rjcurrie

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

One of the big selling points for 5th edition was the questionnaire that was put out. List 5 things you want to see changed in Hero rules. Not only did you get a feel that they really cared what the fans had to say, but you wanted to see if they listened to you or if your idea made it into the final cut. That was a good move.

 

The discussion forum idea was pretty good but from the changes being announced I get the feeling it was more symbol than substance. That may be completely unfair, we've not seen the actual product to know... its just that of the things announced, they all were things Steve wanted to do already so there's no indication of customer input here yet.

 

That's what I mean by "oh cool" factor. Maybe you like figured characteristics being peeled off of the main stats, maybe you didn't. But that's not anything that takes people by surprise, particularly: he said he was inclined to do so unless convinced otherwise.

Actually, I would counter that while Steve mentioned changing the name of Elemental Controls (and suggested Unified Power as a possibility) and asked about making changes to it, I think the idea of replacing the Framework altogether with a Limitation was something that came out of discussions on the boards.

I asked Steve last night about whether he found anything really interesting in the 6E forums and he replied, "Rod - oh, yeah, absolutely! There was plenty of dross, but there were also some real gems, including a couple of ideas that were so good they practically took my breath away." Does that sound like someone who treated those threads as more symbol than substance?

When I asked if he was pleased with 6E turned out, he said "Rod -- yes, I am absolutely happy with how 6E turned out. It was a lot of hard work, and there were a lot of tough, even agonizing, decisions to make, but ultimately I think 6E is the best version of HERO yet." Again, this doesn't sound like someone with his mind made up ahead of time.

The other thing to remember is that these reveals were not a marketing release, they were answers to questions from people in the chat. That is why they primarily cover areas that Steve had mentioned in the initial posts of the 6E forum -- it's what people were asking about. That's why I posted the interesting tidbits -- to give a clearer idea of what the chat was like.

In many ways, it was a guy who was just completing one of the biggest projects of his life chatting with some friends and dropping some hints about the project. He clearly is saving some things for later reveals -- heck, maybe not even until the books themselves come out and also seems to feel that some ideas are a little too big to really discuss in a chat. Perhaps once he has more free time, he will share some of these more complex (but not necessarily complicated) changes on the boards.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I think Steve was sincere. I think he was very sincere when he said he'd be very unlikely to change some things. I thought he was pretty up front about it. He probably didn't see merit in many of the arguments against changes, because at the end of the day, his changes ended up working out mechanically similar, and they -- at least in his point of view -- added some benefit.

 

If the mechanics of something give the same end result, then all we are arguing over is the aesthetics of the mechanics. I think that's what the bulk of the arguments of this thread have been. And that's why they'll never end, because they're for the most part subjective.

The discussion in this thread has given me a small epiphany about how people view the Hero System and how that colors their reaction to the reported 6E changes. I think of it as "Concept" vs. "Implementation".

In my mind, "Concept" refers to the basic philosophical underpinnings of the Hero System. For example:

• You should be able to build pretty much any character with the rules.
  
• all characters are built with points and in general, if you want something, you pay for it.
  
• Characteristics start at a base point and are bought up or down from there.
  
• Powers are built from basic "effects" that are altered by various modifiers.
  
• Players receive points for providing the GM with a list of things that complicate the character's life
  

There are more but I'm sure you get the general idea.

On the other hand, "Implementation" is the actual rules -- the nitty, gritty details of how the "Concept" is actually implemented.

I think there are basically two camps of people who love the Hero System: "Concept Lovers" who primarily love the concepts behind the system and "Implementation Lovers" who primarily love specific rules and game mechanics.

For example, let's look at the idea of decoupling Figured Characteristics.

The Concept Lover looks at it and sees that it is primarily a change in implementation and doesn't really affect the concepts of the game, so he has no problems with the change.

The Implementation Lover looks at it and, if Figured Characteristics are one of the implementation that he loves, sees something he loves going away and thus, has problems with the change.

Basically, Concept Lovers will react poorly to concepts that they love being changed and may be less concerned about actual rules while Implementation Lovers will react poorly to implementation details (that is, rules) they love being changed.

Okay, it's probably not really that simple, but I think it sums up why people are reacting as they are. For example, I think I am clearly a Concept Lover, while Lord Mhoram, for example, seems to be clearly an Implementation Lover.

Does anyone else see this or am I completely off base?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I don't like the change, particularly, but I can see why he made it. The change may also come with a loosening up of the whole "If a Disadvantage doesn't kill, maim, render your character insane, or useless, then it's not a disadvantage" thing. Because, frankly, some GMs take that whole aspect of Disads too far.

 

If the goal is to make Disads be a reward for adding color to your character and fleshing it out with real background detail that has a game impact, and to get away from the whole problem of having to roll for frequency for the collective DNPCs, Hunteds, Rivals, etc. for an entire team of characters, and wedge all of that into the plot, then using a more moderate term, like "Complications" makes sense.

I'm pretty sure the second paragraph is exactly the goal.

I do expect that there'll be a statement like "A Complication that doesn't complicate the life of the character is not a Complication". But probably it will be worded better.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

this is entirely subjective but I find "complications" really annoying it seems like PC or political spin talk.

 

Template works for me

Complication wouldn't have been my choice either.

Based on various brief comments Steve has made here and there, I think his goal with this change was:

• Remove any confusion caused by the fact that Disadvantages were not the opposite of Advantages.
  
• Give the game element formerly known as Disadvantages a name that more accurately described its role in the game.
  

Personally, I would have chosen Hook or Story Hook. But Steve didn't. And it's just a name so I'll get used to using the new one. But I definitely still expect to hear "Disadvantages" used for years -- just like there are people who don't change when a sports stadium or arena changes its name because of corporate naming rights.

I do think Complications is slightly better than Disadvantages as term to describe the role this game element plays. Thinks like Hunteds, DNPC, and Psychological Complications are things that complicate the life of the character.

The change of "Psychological, Physical, and Social Limitations" to "Psychological, Physical, and Social Complications" (although Psychological is the only one specifically mentioned -- but I'd amazed if the other two were not there) removes potential confusion between something named Limitation that is not part of the set of game elements known as Limitations.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

The other issue is that for those of us who freelance, it really doesn't MATTER whether or not we like the changes. If we wish to remain professionally committed, learn or die.

 

Therefore, since I'm already professionally committed, I must learn or die.

Well, at times I think you should be committed. Just kidding.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Interesting tidbits from the June 3 chat that haven't been covered:

*******

mudpyr8: Healing?

Steve Long: mud -- what about Healing?

mudpyr8: Any signif changes?

Steve Long: Hmmm. Depends on what you call "significant." I think I'll keep mum on that one for now.

*******

Steve Long: The discussion of how to handle Killing Damage was probably the single longest and most frustrating that I've hashed over with SETAC, but as always good things emerged from the chaos and thunder.

*******

The Rose: Is healing being redone?

Steve Long: Rose -- depends on what you mean by "redone." That's about all I'll say for now.

*******

rjcurrie: Is there any easier way to do "Possession" in 6E?

Steve Long: Rod -- that's one I'm still considering. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure I will have the time to work up something to my own satisfaction, since it can be a very complex topic. There have been some strong arguments raised in favor of a "Possession" Power, but I think there are also some strikes against it. We'll see how I feel about it when I start my final pass through the rules. Same for a "Projection" Power to do astral forms and what-all.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Some interest tidbits from Steve's June 10th chat:

sacolcor: Steve: Okay, I'll try a couple then. BOECV in 5E is kind of a conglomerate of (AVLD vs. MD) + (Line of Sight) + (Use OECV to attack) + (Use DECV to defend). But sometimes you only want a subset of these, and some powers have some of them already, and there's no other way in 5E to make a power ECV targeted. Is there a better way in 6E?

Steve Long: sacolcor -- I don't want to go into details, but yes -- yes, there is. That's one of the niftiest new things in 6E in my opinion, and I predict you're gonna like it. I think that's a good example of something that occurred at several places in 6E -- taking things that were similar, or that had organically grown too complex, and breaking them down into "pieces parts" and re-assembling them in ways that make them easier to use *and* more flexible.

*******

rjcurrie: Steve, you mentioned last week that there were new powers in 6e -- can you give an example? Or would you like to keep them to yourself for now?

Steve Long: Rod -- sorry, I'll keep mum on the new Powers for now.

*******

IndianaJoe3: Any new Skills?

Steve Long: IJ -- no, I saw no need to add any. A couple have been tweaked or expanded based on other rules changes/additions, but there aren't any new ones.

*******

torchwolf: Steve - Will there be any additions to Mental and Spiritual Transform?

Steve Long: torch -- I don't think I can answer that without going into some things in greater detail than I easily can here, so I say "check" and wait 'til the betting comes back around to me.

*******

sacolcor: One other question: In 5E, it's very hard to make a sub-megascale-but-still-really-big Explosion, because unlike AE, it scales linearly instead of doubling for (+1/4). Any change?

Steve Long: Sacolcor -- that's another one I can't go into right now, partly because some things don't explain well in single sentence bites.

*******

rjcurrie: ah, yes, what are Disadvantages called in 6e?

Steve Long: Rod -- they are called Complications. Which entails some logical name changes, e.g., Psychological Complication.

*******

Susano: Steve -- you still using "Package Deal"?

Steve Long: Susano -- no, the term "Package Deal" has been changed to "Template." Which is, I think, more accurate and easier to use.

*******

Psistrike: Hey Steve. Simple question, not sure if you can answer it right now. Did you come up with an easier way to give weapons/larger than normal beings reach without Stretching with a ton of advantages and limitations?

Steve Long: Changing from hexes to meters made it much easier to define and deal with issues pertaining to Reach.

*******

rjcurrie: Is PER still based on INT?

Steve Long: Rod -- yes. I considered making it a separate Skill, but ultimately that didn't seem like a change that would add anything or improve anything in any serious way, so I didn't make it.

*******

rjcurrie: do any of the Characteristics have extra functionality that they didn't have in 5e?

Steve Long: Rod -- what do you want to do, kick the hornet's nest? Sorry, I'm not answering any questions about Characteristics that detailed and philosophical.

*******

Susano: Steve -- Is Damage Shield any different?

Steve Long: Susano -- I will say "Yes," but I am not givin' out any details yet.

*******

rjcurrie: Steve, something that someone mentioned in chat earlier today, is there a generic advantage similar to Limited Power?

Steve Long: Rod -- no, there isn't. I see no need for one.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

you could do that in 4th and 5th ed

you just discribed your character as such

but if you wanted it to have an effect in game you had to buy it

 

this starting to smell of being PC

Actually, I suspect it boils down to one thing: Steve Long did not like COM as a Characteristic and no was able to convince him it should be kept. No more, no less.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Depending on what it does' date=' it might not behave like current figs, though. I suspect unified power is something like a -1/4 limitation that means you drain the entire power as a single power, or some such.[/quote']

 

I suspect you're right on that. In any event, the real comment that Steve made about Unified Power is that there are no restrictions on what the Limitation can be applied to.

 

I assume that this means it can be applied to any power of any size and even to a Multipower. So, for example, Super Fire Guy could apply it to his Flight, Force Field, Damage Shield, Extra Limbs (that is, Fiery Tendrils), and Infrared Perception as well as to his Multipower of Fire Attacks. This would effectively cause them to be treated as aspects of a larger power. Of course, assumign that if does mean "Drain one, drain 'em all", then the characerr is at risk of losing all these powers when any one of them is Drianed.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Went back to look at the OP for the current scoop, and noticed a little detail.

 

Striking Appearance is a optional talent.

 

Let's repeat that: it is an option. As in, not a regular rule. Not standard.

 

So not only is COM gone, it's sadly inadequite replacement isn't a standard rule.

 

Now a GM can run games where appearnance makes no difference at all and say "I don't care how drop-dead-from-a-heart-attack gorgeous Venus is, Iron Man made his EGO roll and resists her advances."

 

 

 

And let me tell you, my wife is going to be really pissed about it when she finds out!

First of all, I'm pretty sure Lord Liaden got a little confused

Here are Steve Long's exact words about Striking Appearance:

--Comeliness is being removed as a Characteristic and replaced with a Striking Appearance Talent. A game element that exists primarily to affect rolls made with a Characteristic (i.e.' date=' Interaction Skill rolls, in this case) isn't itself a Characteristic; it's a Talent. If you don't want your character's appearance to have any game effect, just describe him as being as good-looking (or ugly) as you want; no one cares. But if you want it to have an in-game effect, buy the Talent.[/quote']

 

When Lord Liaden described Striking Appearance as optional, I think he was trying to convey the concept that you don't need to buy Striking Appearance for a beautiful character if you don't see that character's beauty having a game effect.

 

There has been nothing that Steve has said in chats or on the boards that would indicate that Striking Appearance is anymore optional than any other Talent.

 

And as for running games where a character's appearance makes no difference, GMs can do that in 5E. They can just drop COM as a Characteristic or simply ignore its effects.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

3 is just what the "figured" stat from DEX 10 has been for the past 30 years has been.

That is the only thing that Steve had said about base values for characteristics, so it was the only thing that I could realy draw any conclusions from. Since he decided the base CVs should be 3, it seemed logical that DEX and EGO were still going to have a base of 10 -- or at the vey least, it implied that Steve had not decided to do the "build from 0" thing.

But since the "special effect" of being a biological being is no longer being enforced by the rules, and is now left, assuming the gamemaster likes people with similar special effects following the same guidelines, to gamemaster to enforce, why not just take it all the way and make no assumptions and start everything at zero.

Steve decided not to. It would be easy to do yourself in your own games. But it's exactly the same as starting at 10 and buying things down.

And one could argue that the special effect of being a biological being is still there -- in fact, it's pretty clear that the default character is a Terran human. The sense rules imply that. The Life Support rules imply that and so on. You have to buy abilities and/or take Disadvantages to be anything different.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

it will have to look like an over worked kludged monster compared to the beautiful mechanic of comp rolls already in the game

 

I'm not saying it cannot be done in 6e

I'm saying you will need to use this ugly bastard stepchild of multiple activates to simulate a feature that is now gone (for the Com stat only)

and take up way too much space on the character sheet

 

Other than a cost of the stat,the stat,the stat roll and a mechanic that is used for other stat and skill rolls

So, put COM back in your game and don't use Striking Appearance.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Hopefully' date=' SexEd will get rid of the characteristics having a non-zero start value. I mean that whole "start at 10" implies that I'm playing an adult who is a little better than the average person in the street. Why not just start all the characteristics at zero, and have everyone's starting points jump by an extra 125-175 points? I mean, yeah, it'll be some extra work for the 90% of the characters that fit that paradigm, but the other 10% won't have to screw around with those complicated negative numbers in their costs.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, based on Steve's comment that the decoupled CV Chararaceristics are going to start with a base of 3, I think the base of 10 is remaining for what were Primary Characteristics. Steve hasn't revealed what the bases for the formerly Figured Characteristics are going to be.

 

I've got to admit that negative numbers have never bothered me so it's not a big deal.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Now we're being called to task on how our post MIGHT be misinterpeted out of context?

 

*Takes a few deep breaths*

 

Forget this thread

I apologize. It's the technical writer in me who prefers accurate language.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

If you check out my first post on this thread, #85, you will see that I said there were four changes that I liked (including making CV seperate characteristics), four that I said I didn't (three of which were about the continued existance of PD/rPD, ED/rED and multiplying one die roll aby another, which have annoyed me since 1982 and what I didn't like is that these were NOT changing), and TEN where I said I would wait and see! More "wait and see" than likes and dislikes put together.

 

I've also said that I will buy SexEd, making me one of the few posters to actually commit to that on this thread.

I was more or less sharing my own thoughts on the items you missed from fourth -- I wasn't making any judgments.

I understand your feeling about things you'd lhave like to have seen. I know I would have been disappointed if Figured Characteristics hadn't been decoupled.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Do we know that COM the talent is going to be a straight add and not continue to employ the same or similar (elegant) mechanic that it did as COM the stat? Not too hard to make it a talent purchased as a roll. Probably how I will toolkit it even if it's not in the new edition.

Why toolkit it? You can just add a Requires a Skill Roll limitation to the Talent if in't not based on a roll. But maybe that's what you meant. I also interpret "Toolkitting" to mean an actual change to how something is done -- such as calculating skill rolls differently.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I agree about INT: it is only used for INT rolls, so it makes sense*.

 

*Having said that draining INT has a significant effect, whereas draining COM doesn;t, really.

It may also still be the base for Perception -- Steve hasn't said anything about that. And INT-Based Skills but I guess you were including them in INT Rolls.

Also, we don't know if Steve added any additional functionality to the Characteristic.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

with the dropping of the Com stat to now become a talent

why not do the same thing to the Int stat

make it a talent also each level would add +1 to all Int based rolls(including perception)and call it Smarts

 

I found that Com could be used as a complementry roll or used in place of Presence where the character was more based on looks rather than personality with those social skills

 

now with it as a talent we lose that feature

I also liked that a Com roll could give an 'Eye of the Beholder" effect where an NPC might chose someone else because there was something more appealing to them (the one with the highest Com may not always be the winner)

instead of the "I'll have the pretty one"

I might argue a few of the specifics with you but in general, I think I agree with you that the loss of COM may have a bigger effect on how the game is played than the decoupling of Figureds and CVs.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

So it's not just me.The growth of this thread is kinda freakish.We might want to get it checked.It's only going to get worse after tonight's updates.And before anyone guesses, it's not lupus.

I'm not so sure that Steve is going to reveal anything more -- especially after this thread.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Let's not turn this into a war.

Everyone, attack teh bunneh!!!!!

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

You boycott the sponsors' date=' not the network![/quote']

 

Which still seems strange to me. The show's over. It's gone. I move on. I might watch it again in reruns or on DVD but I don't moan on about its demise years later.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

OK' date=' I have tried being without the BBB powers of Regeneration and Instant change for some time now. The Frankenrules patches substitutes are not satisfactory. What in this makes me even suspect I will like having to take the same approch to Find Weakness?[/quote']

 

I don't think Steve has any plans to even present a Frankenrules version of Find Weakness, but I could be wrong.

 

I'm not sure that I've built a character for 5e that has had any need for Instant Change. For many of them, it's simply a matter of the costume appearing as part of the SFX of activating a Power. For the others, they simple take the one phase to change clothes. So I can't say that I really missed Instant Change at all.

 

On the other hand, I'm not crazy about the Regeneration build. But there was more about 5e that I liked than I didn't so it was really just a very minor annoyance the few times I used Regeneration.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Really? Hmm.

 

OK then, show of hands, please? How many of the folks here in this discussion think that saying "Figured characteristics are going away" means that the characteristics themselves are being removed?

 

'Cause that certainly wasn't my understanding...

I'm thinking more of some occasional Hero fan coming in and reading the last few pages of the thread and the impression that will leave him with. I know that if I didn't have previous knowledge of the concept of decoupling figureds and I saw a statement saying that figured characteristics were going away or being removed, then the conclusion I would jump to would be that they are facing the same fate as COM.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

An opinion you're entirely entitled to have.

 

Me? I hate raisins. So if someone hands me something with raisins in it, I don't eat it. I don't care how purportedly tasty it might be, I don't like raisins, there are raisins in it, ergo I won't eat it.

But didn't you try raisins at some point to know you didn't like them?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Yes. Fuzion was so successful the first time around. Why should people be any more enthusiastic this time around? Perhaps they were correct to act cautiously.

Oh, come on. The change we are talking about is giving measurements in meters instead of hexes or game inches. The only thing I could really see changing because of this might be the facing rules. You should still be able to use a hex map pretty much as you did before if not precisely.