TheRPGSite

So in the generic systrms thread it was suggested that I check out Hero System Sixth Edition Basic (BR).  $15 later, hat tip to the drivethru folks, I am reading/listening to these rules.

And... wow.  I am pretty shocked by the complexity represented in the BASIC version of these rules.  I am not yet passing judgement, and am willing to let it grow on me, but check out this out-of-context example:

QuoteTo attack, roll 3d6. Add 11 to your OCV and subtract the number rolled from the total. That indicates what DCV you can hit. If the target's DCV is equal to or less than that, you hit him; if it's higher than that, you missed him. For example, if a character has OCV 10 and rolls an 8, he can hit (10 + 11 - 8 =) DCV 13 or less.

Again,  that's out of context, but it boggles me a bit...

Why subtract what you rolled, and I guess this means rolling low is better?  Maybe?  But I think damage is a "roll high" situation, so maybe not.

And why eleven?  3d6 should average to 10, or 9.5 or something, without exploding dice.  With exploding we should be above 12.

More to come, but I am definitely having fun trying to fit all this in a busy addled brain.

:)

Quote from: mcbobbo;700642So in the generic systrms thread it was suggested that I check out Hero System Sixth Edition Basic (BR).  $15 later, hat tip to the drivethru folks, I am reading/listening to these rules.

And... wow.  I am pretty shocked by the complexity represented in the BASIC version of these rules.  I am not yet passing judgement, and am willing to let it grow on me, but check out this out-of-context example:



Again,  that's out of context, but it boggles me a bit...

Why subtract what you rolled, and I guess this means rolling low is better?  Maybe?  But I think damage is a "roll high" situation, so maybe not.
And why eleven?  3d6 should average to 10, or 9.5 or something, without exploding dice.  With exploding we should be above 12.

More to come, but I am definitely having fun trying to fit all this in a busy addled brain.

:)

Just use the combat chart, it makes figuring what you need to hit what DCV allot easier anyhow.  BTW the book are you using has the Chart on page 94.  If you don't have it, I suggest getting Champions Complete, they streamlined and brought the rules down to a manageable level, but still use the Quick Reference Combat Chart, speeds up the calculations.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700642And why eleven?  3d6 should average to 10, or 9.5 or something, without exploding dice.  With exploding we should be above 12.

Average on 3d6 is 10.5.  1d6 averages to 3.5, *3 = 10.5.

This book, exactly -http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/64691/HERO-System-Basic-Rulebook

Also I am a bit annoyed at the use of the word "roll" in Skill Roll.  It isn't a roll at all, but a target number to roll against, assuming I read it correctly.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700652This book, exactly -http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/64691/HERO-System-Basic-Rulebook

Also I am a bit annoyed at the use of the word "roll" in Skill Roll.  It isn't a roll at all, but a target number to roll against, assuming I read it correctly.

I love the underlying Hero System design - but I agree that it is complex, and many bits were fine or even innovative when it came out in 1981, but are holdovers now.

When I was running PS238 for kids, I added 10 to DCV, and the DCV you hit was OCV+3d6 (mathematically the same).

They're doinking around with the calculation to make it more like d20.  The original is easier to understand:  11 + OCV - DCV.  Roll less than or equal to that number to hit.

I played Champions/Hero System for years and finally bailed midway through 4th edition (the BBB).  The only reason it gets any respect at all is through sheer force of nostalgia and longevity; every part of the system is conceptually and mathematically broken beyond repair.

It had a couple of excellent writers producing content for it back in the day; Aaron Allston's Strike Force is easily the best superhero campaign supplement ever written and Steve Long gets the Batman TAS genre better than none other, save perhaps Dini and Timm themselves.

Why do you say it's mathematically broken?

Quote from: Bunch;700689Why do you say it's mathematically broken?

Yeah, why?

I like the variable costs, where a point of Dex is more useful and therefore costs you more.  But the maths are, well, wonkey.  9+(stat/5), roll under.  That's definitely unique.

Oh, boy.  Just off the top of my head: Steve Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness.

In the supplement Champions II, there was an article where - I am not making this up - the author showed how to maximize your character's effectiveness by pointing out that the intersection of several of the odd formulae for generating secondary characteristics and values resulted in sweet spots.  There's a reason why so many characters have DEX 23, for instance.

If you want specific examples:

STR ranges from 10 to 20 for a normal campaign, but the only values that have any mechanical meaning in the system are 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20. The intermediate values are superfluous.  Similar breakpoints exist for all the other stats, but they aren't at the same values.

DEX and CON have "sweet spots" that are so advantageous that you're hurting yourself by not using them, since the number of points you get is so limited (I note that they've increased the number of points starting characters get now, mostly to address this issue).

If you aren't planning on raising INT and EGO, there is no good reason not to buy them both down to 8.  You lose absolutely nothing in terms of mechanics, and if you're playing in a campaign with powers you can use those five points to buy Mental Defense and be significantly more resistant than if you'd left the stats at 10 and 10.

COM costs half a point per point of COM, but has no mechanical function in the system.  At all.  Anywhere.  If you don't care about how you look, you can buy it down to 0 and get a free five points.

That's just the problem with the attribute math; the issues run all the way through the system and culminate in the fact that the much-vaunted power build system is a giant conceptual trap: it doesn't do what it says it does, and it never has, but it's influenced almost as many RPGs as D&D.  It's virtually impossible to find a mainstream superhero RPG that didn't follow Champions right off the point-buy cliff.

I love Hero System, but it sucks.  It really does.  It's pretty much impossible to pick an entry point other than finding a group that already plays, and spending a not inconsiderable amount of time figuring out the rules and being tutored by the group.

I don't know if that means it's "broken".  I don't think math can be "broken", it can just give results other than the ones that people want.

If the idea is that a point buy system should result in characters that are equally effective (or even roughly comparable), then yeah, it probably doesn't meet that.  In fact, most point buy systems *don't* meet that, some more so than others.

If the desired goal is to provide a system to master and then demonstrate that mastery via optimized characters, I think it works pretty well.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;700714I love Hero System, but it sucks.  It really does.  It's pretty much impossible to pick an entry point other than finding a group that already plays, and spending a not inconsiderable amount of time figuring out the rules and being tutored by the group.

And the inevitable fights over how to build something.

(I.e. when I started, I made a character that was a fighter pilot, so while in a vehicle, he increases the Defensive Value. Now, I figured since it only increased his DCV while in a vehicle, it gets a disadvantage, and I can buy it at reduced cost. Wrong. Since it's "affecting an outside entity", you have to buy a number of expensive advantages, which greatly increases the cost. My +2 DCV in a plane went from 7 points to 37 points, IIRC. It was cheaper to become a Kung-Fu Master, than make the plane a little harder to hit.)

Quote from: Novastar;700720And the inevitable fights over how to build something.

(I.e. when I started, I made a character that was a fighter pilot, so while in a vehicle, he increases the Defensive Value. Now, I figured since it only increased his DCV while in a vehicle, it gets a disadvantage, and I can buy it at reduced cost. Wrong. Since it's "affecting an outside entity", you have to buy a number of expensive advantages, which greatly increases the cost. My +2 DCV in a plane went from 7 points to 37 points, IIRC. It was cheaper to become a Kung-Fu Master, than make a plane a little harder to hit.)

Well, that does explain why in a certain popular Sci - Fi franchise recently purchased by a certain media mogul, the best pilots are usually also (an equivalent of) Kung Fu Masters :D.

"I guess I might just spend those few more points in case I'm attacked on the ground".

I agree that the Hero System has a very difficult learning curve, which means the main option for playing is people who have already learned it. I don't play it with any of my regular groups these days for that reason, though I still will run and play in one-shots.

It is definitely on the complex side, particularly if you are dealing with powers.

On the other hand, I don't think that the point system is broken - unless you're holding it up to some ideal of perfect balance. This isn't possible, and even if it were possible, it isn't necessary for fun play. Played with a cooperative group, the Hero games I have been in had a wide variety of interesting characters who worked well together.

Quote from: jhkim;700724On the other hand, I don't think that the point system is broken - unless you're holding it up to some ideal of perfect balance. This isn't possible, and even if it were possible, it isn't necessary for fun play. Played with a cooperative group, the Hero games I have been in had a wide variety of interesting characters who worked well together.

So the question I have is if the point system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add?  Isn't that the whole premise of a point-buy system, that two characters with the same point cost will (assuming people aren't deliberately sabotaging their characters) be within some margin of effectiveness of each other?

IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

Quote from: robiswrong;700732IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

That's interesting, because that's the approach I'm considering taking with my game, at least during playtesting and until I can sort out what the various costs might even be.

Quote from: robiswrong;700732IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

When I have had to run Champions, that's more or less how I decided to do it. I tell the players an approximate maximum starting power level (as example characters from actual comics) and tell them to create characters about that power level and not worry about the points. The Hero system master players create characters that power level using very few points. Others create characters of that power level that easily use twice as many points.

I discovered after playing the original Champions for a few weeks that I still had to approve characters because equal point cost characters could be at widely different power levels. So just implemented the above. It freaks out the "hero system master" players, but I didn't cater to "system mastery" back in the early 1980s either.

Quote from: robiswrong;700732So the question I have is if the point system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add?  Isn't that the whole premise of a point-buy system, that two characters with the same point cost will (assuming people aren't deliberately sabotaging their characters) be within some margin of effectiveness of each other?

IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

In my opinion, the premise of a point-buy system is the same as any other character creation system - to make an interesting and satisfying group of PCs that are fun to play. A game can achieve this without being absolutely balanced, in my opinion.

I find that just using the point system works fine for a fun game. If I was looking for exact balance - then yes, I would have to modify point costs. However, I don't need that to have a fun game. Players just make their characters on their point budget, and then we play, and we have fun, without working about the details of balance.

As for just saying "make what you like" without point costs - it can definitely work. I've done it. It depends on the GM and the group. Some groups are fine with this. In my experience, though, a lot of groups like having guidelines, though, even if those guidelines may sometimes be overridden.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700661They're doinking around with the calculation to make it more like d20.  The original is easier to understand:  11 + OCV - DCV.  Roll less than or equal to that number to hit.

No, they're not doinking around with it. It's the same as it ever was, just expressed in a different way. This way, the player does not have to know the DCV of his opponent, he can just say "I hit DCV of X or below". It's a marginal benefit for making the calculation of the hit roll a head scratcher, but that's the reason for it.

Quote from: robiswrong;700732So the question I have is if the point system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add?  Isn't that the whole premise of a point-buy system, that two characters with the same point cost will (assuming people aren't deliberately sabotaging their characters) be within some margin of effectiveness of each other?

That depends entirely on your concept of "reasonable levels of balance."  If one of your characters is James Bond (or Batman) and another one is Superman, you might make both on 500 points but the first is obviously not going to beat the second one up, although he is going to know more stuff and have more options for approaching a target than just beating it up.

In my opinion, the virtue of Hero System (which I find simpler than GURPS, though that probably doesn't say anything) is that every game establishes some concept of "game balance" and this becomes that much more obvious when you look at the D&D family.  If you want a Fighter to have lots of combat options and damage-dealing ability via Feats, he apparently has to suck at skill ranks, skill selection and saving throws.  A Paladin is somewhat less handicapped, but also isn't going to be nearly as good at combat.  Or you could just do what D&D 4 did and make the classes largely interchangeable.  In any case a lot of D&D third-party stuff seems somehow "broken" to me because the fancy new feat or prestige class in the book isn't balanced with what came before, since there really isn't any guideline for what that means.  In Hero System, at least there is.

JG

Quote from: jhkim;700785In my opinion, the premise of a point-buy system is the same as any other character creation system - to make an interesting and satisfying group of PCs that are fun to play. A game can achieve this without being absolutely balanced, in my opinion.

Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman.

But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

Especially in a game like HERO/Champions, where it's very common to put additional restrictions on characters (no attack over xd6, etc.) above and beyond the point budget anyway.

Quote from: jhkim;700785I find that just using the point system works fine for a fun game. If I was looking for exact balance - then yes, I would have to modify point costs. However, I don't need that to have a fun game. Players just make their characters on their point budget, and then we play, and we have fun, without working about the details of balance.

I'm not looking for "exact balance".  I'm just saying that the whole *point* of using point buy (as separate from the power/skill definitions that you can get in HERO) is that two characters of the same point value should be roughly equivalent.

If that's not the case (and it's not - I pity any HERO or GURPS GM that doesn't pre-approve characters), then why not just skip the middleman?

Quote from: jhkim;700785As for just saying "make what you like" without point costs - it can definitely work. I've done it. It depends on the GM and the group. Some groups are fine with this. In my experience, though, a lot of groups like having guidelines, though, even if those guidelines may sometimes be overridden.

So why not make the guidelines based on maximum power levels, defense levels, etc. - which you often do in Champions games anyway?

Quote from: robiswrong;700814Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman.

But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

One advantage that Hero gives is the ability to make any character you want, in exactly the way you want. This isn't "charop prowess" (a d20-centric term) but building to concept.

I have introduced two newbies to Hero this year and they loved this aspect of it, making off-the-wall characters rather than choosing from a menu of abilities. The fact that I had to give them guidelines for appropriate SPD and attack strengths based on my judgment for the campaign was no sacrifice.

Quote from: robiswrong;700814Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman.

But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

Especially in a game like HERO/Champions, where it's very common to put additional restrictions on characters (no attack over xd6, etc.) above and beyond the point budget anyway.

By "absolute balance" I don't mean "exact balance".  I mean what you are talking about here - the idea that there is an absolute effectiveness and characters can be within 30% of it. Given infinite possible campaigns, I think the 30% number is meaningless. If I pick up two real character sheets, I don't think there is any way for me to assess if they are within 30% effectiveness of each other.

Rather than comparing Hero to an theoretical perfection that it should be within 30% of, I think it is more useful to compare it to other character creation mechanics. I think it is a legitimate complaint that Hero character creation is complex and time-consuming, but it also has great flexibility and clarity. I have a metric fuck-ton of little issues with it over how detailed mechanics and costs in it work. Still, I can state that I have played many campaigns where we just used the character creation rules as written (which includes campaign limits on attacks and defenses as you note), and we had plenty of fun that character creation was integral to.

Quote from: robiswrong;700814If that's not the case (and it's not - I pity any HERO or GURPS GM that doesn't pre-approve characters), then why not just skip the middleman?

There's nothing wrong with doing that, and maybe that's how you prefer to do things. For a lot of groups, though, they prefer the structure and objectivity of a point system - and even if fully informed of the option of just skipping the middleman, they prefer to work with points.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700710STR ranges from 10 to 20 for a normal campaign, but the only values that have any mechanical meaning in the system are 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20. The intermediate values are superfluous.  Similar breakpoints exist for all the other stats, but they aren't at the same values.

And this differs how from any other system that uses stat bonuses?

In Runequest most modifiers and additions are in +5% increments which makes me wonder why they bothered with percentiles in the first place.

In D&D 3.X and 4.0 a +1 bonus is granted for two points of characteristics.

I appreciated the commentary, like Goodman sez, the authors put into the books. Rather being ashamed of it, they pointed it out so everybody can take advantage of it if they choose. And in 3rd ,4th, and 5th they get better at not only this but in area that were problems. Stuff that despite whatever point tweaks you throw at it are going to be a problem if you allow it in your game.

In my view Champions/Hero System passes the most important test which is that it work well in actual play over the course of an entire campaign.

Quote from: Novastar;700720And the inevitable fights over how to build something.

(I.e. when I started, I made a character that was a fighter pilot, so while in a vehicle, he increases the Defensive Value. Now, I figured since it only increased his DCV while in a vehicle, it gets a disadvantage, and I can buy it at reduced cost. Wrong. Since it's "affecting an outside entity", you have to buy a number of expensive advantages, which greatly increases the cost. My +2 DCV in a plane went from 7 points to 37 points, IIRC. It was cheaper to become a Kung-Fu Master, than make the plane a little harder to hit.)

Because it is an advantage, the character can sit in any plane and give it +2 DCV. He is lending his bonus to another "character" in this case the plane.

If you wanted it cheaper then you flip it around and give a plane a +2 DCV if piloted by an individual with a specific skill set. One that your character happens to have.

Then it would a limited bonus because the +2 DCV only comes into play if pilot meets the criteria. If don't want every plane to have it you can say it is a special module or maintenance package that has to be added to specific planes. In a cinematic campaign you can say that is something unique that your character does to the plane before he flies. The point is that it is the plane that get modification not the player.

Quote from: jhkim;700724I agree that the Hero System has a very difficult learning curve, which means the main option for playing is people who have already learned it. I don't play it with any of my regular groups these days for that reason, though I still will run and play in one-shots.

I found for 5th edition that the UNTIL database of superpowers and the Ultimate series make the game very approachable. They are like shopping lists that the player can pick pre-built powers and clearly explain (in normal english not just the game-speak stats listing) the pros and cons of the options.

In the campaign I ran last year these books were highly effective as a starting point for all kinds of crazy things the character wanted to buy. Because the game stats were listed, they could find something similar, ask me how to tweak to be more what they wanted and then go from there.

Quote from: robiswrong;700814But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

The strong point of Hero was always power customization. Superhero games that uses shopping lists of powers may allow for character customization but are quite limited in power customization. Sure you can always house rule something in but Hero System allowed for a more objective way of creating just about anything.  

Should Stretching be worth twice that of Telekinesis (I don't if it is but it just an example). I don't know. I what I do know from following Champions from 2nd edition that the all of this be honed through many years of actual play. That while not perfect and much of it is arbitary it got a lot of playtesting behind it. And to note the authors had said at various times and in various editions if you don't how something is priced change it.

And to answer your point that a 500 pt batman is useless against a 500 pt superman is a consequence of any general point buy system. Unless your shopping list is limited then you can always make a "useless" character. Champions/Hero System recognized the issue in the 80s, talked about it, and the conclusion is that you need to make sure that your campaign fit the characters. That if there is a Batman and Superman then you need to run World Finest adventures not Batman adventures or Superman adventures.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700642So in the generic systrms thread it was suggested that I check out Hero System Sixth Edition Basic (BR).  $15 later, hat tip to the drivethru folks, I am reading/listening to these rules.

And... wow.  I am pretty shocked by the complexity represented in the BASIC version of these rules.  I am not yet passing judgement, and am willing to let it grow on me, but check out this out-of-context example:



Again,  that's out of context, but it boggles me a bit...

Why subtract what you rolled, and I guess this means rolling low is better?  Maybe?  But I think damage is a "roll high" situation, so maybe not.

And why eleven?  3d6 should average to 10, or 9.5 or something, without exploding dice.  With exploding we should be above 12.

More to come, but I am definitely having fun trying to fit all this in a busy addled brain.

:)

Hero uses roll low, and dice do not explode.

Stat rolls, Skill rolls, all types of rolls might be '12 or less' for example.

Average is 10.5   so 11 seems reasonable.



The 'to hit' roll is not a complicated as it might look.

You essentially need to roll an 11 or less to hit, modified by the difference between the attacker and defenders offence and defense value.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700652This book, exactly -http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/64691/HERO-System-Basic-Rulebook

Also I am a bit annoyed at the use of the word "roll" in Skill Roll.  It isn't a roll at all, but a target number to roll against, assuming I read it correctly.

Well, you do roll.

For example, If I have Acrobatics skill 15 or less, I just roll 3d6 and see if I get 15 or less.

Quote from: estar;700922Because it is an advantage, the character can sit in any plane and give it +2 DCV. He is lending his bonus to another "character" in this case the plane.

If you wanted it cheaper then you flip it around and give a plane a +2 DCV if piloted by an individual with a specific skill set. One that your character happens to have.

Then it would a limited bonus because the +2 DCV only comes into play if pilot meets the criteria. If don't want every plane to have it you can say it is a special module or maintenance package that has to be added to specific planes. In a cinematic campaign you can say that is something unique that your character does to the plane before he flies. The point is that it is the plane that get modification not the player.

I understand the reasoning behind the cost from HERO's mechanics; I just disagree with them.

We're going to spend, maybe, 10% of the game in the plane. A fraction of that will be in combat (if I'm doing my job smuggling the PC's in, correctly). That's a lot of points, for something that may come up, 5% of game time, and gives me a slight advantage? Where as Bruce Lee the martial artist is at a significant advantage, anytime there is personal combat, which makes up a significantly larger amount of the game (spit-balling I'd say 25-50%).

It's an area that the game does not emulate well. Just like poison (IIRC, a spitting Cobra is an over 300pt animal, more than some superheroes).

Quote from: robiswrong;700814Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman. ...

I'm not looking for "exact balance".  I'm just saying that the whole *point* of using point buy (as separate from the power/skill definitions that you can get in HERO) is that two characters of the same point value should be roughly equivalent.

Now that's a strawman.  Again, is a 1st-level Wizard combat-equivalent to a 1st-level Fighter?

JG

Quote from: Bill;700934Well, you do roll.

For example, If I have Acrobatics skill 15 or less, I just roll 3d6 and see if I get 15 or less.

Right, but the roll is the total of the three dice, not the target number.  Or more accurately it's the act of physically tossing the dice, but that's closer to the result than to the difficulty,  conceptually.

It's a poor choice of labels, imo.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700984Right, but the roll is the total of the three dice, not the target number.  Or more accurately it's the act of physically tossing the dice, but that's closer to the result than to the difficulty,  conceptually.

It's a poor choice of labels, imo.

I don't see the problem there. All they are saying is that you need to roll a 15 or less. the 15 is the target number, unde rthe assumption the 15 would be modified for circumstances. A difficult Acrobatics roll for the guy with a 15 or less, might be a 10 or less. Thats essentially a difficulty number.


Another thing about hero is that it worls pretty much the same as d20.

d20     roll 1d20 + bonuses  vs AC 10 + Bonuses

Hero    roll 3d6 +OCV vs 10+DCV


Its laid out differently but essentially the same thing.


I have played Hero with a d20, and using 'AC'

I had a lengthy discussion with a Hero fan many years ago that I reduced to the following Socratic dialogue, as it nicely summarizes the problems with effects-based point buy.

QuoteSocrates: What is worth more: a 10d6 Fire Blast or Life Support: Breathe Underwater?

Hero Fan: The Fire Blast. 50 points compared to 5.

Socrates: The whole campaign takes place underwater, in Atlantis. Does your answer change?

Hero Fan: Of course - if a power is useless, it shouldn't cost the player any points.

Socrates: But finding new uses for a useless ability is a staple of comic heroes.  What if a player contrives a bubble of air, or some other explanation for why his Fire Blast works some times?

Hero Fan: Then the power should have a Limitation to reflect that.

Socrates: The highest Limitation one can put on a power is -2.  That reduces the cost of the Fire Blast to 17 points.  A power hardly ever usable still costs more than three times more than a power necessary to survive the campaign premise.

Hero Fan: If everyone has to have the power just to survive, it should just be free, there's no point in charging everyone for it.  And the point costs are just guidelines, they can't be taken a ironclad indicators of effectiveness.  That's why we have DC caps and CV limits.

Socrates: So the GM can and should change the point costs of the powers to match his own campaign.

Hero Fan: Yes.

Socrates: Does this not make the point costs as printed in the book - and by extension, the values for all Advantages and Limitations, and the point total limits - arbitrary?

Hero Fan: Well, yes.

Socrates: Then why am I doing all this math?

As for the usual "Hero lets you build any power and any character!", that's a canard and always has been.  Every RPG lets you build any power and any character, you just have to make some shit up.  All the Hero system lets you do is slap a number on the power after a couple hours of arithmetic - a number which the most ardent proponents of the system admit is arbitrary.

When Mutants and Masterminds started to follow Champions down the rabbit hole of "how do I build this power", many people were annoyed when I pointed out that just making up some mechanics and slapping the modifier It Just Works Like This +2 was a hell of a lot quicker and no less balanced than complicated stat-wanking. (of course, a lot of other people just went "shit, yeah, that's much easier").

It's a canard twice over, because there are in fact a lot of superhero powers and character concepts that could not be built simply or on any sane number of points because there are a lot of core building blocks Champions lacks (up to late 4th ed, anyway, but I don't think they've fixed the Katana problem yet).  The Astral Projection power from Mystic Masters is the canonical example.

Quote from: James Gillen;700969Now that's a strawman.  Again, is a 1st-level Wizard combat-equivalent to a 1st-level Fighter?

It's not a strawman in this specific case.  Up to late 4th edition, Champions/Hero made quite a big, big deal out of game balance and point limits.  What D&D does or doesn't do is irrelevant to the conversation; Champions claims that its effects-based point buy system lets you build any power and any character and the point totals and DC caps will produce "balanced characters".  That claim isn't true.

Hero lets me build any charcater I want. Most games don't.

If I am gm, I can assist players in making reasonably balanced characters for the type of campaign desired.

I don't expect Hero to create balanced characters on its own any more than I expect that in Pathfinder.

Can you create a character who can run the speed of light in Hero?

I'm just curious. I've never read the system.

Quote from: Endless Flight;701005Can you create a character who can run the speed of light in Hero?

I'm just curious. I've never read the system.

Yes.

There is a power called Faster than light travel, and for a character like the Flash, you would buy FTL travel with a disadvantage "Must run along a surface" or something like that.

It would be mainly for movement.

So could he use that in combat too? Like to add to his defenses?

Quote from: Endless Flight;701010So could he use that in combat too? Like to add to his defenses?

Here is how that works in Hero.

You buy everything that you can do.


So the Flash has many, many, many powers.

Just running fast is a movement power.

If the Flash wants to be hard to hit, he has to buy up his Defense Combat value.

Another example:

Human torch: If he wants to be able to burn things with a fiery trail as he flies,

He has to but both flight and a damage dealing power linked to the flight.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700991It's not a strawman in this specific case.  Up to late 4th edition, Champions/Hero made quite a big, big deal out of game balance and point limits.  What D&D does or doesn't do is irrelevant to the conversation; Champions claims that its effects-based point buy system lets you build any power and any character and the point totals and DC caps will produce "balanced characters".  That claim isn't true.

I can see nothing in either my 2nd ed Champions or my 4th ed Hero System book that makes this claim, and plenty that contradicts it. For example, this is from the 2nd ed Champions (1982):

Quote from: 2nd ed ChampionsUnbalanced characters: As CHAMPIONS allows the players to build their own characters there will be times when a GM comes up against a character he does not feel will fit into his game. Other times a character will be built that is very unbalanced (such as a character who has spent all of his points on Energy Blast).

The GM should hold firm against characters that would unbalance a scenario, for on his shoulders rests the enjoyment of all the players. Try to show the unbalanced character how his weaknesses can (and will) be used against him. Inform the character who does not fit that his character might ruin the adventure for all. Good players should be willing to go along with the GM in the hopes that everyone will have a better adventure.

Even if some other book does make such a grandiose claim, I don't think it makes a significant difference for the system. The important thing for the system is how does it compare to other RPG systems in practice.

Quote from: Bill;701003Hero lets me build any charcater I want. Most games don't.

Not arguing that at all.  I'm looking at two separate aspects of character creation in HERO:

1) The stats on the sheet at the end of the process
2) The process of spending points and adjusting things to buy those stats

What I'm asking as a kind of thought exercise (more than anything else) is:

What is the purpose of the point buy exercise, as opposed to simply saying what abilities you want?

I can see two possible reasons:

1) Balance
2) Providing an interesting character build system as a subgame of its own

If balance is the reason, and the point buy system does not provide it (to the extent that GM approval of characters is *still* generally required), then is it adding anything?  Would anything really be changed by just getting rid of the point buy mechanics, given that the GM *already* has to be in the position of ensuring that a character's power level fits well within the game?

If providing an interesting character build 'subgame' is the point, it does it well.

I'm not actually *criticizing* the HERO system here, BTW.  More of a thought experiment.

Quote from: Bill;701003If I am gm, I can assist players in making reasonably balanced characters for the type of campaign desired.

Indeed.  And you could do that whether powers were bought with points, or whether they were just 'declared'.

Quote from: Bill;701003I don't expect Hero to create balanced characters on its own any more than I expect that in Pathfinder.

Terrible example - I find the 3.x games to be the *most* charop abusable games of any I've played.  One of the reasons I don't play 3.x is that I moved away from GURPS for simplicity and to get away from charop wankery, and found instead that 3.x was even worse.  Since I generally prefer a lot of the things that GURPS does compared to 3.x, if I have to deal with the charop crap, I'd rather stick with GURPS.

(And yes, the same arguments about point buy *do* apply to GURPS as well)

Quote from: robiswrong;701030What is the purpose of the point buy exercise, as opposed to simply saying what abilities you want?

I can see two possible reasons:

1) Balance
2) Providing an interesting character build system as a subgame of its own

If balance is the reason, and the point buy system does not provide it (to the extent that GM approval of characters is *still* generally required), then is it adding anything?  Would anything really be changed by just getting rid of the point buy mechanics, given that the GM *already* has to be in the position of ensuring that a character's power level fits well within the game?

The point system adds to transparency and communication in providing balance. Yes, GM approval is still required, and sometimes the GM will need to adjust things - but on the other hand, often the GM doesn't have to do anything other than say yes to each of the characters.

If I work without the point system, and instead I as GM just say "Make up whatever" - then balance is less transparent and requires more back-and-forth. The players won't have as clear an idea about how much they should take. They each come up with something and turn in their characters, then I have to give them feedback about whether each has too little or too much.

Both of these approaches can work, but the point system approach is more transparent to the players, which is why I think it tends to be preferred.

Quote from: jhkim;701038Both of these approaches can work, but the point system approach is more transparent to the players, which is why I think it tends to be preferred.

I think this is pretty important, too, because all the players use the same set of rules to create characters.  So when jealousy happens you get to point to the pricing for the powers and the reasoning that went into that.

Quote from: jhkim;701038The point system adds to transparency and communication in providing balance. Yes, GM approval is still required, and sometimes the GM will need to adjust things - but on the other hand, often the GM doesn't have to do anything other than say yes to each of the characters.

If I work without the point system, and instead I as GM just say "Make up whatever" - then balance is less transparent and requires more back-and-forth. The players won't have as clear an idea about how much they should take. They each come up with something and turn in their characters, then I have to give them feedback about whether each has too little or too much.

Both of these approaches can work, but the point system approach is more transparent to the players, which is why I think it tends to be preferred.

Pretty much the same as the beginning section of the rule book where they answer the question "Why have rules if it's all just 'let's pretend'?" :)

JG

Quote from: robiswrong;701030Not arguing that at all.  I'm looking at two separate aspects of character creation in HERO:

1) The stats on the sheet at the end of the process
2) The process of spending points and adjusting things to buy those stats

What I'm asking as a kind of thought exercise (more than anything else) is:

What is the purpose of the point buy exercise, as opposed to simply saying what abilities you want?

I can see two possible reasons:

1) Balance
2) Providing an interesting character build system as a subgame of its own

If balance is the reason, and the point buy system does not provide it (to the extent that GM approval of characters is *still* generally required), then is it adding anything?  Would anything really be changed by just getting rid of the point buy mechanics, given that the GM *already* has to be in the position of ensuring that a character's power level fits well within the game?

If providing an interesting character build 'subgame' is the point, it does it well.

I'm not actually *criticizing* the HERO system here, BTW.  More of a thought experiment.



Indeed.  And you could do that whether powers were bought with points, or whether they were just 'declared'.



Terrible example - I find the 3.x games to be the *most* charop abusable games of any I've played.  One of the reasons I don't play 3.x is that I moved away from GURPS for simplicity and to get away from charop wankery, and found instead that 3.x was even worse.  Since I generally prefer a lot of the things that GURPS does compared to 3.x, if I have to deal with the charop crap, I'd rather stick with GURPS.

(And yes, the same arguments about point buy *do* apply to GURPS as well)

The problem with charop is the players, not the system.

Charoping is a choice.


The difference between hero and 3x dnd for me, is that hero lets you create the character you want, and once the character exists, the game system is just better mechanically during play.

I was also considering buying into Hero lately.
After some talking about it on a german forum, i am not so sure anymore. And this thread gave me some more to think about.

What i do not like, at all, is the weird starting values for skills via division of attribute values. This is much more elegant and reasonable in GURPS (where the attribute is the roll-under value for a skill you have taken at +0).

If you have to divide your attribute by 5 this means you have a lot of range that is exactly the same competence (for example the results from 1.6 to 2.4 yield the exact same skill competence -> roll 11 or under). Why on earth do you not collapse the scale in this instance? It's kind of weird if the guy with dex 8 is as good as i am with dex 12.

Anyway, i freely admit i am a noob in GURPS as much as in Hero. So i don't know if GURPS has the upper hand or not (maybe that'd be an interesting topic for an own thread).

I think (THINK) it's for cost reasons.  E.g. the steps between 5 and 10 don't matter mechanically, but you have to buy each one.  Leaving them granular lets you work slowly towards the improvement rather than having to save up and buy it all at once.  It's like making payments.

Quote from: Anglachel;701183What i do not like, at all, is the weird starting values for skills via division of attribute values. This is much more elegant and reasonable in GURPS (where the attribute is the roll-under value for a skill you have taken at +0).

If you have to divide your attribute by 5 this means you have a lot of range that is exactly the same competence (for example the results from 1.6 to 2.4 yield the exact same skill competence -> roll 11 or under). Why on earth do you not collapse the scale in this instance?

Both Hero and GURPS use the idea that the normal human scale for attributes has a similar range - roughly 3 to 18 in GURPS, and 0 to 20 in Hero.

However, GURPS makes attributes incredibly important. Characters will often spend over half their points in their attributes, because having a high attribute is absolutely vital.

Hero makes the points spent in skills to be more important. An expert character will spend most of their points on the skills of their expertise, and less than 10% on raw intelligence.

I prefer the Hero approach because it differentiates characters more. In GURPS, a bookish sage with high IQ can trivially become an expert outdoorsman and tracker with just a few XP. In Hero, the outdoorsman and the sage are differentiated more.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700710COM costs half a point per point of COM, but has no mechanical function in the system.  At all.  Anywhere.  If you don't care about how you look, you can buy it down to 0 and get a free five points.

It provides a Complimentary roll to Interaction skills (Seduction, Conversation, etc)

Edit: in Fourth through Fifth Edition anyway. It was dropping as an attribute in sixth.

Quote from: Novastar;700720And the inevitable fights over how to build something.

(I.e. when I started, I made a character that was a fighter pilot, so while in a vehicle, he increases the Defensive Value. Now, I figured since it only increased his DCV while in a vehicle, it gets a disadvantage, and I can buy it at reduced cost. Wrong. Since it's "affecting an outside entity", you have to buy a number of expensive advantages, which greatly increases the cost. My +2 DCV in a plane went from 7 points to 37 points, IIRC. It was cheaper to become a Kung-Fu Master, than make the plane a little harder to hit.)

Novastar:
Here you go...

Instinctive Pilot: The Pilot is able, on a subconscious level, to fly in and out of a hail of gunfire or the heaviest of enemy flack and come out without a scratch.

Here is the Build:
Instinctive Pilot: +2 DCV, Usable By Other (Any Vehicle of up to 50 Tons; +2 ½) (35 Active Points); Only For An Aircraft Character Is Flying (-2), Requires a Combat Pilot Roll (-1 per 20 Active Points; -1/4). Total 11 Active Points


The DCV can be increased if you want, but as you can see this costs 11 points in the end (ie: Active Points).  If a character were to buy +2 DCV just for themselves, then it would cost 10 Active Points.  So for a cost of +1 character point, the character can fly his fighter in between bullets & flack (or whatever).



I've been gaming for 35 years now, and there are not too many RPGs that I haven't played.  People look at one game and see complexity while others don't.  For example, some look at d20 (3.x & 4) and see a lot of options and streamlining, while others see pigeonholing and over complication.  The same can go for almost any game system.

"Sigh"  I've seen to many "This System Sux" or "This Edition Sux" comments & flame wars, when usually it comes down to what people are used to.  My personal preference is for my players to have fun, and that is how I have fun. If they aren't having fun, then no Game System is going to help with that.

I wish that we could all get together somewhere over a drink (Coke, Soda, Beer, whatever) and talk...it would make things a whole lot easier.

Peace.


~ M

Quote from: mcbobbo;701055I think this is pretty important, too, because all the players use the same set of rules to create characters.  So when jealousy happens you get to point to the pricing for the powers and the reasoning that went into that.

(Nod)  Spot on.  Fairness between Characters is important.  It doesn't matter if each character starts off "Low," "Medium," "High," or "God-Like" in power level.  What matters is that they all start off that way...at least in most games.  Some exceptions do exist -- and if you complain, then the Computer will know that you are a Commie Mutie!

Umm...sorry, had to take my Happy Pill there.

Honestly though, fairness between the characters is important.  Without it, the fun goes right out the window.  Start one character at "High" and the others at "Low" and see what happens.


~ M

Quote from: Nexus;701284It provides a Complimentary roll to Interaction skills (Seduction, Conversation, etc)

Edit: in Fourth through Fifth Edition anyway. It was dropping as an attribute in sixth.

Quote from: Bill;701008Yes.

There is a power called Faster than light travel, and for a character like the Flash, you would buy FTL travel with a disadvantage "Must run along a surface" or something like that.

It would be mainly for movement.

No...no FTL in the Atmosphere.  Only in Space.  For "Fast Movement" you would use Megascale.

~ M

Quote from: Endless Flight;701010So could he use that in combat too? Like to add to his defenses?

Yes. No FTL (Faster Than Light), which can only be used in space, but in the Hero System there is an Advantage called Megascale (Increases the Range/Area/etc tremendously depending upon how large the Megascale Advantage is).

Yes on the Use in Combat.  You make your Character the way you want, with input from the GM.  In this case a bonus to Combat Value, Only While Using Hyper Running Power (-1/2 Limitation ) - which effectively makes each +1 Combat Value cheaper...though you can only using them them while running.

Like all games, there is a learning curve.  If there are gamers in your area who know the system, then hook up with them and have some fun learning it (just like any system).  If not, and if you're interested, then ask around -- people can give you advise and when (if) you make the plunge, then there is help here and over at the Hero Forums.

Peace.


~ N

Quote from: Nadrakas;701334Novastar:
Here you go...

Instinctive Pilot: The Pilot is able, on a subconscious level, to fly in and out of a hail of gunfire or the heaviest of enemy flack and come out without a scratch.

Here is the Build:
Instinctive Pilot: +2 DCV, Usable By Other (Any Vehicle of up to 50 Tons; +2 ½) (35 Active Points); Only For An Aircraft Character Is Flying (-2), Requires a Combat Pilot Roll (-1 per 20 Active Points; -1/4). Total 11 Active Points


The DCV can be increased if you want, but as you can see this costs 11 points in the end (ie: Active Points).  If a character were to buy +2 DCV just for themselves, then it would cost 10 Active Points.  So for a cost of +1 character point, the character can fly his fighter in between bullets & flack (or whatever).



I've been gaming for 35 years now, and there are not too many RPGs that I haven't played.  People look at one game and see complexity while others don't.  For example, some look at d20 (3.x & 4) and see a lot of options and streamlining, while others see pigeonholing and over complication.  The same can go for almost any game system.

"Sigh"  I've seen to many "This System Sux" or "This Edition Sux" comments & flame wars, when usually it comes down to what people are used to.  My personal preference is for my players to have fun, and that is how I have fun. If they aren't having fun, then no Game System is going to help with that.

I wish that we could all get together somewhere over a drink (Coke, Soda, Beer, whatever) and talk...it would make things a whole lot easier.

Peace.


~ M

Nah, that all would make too much sense.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;701342Nah, that all would make too much sense.

JG

Sad, but true.  I remember meeting with many gamers over the years at Denny's (and other laaaaate night restaurants.  Or at the local B&M, many of which are disappearing :( ) and shooting the breeze.  Not all of them were in my group -- in fact, many weren't.  That was a blast.

"Sigh"...I'm getting too olde.


~ M

Now every system has its fans and its critics. And that's okay, we are all different people and we all like different things. Ive tried several different systems and HERO is my favorite. The math and complexity don't bother me, I find the freedom and choice inspire me and allow to me imagine anything I want to and build it into a system, and as a game it plays really well for me.

But that's just me.

One thing i do find telling about all the arguments here so far is that they, almost exclusively, about character creation. And while I will definitely agree that character creation is more complex, more time consuming, and more "mathy" than most other systems out there the simple fact of the matter is that unless something is REALLY going wrong in your play group even if it takes you several HOURS to create a character (and it should take less than one once your comfortable with the system) that should represent a VERY small portion of time. Even if it takes you 4 hours to create a character (and to note my 8 yr old nephew can create one in under 2) if you are in a good group you should get DOZENS of hours of playtime out of that character, and yet there are almost no arguments here (or in most such posts that I have read) that deal with how the game PLAYS.

And frankly gameplay is far more important than character creation in ANY system if you plan to actually play it. There are literally hundreds of characters available in published sources, online, etc and trust me a simple request on the hero forums would have someone generate any kind of character you could want if you dont want to do it yourself. So where is the discussion on the REST of the time investment in this system?

Quote from: Nadrakas;701334Novastar:
Here you go...
{HERO Build]}

If the GM had been willing to work with me to get what you posted, I wouldn't be still all butthurt about it, nearly a decade later.

He simply would not allow me to buy the +2 DCV power for less than 27 points. No argument would sway him. And that's the problem with Point Buys; they really on an impartial Judge, and few of us are.

(He really believed that +2 DCV was worth 27 points. I didn't. I changed the build on my character, and life went on. I didn't stop playing with him, didn't flip the table, or some other kind of spectacular flip-out. We just didn't agree, and moved on from it.)

But IMHO, Point-Buy's foster more favoritism and CharOp than traditional RPG's.

EDIT: psyber624, I found the HERO CharGen program a blessing, for making HERO characters. I doubt I would have given HERO a try, if the GM hadn't shown me how easy it was to build characters on it (I was impressed enough to buy it the next day).

Quote from: Novastar;701354If the GM had been willing to work with me to get what you posted, I wouldn't be still all butthurt about it, nearly a decade later.

He simply would not allow me to buy the +2 DCV power for less than 27 points. No argument would sway him. And that's the problem with Point Buys; they really on an impartial Judge, and few of us are.

(He really believed that +2 DCV was worth 27 points. I didn't. I changed the build on my character, and life went on. I didn't stop playing with him, didn't flip the table, or some other kind of spectacular flip-out. We just didn't agree, and moved on from it.)

But IMHO, Point-Buy's foster more favoritism and CharOp than traditional RPG's.

EDIT: psyber624, I found the HERO CharGen program a blessing, for making HERO characters. I doubt I would have given HERO a try, if the GM hadn't shown me how easy it was to build characters on it (I was impressed enough to buy it the next day).

I get what you're saying. Unfortunately I've seen favoritism in every game, no matter the system.  IMO point-buy systems don't foster them any more than CharOp ones...Bad GMs/DMs do.  This is where an open dialogue between everyone at the "table" is important.  I've gotten up and walked out in the middle of games where overt favoritism was happening -- at least after it was brought up and discussed by the players.

I won't "second guess" that particular GM, but I will say that there is always more than one way to do things in every RPG.  I hope you're still playing Hero, or if you're not that you might give it a try again.

I don't know...after playing for so long (and making a whole lot of mistakes), I tend to ere on the side of fun for the players.  If a person comes up with an interesting character - and it doesn't run roughshod over other characters (ie: "I'm playing a Half-Vampire, Half-Werewolf, Half-Mage, Half-Fae, Full-Cyborg, with Force Powers!  Isn't that Coooooollll!" -- yeah...this came up with a "walk-in" player years ago...um no...).  Anyway, everyone should have fun, and character creation can be fun if done right.

Peace.


~ M

Good points. Hero doesn't come off well in forums, because it plays differently than how it reads.

Quote from: psyber624;701347Now every system has its fans and its critics. And that's okay, we are all different people and we all like different things. Ive tried several different systems and HERO is my favorite. The math and complexity don't bother me, I find the freedom and choice inspire me and allow to me imagine anything I want to and build it into a system, and as a game it plays really well for me.

But that's just me.

One thing i do find telling about all the arguments here so far is that they, almost exclusively, about character creation. And while I will definitely agree that character creation is more complex, more time consuming, and more "mathy" than most other systems out there the simple fact of the matter is that unless something is REALLY going wrong in your play group even if it takes you several HOURS to create a character (and it should take less than one once your comfortable with the system) that should represent a VERY small portion of time. Even if it takes you 4 hours to create a character (and to note my 8 yr old nephew can create one in under 2) if you are in a good group you should get DOZENS of hours of playtime out of that character, and yet there are almost no arguments here (or in most such posts that I have read) that deal with how the game PLAYS.

And frankly gameplay is far more important than character creation in ANY system if you plan to actually play it. There are literally hundreds of characters available in published sources, online, etc and trust me a simple request on the hero forums would have someone generate any kind of character you could want if you dont want to do it yourself. So where is the discussion on the REST of the time investment in this system?

Quote from: The_Shadow;701366Good points. Hero doesn't come off well in forums, because it plays differently than how it reads.

Hmmm...I think the same argument could be made for any game, if the people of a particular forum aren't familiar with said game.  For example, try to explain the Old Rolemaster RPG to people who only play WW Games...

Just my opinion, of course.


~ M

I may have to buy that program.  $25 isn't horrible for software, I guess.

I also do intend to play it the system, at least once, but my birthday got in the way.  The wife sprung for almost all the XWing Miniatures she could find...  but that's another thread.

Quote from: jhkim;700659I love the underlying Hero System design - but I agree that it is complex, and many bits were fine or even innovative when it came out in 1981, but are holdovers now.

When I was running PS238 for kids, I added 10 to DCV, and the DCV you hit was OCV+3d6 (mathematically the same).

That's how I thought of doing it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;701400I may have to buy that program.  $25 isn't horrible for software, I guess.

I also do intend to play it the system, at least once, but my birthday got in the way.  The wife sprung for almost all the XWing Miniatures she could find...  but that's another thread.

Ooohhhh X-Wings. Shiny, Shiny!!!

Quote

Quote from: jhkim View PostI love the underlying Hero System design - but I agree that it is complex, and many bits were fine or even innovative when it came out in 1981, but are holdovers now.

When I was running PS238 for kids, I added 10 to DCV, and the DCV you hit was OCV+3d6 (mathematically the same).

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;701413That's how I thought of doing it.

In the end, it is what works best for you and your group. :)

Which is what it is all about?


~ M

Quote from: Nadrakas;701422In the end, it is what works best for you and your group.

I hate that saying.  It's a lame answer.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700642Why subtract what you rolled, and I guess this means rolling low is better?  Maybe?  But I think damage is a "roll high" situation, so maybe not.

The "subtract what you rolled" business is new to me. Six of one, half a dozen of another, but I don't think that's the best way to explain it. The old way is to say that the number range you need is 11+(OCV-DCV) or less.

Have you ever used Chaosium's Basic Role Playing system? If you have, it's just the Resistance Formula applied to a roll of 3d6 rather than to a d% working essentially as d20.
 

QuoteAnd why eleven?  3d6 should average to 10, or 9.5 or something, without exploding dice.  With exploding we should be above 12.

Although OCV and DCV can be different, the CV-CV factor tends to be reflexive. It's shifting odds ratios, and starting with 62.5% instead of 50% on the 3d6 curve makes that a bit less suddenly extreme. Also, Hero System generally gives offense a bit of an edge over defense, since it's basically only attacks that succeed that significantly change the situation.

Quote from: Nadrakas;701360IMO point-buy systems don't foster them any more than CharOp ones...Bad GMs/DMs do.

I'll agree with the proviso that this GM was awesome in every other respect: great game, good pacing, engaging story. And he did this over multiple systems. This is just one time we butted heads.

QuoteI hope you're still playing Hero, or if you're not that you might give it a try again.

Oh, very much so. I like Champions, and that same GM had an awesome HERO Fantasy game (though I avoided magic in that game, for much the same reason as above; PC's had to buy spells, BBEG's had VPP).

I like HERO, but I'm not a HEROphile; it is not "the one game, to break them all!", which I've run into more than once. Though Darren and Steve were cool guys to hang out with at each DunDraCon (and Darren's "All-Star" games were always the talk of the Con).

Quote from: Nadrakas;701422In the end, it is what works best for you and your group. :)

Which is what it is all about?


~ M

"Sigh"...not meaning to "offend."

However, while you may find it "lame," it still holds true.  Too many people tell others how to run their games (When unasked that is...plenty ask, and advise is given -- but it is just advise).  Coments like, "You can't do hack & slash" - "No Romance" - "You have to....".  For all the "lameness," I still hold to the "It's My Groups Game & We Play It Our Way," along with "Everyone Should Have Fun at the Table (or Chair)."

Again, if you find it "Lame"...no offense meant.

Peace.


~ M

Quote from: daniel_ream;700710If you aren't planning on raising INT and EGO, there is no good reason not to buy them both down to 8.

I'm pretty sure there are attacks in which something (such as a toss of dice) is compared with your actual EGO, rather than EGO/5, and also that INT can be drained. Maybe my memory is defective, or maybe these things have been deleted from the latest edition...

Quoteyou can use those five points to buy Mental Defense and be significantly more resistant than if you'd left the stats at 10 and 10.

... but yes, that's something to consider.

QuoteCOM costs half a point per point of COM, but has no mechanical function in the system.  At all.  Anywhere.  If you don't care about how you look, you can buy it down to 0 and get a free five points.

But other people may care about how you look, and that the influence is not "systematically" defined makes it only a not easily calculable risk.

d

Quote from: robiswrong;700732So the question I have is if the point system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add?

If a random-roll system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add? Answer: The interest of unpredictability is the value in that case, and the interest of trade offs is the value in the point buy case. In some rules sets (e.g., Dragonquest), those are combined by having randomized amounts of points.

QuoteIsn't that the whole premise of a point-buy system, that two characters with the same point cost will (assuming people aren't deliberately sabotaging their characters) be within some margin of effectiveness of each other?

Champions merely proposes that two effects will be within such a scope if the premises upon which the valuation was based hold true, and pretty well delivers on that. Characters get way out of balance in sum when the valuation of effects is not in line with power in the game at hand.

This is a consequence of a "command economy" that (because it's wholly imaginary) has an unlimited supply of goods not subject to a free market's influence on prices.

QuoteIOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

That's just how I've run Marvel Super Heroes, but the MSH framework is much simpler. With Champions, the points values provide helpful guideposts in the landscape.

Quote from: Anglachel;701183I was also considering buying into Hero lately.
After some talking about it on a german forum, i am not so sure anymore. And this thread gave me some more to think about.

What i do not like, at all, is the weird starting values for skills via division of attribute values. This is much more elegant and reasonable in GURPS (where the attribute is the roll-under value for a skill you have taken at +0).

If you have to divide your attribute by 5 this means you have a lot of range that is exactly the same competence (for example the results from 1.6 to 2.4 yield the exact same skill competence -> roll 11 or under). Why on earth do you not collapse the scale in this instance? It's kind of weird if the guy with dex 8 is as good as i am with dex 12.

Anyway, i freely admit i am a noob in GURPS as much as in Hero. So i don't know if GURPS has the upper hand or not (maybe that'd be an interesting topic for an own thread).

The reason Hero 'stat modifiers' work that way is because the game is designed for superheroes, not regular humans.

A superhero will have stats from lets say, 5 to 50.

So Hero is not, in my opinion, an ideal system to represent regular humans.

I like Hero for superheroes, epic fantasy heroes, Jedi, aliens, etc...


Gurps is designed for regular humans, and is not so great (in my opinion) for superheroes.

Quote from: jhkim;701223Both Hero and GURPS use the idea that the normal human scale for attributes has a similar range - roughly 3 to 18 in GURPS, and 0 to 20 in Hero.

However, GURPS makes attributes incredibly important. Characters will often spend over half their points in their attributes, because having a high attribute is absolutely vital.

Hero makes the points spent in skills to be more important. An expert character will spend most of their points on the skills of their expertise, and less than 10% on raw intelligence.

I prefer the Hero approach because it differentiates characters more. In GURPS, a bookish sage with high IQ can trivially become an expert outdoorsman and tracker with just a few XP. In Hero, the outdoorsman and the sage are differentiated more.

Quote from: Bill;701732The reason Hero 'stat modifiers' work that way is because the game is designed for superheroes, not regular humans.

A superhero will have stats from lets say, 5 to 50.

So Hero is not, in my opinion, an ideal system to represent regular humans.

I like Hero for superheroes, epic fantasy heroes, Jedi, aliens, etc...

Gurps is designed for regular humans, and is not so great (in my opinion) for superheroes.

I actually prefer Hero to GURPS for regular humans, because I prefer the skill emphasis in Hero over the attribute emphasis in GURPS.  In my experience, all of the Hero mechanics work fine at a normal human scale.

Quote from: Bill;701161The problem with charop is the players, not the system.

Charoping is a choice.

Charoping is generally going outside of implicit constraints on character ability.

So, again, why not just make those implicit constraints *explicit*, and work from there?  GM says 'here's the basic constraints on powers'.  Player submits character - GM suggests edits, both up and down, and player goes "cool".

Quote from: Bill;701161The difference between hero and 3x dnd for me, is that hero lets you create the character you want, and once the character exists, the game system is just better mechanically during play.

Utterly agreed.  I'm more of a GURPS player, but I'd make the exact same statement about GURPS/3.x.  Which is the primary reason I don't play 3.x - there's nothing it really does that I care about that another system doesn't do *better* from my POV.

Quote from: Novastar;701354But IMHO, Point-Buy's foster more favoritism and CharOp than traditional RPG's.

Given that point buy systems go way, way back, I think they're 'traditional' by any rational measure.

But I do think you're right about them fostering lots of charop, and I say that as a long-term GURPS GM.

That being said, I consider 3.x to be basically a point-buy system, just with very, very coarse-grained 'points' that they call 'levels'.

Quote from: Phillip;701481If a random-roll system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add? Answer: The interest of unpredictability is the value in that case, and the interest of trade offs is the value in the point buy case. In some rules sets (e.g., Dragonquest), those are combined by having randomized amounts of points.

I'm not sure where the 'random = balanced' thing came into play, since I never even suggested it as an alternative.  I think that some people are reading far more into my kind of thought exercise than I intended - namely that I'm either arguing against Champions as a whole, against more granular character definitions, or in favor of random rolling/etc.

But yeah, random rolling was *never* about balance.  It was about 'here's your hand, how do you play it?'  Which also works better if you have different hands to play over time.

Quote from: Phillip;701481Champions merely proposes that two effects will be within such a scope if the premises upon which the valuation was based hold true, and pretty well delivers on that. Characters get way out of balance in sum when the valuation of effects is not in line with power in the game at hand.

So, again, instead of giving out a point budget, why not just make those valuations explicit instead?

Quote from: Phillip;701481That's just how I've run Marvel Super Heroes, but the MSH framework is much simpler. With Champions, the points values provide helpful guideposts in the landscape.

And I'm seeing this as the common answer I'm getting, but I'm still kind of wondering what it would look like if those guideposts were just given explicitly rather than relying on an overall point budget.

Quote from: jhkim;701756I actually prefer Hero to GURPS for regular humans, because I prefer the skill emphasis in Hero over the attribute emphasis in GURPS.  In my experience, all of the Hero mechanics work fine at a normal human scale.

I don't care for the gurps skill system, so no real argument here. I was not saying Hero can't model regular humans, just that the stats, not the skills, are not very granular for a normal human due to its superhero roots.

Just to be clear - I do think that Champions is absolutely one of the best superhero RPGs ever.  Full stop.

The only ones that I think are even worth considering talking about as alternatives are ones that just have very different design goals - MHR, for instance, is a fine game, it just has *very, very* different goals than Champions, to the point where you can't even compare them in any meaningful way.

Quote from: Bill;701758I don't care for the gurps skill system, so no real argument here. I was not saying Hero can't model regular humans, just that the stats, not the skills, are not very granular for a normal human due to its superhero roots.

I do like GURPS in general for more 'mortal' characters, but the heavy emphasis on stats instead of skills is a definite negative in my book.

Quote from: robiswrong;701764Just to be clear - I do think that Champions is absolutely one of the best superhero RPGs ever.  Full stop.

The only ones that I think are even worth considering talking about as alternatives are ones that just have very different design goals - MHR, for instance, is a fine game, it just has *very, very* different goals than Champions, to the point where you can't even compare them in any meaningful way.



I do like GURPS in general for more 'mortal' characters, but the heavy emphasis on stats instead of skills is a definite negative in my book.

HERO definitely requires a bit of house-ruling to get it to work correctly at the level of mere mortals.  Particularly in relation to characteristics and associated skill rolls.  That said, it can definitely work, it just needs a lot of prep work and thought put into "your campaign's dramatic sense and norms."

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702206HERO definitely requires a bit of house-ruling to get it to work correctly at the level of mere mortals.  Particularly in relation to characteristics and associated skill rolls.  That said, it can definitely work, it just needs a lot of prep work and thought put into "your campaign's dramatic sense and norms."

I have done plenty of prep work in Hero, but only have used four house rules.


1) Sometimes I split Dexterity into Dex and Agility; one stat for precision; the second for mobility.

2) Convert the OCV/DCV to d20 style AC. Actually very easy to do.

3) If you are rolling huge numbers of d6's, make some average. So if you have a 24 d6  Haymaker, roll 12d6 + 42Stun+6Body.  or just double the first 12d6 result.

4) GM decides what power combinations are game breaking, not the players.
The game book notes likely trouble spots, but the book can't gm for you.

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702206HERO definitely requires a bit of house-ruling to get it to work correctly at the level of mere mortals.  Particularly in relation to characteristics and associated skill rolls.  That said, it can definitely work, it just needs a lot of prep work and thought put into "your campaign's dramatic sense and norms."

I've played in a number of mortal-level Hero campaigns with no house rules, and thought it worked great - but then, everyone has a different idea about what it means to "work correctly".

Can you comment on what house rules you used?

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702206HERO definitely requires a bit of house-ruling to get it to work correctly at the level of mere mortals.  Particularly in relation to characteristics and associated skill rolls.  That said, it can definitely work, it just needs a lot of prep work and thought put into "your campaign's dramatic sense and norms."

In my experience the main barrier to noobs is the customization with points aspect, and that applies mainly to Powers.  Characteristics, Skills and Talents are all pre-set values, and those are what "mere mortals" are going to be dealing with.

JG

Quote from: jhkim;702261I've played in a number of mortal-level Hero campaigns with no house rules, and thought it worked great - but then, everyone has a different idea about what it means to "work correctly".

Can you comment on what house rules you used?

One fairly minor house rule I have considered for Hero when using 'Regular Humans' (I have always used hero for sisuperheroes) is:

Make the weight you can lift on the strength chart Linear. So a 60 Strength lets you lift 600Kg instead of 100Tons

Quote from: jhkim;702261I've played in a number of mortal-level Hero campaigns with no house rules, and thought it worked great - but then, everyone has a different idea about what it means to "work correctly".

Can you comment on what house rules you used?

One major issue is Strength differences at the Heroic level, right?  So your mage might have STR 10 (11- roll, 2d6 HtH Damage) and the Fighter might have 20 (13- roll, 4d6 HtH damage.)  You have basically three "levels" of Heroic Strength - 10-11, 13-17, and 18-20.  If one fighter has STR 19, and the other 20, who is stronger?  The guy with 20.  But they both have a 13- roll and 4d6 HtH damage.  So I often added +1 Pip of Stun damage if you had "more than %3 but less than %8" - 13 STR was 3d6 HtH damage, 14 to 17 was 3d6 + 1 STUN.  But even that is really not much "granularity."  Nor is giving the guy with the higher raw score the benefit of winning all ties in contested rolls.

Additionally, you ended up with pretty much everyone doing the same amount of damage with differing SFX.  So I tried to really vary what types of Defenses they ended up facing and trying to kind of balance out who got to "shine" the most.  Invariably, that was the spellcasters, despite every effort to balance them vs. the fighter types.

I love HERO.  It is hands down my favorite system, it really is, mostly just due to the less random nature of it, the natural balance of it, and the depth of rules (especially Martial Arts and other combat maneuver rules.)

But it has its issues when you want to do lower-power stuff.

Quote from: Bill;702524One fairly minor house rule I have considered for Hero when using 'Regular Humans' (I have always used hero for sisuperheroes) is:

Make the weight you can lift on the strength chart Linear. So a 60 Strength lets you lift 600Kg instead of 100Tons

Yeah, but then you are dealing 12d6 Damage against someone with 6 PD and maybe 5rPD Chainmail.  42 STUN and 12 BODY or so, from a punch, dealing (on average) 31 STUN and 1 BODY after defenses.  If using hit locations, it gets that much worse.

I like the idea of re-parsing what a specific characteristic score "means" at different power levels, but such a change would require changing defenses costs and such as well to truly "balance it."

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702530One major issue is Strength differences at the Heroic level, right?  So your mage might have STR 10 (11- roll, 2d6 HtH Damage) and the Fighter might have 20 (13- roll, 4d6 HtH damage.)  You have basically three "levels" of Heroic Strength - 10-11, 13-17, and 18-20.  If one fighter has STR 19, and the other 20, who is stronger?  The guy with 20.  But they both have a 13- roll and 4d6 HtH damage. So I often added +1 Pip of Stun damage if you had "more than %3 but less than %8"

Are you using super-old Champions rules, pre-4th edition? Ever since 4th edition decades ago, there are half dice of STR damage. They are clearly listed right there in the basic STR table. There is also an optional rule for interpolate that further, so STR 18 is 3 1/2 d6, STR 19 is 4d6 - 1, and STR 20 is 4d6.

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702530Additionally, you ended up with pretty much everyone doing the same amount of damage with differing SFX.  So I tried to really vary what types of Defenses they ended up facing and trying to kind of balance out who got to "shine" the most.  Invariably, that was the spellcasters, despite every effort to balance them vs. the fighter types.

This I can sort of see. In a fantasy campaign, balancing spellcasters can be tricky. It depends strongly on which magic system restrictions you choose to fit the campaign (i.e. the magic system sheet from Fantasy Hero). If you put a lot of restrictions, then spellcasters come out weaker. If you have few or no restrictions, then spellcasters are stronger. I'm curious what restrictions you had, if any.

Most of my mortal campaigns using Hero were not medieval fantasy.

Quote from: jhkim;702553Are you using super-old Champions rules, pre-4th edition? Ever since 4th edition decades ago, there are half dice of STR damage. They are clearly listed right there in the basic STR table. There is also an optional rule for interpolate that further, so STR 18 is 3 1/2 d6, STR 19 is 4d6 - 1, and STR 20 is 4d6.

But then is 4d6 -1 (3 to 23) "better" than 3 1/2d6 (4 to 21)?  Potentially, yes, but statistically, no.  You can potentially roll higher with 4d6-1 but the -1 means it rolls, on average, a lower result than 3 1/2d6.  HERO really does lack granularity at the lower end of the power chart.

QuoteThis I can sort of see. In a fantasy campaign, balancing spellcasters can be tricky. It depends strongly on which magic system restrictions you choose to fit the campaign (i.e. the magic system sheet from Fantasy Hero). If you put a lot of restrictions, then spellcasters come out weaker. If you have few or no restrictions, then spellcasters are stronger. I'm curious what restrictions you had, if any.

Most of my mortal campaigns using Hero were not medieval fantasy.

I run a fairly gritty steampunk fantasy world, and even with heavy restrictions, the spellcasters fared better.  It is just the simple versatility granted by "magic" and that is as much or more my fault than the system itself.  The guy with the gun did more damage, overall, in a straight up fight, but the magic users were less stymied by the "find a way to win" encounters and scenarios.

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702534Yeah, but then you are dealing 12d6 Damage against someone with 6 PD and maybe 5rPD Chainmail.  42 STUN and 12 BODY or so, from a punch, dealing (on average) 31 STUN and 1 BODY after defenses.  If using hit locations, it gets that much worse.

I like the idea of re-parsing what a specific characteristic score "means" at different power levels, but such a change would require changing defenses costs and such as well to truly "balance it."

I think when a man that can actually lift 600 kg punches someone, they drop like a stone.

Quote from: Bill;702582I think when a man that can actually lift 600 kg punches someone, they drop like a stone.

Not disagreeing there (though, in actuality, lifting strength does not linearly apply to punching force; boxers are actually not encouraged to "body build" and instead are better off with repetition exercises than raw lifting strength.)

What I am saying is that such a change to Strength (or, less so, other characteristics) does not address all of the granularity issues; only some of them.

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702584Not disagreeing there (though, in actuality, lifting strength does not linearly apply to punching force; boxers are actually not encouraged to "body build" and instead are better off with repetition exercises than raw lifting strength.)

What I am saying is that such a change to Strength (or, less so, other characteristics) does not address all of the granularity issues; only some of them.

I never used Hero for normal humans, always superheroes.

I would like to give it a try for Star wars. Aliens, droids, and Jedi are essentially superheroes.

I have a theory that Hero is perfect for lightsabres.

Quote from: Bill;702587I never used Hero for normal humans, always superheroes.

I would like to give it a try for Star wars. Aliens, droids, and Jedi are essentially superheroes.

I have a theory that Hero is perfect for lightsabres.

Indeed.

Reflection, on a Trigger, requires skill roll, etc. etc.  

The first genre conversion I did was for Star Wars.  The HERO system vehicle rules work wonderfully to represent Star Wars space combat as well, and using a multipower with variable slots let me perfectly do the switching of deflector screens.

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702568But then is 4d6 -1 (3 to 23) "better" than 3 1/2d6 (4 to 21)?  Potentially, yes, but statistically, no.  You can potentially roll higher with 4d6-1 but the -1 means it rolls, on average, a lower result than 3 1/2d6.  HERO really does lack granularity at the lower end of the power chart.

No, you have your statistics wrong.  1/2 d6 average 2.0, while 1d6-1 averages 2.5.
(1+1+2+2+3+3)/6 = 2.0
(0+1+2+3+4+5)/6 = 2.5


Now, I'm sure you feel like you want more granularity. Some people prefer Rolemaster with its 1-100 stats and 1d100 resolution to D20. That's a matter of taste rather than an objective problem with D20, though.

Personally, I like that Hero makes attributes relatively cheap, while emphasizing skills and offering a profusion of skills and talents. It means more variety - so I can have a melee fighter who doesn't have his strength maxed out but is still effective, compared to many systems where that would be unworkable.

As an illustration of objective results, let's compare D20 with Hero. Suppose an average-strength magic-user faces off against a top-strength fighter in a contest of strength. In D20, the magic user rolls 1d20+0 while the fighter rolls 1d20+4 (for his 18 Strength bonus).  In Hero, the magic user rolls 3d6 under 11- while the fighter rolls 3d6 under 13- (for his 20 STR).  In both cases, the magic user has about a 30% chance to beat the fighter. You might prefer a different chance, but no one says "D20 is objectively broken because of stat granularity".

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702568I run a fairly gritty steampunk fantasy world, and even with heavy restrictions, the spellcasters fared better.  It is just the simple versatility granted by "magic" and that is as much or more my fault than the system itself.  The guy with the gun did more damage, overall, in a straight up fight, but the magic users were less stymied by the "find a way to win" encounters and scenarios.

If you think spellcasters are doing too well, then presumably you should put more restrictions on them.

And the main reason I *want* to and *try to* use HERO for more grounded campaign settings is how damage works, and how the system is designed around the GM creating and enforcing their own dramatic sense.

So if you want low magic, fine.  High Fantasy with Magic everywhere?  Also fine.  Diablo III-esqu "Live or Die by the Healing Potion?"  Fine.  HARN level debilitating injuries?  Also fine.

I love Pathfinder and D20 because I like figuring out the "optimal builds."  But I hate the mentality that lots of hit points gives - fighters charge certain death, certain that the cleric will pump them back to full.

In HERO, when done right, the players know that a poorly thought out move can easily end up killing you, even once you are "high level" because damage, armor, and "hit points" all work so differently and can be tweaked further by how you balance offense vs. defense or how you rule on healing magic, etc.

Lots more prep work for the GM, but so much more control over the "reality" of your campaign setting.

Quote from: Bill;702582I think when a man that can actually lift 600 kg punches someone, they drop like a stone.

While this is to a fair degree realistic, it means that when any human fights a big bear - let alone a dragon - they instantly drop.

That is probably realistic, but it is not usually what is desired.

Quote from: jhkim;702594No, you have your statistics wrong.  1/2 d6 average 2.0, while 1d6-1 averages 2.5.
(1+1+2+2+3+3)/6 = 2.0
(0+1+2+3+4+5)/6 = 2.5

3 1/2d6:  (3x 3.5) (average for 1d6) = 10.5 + 2 = 12.5
4d6 -1:  (3x 3.5) + (2.5) = 13

I stand corrected.  Though still think it is an argument, if only due to the lower lowest possible roll on 4d6-1.

QuoteNow, I'm sure you feel like you want more granularity. Some people prefer Rolemaster with its 1-100 stats and 1d100 resolution to D20. That's a matter of taste rather than an objective problem with D20, though.

Personally, I like that Hero makes attributes relatively cheap, while emphasizing skills and offering a profusion of skills and talents. It means more variety - so I can have a melee fighter who doesn't have his strength maxed out but is still effective, compared to many systems where that would be unworkable.

As an illustration of objective results, let's compare D20 with Hero. Suppose an average-strength magic-user faces off against a top-strength fighter in a contest of strength. In D20, the magic user rolls 1d20+0 while the fighter rolls 1d20+4 (for his 18 Strength bonus).  In Hero, the magic user rolls 3d6 under 11- while the fighter rolls 3d6 under 13- (for his 20 STR).  In both cases, the magic user has about a 30% chance to beat the fighter. You might prefer a different chance, but no one says "D20 is objectively broken because of stat granularity".


If you think spellcasters are doing too well, then presumably you should put more restrictions on them.

Never said anything was inherently broken.  And I didn't even feel they were "doing too well" so much as that the restrictions I put on them still did not quite balance out their versatility.  But again, that could be more my own fault that anything inherent to the system.

And that does speak both good and bad about the system; HERO gives you a lot of control, with the caveat that there are a lot of gotchya's when doing so until you really learn the system in and out.

Quote from: jhkim;702600While this is to a fair degree realistic, it means that when any human fights a big bear - let alone a dragon - they instantly drop.

That is probably realistic, but it is not usually what is desired.

Well, I assume people want realism if the charcaters are regular humans.

Quote from: Bill;702618Well, I assume people want realism if the charcaters are regular humans.

We're talking a little past each other, then. I was thinking of "regular humans" as potentially including spell-casters or Jedi as well as larger-than-life characters like Indiana Jones or James Bond. So, not necessarily realistic.

I'd agree that Hero is not very realistic. The standard optional rules let you vary between comics books on the one hand, and typical adventure genres like Indiana Jones, Conan, etc. It doesn't give you anything for more realistic than that out of the box - you'd definitely need to go into house rules for that.

Quote from: jhkim;702600While this is to a fair degree realistic, it means that when any human fights a big bear - let alone a dragon - they instantly drop.

That is probably realistic, but it is not usually what is desired.

On the point of realism and humanity it's entirely possible that our human ability to throw a punch is unique.  There was a study on it a month or so back.

Quote from: mcbobbo;702647On the point of realism and humanity it's entirely possible that our human ability to throw a punch is unique.  There was a study on it a month or so back.

Tell that to someone punched by a Silverback :D

On "realism" and HERO:  HERO actually has plenty of core rules that offer more "realism" but that is debatable.  Hit Locations, Wounding and Disabling Rules, etc.

It is certainly more "realistic" out of the box than D20 is, if using those optional rules.

And where D20 has "Hit Point" problems vis a vis characters taking a lot of punishment before going down, HERO has "Defense" problems vis a vis characters being hard to damage at all and thus similarly seeming to take more punishment than they should.

I would argue that HERO has the greatest potential range of dramatic sense of any system I know of.  You can do HARN with HERO (use Hit Locations, Bleeding, Wounding, and Disabling rules - any BODY taken is a bad day or potentially career-ending.)  Or you can use none of the optional rules and have a more super-hero / comic-book level where generally nobody dies, they just get beat up, unless the bad guy unleashes the nuke.  Or you can do cartoon level stuff where no attacks do BODY at all, and you only take STUN damage.

I used Hit Locations and the Wounding rules, but only used the other optional damage rules for NPC's - the players were never subject to bleeding or disabling wounds, but cannon-fodder NPC's generally were out of the fight from the first real hit they took.

Quote from: jhkim;702600While this is to a fair degree realistic, it means that when any human fights a big bear - let alone a dragon - they instantly drop.

That is probably realistic, but it is not usually what is desired.

HERO is deliberately modeled on a "cinematic" setting, for precisely that reason.

JG

Quote from: jhkim;702630We're talking a little past each other, then. I was thinking of "regular humans" as potentially including spell-casters or Jedi as well as larger-than-life characters like Indiana Jones or James Bond. So, not necessarily realistic.

I'd agree that Hero is not very realistic. The standard optional rules let you vary between comics books on the one hand, and typical adventure genres like Indiana Jones, Conan, etc. It doesn't give you anything for more realistic than that out of the box - you'd definitely need to go into house rules for that.

I think if you use the hit locations, and people don't have inflated stats, its darn realistic.

But I see what you mean for Jedi and Wizards.

Quote from: Bill;702790I think if you use the hit locations, and people don't have inflated stats, its darn realistic.

But I see what you mean for Jedi and Wizards.

I think it is realistic compared to most other RPG systems, but that's not a high bar for realism. It still has a lot of cinematic assumptions, like how knockouts work (built into STUN).

Quote from: jhkim;702827I think it is realistic compared to most other RPG systems, but that's not a high bar for realism. It still has a lot of cinematic assumptions, like how knockouts work (built into STUN).

They also have "CON Stun" where if you take an amount of STUN damage greater than your CON score, you are stunned for a round.

Actual KO doesn't occur until 0 STUN or below, and you aren't even unconscious until below -10 STUN IIRC.

So you get both the punch drunk effect - still standing but dazed - and then knocked down but not truly unconscious, and then full on unconscious on down to "in a coma" based on how far negative your STUN goes.

No system can truly be "realistic" and every system has its own dramatic reality it is trying to convey.  And even that has changed over the years for many systems - D&D used to be very gritty, like look-in-the-well "Death, No Save" gritty.  Now everyone gets healing surges and character death is nearly unheard of.

I frankly think that Hero is one of the more realistic systems AND one of the more playable, insofar as you don't need to give a high-level warrior "more hit points than four warhorses", you don't need to kill him to knock him out, and the hit location system, while optional and a greater level of complexity, is not quite so complex as systems I'd seen before it, especially Rolemaster. ;)

JG

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702846They also have "CON Stun" where if you take an amount of STUN damage greater than your CON score, you are stunned for a round.

There is no such thing as "CON Stun".

It's called being Stunned.

Quote from: Kraven Kor;702846No system can truly be "realistic" and every system has its own dramatic reality it is trying to convey.  And even that has changed over the years for many systems - D&D used to be very gritty, like look-in-the-well "Death, No Save" gritty.  Now everyone gets healing surges and character death is nearly unheard of.

I don't think D&D was ever intended to be realistic. Note that realistic isn't the same as deadly. A number of RPGs are unrealistically too deadly - much like the suspense genre, where victims drop from a single knock to the head, and instantly die from a single stab in the back.

With realistic options on, Hero is indeed reasonably realistic - but it also makes a number of conscious choices to depart from reality. For example, Hero's STUN mechanic reflects a reality where someone can fall unconscious without taking any lasting damage. That's appropriate for many genres, but doesn't match real-world medicine.

Quote from: nightwind1;703081There is no such thing as "CON Stun".

It's called being Stunned.

"CON Stun" is actually code for "Been playing Hero too long." ;)

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;703180"CON Stun" is actually code for "Been playing Hero too long." ;)

That is what's known as "Hero Stunned."

JG

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;703180"CON Stun" is actually code for "Been playing Hero too long." ;)

Nobody has been playing HERO too long.  Nobody.

We've just been talking about / thinking about / wanting to find players for / writing up things for playing HERO for too long :D