Ermenegildo

1) I don't think that ChatGPT is trained on copyrighted material from HERO. They probably fund some material while scraping the internet (forum, fansite, etc...). 2) The legal aspect is still quite open 3) If you want the LLM to use the proper rules of the game, you need to encode them to clarify the causal relationship between the different parts of the system. This way, the LLM decides how many dice of damage are used for a certain power but not its price wich is directly calculated using the rules.

Well, it would be really interesting to see if one can integrate an LLM with a structured corpus of rules, examples and software like (Combat Manager or HERO Designer) to obtain an online help tool that can solve complex issues on the fly. For example, creating multiple PNG if the player decides to explore an uncharted place. Or suggesting combat strategies to inexperienced players. The HEROsystem corpus is quite massive and should be enough to optimize LLM performance on a specific subset of queries that are HERO-related.

I like this approach because it relates to the character's true damage output, which means that cutting the tree is a testament to its ability. I am almost sure that there were rules for creating new combat manoeuvres using the rules for creating martial arts manoeuvres. Something like "If the final cost of the manoeuvre is zero or less anyone could use this manoeuvre for free." One could think of an "extreme haymaker" with both OCV and DCV malus to strike stationary targets with low defence. There are some balancing risks if players find an easy way to completely paralyze their enemy. On second thought, the fact that the players found an easy way to completely paralyze their enemy every time is by itself a problem even without an "extreme haymaker".🤔

The problem is that cutting a tree (tree trunk more than 20 cm) with a single sword stroke is not a heroic feat, is a super-heroic feat.

Ok, to sum up: Extra time is probably worth -1/2 Activation roll, from -1 1/2 for 8- to -1/4 for 13-. Jammed could be an interesting option for an extremely powerful mindblade or to introduce "social" drama if the mindblade is a cultural status symbol. Something along the lines of "Who sinned, his father or his mother, that he was born with a defective mindblade?". Concentration possibly -1/4 Cost Endurace boh? I dare to say that this is a game design shortcoming. The game shows his roots in the superhero genre where "effect" and "consequences" are more important than "Source" and "How". This is a perfectly reasonable assumption if you try to emulate a genre that takes no pride in internal coherence and mechanistic explanation but, instead, focuses on the rule of cool, creativity and flexibility. In this context, the ability to damage someone and to be able to create something that damages someone is almost equal. But if you change genre then the two things become different and the ability to create something that damages others should be different from the damage itself. I'm almost sure that somewhere (maybe Dark Champions) there are rules for dividing ammunition weapons between the weapon itself and the ammunition.

Usually, when we set up a campaign in a game without narrative mechanics (We have used this method for different games) we first choose a theme, a short statement that guides the events in the story. Then each character is created with a fatal flow that suits the theme, the player chooses the fatal flow based on the challenge he wants to face while playing. This helps to reduce the "arms race" feeling around the table while also easing the creation of good transformation arcs that help the story development. If you want to play the best swordsman of all time by a huge margin, that’s fine, but you also have to answer the following question: 1) What is your goal (taking into account the campaign theme)? 2) How can you fail? 3) How will your temperament be tested? 4) What is the price of failure? Obviously, this method is not a silver bullet that solves all the problems, it doesn't cover any possible kind of story and it isn't the only way to create a good story. Nevertheless, I think that is a small trick to help players communicate their desires for the game and to reflect on their character from a different point of view.

Citing from page 290 of the 5th edition manual: The Limitation values in the Extra Time Table apply to powers that require the Extra Time each time the character activates them. If the power has a lengthy activation time, but the character can use it every Phase from then on without taking Extra Time, halve the Limitation value (minimum value of -¼). This applies to Constant or Persistent Powers (and some Instant Powers) that only require Extra Time to activate, but not to use or maintain in any Phase after that. Emphasis mine, are you referring to more general rules?

Ahh ok, I can not find a similar rule in the basic book of the 5°ed. Concerning Endurance limitations, there is something like applying the limitation only in uncommon/common/very common situations. However, I have some doubts about how this interacts with the reduced endurance cost. For extra time I should just halve the limitation, right? And for Concentration?

Ok, but how do I price an activation roll on an HKA that is rolled only when the blade is summoned and not every time that the blade is used? This is the part that I really don't understand in your proposal. Limitations on HKA/RKA should trigger every time the power is used, right?

I agree with you that having a simple way to price things is good especially if it provides a more balanced cost to the power compared to the more complex methods. If I follow your suggestion and use only HKA/RHA, how can I implement the different abilities in creating the weapon? There are 3 axes that summarize the proficiency in the mindblade creation: - Time required (Extra time limitation) from zero-phase to full-phase - Endurance consumed to create the blade - Activation roll for creating the blade A novice at the beginning of their training may also have Concentration to create the blade and Endurance to use the blade. If I were just building a single character I'd probably follow your suggestion but I would like to create a set of various versions of this power to help potential users of this material to choose the right level of competency. I was interested in organizing chronicles that span over several years where there are different downtime activities that players can use to improve their characters. Characters should probably start during their adolescence (around 12-16 years old for humans) and grow during the chronicles.

I do not like the idea of using Transform but in a sense, Transform is the best way to replicate my idea of how this ability should work. The power is not the weapon by itself it is the ability to create the weapon. This way is easy to differentiate between different levels of proficiency in the ability to create the weapon by adding different kinds of limitations/advantages to the power that creates the weapon. Adding the limitation to the weapon itself creates something different from what I want, for example, an activation roll would be triggered at any weapon use instead of only getting triggered at weapon creation. I would have avoided the use of Transform for something that is only tangentially "transforming" but it seems to me that is the only way to give a new power to someone. Maybe a VPP that is limited to creating only weapons and some specific type of linked power? This way I could apply the limitations/advantages to the control pool. Every time that the blade is broken, you dismiss the weapon, or you are disarmed the VPP changes to a "blank slot" and the user summons the weapon by changing the slot. This way every time you change the slot you can trigger whatever limitations/advantages you want to impose to the summoning of the mindblade. Because I'm interested in HERO only for its flexibility and crunchiness. If I were interested in a rules-light RPG I would have selected a game with a lot of useful narrative mechanics and with a low page count, or D&D 5ed which is way more played. And I want a crunchy game because it helps with my suspension of disbelief, for example, when I play D&D (3.5) the magic feels "magical" while the mundane combat feels (to me) "plastic" and "gummy". Therefore I would like a game that properly represents the lack of a weapon during a fight even if only for a phase. If the mindblade is broken or disarmed or dismissed because the personage needs both hands to do something there should be consequences.

No from D&D 3.0 The short-term goal was to create, quickly, a lot of "power" for a fantasy setting starting from a conversion of the D&D 3.5 and pathfinder material both in English and Italian. The long-term goal was to create a low-tech mid-magic setting where the ruling dynasties had access to true magic(still lower than high-level D&D), the noble to mindblade and everyone to some kind of minor magic (low range mainly personal, small effect limited scope). Ideally with a mix of extremely detailed rules and narrative mechanics and the option for players to choose the level of detail of their character and the ability to support different levels of detail at the same table.

For a complete novice creating the mindblade should take one phase, cost endurance (to create it and not to use it) and require a skill roll or an activation roll, for an experienced user, it should be a zero-phase action without an activation roll or endurance expedition. A novice should be able to create a single weapon type while an expert should be able to create different types of weapons (I was thinking of using a multipower for this but maybe is not the best way). An advanced user should be able to add other effects (I'll probably start by converting material from Pathfinder and then create something new) to the attack made with the mindblade (I was thinking of using a linked limitation). Long-term removal of the mind blade should not be easy and should require the use of some kind of Suppress. To summarize having a mindblade is better than having the weapon but is worse (but not much) than having a "naked" HKA. A true weapon has OAF and real weapon for a -1 1/4 I think that a mindblade could have something like -1/2 or -1/4. I'm almost sure that this part of the limitations should not exceed the -3/4.

I'm looking for help with developing a power and choosing the right limitation. The power is called "Mindblade" and allows users to create a weapon (melee or ranged) using its psionic power. The weapon has the same characteristic as a standard weapon of the same type, a mace mindblade has the same properties as a mace and a mindblade lance has the same properties as a lance. The mindblade could be disarmed or damaged as a normal weapon has weight. My idea was to use the standard weapon template and change some of the limitations to reflect the new nature of the weapon. Require strength and required hands to stay the way they are. Focus and real weapons need work because of the fact that you can create your mindblade out of thin air every time you need ease the difficulties of having a real weapon with you. While the adversary could still hinder your use of the mindblade by breaking it or disarming you, you can still create it at a later time. Any suggestion?

While the Dark Ages were a violent period and religious wars were always cruel, even at that time there was some restrain in how to deal with "evil enemies" or at least there were people that were against the mass slaughter of captured enemies for example. For the interested reader, the Wikipedia page on the Saxon War by Charlemagne is really interesting since it provides an example of an expansion war against an enemy from a different culture and religion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars) During this war, there was a huge slaughter of captured enemies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden) and the promulgation of a particularly strong law to force the conversion of the Saxons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulatio_de_partibus_Saxoniae). Despite the low level of consideration for human rights (by modern definition) at the time, some important figures such as Alcuin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin) spoke against this way of conducting the war. Since he was an important figure in the Charlemagne court the Capitulatio de Partibus Sazoniae was softened. TLDR: While the most common source material for fantasy, the Dark Ages societies, were quite tolerant about the use of violence they still have limits on how much violence war right even if applied to foreigners without social or religious connection. This knowledge could help to create a more plausible interaction with the "Evil race" during the games.

@greypaladin_01 I will probably use software for dice rolling, it is faster and "cleaner". Also, I already have pc and tablet at the table because I have only PDFs of the books (Thanks to Bundle of holding). Even without changing the point cost of anything the HR increase the differentiation between a character with similar characteristics. It modifies the success probability of the skill test, compared to the standard system, in a range from -5% to +5% providing a small but significant modification to the game. In the characteristic range from 0 to 20, each characteristic point increases the success probability by 2%, while the standard system has an increased probability of success only at 3,8,13,18 with a 10% jump each time. I do not really understand why the cost for 1d6 of damage should change. The HR essentially remove the jump in skill roll success probability due to the presence of rounding. The standard system does not consider this jump when it fixes the price of characteristics or skill level. Therefore, I'm just removing something that the system does not price properly. The rest of the game's math, in terms of success probability, remains almost equal. Every time that the characteristic is a multiple of 5 the difference between success probability in the standard game and the modified game is less than 0.5%.

Look, I may accept a lot of arguments but saying that Hero is a simple and easily explainable game seems a bit odd. Sure is not Phoenix Command but the easiness of play is not exactly what makes Herosystem interesting. I understand that you may find my HR strange but it does not require more math skill than rolling 10d6 for stun and then counting BODY and maybe handling multiple defensive power (in 5ed you may have to subtract damage resistance and divide by damage reduction, but you could also have armour piercing or reduced penetration and if I have understood correctly in 6th edition there is also an additional power that directly reduces the number of dice rolled). Again you may not like my house rule for whatever reason but I find it strange that the reason is the simplicity of the standard rule set. Because the standard rule set is not easy and will probably never be "easy "according to today's standard of RPG. There are plenty of complete games that are truly two pages. While I recognise that the use of d6s is good in principle I do not think that buying any dice in any quantity is a problem in 2023, the success of D&D is a testament that the dice shape is no longer a problem for the new player. Also, the vast number of kickstarts financed to produce dice sets probably means that players like to collect and buy strange dice. You may find a significant number of Kickstarter projects that collected more than 1.000.000€ for producing D&D dice sets, there is even a kickstart to produce d17 and other strange dice that raised 40k€. I think that for a significant number of players using only d6s is not a strong point in a game in 2023 and it was not a strong point in 2005 when I started to play D&D. I would like to hear more about the mechanical problem in my HR than aesthetic problems is a more personal subject and my HR will probably be used only by my groups.

Italian abbreviation, I did not notice that I switched to Italian for some abbreviation sorry, DES = DEX and CAR = characteristic. Let's put aside the change in the points cost and let's focus on the change to the skill system. The problem with your proposals is that both change significantly the probability of success for a given characteristic level as you may see in the following plot. I also added some variations with respect to your proposal that should provide a success probability curve that is more similar to the original roll probability curve. The probabilities reported in the plot are for unmodified skill rolls, in the presence of a modifier the success probability for the standard roll could be obtained transform the roll bonus/malus into a characteristic bonus/malus, for example, +/- 1 correspond to +/-5 to the characteristic and +/-3 correspond to +/- 15. I'm not sure what should happen in the modified roll in the presence of bonus/malus. The standard game assumes, for example, that a skill level corresponds to having 5 additional points in the relevant characteristic with your proposal this equivalence change because a +1 skill level corresponds to having 3 additional points in the relevant characteristic. In a sense, the skill level in your proposal has a higher cost compared with directly buying the relevant characteristic. In both cases, there is a significant variation in the success probability, here measured in an absolute sense as the differences between the standard success probability minus the new probability for each characteristic value. A positive value means that the original success probability is higher than the new one, and a negative value means that the original success probability was lower If we look a the ratio of the success probability (original/new) the differences between your suggestion and the original game mechanics are stronger (I can make the plots if you are interested), especially in the region of low characteristic value. Even if I fine-tune the parameters of your proposals, I always end up making easy roll easier and hard roll harder. My original proposal (red star in the plots) 41+CAR on 3d30 provides a success probability curve that is significantly closer to the original curve but which is also smoother. And it works even without changing any point cost the only thing that should be changed is that any bonus/malus to the skill roll should be multiplied by 5 to obtain the new bonus/malus. With the new system, a +1 skill level became a +5 skill level (for the same cost in points) and has the same effect on the skill roll that 5 additional points in the characteristic have. Therefore, is equivalent to the standard skill roll.

The changes at the capability cost are just a linear rescaling so it does not affect the relative cost of the capability. In the standard game, you pay 5 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +1 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 2pts to get +1 to a specific skill or 5 pts to get +1 to a group of similar skills. In the new system without changing capability cost you pay 5 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +5 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 2pts to get +5 to a specific skill or 5 pts to get +5 to a group of similar skills. In the new system whit changes in the capability cost you you pay 75 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +5 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 30 pts to get +5 to a specific skill or 75 pts to get +5 to a group of similar skills. It is just a linear rescale so it does not affect the relative cost of the capability.

Premise 1: This House Rule was built based on the 5°ed but I think that can be used for any edition with small modifications. Premise 2: I think that the majority of HEROsystem flexibility comes from its power-limitation-advantage systems (PLA-system), this means that the game allows for easy personalization of every character concept that heavily uses the mechanics of the PLA-system. Premise 3: I think that details are one of the most important things in a GDR because they can create the story by themself and also they help the players to create a better story Premise 4: I like to use software to manage the game and handle some of the bookkeeping or the dice rolling for example Premise 5: I don't like automatic failure and success so I'll ignore them for now Consequence 1: I don't like the 9+CAR/5 skill roll because it creates an artificial threshold in the CAR and reduces the overall level of details in the game Consequence 2: I don't like the DES/3 in the calculation of the CV for the same exact reason Objective: to increase the granularity of skill and calculation of the CV the HEROsystem Skill The idea is quite easy, instead of rolling under 9+CAR/5 with 3d6 one rolls under 41+CAR on 3d30 (the d30 exist also in physical form) and each skill level gives a +5 bonus instead of a +1. The same multiplicative factor (x5) should be used for each skill roll modifier. In the figure the probability of success for a certain skill for the new system and the old one. On the vertical axis is the probability of success, and on the main horizontal axis is the CAR. On the upper horizontal axis is the older success threshold while on the lower horizontal axis is the new success threshold. The new methods offer smoother curves without significant steps in the success probability. If the +5 bonus for each skill level seems too high, and I think it is, the easiest solution is to multiply the point cost of all traits by five, then a +5 skill level will cost 10 pts, and a +1 skill level will cost 2 pts. This Combat Values The idea is similar but there are some difficulties. We will assume a defender DEX of 9 There are two methods 1) 33 + OCV - DCV <= 3d20 2) 31 + OCV - DCV <= 3d19 In both cases, all the bonus and malus to the roll should be multiplied by 3 The 3d20 roll provides a small advantage over the standard roll for really difficult and a small penalty for the easy task. the 3d19 roll is more faithful to the original roll but obviously finding a d19 is quite difficult. Just as in the case of skills we have rescaled the skill levels here also we can multiply all the point costs by 3 to obtain the +1 combat skill level again. If both HR are used at the same time all the pts. cost should be multiplied by 15. A new +1 skill levels cost 3pts and a new +1 Combat skill level with HTH combat will cost 25pts. The Overall skill levels are quite troublesome and they should probably give +5 to all skill rolls and +3 at all combat rolls and cost 150 pts. Obviously, an old 200 pts hero became a 3000pts hero with this HR I like this HR because it drastically increases the level of detail that I can insert in a game where the power aspect is not so central. It certainly needs some polishing for example on how it handles Overall skill level. Also, the decoupling of combat skill levels from DEX could help. I should also look at the rules for automatic success and failure. Finally, I think that it's extremely interesting, from a general game design perspective, that using asymmetric roll bell curves one can "tune" the mood of a game making it easier or harder to succeed at particularly easy or difficult tasks. One can create a system that supports bold and risky moves by skewing the curve in favor of a difficult roll without significantly altering the success probability in the curve's belly where most of the rolls are rolled. What do you think? How can I improve this HR?