Doc Democracy

I actually do believe it will. I can see the arguments based on “the rulebook says it is worth...” If the rulebook says that, “on its own, the limitation is worth...”followed by “ this value is likely to vary by campaign and if used alongside other limitations....”

I realised I had not quite addressed this. No one I have seen is seeking to reduce the page count of the rules. I think that the current rules could be usefully supplemented with guidance on how to handle complex builds with multiple limitations. There does need to be explicit recognition that such builds are possibly/likely to provide less value than adding all the limitations up. I am getting the feeling I need to go to the rulebook and write up a character in there in this manner, just so we can see what it would look like compared to the current method. This is as much re-skinning and presentational as it is anything to fundamentally change the rules. Doc

I think that the additional guidance suggested by Lucius for the current system would be necessary for this to work. I think this suggestion would make it more likely that GMs would use the guidance. I dont like to think how long I have been using the system. ? GMs used to FATE like systems would be more than able to use this. A brand new GM would see nothing additional when faced with the edifice of rules that HERO always was. I think HERO felt more because you needed to have a grasp of it all before playing the game while something like D&D allowed you to grok a small subset of rules before you started playing. I did not combine advantages and limitations in that example as there were no limitations - it was all advantage. I would be inclined to keep advantages and limitations separate in the description. I am sticking my neck out far enough talking about combining and shifting the costs of advantages and limitations, dont see why you think I would be up for bringing up recosting every power in the book.... :-S Doc

I don't see it as simplifying things (unless you are talking about the character sheet). I think that it requires a bit more active GMing in agreeing a value for limitations and advantages (which is really something they should already be doing). The mental paralysis example shows where I came to a different value on advantages than those written in the book to better fit my campaign. That is something GMs should not be afraid of doing but the rules, as they are laid out, make it difficult for GMs to reject values presented by the players as RAW. Doc

proponents for single terms for limitations (and/or advantages).

Ah mental entangle, my players hate it from the time mental paralysis debuted in Champions 3(I think). Hated it so much they asked that I never use it again for any villain if they promise not to use it on any hero. As such it does not feature in my games. As an intellectual challenge I will accommodate you however. Mental Paralysis 6D6 Entangle. This attack is based on mental combat values and may only be broken using mental attacks which will have no effect on the entangled character (+3). [24 END] This costing reflects my campaign. Mental powers are rare and EGO rarely bought up. This kind of power is more effective as it uses MCV and needs mental powers to be broken and so I have increased the overall advantage by +3/4. Wasn’t difficult and even this basic text will work on the character sheet. Doc

I reject the notion that we are dumbing down anything. I contend that we are looking to make the character sheet more characterful and less like a spreadsheet on speed.

Not incorrect, I said that "sounds" like a naked advantage because you said modern ammunition. I'm British, we don't grow up immersed in gun tech or see adverts for this kind of stuff. I don't actually care to be honest. In my games, I tend toward superheroes and away from detailed weaponry or martial arts styles. It is powers and heroic intent that wins the day....maybe that is why I am looking more favourably on this kind of idea. Focussing on detailed builds draws my prot-gods back into real-world mundanity. Doc

I think that there is a lot of focus on “negotiating the value of every aspect” rather than running through a decent narrative description of the power and coming up with a value for it. I think it would move players away from looking at what limitations they think they could live with to reduce the cost of their powers and onto a better visualisation of what the power actually is. Ultimately I think it should make the game more accessible to folk who don’t want to be bothered with knowing each and every limitation and don’t want to attend the Goodman School of Effectiveness nor feel that they are paying more than their more point conscious fellows. It would also probably improve the readability of character sheets. doc

You know, this sounds like the ammunition is a naked advantage, allowing a weapon that never used to be usable under water or in space to do so. ?

I think there has always been malleability in the rules in that they say a limitation that does not limit is worth no points, regardless of what the book says. If you accept that the GM can reduce or increase the value of a particular limitation then it is actually a pretty small step from where we are to a single limitation adjudicated by the GM (with reference to the guidance) as to its value.

Wouldn't we be left with she-said-he-was-too-drunk-to-remember?? ?

I thought this sounded like a game I had seen recently. Perhaps convergent design or homebrew evolved to a bit more than that... http://crucifictiongames.com/games_hr.htm

I think a boy Rapunzel is going to more likely be pitched at a 'mature' audience and not involve letting down his hair, unless you mean metaphorically...

I would challenge the use of arbitrary. I think everyone supporting this as an idea thinks that there would be a need for guidance on what things tend to be worth (if they were single limitations) with a bit of blurb on how to blend stuff or make judgements. How is that different from now? The GM has to keep track of all the individual powers "by memory or by referring to a copy of the character sheet". I think it sounds as if it would be more work, I do not think it would in practice. I think you would find that, much of the time, the same limitations came up as are on the list and the values would be applied pretty much the same. You would also facilitate those times when the listed limitations do not quite do it and you could agree a limitation with the player that works. I do that just now. I think this would make the character sheets more thematic and less mechanical. But we are at the point of assertion now - neither of us have tried it. Perhaps when I do my next HERO game this is what I need to do.... Doc

Depends on the campaign. If Holy Symbols are as easy to put together as lashing two sticks in a cross, then all you need is a Holy Symbol. What about the classic brandishing of a Star of David at a vampire? Does any Holy Symbol work? Or what about if the symbol needs to be created by someone of faith and blessed? I agree that the system works whether or not you require the Holy Symbol to be a perk or just a symbol. I think my last campaign had them as a perk.

Ah, superheroes. They deserve each power to have three or four good sentences. Of course there would be no bog-standard powers, they are all unique and I think would be better utilised with a narrative base rather than a mechanics hard base. I can understand the desire for hardcore consistency but that kind of thing can lead to things feeling constrained and ultimately everything feeling same-y. I think with a decent set of guidelines it would make little difference to the utility of providing adventures. The biggest barrier to consistency between campaigns are point totals and the tolerance to high/low CVs, damage dice and defences, and none of that is fixed. Doc

I disagree. I think narrative games are often quite rules complex, just in different ways and the ones that are mechanically light can often prove difficult in delivering particular types of story - narrative games can make stories that hinge on resource management very difficult. I also think anyone can run can run a narrative game based on any ruleset, it all depends on how much the GM decides to expose to the players. I do think that the rules heavy impression folk have about HERO could be leavened by things that encourage a story telling approach among players. You brought up the question of different laser guns. As GM the scenario you brought up would be my fault. I do not think that it is my job (and not implying you do either...) just to allow players to have what they want simply because it is rules legal. That is what leads to Tom’s laser, Harry’s laser and Dick’s laser. Neil’s approach dictates a more narrative approach to the game. As GM when the players comes to me with his idea of his laser gun, I am going to need more than OAF, six charges and beam. Tom’s laser (players wants after some discussion): Player - I want a laser gun. I see it being the usual weapon kind of thing, stored in a holster and drawn to use. It can only fire six times before it needs to be recharged and has no ability to be modulated, it is full power or nothing and the beam cannot be widened to hit more people, or to make it easier to hit a single target. GM - OK. I am seeing this as about 2 points worth of limitation. I am going to call this a Standard Imperial laser gun. Anyone else can acquire this kind of gun. All you need to put on your character sheet is Standard Imperial laser gun. (3D6K) (-2) Harry’s laser: Player - I don’t want a standard imperial laser. I want my laser to do more damage but have fewer shots and be a prone to breaking down. GM - Why the differences? Player - I have jury-rigged the power pack. GM - ok that makes sense. You need to write Customised Standard Imperial laser gun (4D6K; only four shots and stops working on 15+) (-3) Dick’s laser: Player - I want my laser gun to be different. I don’t want to have any limits on the number of shots I can fire and I want to be able to vary how much damage I do when I fire it. GM - OK, how are you able to keep firing? Where does the power come from? Player - it is an alien technology, some kind of fusion that continually draws in atmosphere and creates plasma. It will run for years before the power runs out. GM - do you need to fiddle with settings to reduce the damage or spread the beam? Player - not much, I know it well enough that it takes almost no time. GM - OK, I need a race, unless you are willing to come up with your own. Or is it unknown alien tech? Player - I like the unknown idea. GM - all right, you need to write Ancients laser gun (3D6K). (-1). As GM, I have now established two potential weapons folk could buy and should be part of player reference material. I have also shown that things can be altered. As GM, I can decide to run with the machanical notation I have noted above or I might have two or three short descriptive sentences to go on the character sheet for example Standard Imperial laser gun: this weapon comes with a hip holster. It deliver 3D6 killing damage but can only fire six times before the pack needs replaced or recharged. It is a simple weapon that does not allow the user to modulate the laser in any way. Ancients laser gun: no one knows how to manufacture these weapons any more. It delivers the same damage as a Standard Imperial (3D6K) but never runs out of power and intuitive controls allow users to increase and reduce power output and to spread the beam to make it easier to hit targets. Doc

I think if you are going to build location based fighting styles you need to use bits of powers that reflect the style. Like giving Greek hoplites knock back resistance and perhaps a bit of extra PRE if they are Spartans. These benefits should only be possible when using the standard kit of that region.

Not at all, I find you to be a very open-minded forum-er. ? I wasn't looking to tell people off for bad behaviour, just to point out that folk seemed to be missing the essence of the idea. Doc

There is some sarcasm and hostility being directed towards this idea but I think it is simply a call for a more stripped down notation on character sheets and for GMs to be a bit more liberal and flexible in their application of the rules. I think that the rulebook would have just as big a section on advantages and limitations as it already has but they would be guidance for the GM in how to come to a value. I think it would make for more narrative content on character sheets and a far greater move towards HERO's claim that you can build anything you want to. In essence I am effectively doing just this every time I use the Limited Power limitation (and I make reasonably liberal use of that to get what I want). Doc

I like it as an idea and I think it is one that could work. I think Archer's concerns are legitimate. However, I think this is something that would/could work if the player was willing to do a cool description of the power that encompassed its limitations. Instead of using all that space on game notation it would simply be a couple of lines of text describing the power with a number next to it that is the overall limitation applied. It would indeed need the suggested values so that the GM might eyeball the overall figure more accurately and consistently. I like it so much that it should be used for advantages and limitations!! ? I think there would be a benefit if it encouraged the players to think in terms of descriptions rather than mechanical advantages and disadvantages... Doc

My friend and I ran an anti-cliche campaign. I am trying to remember the extent. Our first element was that the main technological race were dark-skinned and from an island archipelago. The savages in forests came from the north (where it was warm) and the raving barbarians roved in subterranean caves to the South (where it was mainly cold). The magic of the world meant that when you killed someone you had a geas to return their goods to their loved ones or you suffered. If you wanted to take (steal) from the dead, you had to take on an obligation to complete the tasks they left unfinished when they died or to replace it with something of equal or greater value. It was possible to honour the dead and sacrifice their goods to the gods if you also placed something of value to the sacrifice. Skeletons were the major form of undead while vampires were the ten-a-penny undead that you threw at first level characters. There were lots of other little things that were simply meant to say, think of what worked in D&D and reverse it to find what would be best to do here.... Doc

As GM I am always a bit reticent to enforce anyone's vision of a character on a player. It means that I have to begin to make decisions that are not about game balance or story direction and those are what I think the GM is there for. If a player wants to tweak his character in response to the threats he has just faced then who am I to spoil what it providing game fun to that person. Some players are there to explore the character and delve into the limitations and frustrations of that character, others are there to play the game and be effective in that. Different wants and needs. I am not there to decide whose game fun is paramount. If I do not like the way some folk get their fun in a game I can seek to find a like-minded group, otherwise I need to be tolerant of everyone's wants and desires as long as they do not impinge on someone elses. For example, if Joe Muscles has 60 STR, the strongest character in the game, I would not allow Joe Adaption to raise his strength to close or beyond Joe Muscles. Muscles' concept was to be strongest - Adaptation was not. Going from 25 STR to about 50 in response to in-game challenges would be fine with me, beyond that he is stepping on Muscles' toes and I would explain that and say I was not allowing it. I see that very much in the realms of both balance and story. Doc

I think it is for a player to think about the uses of a movement power. The big advantage of this over teleportation is the ability to creep down and through pipe and ductwork, looking for places that you might emerge - with TP you really need to see where you want to go. This allows for exploration in a way that TP does not and allows for that in places that might be unexpected. There is value there. Situational but that is true of most movement powers. Doc