Doc Democracy

Hmm. So are we saying if players can put their hands easily on a 2D6 killing attack by buying a sword or a gun then a wizard should have access to spells that do 2D6 damage without paying for it either? These are “common magic”? That means they only need the same kind of knowledge and familiarisation skills. Better stuff requires points. I would also allow things bought with points to be more reliably available. For example, if captured and disarmed, your kit just happens to be on a hook near the cell you escape from. I would also warn players that kit bought with money would be subject to narrative loss and malfunction in a way bought equipment did not. Doc edit: Chris Goodwin beat me to it. But it bears repeating...

I will never escape from escape rooms, my mind moves in straight lines....

How American of you! Dedicated to pursuit of happiness... ?

Yeah and now Bob is toting the heavy blaster doing 4D6 RKA that most folk can’t carry. ?

How could I have forgotten Grond!! I used to throw him in at random when I needed to mix things up. He was the only villain that never stayed incarcerated but was never vicious...

I reckon that my take on points in heroic games often reflects how easily I regain my equipment (or reasonable facsimiles of). If I have paid money for a focus driven killing attack and am captured then I expect to find my killing attack (in some form) available almost the minute I manufacture my escape. If I have not paid points then the GM has very much less responsibility to see that I have what I need... ? Doc

If that is a British advert then it is making reference to a beloved racehorse (Red Rum) and everyone would have been aware. Without that context it is almost impossible to understand what they are getting at.

My list of early bog standard villains were: The Ultimates (Binder, Plasmoid, Black Star, Charger and Slick); Ankylosaur; Ogre, and Firewing for the mega-villain.

Ultimately, our games tend to reflect the comics we read. The comics of my youth were Teen Titans, Legion of Superheroes and a range of others where things were four colour, stretchy costumes were de rigeur and almost everyone had a secret ID. Of course my games were similarly tilted. Those coming right behind me grew up on the Fantastic Four and X-Men. This dispensed with secret IDs as did many other titles and costumes soon followed. It is not surprising that if people grow up on comics that looked down on costumes and secret IDs as silly and impractical, then their games would also reflect that, even if they swallowed whole the suggestion that a man could not only fly but fly right through the Sun. ? Doc

I was with you right up to this point. You are right, if you are talking experienced players and GMs. There are no training wheels though, HERO will allow you to make the most egregious decisions and mistakes. It does not hold your hand and provide a safe path through the wilderness until you know better. For a neophyte, all the complexity is right up in your face from the get go.

Possibly early enough to be reincarnated as one of them then? You better make sure your karma is sorted.... ?

It does! That was not in my conscious brain. There should be more of that kind of thing.

was not talking about a dressing down, was talking about getting all the characters together and do a comparison of the various markers. I think it is obvious when one character is dominant. My guys are excellent team players, if they see for themselves how the numbers are, they will adjust stuff themselves, it will be a learning exercise not a correctional one. Not enough for a neophyte GM... But it is the best brand HERO owns. If I were to deliver one game in the core rules as an example of a game HERO can deliver, then Champions would be it, and it would be a far more defined version of Champions than previous editions delivered. If it had been one voice, I would not have said anything, it just felt like a little bit of a dogpile was developing and I wanted to counter that, nothing personal to anyone. Doc

either that or there is a market opportunity....who is closest to needing it first.

Yup but thats what the boards are for! ? Here is a process that could be in the books as guidance. Might not work for everyone but a solid process for getting folk on the same page. The Flashback could take my group a long time, we are fortunate if we face to face once a fortnight...

I am waiting until I am retired and child free. I am anticipating funds and time. I am concerned Starlord has identified what may remain out of reach....

After 13 pages I reckon it has been good value. A good thread spawns others...and there are definitely multiple things being talked about here.

Let me have a go at some of the settings... Soldiers Fight Soldiers There is a psychological limitation here. Something like "Don't break cover" or "Never act where your "difference" may be witnessed" which might be converted to a Hunted if they breach that action. All player characters and most NPCs should have this built in. There should also be a Code of Honour, something along the lines of "The Shadow Accord" which sets out the terms of engagement between the various factions. I might also have a Distinctive Feature that means others will be able to see which faction I belong to. The World Is Not All Doom And Gloom How should the system provide for this? It sounds to me like there is some kind of force actively preventing people from making connections about what is going on. I like there being a bonus to any attempts to explain away things. A global bonus to any kind of cover-up. I would provide each player with conversation, persuasion skills that they should be directed to use whenever situations occur. Kind of like the end part of Deadlands adventures where players tell tales of their success to reduce the fear level of an area. Players should be actively working towards reducing the suspicion level of the areas work and live in. This should be almost a mechanical aspect of the game where actions build up the suspicion and it can only be lowered through the players providing alternative solutions. Real World Tech…Mostly Here is a limit to what the players may use as powers. I would be inclined to simply restrict the players to choosing technology from lists. The Magic, Fantastical And Horrific There is nothing here to say that the players can create or use these items. I will presume that these are the kinds of things the PCs will come across during the campaign, they will accumulate this kind of resource that they may or may not be able to use. I would therefore have to come up with a range of skills that allow the use of such things. I would also have a system of perks that might permit a PC to retain something magic, fantastical or horrific that would otherwise disappear into the shadows. I am going to say that NCM is in force. I think I would have to come up with a list of Knowledge skills that I intended to use during the game, perks, contacts and a raft of other stuff that will allow the players to tie themselves into the background before the first adventure... Doc

I totally agree. But how should the GM go about it? How far do the rules go in holding a new GMs hand in making those decisions?

This is simply sad truth...

Yup. As I said, it is a first time design. The player has been in a few games and so seen the system in play and there are things he genuinely wants to achieve. The problem is that most other games do not ask the player to impose limitations or to taper their powers in order to deliver a better in game experience. I dont think I have ever played any other game where the player thinks about anything beyond how to maximise the elements of the character that he wants to play... HERO can deliver MUCH more ability to maximise and expects the GM to know enough to police that maximisation.

This is what I am talking about. There is a gap in the rules giving guidance on how the GM needs to communicate the limits that she is imposing on the game and how to think through how to apply those limits. Not everyone is a numbers person where it is obvious that 10D6 attacks and 35 PD defences mean long drawn out fights and 14D6 attacks with 20 PD defences could lead to quick resolutions and good chance of people being stunned during fights. And that's before you start trying to factor in SPD, STUN, REC etc. We seem to expect folk to understand the concepts and what the numbers mean without any ready references. Even when you talk to us about it you indicate that the GM was content with 40PD but didn't understand why someone else might ask whether 45 PD was right. Personally I am content with much higher defences and attacks etc to be available as long as there are limitations and costs associated with going beyond the limits. It means that there are tactical decisions to be made - pushing the attacks at the cost of accuracy or defence or fatigue. The more we can get away from a standard attack and a standard defence, the better the in-game experience will be. But until the rulebooks provide the GM with the tools to deliver those sorts of games, it is likely the math will deliver bog standard, potentially uninteresting games. Doc

? He did not really follow the stuff beyond looking at standard. He also went for SPD 12, I think, because he saw a SPD 12 character in a different game. What he did not appreciate was THAT speedster was below standard on almost everything else, glass jaw, low STUN, low defences etc. It was an exercise in using the phases to set up times when he could hit without unduly exposing himself to retribution and recovering furiously the END expended in short bursts of activity. To be fair, there is a lot of colour in the character but it all happens to be in combat colour. Again, not a terrible thing for a first time build but I do come back to how the system might help the GM to help the player. It is obvious short guidelines dont do it, nor does a decent narrative of the proposed campaign. Doc

Speechless?? ?

I am just checking a character. I had some sketchy details - standards were to be 12D6 attacks, 8 CV, 4 MCV, DEF 20, REC 10, SPD 5, STUN 55. I expect a character to be on standard for most above on one significantly above on one and below on one. I indicated that I would expect a lot of points spent on colour powers (things that make the character what they are rather than necessarily making them more efficient/effective in combat) and that they will face lots of challenges that will not be solvable simply by hitting something or someone. I said that buying everything to standard would result in a quite narrow character and that the campaign average for everything will be lower than the standard values but each hero should pick things that exceed standard to make them stand out. The first character had a 14D6 attack potential (though would burn through all his END in half his actions doing that), 9 OCV 10 DCV, 3 MCV, DEF 25, REC 12, SPD 12, STUN 48. I will be going back pointing out that he could attack at full power six times a turn against a standard opponent, doing an average of 129 STUN a round, taking 30 and, if he could manage 5 recoveries in the 6 phases he has available, be at full END and STUN at the end of the turn, possibly having taken out two opponents. This is not really the players fault - the system is there to build things, it is his first character and he will not be looking at this like me. Where is the rulebook helping him? How could I help him more in setting up the game to deliver a character more in fitting with the game I have in mind? Doc