What is HERO combat like?

[zslane]

Most melee characters in the game depend on the ability to reach an opponent with a half-move and then attack with a melee attack. Any opponent with more movement than such melee characters could avoid ever getting hit by adopting a hit-and-run strategy of attacking and then moving away (further than the melee character's half-move). The same tactic could be used against ranged attackers as well, though rather than being immune to their attacks, they get to attack and then move away and enjoy the relative safety of greater RMods (than if hit-and-run wasn't allowed). I would consider this something of a game-breaker.

[Altair]

Yep!

 

We had another casual rumble tonight, and wound up implementing an on-the-spot house rule that if you attacked, you could still take another half-phase action that wasn't movement or (obviously) attacking. That seemed to address the issue of movement being a dominant strategy pretty well. I don't know if there are other issues it introduces or not - we pretty much made the ruling to give a first-time player the opportunity to do more stuff. 

 

We seasoned vets with our 1 week of experience.

 

On that note, I was impressed by how much more intuitive everything was this time around. The mechanics have just taken less time to sink in than I was expecting, which is pretty awesome. I got to see just why double knockback is a stop sign, knocking the big bad through a couple floors, into a discotheque (which we had cleared out earlier). Very powerful. Possibly abusively so,.

 

Holy butt was it satisfying to volleyball spike that monster literally into the pavement.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think it would take playtesting and some shift in tactics before you could absolutely declare letting people move after attacking a game breaker.  Would it make certain kinds of builds more attractive (particularly teleporters?) Very likely.  Speedsters would loom large in power.  But then, perhaps they should.  Perhaps it makes sense and would make for more dynamic, comic book-feeling combat for the speedster or teleporter to move around all over the combat field avoiding being hit.

[Altair]

I think it would take playtesting and some shift in tactics before you could absolutely declare letting people move after attacking a game breaker.  Would it make certain kinds of builds more attractive (particularly teleporters?) Very likely.  Speedsters would loom large in power.  But then, perhaps they should.  Perhaps it makes sense and would make for more dynamic, comic book-feeling combat for the speedster or teleporter to move around all over the combat field avoiding being hit.

 

Yeah, for sure. It's a game-changer. For now, I'm pretty pleased with the "attacking stops movement" mod; we'll see if it introduces any bugs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Most melee characters in the game depend on the ability to reach an opponent with a half-move and then attack with a melee attack. Any opponent with more movement than such melee characters could avoid ever getting hit by adopting a hit-and-run strategy of attacking and then moving away (further than the melee character's half-move). The same tactic could be used against ranged attackers as well, though rather than being immune to their attacks, they get to attack and then move away and enjoy the relative safety of greater RMods (than if hit-and-run wasn't allowed). I would consider this something of a game-breaker.

 

Any opponent with more movement than the melee character can half move away, then attack with a ranged attack.  If the melee character has a shorter half move, the result is that he is unable to attack.  Attacking from 6 meters in the air works pretty well too, if the opponent can't fly or leap.  A few points spent on Range Penalty Skill Levels easily mitigates any issue of range for the attacker.  The Strafe maneuver is another option, if that optional maneuver is permitted.

 

A character with 100 meters of running can start 50 meters away, rush in for a Move By, and complete his move 50 meters away. 

 

IOW, the tactics you describe are already broadly available with the "attack ends your phase" rule.  They can certainly be effective, but I do not find them gamebreaking. 

 

The concern also seems to assume that gladiatorial combat - knock my opponent out - is the sole goal in all situations.  "I Blast the villain Brick, then fly up 100 meters.  "NyahNyah - can't catch me!"

 

The Brick shrugs, tears off the door of the armored car and disappears within.

 

What does Mr. Movement do now?  If he follows the Brick into the armored car, he can't also run away afterwards.  If not, the Brick starts gathering up the cash he came to steal, then emerges from the van.  Want to approach now?  if yes, the Brick will be able to retaliate.  If not, he leaves with the money. 

 

Mr. Movement is relying on his opponent chasing him, but there's often no compelling reason to do so.  Even in an all-out slugfest, if Mr. Movement hits my Brick and runs away, I'll move to a different opponent.  He has provided a great opportunity for me to help out one of my teammates (maybe one who can fly and/or attack at range).  Adding to the advantage, since Mr. Movement fled a full half move away from me, if I move a little further away from him, he can't get back in range in a single half move.

[zslane]

Hmm. You may have a point.

 

If I were to experiment with discarding the rule that attacks end a Phase, I would probably impose a DCV penalty on characters that use movement powers after an attack, just to give such moves a bit of a tactical cost. I would also rule that a defensive maneuver must still end a Phase. Peforming a Dodge and then moving doesn't make sense to me given that the game assumes that when you do a defensive maneuver, you are doing that maneuver from that moment until your next Phase.

[zslane]

Additional thought: I'd also probably not allow a character's DCV to go up due to movement velocity after an attack, and instead be the DCV obtained after applying the attack maneuver's DCV modifier along with my house-rule-imposed penalty mentioned earlier.

[Christopher R Taylor]

IOW, the tactics you describe are already broadly available with the "attack ends your phase" rule.  They can certainly be effective, but I do not find them gamebreaking. 

 

 

Correct, in fact it might encourage players to be more tactical, use their terrain more, and think more in combat.  I think its one of those holdovers from wargaming that everyone has always assumed has to be that way but doesn't.

Incidentally, you can move after attacking in Savage Worlds.  You can even attack move, attack, and then move again.

 

[Altair]

Correct, in fact it might encourage players to be more tactical, use their terrain more, and think more in combat.  I think its one of those holdovers from wargaming that everyone has always assumed has to be that way but doesn't.

Incidentally, you can move after attacking in Savage Worlds.  You can even attack move, attack, and then move again.

 

 

Right. Or in Shadowrun, where you've got your movement for the turn, and that's how much you can move when you're up - if that's a straight sprint, great. If that's running around a corner, seeing three guards, popping off a manaball, then diving for cover, and scooching over so that your street Sam has room to set up a shot - that's cool.  It has, in my experience, made combat much more dynamic. 

 

The massive movement capabilities of HERO complicate matters, but I don't think it's an insurmountable issue. Zslane, I like where you're going with those ideas - I'm curious to see this take shape.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Or in Shadowrun, where you've got your movement for the turn, and that's how much you can move when you're up - if that's a straight sprint, great. If that's running around a corner, seeing three guards, popping off a manaball, then diving for cover, and scooching over so that your street Sam has room to set up a shot - that's cool.  It has, in my experience, made combat much more dynamic. 

 

 

I'm really a fan of that concept, that instead of treating movement as an action so you have half and full moves, just treat it as movement separate from the rest and let people break it up however they wish.  I'd love to try it out, at least, and see how it plays out.  My biggest problem is that my best playtester moved away.  He was the guy that always found the way to break and abuse a rule, the guy who found all the loopholes without even trying.  He was perfect for testing ideas out, kind of a PITA for regular play but wonderful in the right context.  I miss that big lug.

[Altair]

I'm really a fan of that concept, that instead of treating movement as an action so you have half and full moves, just treat it as movement separate from the rest and let people break it up however they wish.  I'd love to try it out, at least, and see how it plays out.  My biggest problem is that my best playtester moved away.  He was the guy that always found the way to break and abuse a rule, the guy who found all the loopholes without even trying.  He was perfect for testing ideas out, kind of a PITA for regular play but wonderful in the right context.  I miss that big lug.

 

Yeah, I've got one of those guys. Wonderful human being, perfect for finding where a system breaks, invaluable for ironing out the kinks in my own RPG system, perfect playtester.

 

He & I in a game together is a comically bad mix, and is just not sustainable in anything we've tried. But man! For one-shots or playtesting?

 

SOLID GOLD SKILLS, homie.

[Christopher]

Movement after attack:

According to RAW if you make a move by/through, you continue your move afterwards. Speedster Martial Arts usually invovle a move-b/t variant without (so much) damage suffered.

 

Taking non-move half-action after attack:

I have no overview how that idea started, but I consider it a bad idea.

A large part of the risk of making an attack is that you can not do anything afterwards. You can not even abort in the same segment. No mater what you abort to next segement, that leaves you open for kinds of attacks that skip that defense maneuver.

When you attack with streching, you continue to be vulnerable to attack afterwards.

Waiting for that "opening" can be the only way to get hold of a speedster.

 

 

Could this be about making a single powerfull foe that can challenge the entire team?

That is often done by just giving it high Damage Reduction (50 or 75%), while slightly lowering defenses. That way everyone can deal damage. But it takes a lot more (2-4 times) damage to take it out or get the target stunned.

[Altair]

Taking non-move half-action after attack:

I have no overview how that idea started, but I consider it a bad idea.

A large part of the risk of making an attack is that you can not do anything afterwards. You can not even abort in the same segment. No mater what you abort to next segement, that leaves you open for kinds of attacks that skip that defense maneuver.

When you attack with streching, you continue to be vulnerable to attack afterwards.

Waiting for that "opening" can be the only way to get hold of a speedster.

 

 

Could this be about making a single powerfull foe that can challenge the entire team?

That is often done by just giving it high Damage Reduction (50 or 75%), while slightly lowering defenses. That way everyone can deal damage. But it takes a lot more (2-4 times) damage to take it out or get the target stunned.

 

The idea started in this thread at least, by me, wondering as to the reasoning behind attacks ending one's turn. in my estimation, you lose a lot from that. What is gained, is that high movement does not become the dominant strategy,the "opening" you reference above. I'll want to play with it to see if that's an actual issue in my games, or something I can safely do without.

 

The non-move half action was our on-the-spot ruling for our last little get-together. The primary reasoning at the time, was teaching a new player about half-phase actions. The logic is as follows:

 

If the reason why attacks end a characters turn is to prevent them from moving away, then the rule exists to stop post-attack movement. If that's the case, then it should only stop movement, not everything. 

 

It's possible that there is a very good reason for attacks stopping all actions, not just movement. I have not seen one posited yet. 

 

Either way, this is lovely. Regardless of what I decide in my own games, I really want to know the logic behind different rules, and what they provide. So thanks, everybody, and keep the feedback coming!

[Christopher]

The idea started in this thread at least, by me, wondering as to the reasoning behind attacks ending one's turn. in my estimation, you lose a lot from that. What is gained, is that high movement does not become the dominant strategy,the "opening" you reference above. I'll want to play with it to see if that's an actual issue in my games, or something I can safely do without.

 

The non-move half action was our on-the-spot ruling for our last little get-together. The primary reasoning at the time, was teaching a new player about half-phase actions. The logic is as follows:

 

If the reason why attacks end a characters turn is to prevent them from moving away, then the rule exists to stop post-attack movement. If that's the case, then it should only stop movement, not everything. 

 

It's possible that there is a very good reason for attacks stopping all actions, not just movement. I have not seen one posited yet. 

Let's see, full result of the "Attack Action Ends your turn". First we might have to talk about wich kind of actions are there:

Action that takes no time

These can be done anytime, even when not your phase. They are also the only action your can do after an attack by RAW. The only example on my mind is firing a trigger and Presesne Attacks.

 

0-Phase actions

They can be peformed after a half phase action. But not after a full phase action, Attack action or your 2nd half phase action. They can also be taken when aborting ("before" you take whatever half phae action you abort too?).

Example include switching around CSL or Multipowers. They are a bit like Actions that take no time, except you can only take them in your phase.

A lot of 0-phase action also have a lockout about "can't do the opposite action/same action again that phase". Like not being able to turn a power on and off in the same phase. This balances several powers (Desolid) and Power Constructs (Frameworks). You have to comit to them.

 

Half Phase Action

You can take two half phase actions a turn. This is actually the first time you have a limited action resource.

A lot of the skills and advantages are about "Upgrading" a Half Phase action to a 0-Phase action or action that takes no time. Breakfall, Quickdraw, Trigger - all prime examples. The idea is that the character is so good he can do it effortlessly. He's so skilled he can do X and still do other stuff afterwards.

 

Full Phase Action

FPA end your phase. You can not take any more half phase action, because you have no half phase actions left. 0-Phase actions are locked out too.

 

Aborting Action

You can't use these after a Full phase, 2 Half phase or an attack action either.

They are kinda like Actions that take no time, that cost your next action and can't be taken in the segment you already had an action.

 

Attack Action/Actions that end the Phase

These are the bastard childs of half and full phase actions. Like full phase they end your phase.

Yet unlike Full phase actions they do allow you to take half phase actions before that. That allows stuff like "stand up and attack" or "half move and attack". If you do not have to use it for something else (or could save it), you should try to use your HPA for something else.

 

 

Allowing half phase after attack:

Now I am actally confused wich action you could take after an attack:

Other attack actions are obviously a no go

Movement is a no-go

0-Phase actions are a no go

Aborting not allowed

Holding an action makes little sense either

 

 

I think making you use your HPA (if you don't need it for something) before Attack is the main reason. Spend a half phase making a  Perception Roll. Or maybe augment your Presence attack with a skill roll that takes a HPA.

 

At the same time it is a win to deny the enemy that half move. If he had to waste a half-move to stand up, the enemy can not use any Full Phase Actions or use a HPA before attack himself.

If he needs to get into range, he has to use a move-b/t maneuver, wich applies CV penalties.

 

In superheroic battles there is a tactic called "keep him off balance". The idea is to attack the foe with attacks he can't just ignore and has to abort or take HPA's to negate.

[Altair]

Cool, thank you.

 

 

Allowing half phase after attack:

Now I am actally confused wich action you could take after an attack:

Other attack actions are obviously a no go

Movement is a no-go

0-Phase actions are a no go

Aborting not allowed

Holding an action makes little sense either

 

 

And here was where our change - uninformed as it was - came in. No attacks. No movement. Yes to zero-phase actions, or half-phase actions perception checks, or using TK to pull something into your hand (which are the things that happened when we did this).

 

This is colored by a couple things - mainly, we haven't had a lot of abort actions occur yet, and the action economy is something that we haven't thoroughly explored just yet. I rather like the 'keep off-balance' idea - I've seen it come up in other games, and that's certainly not a strategy I want to take away.

[zslane]

Right, well, I think we all understand that the changes being made are not being made with a full grasp of the game's mechanics or the (potentially) far-reaching consequences of making those changes. And that's okay, I think, since you'll learn along the way what does or doesn't work and why. And then you'll fix what you have to. No big deal.

 

I myself never saw the RAW as a problem, and neither did any of the Champions players I played with over the years. But every group is going to be a little different. Some groups don't play superheroes and so don't accept the four-color cinematic bias that's built into the mechanics. Some groups come with a strong preference for the mechanics (and combat flow) of other game systems, and want to hack the Hero System to feel more like the games they are familiar with. There's nothing really wrong with that except that it can make it difficult to offer advice on how to solve various problems when house rules are changing the system in ways I (or the community at large) have no experience with. Very often the house rules create new/more problems than they solve, and they don't look, at least to my eyes, worth the effort.

 

In this particular case, I honestly feel you are seeking a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, but that's just my view. While I can see there might be workable ways to hack the system the way you want, the law of unintended consequences is very likely to bite you in the dice bag somewhere down the road, and so I don't fully endorse what you're trying to do. But again, I tend to be something of a Champions purist and I have more faith in the RAW than most (well, the RAW up through 4ed anyway).

[Altair]

Oh, for sure. I'm a big proponent of taking games as they are, on their own terms, until I have a good grasp of what's being done, and why. Then, promptly twisting the mechanics into an unholy aberration of my own design.

 

As one does.

[Altair]

So, rather than have another superhero smackdown last night, we wound up just hanging out. Conversation turned back to Champions, however, and we talked a bit about things that we liked and didn't like.

 

Things that we liked! 

• Creating characters - there's just an amazing ability to model different things, and when they come out in play, it's been satisfyingly distinct.
• Dynamism of movement - knockback, flight, running up walls, swinging - there's a lot of movement going on, and it feels very kinetic & dynamic
• The inherent biases of the HERO system - STUN being more likely than BODY, things like that. It's possible to be quite survivable.

Things that we didn't like! 

• Lots of Tracking - STUN, END, BOD, plus more if you've got absorption, Multipowers split between different abilities, there's a lot of moving parts. Some people mind this less, but on the whole, we found ourselves saying "this would be awesome in a video game" a whole bunch.
  • Riffing off of that, END tracking is really cool in concept, but in general, we found it tedious in play
• Being Stunned out - one of the least fun things that can happen in an RPG (based on our experience! Maybe you like it? That's rad!) is player action denial. This is most forgivable in games like Savage Worlds, where your next turn will be up in < 5 minutes or so, so it's not that big a deal. But losing my turn because I took damage, then waiting what, 10 minutes? 20? 30? for my next turn? That is anti-fun. We all wound up building characters in a way that never engages with that part of the system, crazy high CONs and the like. I take that to mean that this part of the system isn't adding anything positive to our experience.
• In general, the granularity of the system makes combat long. I was told as much, and it's held pretty true. That's fine for wargaming - which is pretty much what we've been doing - but makes the game much less appealing as an RPG for us. 

Things that just kind of were! 

• The game has been, thus far, really tied to maps & terrain. And I love the 3d terrain - I've been making more, and it's a lot of fun. But it's a strong contributor to that wargamey feel, and I'm not certain that the game will respond as well to the types of encounters that would likely come up in any game I was in/running. If I have to stop and set up the map & terrain, then any excitement and energy we've built up is pretty much gone. If I'm building up towards a scenario that I've built ahead of time, then I'm probably not getting the rest of the game how I want it, barring very big moments that seem kind of unavoidable, and are planned in advance. I know that others tend more towards this style, which is cool, just not as applicable to my needs. 
• There are a lot of player choices at every juncture - how do I use my powers, what maneuvers do I want to do, a lot of cost-benefit analysis stuff. This is both great, insofar as it provides a lot of fun tactical options, and less great insofar as it adds to the amount of time spent in each turn, and can contribute to analysis paralysis.
• The learning curve is not small. Really at any point. 

As far as things that bothered me that seemed to be less troubling to others, I don't really like the core resolution for combat. It feels very THACO-y. It's not that it's a complicated equation that I don't understand, it's that it's not very intuitive; I find myself doing the equation each time I make an attack roll. This is, for me, a major negative. I know that there are rules for changing combat to work more like the skill system in one of the APGs, perhaps that will be appealing to me?

 

Regardless, I've had tremendous fun thus far, and am looking at switching things up next week, to try some different options and approaches. 

[massey]

So, rather than have another superhero smackdown last night, we wound up just hanging out. Conversation turned back to Champions, however, and we talked a bit about things that we liked and didn't like.

 

Things that we liked! 

• Creating characters - there's just an amazing ability to model different things, and when they come out in play, it's been satisfyingly distinct.
• Dynamism of movement - knockback, flight, running up walls, swinging - there's a lot of movement going on, and it feels very kinetic & dynamic
• The inherent biases of the HERO system - STUN being more likely than BODY, things like that. It's possible to be quite survivable.

Things that we didn't like! 

• Lots of Tracking - STUN, END, BOD, plus more if you've got absorption, Multipowers split between different abilities, there's a lot of moving parts. Some people mind this less, but on the whole, we found ourselves saying "this would be awesome in a video game" a whole bunch.
  • Riffing off of that, END tracking is really cool in concept, but in general, we found it tedious in play
• Being Stunned out - one of the least fun things that can happen in an RPG (based on our experience! Maybe you like it? That's rad!) is player action denial. This is most forgivable in games like Savage Worlds, where your next turn will be up in < 5 minutes or so, so it's not that big a deal. But losing my turn because I took damage, then waiting what, 10 minutes? 20? 30? for my next turn? That is anti-fun. We all wound up building characters in a way that never engages with that part of the system, crazy high CONs and the like. I take that to mean that this part of the system isn't adding anything positive to our experience.
• In general, the granularity of the system makes combat long. I was told as much, and it's held pretty true. That's fine for wargaming - which is pretty much what we've been doing - but makes the game much less appealing as an RPG for us. 

Things that just kind of were! 

• The game has been, thus far, really tied to maps & terrain. And I love the 3d terrain - I've been making more, and it's a lot of fun. But it's a strong contributor to that wargamey feel, and I'm not certain that the game will respond as well to the types of encounters that would likely come up in any game I was in/running. If I have to stop and set up the map & terrain, then any excitement and energy we've built up is pretty much gone. If I'm building up towards a scenario that I've built ahead of time, then I'm probably not getting the rest of the game how I want it, barring very big moments that seem kind of unavoidable, and are planned in advance. I know that others tend more towards this style, which is cool, just not as applicable to my needs. 
• There are a lot of player choices at every juncture - how do I use my powers, what maneuvers do I want to do, a lot of cost-benefit analysis stuff. This is both great, insofar as it provides a lot of fun tactical options, and less great insofar as it adds to the amount of time spent in each turn, and can contribute to analysis paralysis.
• The learning curve is not small. Really at any point. 

As far as things that bothered me that seemed to be less troubling to others, I don't really like the core resolution for combat. It feels very THACO-y. It's not that it's a complicated equation that I don't understand, it's that it's not very intuitive; I find myself doing the equation each time I make an attack roll. This is, for me, a major negative. I know that there are rules for changing combat to work more like the skill system in one of the APGs, perhaps that will be appealing to me?

 

Regardless, I've had tremendous fun thus far, and am looking at switching things up next week, to try some different options and approaches. 

 

As far as tracking things like End, it helps to know what your character's average End use is each phase.  It also helps to know how many of those phases you can go before you run out of End.

 

So Bob the Hero has the following abilities:

10D6 Energy Blast (5 End per shot)

10" of Flight (2 End if full move, 1 End if half move)

10/10 Force Field (2 End per phase)

50 Endurance

10 Recovery

 

So if I'm playing Bob, I know that I'm normally spending 3 End every phase (2 for the Force Field and I'm usually going to half move), +5 for every time I shoot.  Since I've got 50 End, it's not really necessary for me to keep track of it unless I'm going to be pushing my powers a lot or if something else happens.  At the end of each turn, I just say "okay, so I used my force field for 5 phases, that's 10 End, I did a full move and 4 half moves, so that's 6 End, and I fired 3 times and dodged once.  So that's 15 more End.  So I spent 31 End this turn.  Now I get 10 back, so I'll have 29 for next turn."

 

I try to build characters that have at least one full turn worth of End.  It means I don't have to worry about keeping track of it so much.

 

As far as Con goes, it's helpful to be able to survive an average hit in your campaign without being Stunned.  If you are in a 12D6 campaign (average Stun 42), then you want your Def + Con to be somewhere in the 45+ range to prevent losing your action a lot.

 

Adjustment powers are a pain in the butt.  Avoid those unless you like book-keeping.

 

As far as analysis paralysis goes, that gets better with experience, but sometimes it helps to have a clear understanding of the character.  For instance, in any given phase, Spider-Man is going to dodge, shoot his webs, save somebody, or jump in and punch the bad guy in the face.  I think too often players get characters with a wide variety of attack powers, and they aren't sure which one to use because they just see them as numbers on a page.  It helps to have a good visualization of who the character is and what sort of things he does in combat.  Building on that, sometimes with new players it is good to start them with characters who are familiar.  I'd suggest writing up say, the X-Men, and running an adventure where they fight a few Sentinels or something like that.  A player will probably have a good idea of what Wolverine will do in any given situation, the same with Cyclops or Iceman or someone like that.

 

As far as OCV vs DCV goes, there are two schools of thought.  One says take your OCV, add the number 11, and write it on the character sheet.  So if your OCV is 7, you write "18" on the sheet.  When you attack someone, roll 3D6 and subtract it from that number.  That's the DCV you hit.  So you've got "18" on your sheet, you roll a 3D6 and get a 13.  18 - 13 means you hit a DCV of 5.  The other way of visualizing it is to say "On an 11, I hit a DCV equal to my OCV.  For every number higher, I hit one worse DCV.  For every number lower than 11, I hit one better DCV."  That's how I do it.

[Greywind]

Why is tracking tedious? Seriously. The only one that should be doing a lot of it is the GM. The players can do their bookkeeping when it is not their turn.

[Joe Walsh]

For tracking, use jelly beans (or some other small edible).  Eat 'em as the resource is used up.  Add more from the bag when your character recovers.

 

You'll get less complaints.

[zslane]

Hero System combat, in its default form, is a man-to-man skirmish-level wargame. Non-wargamers are not going to warm up to the granularity of the combat mechanics, the resource tracking (what wargamers refer to as "bookkeeping"), or the crunchy mathiness of it. For the more casual gamer, either a different system is needed, or Hero combat has to be hacked into a form most long-time Champions players probably wouldn't recognize.

 

I love the universality of the Hero System. But "universal" here refers to its ability to model just about any genre. It doesn't refer to its ability to appeal to all types of gamers. I came to RPGs from wargames. The Hero combat system is incredibly intuitive and fun to me, including all the resource tracking since that is a core element of any tactical decision-making process. Take away resources like END and charges and so on and the game gets stripped of too many critical factors that make battlefield decisions challenging and interesting.

[massey]

And I think Champions can flow pretty smoothly, without a tremendous amount of book-keeping.  It just requires players who enjoy that sort of game.  If you have a wargamer in there whose entire strategy revolves around counting hexes and using careful movement to remain just outside of his opponent's half-move, then he's not going to be happy with that.

[Altair]

 

Why is tracking tedious? Seriously. The only one that should be doing a lot of it is the GM. The players can do their bookkeeping when it is not their turn.

 

In my case, because I find it tedious, and more importantly, distracting? (Sorry for the tautology) I want to be invested in what's going on in the game, not waiting for my turn. Granted, there's a lot of time between turns, so bookeeping can be done in that interval. Again, it's not that I'm incapable of it or anything of the sort, I just find it distracting.

 

 

For tracking, use jelly beans (or some other small edible).  Eat 'em as the resource is used up.  Add more from the bag when your character recovers.

 

You'll get less complaints.

 

Not the worst idea I've been using little counters from Sentinels of the Multiverse. Candy - or conversely, Cherries or Blueberries could do the trick.

 

 

Hero System combat, in its default form, is a man-to-man skirmish-level wargame. Non-wargamers are not going to warm up to the granularity of the combat mechanics, the resource tracking (what wargamers refer to as "bookkeeping"), or the crunchy mathiness of it. For the more casual gamer, either a different system is needed, or Hero combat has to be hacked into a form most long-time Champions players probably wouldn't recognize.

 

Agreed; it's a delightful skirmish-level wargame, which is pretty much what we've been doing with it. And while I wouldn't say the group is casual - that's actually how I would describe our Champions wargaming, it's been casual - it certainly leans more towards the dramatic than the procedural, to use the terms from Robin Laws' excellent Hamlet's Hit Points. Doing combat that is as wargame-rooted in the course of an ongoing RPG is less appealing to me - though not entirely so. It really depends on what I'm in the mood for.

 

And yeah, hacking into something that long-time Champions players wouldn't recognize? M'doing that.    Thus far, I don't see anything inherently wrong or broken with HERO - understand, I mean that as extremely high praise, there are plenty of games on the market that don't meet that criteria - but the thing it does well might not be what I want. Hence, changes.

 

I love the universality of the Hero System. But "universal" here refers to its ability to model just about any genre. It doesn't refer to its ability to appeal to all types of gamers. I came to RPGs from wargames. The Hero combat system is incredibly intuitive and fun to me, including all the resource tracking since that is a core element of any tactical decision-making process. Take away resources like END and charges and so on and the game gets stripped of too many critical factors that make battlefield decisions challenging and interesting.

 

Yeah, I came in from pretty much the opposite direction - I was an acting student having difficulty with my improv class, and my roomate tricked me into NPCing for his vampire LARP. It would be a couple years before I played D&D, or anything that didn't involve costuming.   I actually dedicated a spring break to experimenting with Pathfinder the way it's intended to be played - lots of combat, maps, minis - to see if this was a thing I enjoyed. 

 

And it turns out that I did!   Even if that's not always what I want.

 

But I'm very much coming from the opposite side of the hobby, very narratively & dramatically focused. I don't really like board or card games, and Champions is by far my favorite wargame  .

 

And I think Champions can flow pretty smoothly, without a tremendous amount of book-keeping.  It just requires players who enjoy that sort of game.  If you have a wargamer in there whose entire strategy revolves around counting hexes and using careful movement to remain just outside of his opponent's half-move, then he's not going to be happy with that.

 

I'm hoping that experience continues to smooth it out, yeah.

[zslane]

Vampire: the Masquerade was probably the first really successful RPG to evangelize storytelling over simulation (i.e., wargaming) as the primary playing idiom. For the most part, the Storyteller system and the Hero system are diametrically opposed designs. One does not normally expect the Hero System to be employed where a highly narrative, ToM-style storytelling experience is desired. Personally, I think it is a bizarre choice, just like I would scratch my head if someone said they wanted fine-grained, highly detailed combat mechanics in their Theatrix campaign.

 

But far be it from me to discourage the use of the Hero System...just be aware that the more changes you make to it to make it fit a style not terribly native to its design, the harder it will be to find consensus among experienced players when it comes to the, er, issues that you encounter.