RDU Neil

Huge axes are cool, that's a real reason. 

I agree, one of my most enjoyable games was a recreation of the last scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  The GM parcelled out Sundance to one player, Butch Cassidy to another and the other four got a squad of Bolivian lawmen.  The first problem for the outlaws is to get to the stables - they are in the cantina with two pistols and 12 bullets each, their rifles and ammunition is on their horses and then they have to get out before reinforcements arrive, the Bolivians have taken up positions on the walls in cover but the outlaws are MUCH better shots.  Bolivians go down more quickly and fire less often but the outlaws are hugely outnumbered.  The GM was simply there to adjudicate and timekeep.
 
Fantastic game for a convention, used a custom system that recognised the difference in class but still made it dangerous for the outlaws simply to run for the gate to the compound and freedom...

It is explicit... a goal/intended outcome and a basic strategy and ex-fil idea... but it doesn't dwell on the details. No spending hours sweating exact timings, load outs, etc. It is more focused on "in what general way does each PC contribute via their abilities/skills"  i.e. We infiltrate the club and apartment building, using the club/party to cover our infiltration and if possible, find the hostage, hit quick and quiet and get out without sounding the alarm... vs. "We want to use a helicopter to repel down on the penthouse and go in guns blazing" or whatever. Say, fifteen minutes of discussion, not four hours.

Once the basic plan is agreed upon, then each player says, "Ok, to reach that goal, my character would prep/contribute by..." and that is the individual character rolling a key skill roll.
 
Then once each PC has rolled... the final "The Plan" roll to say "Ok, you did all your prep... overall, how well did it work out"
 
One way to think about it... the first Mission: Impossible movie starts with all the characters in place. Estevez is hacked in and sitting on the elevator, the others are either 'in the van' or infiltrated the crowd... they have their gear and positions and actions... and the dramatic action just starts. You didn't have a tedious six hour movie of them all arguing about how they were going to do the op... you get right to the op. That is the point. Show the prep in a montage, and get to the point of 'contact with the enemy' or whatever and do the actual play.

I've toyed with the idea of getting my simulations fix by running single-session, single-scene simulations, such as a single gun battle, with pre-gen characters. No story needed, just set the scene with "shoot the bad guys," and then go. You could do something different every time, and you get your simulationist fix without having to worry about all the other requirements for a more narrative game.

Heck... this happens to all of us some times, even after decades of playing. I find that just reminding people, "Are you using maneuvers to hit better or harder or to be more defensive?" and let them make that decision, while they understand that they give up something in one area to gain in another. That keeps the game flowing more quickly, rather than getting bogged down in exactly how many levels go where, etc. Some people can make that decisions really quickly. Many people can't. Either way, I also try to avoid punishing people for a decision, as it was "You chose the wrong maneuver! Now you are going to pay for it!" Try to assume they make the best decision, and whatever it is, make the result dramatic and interesting. 
 
THAT is something I blame D&D for, big time. The fact of players being conditioned to have made "wrong" decisions in character construction or playmat combat positioning or whatever. That kind of gamist play, where it really boils down to certain players trying to show off that they are "better" and have more mastery or know the lore better or whatever... I find it utter bullshit. I do realize that it fits a certain player profile, but I've long since moved away from playing with those people. 

You are hitting on all the big time issue of game design and actual play. Your admission of "... end up with a world in which there's no place for player charaters..." is so very true and probably a very hard lesson to learn. I know I have a strong, similar streak, and often struggle to go along with events in play that seemingly don't make a lot of sense to my very analystical brain, in the context of the SIS as defined. 
 
Your last point is where I tend to enjoy a lot of the indie games and let myself explore the experience, realizing that some/many of them may not be for me, but that's ok. The trend of more specific game designed with clear, focused intent of a certain kind of play experience... not that others are bad, but this game in particular is what the designer wants it to be... if you don't like it, cool... many other games to choose from you don't have to play. Gone are the days where being a "gamer" means you play everything and everything is for you. Many experiences are simply not what certain players want... and that's ok. Those games aren't for them, and no reason they should be. 
 
To me it is about maturing as a "gamer" and being willing to being open to different experiences, get out of our ruts. Some will be better than others from our very personal preferences, but hey... the idea that every game must be exactly what you expect and the best experience ever is a horrible level of expectation to try and live with. I mean, I gave a D&D 5th Edition game six or seven sessions, and ultimately chose to step out. I wasn't angry or calling it stupid... but the play experience that others seemed to be really into, I simply found tedious and pointless. Not for me. Cool... I'll find something else.
 
It is the odd (well I find it odd) expectation where people seem personally angry and affronted because a particular game or session or system didn't work for them... as if it was wrong or bad... not just "not their thing." 

And as I've stated in other threads, I personally know that my role playing preferences can be at odds with each other. I prefer more and more Nar style, system light experiences... while at the same time, desiring the intricate, simulationist crunch of a HERO martial arts fight or gun battle. These two things do not line up very well, but I want them both. I've just learned not to get frustrated (usually) if it doesn't work out all the time.

This has been a serious enough issue with a significant enough sub-section of player, so yes, this is real in my experience. Watching eyes glaze over as you start to say "Add this and then subtract this" is a thing. As ghost-angel noted, many are just fine with the concept "low to hit, high for damage" and just will say, "I rolled X" and look to the GM or table to explain if that was "low enough" but they don't care about why, nor do they want to do any calculations. Now, if the players are the type to want to learn rules because they tend to seek system mastery and want to make "good decisions" because they understand the rules... then really, I've never seen any of those people have a problem with it. The issue is that many I game with do not think like this. They would likely prefer a very rules light session of storytelling... they are more into the story, not the game... in fact some actively dislike the "game" aspect of it, but are intuitively really, really GOOD at role playing. (My wife is one of these.) 
 
In some ways, I really like gaming with these types. They make decisions based on the story and their characters personality and the situation, not based on what abilities or damage classes they can deal, or what maneuvers are optimized for the situation, or whatever. Some players like this can even be really solid tacticians, just good at making quick, intelligent interpretations of the scenario and having cool, logical ideas to address the situation... but not based on game mechanics at all. 
 
Mostly I've just learned to quickly interpret their descriptions into the most advantageous HERO terms, and say something like, "Ok, that sounds like an acrobatic roll to setup a better shot at their back... roll X... then roll Y... cool... here's what happens" and go with it.

Heck... this happens to all of us some times, even after decades of playing. I find that just reminding people, "Are you using maneuvers to hit better or harder or to be more defensive?" and let them make that decision, while they understand that they give up something in one area to gain in another. That keeps the game flowing more quickly, rather than getting bogged down in exactly how many levels go where, etc. Some people can make that decisions really quickly. Many people can't. Either way, I also try to avoid punishing people for a decision, as it was "You chose the wrong maneuver! Now you are going to pay for it!" Try to assume they make the best decision, and whatever it is, make the result dramatic and interesting. 
 
THAT is something I blame D&D for, big time. The fact of players being conditioned to have made "wrong" decisions in character construction or playmat combat positioning or whatever. That kind of gamist play, where it really boils down to certain players trying to show off that they are "better" and have more mastery or know the lore better or whatever... I find it utter bullshit. I do realize that it fits a certain player profile, but I've long since moved away from playing with those people. 

This has been a serious enough issue with a significant enough sub-section of player, so yes, this is real in my experience. Watching eyes glaze over as you start to say "Add this and then subtract this" is a thing. As ghost-angel noted, many are just fine with the concept "low to hit, high for damage" and just will say, "I rolled X" and look to the GM or table to explain if that was "low enough" but they don't care about why, nor do they want to do any calculations. Now, if the players are the type to want to learn rules because they tend to seek system mastery and want to make "good decisions" because they understand the rules... then really, I've never seen any of those people have a problem with it. The issue is that many I game with do not think like this. They would likely prefer a very rules light session of storytelling... they are more into the story, not the game... in fact some actively dislike the "game" aspect of it, but are intuitively really, really GOOD at role playing. (My wife is one of these.) 
 
In some ways, I really like gaming with these types. They make decisions based on the story and their characters personality and the situation, not based on what abilities or damage classes they can deal, or what maneuvers are optimized for the situation, or whatever. Some players like this can even be really solid tacticians, just good at making quick, intelligent interpretations of the scenario and having cool, logical ideas to address the situation... but not based on game mechanics at all. 
 
Mostly I've just learned to quickly interpret their descriptions into the most advantageous HERO terms, and say something like, "Ok, that sounds like an acrobatic roll to setup a better shot at their back... roll X... then roll Y... cool... here's what happens" and go with it.

Ok... so we used "The Plan" mechanic (process?) in actual play again tonight. It was mostly successful, but still a bit awkward in implementation.
 
The good:
1) It felt really correct and natural to begin when the game naturally entered a stage of "Ok, so we want to do a, b & c and find out..." from the players (the determined they wanted to implement a physical hack of a cartel's server farm to determine routing and transactions of finances and who they were working with)... and I was able to say, "Ok, this is clearly time for "the Plan" so let's structure this discussion.
2) The structure of determining "What are you trying to achieve" and "what is your general strategy" worked out, though, as noted below, the goal they were trying to achieve kept shifting throughout the plan. The general strategy, "We want to find their information infrastructure and get a hard line hack into it without them noticing" was enough to get to "Ok, so what kind of prep do you need, and what actions do characters take to make this possible?" and this didn't take long at all.
3) The actual prep dice rolls and then "The Plan" roll worked well, and enable me as the GM to provide key information that they learn along the way, so the players and PCs are clear about what they are up against.
4) The "We planned for this" chits were used in a different way that was just as effective. The Plan roll earned them two such chits. They chose to spend one to say, "We create a distraction that pulls the majority of the guards away from the server farm so there is a window to infiltrate." By spending a chit, this was a given, the distraction works, and we could start the moment by moment actual play with the professional thief at the door and picking the lock.
5) the player with the thief character who was primary driver of this plan, really felt it was a chance to "show his stuff" and have the professional thief in his environment and really shine. (The op went nearly flawlessly, with the one major monkey wrench overcome with a 3 on a perception check and a 4 on the stealth roll to avoid discovery by a seriously bad guy.)
6) It was a good combination of "prep rolls" and "plan rolls" that are more meta... and traditional task resolution skill rolls like "Lockpicking" and "Stealth" etc. and they felt different enough, even though both used skill rolls to resolve. 
 
THe not so good:
1) Again, it was difficult for the players at first, to get to the idea of "What are you trying to achieve." They tend to think in term of tasks, "Pick this lock" or "Sneak by X guys" or whatever... the specific actions, and they needed to be prompted to really focus on "Why? What are you hoping to achieve with these actions? What is your desired outcome"  It was up to me as the GM to say "Hey, back to what we are trying to achieve. No need to get bogged down with all the actions you could take, until we understand what all these actions are supposed to accomplish. 
2) Once established, the goal kept changing. This isn't inherently bad... the planning is fluid and the goal can change as the talk about it, but I needed to explicitly call out "Hey, it sounds like originally you wanted to shut down this server farm and really hurt the cartel, but now you want to install a hack and leave it running so you can siphon information over time? Am I understanding this? And we have to start over on the tactics, because you now have a different strategy."
3) The players can struggle a bit with prep rolls and ideas, as they aren't used to simply getting to state director stance "X is true and that means Y" as traditional games the players state a task resolution and look to the GM to tell them anything meaningful. Here the players say, "If I succeed, a, b and c are true and I know about thej, etc." The philosophy of "Yes... and ..." isn't intuitive at first.
4) Not all the PCs had a clear way to contribute to the plan, or the players felt that way, but that was ok as it just limited which PCs could contribute a possible plus to "The Plan" roll.
5) The more strategically minded/also GM type of players dominated the conversation, as other players can really prefer to react to specific threats a GM throws at them. This process asks for pro-active imaginations by the players.
6) GM needs to be able to give clear guidance on the minuses and such that indicate the difficulty of the task in general. It was a struggle at times to provide clear guidance on "Ok, this is what you'll get with a successful "The Plan" roll vs. what will happen if you fail it. 
7) It generally had some awkward moments as it can feel odd for some to "go meta" with the discussion which this demands.
 
Ultimately it worked really well, and a potentially quite complex and time consuming planning session fit right into our regular four hour play session, and the scenario was resolved by evenings end. It definitely helps structure and speed up "op planning."
 
All in all in worked

Some players are like to have fun at the expense of the group.
 
Better players like to have fun *with* the group.

Heck... this happens to all of us some times, even after decades of playing. I find that just reminding people, "Are you using maneuvers to hit better or harder or to be more defensive?" and let them make that decision, while they understand that they give up something in one area to gain in another. That keeps the game flowing more quickly, rather than getting bogged down in exactly how many levels go where, etc. Some people can make that decisions really quickly. Many people can't. Either way, I also try to avoid punishing people for a decision, as it was "You chose the wrong maneuver! Now you are going to pay for it!" Try to assume they make the best decision, and whatever it is, make the result dramatic and interesting. 
 
THAT is something I blame D&D for, big time. The fact of players being conditioned to have made "wrong" decisions in character construction or playmat combat positioning or whatever. That kind of gamist play, where it really boils down to certain players trying to show off that they are "better" and have more mastery or know the lore better or whatever... I find it utter bullshit. I do realize that it fits a certain player profile, but I've long since moved away from playing with those people. 

I appreciate the concepts you laid out, and I guess I would answer that with: because rolling low to hit (and success on all other skill rolls) and high for damage is the core mechanic of the game.  I mentioned before that Hero isn't really a starter game; rather, it is more of an intermediate skill level game, in my opinion.  Something a player graduates to.  However, RPG players are generally smarter (and/or more intuitive) than the average bear, so I don't think it would take long for new players to understand what to do, which may drive them to understand mathematically why it's being done that way. 
 
However if we desire an intrinsic real world explanation outside of it being the rules, I offer this.  A roll is basically a valuation of the external elements that could hinder the action.  A marksman likes to remove as much error as possible by manually correcting their shot for wind speed, temperature, darkness/light, speed of the target, and other factors; while a diplomat would like to ensure they are dressed appropriately, the interpreters understand the nuance of the languages and culture being used, the meeting place is correct, and the delegations are left in peace during negotiations.  Rolling low means they've managed to minimize these small factors and are instead relying on their skill and experience.  However, rolling high means something occurred that negatively impacted the shot or action (or the fates just didn't want the person to succeed).  Thus, rolling low means fewer unanticipated outside forces are in play; while rolling high means there was more background noise.  Put in another way, a low roll means fewer bad things impact the roll, and a high roll means more bad things effect the shot, skill check, etc. 
 
Now, rolling high on damage is just fun and makes intrinsic sense, as real world damage is inflicted through lots of energy.
 
This is just my point of view on it, and I appreciate the changes you've made to make the game more accessible to people who might not wish to change their habits to try a new system.
 
 - Chris

As you noted, this has been discussed many times before in many different ways. I certainly have strong opinions on this. There are certain old school RPG expectations built into HERO that do not work with most modern gaming expectations.  That said, keeping this to strictly "Actual play" examples:
 
Got rid of the Speed Chart and went to an initiative system... works amazingly well and I'd never go back. It removes a lot of the 'turn based war gaming' aspect, removes a level of high SPD character abuse, and generally works to keep all players "leaning in" to the game instead of tuning out when it isn't their phase. Got rid of END. Flat out, just ignored it and removed the old school, resource management through bookkeeping nightmare. It wasn't missed at all, until we wanted to play around with pushing rules and found a new use for it, but this was an advanced modification, and not something needed for basic play. Implemented a bennie system, called "Luck Chits" that changed Luck as written to be a "director stance resource" that players bought on the characters that would provide narrative control and ability to re-roll, take defensive actions, do power stunts, etc. in the hands of players. Fundamentally transformed the game and probably the most important development in making "actual play' more dramatic, fun, thematically consistent, narratively whole and just avoid the 'ugh' moments that random dice can generate. Implemented structured play group dynamics around character creation. No more individual players bringing their pet creation and trying to shoe-horn it into a game, let alone then trying to make any kind of team out of those characters. Now, every character from concept through build is vetted by the play group, and built with a shared history... often using a shared story telling session to build that shared history... before the actual play begins, or as part of the very first actual play session. I'd say those four are the big ones in terms of changes, though there are a lot of details in the subsequent downstream effects of these.

Also, these changes were made in the context of actually keeping the core HERO functionality... using Stats and Powers and Costs as listed... just sometimes re-interpreting them. 
 
Core things that I feel really do define HERO in actual play...
Paying attention to Active Points being used in any particular action, in increments of 5 for 1d6. So many quick rulings can be made if you just keep this in mind. The 3d6 Bell Curve for task resolution (simply the best mechanic ever) and the "rolling under" for success. This provides such a stable and flexible way to resolve just about anything, and to reflect levels of expertise a PC may have. OCV vs. DCV and all the combat maneuvers that drive the most unique, visceral, fun and interesting combats. Killing vs. Normal damage and resistant vs. normal defenses. (EDIT: Oh... and Stun vs. Body of course) Combat can become very nuanced with slight shifts on these axis.  What I do realize, and this frustrates me, is that #3 and 4 are both crunchy, and counter to my general desire to simplify character build and speed up play. I was joking with my old friends at Origins that I'm 75% in the camp of "give me Nar mechanics that just help guide shared story telling!" but this conflicts with the 25% of me that wants the complex interplay of a great HERO martial arts fight that no other game can do.
 
This conflict drives me!

 

You are hitting on all the big time issue of game design and actual play. Your admission of "... end up with a world in which there's no place for player charaters..." is so very true and probably a very hard lesson to learn. I know I have a strong, similar streak, and often struggle to go along with events in play that seemingly don't make a lot of sense to my very analystical brain, in the context of the SIS as defined. 
 
Your last point is where I tend to enjoy a lot of the indie games and let myself explore the experience, realizing that some/many of them may not be for me, but that's ok. The trend of more specific game designed with clear, focused intent of a certain kind of play experience... not that others are bad, but this game in particular is what the designer wants it to be... if you don't like it, cool... many other games to choose from you don't have to play. Gone are the days where being a "gamer" means you play everything and everything is for you. Many experiences are simply not what certain players want... and that's ok. Those games aren't for them, and no reason they should be. 
 
To me it is about maturing as a "gamer" and being willing to being open to different experiences, get out of our ruts. Some will be better than others from our very personal preferences, but hey... the idea that every game must be exactly what you expect and the best experience ever is a horrible level of expectation to try and live with. I mean, I gave a D&D 5th Edition game six or seven sessions, and ultimately chose to step out. I wasn't angry or calling it stupid... but the play experience that others seemed to be really into, I simply found tedious and pointless. Not for me. Cool... I'll find something else.
 
It is the odd (well I find it odd) expectation where people seem personally angry and affronted because a particular game or session or system didn't work for them... as if it was wrong or bad... not just "not their thing." 

And as I've stated in other threads, I personally know that my role playing preferences can be at odds with each other. I prefer more and more Nar style, system light experiences... while at the same time, desiring the intricate, simulationist crunch of a HERO martial arts fight or gun battle. These two things do not line up very well, but I want them both. I've just learned not to get frustrated (usually) if it doesn't work out all the time.

Yeah, that last points to an unacknowledged issue in tabletop RPG design and industry: individuals have different experiences that are most rewarding to them, but usually the system creator overlooks this and assumes that his/her/their goals as a player are universal.  This leads off to Gamist-Simulationist-Narrativist considerations, and Robin Laws's taxonomy of Butt-Kicker/Power Gamer/Tactician/Storyteller/etc. for RPG players and their proclivities.
 
As a GM, I am an appalling Simulationist... my game-worlds have to hang together logically and flow clearly from first principles and cause-effect relations.  (The players in general never see those; it's that I have an overwhelming preference for top-down universe creation.)  As I learned twenty years ago, you can easily end up with a world in which there's no place for player characters that way.
 
As a player, I'm a Tactician; I try to exploit the opposition's weaknesses, and arrive as quickly as possible at the situation where I and my cohort not only can't lose, we can't even take losses.  I need a rigorous rule system, I want to master it and exploit the pinch points, and use them to manipulate the enemy into a position where they are quite vigorously doing ineffective things and my side's victory is entirely inevitable. As it turns out, this can frustrate the crap out of my fellow players; the Butt-kicker absolutely must get out in front and kick butts, and the Power Gamer absolutely must get out there and do his White Lotus Secret Decapitation Strike With +3 Vorpal No-dachi to whichever bad guys he chooses, and my suggestion that now that we have the enemy boxed in we just wait here and lob fire blasts and thunderbolts into them for an hour until they're all dead makes my buddies go into open revolt.
 
But ... I also have a strong latent Narrativist streak, in that as a player I really want to feel like there's an overarching plot and that we can, ultimately, end the evil we have to contend against.  Unlike my Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer buddies, to me a game world which is just a cornucopia of beatable bad guys with loot ... looks a lot like a humdrum miserable Hell whose underlying nature is in the global sense, nothing you do actually matters.
 
Creating a game and game system that scratches everyone's itches is really hard.  Especially if you don't know those often unarticulated basal desires your players/market have.

Thanks for that rundown of how things went, always interested in alternate ways of getting a game running.

Ok... so we used "The Plan" mechanic (process?) in actual play again tonight. It was mostly successful, but still a bit awkward in implementation.
 
The good:
1) It felt really correct and natural to begin when the game naturally entered a stage of "Ok, so we want to do a, b & c and find out..." from the players (the determined they wanted to implement a physical hack of a cartel's server farm to determine routing and transactions of finances and who they were working with)... and I was able to say, "Ok, this is clearly time for "the Plan" so let's structure this discussion.
2) The structure of determining "What are you trying to achieve" and "what is your general strategy" worked out, though, as noted below, the goal they were trying to achieve kept shifting throughout the plan. The general strategy, "We want to find their information infrastructure and get a hard line hack into it without them noticing" was enough to get to "Ok, so what kind of prep do you need, and what actions do characters take to make this possible?" and this didn't take long at all.
3) The actual prep dice rolls and then "The Plan" roll worked well, and enable me as the GM to provide key information that they learn along the way, so the players and PCs are clear about what they are up against.
4) The "We planned for this" chits were used in a different way that was just as effective. The Plan roll earned them two such chits. They chose to spend one to say, "We create a distraction that pulls the majority of the guards away from the server farm so there is a window to infiltrate." By spending a chit, this was a given, the distraction works, and we could start the moment by moment actual play with the professional thief at the door and picking the lock.
5) the player with the thief character who was primary driver of this plan, really felt it was a chance to "show his stuff" and have the professional thief in his environment and really shine. (The op went nearly flawlessly, with the one major monkey wrench overcome with a 3 on a perception check and a 4 on the stealth roll to avoid discovery by a seriously bad guy.)
6) It was a good combination of "prep rolls" and "plan rolls" that are more meta... and traditional task resolution skill rolls like "Lockpicking" and "Stealth" etc. and they felt different enough, even though both used skill rolls to resolve. 
 
THe not so good:
1) Again, it was difficult for the players at first, to get to the idea of "What are you trying to achieve." They tend to think in term of tasks, "Pick this lock" or "Sneak by X guys" or whatever... the specific actions, and they needed to be prompted to really focus on "Why? What are you hoping to achieve with these actions? What is your desired outcome"  It was up to me as the GM to say "Hey, back to what we are trying to achieve. No need to get bogged down with all the actions you could take, until we understand what all these actions are supposed to accomplish. 
2) Once established, the goal kept changing. This isn't inherently bad... the planning is fluid and the goal can change as the talk about it, but I needed to explicitly call out "Hey, it sounds like originally you wanted to shut down this server farm and really hurt the cartel, but now you want to install a hack and leave it running so you can siphon information over time? Am I understanding this? And we have to start over on the tactics, because you now have a different strategy."
3) The players can struggle a bit with prep rolls and ideas, as they aren't used to simply getting to state director stance "X is true and that means Y" as traditional games the players state a task resolution and look to the GM to tell them anything meaningful. Here the players say, "If I succeed, a, b and c are true and I know about thej, etc." The philosophy of "Yes... and ..." isn't intuitive at first.
4) Not all the PCs had a clear way to contribute to the plan, or the players felt that way, but that was ok as it just limited which PCs could contribute a possible plus to "The Plan" roll.
5) The more strategically minded/also GM type of players dominated the conversation, as other players can really prefer to react to specific threats a GM throws at them. This process asks for pro-active imaginations by the players.
6) GM needs to be able to give clear guidance on the minuses and such that indicate the difficulty of the task in general. It was a struggle at times to provide clear guidance on "Ok, this is what you'll get with a successful "The Plan" roll vs. what will happen if you fail it. 
7) It generally had some awkward moments as it can feel odd for some to "go meta" with the discussion which this demands.
 
Ultimately it worked really well, and a potentially quite complex and time consuming planning session fit right into our regular four hour play session, and the scenario was resolved by evenings end. It definitely helps structure and speed up "op planning."
 
All in all in worked

Ok... so we used "The Plan" mechanic (process?) in actual play again tonight. It was mostly successful, but still a bit awkward in implementation.
 
The good:
1) It felt really correct and natural to begin when the game naturally entered a stage of "Ok, so we want to do a, b & c and find out..." from the players (the determined they wanted to implement a physical hack of a cartel's server farm to determine routing and transactions of finances and who they were working with)... and I was able to say, "Ok, this is clearly time for "the Plan" so let's structure this discussion.
2) The structure of determining "What are you trying to achieve" and "what is your general strategy" worked out, though, as noted below, the goal they were trying to achieve kept shifting throughout the plan. The general strategy, "We want to find their information infrastructure and get a hard line hack into it without them noticing" was enough to get to "Ok, so what kind of prep do you need, and what actions do characters take to make this possible?" and this didn't take long at all.
3) The actual prep dice rolls and then "The Plan" roll worked well, and enable me as the GM to provide key information that they learn along the way, so the players and PCs are clear about what they are up against.
4) The "We planned for this" chits were used in a different way that was just as effective. The Plan roll earned them two such chits. They chose to spend one to say, "We create a distraction that pulls the majority of the guards away from the server farm so there is a window to infiltrate." By spending a chit, this was a given, the distraction works, and we could start the moment by moment actual play with the professional thief at the door and picking the lock.
5) the player with the thief character who was primary driver of this plan, really felt it was a chance to "show his stuff" and have the professional thief in his environment and really shine. (The op went nearly flawlessly, with the one major monkey wrench overcome with a 3 on a perception check and a 4 on the stealth roll to avoid discovery by a seriously bad guy.)
6) It was a good combination of "prep rolls" and "plan rolls" that are more meta... and traditional task resolution skill rolls like "Lockpicking" and "Stealth" etc. and they felt different enough, even though both used skill rolls to resolve. 
 
THe not so good:
1) Again, it was difficult for the players at first, to get to the idea of "What are you trying to achieve." They tend to think in term of tasks, "Pick this lock" or "Sneak by X guys" or whatever... the specific actions, and they needed to be prompted to really focus on "Why? What are you hoping to achieve with these actions? What is your desired outcome"  It was up to me as the GM to say "Hey, back to what we are trying to achieve. No need to get bogged down with all the actions you could take, until we understand what all these actions are supposed to accomplish. 
2) Once established, the goal kept changing. This isn't inherently bad... the planning is fluid and the goal can change as the talk about it, but I needed to explicitly call out "Hey, it sounds like originally you wanted to shut down this server farm and really hurt the cartel, but now you want to install a hack and leave it running so you can siphon information over time? Am I understanding this? And we have to start over on the tactics, because you now have a different strategy."
3) The players can struggle a bit with prep rolls and ideas, as they aren't used to simply getting to state director stance "X is true and that means Y" as traditional games the players state a task resolution and look to the GM to tell them anything meaningful. Here the players say, "If I succeed, a, b and c are true and I know about thej, etc." The philosophy of "Yes... and ..." isn't intuitive at first.
4) Not all the PCs had a clear way to contribute to the plan, or the players felt that way, but that was ok as it just limited which PCs could contribute a possible plus to "The Plan" roll.
5) The more strategically minded/also GM type of players dominated the conversation, as other players can really prefer to react to specific threats a GM throws at them. This process asks for pro-active imaginations by the players.
6) GM needs to be able to give clear guidance on the minuses and such that indicate the difficulty of the task in general. It was a struggle at times to provide clear guidance on "Ok, this is what you'll get with a successful "The Plan" roll vs. what will happen if you fail it. 
7) It generally had some awkward moments as it can feel odd for some to "go meta" with the discussion which this demands.
 
Ultimately it worked really well, and a potentially quite complex and time consuming planning session fit right into our regular four hour play session, and the scenario was resolved by evenings end. It definitely helps structure and speed up "op planning."
 
All in all in worked

I'm sure this is a terrible idea, but just playing with it. (I think it avoids the whole weirdness of subtracting the roll, which feels wrong, as Brian pointed out.)
 
Make combat an opposed roll. Player just takes 11+OCV +/- any modifiers... roll and figure out "How much you made the roll by?"  Example: 7 OCV + 11 = 18 or less (just like a skill roll)... roll 3d6... get a 12... made it by 6. If they are doing an Offensive Strike it is 11+7-2 for 16 or less... roll a 12, made it by 4. Basically, all they have to do is "I made it by X"
 
GM rolls 11+DCV and mods... how much did they make it by? "5 DCV so 16 or less on my defense roll... I rolled a 13, made it by 3"  
 
So, "Attack made it by 6" beats "Defense Made it by 3"... you hit.
 
Or target dodges... so 5 DCV + 11 + 5 for dodge... rolled a 13, made it by 8... you miss"
 
I know there are arguments against the extra roll... but there are arguments for it in terms of everyone "leaning in" to see how the rolls compare. And then the roll feels just like a skill roll "How much did you make your stealth by?" and "How much did you make your attack roll by?" become the same question.
 
This does work, right? Or is my limited math brain on the fritz.  (It does remove the slight advantage for the attacker (11 over 10.5 in the traditional calculation), but I dunno if that matters. It does allow players and PCs to feel like they are actively involved (by rolling their Defense roll) when being attacked, rather than just passively taking it.
 
I dunno... I kinda like it. hmm...

It is explicit... a goal/intended outcome and a basic strategy and ex-fil idea... but it doesn't dwell on the details. No spending hours sweating exact timings, load outs, etc. It is more focused on "in what general way does each PC contribute via their abilities/skills"  i.e. We infiltrate the club and apartment building, using the club/party to cover our infiltration and if possible, find the hostage, hit quick and quiet and get out without sounding the alarm... vs. "We want to use a helicopter to repel down on the penthouse and go in guns blazing" or whatever. Say, fifteen minutes of discussion, not four hours.

Once the basic plan is agreed upon, then each player says, "Ok, to reach that goal, my character would prep/contribute by..." and that is the individual character rolling a key skill roll.
 
Then once each PC has rolled... the final "The Plan" roll to say "Ok, you did all your prep... overall, how well did it work out"
 
One way to think about it... the first Mission: Impossible movie starts with all the characters in place. Estevez is hacked in and sitting on the elevator, the others are either 'in the van' or infiltrated the crowd... they have their gear and positions and actions... and the dramatic action just starts. You didn't have a tedious six hour movie of them all arguing about how they were going to do the op... you get right to the op. That is the point. Show the prep in a montage, and get to the point of 'contact with the enemy' or whatever and do the actual play.

This... a hundred times this. I love that fluidity in HERO combat, but it is complex and difficult at the beginning.

I can't speak for Brian, but in my experience with new players it's that Skills have their target number written down, and bonuses or penalties are unlikely to change by more than one or two points, while the target number for combat is a lot more fluid.  OCV, DCV, range, combat maneuvers on the part of both the attacker and defender, et cetera, and all of those can change from phase to phase even against the same opponent.  
 
Having said that, I haven't the slightest desire to change how either combat or Skill values are (edit) calculated, though I do recognize that combat is more complicated.  To me, it's up there with Normal vs. Killing, PD vs. ED, Stun vs. Body, and so on.  Fundamental to the system.  But making it easier to do without fundamentally changing it is, to me, a worthy goal.

It's my opinion that rulebook\sourcebook art is the secret sauce\silver bullet of RPGs.
To the point I think they might matter more than the rules.
 
 

I think there are two elements to this question when it comes to Hero;
 
How much can you simplify so someone can play a character they have in front of them? (i.e. the Con Game)
How much can you simplify character creation and world building?
 
Showing someone how skills work, how modifiers effect things, and how combat works is very different (in any game system) from showing them how to create a character or campaign.
 
For example, you could remove Combat Maneuvers from the system, and utilize a system of Combat Skill Levels only to simulate various shifts in how martial combat works in play. Most of the rest is flavor text. Even the free maneuvers and basic maneuvers, like Multi Attack could be drastically simplified to "take more than one attack action and you incur a -2 to every attack action per extra action taken" - this isn't even an uncommon aspect in gaming.
 
But, if you want to simplify the creation process, that isn't as easy - but I don't think it's out of reach.
 
Doing something like removing Endurance completely as both a stat and a consideration in character builds can greatly affect how someone approaches their build and the game.
 
Someone could do something like remove the Speed Chart, but keep Speed - as a number of dice you roll in the Initiative Phase; Body on the Dice = Actions per Turn. Going round robin until people start to run out of Actions to use, keeps DEX basically the same. Would this simplify things for new gamers? Maybe, it's not entirely foreign idea and prevents the standard back-and-forth most systems create.
 
Now, what any one of us might remove and still be what we consider a "Hero System Game" may vary quite a bit. But as I said before, as long as you keep the core tenant of separating Mechanics from Special Effects you can still capture the essence of what Hero is. Regardless of what other unique, and recognizable, elements the system has over others.