TranquiloUno

Overall - Loved it.
 
Couple spots on the characteristics chart seem to be off-base.  I can't imagine a campaign where the fighters had a speed of 5+.
Normally I'll let players have a stat or two in your Legendary range as the campaign progresses, but a speed of 6 or 7 seems REALLY high.
 
I will totally forward this to my Wednesday night crew.  That's two groups playing HERO now. 
 
Now if I can corrupt the guys up at Reaper and draw in another crowd.

So I'm sure this topic will bring lots of opinions and heat. I'm sure the AMTs (angry math types) will show up with their calculations to prove the horribleness of other people's ideas, and that is fine.
 
I'd still like to discuss my sense that "Pay for Everything With Points" is a left-over relic of old-school Champions, and that the "problems" of free equipment are not so much with what is free, but with the lack of value in what you actually pay for.
 
As a caveat, I've long since come to the position that "equipment" (including guns and explosives and cell phones and handcuffs, whatever) is just that, equipment like in any other RPG, and it is available to the PCs if it is situationally, plot-wise and economically appropriate for them to have it... no points necessary. If the Cap clone wants to say he has a .45 on his hip but not pay points for it, no problem. I mean, the tendency is to allow lower point, much more vulnerable "Heroic" characters to use and go up against assault rifles and such, why should it be any more unbalancing to let supers have similar access, especially when those weapons are much less likely to be as dangerous to supers? It really isn't.  (There are issues that arise, but it isn't because the equipment is free... see below.)
 
Another reason I can't justify equipment is the following: Imagine a character had a small, palm size device that contained the vast knowledge of humanity at the touch of a button, could light up a room, capture images, communicate over vast distances and do it all through voice interaction. In the '80s, we'd have called this a "Mother Box" and it would have been nearly magical and probably the majority of a 300 point character's point build. Today, this is a cell phone and every idiot has one. Do you still make someone pay points for their smart phone? I certainly don't. That whole concept right there is one of the biggest barriers to entry for new players. It makes no intuitive sense.
 
So, anecdotally, I've been allowing "free equipment" no matter what kind of HERO game we are playing for some time, and it has 90% of the time worked fine, supers or heroic.*
 
But my anecdotes are not your anecdotes, so let's discuss further
 
So... bear with me... what are the downsides of allowing free equipment for supers, with the same caveats as heroic (it is situationally, plot-wise and economically appropriate for the PC to have it)?  Like I said, the AMTs will have all kinds of numbers and formulas, but I think it comes down to one concept: Equipment (free or not) makes super powers less super, powers less powerful.
 
For example: The classic issue in Fantasy Hero, is that the fighter with a sword is dishing out top notch damage, spending points only on stats. The magic user has to sink a ton of points into a "spell" that essentially does the same damage, but cost a big chunk of the build points that the Fighter can spend on all kinds of other things. There is very little outside of contrived plot scenarios, that the blast spell and the sword aren't really just two different SFX for the ability to deal 2 1/2d6K or whatever. Where is the advantage (mechanically) that should come with investing so many points? That magic user ain't feelin' very magical... and that hurts the game.
 
In a supers game, Zapper pays 30 pts for a 2d6RKA electro blast, while Gunman is wielding a 2d6 AF AR-15 at the same time, for minimal point outlay (Weapon Fam).
 
In many cases, especially with modern military arms... equipment is even MORE powerful than the super-powers capped at an AP level far below that of a decent assault rifle. Essentially, super powers (specifically around damage levels) are stuck in '70s-'80s concepts and not caught up with modern understanding of and access to high-powered weaponry. At the same time, HERO has gone out of its way to attempt to standardize/stat out/document the wide variety of weaponry and attack equipment potentially available. Equipment/weapon damage has leveled up over the years, but super-powers haven't (and in fact, buying powers has become MORE expensive for the same abilities over time).
 
Now... part of this is not just raw damage. It is the fact that the game tries to apply "realistic damage and fire rates" to weapons, but doesn't enforce all the "realistic" downsides. Weapons can get heavy, humans get tired quickly hauling and firing them, ammunition needs to be carried and can run out, weapons fire a lot faster and run out a lot faster without necessarily hitting more than the rules allow. Weapons get hot, dirty, broken, need maintenance, slow you down when turning to fire, cause ear and eye damage to the unprotected user, etc. They cost money and require access, and are uncomfortable to carry around even if you aren't using them.
 
I mean, if I could shoot 2d6RKAs out of my fingers, with no needs for any equipment or ammo, just occasionally stopping for a few quick breaths... that WOULD be incredibly super, and amazing, and in the real world would be of HUGE advantage to people relying on equipment. BUT in a HERO game, all that matters is 2d6RKA... whether it comes from my fingers or a gun. If you spend points for your attack, and I don't, I can spend points to be BETTER with that attack even, making super powers even less super.
 
Now, even with free equipment... movement powers still seem super. Defense powers still seems super (unless you are playing super high level SF and everybody has their own power-armor). Enhanced senses and most importantly, inherent stats still feel super. We might all have AR-15s, but the guy with a 40 STR 25/25PD/ED resistant and a base 8 OCV/8DCV is a GOD with those guns compared to the normals. Even if characters have access to free body armor and such, it is quickly and easily outclassed by paid-for powers.
 
Ultimately, what tends to feel "no longer super" or "no longer powerful enough" are the damage dealing powers. They just don't feel super when the guy with the gun is doing essentially the same damage as blasting guy. There is only SFX as a difference.
 
Essentially, the real world downsides (cost, weight, encumbrance, maintenance, ammunition, slowness to ready, etc.) are not appropriately modeled as the real world upside (high damage and rate of fire, etc.) are. 

So, the question is... how do you make attack powers feel powerful in comparison to baseline equipment damage.
 
1) A supers game can ramp up the AP limits of the supers, so that super powers are better than the baseline. I've done this, and found that yes, 600 point characters with 75AP levels do still feel super, because they ARE more powerful than baseline equipment.
2) Start nerfing equipment and putting all kinds of limitations that more accurately reflect how equipment works (this could get unfun, very quickly)
2) Provide a different level of effectiveness for powers, or those things that are "bought with points" (they at faster, more accurate, unencumbered, etc.) and make those things meaningful where it counts, in combat.
 
Thoughts?
 
* There is a completely valid reason why a Player/PC might want to pay points in the traditional way, not just use free equipment, but that is another discussion and can be addressed later in this thread.

How I learned hero was  being handed a pre-generated character, and sat down in front of a map, and talked to people on my left and right, and just followed the instructions< However my RPG Experience at the time was D&D First edition, Bushido, Advanced Melee/Wizard, and some Traveller, so I was not a total Neophyte.

I think  having a choice of pre-generated characters / NPCs where all the creation work is done, and simplified, until people feel comfortable with the basic system. Simple simple adventures, and resources, and only lkeep the points and constructions in an appendix (Do you want to know more...?) First off it needs to be a fun game. THEN you introduce the complexity.
 
 

Champions, from its inception, was a superhero roleplaying game designed to simulate 1960s-1980s era, Marvel-esque style superhero adventures.  The Hero System was designed to be a single system that can handle anything you'd see in an action film.  

I think I've never made any secret of the fact that I prefer 3e.  "Better" or "best" implies a value judgement (subjective), but it also wants to know, better for what purpose?  
 
In my entirely subjective opinion, for instance, Champions 3rd edition is a better superhero RPG than Champions under any of the HERO System versions that came out later, but any of the later editions are perfectly serviceable superhero systems. 
 
In my entirely subjective opinion, superhero games under Hero are different from "agent level" or "talented normal" or "heroic level" games (whatever you want to call them), qualitatively different enough that they're better off with separate games.  Every time I've played a non-superheroic game under any "HERO System edition" it's felt to me exactly like Champions at a lower power level.  I've tried to run games, and in spite of me verbally telling the players what the parameters are, and having those parameters in writing in the form of character creation guidelines, they have flat out ignored them in favor of handing in 150 point superheroes.  So I don't run games anymore.  When I've played in other games, the other players are all essentially playing 150 point superheroes. 
 
Fantasy Hero 1st edition is not a low powered superhero game; it's a fantasy game.  Danger International is not a low powered superhero game; it's a game of gritty modern action.  Justice Inc. is a pulp novel game, with pulp heroes that are just starting out, not a cinematic action blockbuster game that happens to take place in the 1930's (Brendan Fraser in The Mummy).  In my entirely subjective opinion, HERO System, any edition, is a superhero game with buried options to let your superheroes carry guns or swords or laser pistols, not a fantasy game or a modern military and espionage game.  It turns every genre into an action blockbuster film.  Justice Inc. is not Pulp Hero; Danger International is not Dark Champions; Fantasy Hero 1st edition is not the Fantasy Hero that happens under 4th, 5th or 6th editions.  
 
I've got a lot going on right at the moment, but I do want to talk about this more.  I've got more to say, and I need to gather my thoughts about it.  

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/alignmentConsiderationNotes.aspx

As part of my ongoing effort to convert my D&D group over to the amazing Hero System 6th Edition I'm looking for advice and guidance on how you would write up and convert the Alignment system as Psychological complications?
 
For example I think the Neutral and Neutral versions would be worth less since they are less restrictive while Lawful and Chaotic versions would be worth more. 
 
Thanks in advance. 

In a normal game, the challenges and dangers involve Rayzer Blade stabbing you with a laser gun, getting punched by Obligatory Cold Pun's massive ice-clad fists, or having your secrets stolen by Suckerberg's mind-sharing powers. 
FRED quite wisely proscribes using social skills on PCs for the reasons you mentioned. 
 
But to me, "political/intrigue game" suggests that the challenges and dangers should involve cunning courtesans wooing you so they can manipulate you into acting on their behalf (or so they can stab you when you're unarmored), courtly rivals flinging veiled insults to goad you into brash and reckless actions (possibly ones that end in their bodyguards punching you), or a masterful statesman leading you into a trap of words that leads to you accidentally admitting something unpleasant (like your secrets). 
Put more generally, I would take "political/intrigue game" to mean one where the proscriptions are, by necessity, lifted.  You could, I admit, run a game where the PCs are always "on the attack" in social scenes and everything boils down to them initiating the die-rolls and them being cunning and clever and manipulative.  But that seems to me like it'd gut the ability of NPCs to be cunning and clever and manipulative and place the PCs in this bizarre state where only certain highly specific lines of social attack as determined by their disads are possible. 
 
Overall, to me, "political/intrigue game" requires players to opt into the idea of having less agency.  Communicating that fact to prospective players would be critical. 

In games where there are mechanics for social/political interactions (that I have played) it goes a bit deeper. It really is about designing rules for player agency, so even if the character "loses" the player is still engaged and the story moves forward and "losing" can be as interesting and satisfying as "winning."  (There is also a certain mindset of de-protagonism required for players about their characters, which is not always easy, even for people like me who like that kind of thing.)
 
I have played many PBtA (Powered by the Apocalypse) games, and the basic core mechanic is 2d6 and you get one of three results; full success (things happen the way you wanted them to), success with a challenge (you did what you wanted, but there is a complication), failure (things did not work out and GM can act against you). The GM rolls NO dice, ever. They merely respond to what the players initiate, and it can be with a failure, that even the player gets to suggest what bad thing happens. 
 
Dogs in the Vineyard (only played a little) there is a very cool dice pool mechanic that enables any kind of conflict resolution, but there are player choices... you can back down at any time which is sometimes best, because you can see your pool just won't beat their pool, so there is a mechanical reason to not do the typical "I just keep fighting even in the face of insurmountable odds, 'cause I'm a PC darn it!" attitude. Also, the player invokes  aspects of their characters to increase the dice pool at a cost later, or takes a hit now, for a bonus later, etc. (I'm vastly simplifying here.) The point is that the mechanic actually forces the player to think "What is the best way to move this current scene along" rather than "What would my character do?"... which I've always found to be a sham argument. Also, you can benefit from taking a smaller loss earlier, saving resources for later, or just not risking everything... making a judgment call on when (in the story, scene, plot) you need to go all in, vs. when you can back off. The game's mechanics support this kind of thinking.
 
To me it is about player attitude in a social/political style game (and a traditional action adventure game as well to a lesser extent)... in that the players need to go in being not just "ok with" but actively interested in the give and take, back and forth, success and failure of social and political interactions... not just "winning"... and the rules and mechanics should help support the players having fun even when the conflicts go against them. 
 
While this mentality is important in traditional "fight and kill what the GM throws at me" game, it is WAY more important in social/political type games for reasons stated above. If the player is engaged, win or lose, then there is no loss of agency... they are just as much driving the "here is the tragic downfall of my character" as they are "here is my character kicking ass". 

Great stuff! Thanks everyone!
 
Follow up: All these "doing political stuff as concrete combat maneuvers with real mechanics" ideas.  Have any of you actually done this in Hero?

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

This is what I'm alluding to above, that it felt like a move too far to the "over-engineering of characters builds" side of thing, while ignoring "actual play" and the results of using the rules in play.

I've said before that Hero became "two games"... the "build your character game" and the "actual play at the table" game. The mechanics, even all the massive supplements, became stylistically and functionally removed from implementing actual play. A tendency to deconstruct everything to the Nth degree, without a focus on whether you SHOULD bother deconstructing, and does it actually help you play the game better with actual people and dice rolling and plots and dialogue going on, etc.
 

I have no more likes today, otherwise I would offer you some.
 
It is really interesting how there is a tendency, myself included, for players to resist loss of autonomy of character way more than destruction of character.  i.e. I've had many a character shot, stabbed, imprisoned, mutilated, paralyzed, poisoned, tortured and killed... and that is just "eh... whatever..." and I role play appropriately...  BUT... if a character is somehow "convinced to work with the bad guy" or "trust someone the player knows they shouldn't" or whatever... then it becomes "This sucks..." and every moment by the player is spent trying to loophole their way out.
 
I believe this is because role playing a character who is making a bad choice/acting against their own interests... is not just about the character losing autonomy... but the PLAYER losing autonomy. Psychologically, you've removed my agency as a player. More importantly, the player is now actively complicit in doing further harm to their character/party. This is "feels bad man" 100%. Role playing combat where you lose is attacking the "Character"... role playing social/politics where you lose is attacking the PLAYER.
 
The reason I bring this up, is that it comes back to mechanics. When you are involved in social/political type conflicts where the negative result is not "I lose a few abstracted points from my HP/Stun/Body total" and becomes "I'm now forced to act against my characters interest (notice "I" in this case is the player)... you need to have mechanics that actively reward the player for doing so. The game should be as fun and interesting when the social combat goes against you, as when it goes in your favor. This is fundamentally what good Nar mechanics are about, and why Hero, at its base, is not designed to do this. Can you hack the system to approximate something... maybe... can you "bolt-on" an external mechanic, possibly. I've done it with Luck Chits and such, but this is a mechanic that can work WITH Hero, but it isn't a Hero mechanic.
 
Hero is a brilliant task resolution system. "Did I pick the lock? Did I hit? How much damage did I take?" etc. Social/Political conflict resolution should be something very different, because you are not just resolving a quantifiable effect to a character sheet, you are often resolving an unquantifiable change to HOW THE PLAYER MUST PLAY THEIR CHARACTER. This is a fundamentally different thing.

I hate to do the "broken record" thing... but APG II breaks down how to do this mechanically in Hero in great detail. In fact, it describes three optional systems: Skills based, Talents based, and Combat Maneuvers based, that last similar to what RDU Neil describes.

I've got to say, politics and intrigue, etc, are world-building a role-playing.  I don't even see the connection to game mechanics-- any game, any mechanics-- period.  I mean, yes, there are Skills in the game.  But unless I've missed something really huge in 6e, the rules have always mentioned "this is the way skills work.  This list is a suggestion for commonly-seen skills.  Feel free to add any other Skill you want."
 
And that's really only important you think you need some sort of "Save vs Intrigue" action going on.

The other useful source is The Ultimate Base.
 
It's suggestions for Kingdom level actions are frankly horribly bland, but could be wrapped up in colour. Part of the problem it has, and acknowledges, is that it is trying to cover too many cases.
 
The relevant chapter ("Kingdom Creation") starts like this:
"This chapter of The Ultimate Base takes the concept of a “Base” to all-new levels. It features rules for creating and playing nations, kingdoms, cities, planets, organizations, and similar entities as “characters” in the HERO System. Collectively, for game purposes, these entities are referred to as Kingdoms (capital K), even though many aren’t kingdoms in the traditional sense of that word."
 
By nesting this concept, you could have characters contesting control of political factions, factions contesting control of parties, parties contesting control of nations, and these nations competing with rivals...
 
Amongst other things, there's a "KINGDOM COMBAT MANEUVERS TABLE". Horribly abstract, of course.
 
This stuff begs to be used with the APG II social combat stuff.
 
Heh. My beef with 6e is that it's over-complete, not under-complete. ?

For question two, Interaction Skills are the easiest way to go. Both Hero System Skills and Advanced Players Guide I go into detail on using Interaction Skills in a variety of social situations. However, APG II describes a detailed optional "Social Combat" system, including "combat maneuvers" and "damage" effects.
 
One unofficial element that has potential is a mechanic that Hero Games author Shelley Chrystal Mactyre proposed in relation to her long-in-limbo Regency Hero source book project: Reputation Points.
 
On the non-mechanical front, in the past I posted to the forums a campaign concept and large number of "plot seeds," under the overall heading, Besruhan Intrigues, for a fantasy campaign stressing politics and intrigue at least as much as fighting and exploring, set in Hero Games's "Turakian Age" setting. As you suggest, most such interactions would be handled through role-playing; but the region I chose includes a number of elements which I felt naturally led to plots to draw PCs into those power maneuvers.

Since I'm the one who said that, I'll chime in...
 
It is very possible to have a game using Hero that has a lot of intrigue and politics in it, but IMO that is more the genre/trappings of an otherwise action adventure game, not the "point of the game."  For example, I've been running a Heroic level game called Secret Worlds off and on for years now. The characters are "specials" in that they have a level of skill and ability above average to normals, but no real "powers." They specials are involved in conspiracies and back alley battles between secret organizations vying for power. It is very much steeped in the real world politics and events. (Think Mr. Robot, X-Files and Jason Bourne combined).
 
While building alliances and figuring out the plots and agendas of the competing groups... determining who is the enemy is, etc., ... are all part of the plot, the mechanics around these are tangential. They involve the same basic "make some skill rolls to find out information" that any other game would. Having Perks and Contacts and Resources are all important, but they don't decide the game mechanically. There is no "Perk vs. Perk" resolution system... is my investigation better than your dark conspiracy?... type of mechanical resolution. They are background, color, and occasionally important for a turn in the narrative...
 
... but mechanically, the game is Hero-style action adventures. Gunfights and martial arts battles. Knives in the dark, and car chases, etc. (talk about something else Hero doesn't do well.. vehicle combat... we abstract that a great deal.)
 
To me... a game that is "about" Politics is a game that mechanically supports the characters taking political actions... assembling coalitions, persuading and influencing others, etc. And not just a basic "Roll Persuasion" and then have to just "make up" what that roll means. It would have defined, mechanical impact on the opposing character... they could deflect the argument, verbally riposte... there would be back and forth just like a martial arts fight in Hero, punching and blocking and dodging, but in a verbal/social way... and there would be just as many variants and complex mechanics for resolving these political and social conflicts as there are in Hero for resolving physical and mental combat. (It might be possible to bastardize the mental powers and combat maneuvers to reflect this, but again, it is bending Hero out of shape to do something it wasn't intended to do.)
 
Think of it this way... in Hero you often have hundreds of points in combat skills, abilities and powers, and a few skills that are social. A truly Political or Social game would be the opposite... the majority of a character focused on many and varied nuances of political skills, abilities and powers... and a few skills like "Fight 13-" to resolve the background moments of combat.
 
 

Wow'zers....  I had never thought I'd see someone else on these forums have this epiphany. ?
 
That hits dead center on why Hero has become a dead game. My definition of a dead game is one that is not generally available for purchase via standard distribution.  And Hero is a game that can only be purchased in electronic form if you know it exists.  
 
But back to your post.  I'll complete your main theme:
"In order to get customers, you have to get them playing the game."
"To get them playing the game you have to have people running games."
"To get people running the game you have to provide adventures to start them off."
 
The problem with Champions Complete (CC) and Fantasy Hero Complete (FHC) is they are complete kits to build games.  They are not a Complete Games. 
 
Now I know the "let Hero die away quietly" crowd will immediately chime in with "Real gamers don't use pregenerated adventuress and campaigns!"  and then point to the existing products like The Turakian Age as proof.  But they refuse to realize that TA's layout was enough to send potential players running.  A new player (or GM) has to wade through 175 pages of in depth world descriptions before they hit the section of building a PC.  To build a Wizard TA tells you that it has a 100 extra spells in TA, but you need the Grimoire (another product).  FHC on the other hand just tells them a Mage gets 50 CP's of magic and spells, but doesn't contain any or give any usable advice on which ones to start with. 
 
D&D 5th may have the entire spell list in the PHB, but a new player only has to read and understand 1 or 2 out of a list of 10 or so in the beginning.   What FHC should have had was detailed templates for Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling Warriors, Wizards, Rogues and Priests.  These would be rounded out with prebuilt and short spell lists, abilities/powers, weapons and gear appropriate to beginning adventures in a very very reduced slice of TA.   A village on the frontier where the PC's stop goblin raiders.
 
My point is that CC or FHC is not ready to play.  And unless there is a ready to play version, people will not play it. 
 
Sure, like everyone in this forum, I refer my own homebrew campaigns and worlds.  But CC and FHC is exactly like all the other RPG's in that people need to play it and learn how it works in play before they can really begin creating their own stuff.  I am pretty sure that everyone that has played 1st thru 4th editions has played Vipers Nest.  We played it because it was a great way to try out Champs and see how things actually worked.  In hindsight I believe it would have been even better if they had included 5 or 6 pregenerated Heroes.  Not The Champions, but a few initial build PC's.  But that is just my opinion.
 
Take CC and FHC as written, reformat into a modern book.  The text can be reformatted to fit a modern layout with art.  But the actual rules do not, that is DO NOT need yet another rewrite.  But they do need a third section at the end.  Six pregenerated Heroes and a short three connected scenarios adventure. A mini-campaign with all the villains, monsters etc. ready to go.  They do not need to be elaborate and world shaking.  They can be just tough enough for initial builds.  They need to provide opportunities for combat and non-combat skill use. 
 
This would allow new to Hero players to actually experience the game in play and give them something to look at and say "I get it, that is what they meant".  
 
With Hero, once the system clicks you will never look back.  But it will never really have an opportunity to click if no one ever plays it. 
 
 

I struggled with this for a bit and ended up using a variation of the Guarding rule.
 
In my Fantasy Hero campaign I allow the players to Abort to make this attack though the person provoking does not suffer 1/2 DCV unless the character had Held an action.
I also allow characters with Held actions to move to intercept an opponent trying to bypass them.
 
Melee stickiness is a difficult thing in all turn-based games, but I find the idea that you can walk right pass defenders unopposed feels wrong.  The front line needs some way to actually maintain a front line other than fighting in narrow corridors.

Well, you're assuming the background of the player. They could be coming from any game at all, or no game. 
 
Even if coming from D&D (I'm not familiar with 5e, but historically speaking) a character can't just buy hit points or AC. They have to get them from base stats and leveling, plus any gear they can buy or plunder. Coming to the Hero System, that's not true. A character can directly buy resistance to death and unconsciousness and getting hit and whatever. Yay! If you gathered the 5 people who have introduced the most other people from D&D et al to the Hero System, it is possible I'd be among them. So, I've been over that particular stretch of ground often enough.
 
But you missed my point entirely, which was that a player coming into the Hero System in 6e lacking prior knowledge of earlier editions and the fact that those earlier editions had something called "Figured Characteristics" would  not somehow, Creskin-like, intuit that such a thing should exist and more specifically the particular (mathematically bad) set of calculations that drove them.
 
Thus, while in the minds of people with a prior experience with the Hero System, there is a construct labeled "Figured Characteristics" plus whatever that means to them regarding how it worked and whether they like it or not, that is not the case for a player new to 6e and thus it would not occur to such a person that there was such a thing or that it had been removed. The idea of it has no meaning outside of the people who already know about it. That's the whole point.
 
Instead, such a player looking at what the rulebook "Characteristics" section actually tells them, would likely figure out that the things called "Defense" described as reducing the damage taken from a certain kind of attack might be good to buy up a bit. Similarly, all the other characteristics.
 
The "figureds helped players not make gimped characters" line of argument has never made sense to me, because it pretends a) that the book doesn't tell players what each characteristic does and why a character might consider buying each characteristic, and b) that having read the blurbs for each characteristic (or even just seen their names and guessing the general idea of what each is for) new players are somehow too dumb to figure out what they want for their characters. And even if a player does come along and make a 6 SPD character with 10 DEX or something like that, so what? Best case scenario, they might enjoy playing an impetuously quick but clumsy character, worst case maybe they'll learn something and grow in understanding of the game that will benefit them as they make more characters in the future. 
 
However, while I'm more than happy to have a general game design conversation (I love game design conversations), that's not really what I want to talk about in this thread. I think you may have read more into my comment than I meant. If you want to email me or start up a general discussion thread on game design, I'd participate in a conversation about it in general, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread.

You've got a solid point: drop in a ship you can already get a map for-- a relatively well-known ship if you think you want the extra clues for your players; that is definitely a huge work-saver. 
 
I just wanted to clarify: I am the guy who thought it would be a fun twist.  I even vaguely dreamed of turning it around in a grand, twenty-year plan (you know when you're young and thin the same group will game together, twice a week at least, forever and ever, Amen?) that saw the fantasy earth slowly give way, through various "magical" and geological machinations, to the rise of the dinosaurs, then the ice-age, through which the various mammal-type endured best... 
 
On through to two or three historical-set games, then a modern campaign or two, then a couple of sci-fi that took us further and further into the stars.... 
 
Then a big opera that took things back to that one specific trade colony... 
 
Yeah.  I knew it couldn't happen, but man was it a glorious vision! 
 
It was my players at the time (and likely the bulk of them now) that didn't want the chocolate in their peanut butter.  Me?  I don't even like too much Fantasy in my Fantasy.  I prefer low fantasy (when I do fantasy) or a more occult-type magic.  My favorite fantasy games I've ever been involved in were a pulp/voodoo thing and an occult/Western thing, both of which featured what I referred to (for lack of a better term) "shamanistic magic," when there was magic at all. 
 
 
Duke

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

I first started playing Champions/Hero System with 3rd Edition in the late 1980s and over the years collected earlier edition books followed by 4th, 5th, and 6th Edition. In terms of 6th Edition products, I have Champions Complete, Hero Basic, and Champions. Am not sure if there is an overall reason why 6e is disliked, but here are two observations for your consideration that I gathered from my own experience as a customer and from talking with the dozen or so players/fans I meet in game conventions over the years when I run Champions:
 
1) In terms of style and graphic design, Champions 6th Edition products seem dated compared to other superhero game systems. Champions Complete's cover and interior b&w art was average and the soft-cover binding was okay, but previewing it next to other games like Mutants & Masterminds, Icons, or even Savage Worlds: Supers on the display rack, there was a distinct different in quality in terms of style. While some in this forum liked the textbook design for the 6th Edition rule book covers, the fans I spoke to in person didn't care for it (myself included). People still do judge a book by its cover to see if it's even worth previewing or passing on it outright.
 
2) The amount of rules made it difficult to introduce new players to Hero System. I had Hero Basic, but others had saw how many other rule books there were to get started for 6th Edition and were immediately turned off. A common occurrence was that the players had previously played Champions until <insert edition number here> for one reason or another but then stopped, most commonly due to the excessive rules being piled on in later editions.  The Champions Now kickstarter is drawing upon 3rd Edition or early rules for various reasons, drawing a mix of support and criticism of Hero Games senior staff being out-of-touch as to what their fans want as mentioned in other discussions. Even now, my go-to system of superhero games for brand-new players has been Icons and not Champions, and that's even with simplified versions of characters that I created (4th Edition versions). 
 
People who still play Champions/Hero System are going to choose their favorite edition and pull aspects from others accordingly to round out their campaign. It's unrealistic to convince them which is better than the other (or vice versa) in terms of game mechanics. Some like the simplicity of 3rd Edition and earlier (hence, Champions Now that's under development), some like the completeness of 4th Edition (BBB with George Perez cover art), others like the detailed comprehensiveness of 5th Edition (sourcebooks are extremely well done), and others like the new mechanics of 6th Edition (e.g. no "freebies" from Figured Characteristics).

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.
 
 

Yeah, that's Hero System #500, my personal favorite game book ever published and my nomination for GOAT (greatest of all time).