RDU Neil

Guys, this isn't a discussion about which edition is best. That's a different thread. Please go argue on that one.
 
My question is edition-neutral. It doesn't matter which edition you're using, my question is still the same: how much can you simplify the rules (primarily for teaching purposes) without losing the game itself? This is also not a discussion about what can be borrowed and inserted into HERO games from other systems. If you go back an look at the original post, I'm only using a rules-lite game as an instructive tool, not as the end goal of this discussion.
 
So let me restate: if I can learn another roleplaying game in one evening, or learn and play it in one 4 hour game session at a convention, what can I take from that experience in order to simplify HERO enough to teach to beginners?

Try it once as a pilot.  It worked really well at my table, the discussions were not as simple as "Is it worth spending a chit", it was what are the chances of us losing our pool, is this the thing we need??  It is interesting to watch them be very casual when they have a large pool (though this is when they have the real chance of losing lots of dice) and then become incredibly stingy as you get down below 6 dice.  In the last session, the last two dice went on the first roll - 2 sixes.  In the first session the last dice was used four or five times before they rolled a 6.

Only because of wildly bad writing and power level inconsistency.
 
The same spider man who can lift 5-10 tons and is fast enough to dodge bullets.  In one write-up part of spiderman's bullet dodging prowess was attributed to the fact he was so quick that he could actually see the bullets coming.
 
Some normal judoka is going to give him any trouble at all?  Complete BS.  I have a brown belt in judo and a black belt in TKD and some other training and someone with spiderman's strength and speed would have me mutilated by the end of the first Segment 12.
 
Rope tricks?  Against someone who can dodge bullets?  Not sure if anyone has compared the muzzle velocity of a lasso recently, but I'm betting it's 50-100x slower than a bullet.
 
I HATED those comics.

DEX is an easy solution.  As well, with 6e divorcing CV from DEX, paring back DEX would be easy.  That was an opportunity missed, IMO.  But Hero really values backwards compatibility.
 
CON is unavoidable - reducing average damage to 15 so an 18 or 20 CON avoids being stunned makes for long battles.  And the high DEF concepts tend to be high CON concepts as well.
 
It would actually be easy to pare back all published characters about 2 SPD and 9 DEX/3 CV.  This would put the Slow Super (presently 20 DEX, 4 SPD, 7 CV) at 11 DEX, 2 SPD, 4 CV - a bit better than a Normal (probably has some skill levels or powers that hit easily).  Average Super comes in at SPD 3, DEX 14 - 18, and CV 5-6.  Really agile characters?  21 - 26 DEX, 4-5 SPD and 7-9 CV.
 
But we are about 4.8 editions too late -  1st Ed came out of the gate with Supers starting at 20-23 DEX and 4-5 SPD, and ramping up from there  But unless we are willing to do so, the answer is that those characters are faster than their superpowered peers in the source material, so we have to allow that in any game intended to align with that source material.

I feel that the build character to concept is a little misleading. You CAN build  a character to concept, that concept could be Joe normal in a Super game but in play, that character may not be any fun. A
nd this can go the opposite way in power builds too. Just because you can build it doesn’t mean you should play it.

OK.  To use Neil's example.  The players want heavier weapons. 
 
One of them suggests that the Plan should have included getting a cache of just such hardware on top of the lift. 
 
I say that this is eminently possible and for them to be there, they need to roll the Dice Pool (for this example presume there are 4 dice in that pool). 
 
The players decide if they want to use the Pool. There is no chance of the cache not being there. By rolling the dice they know there will be a cache.
 
What the players do not know is whether this will leave them with dice in the pool or not.  It is very unlikely (but not unfeasible) that they would roll 4 sixes. 
 
If they go ahead and roll the dice they might roll 6, 5, 3, 3.  That means the Pool is now 3 dice.  Next time they want to use the Pool to implement the Plan, they only roll 3 dice.  They can keep using the Pool until there are no dice left to use.
 
If they had wanted an EMP device above the lift then I might have said, yes, but only if you lose a dice from the pool if you roll 6s or 5s.  In the above example, that would leave them with only 2 dice.
 
I have only used it a couple of times myself and on both occasions it has added an element of tension to the table about decisions, without actually impacting the decision being made - even if they had rolled 4 sixes, the cache would have been there but they would have no Pool for the rest of the adventure...

I think it is a half-way house.  The plan is hashed out by the players in a really sketchy way rather than sitting down coming up with a million details that might never be relevant.  There are some broad rolls that deliver a number of chits.  Those chits can be used to fill in details that become necessary during play (such as "we need heavier weapons, good job I stashed a cache on top of the lift").  Or at least that is the cool aspect that I think I will be stealing from this! 🙂
 
Again, I like a bit of uncertainty among the players and might use the dice pool idea rather than the chits.  If you would have had 12 chits, you get a pool of 12 dice, when you want to take control of the story you throw the pool and remove all the dice that roll 6s.  That way the players are never 100% certain of how much resource they might be using to do this next thing. I have used this mostly for timing, when trying to complete a task before a bomb goes off for example, and I have also, when the players are asking for a HUGE thing, said that I would allow it if dice were eliminated on a roll of 5 or 6.  It provides even more flexibility and a little bit of drama.  Rolling dice for rolling's sake is a bad thing, rolling dice to heighten drama is good.  🙂
 
Doc

I actually included something similar (after reading Blades in the Dark)... calling it "The Plan" in my game. I already have a bennie system with "Luck Chits" and I've been experimenting with a relatively simple process.
 
1. When a scenario calls for it, players come up with a general "plan of attack"... like "We want the infiltrate the club in disguise, after having hacked the security cameras, and gotten a decent floorplan. The goal is to narrow down where the hostage might be kept, and so our assault is fast and quick, with a planned getaway."

That's it... no long involved arguing about how many grenades you are packing, or what language your hacking program is written in, or whatever... quick, general, covers the basic idea.
 
2. Each player/PC gets to role a "Prep" roll based on their skill/expertise/contacts, to contribute to  "The Plan". (i.e. the hacker rolls to say "I'm gaining access to the security network through cables running through tunnels under the club." and the faceman says "I'm organizing our local support to have watchers on the street and around the building and a getaway driver." and the ninja says, "I'm going to infiltrate and get in position way ahead of time, before things go down."   whatever...)  Based on how well they roll, they get contribute plusses or minuses to "The Plan" roll. for example... hacker rolls well, that says he is in, with full view of all cameras, give a +2 to "The Plan" roll... but ninja rolled badly, he was able to get inside, but unable to get far due to unexpected employees showing up and can't break cover"... -1 to The Plan roll.   The rolls help narrate the "set up montage"
 
3. Then, based on the total plusses or minuses... a player with Tactics or Teamwork... rolls. Based on how well they roll... the players gain Luck Chits for the group as a whole, that can be utilzed when necessary to say "I planned for this!" when they run into some obstacle in the actual op. For example, the PCs could only infiltrate with light weapons... but once inside, realized they were likely heavily out gunned. The ninja spent a chit saying, "I planned for this, and on my way in, I left a duffle bag of guns on the roof of the elevator off the kitchen." The PCs are then able to pick up a couple assault rifles and a shotgun before heading for the penthouse.

A few more tweaks (like I set a number based on how difficult the target it... from Easy to Hyper Secure (infiltrating a night club owned by gangsters is easier than infiltrating an NSA black site)... but generally that's it.

Players/PCs contribute to "The Plan"... a single roll is then made to determine how effectively the plan was up to the point of "Go" when the actual, moment to moment play begins... and a good roll provides "I planned for that..." bennies... or not if the plan wasn't so good.

Have just recently begun trying it, but it works alright and I'm committed to using basic HERO skills and contacts, etc.... just using them in a different light.

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!

 

Every time I play 6e I feel like I'm cheating on 4e. 
 
She was the worthiest of the HERO editions.  Really felt like the right balance between rules exposition and playability.

Take a look at something like Gnome Stew online, which is a gaming blog that discusses these issues. You may find something you like, and may find some games that are interesting to you. There are also many gaming podcasts out there. Many of the people from Gnome Stew are on misdirectedmark.com, which offers a variety of podcasts discussing these sorts of issues. They also have a lively online/social media presence, which may give you an idea of where gaming is headed these days. 

HERO takes longer to digest, but recently my Wednesday night table - that I had kind of written off in terms of really getting to understand the game has finally turned the corner and they are buying HERO Designer and trying to build their own power frameworks.
 
Which has lead to a level 2 conversation - Why you need DM approval on warning/stop sign powers.

I’m fond of the point build approach, maybe simply out of habitat this point. But it’s also what drew me into Fantasy HERO and away from AD&D back in the ‘80s, and it’s what I now use to entice current D&D players into the system. It’s at least an idea that intrigues people. The crunch is problematic though. 
 
As I wrote above, I give my new players a soft pre-gen so they can learn the rules, and then rebuild them later. I also give them an incomplete build so they can add things as they learn what’s useful for their vision of their characters. I started a thread a month or so ago about using Resource Pools for things like Skills, languages, Perks, and equipment, and some people lost their minds over it. Sure, it’s a liberal application of the Resource Points rule, but like you suggest, it makes sense to give the characters a certain amount of flexibility from game session to game session so they don’t have to have it all figured out ahead of time. From my viewpoint, it’s a balance between the spirit of HERO System and the flexibility of narrative gaming. 
 
I’m also a big fan of the Quick Character Generator in the Champions books (both 5e and 6e) because they play with the idea of archetypes and roughly balanced builds with a minimum of crunchiness. The new Character Creation Cards are another great example of that approach. I think they could easily be built for other genres as well, especially Fantasy HERO.

Do this, and be transparent about it. Tell them exactly this... you want them to invest in their characters the story and wanting to play... and if that inspires them to want to learn the crunch, great, but no need to worry about it. If you want PC actions to feel intuitively correct for the scenario/action rather than driven by mechanical efficiency or expediency, I'd recommend this. It should work, assuming you don't (and I don't think you'd do this) fall into the trap of punishing them for "wrong" decisions. A lot of the drive to rule mastery is an aspect of being punished for 'bad decisions' because you didn't know the rules well enough. Assuming you avoid that (and I assume you will) then it should work fine. Let the individual player let you know if they want to know more about the crunch.

Just fyi, the examples I gave ARE from actual play, including the duffle bag of guns on the roof of the elevator. I think the biggest issue we had with it was players struggling with determining "What are prep/montage actions vs. what are actual play actions"  The ninja player's "prep" actions were "I get in there and find the hostage and get out"... which was like the whole adventure... heh. So we had to discuss what was appropriate as "setup actions" vs. "actual play, the plan contacts the enemy" because old school gamers can be very unused to have "director stance" actions... which in some ways these are... but you can't take it too far. 

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!

 

Ya. I've been doing narrative and rules lite games for the last six to seven years (Fate Accelerated is a favorite; if you haven't checked out my Pathfinder Fate Accelerated stuff you might find it interesting), and only just came back to the Hero System by request of @WilyQuixote (who is a Hero System diehard player) and @Scything who became Hero System curious after years of hearing about past Hero System campaigns and from looking at stuff on my website. 
 
I think the essence of the HS is the SPD chart, the 3d6 bell curve for resolution, a pool of D6 for effect, separate STUN and BODY stats, maneuvers have CV modifiers built into them,  sandboxy point buy vs class / level / tree. More limited things cost less than less limited things. Mechanically similar things use the same rules vs being arbitrarily redefined. 
 
The rest of it is largely embellishment, for me.
 

Yes... team chits, a player can request to use one, group has to agree to what is suggested.  Usually, "oooh... ooh... I have an idea..." and people agree or make suggestions... go...

Just for clarity's sake on my part (I may have read right past your explanation), are the luck chits gained for the whole team based on the single "Plan" roll, or individually for each of their pre-plan rolls? In other words, is the ninja using a chit that belongs to the whole team based on their "Plan" roll, or his own chit based on how well he succeeded at inserting himself into the infiltration site?
 
By the way, thanks for reaching out to me at Origins! I love finally putting faces to names!

This was my problem with Deadlands in the past. When I created my Luck Chits, I specifically made them "use 'em or lose 'em" for each adventure, because I wanted them played for dramatic story shifts, and not hoarded for EXP or whatever. 

And while I, the GM, do have access to some Luck Chits as well... one of the things my players like, is that they can see my pool. When I spend to give the villain a free recovery, or whatever, they see this as a victory... they are wearning down my resources as well. If I didn't save a big bennie for the villain at the end, then he doesn't have his "automatic getaway" or whatever. Yes, the GM can say anything they want, but a bennie system can help moderate (in the eyes of the players) when the GM clearly is swinging the narrative against them. In fact, it kind of frees up the GM to be open about "yep, I'm deciding this in favor of the bad guys... here I'm spending a chit to have things go their way" and the players seem much more ok with that.

I actually included something similar (after reading Blades in the Dark)... calling it "The Plan" in my game. I already have a bennie system with "Luck Chits" and I've been experimenting with a relatively simple process.
 
1. When a scenario calls for it, players come up with a general "plan of attack"... like "We want the infiltrate the club in disguise, after having hacked the security cameras, and gotten a decent floorplan. The goal is to narrow down where the hostage might be kept, and so our assault is fast and quick, with a planned getaway."

That's it... no long involved arguing about how many grenades you are packing, or what language your hacking program is written in, or whatever... quick, general, covers the basic idea.
 
2. Each player/PC gets to role a "Prep" roll based on their skill/expertise/contacts, to contribute to  "The Plan". (i.e. the hacker rolls to say "I'm gaining access to the security network through cables running through tunnels under the club." and the faceman says "I'm organizing our local support to have watchers on the street and around the building and a getaway driver." and the ninja says, "I'm going to infiltrate and get in position way ahead of time, before things go down."   whatever...)  Based on how well they roll, they get contribute plusses or minuses to "The Plan" roll. for example... hacker rolls well, that says he is in, with full view of all cameras, give a +2 to "The Plan" roll... but ninja rolled badly, he was able to get inside, but unable to get far due to unexpected employees showing up and can't break cover"... -1 to The Plan roll.   The rolls help narrate the "set up montage"
 
3. Then, based on the total plusses or minuses... a player with Tactics or Teamwork... rolls. Based on how well they roll... the players gain Luck Chits for the group as a whole, that can be utilzed when necessary to say "I planned for this!" when they run into some obstacle in the actual op. For example, the PCs could only infiltrate with light weapons... but once inside, realized they were likely heavily out gunned. The ninja spent a chit saying, "I planned for this, and on my way in, I left a duffle bag of guns on the roof of the elevator off the kitchen." The PCs are then able to pick up a couple assault rifles and a shotgun before heading for the penthouse.

A few more tweaks (like I set a number based on how difficult the target it... from Easy to Hyper Secure (infiltrating a night club owned by gangsters is easier than infiltrating an NSA black site)... but generally that's it.

Players/PCs contribute to "The Plan"... a single roll is then made to determine how effectively the plan was up to the point of "Go" when the actual, moment to moment play begins... and a good roll provides "I planned for that..." bennies... or not if the plan wasn't so good.

Have just recently begun trying it, but it works alright and I'm committed to using basic HERO skills and contacts, etc.... just using them in a different light.

I actually included something similar (after reading Blades in the Dark)... calling it "The Plan" in my game. I already have a bennie system with "Luck Chits" and I've been experimenting with a relatively simple process.
 
1. When a scenario calls for it, players come up with a general "plan of attack"... like "We want the infiltrate the club in disguise, after having hacked the security cameras, and gotten a decent floorplan. The goal is to narrow down where the hostage might be kept, and so our assault is fast and quick, with a planned getaway."

That's it... no long involved arguing about how many grenades you are packing, or what language your hacking program is written in, or whatever... quick, general, covers the basic idea.
 
2. Each player/PC gets to role a "Prep" roll based on their skill/expertise/contacts, to contribute to  "The Plan". (i.e. the hacker rolls to say "I'm gaining access to the security network through cables running through tunnels under the club." and the faceman says "I'm organizing our local support to have watchers on the street and around the building and a getaway driver." and the ninja says, "I'm going to infiltrate and get in position way ahead of time, before things go down."   whatever...)  Based on how well they roll, they get contribute plusses or minuses to "The Plan" roll. for example... hacker rolls well, that says he is in, with full view of all cameras, give a +2 to "The Plan" roll... but ninja rolled badly, he was able to get inside, but unable to get far due to unexpected employees showing up and can't break cover"... -1 to The Plan roll.   The rolls help narrate the "set up montage"
 
3. Then, based on the total plusses or minuses... a player with Tactics or Teamwork... rolls. Based on how well they roll... the players gain Luck Chits for the group as a whole, that can be utilzed when necessary to say "I planned for this!" when they run into some obstacle in the actual op. For example, the PCs could only infiltrate with light weapons... but once inside, realized they were likely heavily out gunned. The ninja spent a chit saying, "I planned for this, and on my way in, I left a duffle bag of guns on the roof of the elevator off the kitchen." The PCs are then able to pick up a couple assault rifles and a shotgun before heading for the penthouse.

A few more tweaks (like I set a number based on how difficult the target it... from Easy to Hyper Secure (infiltrating a night club owned by gangsters is easier than infiltrating an NSA black site)... but generally that's it.

Players/PCs contribute to "The Plan"... a single roll is then made to determine how effectively the plan was up to the point of "Go" when the actual, moment to moment play begins... and a good roll provides "I planned for that..." bennies... or not if the plan wasn't so good.

Have just recently begun trying it, but it works alright and I'm committed to using basic HERO skills and contacts, etc.... just using them in a different light.

Yes, but are any of them better than Point Break?

And yet Endgame is undisputedly a better film than either Avatar or GWTW. 

Avengers: Endgame to be released in theaters in the next few weeks