISL is 5 AP. 
 
COM 10 provides +1 on a 11-, +2 on a 8-, +3 on a 6-, +4 on a 4-.  This sums to 5 real, which is exactly what you get for selling it back.  So far so good.  Except, of course, that the sellback doesn't remove your ability to make the Complementary Roll. 
COM 20 provides +1 on a 13-, +2 on a 10-, +3 on a 8-, +4 on a 6-, +5 on a 4-.  This sums to 7 real (2 more than baseline), indicating we're breaking away from the COM formula. 
COM 30 provides +1 on a 15-, +2 on a 12-, +3 on a 10-, +4 on a 8-, +5 on a 6-, +6 on a 4-.  This sums to 10 real (5 more than baseline) and indicates the COM formula doesn't hold. 
COM 40 is where the +1 is (functionally) guaranteed on a 17-.  It's also interesting since from that point on, every 10 COM (5 real) just provides an ISL with (functionally) no Activation Roll (3.33 real). 
COM 5 provides +1 on a 10-, +2 on a 7-, +3 on a 5-, +4 on a 3-.  This also sums to 5 real, or no cost difference compared no sellback.  A clear issue. 
COM 0 provides +1 on a 9-, +2 on a 6-, +3 on a 4-.  This sums to 4 real and indicates that COM sellbacks are vastly more lucrative than they should be under this formula. 
 
Conclusion: COM is overpriced based on the price of limited ISLs.  It is, however, decently effective at enhancing interaction skills. 
Side comment: COM can enhance a Familiarity.  An ISL cannot.  I do not factor in an Advantage to account for this.  This is an excellent avenue for further analysis. 
 
*: Technically the math works out differently between a single activation roll with different thresholds and multiple activation rolls with the same thresholds.  But it's close enough for our purposes. 
**: Another option would be to extend the 6e formula. 

I've always maintained that the Champions Universe is Hero's signature setting, and when the role-playing game market was different -- i.e. there was enough of a player base for games other than the very few juggernauts like D&D and World of Darkness who dominate today -- Champions was quite successful and profitable. It has decades of name recognition and an existing fan base. The CU is similar enough to the Big Two comics publishers, DC and Marvel, for people familiar with the supers genre to feel comfortable; but has lots of distinctive elements, and in some areas is even broader and deeper than the Big Two. FWIW I find it quite compelling, in fact it's my favorite supers universe. It also made the transition to video games in Champions Online, and although that never set the world on fire it continues today, after other high-profile super MMORPGs have died.
 
With all of that, though, Hero Games still couldn't keep Champions above water when the RPG market turned. We could discuss to what degree that was due to external circumstances, and what role the company's decisions played. In fact we have discussed that before, at length.
 
Bottom line, I believe Hero Games doesn't need another signature setting. It already has a proven one; what it needs is a way to inject new life into it. That, of course, is a different discussion.

No one needs to apologize for liking something, or not liking something, or preferring one thing to another. That's normal human nature. Where we raise controversy is in taking the position that the reason we prefer something makes it objectively, qualitatively "better." If we can't quantify the difference in a way that makes direct comparisons meaningful, there's no way to win that argument.

What do you guys think about licensed settings?
 
MHI seems semi-popular.
 
Signature settings are cool and valuable but I think for Hero what's more needed is cool shit with specific examples of how you can toolkit Hero to do vastly different stuff.
Like all those GURPS conversion of the WW stuff back in the day.
 
GoT in Hero.
 
Or the Draegeran books or the Malazan books or whatever else. Or The Expanse, or Altered Carbon, or The Umbrella Society, or Sabrina the Teenage Witch, or you know, any semi-known existing IP. Thieves World. Rifts Hero (I only suggest this because the Savage Worlds conversion of Rifts appears extremely popular (in as much as it can be)).
Amber Hero. Lord of Light Hero. Black Company Hero. Farscape Hero. Stargate Hero.
 
I think specific sci-fi and fantasy settings would have more name recognition and honestly, to me at least, be more interesting in terms of adapting Hero to reflect the specific flavors of those fantasy worlds.
It would allow, I think, for differing presentations of the base rules.
 
One of the issues I find with getting folks to play Hero is the ridiculously huge and open-ended books that even with copious examples can be mind-numbingly generalized.
Fantasy Hero 5th Edition is a huge book and presents a lot of cool options and examples but it doesn't present ONE example.
It *could* be like X, or it *could* be like Y, or even Z, but be aware of Q and R and S if you're going to do W.
 
I think it would be beneficial to have less, "Look at this world of endless possibilities!!!", and more, "Here's a working, balanced, populated, functioning game world, with specific mechanics and background.", in general.
 
Anyway. I think a licensed setting would be very helpful.
Fantasy Hero and Hero System are very...non-inspiring on the shelves.
Even "GURPS" is intriguing enough to pick up just to figure out wtf GURPS stands for.
 
Malazan Books of the Fallen: The RPG? I would pick that up immediately. And if I saw, "A Hero System Game" on the cover after picking it up I would buy it immediately.
 
 
Question would be which cool IP out there doesn't already have licensed RPGs associated with it.
 
Any good suggestions for that?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The problem with developing the Champions setting is that theoretically, you're just enhancing the value of something you don't own.  I'm sure Cryptic would be perfectly happy if Hero Games poured a bunch of time and money into the Champions setting and made it really popular again.  That would make them more money.
 
Now, I don't know the terms of the sales agreement, but it may be possible to separate Champions the game from Champions the setting.  The company could possibly decide to create a new setting from scratch, something that they would own.  Of course that means leaving behind Dr Destroyer, VIPER, and a lot of the other pieces of the Champions history.  It might even mean leaving behind the idea of a team named "The Champions".  That would all be determined by the conditions of the sales agreement between them and Cryptic (which, obviously, I don't have and haven't read).
 
I think you could still create a well done Marvel/DC combo universe, but who knows how well that would do in the modern RPG environment.
 
--
 
I see a few possible avenues if Hero Games really wanted to get back in the game.  All of these, of course, would require a significant investment.
 
1.  Find a well known IP that is somewhat stagnant at the moment, but that might have some appeal to fans, and that you can get for cheap.  (Is anybody doing anything with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre at the moment?)
 
2.  Try and guess the next big thing.  Get an IP that hasn't hit yet and hope it blows up big.  (Find some Young Adult book series that hasn't had its movie deal yet)
 
3.  Pick a genre that appears to be underserved, and do a generic version of it.  (All Flesh Must Be Eaten did this with zombies -- can you find the next zombie craze?)
 
 
With all of these, I think you need to be willing to run a bare bones version of the Hero System.  Use only the most needed parts, ditch the rest, and produce a slick book in color that's customized for your setting.  If you're not willing to do that, don't waste your time.

I'd suggest that lifting was  not the cinematic action that anyone would have been considering when assessing the stat ranges. 

Following up my own posting.  Steve says here: 
 
 
Boldface mine.

I tend to disagree with the "subjectivity" part of the argument here.  My reason is as follows: We are not trying to simulate real life, we are simulating a story.  If the story says, you have a beauty which stuns and distracts people, then you buy the power/talent/perk/skill etc. to do that.  Its not about, well, "I have a thing for redheads" or "I have a thing for midgets", its about whether you or the GM are setting up the environment to be able to do that.  The GM sets it up as part of their campaign or house rules.  The player sets it up as part of the character build.
 
Now whether a comeliness stat or a striking appearance talent is better is just personal taste.  
 
Boiled down:
Arguments for a stat:
1) Granularity (or ranking).  This just means I am prettier or uglier than you.
 
Arguments for talent:
1) No longer allows a negative stat to have benefits.  It was the only stat where having a negative value could be beneficial.
2) Its standardized giving a PRE attack bonus for a conditional situation under the control of the player.
3) It expanded looks beyond cosmically beautiful or hellishly ugly.  It could now represent weirdness or fame or anything visually based.
4) It removes superficial ranking when comparing characters.
 
Somethings I did not note above
1) It enhances role playing.  Any game mechanic can enhance or detract from role playing.  Role playing really is up to the players.  You can say "The presence based skill system detracts from role playing.  People should say their speeches and not have an oratory skill.  That's role playing." but no one is arguing about oratory because we can't all be Winston Churchill or Mark Twain.
2) It could be simulated with a disadvantage/complication.  We are talking about about a benefit to a character, so it being a disadvantage or complication is a different beast.  Yes it could be a disadvantage or complication, but you could also buy the talent/stat too with neither(talent/stat or complication/disad) causing a problem for the other.
3) It didn't need to change.  No it might not have but the game designer thought it should have and that it would improve the game.  The question is, is there a need for it not to?
4) Negatives.  Its easier to slam the opponent than to prove your point.  I don't know about you, but I am tired of it in the news so I won't do an argument against.
 
Did I miss a reason for stat or talent?

And they are good ones!
 
 
Well...who said anyone "needed" to? You CAN. COM is *A* way to do that.
 
To me it's like Fringe Benefits. I could play a super whose secret ID is an FBI agent and pay the points for federal law enforcement powers.
Or we could just hand-wave it as part of his background.
 
I could just say my PC is a medical doctor, take PS: Medical Doctor and not take surgery or even paramedics and not buy the fringe benefit.
Or I could get real gritty and buy a nice suite of skills and perks\bennies, including military rank (former Army trauma surgeon) and a license to practice medicine.
 
Either could be used to support roleplaying. Or either could just strictly be mechanics effects. Or they could be free for various reasons.
 
Heck, why have Psych Lims and stuff, right? We can roleplay those too.
I mean if I'm voluntarily roleplaying stuff then is it really disadvantaging me? Should I get points for it?
 
I think of Hero as being used to describe things.
COM is a way to describe things. SA is another. Roleplaying too. Body models (what we called it when you pick an actor\model\person that your character looks like). Perks\Fringe Benefits. Disads.
 
 
 
 
But by the same token if you want to describe your character as being a boy scout and feeling this will sometimes disadvantage him then you could also take points for it. And then not really roleplay it all and only grudgingly abide by the code when the GM gets frustrated with your murderhobo ways.
 
So you CAN, if you want, if it fits your game, playstyle, group, and character, get points for that.
Or just roleplay it if that works better.
 
I could say my PC is Zooland good-looking and...do nothing mechanically. I could take a Disad that he's recognized and chased around in public like Austin Powers. Or I could just buy up my COM. All good options!
Or take SA. Or SA and COM. Or just roleplay it.
 
You know, like Hero does.
 
 
 
 
Sure and neither COM nor SA really prevent that. I'm still going to be roleplaying. If the GM says, "Oh, SuperHottie sure is hot, SA Presence Attack + Seduction roll says you are totes smitten!"
I can say, "Oh, she's really hot for a redhead even though I'm not usually in to that", or you could just roleplay it and say, "Oh, she's really hot for a readhead (because of her COM 20) even tho I'm not usually in to that".
 
 
 
Points are paid for all kinds of stuff to represent and describe game constructs.
You roleplay with those game constructs.
 
My PC doesn't have to roleplay anything when a 16d attack comes at him in a 8d game.
Or he can roleplay being terrified based on what that mean in-game.
 
That's roleplaying directly from mechanical effects.
 
When I build dudes in Hero I pay points to make their mechanics match my desires for them.
I pay points to try to describe them mechanically as I think they should be in a roleplaying sense.
 
If you'd prefer to strictly segregate Roleplaying from Mechanics then...that's totally cool and you should do that.
 
Personally I don't mind things going from mechanics\points to roleplaying and vice versa.
 
If a PC takes, "Prince" as a Fringe Benefit I have no problem with that translating in to better roleplaying (not social skill role mechanics) interactions with peasants.
 
If a PC wants to play a medical doctor and wants to roleplay that as having in-game effects he can buy the Fringe Benefit...and then we'll just roleplay it.
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed! They are not mutually exclusive.
 
 
 
Sure, and if he makes a rousing speech we can roleplay that. Or he can make a Pre Attack to actually create mechanical effects. And if his roleplaying is good I might give him a bonus on the Pre attack. And if his roleplaying is bad, like Toxxus says above, I wouldn't penalize him mechanically for that.
 
And if the powerhouse in question has a COM of 35 and is of an desired gender\sexual configuration for my PC then I might roleplay the "ask to join his team because he respects power" instead of fleeing based on the mechanics.
 
Or I might roleplay my character fleeing because he's got a roleplaying only bad history with NPCs with 30+ COM scores and he ain't fallin' for that no more.
 
 
IF COM is a useful too, for you, for your game, for your players, then use it. And if it is not useful, even if you are playing 4th edition and it's clearly right there in the rules, then don't use it.
 
 
What's useful is....what is useful to you and your players about it?
 
How does it effect or not effect your games?
 
What problems does COM create? What problems does SA create?
 
 
 
 

Captain America has massive, mega-scale powers that are all bought with fully invisible power effects.
 
He didn't face off the armies of Thanos alone because he was suicidal.  He was taking an iconic poster-worthy pose to (gestures, concentration, extra time: full phase) to cast an all-stat / all-powers aid buff on the incoming armies.
 
Think D&D style paladin aura at a larger scale.  One might even argue that his Mind Control:  Only to make people do the right thing is what made Tony Stark take himself out to save the world.
 
DM made him do that since his back-story was normal human enhanced to maximum possible potential by the super soldier serum.
 
Ok, I'm not even remotely serious, but I do like hero builds using effects along those lines.