RDU Neil

I'm assuming Gamestorm is in Oregon? Probably can't get there from MI, but I'd be totally down for that game. I'd actually be interested in discussing how you make pre-gens and how you keep a team of "super spies" or whatever feeling like unique contributors to a team. It is one thing to hash this out with a regular play group, but to have it established going into a CON game... just interested in your approach. Good luck!

Yes, yes, yes. The whole post echoes what I said (essentially, strips down to increasing chance to hit which is increasing OCV or decreasing their DCV) so what in the system already allows for this? Multiple attacks, especially if you buy levels to offset the MA penalties. Quick, clean, interpreting maneuvers already in the game to cover various combat maneuvers you see in the source material.

Brian... what you and Chris Goodwin are talking about... that has just been always my experience with Heroic level games. Pre-4th and many years post-4th. I guess I just never ran into/dealt with players falling into the "over-engineering" side of HERO... i.e. they were always happy to just have a Stealth skill... not super-stealth invisibility. In fact, with my current game (modern espionage, but PCs are "better" than others) I've actually had to encourage a few of them to actually take a small power build to reflect their natural gifts, because I actually do want them pushing the limits in small ways. It would not be how I ran a traditional Danger International game, but part of what sets this particular game apart. What you say about heroic games feeling video-gamey... I totally get that when I play stuff like D&D... but I guess I've been lucky that hasn't spilled over into our HERO games... but then, we are all old and have old tendencies hard wired.

Exactly... The martial arts gun guy who has paid for a power pool that allows for keeping enemy weapons doesn't have to worry about maintenance or WF. The martial arts gun guy who just picks it up without paying points will have a -3 OCV and god-forbid the thing backfires because he didn't adjust the pressure release correctly.

Absolutely. If there are certain situations where it is important for the PCs to list key equipment... say right before a big assault or such, then they can do that, but I don't EVER want to deal with exhaustive gear lists. And, like you, I've found that players tend to push the boundaries less when they know they able to contribute and things are reasonably "yes" when they ask for something and it isn't a competition of trying to "out guess" the GM and what has been planned and trying to cover every eventuality.

THis is exactly what I was talking about. The player wanted authority in the game to use ephemera (anything made up by the GM to populate the game world, people, things, equipment, etc.)... to use that ephemera LIKE A POWER. Thus he bought a power with point to simulate this. Could another player have a martial arts gun kinda guy who tended to pick up left over weapons... sure. When he went to use them with the character, though, that player is entirely dependent on the GM. They didn't pay points to say, "I have that old cesium blaster I grabbed from that space marine"... instead, he has to ask, and negotiate, and the GM has complete fiat on what happens when he tries to use it. Points equal player control... player author/director stance.

I think the "leftover bad guy equipment" is a very different issue than "do I have to pay points for normal mundane equipment?" If, as a GM, I left an Infinity Guantlet or a Glue-Gun lying around, I'd totally expect the PCs to take it. And if I, as a GM, couldn't craft interesting adventures around those items, I shouldn't be GMing. If the players keep them, but don't pay points, they fall into "found equipment" and will come and go, break down, run out of fuel, just not work, as I the GM say so. If the player wants access to the power of that object, then that is exactly what points are... the PLAYER paying points to have author/director stance over that particular piece of the game world.

I totally agree it is an art... but the problem is that the source books don't really do a lot to help someone learn the art of "when do points matter" and there is a lot of conflicting perspectives out there.

In my games (modern action adventure) all PCs have Combat Luck (can only buy 1 level) because it is just important for survivability. What we've found is that it does stack with armor, making armor hits by guns much less likely to do damage, but armor is also more limited in coverage (usually) in the game. Instead of changing cost and effect, I've just told players to buy their PD and ED 3 points lower than they would have, because what we've really noticed is that an 8PD guy, now effectively 11 PD prior to Armor... that 3 difference in amount of stun taken really ads up. So, instead that 8PD guy has a 5PD, 8 with combat luck, and we're all good. For my games, the PCs need the extra resistant defenses, not to get easily scragged by autofire high velocity weapons and frag grenades, etc.

The problem I have with this is the "not likely to have any effect"... because a cell phone will have an effect. The idea that under normal circumstances the players have quick and easy communication because basically everyone does, will determine how they go about actions in the game. Two PCs can be on opposite sides of the city doing stuff and very easily be in touch almost continuously. Normal today... a superpower in 1985. Equipment DOES have an effect on the game... even if free... it is just that the effect it has is not "special to that PC or players". When the Players want to have above and beyond what everyone has... THAT is what they are paying points for. (Like, you could easily play a game with a bunch of zero point characters in HERO... they just aren't getting anything special that anyone else in the game world.)

I'm actually impressed that I noticed no one saying, "MUST PAY POINTS FOR EVERYTHING! THAT IS HERO!" which was an attitude I used to run into all the time in the past. It seems others have come around to recognizing that things have moved on from a design perspective. As for many of the concepts, ideas brought up: 1. Equipment paid for with points is better than free equipment. Short answer, I totally agree. Long answer, the dramatics of a game and storytelling often make it difficult to highlight these differences. I find HERO games to be dramatic action games, not grinding resource management games like D&D and such. I'd rather the game not be spent cataloging how many bullets and extra clips you drag around on your mule Pepe from adventure to adventure. Essentially, the GM decisions and game time spent to "penalize" the free equipment (or even Focus powers vs. non-focus powers) is tedious and unfun... so what I'd rather do is find a way to BENEFIT those that DO pay points. 2. This leads to similar comments that I saw Doc and Christopher make... that if I paid points for my stuff, I expect certain benefits. I have always felt this way, because I've argued that "Points Spent" are Player Director Stance/Player Control in a game. The more points you pay for something, the more control the player has to say how, when and where it works. The more limitations (to the point of it being free equipment) the more control is ceded to the GM. Now, in the past, the mentality was "Pay points, and any limitation degrades that ability". I like to switch that thought process to "start with things being free... and the more points you spend, the more effective and accessible your stuff is" So... a free pistol is one thing. A pistol paid for with points but with a focus is better for the PLAYER. And a power that has no limitations is totally in player control." Simply thinking this way enables a lot. If Doc's character gets imprisoned and gets his "Points with focus" bow and arrows taken away. When he breaks out, Doc as the player doesn't look to the GM to say he found the bow... DOC says "I find the bow and arrows tucked under the guard's bunk" because he paid points to have that level of director stance. 3. This has worked really well in games where, albeit supers, equipment is still very effective. Think street level, martial arts, cyborg-mercenary, etc. types who use guns and swords and such. Characters are super, but goons with guns are a threat, and guns and hth combat are key to combat. What players tended toward was that they "paid points" for their main weapon, while leaving back-up weapons and basic equipment free. The street ninja had a sword and smoke grenades he paid points for (with foci) but his back-up .357 mangum, mag-flashlight and plastic cuffs were free equipment. Why pay points for things that technically could be "Free" well, the player wanted those thigns to act like powers. No worry that the sword might break if it struck high defenses, no looking to the GM to determine if he had it available, no losing it randomly while acrobating around explosions, etc. The grenades work like a power, not just an environmental effect, he has them when he wants them (barring dramatic loss) etc. 4. This has scaled up to high-end supers, where the majority of abilities/powers are paid for, but a lot of the equipment and base materials are not. The players know that those things are ephemeral and can get wiped out whenever the GM wants, because they are free. (It is a running joke to see who's radio/throat mic survives the longest once mega-blasts start getting thrown around.) Ultimately though, what we've started to change is the mentality that "spending points" is something to be min-maxed and avoided, but it is the BENEFIT of being a player character. Spending points is the player getting to define what is cool about the character, what they get to define and direct in the game, etc.

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.

I'm sure there has been one before, but I think I'll start a thread on the "free equipment" idea, because I agree it can be problematic, but it is also simpler, more intuitive, and how I play every HERO game, Superheroic or Heroic.

Right... Double Fire was what I was thinking about. Sweep was in 4th Ed, and we used that a lot. I never played original Fantasy Hero, but played the ever-living crap out of 4th Ed FH. Probably my third favorite Hero book... 1) Danger International, 2) the BBB, 3) 4th Ed Fantasy Hero.

Essentially... all details aside... this is a feint. Faking an attack in one direction, to set up the real attack from another direction. So... HERO basically has "feint" built in as part of active defense and assumed as part of your OCV. Saying, "I do a quick thrust kick with my right leg, getting him to slide left and directly into the path of my follow up left cross to the chin!" sounds really cool, but essentially that is all color, it comes down to +2 OCV with HtH or whatever the character has on the sheet. This is where HERO is inconsistent. Some "maneuvers" are abstract color that fold into the OCV vs. DCV baseline... other maneuvers are declared and have mechanical effects on that OCV vs DCV baseline, and even other effects (target falls) that don't exist otherwise. You could introduce a "Feint" maneuver, and I've played around with this. It just adds more rolls and complexity. Basically your throw two attacks... the feint and the real one. Decide if you want your levels to apply to the feint or the real one. Results of the feint can give bonuses or penalties to the actual attack. It was fun to do this when I was playing small games with one or two players and it was heavily martial arts based, and every kick and punch was described in detail (as above) for really memorable fights, but it did add complexity that was colorful, but probably not necessary, and certainly would bog things down in large groups... not to mention, as I stated above... any trained combatant is basically throwing feints or using misdirection in every attack, especially in HtH. At range it tends to be more of anticipation of where you think they are going to move based on the flow of combat and where attacks are landing, but again... essentially can be folded into OCV vs. DCV. There are certainly times when it becomes more "dramatically interesting" as a feint becomes a serious turning point in a combat... but in such cases, I'd probably go with Doc's PRE attack type of deal. (But because PRE attacks are so powerful, I house rule them to actually take time in the game. My players are good about not abusing PRE attacks, but by the RAW they are VERY easily abused.

I really run RDU Hero... but the underlying is 6th ED as the baseline, but heavily house ruled (no speed chart, Luck chits, END Metastat, etc.). 6th ED becauxe of non-figured characteristics... and we all have the PDFs. But specifically use 4th Ed Missile Deflection and Danger International Range modifiers, etc.

I'm pretty sure the original Danger International had the rule that eventually became Multiple Attack for firing a gun more than once. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I remember playing with that rule back then... but it was 30 plus years ago, so take that for what you will.

Details were different, but played in and sometimes ran adventures with Storn Cook in a similar Fantasy Hero campaign, using chunks of the Forgotten Realms maps that were "frontier territories" for our own take on the nations and politics (i.e., we used the maps, not the source material from FR). It was very political, both local scale (my character was given a dukedom as a reward, and had to rebuild a frontier town where silver had been discovered and was being mined)... to the very high level/high stakes (turned out, this border town was near an ancient forest where High Elves were coming back to the world to wage war against a great army of lizard-kin coming from the south). My character was duke, but the others were members of the court, all adventurers of some kind, and we were the human representatives caught between much more powerful forces. (Semi-low magic campaign... more swords and sorcery than D&D ridiculous magic... PCs were not allowed to be True Elves, because those were 400pt or better characters, where PCs were 150pt types... wizard type spell-casters were rare and terrifying (there was a PC spellcaster tangentially attaced to the PCs, and he was batshit crazy), no traditional magical healing, a cleric type simply had poultices and good first-aid. A true layer on of hands was considered divine and leader of the great religion of the land)... Anyway... my point for replying is not just that I've been involved in something similar... but that it didn't require massive amounts of history and complex cultural and legal development to be political. It was political in nature because there were competing factions, and the PCs were in no position to solve anything at sword point. The entire duchy could be wiped out in an afternoon if either side had chosen to do so, and the human forces of any size were leagues away and not caring about the fate of a frontier backwater. Politics were of a necessity, as negotiation and trying to effectively position ourselves to NOT get crushed in between these forces was our only option. Yes, playing for a while, we began to create a history that came from play, or from being introduced as it became relevant to the unfolding plot/story... but things were political from the get-go. This worked because the PLAYERS at the time were into this, and it was done with vanilla role playing... but this was long before Nar style role playing was even a concept known to us. It was a great campaign, but I can only imagine how much better it might have been had we had access to even basic PbtA mechanics.

Oh... I get it. It really seemed "wrong" to me years ago, and required me to come to terms with it. It is not what I want in every game, but is what I want in some... just like a don't want Gilgamesh in every game... sometimes I want Macbeth. Also, it is difficult to have any kind of dramatic story when all six people at the table want to be their own version of Gilgamesh, all the time. O'l Gil never took a backseat to Enkidu. I can only say that some of the most satisfying games I've ever played were inherently tragic and involved very difficult and unpleasant things happening to the characters... not because the GM just decided that... but because the dice moved the story that way, and having the characters react and change to these events brought them fully to life. Top 3 games I've ever played in, a session of Velvet Glove, run by the creator, Sarah Richardson. We were all teenage girls in the '70s in our own gang. My character was supposedly the bad-ass, but she failed at every attempt to do anything tough, to protect her crew, to do anything right (the dice just went horribly wrong for me every time, so much so the other players were all super sympathetic and kept expecting me to get frustrated, and I was like "No... this is tragic gold!"). My wife's character was the smart, bookish, positive and care-free one, who ended up choking on her own vomit, dying because she was just a bit too carefree and things went badly. Friendships broke, betrayals happened, mistakes were made and it was one of the most bleak, baleful and beautiful gaming experiences I've ever been part of. It was the most literate of gaming experiences I ever had... not by intent, but by mechanics driving role playing that had great pathos. Sometimes I want that in my game. Sometimes I want to just kick-ass and take names. Sometimes I want a mix of both. (Actually, most of the time I want a mix of both).

Yes... correct... Champions and Hero are still synonymous in my brain, if wrongly. Champions was what was first created... Fantasy Hero, DI, Justice Inc. were all permutations on that original rule set... and only THEN did they try to systematize the whole thing. The entire concept of the Speed Chart as a simulation of a multi-panel comic page shows that the mechanics were, first and foremost, designed to simulate comic book combats. The fact that the overall combat task resolution system was applicable to nearly all action adventure combat was an evolution. (And, to this day, the vestiges of defined combat actions much better fit a simlulation of comic superhero fights than military gunfights or close quarters weapon combat, etc. You need a lot more additional detail and maneuvers and modifiers to get granular, which was not the original intent of the rules.)

Another great way of putting it... but worth exploring exactly that... why is it NOT ok for characters to be changed socially? I still think it comes back to PLAYER psychology. Traditionally, the only power the player has is "who is my character and what decisions do they make?" The rest is up to the GM. If the game suddenly forces certain decisions on the character that the player doesn't want... you've taken the little piece of what they had away. It is legitimate to ask, "What is the point of me playing my character when decisions and personality changes are made for me?" This is no small thing and must be addressed. Some may never want/like that kind of thing in their games. I think a great deal of acceptability is circumstantial. For example: Go to a CON and play in a game with pre-gens. Given a character already made with certain likes and dislikes, passions, loves, hatreds all decided ahead of time, a good player will do their most to bring that alive at the table, and work within the framework of the character they are given. But if the player themselves "created" the character, with certain likes and dislikes, passion,loves, hatreds all decided... then changing any of them is, again, an attack on the PLAYER. To paraphrase Duke Bushidod above, if the enjoyment comes from "using my character to influence the world", rather than "react and play off of how the world changes my character" then there is going to be a struggle here. A great compliment from my players who did, much like Duke Bushido's group, in my game. They felt like they mattered, that their characters were pillars of the game world, and what they did , the decisions they made had real impact on the game world. It was true, and very much something I wanted to promote... but it really wasn't until later that I realized that much of the enjoyment of the players came from the ego-stroking it gave them. This is not to cast aspersions, but to realize, psychologically, what is going on. The players have fun because the players feel good about themselves for what their characters did in the game. The character, as proxy for the player, was successful, so the PLAYER felt successful. This is a very direct and common and easy to understand bit of psychology. We all feel it, but I'd argue we are usually not really aware unless we do a lot of self-examination (my specialty my curse) to understand what is going on. The downside is that when the characters fail or lose or die, it also feels like the PLAYER failed or lost (but hopefully not died). That can create bad blood at the table, or at least grumpiness. This psychology is very natural, and is separate from Play Preference (Gamist, Simulationist, Narrativist any combination of). As human beings, we need to invest our Ego in some part of the game, otherwise we aren't engaged. We need to feel our efforts were successful, or we didn't have fun... but what does success mean when it is stripped from character advancement, character influence, character winning... from the character as proxy? How do you Ego stroke Players when the game may call for their character to be a humiliated failure? I believe (and again, this is all just my interpretation) that Nar mechanics are trying to help the Player invest in something other than the character... so that the Player finds satisfaction that isn't dependent on character success. I would also say that at the core, the difference can be in source material influencing the game. "Literature" (mostly) is very much about characters learning and being changed by events and the realities of the world. "Genre Fiction" and "Comic books" etc., are (mostly) power fantasies. Stories where the characters impose their will on the world. Clearly, traditional RPGs play into the very natural power fantasies of the players/GM, so that things like social conflicts, give and take, falling short of your ideal self, being co-opted by the power structure, being socially changed are the ANTITHESIS of the power fantasy... thus feel... wrong.

Loved this post... and wanted to respond to this piece specifically. It is my take (and I might be wrong) that good Nar mechanics are designed to remove the proscriptions of social/emotional effects on PCs, but WITHOUT removing player agency. The idea being that the mechanics help the PLAYER be as much an agent in screwing over their CHARACTER as the GM. As I stated elsewhere, the immediate psychological impact of mind control/social conflict losses is a "feeling of attacking the player/removing player agency" and so to do it right, you need mechanics that actually enhance PLAYER agency even as you are losing CHARACTER agency. I think good Nar mechanics/play have certain characteristics: 1) De-protagonism... losing the idea that your character is what is important, that your character is "you" and the results of the game that happen to your character reflect on you the player. 2) Commitment to Theme/Story... the flip side of 1 is that the PLAYER is committed, not to enhancing their character as the main goal of play, but of enhancing the exploration of Theme and Story, even at the expense of your character. 3) Director Stance for All... meaning that even if there is still a GM role, the Players often have levels of influence and decision making on things that are traditionally left up to the GM... outcomes, world building, plot driving, etc. Yes... the players have to be into this, and it is a non-intuitive at first (I know I struggled mightily in coming to it... I was heavily simulationist in my native form and felt it broke all the rules of good role playing), but I've come around.

Totally agree with this as stated... but I believe certain mechanics (and maybe they are meta-mechanics, I think most Nar mechanics are meta-mechanics) help guide and facilitate that social contract and those considerations. Any mechanic used badly can come across as clunky and break verisimilitude/immersion to the extent that things become "un-fun". They can also help people who don't grok Nar thematic storyellling or really the social contract in general, in how to interact appropriately. I've seen Gamists who "get it" when you give them a mechanic to master. They realize what "winning" means in the game now. They get their reward for being good at the game in a different way than, say, D&D, but they get it. Simulationists start to see how they can use the Nar mechanic to shape the events/story/world the way "it ought to be" to appropriately simulate the genre/feel/expectation of the game. It's not perfect. Sometimes it doesn't work. Same could be said for all games. Hero, from its inception, was a simulationist based game... designed to simulate Bronze-age, Marvel-esque style superhero adventures. To get back to your original post/purpose, the reason I'd argue 4th Ed was better than 6th mechanically, is that it was the perfect blend of the original simulationist creation, and the generalized "universal action adventure" build system.

I totally agree that Hero allows you to "add on" social mechanics, and that its core resolution mechanic gives guidance to building your own social mechanics, but I state that Hero really doesn't have these already built in. But... and I've said this before... one of the aspects of Hero as a toolkit is that it allows for "bolt-on" mechanics. I very easily changed Luck to be a bennie/chit style Nar mechanic that enhances the Hero task resolution system, but it seperate from it. I think any real focus on Social mechanics could/should take this approach, where it uses some core stats, but interprets them differently, or provides a different set of bespoke outcomes unique to social interactions... just like maneuvers have things like "target falls" or "knockback." To your points on complexity being hard to model, I agree... which is why I enjoy taking a Narrative approach to social conflicts/interactions, not a Simulationist. That may be where you balk (or not, I don't know) and goes to my point of Social skills having very different types of mechanics, because you can never simulate perfectly what social interactions are like with mechanics, but you can allow for director stance and metagame moments where you focus on Intent and Outcome, not task resolution. Task resolution is "Did I say the words clearly and with great gusto?" Intent and Outcome are "I want to shock the person into realizing what they stand to lose... so did that happen?" Hero, as built, in no way incorporates Intent and Outcome in its mechanics.

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".