Hero System: Design and Intent

[nexus]

Spawned from a discussion that came up on the 6th Edition General Rules issues thread.

 

True... but I'd like to say that, to the extent this is about 6th Ed... I think there should be some discussion in the system about gaming theory, system intent, etc.

 

Not saying it has to be like this, but if I was writing my interpretation of Hero, I'd be pointing out things like.

 

"Hero is based on action adventure. This is why abilties like attack powers and defenses are the most expensive, because your characters are assumed to be focused on being action adventure characters. Speaking Spanish is nice, but whether you can shoot, punch, blast, fly, bounce bullets or stop a train with your bare hands is the focus of the game."

 

Now... I know others will say I'm crazy and Hero is universal and all that... but really, all the non-combat stuff is unnecessary to running the Hero System games. Skill rolls outside of opposed things like Stealth vs. Perception (combat stuff) are simply suggestive and left completely open to interpretation as to game effect. Mechanically, everything focuses on combat... and that is how it should be. It is a system based on simulating (wargame style) combats between 4-Color supers. Everything beyond that has been a slow diffusion of the original intent. (In some cases brilliant diffusion, like the original Danger International, or 4th Ed. Fantasy Hero)

 

If Hero really wants to be the universal system for creating all kinds of action adventure characters, it needs to start addressing some gaming theory and philosophy behind why it is structured the way it is. Game systems are built to create a certain kind of game. Hero does this very well, but breaks down when it goes too far from its roots. Some actual intent and philosophy behind "why we do things this way in the game" would go a long way toward making 6th Edition more robust and effective, IMO.

 

Oh... and definitely would make it a book I'd buy and read, with that kind of discussion.

 

Personally, I'm not totally sure about the caterogization of the Hero System but, OTOH, I'm not sure it's far off the mark. I've certainly had less "slam bang" games with it and many more types than supers slugging it out wargame style but to deny that there is a focus on tactical combat isn't intellectually honest.

 

Thoughts?

[Vulcan]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I'll grant that the combat rules are very tactical, even wargamish in their complexity and scope. But then, they were designed to simulate comic book action, and do an excellent job of that. I think they also do a pretty good job of simulating more 'heroic' level action (a la action movies, not documentaries).

 

On the other hand, social interaction rules are very simple (make a skill roll, or more likely an opposed skill roll, possibly with a complementary skill roll to provide modifiers). So compared to the massive combat rules, the social interaction rules kinda fall short.

 

Or do they?

 

I can only speak for our group, but we've always looked at the basic social interaction rules as getting the rules out of the way of the roleplaying. We can debate, persuade, threaten, and monolouge to our heart's content, and when we're done the GM can make a quick decision as to the results based on the roll - modified by the roleplaying!

 

An extensive 'social combat' system would wreck that, I think.

 

But to answer the original question, yes, I think the publishers should acknowldge that HEROs is primarily an action-based game and market it as such.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

well we got into champions - and it was champions then, in order to roleplay supers and have a great comic book action game sessions. many times a "great game session" was a long involved very tactically challenging fight. at other times, it was much more plot and social based.

 

in the former type game sessions, the rules were pivotal.

 

in the latter, the rules often played little role.

 

We dont need pages of social combat skill and maneuvers. we can do those, or do our best geeks pretending to play social types impersonation, and we can fall back o0n skill rolls and applying difficulties to handle the basics.

 

now would it be great if hero had a little more depth in skill resolution? sure.

 

would it be great to have a wider range, or more graduated range since we have basically both, fail, succeed, and outstanding success with the difficulty of skill listed spearately in a modifer chart even some veterans never use letting everything from flipping a car to crossing the street be a "roll 12-" or whatever the stat is. sure it would.

 

i saw a game once, might have been spycraft 2 or 3, that had a "build your own subsystem" which tried to let you break any task of any type down into a "combat like" series of rounds with abstract choices and the like for "punch", "kick" dodge etc.... did not find it useful.

 

in most games, i think the players are happy with having the rules for things like social interactions, solving problems, and the like be rather simplified and vague so as to let the mechanics not play as much of a part. I mean, these are the things the PLAYER is there to do, this is HIS role, as opposed to the "characters" role which is fighting. The player isn't going to throw a punch or pick up the car, so we need mechanics for that, but the player is going to construct the lie his character tells his boss when he is late for work, and so we dont need a lot of rules for that - though its good to have them especially for cases where the character is better/worse than the player.

[hammersickle59]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

Interesting Post.

 

I just want to point out that all gaming systems I can think of focus on Combat, not just Heroes. This is because gaming is about challenges and overcoming conflicts, and the biggest type of conflict is usually a fight.

 

Also, you have to consider the origins of gaming. It started as wargames/battle re-enactment. There is a good book on that that one of my players bought me for my birthday oh so many years ago; The gamers bible.

 

Dean

[Vondy]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

Rules essentially provide resolution mechanics for situations whose outcomes are in doubt, or which require impartial adjudication. The most critical such situation with (usually) the most immediate and permanent outcome, is combat. As such combat rules tend to be more specific and more robust. Other situations, which are more amorphous, are more open to subjective adjudication, and have less permanent outcomes can have less robust, less specific rules. Thus most skills, especially those pertaining to social situations, have less robust rules supporting them.

 

As for cost: the highest costs go to the most effective things in relation to what is most important for the genre. Hero was born out of superhero comics simulation, and in that genre the multi-page brouhaha using amazing powers native to the character is king. As such, combat related abilities cost the most. To varying degrees that is also the case with action-adventure games. However, you will note, in most heroic games equipment costs money, not points, and powers are usually off the table unless built as talents.

 

Thus, overall, in terms of character design in heroic games, talents and perks cost the most, though martial arts moves and high skill rolls can be competitive in a lot of games. That's because, most heroic genres, the skill of the protagonist - including combat skill - is what makes him or breaks him. As a result, skills, talents, and perks are competitive in terms of importance (and cost in character points). Such a character may have a signature gun, but that's not the character - and we didn't charge him for it. Whereas "fire-powers"/"nova-blast" often is the character with supers.

 

Its a genre thing.

 

I guess my point is: its not a question of what costs the most in the rule-book, but what we charge the most character points for at design time. In some genres I won't be paying for attacks and defenses in CP at all. I would argue that's because in those genres equipment, including attacks and defenses, is secondary in terms of character.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

For the price of 1d6 of Killing Attack, a character can become a multi-billionaire, or head of state of a major country. When you consider what a person in that position could logically justify having access to, which could have a direct and major impact on the survival of his allies or enemies -- weapons, vehicles, bases, armed followers -- the fact that these things are apparently assumed or recommended not to impact a game in that way, implies that the focus of HERO is on person-to-person combat and those abilities which most directly affect an individual's combat capability.

 

BTW it's certainly possible to expand the HERO framework to include such concepts as social combat. As an example, check out this sample from Shelley Chrystal Mactyre's ongoing Regency HERO project, about Reputation Points.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

Hero is balanced for personal combat, primarily.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

For the price of 1d6 of Killing Attack, a character can become a multi-billionaire, or head of state of a major country. When you consider what a person in that position could logically justify having access to, which could have a direct and major impact on the survival of his allies or enemies -- weapons, vehicles, bases, armed followers -- the fact that these things are apparently assumed or recommended not to impact a game in that way, implies that the focus of HERO is on person-to-person combat and those abilities which most directly affect an individual's combat capability.

 

I think its more of a genre-ism built into the core rules. In the money perk itself they discuss how money doesn't usually impact the superhero genre much but would be incredibly significant in fantasy, and so they specify the limits on buying money - not unless the Gm is Ok with it.

 

As an example - you ought not to use the same cost for wealth in "spyhunters" heroic level game as you do in the Avebngers supersgame becuase between those two campaigns wealth goes from "flavor" to "resource" when equipment becomes not based on cp but on $$ in character. (simply put, there really ought to be an explicit price adjustment for wealth between heroic (wealth = actual purchasing power) and superheroic (wealth = flavor))

 

similar for perks such as position and such - they are all priced for the superheroic style game and no real guidelines on how to adjust for their heroic level counterparts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I can only speak for our group' date=' but we've always looked at the basic social interaction rules as [i']getting the rules out of the way of the roleplaying.[/i] We can debate, persuade, threaten, and monolouge to our heart's content, and when we're done the GM can make a quick decision as to the results based on the roll - modified by the roleplaying!

 

An extensive 'social combat' system would wreck that, I think.

 

well we got into champions - and it was champions then, in order to roleplay supers and have a great comic book action game sessions. many times a "great game session" was a long involved very tactically challenging fight. at other times, it was much more plot and social based.

 

in the former type game sessions, the rules were pivotal.

 

in the latter, the rules often played little role.

 

We dont need pages of social combat skill and maneuvers. we can do those, or do our best geeks pretending to play social types impersonation, and we can fall back o0n skill rolls and applying difficulties to handle the basics.

 

now would it be great if hero had a little more depth in skill resolution? sure.

 

would it be great to have a wider range, or more graduated range since we have basically both, fail, succeed, and outstanding success with the difficulty of skill listed spearately in a modifer chart even some veterans never use letting everything from flipping a car to crossing the street be a "roll 12-" or whatever the stat is. sure it would.

**********************************************************

in most games, i think the players are happy with having the rules for things like social interactions, solving problems, and the like be rather simplified and vague so as to let the mechanics not play as much of a part. I mean, these are the things the PLAYER is there to do, this is HIS role, as opposed to the "characters" role which is fighting. The player isn't going to throw a punch or pick up the car, so we need mechanics for that, but the player is going to construct the lie his character tells his boss when he is late for work, and so we dont need a lot of rules for that - though its good to have them especially for cases where the character is better/worse than the player.

 

To me, the game (and this is every game - not just Hero) needs to make a choice. Will social interaction success or failure be governed by:

 

(a) an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the character's social skills and abilities?

 

( an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the player's social skills and abilities?

 

If we're going to follow approach (, remove social skills as something one spends points on. It's not fair to let a player spend their points on non-combat abilities, then have those non-combat abilities in game equaled or surpassed by the character who spent nothing on such skills, but whose player is articulate, quick-thinking and has high personal interaction skills.

 

If we're going to follow approach (a), the ability of a player to influence his character's success in social interaction using his own interaction skills should be no greater than the ability of a player to influence his character's success in combat based on his own personal skills.

 

If the persuasive and articulate player can run an 8 PRE character with no interaction skills and succeed in social conflict solely due to the glibness of the player, then the wallflower with a black belt running a character with no combat skills should be just as able to succeed in combat due to the traits of that player.

 

I, and I believe many gamers, play RPG's to escape into the role of a character who can do things that I can't. That might be a character who can cast spells, lift objects with the power of his mind, or bend steel in his bare hands. Or it may be a character who is a skilled orator, suave and seductive ladies' man or quick-talking con artist. I spend my character points to create the character I want to play (and isn't Hero supposed to be limited only by your imagination?), within the constraints of my available character points. The success or failure of my character should be primarily, if not exclusively, based on HIS strengths, weaknesses, abilities and drawbacks - not on mine!

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

To me, the game (and this is every game - not just Hero) needs to make a choice. Will social interaction success or failure be governed by:

 

(a) an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the character's social skills and abilities?

 

( an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the player's social skills and abilities?

 

I would disagree. (anyone surprised??)

 

I find both of these to be more of extreme, especially when considering social engagements.

 

I think you can also frame the methodo0logy to make PLAYER input and STAT input relatively equal. have them play relatively equivalent impacts.

 

in HERO for instance, if the player comes up with a convincing story when he lies to the mob boss, one playing to the mob boss flaws, then as GM i can apply a modifier to the skill check, calling it EASY or somesuch and with a significant enough bonus it can turn a difficult or maybe 50/50 roll into a near certainty.

 

or as gm i can decide to not allow this much at all, giving only a +1"roleplaying" bonus.

 

all depends on how i want them to balance out, the skill level of character and the skill of the player.

 

But i sure dont want social engagements outcome determined by the character stats "primarily" because that takes me out of the equation for the most part. I am here for making choices.

 

Now in truth, in combat, the players traits DO play a huge role. They don't play a role in necessarily any given die roll of any given skill check, but the player choices are as likely to determine the outcome as the power and attributes are. Who do I shoot at now? When do i shoot? What do I shoot with? these all are the choices the player makes that lead to the answer, the resolution of the "combat task".

 

We all know there will be usually a huge difference between a veteran player and a novice as to how the fight goes.

 

now with social engagements, we dont have the elaborate round by round sstem of combats which break down our player choices this way - but thats where i feel using the player input AS MUCH AS the STATS comes into play. The player picking a convincing lie is his equivalent of choosing to punch this guy because "he has the nnd weapon which hurts a lot" instead of the agent.

 

So i tend to use "PLAYER SPEAK" and we all understand thats what he was trying to say, but how well and convincing he delivered it is also a measure of the character stat. both relatively equally.

 

neither character nor player need to be mostly out of the equation - just like in combat.

 

its just a little more abstract.

 

I think some of the divergence on this is sometimes people equate "make a persuasion roll" with "make an attack roll" since they both involve one roll, where as i see it as equivalent to "lets win this fight" with the punches and such more abstracted.

[Vulcan]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

To me, the game (and this is every game - not just Hero) needs to make a choice. Will social interaction success or failure be governed by:

 

(a) an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the character's social skills and abilities?

 

( an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the player's social skills and abilities?

 

If we're going to follow approach (, remove social skills as something one spends points on. It's not fair to let a player spend their points on non-combat abilities, then have those non-combat abilities in game equaled or surpassed by the character who spent nothing on such skills, but whose player is articulate, quick-thinking and has high personal interaction skills.

 

If we're going to follow approach (a), the ability of a player to influence his character's success in social interaction using his own interaction skills should be no greater than the ability of a player to influence his character's success in combat based on his own personal skills.

 

If the persuasive and articulate player can run an 8 PRE character with no interaction skills and succeed in social conflict solely due to the glibness of the player, then the wallflower with a black belt running a character with no combat skills should be just as able to succeed in combat due to the traits of that player.

 

I, and I believe many gamers, play RPG's to escape into the role of a character who can do things that I can't. That might be a character who can cast spells, lift objects with the power of his mind, or bend steel in his bare hands. Or it may be a character who is a skilled orator, suave and seductive ladies' man or quick-talking con artist. I spend my character points to create the character I want to play (and isn't Hero supposed to be limited only by your imagination?), within the constraints of my available character points. The success or failure of my character should be primarily, if not exclusively, based on HIS strengths, weaknesses, abilities and drawbacks - not on mine!

 

That's why sucess and failure is based on you're Character's skill roll, not your acting ability. But if the GM thinks you made a good 'soliloquy' (to bring official terminology into it) and managed to stay in character doing it, then a bonus of +1 or so is fully justified.

 

After all, a good (and poor) soliloquies have in game effects for PRE attacks. Interaction skills can benefit from similar modifiers.

[Kenn]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

Well, I'm pretty sure the original designers of the system were looking at the comics where the fights made up 19 of the 23 pages in a comic book.

 

I, for one, think the system does a good job at including enough rules for different types of social interaction to be reflected, without being dependent on the PLAYER's acting ability, but not so many rules that they overwhelm a scene.

 

I've run and been in combat-lite stories that were as much tabletop improv as anything. I'm glad the rules are there, when they're needed, but I'm glad they're also reasonably easy to let go of for long stretches.

[nexus]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

D and D 4th has been described as not having much to encourage "role play" but doing nothing to discourage it either… but then neither does Chess. It's up to the players. I think, at the very, is in a better position than that. Psychological Limitations, Interaction skills, even applications of some Powers and Presence attacks take the game beyond tactical combat simulator, IMO. Its area that could use more development though, that's for sure and I think the core system can handle it.

[Katherine]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

My group likes Hero System for its combat options and the flexible ways you can use Powers. They don't all have to be about combat Not stuff like Telepathy, Retrocognition, things like that have non combat applications too. The social rules are pretty sketchy though and we wouldn't use it for a big time social or narrative game. For instance, we all pretty much agree something like Heroes would work better using Prime Time Adventures or something like that. Hero System is too fair and would get everyone thinking all tactical. Sylar would have gotten his butt kicked along time ago lol

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I would disagree. (anyone surprised??)

 

I find both of these to be more of extreme, especially when considering social engagements.

 

I think you can also frame the methodology to make PLAYER input and STAT input relatively equal. have them play relatively equivalent impacts.

 

They are extremes, and you could certainly strike a balance somewhere in the mid point.

 

I would suggest that, if the player's personal skills can allow his character to succeed in the social situation despite his character's utter lack of social skills, this is the one extreme - the player's attributes override the character's.

 

in HERO for instance' date=' if the player comes up with a convincing story when he lies to the mob boss, one playing to the mob boss flaws, then as GM i can apply a modifier to the skill check, calling it EASY or somesuch and with a significant enough bonus it can turn a difficult or maybe 50/50 roll into a near certainty.[/quote']

 

I'm assuming the mob boss is not easily fooled from the outset. You are prepared to allow the player to play to the bob boss's flaws with a convincing story, etc. and thereby succeed despite the fact that the character has a PRE of 5 and no social skills whatsoever.

 

But i sure dont want social engagements outcome determined by the character stats "primarily" because that takes me out of the equation for the most part. I am here for making choices.

 

Now in truth, in combat, the players traits DO play a huge role. They don't play a role in necessarily any given die roll of any given skill check, but the player choices are as likely to determine the outcome as the power and attributes are. Who do I shoot at now? When do i shoot? What do I shoot with? these all are the choices the player makes that lead to the answer, the resolution of the "combat task".

 

Now, let's take a character with similar capability in combat. He has an 8 DEX, a 5 STR and no attacks. How does he win in combat against the mobster's bodyguard, who has spent 100 points on combat skills and abilities, based on the skills of the player?

 

At the end of the day, if we have two characters, and one invests 50 points more in social skills, and 50 less in combat abilities, I think it is fair for both players to expect theat Social Butterfly will be as superior in social situations to the same extent that Combat Wombat is superior in combat situations.

 

The purchase of Social Skills is an investment of points, just like the purchase of combat abilities. Both players should be allowed opportunities for their characters' specific abilities to take the spotlight. Combat Wombat should enjoy superiority in combat due to his extra allocation of points there, and then be permitted to equal or surpass Social Butterfly because the player is glib and well spoken. If points spent on social abilities will have less impact than points spent on combat abilities, then social abilities are overpriced.

[Utech]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

It's pretty clear that HERO values combat over non-combat. That's not a criticism, just a statement of how the points stack up.

 

The vast majority of characters I've seen devote the vast majority of their points to combat utility. Again, not a criticism.

 

In campaigns where weapons and the like do not require point expenditure, characters naturally spend fewer points on combat utility. Add in the point value of their equipment, however, and it's clear that the vast majority of characters are built around points in combat utility.

 

I'm sure that it is possible to run a HERO campaign without any combat whatsoever. You'd then be able to rip out quite a bit of that heavy 5ER book you bought.

 

All this is to say that I agree with RDU Neil's point that HERO is best able to run action adventure games. I'm not sure I agree with the rest of RDU Neil's post.

[Vondy]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

 

(a) an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the character's social skills and abilities?

 

( an adjudication system which depends primarily to exclusively on the player's social skills and abilities?

 

This is a false dichotomy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

D and D 4th has been described as not having much to encourage "role play" but doing nothing to discourage it either… but then neither does Chess. It's up to the players. I think' date=' at the very, is in a better position than that. Psychological Limitations, Interaction skills, even applications of some Powers and Presence attacks take the game beyond tactical combat simulator, IMO. Its area that could use more development though, that's for sure and I think the core system can handle it.[/quote']

 

I'm looking forward to 'Chess- The Role Playing Game!'

 

Given that Hero IS a RPG, I think it is incumbent to encourage role playing. I think that there should be alternative RPG (i.e player) and roll based (i.e. character) based systems and some sort of hybrid system too to allow groups to chose what they like best.

[Vondy]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I'm looking forward to 'Chess- The Role Playing Game!'

 

Given that Hero IS a RPG, I think it is incumbent to encourage role playing. I think that there should be alternative RPG (i.e player) and roll based (i.e. character) based systems and some sort of hybrid system too to allow groups to chose what they like best.

 

No. No. No.

 

Once I have a robust enough social interaction system I won't need players at all!

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I'm assuming the mob boss is not easily fooled from the outset. You are prepared to allow the player to play to the bob boss's flaws with a convincing story, etc. and thereby succeed despite the fact that the character has a PRE of 5 and no social skills whatsoever.

 

yes i am, even with your extreme swing of the capabilities. But be careful - you said "willing to allow" and i agree to that - but thats not saying "willing to overlook" as in I am letting player role override the stats.

 

What would happen in this case - the player delivers a good convincing lie that plays to the mobster's flaws - that would earn the player a bonus, say up to +3 (one for good play and 2 for the mobster's flaws - say a strong psych lim) and that raises the baseline roll from 8- to 11- which boils down to a fairly decent chance - 62.5% in fact.

 

and then he rolls the dice.

 

What the players choices did was improve the chance of him winning.

 

they did not override the character stats.

 

 

 

 

Now, let's take a character with similar capability in combat. He has an 8 DEX, a 5 STR and no attacks. How does he win in combat against the mobster's bodyguard, who has spent 100 points on combat skills and abilities, based on the skills of the player?

 

Well, again you swi9ng to the extreme (which seems to be your favborite playground)... even further extreme than the previous social case because you are not even willing to give this character the familiarities with combat that the previous character has with social skills, but thats ok.

 

If the guy has a chance against the bodyguard, two things have to happen. first he has to get lucky, as there will be die rolls involved. Second he has to make a good choice, good tactical decisions, so that he can excel.

 

There are numerous possibilities - he could make a grab for one of the other goons guns, he can grab a bottle to use as a club then knife, he can at a crucial moment throw a rum and coke into the bad guys eyes, but basically somehow using the scene at hand what he has to do is make a choice tactically that gives him an edge.

 

the specific details of course would vary with the scene.

 

the main difference between the two scenes is that the social engagement will be resolved in one roll, maybe a couple, with little tracking iof other traits. The combat engagement has a more detailed subsystem and will be resolved by several rolls and tracking. The social engagement involves tactical choices - what story has outside confirmation available, what lie do i tell, where does he seem weak, what can i exploit - that all add up to the same kinds of decision making as the combat scene - what weapons are at hand, how fast is this guy, how can i distract him - and all equally exploitable.

 

Now of course, in either type of combat, i can setup as gm a scene where in sp[ite of the PC choices, no matter what he does, he loses. I as GM have decided to give him a no-win scenario, where he simply loses, which seems to be what you are angling at. If i do that tho, maybe you play differently, I rarely play thru that scene in detail. I dont as gm make the player sit thru what amounts to a long pseudo-sesssion watching his character get beat up or struggle to talk his way out when the situation is predetermined. These would be more dialog - as in "hauled before the mob boss who briefly pretends to listen but who quickly shows he is not listening" etc.

 

or put another way - the character traits and the relevent die rolls and subsystems, these only matter for scenes where the outcome is in doubt, right? if you have decided "the pc cannot win this one" then there is little reason for rolling thru the scene.

 

 

At the end of the day, if we have two characters, and one invests 50 points more in social skills, and 50 less in combat abilities, I think it is fair for both players to expect theat Social Butterfly will be as superior in social situations to the same extent that Combat Wombat is superior in combat situations.

 

The purchase of Social Skills is an investment of points, just like the purchase of combat abilities. Both players should be allowed opportunities for their characters' specific abilities to take the spotlight. Combat Wombat should enjoy superiority in combat due to his extra allocation of points there, and then be permitted to equal or surpass Social Butterfly because the player is glib and well spoken. If points spent on social abilities will have less impact than points spent on combat abilities, then social abilities are overpriced.

 

no argument there except to say that the impression i get is the sense of proportion.

 

In either case, you can script a scenario so that the outcome is a foregone conclusion - give one side a large enough advantage that baring uterrly unreasonable luck its a done deal. you can have a large enough "material" combat advantage that no amount of good tactics can win. you can also have a lopsided enough social challenge as to be again unwinnable.

 

but if the outcome is not predetermined, the the underdog can win the combat contest - by using better tatics, by taking advantage of scenary, by using the enemies flaws like vulnerabilities and psych lims against him - and in the same way the underdog can win the social engagement - by exploiting the enemy's flaws, psych lims, using recent events that make the lie seem plausible.

 

to me, the player telling the more convincing lie is just like the player choosing to hit the cold guy with fire instead of the lightning guy - he is making a good tactical choice - and those choices modify the results of the actions - in combat by increasing the stun the enemy takes, likely dropping him sooner and thus IMPROVING THE CHANCE OF WINNING THE CONTEST. In the social skill engagement - since we dont have the elaborate subsystem - it just applies as a modifier to the skill check for the contest, but it does the same thing - IMPROVING THE CHANCE OF WINNING THE CONTEST.

 

Hugh - i have a question for you.

 

How many of you combat scenes have a foregone conclusion? How many of your combat scenes have been setup by you so that practically regardless of player choices the outcome is going to be the same? How many of those scenes are the players choices irrelevent to the outcome?

 

for me the answer is ALMOST NONE, after all, I run games where their choices are key to the story.

 

I have the same basic design breakdown for social scenes too. If we are running the scene and in mechanical detail, its one where their choices matter, not one thats foregone conclusion.

 

In both cases for me, the player's choices apply to their character's stats and these combine with the scenery (including npc) to produce an outcome.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

This is a false dichotomy.

 

How so? The more the player is able to modify the results the character's abilities should achieve, the less the character's innate abilities impact on the results and vice versa.

 

We would not allow the player with a Black Belt to apply his knowledge to improve his character's chances of success in combat. We would not allow the player with a degree in engineering to have his fantasy character invent gunpowder and build handguns. Why are we so much more willing to allow the player who is outgoing, well-spoken and persuasive to avoid the limitations of his character's lack of social skills and low PRE to succeed with interaction skills.

 

By extension, why are we prepared to penalize the wallflower player whose character has spent the points to be highly skilled with such skills? We wouldn't penalize the high school dropout player running a Tony Stark type character for his lack of scientific knowledge, nor penalize the asthmatic couch potato player who needs a break to wheeze half way up a flight of stairs by reducing his character's ability to fight for extended periods. I don't penalize the Wizard's spellcasting because his player can't pull a rabbit out of a hat.

 

yes i am, even with your extreme swing of the capabilities. But be careful - you said "willing to allow" and i agree to that - but thats not saying "willing to overlook" as in I am letting player role override the stats.

 

What would happen in this case - the player delivers a good convincing lie that plays to the mobster's flaws - that would earn the player a bonus, say up to +3 (one for good play and 2 for the mobster's flaws - say a strong psych lim) and that raises the baseline roll from 8- to 11- which boils down to a fairly decent chance - 62.5% in fact.

 

and then he rolls the dice.

 

I think your example is a bit different from my concerns. Here, the player is using his environment. Somehow, he knows the mobsters flaws (or lucked in), and had some insider knowledge (picking a lie that would be convincing, rather than one the mobster would have direct knowledge to contradict).

 

That's very different than allowing the character an advantage because his player makes a persuasive speech. Your example focuses much more on using existing game rules. I would compare this to a character in combat who, through research and preparation, or through luck, is able to take advantage of the opponent's Vulnerability.

 

Well' date=' again you swi9ng to the extreme (which seems to be your favborite playground)... even further extreme than the previous social case because you are not even willing to give this character the familiarities with combat that the previous character has with social skills, but thats ok.[/quote']

 

He has the same everyman familiarities as everyone else. He can swing a fist or a club.

 

If the guy has a chance against the bodyguard, two things have to happen. first he has to get lucky, as there will be die rolls involved. Second he has to make a good choice, good tactical decisions, so that he can excel.

 

There are numerous possibilities - he could make a grab for one of the other goons guns, he can grab a bottle to use as a club then knife, he can at a crucial moment throw a rum and coke into the bad guys eyes, but basically somehow using the scene at hand what he has to do is make a choice tactically that gives him an edge.

 

How much of an advantage will you give him to overcome his poor DEX (he needs to hit with that Grab of the gun or tossing that drink into the bad guy's eyes)? What advantage will you allow to overcome his poor STR?

 

To analogize the two situations, will you allow the character automatic surprise when he grabs and throws the drink, giving his opponent no DCV, and the character a +1 OCV for a Surprise Maneuver (he now has OCV 3 vs DCV 0, a 14- chance to succeed in blinding the target momentarily), and then allow that the target is so surprised that he doesn't react quickly enough to exert his STR, so if the Grab succeeds, the noncombat character pulls the gun away, even with his vastly inferior strength?

 

Practically, the non-combat character needs to have the gun in hand and the gunman disarmed to have the same "more likely than not" success you have provided to the character lacking in social skills. Even with the gun in hand, he has an OCV of 2 (5 DEX), penalized by 3 (non-proficiency), so he needs a 7 or less to shoot the gunman at point blank range (a 10 or less if you allow the gunman is still blinded and at 0 DCV from the drink and surprise). And the gunman can grab the gun away as soon as he can see, so Social Butterfly can't just keep shooting until he gets a lucky roll.

 

To clarify, my belief is that Social Butterfly have the same opportunity to increase his chance of success in combat that Combat Wombat would have to increase his chance of success in a social scene. This at least creates a fair tradeoff in that it is equally difficult (or equally easy) for both characters to improve their likelihood of success to the same degree.

 

Now of course' date=' in either type of combat, i can setup as gm a scene where in spite of the PC choices, no matter what he does, he loses. I as GM have decided to give him a no-win scenario, where he simply loses, which seems to be what you are angling at. If i do that tho, maybe you play differently, I rarely play thru that scene in detail. I dont as gm make the player sit thru what amounts to a long pseudo-sesssion watching his character get beat up or struggle to talk his way out when the situation is predetermined. These would be more dialog - as in "hauled before the mob boss who briefly pretends to listen but who quickly shows he is not listening" etc.[/quote']

 

I'm thinking more that there should be scenes that require both a good scoping out of the situation and use of tactics AND some innate skill to succeed. That is, Combat Wombat simply lacks the social skills to pull off even a convincing lie, where Social Butterfly can leverage his knowledge of the situation with his vastly superior social skills, allowing him to shine. Not "Combat Wombat fights our way in with his superior combat skills while Social Butterfly hides in the background. Then, Combat Wombat overrides his utter lack of social skills to also succeed in the challenge which should have been Social Butterfly's forte. Combat Wombat then decides to leave Social Butterfly at home next time as his unique skills don't add anything Combat Wombat can't already succeed with on his own."

 

or put another way - the character traits and the relevent die rolls and subsystems' date=' these only matter for scenes where the outcome is in doubt, right? if you have decided "the pc cannot win this one" then there is little reason for rolling thru the scene.[/quote']

 

Which PC? The fact that Combat Wombat lacks the skills to succeed does not mean his teammates are equally helpless. But if Combat Wombat smacks Social Butterfly and says "I'll handle this!", I see no reason I should allow CW to override his lack of social skills and succeed in SB's area of expertise.

 

but if the outcome is not predetermined' date=' the the underdog can win the combat contest - by using better tatics, by taking advantage of scenary, by using the enemies flaws like vulnerabilities and psych lims against him - and [b']in the same way[/b] the underdog can win the social engagement - by exploiting the enemy's flaws, psych lims, using recent events that make the lie seem plausible.

 

Emphasis added. The possibility of turning defeat into victory in a combat situation should be the same for Social Butterfly as the possibility of turning defeat into victory in a social situation for Combat Wombat. What I see too often in gaming is a lopsided structure where combat skills alone are determinative. Combat Wombat gets to enjoy his advantage in combat, but in social situations, he is allowed to level the playing field using "off character sheet" abilities. As such, it is useless to purchase social skills, because they will only be allowed to succeed when the GM wishes them to do so, and then the GM would allow any of the characters with the same speech to succeed.

 

Hugh - i have a question for you.

 

How many of you combat scenes have a foregone conclusion? How many of your combat scenes have been setup by you so that practically regardless of player choices the outcome is going to be the same? How many of those scenes are the players choices irrelevent to the outcome?

 

for me the answer is ALMOST NONE, after all, I run games where their choices are key to the story.

 

I have the same basic design breakdown for social scenes too. If we are running the scene and in mechanical detail, its one where their choices matter, not one thats foregone conclusion.

 

In the games I run, the characters' abilities are also important. The characters may well have all the information they now need to bluff that mob boss, but they need Social Butterfly's skills to pull off that bluff. Combat Wombat might make the attempt, but those bonuses won't be enough to give him a good chance of success. But:

 

- if we hadn't had Combat Wombat with us, we would never have gotten past the hired guns that came after us

 

- which bought us some time for Investigating Irving to figure out why we were being targeted, by whom and what his background is (so we can figure out the cnvincing lie and the weaknesses to play upon)

 

- so that Stealthy Sam could sneak into the correct Mob Boss' HQ and get us in

 

- getting us close enough to that Mob Boss to allow Social Butterfly the opportunity to combine the info obtained by Irving with his own social skills to persuade the Mob Boss to back off.

 

In other words, while the actions of the characters ultimately determine success or failure, each character is allowed to shine in his own area of expertise. Combat Wombat isn't allowed to pick the right guys to question (rendering Investigating Irving irrelevant), make a lucky stealth roll to sneak into the HQ (rendering Stealthy Sam superfluous) and then bluff the mob boss (making Social Butterfly draw back into his cocoon). The characters must work together as a team in order to succeed - which is also a choice - making the best use of their individual talents.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

No. No. No.

 

Once I have a robust enough social interaction system I won't need players at all!

 

I read this book about supercrunching recently, and your comment rang a bell (albeit I'm 90% confident it was tongue in cheek )

 

The idea of supercrunching is that really complicated behaviours can be predicted with a suprisingly small number of very simple (often yes/no) questions, and those predictions actually work out better than the ones 'experts' make. For example there was a panel of lawyers asked to predict the outsome of Supreme Court cases, set against a model for predicting based on just 6 questions (things like: Was the Bench conservative?). The model did far better than the experts (something like 70% right against their 50%).

 

If you could work out the right questions, you could probably come up with a model for predicting behaviour in social situations based on a small number of personality traits.

 

No random element at all (unless you wanted to introduce one). Might be interesting. I'm on holiday next week, so I might make that a project.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

 

That's very different than allowing the character an advantage because his player makes a persuasive speech. Your example focuses much more on using existing game rules. I would compare this to a character in combat who, through research and preparation, or through luck, is able to take advantage of the opponent's Vulnerability.

 

 

hugh, i am now somewhat flumoxed.

 

what are you considering to be "a persuasive speech" that is separate from the other factors you describe - using mob boss flaws, tieing in with recent events well, etc?

 

to me a persuasive speech is exactly those "use environment" types f things. we both agree those should affect the outcome, player utilizing those, so thats one level of agreement, even if we may differ on amount.

 

but i am confused as to what other thing you define as "persuasive speech" that you feel shouldn't be applied?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

hugh, i am now somewhat flumoxed.

 

what are you considering to be "a persuasive speech" that is separate from the other factors you describe - using mob boss flaws, tieing in with recent events well, etc?

 

I think we are discussing very different elements.

 

I would consider the fact that the PLAYER is highly articulate, and puts together a very impressive speech to be separate. All the characters have access to the mob boss' flaws, recent events, etc. Assuming these are incorporated into the description of the attempt to persuade the mob boss, the CHARACTER with the 18 PRE and 15- Persuasion skill should be more likely to succeed than the CHARACTER with the 5 PRE and Everyman familiarity, despite the fact that, say, Social Butterfly's player is shy, stutters and stares at his shoes while describing his character's attempt to persuade the mob boss, and Combat Wombat's player is a debating champion/world record used car salesman.

 

The factors set out above constitute use of in-game abilities. The player's personal attributes do not. Just as it is reasonable for a character with an Inventor skill and access to the right chemicals to invent an explosive, but it is not reasonable for a character with no science skills whose player is a munitions manufacturer to invent gunpowder.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

...of course a player who knows the rules well might well glean a bonus to his roll by, for instance, taking longer to make a social interaction attempt in a non-time critical environment, whereas a less experienced player might not even realise thay can. That is, I suppose, a player effect similar to an articulate or persuasive player influencing characters in game: it is a meta effect. Equally you wouldn't think twice about awarding a skill roll bonus to a player who has been paying attention and remembers that The Capo of the Macaronni Family has a fondness for white lillies and brings some as a gift when trying to obtain a delay on payment of an outstanding loan. That's rewarding a player with good memory or organisational skills. It all crosses the boundary between player and character. The most obvious example, although one probably not onsidered even similar generally, is that you would not prevent a player using decent tactics in combat, even if the character has little combat training.

 

I'm not entirely sure what my point is but it is probably this: you're never going to entirely escape the meta-effect. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that, if you could, the game would not be half so much fun.