The HERO System

[swrushing]

In d20 terms, how do you design a balanced 7th level spell? You don't, you make it up based on your subjective judgement about whether or not that is the correct power level.

Whereas in HERo i take a subjectively arrived at base cost for a power, choose subjectively between any number of different constructs (remember, there are always multiple ways to build the same thing in hero?), apply subjectively priced advantages and disadvantages and finally arrive at a final cost which may or may not be a valid measure of "power" or "balance" (no experienced HERO player will tell you that either final cost or active cost or any single "price" in HERO **will** work as an accurate measure for balance and will usually list about half a dozen things to compare) and that an experienced Gm will then compare to other effects at the same costs.

In d20, i take my experience and judgement and knowledge of my campaign world and i create what i think will be a seventh level spell. Then i compare it to other such spells and those of higher and lower level and (again with my experience, judgement, knowledge of the campaign and common sense in hand) decide if it is about right or needs tweaking.

I do the same thing in hero, but with a lot more math in between the initial "judgement stage", the midway "judgement stage" and the final "judgement stage".

It takes longer than it does in d20, requires more math than it does in d20, and the final result is just as accurate or inaccurate... which is to say, its as good or bad as my judgement was at all those judgement stages along the way.

 

[Rackhir]

Did I say that? No, I said "You can get around this problem, but it involves thinking during character generation of everything you might want to do with your character's powers."

This makes character design difficult and slow, and it also means that one is prone to make oversights (unless one uses variable power pools: I have friends who claim that every character ought to have a VPP). It also means taht players who accept that their characters will be constrained by nonsensical limitations (such as being able to squirt web to swing on, or to entangle and enemy, but not to catch someone who is falling) often end up with characters taht can kick more butt.

First off I'd have to agree that you definitely suffered from a bad DM. Lets face it an inflexible DM who demands that you run YOUR character however THEY think it should be run will ruin any game. Not to mention that it sounds like he did a piss poor job of designing the character to follow the concept you had. So it's not exactly fair to blame all of that on the system.

Second, it sounds like you feel that only absolute and total flexibility in what your powers can do is acceptable. In that kind of a situation then yes a Variable power pool is the way to go. Most superhero concepts don't require this though. Cyclops can't use his beam attack to create a force wall and there is no inherent reason why your webs for example have to be able to be made into a "Wall/Force Wall" or used in any of the ways you describe. There are dozens of reasons why your powers might not be able to be used that way. Spiders for example spin different web strands to catch flies and to walk on in their webs. Maybe you only had one kind.

One of the beauties of champions is that there are multiple ways to achieve flexibilty in powers. In champions there are no less than 4 ways that I can think of off hand.

* VPP - the most expensive, but the most flexible. Unfettered you can litterally do anything you want (within points limits). It can also be limited to simulate certain kinds of powers. A Power Duplicator character would add the limitation - Only to duplicate powers of target.

* Multipower - A big pool of points that can be divided up among many power slots. Say for example a 60 pool with 4 slots (Energy Blast, Forcefield, flight, TK) at (iirc) 1/10 the cost of the power pool (6*4). The points generally can be divded among the slots how ever wished, so long as it doesn't exceed 60 points. You could have everything in one slot or equally divided among them, etc...

*Elemental Commands - A set of Powers linked by a common theme. Say fire powers. The largest power gives a discount to the other powers, but all the powers have to have the same limitations.

* Limited Use Powers - By taking a highly limited number of uses (1/day, for example), you can make affordable powers that might otherwise be to expensive for how much usage they would get.

Indeed. Also, too many Hero System advocates just don't care that what is going on in the game world of a Hero System game doesn't make sense on its own terms. But for some people, including some people who ask for advaice about whether they might like Hero System, this is an important point.

If you are happy with a character who can squirt webs to swing on or to entangle enemies, but who cannot squirt web to catch an innocent bystander who is falling off a building, and who cannot squirt web into an enemy's face, that's fine. Or if you are happy with every character having a list of powers as long as you arm detailing the possible uses of their (for example) webs that is fine too.

Agback

Your point about having to think of everything at the character creation is inaccurate. First as pointed out above, you can cover most if not all of the "Power Abilities" that an ability to "Shoot Webs" might imply. Yes this can involve some thought, but if absolute flexibility is required then you simply use a VPP.

Second, remember superheroes frequently don't spring full blown from the head of Zeus. Spiderman couldn't do everything you wanted the character to do right off the bat. He learned new ways and uses for his webs as time passed, improved the formula and created variations for specific circumstances. IE. he gained experience or in champions more power points and bought new powers/improvements on old ones.

Champions does require more thought be put into a character than many systems do, because the system is more of a tool kit and less a collection of one size fits all Straightjackets (ie.classes). You do have to build your character to fill you're idea of what that character should be and that is more work than simply being told "You are a fighter you can do this." However, that does mean that you can have a character who fits virtually any character conception.

 

[buzz]

Whereas in HERo i take a subjectively arrived at base cost for a power, choose subjectively between any number of different constructs (remember, there are always multiple ways to build the same thing in hero?), apply subjectively priced advantages and disadvantages and finally arrive at a final cost which may or may not be a valid measure of "power" or "balance"...

Well, there's a difference between "subjective" and "arbitrary." The point system in HERO has been slowly polished over 20+ years, so there is *some* accuracy (as it were) to point costs. Thus, all the math does count for something. In general, the point cost will reflect the power of the ability.

Will context (i.e., the campaign setting) add a subjective element to this? Sure, but the same would be true with D&D. E.g., if magical healing didn't exist, you'd probably want to up the levels of available combat spells. I mean, just look at how Midnight or certain d20 Modern settings need to adapt.

With D&D, all you really have to go on is example. You look at spells or magic item costs and simply compare what you've created; the more or less experienced you are with the system, the more or less your chances of creating something unbalanced. (And, man, have I seen players creating some ridiculosly unbalanced stuff.)

With HERO, though, at least there's a baseline, and the math does most of the work for you. I.e., you don't need an experienced eye to determine what the point value of a power is. You just do the arithmetic.

Not that there isn't a subjective element; in any game, balance is always in the hands of the GM. I still think that HERO's "toolkit" provides a lot more guidance, though.

 

[Driddle]

I'm a little confused now.

So. ... Which system is best for superhero RPG?

(And hasn't there been a d20 adaptation of the Hero System?)

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Well, there's a difference between "subjective" and "arbitrary."

Yes, subjective simply means by choice while arbitrary brings in the by whim or not by judgement or reason qualifiers.

I am saying both are subjective.

Are you saying one is arbitrary?

I find hero guys like to throw around "arbitrary" to mean "anything not done using our math" but before i figure you for one of thoise tell me whay you are wanting to tag with arbitrary?

If i, using my reason, experience, and judgement assign a custom spell a spell level in DnD is that what you want to call arbitrary?

Where do you want to use arbitrary in this discussion?

or was it just a snappy jab you really dont want to get called on to explain?

The point system in HERO has been slowly polished over 20+ years, so there is *some* accuracy (as it were) to point costs. Thus, all the math does count for something. In general, the point cost will reflect the power of the ability.

I see every bit as much, if not more, discontent and discussion over point costs on the hero boards now, after its decade long gap between 4e and 5e as i did before.

Can you say "damage shield" and with a straigh face tell me hero's math is better because its older?

BTW, unless i miss my guess, spell levels have been around longer than HERo math has, so if we apply the "older is more relaible" nons... errr... logic then DnD spell level assignments should be even more better at it than hero, right. They are older.

Will context (i.e., the campaign setting) add a subjective element to this? Sure, but the same would be true with D&D. E.g., if magical healing didn't exist, you'd probably want to up the levels of available combat spells. I mean, just look at how Midnight or certain d20 Modern settings need to adapt.

Eureka!!!

Yes.

both HERO and other game system have significant amounts of influence between "context/setting/genre and the VALUES/costs/levels that elements should be assigned. These influences must be assessed using judgement and reason and with direct assessment of the specific game in question.

A good example is water breathing vs +1 to hit (both 5 pts in hero.) Should they be the same cost for a water deep fantasy vs a dark sun desert fantasy? of course not. Should they be the same cost for a Phoenix AZ based superhero game as a NYC based superhero game where an atleantean sub mariner plot will be a main storyline? Of course not.

With D&D, all you really have to go on is example. You look at spells or magic item costs and simply compare what you've created; the more or less experienced you are with the system, the more or less your chances of creating something unbalanced. (And, man, have I seen players creating some ridiculosly unbalanced stuff.)

uh huh. and you have not seen people creating unbalanced stuff in HERo i bet?

With HERO, though, at least there's a baseline, and the math does most of the work for you. I.e., you don't need an experienced eye to determine what the point value of a power is. You just do the arithmetic.

In DND, i dont need an experienced eye to tell me what letter the spell starts with either.

Knowing the HERO point value of X does not mean it is easier to balance. It just means i have some number. Is that number useful?

Would you, as an experienced hero player, bet money that two characters both built on 300 rp were balanced without seeing them?

Would you, as an experienced hero player, bet money on two powers both built on 45 rp being balanced without seeing them?

or, in both cases, since you know from experience that rp cost is NOT sufficient as a metric to judge most anything about a power or a character, insist on seeing the powers or characters and comparing a number of factors like ap, construct guidelines, types of limitations, presence of GM permission items etc etc etc before placing your money down?

Honest now, which would it be?

For instance, lets look at it another way...

BRICK 1 (200 rp)
Str 60 Dex 20 Con 30 Body 20 Int 10 ego 10 pre 10 com 10
PD 12 ED 6 Rec 18 Spd 3 End 60 Stn 60
Armor 10/10
20 pts of non-combat skills
+1 OCV

Brick 2 (205 rp)
Str 60 Dex 20 Con 30 Body 20 Int 10 ego 10 pre 10 com 10
PD 12 ED 6 Rec 18 Spd 3 End 60 Stn 60
Armor 10/10
20 pts of non-combat skills
+1 OCV
Extra limb (prehensile tail with full strength and dex)

These two may happen to have turned out to be balanced. 5 pts out of 200 wont be making or breaking any balance and they are built almost identically.

but what about

Brick 3a (either 234 or 189 depending on GM judgement on figured characteristics as outlined in HERO5)
Str 60 Dex 20 Con 30 Body 20 Int 10 ego 10 pre 10 com 10
PD 12 ED 6 Rec 18 Spd 3 End 60 Stn 60
Armor 10/10
20 pts of non-combat skills
Extra limb (prehensile tail with normal human strength and dex 10)
+1 OCV

According to the numbers, which did in fact require at least one subjective GM decision, the latter guy should be either 10% more or 10% less effective than the other two. This could for instance boil down to a big to hit difference in a 3d6 system. For 34 pts, the most "by the book" costing, i could buy +3 overall levels and gain +3 with any roll i ever make, or double the armor.

But in fact, looking at it using judgement, the latter guy should be right around the same cost as the other two. matter of fact, he should sit between the 200 and 205 mark.

See, you are EXACTLY right, almost... you can get a number in HERO without making a subjective decision (if you want to pretedn the whole decision of initial costs, which method to build, etc were not subjective ones) or in this case, with only one...

but see, that number doesn't necessarily mean its right. You have a number. But is it a good number? is 234 a good number for the brick number 3?

Would i be better saying "well thats the points" and telling my guy its 234 as the book says or would I be better off saying "looking at the examples of brick 1 and brick 2, i think brick 3 should be in between... lets go with 202!"?

I think the latter.

But, yes indeed, after doing the hero math, you have a number... i will grant you that.

Not that there isn't a subjective element; in any game, balance is always in the hands of the GM. I still think that HERO's "toolkit" provides a lot more guidance, though.

The math IMX does not provide guidance. it provides more work and what boils down to distraction. The focus becomes on the points and the points work or dont work dependingon the GM's totally subjective decisions, just like in the games where the GMs dont do the math.

besides, there is something inherently disengenuous of touting how much HERo helps inexperienced GMS. HERo is a complex toolkit build everything and enforce everything from scratch system which, frankly, i would not wish on an inexperienced GM who i personally had a grudge with. HERO is a toolkit system mostly favored by very experienced GMs who long ago overcame its steep learning curve.

 

[drnuncheon]

The implication of this and other posts of yours have been that HERO does "choke horses" and have "redundant" stats and so forth. While this is a common "con" argument against HERO, I don't think that there's any consensus that it's *true*.

Well, I like HERO a lot, but he's got a point - there's a lot of granularity that, because of things like skills being based on 9+CHA/5, and CV being based on DEX/3, doesn't really matter.

Some stats, each point matters. CON is a good one - each point is one more point against being stunned, and 2 more points of endurance. Each second point gives you another 'hit point'. Each 3 points of DEX is +1 to hit or AC (in d20 terms), each 5 is a +1 to Dex based skills, but each 1 point is still a +1 to initiative.

But for stats like INT and PRE, you need to buy it in 5-point blocks to get any use out of it.

To be fair, D20 has this too - you need a +2 to a stat to raise its value by +1. They try to make the odd numbers useful too, by keying feat requirements to them, but that's not really much.

J

 

[buzz]

Are you saying one is arbitrary?

I find hero guys like to throw around "arbitrary" to mean "anything not done using our math" but before i figure you for one of thoise tell me whay you are wanting to tag with arbitrary?

When I say "a difference between subjective and arbitrary," I'm not trying to assign either adjective to the systems being discussed. I'm trying to say something about how you're using the word "subjective." The tone of your post implied (to me) that by saying point costs in HERO are "subjective", you're saying that they're "arbitrary." I.e., that the designers just assigned point values willy-nilly, and the costs of individual powers have no relation to each other.

AFAIK, this isn't the case. And by mentioning how long the system has been around, I'm simply trying to point out that, even if there was a lot of arbitraryness when Champions was first designed in 1981 (since it basically created the point-buy concept), the various designers who have worked on the system in last 20+ years have tweaked and polished the system to try and fix any perceived "bugs". Ergo, in the settingless "baseline" of HERO, the point costs are generally in balance with each other. Work continues, of course...

Once you put a HERO construct in the context of a setting, of course, the point value becomes more subjective, as you have aptly pointed out.

If i, using my reason, experience, and judgement assign a custom spell a spell level in DnD is that what you want to call arbitrary?

Where do you want to use arbitrary in this discussion?

or was it just a snappy jab you really dont want to get called on to explain?

First off, I would politely ask you to tone down the snarkiness.

Secondly, no, I am not saying that using your "reason, experience, and judgement" to assign a spell level in D&D is arbitrary. It is, as you stated originally, subjective. My point about the comparison to HERO is that, IME, it takes a lot of "reason, experience, and judgement" to design for D&D/d20. It takes not only a thorough knowledge of the system, but also extensive *experience* with the system and exposure to products (i.e., examples) that use the system. I.e., designing for D&D takes *research*.

E.g., I can't just follow the fairly complicated rules for assigning costs to a magic item. I have do that, *as well as* compare my new item to similar items and see how the costs compare. It's entirely possible to design an item by the book that is either too expensive or too cheap when finally compared to like items. And as for spells, the system of design is basically "look at other spells and make a judgement call."

What I like about HERO is that I'm not left with just the judgement call. Within or without the context of a setting, I can look at powers and evaluate them based on points, *in addition to* how they will be used. And, in general, I think that the points in HERO are balanced pretty well.

IOW, with d20, I feel more like the designers give me a machine in a sealed black box that I need to reverse-engineer. With HERO, it feels more like they're giving me a bunch of parts and some blueprints.

BTW, unless i miss my guess, spell levels have been around longer than HERo math has, so if we apply the "older is more relaible" nons... errr... logic then DnD spell level assignments should be even more better at it than hero, right. They are older.

I'm not just saying older is better, as I have explained above. And to address another point, there tends to be just as much (if not more) quibbling about the accuracy of spell levels in D&D. E.g., 3.0 harm or haste. We just went through a major revision and people are still arguing about which spells are under/overpowered.

both HERO and other game system have significant amounts of influence between "context/setting/genre and the VALUES/costs/levels that elements should be assigned. These influences must be assessed using judgement and reason and with direct assessment of the specific game in question.

Right. And the genre books publshed for HERO talk about this in depth. The end goal usually being an adjustment of costs for a given genre so that, you guessed it, the point values indeed mean something relative to context.

uh huh. and you have not seen people creating unbalanced stuff in HERo i bet?

Not saying that at all. I will say, though, that the unbalanced stuff I see is more experienced players trying to get away with something than it is newbies. Newbies tend to make balanced stuff because they don't know any better.

In DND, i dont need an experienced eye to tell me what letter the spell starts with either.

You'll need one to make an accurate spell level assignation, though.

Knowing the HERO point value of X does not mean it is easier to balance. It just means i have some number. Is that number useful?

Yes, IMHO. The number is backed up by a system and is not, as you seem to be asserting, wholly meaningless. I mean, I know that a 10th level character is more powerful than a 7th level one, in general, even if circumstances of setting make this less clear-cut. It's a baseline.

Would you, as an experienced hero player, bet money that two characters both built on 300 rp were balanced without seeing them?

I'd argue that the odds are pretty good.

For instance, lets look at it another way...

BRICK 1 (200 rp)

Brick 2 (205 rp)

These two may happen to have turned out to be balanced. 5 pts out of 200 wont be making or breaking any balance and they are built almost identically.

Well, technically, Brick 2 is 5 pts more effective. 205 > 200. He's got an Extra Limb and other guy doesn't.

but what about

Brick 3a (either 234 or 189 depending on GM judgement on figured characteristics as outlined in HERO5)
...
According to the numbers, which did in fact require at least one subjective GM decision, the latter guy should be either 10% more or 10% less effective than the other two. This could for instance boil down to a big to hit difference in a 3d6 system. For 34 pts, the most "by the book" costing, i could buy +3 overall levels and gain +3 with any roll i ever make, or double the armor.

But in fact, looking at it using judgement, the latter guy should be right around the same cost as the other two. matter of fact, he should sit between the 200 and 205 mark.

I'm not sure I can address this, as IDHMBIFOM, and I don't know how you're arriving at these point costs. I'm also not sure how you can make a point-for-point comparison if you're possibly altering how figured characteristics are handled for one PC and not the others.

(Granted, that may be your point, but I don't see how it really supports what you're saying. I'm not claiming that HERO is perfect; I'm claiming that it simply gives you more pertinent data to work with. Which is really nice *if you like that sort of thing.*)

The math IMX does not provide guidance. it provides more work and what boils down to distraction. The focus becomes on the points and the points work or dont work dependingon the GM's totally subjective decisions, just like in the games where the GMs dont do the math.

You're welcome to feel this way. As usual, I think that arguments like these ("HERO is too crunchy," which is basically your argument) eventually boil down to taste, and nothing more.

Still, I think you're adding a level of arbitraryness to make your argument that I don't think really happens IRL. IME, a GM, as with any system, will set some ground rules, e.g., "Power X is not allowed in this setting," or "its cost has been adjusted for this setting to Y points per 1d6." I don't think any GM worth playing with is going to adjust the rules on a per-character basis.

Sure, a 150pt PC with access to magic or superpowers might in no way be balanced with a 150pt PC in a real-world military campaign... but I don't think HERO (or any other point-buy RPG) makes this claim. Comparing 10th level D&D and d20M PCs would be equally silly (as would comparing 10th level Midnight PCs with 10th level Living Greyhawk PCs).

Which may be your point. Ultimately, balance in any RPG is in the hands of the GM. However, I still don't think that you've made a good case that point values in HERO are wholly worthless. "45pts" means something in HERO the same way that "5th level" means something in D&D. The difference is that HERO *shows you how they arrived at the 45 pts.* It's an added level of detail, that, IMO, gives a player or GM more to work with when assesing the value of a given construct in their campaign. The bricks you've posted above are themselves examples of this.

Granted, this level of detial may not be for everybody. And that's okay.

besides, there is something inherently disengenuous of touting how much HERo helps inexperienced GMS. HERo is a complex toolkit build everything and enforce everything from scratch system which, frankly, i would not wish on an inexperienced GM who i personally had a grudge with. HERO is a toolkit system mostly favored by very experienced GMs who long ago overcame its steep learning curve.

I'm not sure who you're talking to here, as I did not tout HERO as being for inexperienced GMs (neither does Hero Games, really). I do, however, think that the HERO "toolkit" provides an excellent foundation for building things from scratch and, IMHO, serves this purpose better than d20. Granted, this is not d20's purpose, so it's sort of apples and oranges.

 

[drnuncheon]

but what about

Brick 3a (either 234 or 189 depending on GM judgement on figured characteristics as outlined in HERO5)
Str 60 Dex 20 Con 30 Body 20 Int 10 ego 10 pre 10 com 10
PD 12 ED 6 Rec 18 Spd 3 End 60 Stn 60
Armor 10/10
20 pts of non-combat skills
Extra limb (prehensile tail with normal human strength and dex 10)
+1 OCV

According to the numbers, which did in fact require at least one subjective GM decision, the latter guy should be either 10% more or 10% less effective than the other two.

Not sure where you got your numbers there, sw.

His extra limb isn't as strong as the rest of him? Sounds like a limitation on extra limb to me. Maybe -1/2, which would bring the cost down to 3 points, making the total character cost...203 points, right between the other two. Wacky, isn't it?

But in fact, looking at it using judgement, the latter guy should be right around the same cost as the other two. matter of fact, he should sit between the 200 and 205 mark.

And so he is!

Glad I could help.

J

 

[Driddle]

So to recap, in a nutshell, the essence of the argument so far, the point of it all, is this: HERO is a better system, right? That's what I hear you guys saying.

 

[buzz]

Glad I could help.

Nice.