Doc Democracy

14 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

 

I think we just run different types of games. Sure, you could use a "Super Science" skill to cover everything, but, for me, that loses some of the charm of the game. One of the elements I've always enjoyed in the examples I listed is to see how certain specialties are used in comics (particularly in the comics). The same could be said about looking at the Bat-Family of characters. Each has their own method of working on a crime, and some overlap better than others. Should there be a "Crime Fighter" skill to cover everything they can do? If it works in your game, awesome. For me, I'd prefer the extra details. I believe that's where a character can shine the most. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but rather it's not for me (especially after running broad skill systems for so long).

I'm not so certain we run hugely different types of games.  I appreciate detail, all I am talking about is how that detail gets accounted for in the game.

So, say I gave players 350 points to build their characters and tell them that they can have two keywords each for skills (for free).

Each of those keywords contains the skills they need to "live" that keyword, like an extra two sets of everyman skills.

Batman takes Playboy and Detective.  Each of these come in at 11 or less. I am happy, on their character sheet to put as many skills as we agree fit underneath that keyword heading, skills that EveryPlayboy and EveryDetective "could" have.

I would allow them to individually raise skills within that for +1 per point spent.  I would allow 8 point skill levels for specific use in keywords and, if 10 skills are raised by 1 point, the whole keyword goes up by one.

I would also encourage the use of non-standard skills (not in the book) like "Make impressive entrance" to allow this to give colour and to add things on the fly, if we agree they fitted within the concept of the keyword.

I don't think this constrains a rich description of what the character can do.  I can see some players sticking with the two keywords, a few skill levels and possibly adding in a few free-standing skills that are obviously outside the keywords. I can see others wanting to list a vast number of sub-skills that both define and characterise the kind of Playboy, or Detective, their character is.

It means there is flexibility within the system for those that want it, and detail available without exorbitant cost.

Doc

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

I'm thinking he meant at the beginning of a Segment.  (Though Christopher can correct me if I'm wrong.)  If you normally move on Segments 4, 8, and 12, and on 12 declare you're holding your action, then I think he's saying that he would be fine with you deciding you want to do a recovery at your DEX in 3, but not at the end.  

So easy to mix up terms.  I can understand saying that you cannot guarantee being the last to act on a segment within your phase, I can buy into that. 😁

3 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would probably allow someone to hold a phase to recover... but only if they did it at the beginning of the phase.  As in, at their normal DEX and everyone gets to act after that, not at the "end" of the phase.

Is there any point holding a phase that you use at the beginning of your phase?

There are not many politicians who burnish their reputation after they leave office.  I think Jimmy Carter drew a poor hand during his presidency but his decency and honesty, especially the honesty, should be a shining example to politicians all over the world seeking legacy.

More decency and honesty from our politicians would be VERY welcome.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

From a gamist perspective, because the "move all on your phase" model is a necessary compromise while "you can avoid virtually all of the negative aspects of a recovery during combat by declaring the recovery only after anything that might trigger or take advantage of those negative implications have passed" is not a game enhancer.

I don't think it is a game killer either.  I have softened to take a player-centric approach to the game and things that make the game "easier" for players that use the rules is good for me.

9 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

Whereas if you could use your held action to recover, you'd only be a sitting duck for that fraction of a second at the very end of Phase 3 when nobody can attack you.  Hence, the rules not allowing you to do that.  

This is part of the action fuzziness in HERO.  For example, all your movement takes place in your phase.  If you are SPD 4, and decide on segment 3 to do your full move, 30m, then that all happens in segment 3, it does not stretch out until segment 5.  If you hold your action until segment 5, you get the full benefit of 30m movement.

If you can hold to the last fraction of a second to travel 30m, why not also get the full benefit of the recovery (as long as you have not used END or been harmed during that time)?

Doc

10 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

What's the skill differences between Reed Richards, Hank Pym, Tony Stark, and Bruce Banner? Depending on the system, not much. Using a more broad skill list, they'd all have science/scientist. In Hero, however, it's more specific and leans into the individual skills better. SS: Quantum Physics, SS: Physics, SS: Engineering, SS: Robotics, etc. For me, it works better. 

My instinct is to agree with you but in game terms, what difference do those things make to those characters?  In the comics they are geniuses and all fill the same space in stories. 

It feels to me like the science skills are almost equivalent to the special effects that we give to powers, they don't cost extra but they give small context-specific bonuses or penalties.

I think they are most useful at deciding which PC might be the one who notices the important information or makes a conceptual link in the adventure.

Also, while there is indeed a difference between superhero and heroic genres, I still think we should be looking at ways to use skills to flesh out the characters rather than bleed them of points.

Doc

37 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think its mostly the idea that an aborted phase is an emergency, an act of desperation.  It doesn't make sense to strain to recover.  You use an aborted phase for "yikes!" stuff, not "ahh, rest" stuff.

Ah!  But we are talking held phases, not aborted ones.

The character has waited to see what is happening and whether they need to react to a situation but they didn't and so they recovered their breath a bit...

Sounds reasonable to me...

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

True, but ultimately, if I have a held action and act in Phase 4, and decide to use my held action in Phase e so I can recover on Phase 4, what is the effective difference? 

 

The difference is that you have gained options and flexibility.  There is a school of thought that all assets, like options and flexibility need to be accounted for and you should not be allowed to gain advantage in this way.

I think it is second generation old-school thinking, and I think that it reduces fun at the table by removing a bit of agency from the players and, for me, takes away from the tactical game of combat and utilising the peccadilloes of the speed chart...

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Really?  You never at any point saw character creation as its own game, and sat down to see how much you could get for some minimal amount of points?  Not once?  Or wondered about a particular combination of powers or moddlifiers- never wondered enough to just try it and see what happened? 

Interesting question.  My instinct was to say, of course I have, but on reflection, I think the answer is no (to the end part).

I spent INORDINATE numbers of hours building things but the design was always how I could make the system do something I had seen or thought about, concept-driven tinkering (hmm, wouldn't this wild west themed villain be great with Guys and Gals minions? What if the Gals had a garter they could throw that choked you!  How would I build that?).  I can honestly say I never looked at a mechanic, or limitation and wondered how they would work in combination...

So, when I am struggling to make something work, I go rummaging through the rules, and I may have done that so much I have attained a level of mastery but, even at the start of the 1980s, I found it almost impossible to sit down and read a rulebook without falling asleep.

Doc

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

I always felt that the simplistic skills system in Hero was good for superheroic campaigns but needed to be fleshed out for heroic. 

I am inclined to agree with you but am not sure it was done correctly. I think that the point inflation due to skills is not equivalent to that using powers.  I think I would always spend 75 points on powers than 75 points on skills, even in an heroic game.

I think they could have had "framework skills".  PS: policeman could have had a bunch of skills under it, all at the ability level of the PS.  The PS increases when a set number of sub-skills increase through experience, at which point all sub-skills increase to the PS.

Or something like that.

🙂

Doc

56 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I did play champions, but I mostly GM heroic level games, and this usually had me ignoring powers, but paying close attention to stats and point totals. I saw it as my job as GM to present problems for the players to solve. Granularity of skills in later editions looked like inflation and a legalistic point sink. 

Yeah - the granularity of the skill system is something I have mostly body-swerved.  I liked the simple PS: policeman from the earliest editions.  I dont mind being more specific for some things as long as they make the character stand out but it is impossible to buy all the things that make a scientist a scientist in any kind of detail.  I think it might be cool to have lots of charts like the language chart that shows that 5 points in Medicine give 4 points in pharmacology, 3 in a variety of biological sciences, 2 in social work and 1 in a bunch of related stuff.  🙂

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Yes, exactly. Thank you for this, Duke. This illustrates the problem of that legalistic mind set. Why going past 4th or even 3rd edition is getting pointless. 

I never really "got" this logical train.  Every time I bought a new edition, I saw it as new suggestions on how to play.  I guess my approach to the game was never to know/master/follow the rules but to play the game. 

As such each new edition was additional possibility, not an increasingly heavy blanket on my creativity.

I have never talked about whether I play 2nd edition, or 4th edition or 6th edition, simply that I play Champions. 

As a player I would comply with all the rules of the table (I would tell the GM I intended to be book legal but they would need to check because I make so many assumptions in my head) and be content to adjust my character as the GM wanted.

Ultimately I will play my powers not the game mechanics.  If the GM focusses too heavily on the mechanics (of whatever edition) then we might not be a great match.

Doc

4 hours ago, GM Joe said:

I'll have to check out Spectaculars when I get a chance. I don't recall running into that one before.

It is worth checking out and spectacularly set up to run straight out of the box.

You can get the player characters, campaign and first scenario done in a reasonable evening's gaming.

https://scratchpadpublishing.com/spectaculars

There are apps given permission to override the sleep function aren't there?  I think at least one or two pdf readers do it.

If you want a "I would love" feature, then it would be allowing the GM to set up a group for players round the table to join.  Rolls could then be shared within the group - it would make the app more useful at the table.

Players should be able to join the group with an alias (the name of their character most obviously)

Yeah, I have nothing to contribute in terms of development but I have found the app a great tool.

I am not a huge fan of the more heavily narrative systems but I do get frustrated by the 40 year-old game skeleton of the HERO System.   There are things to learn from what has happened in the gaming world in those decades.

In Spectaculars there are environmental elements that need to be addressed.  powers work narratively some if the time and not in others - for example, SpiderGuy can (narratively) swing down and gum up all the CCTV with his webshooters but looking to hinder BigBadMonster needs (more gamist) engagement with the mechanics.  There were disconnects in the system for me but I hit a more heavily superheroic "feel" to the game more often than I do playing Champions.

HERO has focused so heavily in balancing the power system in character creation, it has neglected making those powers feel more superheroic during play.  I have ideas and trying to put them into words, and when they are good enough, I will share them.

Doc

28 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

External factors pedometer paramount, such as pacing, and how entertaining of a story the current plot is, and often how many tropes are name checked. The game becomes one step closer towards a board game.

I have read it and read it and still cannot work out what word "pedometer" was supposed to be....

19 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Unfortunately, until I can aggord to replace my computer, I can only access this board via phone, and it is extremely limiting.  I can see more of what I have written when composing an actual text than I can here on the boaed's editor, which makes it extremely dificult to track what has or has not been said.

You considered drafting as a text then cutting and pasting into the board editor?

17 hours ago, Alcamtar said:

I seem to recall those hardbacks being around $12-15 each!

 

For comparison:

AD&D 1e is 350 pages (PHB 125 pages, MM 100 pages, DMG 225 pages).

Fantasy Hero 4E is 650 pages (Core 200 pages, FH 250 pages, Bestiary 200 pages).

Fantasy Hero 6E is 2100+ pages (Core 800 pages, FH 450 pages, Grimoire 400 pages, Bestiary 500 pages).

$15 in 1980 is equivalent to just over $50 today, so three books comes to $150 in today's money.

I reckon the wrong turn HERO took was pulling its focus out instead of simply providing a supplementary core HERO book.

Champions could have progressively become more focused on a core HERO System supers campaign, with more defined game standards.  Similar for Fantasy HERO, Justice Inc and Danger International.

Supplements could have been produced to play games in each genre at different power levels with different skills, starting points etc.

Imagine a 450 page Fantasy HERO that had a defined magic system, skillset, Bestiary and some adventures.  it is easy to do.

You would only need the core book to do your own tinkering and world building. Splat books would gavenew magic systems, new beasts, ideas for building fighter types etc etc.

Doc

On 1/23/2023 at 3:40 PM, Cygnia said:

Well...

 

...

 

...

 

...after sending the hubby DT's very fine advice, he now is suggesting we go to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver instead.  

 

I can only assume he is terrified of Death Tribble.

What a shame I missed this, I could have done my second HeroBoards personal tour of the Palace of Westminster.

Cardiff is within striking distance of London which is where Dr Who and Torchwood were filmed.  In Scotland you could have hit Edinburgh Castle with a ghost walk.  Come back down via York - home of the Vikings.  Head out from there to Whitby (Dracula) and the Holy Isle.

Always something you can do in the future. 

Doc

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Well thought out, and welcome back, Doc!

 

I trust your time away served you well!

 

 

 

Thanks Duke.

I find that 30 years playing this game means this is a community I find hard to leave.  Where else can I talk HERO with any hope other people understand.  😁

I strop, flounce off, lurk for a while, then feel the need to comment, resist that until it is just too overwhelming.

Doc

I can understand where the OP is coming from.  What are the things people are thinking about when setting guidelines for their games.

Personally, I am thinking about the kind of fights I want to be in the game.  I like fights to be tense and potentially over very quickly.  I hate fights that drag on over turns and turns. 

So.  I look at the kind of damage per turn generated against defences.  Obviously a lot of this stuff relies on averages etc. but it gives an idea of those combats.

So, if I know brick style characters have defences of 30, STUN of 60 and REC of 15 and I want a fight potentially over in two turns, opponents need to generate 75 STUN after defences over those two turns.  A SPD 4 brick, that hits 50% of the time, will average 4 hits and so needs to do 49 STUN per hit, or about 15D6 attacks.  A SPD 8 martial artist, hitting 80% of the time, will average about 10 hits over that time, and so needs to do 38 STUN per hit, or about 11D6.

The problem is that EVERY character is a moving part with different combat values for offence and defence, so there is a lot of eye-balling and adjusting.  It also assumes everyone stands tie to tie, whaling away until someone falls down,no knock back,  movement, etc.  But it delivers a baseline.  Good rolls or getting a tactical advantage will end fights faster.  Getting matched up against someone more vulnerable to your abilities ends fights faster.  Lots of dashing about, using cover (and other things that make a fight more interesting) etc will make a fight take longer.

So, @Cloppy Clip that is how I set up my guidelines,  thinking about what feel I want for the game and matching things to achieve that.  The stuff in the book gives you decent starting points but, IME, no more than that.

Doc

It doubles each time, geometric rather than arithmetic progression.  Otherwise it would be overly expensive to get as fast as many heroes should be in movement.