Loop model of RPGs and why long chargen is okay

[buzz]

I saw this interesting tidbit in an ENWorld review of Castles & Crusades (http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2402441):


I’m a computer programmer by trade. To be a good computer programmer, you have to write efficient programs. If you write a program that processes a million records, and it does this inside a loop, anything that doesn’t add value inside that loop just eats up time as it is processed. In a million loops, unnecessary processing can end up wasting a lot of time. Let’s consider the basic model of an RPG:

Build_characters() ;
Do {
Play_the_game() ;
If (TPK)
end_of_campaign = true ;
}
While ! (end_of_campaign) ;

That’s it in a nutshell. Obviously, there are other factors that can cause “end_of_campaign” to be true, like people moving away, or one of your players having an affair with your wife. An individual character can die in the middle of a game, so that player will have to build a new character in the middle of the campaign as well. Hopefully that doesn’t happen often. The point I’m trying to make is this: things that happen outside of the loop only get executed once. Character creation doesn’t *need* to be a 15 minute process. It can take 3 hours, and it doesn’t affect the speed of the inner loop – the campaign loop. It’s nice when it *can* happen quickly. Like if Joe gets eaten by Beholder 1 hour into Saturday night’s game, it might be nice if Joe can come back in with a new character before 1 am. But this doesn’t happen very often (character death in the middle of a game, that is; Beholders eat people all the freaking time). There is very little value add in shortening the character creation process because it really has little affect on the actual game play.
This seemed relevant as a counter to the usual complaints against HERO's complexity. It's one most of us are familiar with ("The complexity is in chargen, but then in gameplay it's no biggie"), but I thought this was a good expression of it. Particularly because it's a good argument in *favor* of complexity as long as that complexity pays off in simplicity and enhanced gameplay while in the "campiagn loop". I find this very true in HERO.

I find that, by the time I'm done with creating a HERO PC, I know it like the back of my hand. Every capability is spelled out in very exacting terms, and I know very explicitly how said capabilties interact with other characters' and the game environment.

Anyway, I just thought this was a nifty observation.

[Killer Shrike]

Yes, this basic outlook sums up my views on character creation as well -- the best form of character creation is one that removes as many decisions and confusion from actual play as possible.

The problem is, that is a very logical way of thinking of things and few people are very logical.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

i totally agree. For the sci fi game i'm in, we made characters as early as november and didn't play till jan, so everyone spent literally months figuring out what their personality was like and building their character just right.

[Derek Hiemforth]

The problem is, that is a very logical way of thinking of things and few people are very logical.Repped. :thumbup:

I also agree. To my way of thinking, the more detailed (or better defined, or however you want to say it) a character is made via the chargen process, the less time in gameplay is taken up with figuring out what the character can/should do.

On a tangent, this dichotomy might also play a role if Hero ever reaches a point where the core rules have to be split into two books, purely from a practicality standpoint. 5ER is pretty huge already, and has reached the point (in my experience) where it's occasionally difficult to locate the answer to a specific question, simply because there's so much data there to search through.

So if the rules do ever need to be split into two volumes, one useful approach might be one volume for Stuff That You Use Mostly Outside The Game Session (i.e., the character creation material), and one volume for Stuff You Use Mostly During The Game Session (i.e., combat rules, etc.),

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

i find the Index in HERO fifth edition revised to be critical, and it's much better than for example DnD

[prestidigitator]

What about us poor friggin' GMs?


do
{
buildCharacter();
} until (campaignSettingDone());
:D

[Onyxclaw]

ok, yes I can definately see how the time it takes to make a character is irrelevent and cleans up issues. I'll agree this is true for PCs.

It is not always true for NPCs. It should not take me a year to make the characters for a couple sessions.

Now don't get me wrong, I love how simple it is to play a character once they are made. And I perfectly agree with players taking all the time they need to make their chracters so that they are compeltely laid out in every necesary detail and how that doesn't negatively effect game play at all once it starts. I love how the flow is so smooth once everything falls into place.

I just wish it was a little simpler to actually make a character. Or that my brain could more easily convert the world that I dream up to one that is actually translatable to HERO. Cause as it is, I've spent the better half of the summer trying to make NPCs for my upcoming game, and I have maybe a handful.

[Black Lotus]

I agree with the ENWorlder's post. What a well-thought-out statement. :)

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I just wish it was a little simpler to actually make a character. Or that my brain could more easily convert the world that I dream up to one that is actually translatable to HERO. Cause as it is, I've spent the better half of the summer trying to make NPCs for my upcoming game, and I have maybe a handful.

You have the same problem as converting from any media, like book to film. It takes a while and is hard, and you lose stuff along the way. same deal (but you're doing a good job keeping close to the original material)

[buzz]

It is not always true for NPCs. It should not take me a year to make the characters for a couple sessions.
It doesn't have to. There are just two things you need to remember:

1.) Use published material. HERO has many "bestiaries" for each of its major genres, not to mention the FH grimoires, the USPD, etc.. There also lots of character archives out on the Web. Even if what you find is not exactly what you need, it's likely close enough to modify with minimal effort.

2.) NPCs don't always need to add up. All you need to stat out is what characteristics and powers are relevant to the scenario: SPD, BODY, STUN, CV, notable CHR rolls, powers, skills, and relevant distads. And you can just assign appropriate values; you don't have to go through the actual chargen process. At least not for every single NPC. Save the full-blown chargen for the big NPCs who will be recurring characters in the campiagn.

[Onyxclaw]

the only problem is there aren't any pregens I can use for the bulk of these characters. For characters that don't matter sure. But for my Ketera, no way. I don't like th pregens for most of the monsters either, and I do own the beastiary.

I have tried to use archived characters. It usually takes a day or two to convert them even if they are the "right" thing. I found an Alien (like from the movie) premade that needed retweaking and spent a day and a half redoing it.

I am only doing the minimal for my NPCs, and they aren't stacking up points wise. It's the power creation that's hard.

Since it is based on a preexisting world that I designed years ago it is very very hard to translate into hero to my satisfaction. It doesn't help that this is a very high powered game either...most of my NPCs are 600-2200 points. And unfortunately they have to be.

AND since it's not a normal campaign, IE no party, and characters can go where ever they want whenever they want and create the story around each of them, any character that apprea must be ready to at least be semi reoccuring. I know I made myself a monster, but, I'm finding this system extrememly hard to create it in.

....though I love it so *hugs collection of HERO books*

For everything other than NPC generation I love this system and agree with the post you found whole heartedly. It's just sometimes frustrating. Not that I'll let that discurage me.

[Fox1]

the only problem is there aren't any pregens I can use for the bulk of these characters.

I find all the publish pregens to be useless. Frankly they are just plain build wrong for the style in which I use HERO.

Very much a case of Strength=Weakness. I can get to nearly the exact style of play I want in many settings, but at the cost of having to go it alone. Such is the nature of construction style rules.

In any event, the 'generate once', play a million times is a player PoV- not a GM's one. And it's really at the GM level that it truly matters.

[prestidigitator]

In any event, the 'generate once', play a million times is a player PoV- not a GM's one. And it's really at the GM level that it truly matters.
Maybe. In the interest of introducing new players to the system it is generally the players' PoV that is most important as the GM often knows it quite well. I find this to be the place where system complexity is most dangerous; new players can become daunted, but existing players and GMs (in general) tend to be pretty comfortable and happy with the system no matter its complexities.

I was being a little facetious in my previous post.

[Fox1]

Maybe. In the interest of introducing new players to the system it is generally the players' PoV that is most important as the GM often knows it quite well. .

Depends upon one's players. I find they break into two basic groups (doesn't everything?).

There are those who love playing with the rules. HERO is prefect for this group, lots to play with.

There are those who want to play the game, not the rules. HERO is fine for these except for chargen- something that such players can off load to the GM: "Give me a character sort of like Beast Boy, but it's female with this personnality and isn't green".


So frankly, I consider the player PoV to meaningless. If they are in group 1, they will like HERO on its own terms or not. If they are in group 2, all the 'work' falls on me.

I think any problems with chargen that exist comes from one of two sources- GMs that *force* HERO chargen on players who would rather not, and players who *want* to master chargen in HERO- but who suck at it. Neither group is of any interest to me whatever.

[austenandrews]

Right, the problem here is that for a game system to thrive, it must be able to attract new players. Necessarily complex character generation daunts new players. It can also be daunting to experienced players who don't have a lot of time. And it makes short-runs & one-shots less attractive.

[prestidigitator]

Depends upon one's players. I find they break into two basic groups (doesn't everything?).

There are those who love playing with the rules. HERO is prefect for this group, lots to play with.

There are those who want to play the game, not the rules. HERO is fine for these except for chargen- something that such players can off load to the GM: "Give me a character sort of like Beast Boy, but it's female with this personnality and isn't green".


So frankly, I consider the player PoV to meaningless. If they are in group 1, they will like HERO on its own terms or not. If they are in group 2, all the 'work' falls on me.

I think any problems with chargen that exist comes from one of two sources- GMs that *force* HERO chargen on players who would rather not, and players who *want* to master chargen in HERO- but who suck at it. Neither group is of any interest to me whatever.
:lol: Damn! You're mean! ;)

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

....though I love it so *hugs collection of HERO books*

lucky hero books :jawdrop:, you should post a finished ketera online when you get one!

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

and players who *want* to master chargen in HERO- but who suck at it.

what do you mean by this? players who haven't gotten the neuances down? or people who min-max but badly? or what?

[Killer Shrike]

So if the rules do ever need to be split into two volumes, one useful approach might be one volume for Stuff That You Use Mostly Outside The Game Session (i.e., the character creation material), and one volume for Stuff You Use Mostly During The Game Session (i.e., combat rules, etc.),

Agreed. Here is a breakdown of the book I did on RPG.Net in the past; it's pretty clear that a "CharGen" and "RunTime" seperation would be very doable.



One thing that keeps cropping up is people sometimes refer to reading the book. I suppose some people think they are supposed to start at page one and read to page 577 (578-590 being the index, and 591 & 2 being a character sheet). I guess you could do that. I dont know if I would or not; I learned from the old 4th Edition HERO #500 -- the generic rules only book which was much smaller than the current iteration of the rule book; about 1/3 the size or less.

Personally, I use the book as a reference. It's more like an Encyclopedia of Rules to me.

In fact, allow me to break the book down.

The 1st 22 pages are intro, and thats including the contents and coversheet.

24 thru 344 are Character Creation. So half the book essentially is just about how to make your character(s). Minus out some sample characters and some pages at the beginning that youll only ever read once, and you are looking at 310 pages on characteristics, skills, perks, talents, powers, and disadvantages -- the elements of a HERO character. Powers alone are covered from pages 93 to 324, so 231 pages, with sidebars.

So obviously, if the book is about 550 pages of actual content (not counting table of contents, intros, index, blank character sheets, or full page art spreads), then over 1/3 of the book is just coverage for how to build Powers.

Are you meant to read this section from front to back? No. Read the bit at the beginning of each element that explains what a Power or a Skill or a whatever is, and some general rules regarding their use and then make your character. Each section has a list at the beggining, so as you make your character simply look at the list and see whats available that sounds like it might be relevant, then look up the actual description of the ability.

Thats a basic character design trick, and Ive designed characters in a couple dozen game systems using the exact same method. If Im making a character with Flight, I dont really need to know what Mental Illusions. After youve made a few characters with different abilities, youll already have a working understanding of how to make characters. You can pick it up as you go. This is true of the GM as well, save the addition that he needs to know what all the Players can do too -- still not a problem; simply read their sheets and look up anything you dont know about yet.

Further, if you read the Powers section, youll see that for the most part there is maybe a couple paragraphs for a Power explaining its basic purpose and how to use it. Then if necessary it goes on to clarify any unusual cases or circumstances, how the Power interacts with other Powers and Modifiers, and so forth. The kind of thing you'd normally have to go scour a FAQ for, Ask a Sage and hope to get an answer within a year, seek counsel from a more experienced GM on, or just guess at. In fact, thats where most of the extra bulk of Fifth Edition Revised comes from -- it incorporates the Rules FAQ generated from the original Fifth Edition. Thats a very handy feature when you need to know something in a pinch or when designing a character.

Pages 348 to 402 cover Combat in two halves -- setting up Combat, and actually resolving Combat. The Combat engine itself is 370 to 402 and if you for some reason didnt want to use any of the Optional Manuevers or Martial Arts, its 370 to 374.

Yes, thats right, the entire Combat engine of this monstrous book can be pared down to 4 essential pages, with charts and a full column art piece. Perhaps 2.5 pages of actual text. Pages 375 to 383 explain the Manuevers and modifiers that appear on the lists. Explanations of the Optional Manuevers and Martial Arts finish out the section from 383 to 402.

Unsuprisingly its a very simple combat model and is easy to implement. Any GM should be able to read that section and have a working knowledge of how to structure combat. The challenge of running a HERO Game isnt the basic flow of combat -- its adjudicating the somewhat unique combination of abilities each character represents, determining how various SFX's interact, and keeping track of salient numbers such as BODY, END, and STUN. The combat engine itself just kind of chugs along like the little train that could however.

Pages 403 to 418 cover how to resolve damage, with various levels of genre-appropriate lethality and such things as Knockback vs Knockdown and an option to use Hit Locations instead of generalized damage. Basically, understand the difference between Normal and Killing damage and beyond that this is a settings panel; decide what settings you want on for your campaign and youre done.

Pages 422 to 423 describe unusual "damage" such as being restrained, being deprived of senses, and things of that nature.

Pages 424 thru 427 deal effectively with fatigue (though it isnt called that in the HERO System).

Pages 428 and 429 explain a concept unique to the HERO System TTBOMK, the Presense Attack, which is a free mechanic usable by all characters to frighten, impress, or rally others (and similar).

Page 430 to 431 is a sample combat.

Page 434 to 454 covers the Environment.

Page 456 to 488 covers Equipment. This includes rules to handle Vehicles, Bases, Computers, AIs, and Automatons (things like robots, zombies, and golems)

Page 490 to 540 covers using the HERO System for various Genres. Covered are: Champions, Cyberpunk, Fantasy, Martial Arts, Action Adventure, Pulp, SciFi, Horror, Post-Apocalyptic, Swashbuckling, Victorian, Western. Twelve sample characters are included.

Page 542 to 556 covers Gamemastering the HERO System. General advice useful for the novice GM, mostly skimmable for experienced GMs. The only key info here is the awarding Experience section.

Page 558 to 568 covers making changes to the system to suit yourself. So 10 pages of the book are just about how to scrap things you dont like or add things you think should be included. The basic design principles of the game (the meta-rules) are exposed here, and some coverage is give towards understanding the ripple effect changing a key mechanic might cause.

Page 570 to 572 give a capsule history of the HERO System and it's iterations, informative for a new player and a neat bit.

Finally 573 to 577 gives size templates for characters/creatures that are larger or smaller than normal all the time (as opposed to characters that can alter their size via a Power but are normal sized otherwise).

The book is completed with the aforementioned index (which is very good) and a sample blank character sheet.



I think it's pretty obvious that the book isnt layed out or intended to be read cover to cover, but rather in sections as needed. It's a reference book, basically, not a novel like some rulebooks seem to think they should be. Some people like that kind of no nonsense approach, others want fluff and flavor text. It's really nothing more than a preference.

[ghost-angel]

I think there's two approachs the CharGen with hero.

The Player
Long, involved, thought out, points have to work out.

The GM
How much damage, toss on some adders, figure some basic stats, go. what are points?
or for involved NPCs - see Player. (if you have to do it in sessions do as above and flesh out everything afterwards.) If you have warning... you should have at least a good outline.

Hero Designer cuts hours, literally, off of the design process for the simple fact that not only does it do the Math for you but changing something takes mere moments. The right tool for the right job.

Of course, each character is different - I've had characters completed in moments that were great on the initial build, and then I've had some that have taken tweak after tweak over weeks of time.

I personally prefer the more involved process, allow for more detail thus making each creation unique unto itself. Like art.

[Fox1]

:lol: Damn! You're mean! ;)

Always :)

[Fox1]

what do you mean by this? players who haven't gotten the neuances down? or people who min-max but badly? or what?

It could be any number of things. Bad designs, incorrect use of the rules, wrong style characters for the campaign. Whatever. The specific problem doesn't matter.

All that matter is that you have players who can't seem to get what they want out of the time spent creating their characters- but who insist on creating those characters anyway.

[Onyxclaw]

I like working with those kinds of chracters and helping them get what they like out of it. I wont ever make a character for someone else, if I do help it becomes a joint experience with the player involved at everystep.

It is particularly rewarding when after a few days of work the player can look at thier character sheet and say "Yes, this is what I wanted."

I dunno, it makes me feel good inside. Honestly I'd rather have them then the too serious or too focused gamer. It makes the whole thing seem more personal and close nit. More like you're a group of friends around a campfire telling stories together, than an evil dictator mandating events.

[CourtFool]

I believe the problem of character generation can be lessened for players with a little extra work on the GM. At least once. If your players just want simple class selection with a few feat/skill/spell selections then design some templates for them.

Fantasy Hero has some great templates in them so that would cut the work down for the GM.

[Black Lotus]

It seems to me that the length and complexity of character creation is directly proportionate to the amount of control the player has over his character. If he only needs to make a few broad choices with preset templates -- class, race, profession, etcetera -- the process goes fairly quickly. If the player makes almost all conceptual and factual decisions on his own, it takes much longer.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too; the more customized the character, the longer the process takes, and vice versa.

[Fox1]

It seems to me that the length and complexity of character creation is directly proportionate to the amount of control the player has over his character.

Not true. Some very rule light game designs provide complete control of the character to the player.

I've also seen very complex character generation methods that gave the owning player no control. Heavily chart driven, the result is random chargen to the max.

[Black Lotus]

Not true. Some very rule light game designs provide complete control of the character to the player.

Yes, but these aren't very complex characters. I should know, having played BESM and other rules-lite systems before.


I've also seen very complex character generation methods that gave the owning player no control. Heavily chart driven, the result is random chargen to the max.

How does this disprove my theory about HERO? There will always be crap systems out there. That's why I play HERO. Which system are you talking about, by the way?

[Fox1]

Yes, but these aren't very complex characters. I should know, having played BESM and other rules-lite systems before.

Then according to the designers and fans of such systems- you must have played them wrong.

Some of these systems allow the owning player to define and redefine the character on the fly, deciding what it can and cannot do at anytime in response to specific needs.

You can't get more player control than that. The player actually controls the rules that govern the character.





How does this disprove my theory about HERO? There will always be crap systems out there. That's why I play HERO.

I like the ego driven judgement you make here.

There are many who would call HERO crap, and they are doing the same leap you are. Assuming their opinion about another game design has objective value for anyone but the speaker.

For what its worth, I see the appeal of such system although I don't use them myself.

[Silbeg]

AND since it's not a normal campaign, IE no party, and characters can go where ever they want whenever they want and create the story around each of them, any character that apprea must be ready to at least be semi reoccuring. I know I made myself a monster, but, I'm finding this system extrememly hard to create it in.


I would handle this with a trusty notebook (real or electronic), where I have characters in various stages of being flushed out. When the characters first encounter an NPC, you don't necessarily have to know everything about the character, nor do your players. Flush out what you need on the fly (possibly by having a second notebook full of "ideas in progress"), and then go back additional times to fill in additional details that you missed on the "quick and dirty".

Example:
The PC runs into Feedback, a mercenary superhero who uses the sonic powers. For the original "Marvel Mixup" encounter, you give him a couple of iconic powers, including a powerful Sonic EB, and a Sonic (Hearing) Flash. Putting those together, with some basics (OCV/DCV, DEF, etc), you have enough to have an initial encounter (especially one that you don't want to end in a defeat by either side).

Later, when the PC encounters Feedback again (and you have had some additional time to futz with him), he has a more rounded-out power set, including different types of EBs, predefined uses of sonic images, skills, schticks, etc.

The more the characters interact with Feedback, the more color you give to him, and the more complete his character sheet.

[Silbeg]

It could be any number of things. Bad designs, incorrect use of the rules, wrong style characters for the campaign. Whatever. The specific problem doesn't matter.

All that matter is that you have players who can't seem to get what they want out of the time spent creating their characters- but who insist on creating those characters anyway.

The biggest problem in my FPCA campaign (http://www.fpca.us/) seems to be players that are making characters that really don't match their preferred playing style (read "player template"). Example: if a player prefers to charge headlong into every combat, rolling large handfuls of dice, etc,. shouldn't be playing a more reactive, fragile martial artist...

With HERO, it is not that hard to create a character that becomes more complicated to run than it is worth. Typically, when I help a player build a character, I look to "packages" or "modes" that the character can operate in (groupings of slots in an MP, for example), so that in game decisions can be made more easily. Some players don't think along those lines, though...

[Fox1]

I would handle this with a trusty notebook (real or electronic), where I have characters in various stages of being flushed out. When the characters first encounter an NPC, you don't necessarily have to know everything about the character, nor do your players.

Some gamers find this type of 'retconning' unacceptable. For those, complex chargen imposes a serious load.

I myself don't fall into their number, although I am amused that so many who champion the cause of complex and detailed chargen end up 'winging' so much as a result. Reminds me of the old saying "eyes bigger than your Stomach?".

[buzz]

Since it is based on a preexisting world that I designed years ago it is very very hard to translate into hero to my satisfaction. It doesn't help that this is a very high powered game either...most of my NPCs are 600-2200 points. And unfortunately they have to be.

AND since it's not a normal campaign, IE no party, and characters can go where ever they want whenever they want and create the story around each of them, any character that apprea must be ready to at least be semi reoccuring. I know I made myself a monster, but, I'm finding this system extrememly hard to create it in.
FWIW, it seems like this particular campiagn would be a good amount of work regardless of system. These parameters seem fairly "high-maintenance", as it were. This is not a fault, just an observation.

[buzz]

Necessarily complex character generation daunts new players.
IMO, I don't think that this is a given. It also depends on whether "new player" means "someone new to roleplaying" or "someone new to the RPG in question".

[buzz]

Not true. Some very rule light game designs provide complete control of the character to the player.
Though, one could argue (and I have been on ENWorld) that lite RPGs tend towards relying on GM fiat, which inherrently takes away control from the player. E.g., Dynamic Magic in BESM/SAS/Tri-Stat is basically defined as "the player can create any effect they want, as long as the GM feels it fits within the power level they've paid ponts for."

Not that I want to start a big lite-vs-heavy debate, but I don't think that there's an inherrent superiority in this area that has to do with rules-quantity or complexity. A lite game may have a mechanic that gives the player a lot of say in the narrative flow of the game, or it maybe a glorified "Mother may I" exercise. A heavy game may provide incredible detail and PC control, or it may be an exercise in rolling on a lot of tables.

[Tae Kwon Dan]

IMO, I don't think that this is a given. It also depends on whether "new player" means "someone new to roleplaying" or "someone new to the RPG in question".

Excellent point! HERO was only somewhat daunting to me, because it moved out of my comfort zone, but when I really started learning it about 2 years ago it helped that I had been gaming for 10+ years at that point. However we have a guy we're trying to add to the Dark Champions group we're getting going that has really only ever played d20 and even then we've had to help him out a lot as he's an RPG newbie. HERO was much more daunting to him, but even then that wasn't entirely the systems fault. The guy trying to explain character creation spent more time on how different CharGen is in HERO from other systems then going with a comfort zone of how similar it is to any CharGen system.

Personally I think folks forget that there is a large variation in scale between most starting HERO characters and starting characters in other genres. A 350 points super is more like an epic D&D character than a starting one. I would argue that fleshing out a 25 level well multi-classed D&D character is just as much of a chore as making a solid 350 blaster or gadgeteer.

I think this holds true at lower point totals as well. 150 point fantasy HERO characters shouldn't take too much longer than a well thought of 3rd or 4th level D&D character either. A 75 point normal shouldn't take much longer than your Call of Cthulhu character takes in the Chaosium system.

If anything I think I spend more time on the fleshing out my idea for HERO, because I know I'm not trying to make classes fit my concept, but instead just making a concept.

[Fox1]

A 75 point normal shouldn't take much longer than your Call of Cthulhu character takes in the Chaosium system.


I find that the point total has little to no impact on how it takes me to me to fully create a character unless we're going really low-end, i.e. under 50 points.

[buzz]

I find that the point total has little to no impact on how it takes me to me to fully create a character unless we're going really low-end, i.e. under 50 points.
Getting the ideas together in the first place is my big hurdle. With Hero Designer, making PCs of any point total is pretty quick. Filling the "Background" field is what takes me hours. :)

And ironically, this means HERO chargen is often much faster for me than for D&D, as there has yet to be a tool for D&D/d20 that works as well as HD. I find that D&D PCs of any level ahve me scouring different books for feats and magic items as well, something I do far less with HERO.

[buzz]

The guy trying to explain character creation spent more time on how different CharGen is in HERO from other systems then going with a comfort zone of how similar it is to any CharGen system.
I've run HERO events twice at ENWorld gamedays, and only one player total was familiar with HERO before playing. Ergo, I have to explain the basics before we can even start. The keys for newbies are:

Starting in a heroic setting (less powers, less points, less dice)
Giving them the two-page combat summary from the Free Stuff page
Wholly ignoring chargen and points at first. :)
Boiling down HERO to the basics: You roll 3d6 to determine success and want to roll low, you roll Xd6 for effect and want to roll high. 3 is a crit and 18 is a fumble. There's normal damamge and killing damage.

This method has so far resulted in one person each game buying a copy of Sidekick. :)

Honestly, someone's first introduction to a system should never be chargen. They should get to play it first.

[Black Lotus]

There are many who would call HERO crap, and they are doing the same leap you are. Assuming their opinion about another game design has objective value for anyone but the speaker.

I've played -- and GMed -- every other major system, and many minor ones. I am fully qualified to make a judgement on them. Obviously, I won't speak for systems I haven't played, and obviously, it's my opinion.

You're just retorting this way to get my goat, though, I suspect. There's no question in my mind that a character creation system which:

A.) is long, drawn-out and complex, and
B.) still offers the player little control over their character

is a crap system.

[Onyxclaw]

I am aware I've made a monster, and that's ok. And it will be a lot of maintnece and that's ok too. I'm just happy I have two tech GMs to help.



Honestly, someone's first introduction to a system should never be chargen. They should get to play it first.

now, that I can't *always* agree with. A lot of the times sure, especially if they already have roleplaying expereince.

I started with this game less than a year ago, I had never roleplayed before. I did have 5 years theare experience and awards for storytelling, which helps make me a decent roleplayer (so far as I have been told). I have a lot of friends who roleplay and decided to give it a try. And, I requested to build my own character as a way to learn the powers creation system and get a better feel for what was going on. I would not have been satisfied with having my character made for me, and that's one of the things I never liked about DnD, because the characters seemed so cookiecutter esq. My first HS character was a 200 point baby dragon, not a normal frist start at all. I'm all the better for having made her. If I hadn't I would not have gotten so invested in the system, I would have just said, "oh, nice game." and the overwhelming choices and possibilities would have escaped me. I probubly would have never thought twice about the system, and writtin it off as another thing to do once in a blue moon.

But then to me the character generation was the most important part of the game. I was always under the impression that having a deep well thought out character was the whole point of roleplaying, that as players we were supposed to assume the role of the individual we chose to play. How can I play the game if I have not created a role to play, wich satisfies me?

I gues I feel like accepting a character hat I did not at least help create is like letting someone else choose the path I should take with my life =P

But for people who don't want to get that into the game a pregen character is fine. And it makes things easier on the GM as well. It cuts time in preparations and has many other good features. But with some players, playig the game isn't the most important part, and they wont be satisfied with skipping this stage.

[Fox1]

You're just retorting this way to get my goat, though, I suspect. There's no question in my mind that a character creation system which:

A.) is long, drawn-out and complex, and
B.) still offers the player little control over their character

is a crap system.

I think one can deduce that your mind does not share this point in common with many gamers.

It's a simple fact that there are people who hold the exact reverse of your mindset on this issue.

[Black Lotus]

I think one can deduce that your mind does not share this point in common with many gamers.

It's a simple fact that there are people who hold the exact reverse of your mindset on this issue.

What, that you can spend forever building a character, and still not have it turn out to be exactly what you wanted? If that's some peoples' preference, more power to them, but....

[Fox1]

What, that you can spend forever building a character, and still not have it turn out to be exactly what you wanted? If that's some peoples' preference, more power to them, but....

But what? It not your style, sure. But it is their's.

I myself fall somewhat inbetween. I like complex systems period- and do like some elements of chargen is such system to be out of my control.

But it's only for some settings, and only in part.

Even so, I see their point. And some of the results are every bit as interesting as any tailor created one.

[Black Lotus]

But what? It not your style, sure. But it is their's.

I myself fall somewhat inbetween. I like complex systems period- and do like some elements of chargen is such system to be out of my control.

But it's only for some settings, and only in part.

Even so, I see their point. And some of the results are every bit as interesting as any tailor created one.

Could you give me an example of one of the systems in question? I'm really curious. Whatever it is, there's a good chance I've played it. I'd understand the concept a lot better if I had a name to put it to.

[Tae Kwon Dan]

I personally prefer total control, but at the same time getting a grab bag of abilities and then trying to turn it into a cogent character could be quite fun as its own exercise to me. Not something I would want to do every weekend, but I could see it being entertaining.

I think there's a cavalcade of Rolemaster players out there that agree with this standpoint.

[Onyxclaw]

It's a simple fact that there are people who hold the exact reverse of your mindset on this issue.

<insert any issue where the word "this" appears>

I think that it pretty much sums up most arguments, and how to end them. Everyone should take this advice and accept the fact there there is really mre than one way to think about something and for the most part more than one answer to most questions. Even you. Afterall, these are just opinions.

personally I would agree that a system in which I spent forever working on a chracter and could not build something that fit what I wanted is a bad system. But then I believe any system where I can not make a character the way I want it is bad, regaurdless of the length of the process. That's why I choose not to play other systems that people have offered to expose me too.

And that's why I choose hero. I can make whatever I want. I just have to figure out how and put in the time.

[Black Lotus]

<insert any issue where the word "this" appears>

I think that it pretty much sums up most arguments, and how to end them. Everyone should take this advice and accept the fact there there is really mre than one way to think about something and for the most part more than one answer to most questions. Even you. Afterall, these are just opinions.

I agree, but one can measure the benefits and drawbacks of a thing in an objective manner. For example, most human beings prefer comfort to pain, so I can objectively determine that I'd rather sit in a pampasan chair than sleep on a bed of nails -- and so would most human beings. Similarly, I feel that I can objectively measure certain advantages and disadvantages of various roleplaying systems. If you put a lot into character creation, and don't get a lot back for your effort....

*shrug* But I'm still waiting for an example system to think about.

[Onyxclaw]

I agree, but one can measure the benefits and drawbacks of a thing in an objective manner. For example, most human beings prefer comfort to pain, so I can objectively determine that I'd rather sit in a pampasan chair than sleep on a bed of nails -- and so would most human beings. Similarly, I feel that I can objectively measure certain advantages and disadvantages of various roleplaying systems. If you put a lot into character creation, and don't get a lot back for your effort....

*shrug* But I'm still waiting for an example system to think about.

I would agree with you (hence the rest of my post) I just think that people should listen to the advice they give...and try to be open minded when they request openmindedness from others

EDIT: I am curious about the system fox is talking about as well. I have a lot of older friends that have been gaming much longer than I, more than half my lifetime longer. So I'll probubly go ask them about it.

[Fox1]

Could you give me an example of one of the systems in question? I'm really curious. Whatever it is, there's a good chance I've played it. I'd understand the concept a lot better if I had a name to put it to.

Just about any game that involves random generation of one or more parts of the character start to fall into that concept. If they then use extensive amounts of math (Aftermath), or using that generation as a springboard for significant choices (D&D feats)- they are complex chargen methods that remove player choice (compare to total choice of systems like HERO).

D&D for example randomly generates your starting stats. Character generation thereafter for a post-1st level character is viewed as complex by many, even by some HERO users on this very board.

C&S and Aftermath were even stronger examples of this type, as is the homegrown rules I use for my fantasy campaign (best use a spreadsheet, the math is too much to keep straight otherwise).

Some of these games layered in "life path" concepts, in which extensive tables were rolled on in various order to determine modifers and history that would directly impact the numbers in chargen. Traveler was the first of these if the easiest, a system where the player didn't even control if his character lived to play the game.

There were life path *books* produced that were intended to add to any other game system- thereby removing player control and increasing complexity at the same time.

[Tae Kwon Dan]

I have never played it, but isn't Rolemaster almost completely random in terms of CharGen and involves tons of charts?

[Fox1]

I have never played it, but isn't Rolemaster almost completely random in terms of CharGen and involves tons of charts?

Yes.

Also has one of the most complex EXP systems I've used in a role-playing game.

[Onyxclaw]

a game like these seems to require a different mindset. The willingness to take a character that isn't yours and has no life and breathig that life into it. Instead of taking a spark you already have and giving it a form. That is a valid method of Chargen...

not my prefered...but a valid method.

[Tae Kwon Dan]

Exactly what I believe Fox1 was saying. Rolemaster has a very small, but dedicated following from what I have seen at the Con scene. And like I said it could be a fun exercise occasionally or for a one-off adventure, but it's much more of a subjective choice than folks would think.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I've played games with a looser "life path", it's ok, and can help you if you don't have a firm grasp of a character concept, but if you do have that grasp, i find it annoying and unnessisary

[Onyxclaw]

my only argument would be that this system requires you to want this kind of limitation. If I was trying to create a personal character, spent a lot of time trying, making characters over and over again tryig to get the combonation I wanted, and I could not I would probubly feel that the system was crap. A system that promised me customizable character concepts and delivered me this would be "a bad system."

I I knew that was what I was getting into I would not be expecting that customized character, I would not be tryign to get eactly what I wanted from the standpoint of a prethought out but not constructed character design.

If I chose to play a system like this, I would be expecting an interesting generated character for me to try and play. If that was my mindset I would feel that this is a "good system."

both are true, and both are valid player responses. The system is both "crap" and "good"
It's a good system if what I want is what it does well.
It's a crap system if it can't do what I'm looking for or what it tells me t can do.

It's a "valid" system if it works in general

[Fox1]

a game like these seems to require a different mindset. The willingness to take a character that isn't yours and has no life and breathig that life into it. Instead of taking a spark you already have and giving it a form. That is a valid method of Chargen...

not my prefered...but a valid method.

Exactly.

I've found that every game has their fans. Even those that I think are the worse possible example of game design the world has even seen.

The simple truth is that people are just weird and there's no accounting for taste.

[buzz]

But then to me the character generation was the most important part of the game. I was always under the impression that having a deep well thought out character was the whole point of roleplaying, that as players we were supposed to assume the role of the individual we chose to play. How can I play the game if I have not created a role to play, wich satisfies me?
As someone with theater experience, you should be used to having a fully-realized character handed to you with the expectation that you will be able to portray them.

When we're talking about teaching a system, especially if we're talking about teaching it to someone new to roleplaying, how characters are created is really secondary. Most other types of games don't have the expectation that the player needs to know how the game arrived to the point play begins. E.g., in Monopoly, you don't need to know anything about the little shoe; you just need to know what you're supposed to do with the shoe.

Also, basic "roleplaying" such as Cops n' robbers and "hypothetical situation" thought experiments generally don't start with, "Okay, let's examine first how your persona came to be." They generally start with "Okay, I'm the cop!" or "Imagine that you're a fisherman. What would you do if..."

Ergo, a "satisfying" role isn't really important to teaching. Chargen is usually the most complex part of any RPG, and is thus the last place a teacher should start. It's far easier to hand the newbie a character and say, e.g., "Okay, in this game you're going to be playing a pulp hero named Randall Irons. When you want Randall to act, we resolve the outcome using dice. Here's how that works. ."

I.e., this is the same reason that teaching math starts with arithmetic, not the theory behind arithmetic.

Chargen just involves too many factors for a total newbie. Not only do you need to understand the basic mechanics of the game, you need to udnerstand the mechanics of chargen, the impact of choices made during chargen, the parameters the GM has set on chargen, and the nature of the campiagn and the genre conventions it contains. That's a [i]lot to digest before you even understand how to actually play.

I find this also holds for experienced gamers who are unfamiliar with a system. They don't need to know where the numbers on the characer sheet came from in order to grok the system; they need to know how they're used.

This is why demos and "basic" versions of games (e.g., the current Basic D&D) don't generally run people through chargen. They provide some characters and then start people off in a scenario. For most players, the majority of time is spent in scenario; that's the bulk of the play experience, so that's what you need to teach. Not to mention, it takes far less time. You simply could not teach HERO chargen and expect to get in much play time in the space of a typical 4-hour con demo/event.

(E.g., there's a guy in my D&D group who has never rolled up a PC himself. He's a casual gamer, so isn't really interested. This has not stopped him from playing and enjoying the game for a couple of years now.)

Now, this isn't to say that you can't often connect better with a "student" when they can make some choices, but you need to limit these choices and then, ideally, do the heavy lifting for them. E.g., if the newb says "I'd really like to play a witch!" or "Can I be Wonder Woman?", you stat up that character for them.

IMO, of course. This approach seems to have worked for me, on both sides of the equation.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I think it depends on the person. I learned DnD straight from the book, as well as most of the WW games. I've always enjoyed making characters right from the first, i think it depends on the person how you should introduce them.

[Fox1]

(E.g., there's a guy in my D&D group who has never rolled up a PC himself. He's a casual gamer, so isn't really interested. This has not stopped him from playing and enjoying the game for a couple of years now.)

Now, this isn't to say that you can't often connect better with a "student" when they can make some choices, but you need to limit these choices and then, ideally, do the heavy lifting for them. E.g., if the newb says "I'd really like to play a witch!" or "Can I be Wonder Woman?", you stat up that character for them.


I've use this approach for years now, and will in fact use no other in HERO.

Most players just aren't interested in learning to do character or item construction. They want to play.

So I take their concept and turn it into a character. Most of the players quickly learn enough of the game (the mechanics of play, not of construction) to know if it's a match for their concept or not- modifications are made and off we go.

In the end I find this better all around. Not only do they not have to deal with learning a huge amount of construction rules- but everything that exists in the game is created in the same style and vision. Makes it much easier to maintain balance as well as the reality of the world.

[Onyxclaw]

On the theatre aspect, yes I am. And I'm sick of it, which would be why I quit ;) But then theatre came with auditions. You don't just get handed a script you've never read and told to go cold unless you already knew what you were getting yourself into.

alright, so....catch the part about it works for most people. and where I agreed with you?
Cause it does, and I agreed with that. I still agree with it.

But to me Chargen isn't all about stats or even the mechanics. It is about making a person. So even if as a GM I make the stats for said person, I don't believe in creating the "person" for a player entirely, just the body for the person that they want to play. I would not be adverse for helping another player in the ways you've suggested, taking thier concept and giving them a form.

I just don't like being handed a character and being told to play.

The mechanics are not super essentail to enjoyign a system. I'll agree with that. The complexities of mechanical character generation are not important. I'll also agree with that.

But the conceptual creation of the character is of utmost importance. And I feel wrong taking that away from the player.

I's ok if it's good for you, I definately respect that. I just can't do it.

[Onyxclaw]

I think it depends on the person. I learned DnD straight from the book, as well as most of the WW games. I've always enjoyed making characters right from the first, i think it depends on the person how you should introduce them.

I would agree with you roy. I'm not satified unless I have made my character from the inside out. I'll accept help. But I want them to be mine.

[buzz]

The mechanics are not super essentail to enjoyign a system. I'll agree with that. The complexities of mechanical character generation are not important. I'll also agree with that.

But the conceptual creation of the character is of utmost importance. And I feel wrong taking that away from the player.
Yes, I can see this. It does often help for the newb to have some sort of investment in the character, even if it's just giving them a choice of avaiable characters: "Okay, do you want to play Buffy, Xander, Spike, Willow, or Anya?"

You can personalize this even more by making pregens, but letting the newb choose the name and gender. It takes no system knowledge, and it goes a long way to helping the player identify with the PC.

[Black Lotus]

My problem with chargen that is done for you -- lists of "feats", other abilities, a level and class system, randomly rolled stats, etcetera -- is that, in my experience, people often have an idea of exactly what they want to be, and try to force the class, race, and feats they choose to conform to their character concept. Having 13 classes, as in D&D, is extemely limiting to people who want to be a certain kind of individual. What if someone wanted to play a ninja in D&D 3e? They'd have to choose Fighter or Monk and fake it, trying to choose feats that emulate ninja abilities.

Why struggle to make a class system be what you really want it to be, when you can toss it out altogether? As a recent lifelong D&D player/ recent total HERO convert, I can say without prejudice that HERO's way of creating characters is infinitely preferable to the way D&D does it... in my opinion, of course, but also in my experience. And you'll spend just as much time trying to get the right balance of feats and skill levels and prerequisites as you would creating a HERO character. Worse, agonizing over which feats and skills to buy takes place in-game, or between sessions, whereas I find it very easy to spend CP on an already-made HERO character. Maybe because there's no list of 100s of feats to look through.

[Black Lotus]

The mechanics are not super essentail to enjoyign a system. I'll agree with that. The complexities of mechanical character generation are not important. I'll also agree with that.

Ah, but better game mechanics increase the enjoyment of those aspects not connected to the mechanics. The type of system isn't essential, but it's better with a superior one. Like the graphics card in your computer -- it's the same game, but you get better performance with a better "card".


But the conceptual creation of the character is of utmost importance. And I feel wrong taking that away from the player.

Yes.

[Fox1]

What if someone wanted to play a ninja in D&D 3e?

The same exact thing that would happen if they wanted to play Darkwing Duck in my Marvel based HERO system campaign. They'd be told that such a thing doesn't exist in this world.

D&D is a setting specific RPG, although it covers enough ground that it can be transported to other areas.

One of the joy of such settings specific RPGs is that the rules cover everything allowed into that setting. If you can't do it, it's because it frankly doesn't belong there.

I love that feature. It makes for a cleaner more control design.

If there was a *good* Marvel Superhero game on the market, I'd drop HERO like a rock.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

they got the ninja ok in 3.5 (complete adventure), but having to buy all of the expansion books to get new classes is a pain.

And they still haven't made a good samuri

[Black Lotus]

they got the ninja ok in 3.5 (complete adventure), but having to buy all of the expansion books to get new classes is a pain.

And they still haven't made a good samuri

That's what I mean... a lot of people have to get the dozens of books that contain the new classes or prestige classes. I know... players often won't play without the "official" version of something, for some reason.

[buzz]

What if someone wanted to play a ninja in D&D 3e?
They'd use the ninja class from Book X, or work with their DM to adapt the rogue or a multiclass combination.

D&D is not about flexibility. D&D is about a certain amount of flexibility within a set of archetypes designed to fit the campiagn world. HERO can become just as confining given GM parameters designed to fit a given setting. E.g., the paramters for Terran Empire don't really make room for a "ninja", either.

The point is that not everyone necessarily "wants" D&D chargen to be anything other than it is. If they did, it wouldn't dominate 60% of the market. There is nothing inherrently superior about flexibility. StoryTeller isn't particularly flexibile; it needs to be tailored for a given setting as much as d20 or BRP. However, it seems to have done a good job, once tailored, for delivering the experience promised by the specific game in question (e.g., Vampire).

What matters is simply wether the system adequately achieves the goals set forth in the product. D&D's goal isn't to present players with a multi-genre toolkit for designing any conceivable PC. It's to facilitate D&D-style fantasy, and part of that is assembling a party of certain archetypes who cooperate in adventuring scenarios. It does this extremely well, and also is robust and rigorous enough that it can take a lot of abuse for people who want to tweak but also stay within the parameters of a familiar system.

Previous genre-specific HERO incarnations (e.g., Justice, Inc.) were similar: options narrowed to facilitate a specific goal.

The converse is that HERO (and GURPS) are not particularly good at "out-of-the-box" gaming. You can't just "roll up a fighter", as it were. Parameters need to be set first: starting point totals, characteristic/AP/DC/skill guidelines, and parameters for use of Powers (such as defining a magic system for FH or "super skills" for DC). Then, unless a template is being used, you need to build the PC within those parameters from scratch.

One methodology is not superior to the other; they just serve different aims. HERO shoots for maximum flexibility, but the price is speed and complexity. D&D shoots for being playable ASAP, but the price is flexibility, and a certain "black box" aspect to the rules.

[tesuji]

This seemed relevant as a counter to the usual complaints against HERO's complexity. It's one most of us are familiar with ("The complexity is in chargen, but then in gameplay it's no biggie"), but I thought this was a good expression of it.


If it works for you, thats cool, but i think its simply a case of singing to the choir.

Have you actually heard players complain about *repetitive* chargen? if not, the maybe the argument that "it only happens once" is actually missing the point of the complex, drawn out chargen gripe?

Players don't complain about long detailed chargen as if it happens all the time and keeps sessions dragging on over and over. At least, i haven't ever seen it expressed this way.

For Players, its the overhead and workload of chargen. Building the character's stats is "like work" by both method and volume of calculations, and they balk at "how much work it is" to get the mechanical side done.

Simply put, It doesn't matter if they only have to endure it once if the once is more than they want to endure.

Think of it this way, if, in order to enroll in my game and play, my requirement way you stick your finger into a live electrical outlet, would you feel better about it if i said "but you only have to do it once?"

probably not. In suspect you would eye me strangely, politely refuse, and head to a game with less onerous requirements.

Now chargen in HERO is not exactly like sticking your finger in a socket (to most people), but unless the player is convinced that their is a worthwhile payoff that means the extra work will prove worth it, then he is likely not going to getb through the first stage. if he has been having plenty of fun with less work, that "its worth it" is a harder sell.

Thats for players.

For GMs, your argument falls flat really quick. Gms generate characters all the time. When i run games i spend at least once a month on characters, usually more. if the chargen process is long and laborious, that becomes WORK, not FUN, and i tend to either not do it as much as i should or i tend to just not use the chargen system at all. Either irks me and detracts from my enjoyment.

Now, don't get me wrong... HERO is not the only system that is too long and cumbersome in chargen for me to enjoy on a regular basis. I have stopped using most D20 because it is also IMO/IMX too involved for chargen. Recent playtesting put me in the position of needing to whip out a dozen 10th level PCs for a session and man-o-man by even the third it was like pulling teeth. (I gotta say, HERO chargen was MORE FUN cuz (with literally now decades of HERO experience) at least I mostly know it by heart and don't have to look stuff up.)

Now, to contrast this a little, and harkening back to the work vs fun, at least once every couple of months i get a notion and design a character in HERO-speak because i like the HERO chargen as a sort of mind-puzzle thing and when an intriguing notion hits i think "let's see how i would do that in HERO." Then again, I am wierd that way and my players, mostly, don't do those things for fun.

Recently i was pouring thru some Traveller modules which had stats for T20 traveller as their base but also included Classic Traveller stats. The comparison was jarring with 18 lines per T20 write-up and 3 lines per Ct writeup. The jarring part was looking at the 3 lines and realizing "and we played that and it works just fine." I remember more about those characters and their personalities than i do the DND 3.0 guys with pages of stats in am much more recent game or than any of the myriad HERo character ran for years in between. So what good are the extra 15 lines or the even more for a hero guy?



Particularly because it's a good argument in *favor* of complexity as long as that complexity pays off in simplicity and enhanced gameplay while in the "campiagn loop". I find this very true in HERO.


I have not found such benefits in gameplay. While my gaming groups have varied quite a bit over the years, there ars some core guys who i have had in many different systems over the decades. I find I get BETTER characters, better backgrounds and story driving details when those things are NOT a part of the point-based balance. I get better NPCs in their history when those NPCs are not thought of in terms of "frequency and degree of impairment" first. I get better character personalities and flaws when those are NOT put in terms of "frequency and severity" first and then applied in a nature as in "and this will affect how many dice of attack i can buy."

When all those traits are done "just for fun" the choices made are usually "more fun" for everyone involved and less a case of "what i need to tag on to make weight."

They are also a lot more fluid when not a part of the point balance eauation and, again IMX, the characters evolve easier and more naturally.

So, our experience in the regards of how beneficial the point driven detail is to actual gameplay is very different.

[Alric]

I have never played it, but isn't Rolemaster almost completely random in terms of CharGen and involves tons of charts?

That depends on the version your talking about. The most recent edition has completely random, entirely point based, or mixed character generation.

RoleMaster does have dozens of charts but most PCs will only need a couple. Each weapon type has it's own chart so you need one for each type you carry. Experienced players quickly realized that play was sped up by sticking to one or two weapons.

Later editions helped by including the critcal charts for each weapon on the back of the weapon chart, so you didn't have to go looking for a particular chart.

RoleMaster is a strange beast it has a very simple mechanic, roll d100 add your Offensive Bonus and subtract your opponent's Defensive Bonus (sound familliar?), and manages to slow it down with dozens of charts.

If the GM is the only one with the charts it's a nightmare to run. :nonp:

The use of the charts does have one advantage though. It automatically incorprates a lot of subtle realism in dealing with different weapons versus different types of armor.

[Warp9]

If there was a *good* Marvel Superhero game on the market, I'd drop HERO like a rock.
LOL

That explains a lot! :lol:

[Mutant for Hire]

Here's my objection to long chargen:

People play games to roleplay characters. That is where the bulk of the fun is. Character creation is a necessary step towards getting to the fun part, but a lot of people find it !fun or at least far less fun than actual gaming. The longer and more tedious the character building process is, the more likely that someone is going to get discouraged and say "I really don't want to do all this work to get to the fun part".

To some extent, I think that a large reason why the RPG industry got started was that 1st edition AD&D had an incredibly fast character creation system.

1. Roll up six characteristics
2. Pick a class
3. Pick a race
4. Roll for gold
5. Spend gold on equipment list
6. Write down name and superficial history.

It was fast and simple and it got people gaming really fast. That's why a lot of people like the simpler RPGs, because they're fast and allow people to get to the fun pretty quickly.

[Fox1]

It was fast and simple and it got people gaming really fast. That's why a lot of people like the simpler RPGs, because they're fast and allow people to get to the fun pretty quickly.

Interesting that such simple RPGs make up such a tiny market share isn't it?

I think something got lost in your deductions about the state of gaming.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

it did sort of lead the way, then more advanced games sprung up to exploit advanced markets

[buzz]

Players don't complain about long detailed chargen as if it happens all the time and keeps sessions dragging on over and over. At least, i haven't ever seen it expressed this way.
People do often compain about it on Web fora, however...


For GMs, your argument falls flat really quick.
It's not my argument; it's a comment from someone talking about some other RPG that I thought was interesting.

GMs do more work than players, period. Some GMs can work fast regrdless of system, some can't. My Champions GM ("with literally now decades of HERO experience") of two-odd years seems to be able to come to each game with no notes and does maybe an hour or two of prep during the week prior. I need to spend days prepping for a Buffy one-shot. YMMV.


So what good are the extra 15 lines or the even more for a hero guy?
As long as those 15 lines have meaning within the system, I don't see how it matters. This is a preference issue.


So, our experience in the regards of how beneficial the point driven detail is to actual gameplay is very different.
To clarify, the position this guy put forth is not that the length of time it takes to create a character is irrelevant, ergo we should all be happy to have chargen take forever, but, conversely, that fast is not inherrently good, and lengthy is not inherrently bad. And stating that "if it's not fun, then it's not fun" pretty much goes without saying.

[Fox1]

To clarify, the position this guy put forth is not that the length of time it takes to create a character is irrelevant, ergo we should all be happy to have chargen take forever, but, conversely, that fast is not inherrently good, and lengthy is not inherrently bad.

Considering that I like spending hours working on a character just because I do, I think this goes without saying.

Nor does this point require a flawed loop model to be made.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

To clarify, the position this guy put forth is not that the length of time it takes to create a character is irrelevant, ergo we should all be happy to have chargen take forever, but, conversely, that fast is not inherrently good, and lengthy is not inherrently bad. And stating that "if it's not fun, then it's not fun" pretty much goes without saying.

completely agree

[buzz]

Nor does this point require a flawed loop model to be made.
The context of the example is player-centric, and for that it works pretty well. Sometimes even obvious things need to be pointed out.

[Fox1]

The context of the example is player-centric, and for that it works pretty well. Sometimes even obvious things need to be pointed out.

I would agree with that.

[Black Lotus]

Nor does this point require a flawed loop model to be made.

It's not flawed. It's a good model. Chargen takes place outside of the loop, for the most part, meaning that it's not a significant aspect of gameplay. Since gameplay is arguably the more important aspect, the amount of time spent with chargen becomes trivial in comparison.

[Fox1]

It's not flawed. It's a good model. Chargen takes place outside of the loop, for the most part, meaning that it's not a significant aspect of gameplay. Since gameplay is arguably the more important aspect, the amount of time spent with chargen becomes trivial in comparison.

I think this whole thread points directly at the flaw in that thinking.

[Black Lotus]

I think this whole thread points directly at the flaw in that thinking.

Not really. Taken as a whole, chargen does AFFECT gameplay according to its different factors, but what the loop model demonstrates is that the TIME required for a particular chargen model is insignificant when compared with the total time spent in gameplay.

[Hawksmoor]

Actually 90% of combat is determined at character gen. Your PC is either capable dealing with the threats and situations in the campaign or it isn't. You can hedge by being creative, but for instance if you are playing a 10 INT Energy Projector with Plasma powers you should be limiting your 'bright ideas' to what a 10 INT character should be able to concieve of.

Hawksmoor

[Fox1]

Not really. Taken as a whole, chargen does AFFECT gameplay according to its different factors, but what the loop model demonstrates is that the TIME required for a particular chargen model is insignificant when compared with the total time spent in gameplay.

You are joking here right?

[Black Lotus]

You are joking here right?

Guess your games don't last very long, huh? :rolleyes:

Could you drop the snide tone, please? This isn't the first time I've gotten this sort of thing from you.

[Hawksmoor]

He can't. Honest debating skills were never purchased for his character and he got a physical limitation saying he can never buy them.

Hawksmoor
-What? I'm on his Ignore anyway.

[Black Lotus]

Actually 90% of combat is determined at character gen. Your PC is either capable dealing with the threats and situations in the campaign or it isn't. You can hedge by being creative, but for instance if you are playing a 10 INT Energy Projector with Plasma powers you should be limiting your 'bright ideas' to what a 10 INT character should be able to concieve of.

Hawksmoor

Yes, of course chargen AFFECTS gameplay. It has a big impact on it. The loop model simply tries to demonstrate that the "chargen time expended":"gameplay time enjoyed" ratio makes the time spent in chargen insignificant compared to how long your campaign will probably run.

[Hawksmoor]

Hi,

I am a nice guy. I agree with everything you just said.

Hawksmoor

[Fox1]

Guess your games don't last very long, huh? :rolleyes:

Could you drop the snide tone, please? This isn't the first time I've gotten this sort of thing from you.

Perhaps you're doing something to bring it out.

As a GM, I spend far more time in chargen of all types than I do playing the game. Whatever your experience, it doesn't match mine.

As a player, some types of chargen beyond my desire to deal with. Thus game time = 0 after the degree of time spent determining that it has failed my acceptance. Again, whatever your experience- it doesn't match mine.

[Black Lotus]

Perhaps you're doing something to bring it out.

As a GM, I spend far more time in chargen of all types than I do playing the game. Whatever your experience, it doesn't match mine.

As a player, some types of chargen beyond my desire to deal with. Thus game time = 0 after the degree of time spent determining that it has failed my acceptance. Again, whatever your experience- it doesn't match mine.

Let's see, say it takes two hours per player to create a HERO character for four players. That's eight hours. Most of my campaigns run far longer than eight hours, and since new characters don't have to be rolled up for the players between sessions, I'd say my average campaign has a ratio of "1 hr/ chargen:9 hr/ gameplay". That's 1 to 9, at the worst. Now, when it comes to making NPCs, that might take a while... but that's not what the loop model is referring to. Not part of the equation, so to speak.

Besides, there are ways to greatly speed up the process of generating NPCs.

[tesuji]

maybe this needs to be expressed mathematically...

if chargen time = 2 hours.

and

If the threshold for player tolerance of chargen < 2 hours,

then the ratio of CHARGEN TIME : PLAY TIME becomes "some number under 2 hours" / 0 hour playing AKA infinity to the bad.

The loop model you are supportingn only applies IF the lengthy time spent on chargen is not enough to prevent game time from occuring at all.

So, using it to support a notion that chargen time length isn't valid as a complaint or maybe more precisely to purport it is "relevant as a counter to the usual complaints against HERO's complexity" is rather specious.

Matter of fact we now have the following conditions applied to the argument of its relevence as a counter:
1. Only applies when discussing players, the guys in a campaign who spend the least amount of time/effort on chargen.
2. Only applies if the complexity/effort at chargen is still under the player's threshold and thus it doesn't turn them off continuing the game at all.

So, the lopp as a counter hold water IF AND ONLY IF the game has no GM and all the players are going to accept the chargen effort anyway.

Now i don't know about you, but my bet is the games where both those are true, and the loop argument is valid, are NOT the games run by or played by those who voice the complaints.

As i staed early on, I have not seen a lot of the complexity of hero chargen complaints by PLAYERs expressed online or in person relating to the REPETITIVE CHARGEn issue, so the whole "it only happens once" seems to be an inaccurate answer. Its like someone complaining that bthe tea is bitter and someone answering with "yeah but its yellow" instead of passing sweetener.




Let's see, say it takes two hours per player to create a HERO character for four players. That's eight hours. Most of my campaigns run far longer than eight hours, and since new characters don't have to be rolled up for the players between sessions, I'd say my average campaign has a ratio of "1 hr/ chargen:9 hr/ gameplay". That's 1 to 9, at the worst. Now, when it comes to making NPCs, that might take a while... but that's not what the loop model is referring to. Not part of the equation, so to speak.

Besides, there are ways to greatly speed up the process of generating NPCs.

[Fox1]

Matter of fact we now have the following conditions applied to the argument of its relevence as a counter:
1. Only applies when discussing players, the guys in a campaign who spend the least amount of time/effort on chargen.
2. Only applies if the complexity/effort at chargen is still under the player's threshold and thus it doesn't turn them off continuing the game at all.

So, the lopp as a counter hold water IF AND ONLY IF the game has no GM and all the players are going to accept the chargen effort anyway.


Exactly.


For the record, HERO is not beyond my threshold. But it is beyond most people that I've meant. If I didn't create the characters for my players in my HERO games- I wouldn't have any.

I don't call that reaction to chargen insignificant.

[Warp9]

2. Only applies if the complexity/effort at chargen is still under the player's threshold and thus it doesn't turn them off continuing the game at all.

So, the lopp as a counter hold water IF AND ONLY IF the game has no GM and all the players are going to accept the chargen effort anyway.

But isn't it a part of the point that Players should be willing to play a game even if it has complex chargen?

[Fox1]

But isn't it a part of the point that Players should be willing to play a game even if it has complex chargen?

It's a weak attempt to convince them they should be willing.

But most people who are worth playing with already know what they are or are not willing to do.

[Warp9]

It's a weak attempt to convince them they should be willing.

That all depends on if you accept the logic of the argument or not.



But most people who are worth playing with already know what they are or are not willing to do.

True. But couldn't that also be the sign of a closed mind?

[Fox1]

True. But couldn't that could also be the sign of a closed mind?

As a side note, about the term 'closed mind'

A closed mind is one that has reached a fixed and unchanging decision without consideration or reflection upon other possiblities.

The term is too often used to refer to people holding to their reasoned decisions to which no convincing counter-argument has been made. In other words, some people use it to label anyone who disagree with their theories.



In specific area of RPGs, I think the desire to start tossing out labels like 'closed minded' on people who don't like complex chargen, or HERO, or mechanicless role-playing or anything else is approaching gamer dogma. It is not a useful nor a respectable stance.

People generally know what they like and what they don't like. I for one can bow to their wishes without calling them closed minded.

[Warp9]

I for one can bow to their wishes without calling them closed minded.
To me, it would depend upon the matter at hand.

[buzz]

So, using it to support a notion that chargen time length isn't valid as a complaint or maybe more precisely to purport it is "relevant as a counter to the usual complaints against HERO's complexity" is rather specious.
I think that you're muddying the issue by bringing in personal preference (even granting that system choice is a personal prefeence). The threshold for the aformentioned casual gamer in my D&D group is 0; virtually any amount of time beyond 0 spent creating a PC is going to be too much for him and he'll lose interest. This doesn't validate complaints about systems where chargen takes more than 0 seconds.

As I said before, all this really says is that people will not have fun doing things they consider un-fun, which is a given.

The loop model is simply pointing out where the majority of player time is spent. The person who concocted the model then posits that there is nothing inherrently advantageous about a system that minimizes the effort invovled in chargen, particularly (in the context of his review of C&C) if said speed is a result of rules-insufficiency that can then interfere with the majority of gameplay, i.e., time spent inside the loop. What matters more is whether chargen results in a satisfying gameplay experience for those involved. This is not a heavy/"lite" issue, but a good/poor design issue, mixed in with preference.

I do consider it specious to use two hours as an example, however. Barring World of Synnibar (yes, I've played it) and notoriously-complex FGU games from the '80s like Chivalry & Sorcery 2e and Space Opera, I can't think of any RPGs I've had experience with where the mechanics of chargen take anywhere near two hours.

Assuming familiarity with the system, heavier games like HERO and D&D only take minutes to make even powerful PCs, especially when one has access to tools like Hero Designer or PCGen. What takes time is making decisions and coming up with concepts. (And, in some cases, scouring through sourcebooks, which can be said of most games on the market.)

(One of the advantages to D&D is that one can bypass the concept portion of chargen. I can roll up a fighter or wizard with absolutely no knowledge of who they are as a person or what their background is. Conversely, this is impossible with both lite-er systems like Buffy and Heroquest, as well as mid-to-heavy ones like M&M, HERO, and GURPS, barring the use of templates.)

Lacking familiarity with the system will always make chargen take longer. (Ergo, why I reccomend skipping it altogether when teaching a system.) Some systems are certainly more readily-digested than others, but that's really irrelevant. If simplicity was all that mattered, Bobby Fischer would have focused on tic-tac-toe instead of chess.

[tesuji]

But isn't it a part of the point that Players should be willing to play a game even if it has complex chargen?

I would suggest that the argument may seek to address the issue of CAN the players be willing, but it doesn't really address SHOULD.

In order to establish the players SHOULD be willing to accept longer, more involved pregame chargen, you need to establish a BENEFIT commensurate with the increased effort.

igf we play game X with 30 mins of chargen and we consider playing game Y with 3 hours chargen, the fact that "after 100 hours of game play we have ratios of .005 vs .033" and the subjective determination that .005 is not significantly better than .033 as a ratio, only establishes (if i accept the subjective comparison) that going to the longer one won't hurt all that much in the long run. Its stating "you could without breaking your game" not "you should be willing to" at all.

To establish "you should be willing to" it would have to go one step more and show what positive gains were had in the longer chargen game that made the extra 2.5 hours worthwhile. What is the benefit reaped by and justifying the extra work.

So, if the gol is to say "you could do this" the argument starts along the way (with the conditionals of threshold not exceeded and no Gm involved.)

But if as you suggest the lopp theory is supposed to make the point about SHOULD, its still missing.

or think of it this way, if on exterminator says he will take 2 hours to fumigate your house and another says it will take 12 hours and both cost the same and both promise and deliver the same quality of results, you CAN choose to let the guy take 12 hours but why SHOULD you?

Now, the obvious answer from the HERO crowd is "but HERO delivers better results" but while that is their subjective consideration, its not a universal truth.

Final note: once you add chargen threshold in, it becomes a no-brainer comparison to me.

[buzz]

Now, the obvious answer from the HERO crowd is "but HERO delivers better results" but while that is their subjective consideration, its not a universal truth.
Or, "HERO delivers results and a gameplay experience that I prefer (or enjoy just as much)," which is irrefutable.

[Warp9]

I would suggest that the argument may seek to address the issue of CAN the players be willing, but it doesn't really address SHOULD.

In order to establish the players SHOULD be willing to accept longer, more involved pregame chargen, you need to establish a BENEFIT commensurate with the increased effort.

igf we play game X with 30 mins of chargen and we consider playing game Y with 3 hours chargen, the fact that "after 100 hours of game play we have ratios of .005 vs .033" and the subjective determination that .005 is not significantly better than .033 as a ratio, only establishes (if i accept the subjective comparison) that going to the longer one won't hurt all that much in the long run. Its stating "you could without breaking your game" not "you should be willing to" at all.

To establish "you should be willing to" it would have to go one step more and show what positive gains were had in the longer chargen game that made the extra 2.5 hours worthwhile. What is the benefit reaped by and justifying the extra work.

So, if the gol is to say "you could do this" the argument starts along the way (with the conditionals of threshold not exceeded and no Gm involved.)

But if as you suggest the lopp theory is supposed to make the point about SHOULD, its still missing.

or think of it this way, if on exterminator says he will take 2 hours to fumigate your house and another says it will take 12 hours and both cost the same and both promise and deliver the same quality of results, you CAN choose to let the guy take 12 hours but why SHOULD you?

Now, the obvious answer from the HERO crowd is "but HERO delivers better results" but while that is their subjective consideration, its not a universal truth.

Final note: once you add chargen threshold in, it becomes a no-brainer comparison to me.
(for the sake of argument) Assuming that it could be proven that HERO produced better results with a longer char-gen process, would you accept the argument then?

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



I think that you're muddying the issue by bringing in personal preference (even granting that system choice is a personal prefeence).

if the preferences of players is muddying the water in a discussion about what players should prefer, then its a really odd discussion.

IMX the length of chargen has a direct, significant and meaningful impact on the number and type of players willing to play a game. i see enough references when discussing this with other gamers to believe this is not an isolated case of me and mine.



The threshold for the aformentioned casual gamer in my D&D group is 0; virtually any amount of time beyond 0 spent creating a PC is going to be too much for him and he'll lose interest. This doesn't validate complaints about systems where chargen takes more than 0 seconds.

Which means you have ONE case to consider and compare to all the others you know and the ones you consider from other discussions. is he an exceptional case in your experience or do ALL your players have a 0 tolerance?


As I said before, all this really says is that people will not have fun doing things they consider un-fun, which is a given.

even if someone tosses a theoretical formula on the internet and tells them they should? Wow! :-)


The loop model is simply pointing out where the majority of player time is spent.

But the position put forth by you takes it BEYOND that.

you take this loop argument and use it as follows
"This seemed relevant as a counter to the usual complaints against HERO's complexity. It's one most of us are familiar with ("The complexity is in chargen, but then in gameplay it's no biggie"), but I thought this was a good expression of it. Particularly because it's a good argument in *favor* of complexity as long as that complexity pays off in simplicity and enhanced gameplay while in the "campiagn loop". I find this very true in HERO."

The complaints about HERo complexity and long chargen are not in most cases i have seen that the chargen needs to be repeated a lot and takes too long (from players, from Gms it can be but you are now limiting this to only appplying to players)

Its not relevent as a counter to the complaints about HERo complexity because:
1: It excludes Gms and the effort/impact on them
2. it ignores the impact lengthy/complex chargen has as a threshold value.
3. it faisl to address the necessary benefit for the extra effort.

if this was just "hey guys, see, chargen takes up very little time overall" and not "and so from that we can use this to counter blah blah" that would probably be fine, but rather pointless.



The person who concocted the model then posits that there is nothing inherrently advantageous about a system that minimizes the effort invovled in chargen, particularly (in the context of his review of C&C) if said speed is a result of rules-insufficiency that can then interfere with the majority of gameplay, i.e., time spent inside the loop. What matters more is whether chargen results in a satisfying gameplay experience for those involved. This is not a heavy/"lite" issue, but a good/poor design issue, mixed in with preference.

Several key points in there, and note that you made claims as to the argument's relevence toward the complaints...

1. it still ignores Gm effort which does put the chargen process INSIDE the repeating loop. Maybe this is relevent then for games without GMs but i know few of those.

2. it still ignores thresholds, in which too lengthy a chagen blocks accrual of playtime by driving players away.

3. The inserted assumeption that the short, simpler chargen is married with IN PLAY PROBLEMS while the lengthy complex chargen is wed with BETTER IN GAME PLAY is specious. its the quality of the rules, not their quantity of detail of complexity which most impacts whether a game 's chargen & system produces (or rather influences) better or worse in play experience. A game with six hour chargen that has lousy rules will not NECESSARILY lead to dewer in game argumentsand derailments than a well written one with only 30 minutes of chargen.

Its much more a quality issue than a quantity issue.



I do consider it specious to use two hours as an example, however. Barring World of Synnibar (yes, I've played it) and notoriously-complex FGU games from the '80s like Chivalry & Sorcery 2e and Space Opera, I can't think of any RPGs I've had experience with where the mechanics of chargen take anywhere near two hours.

I think time varies greatly based on person and familiarity but if a theoretical person is as familiar, different systems take different times commonly.


Assuming familiarity with the system, heavier games like HERO and D&D only take minutes to make even powerful PCs, especially when one has access to tools like Hero Designer or PCGen.

For some players yes. for some character types yes. Not for all players. Not for all character types.

Which is why the complaints are not so easily dismissed as invalid.


What takes time is making decisions and coming up with concepts. (And, in some cases, scouring through sourcebooks, which can be said of most games on the market.)

In general i agree although for me most of the time concept takes not long at all. Now after that, then the development of background and the inevitable tweaking comes into play.


(One of the advantages to D&D is that one can bypass the concept portion of chargen. I can roll up a fighter or wizard with absolutely no knowledge of who they are as a person or what their background is. Conversely, this is impossible with both lite-er systems like Buffy and Heroquest, as well as mid-to-heavy ones like M&M, HERO, and GURPS, barring the use of templates.)

But most of those games provide templates for quick-use.


Lacking familiarity with the system will always make chargen take longer. (Ergo, why I reccomend skipping it altogether when teaching a system.) Some systems are certainly more readily-digested than others, but that's really irrelevant. If simplicity was all that mattered, Bobby Fischer would have focused on tic-tac-toe instead of chess.


is anyone saying simplicity is all that matters? I don't think so.

Instead what i hear most often is in essence their is not sufficient payoff in terms of play and enjoyment to warrant the added effort and complexity.

its not worth the work when i can get as much fun for a lot less effort in a simpler game with quality rules cthat fit th genre/story i am running. So, why bother?

if you want to convince someone to do extra work, it is usually not sufficient to merely hammer on how "its notall that much more work" but instead you need to show them they will reap more (sufficiently more) benefits from it.

[buzz]

if the preferences of players is muddying the water in a discussion about what players should prefer, then its a really odd discussion.
The original loop model was not presented in the context of what players should prefer. It was presented within the body of a review in terms of assessing a system critically.

My application of the model to HERO was not to invalidate claims about preference; you can't argue preference ("Prove to me that I don't like spaghetti"). It was as a counter to claims about HERO's inherrent quality, i.e., "HERO is crap because...", not "I don't enjoy HERO because..."


IMX the length of chargen has a direct, significant and meaningful impact on the number and type of players willing to play a game.
It very well may, but this really has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself. Both Memoir '44 and World at War are WWII wargames. Is the former "better" becasue it's simpler than the latter? No. Will each game possibly appeal to different types of players looking for different things in their WWII wargame experience? Quite likely.


Which means you have ONE case to consider and compare to all the others you know and the ones you consider from other discussions. is he an exceptional case in your experience or do ALL your players have a 0 tolerance?
Simply anecdotal evidence that the threshold you're talking about can be all over the map. Barring opposite extremes, there's really no threshold you can point to and say, "RPG X is bad because it exceeds this threshold," or even "RPG X will not appeal to most people because it exceeds this threshold."

You've made it clear that HERO chargen exceeds your threshold. HERO's decent market share (for a non-WotC company) shows that it has not exceed that of everyone.


even if someone tosses a theoretical formula on the internet and tells them they should? Wow! :-)
I didn't see anyone telling people what they should do.


The inserted assumeption that the short, simpler chargen is married with IN PLAY PROBLEMS while the lengthy complex chargen is wed with BETTER IN GAME PLAY is specious.
This assumption is not being made.


Its much more a quality issue than a quantity issue.
That's the basic point.


But most of those games provide templates for quick-use.
For many of those games, "template" = "pregen" != "chargen".


is anyone saying simplicity is all that matters? I don't think so.
FWIW, that was one of the arguments the guy I'm quoting was trying to counter. It was also what Mike Mearls and Ryan Dancey were trying to counter in the thread on ENWorld that gave birth to the guy's review (and thus the quote).


if you want to convince someone to do extra work...
No one is trying to do that.

[Black Lotus]

Wow.

I'm not going to quote anyone, but let me get this straight:

Some players are such milquetoasts that they don't have two hours to make a character? What do they need to do, check their stocks on the New York Stock Exchange? Meet the million-dollar star clients? See the governor? Singlehandedly rescue a busful of kids? Nah, probably to sit on the couch stuffing their face and chugging Mountain Dew.

Here's what I have to say to any player who won't play a game because of a two-hour chargen when I've spent countless hours building the campaign setting: "Take a flying ----, ---holes." Talk about your criminally short attention span.

That's so lazy -- SO FREAKING lazy -- it makes me want to vomit. Glad I've never met any of those people.

[Fox1]

Wow.

I'm not going to quote anyone, but let me get this straight:

Some players are such milquetoasts that they don't have two hours to make a character? What do they need to do, check their stocks on the New York Stock Exchange? Meet the million-dollar star clients? See the governor? Singlehandedly rescue a busful of kids? Nah, probably to sit on the couch stuffing their face and chugging Mountain Dew.

Here's what I have to say to any player who won't play a game because of a two-hour chargen when I've spent countless hours building the campaign setting: "Take a flying ----, ---holes." Talk about your criminally short attention span.

That's so lazy -- SO FREAKING lazy -- it makes me want to vomit. Glad I've never met any of those people.


And here Black Lotus points out that everyone without his tastes are worthless and without value- thus the debate ends up with "people who don't buy this model SUX0RZ, I R0Xx0rzZ!!!!!11"

I guess that was to be expected.

[buzz]

Here's what I have to say to any player who won't play a game because of a two-hour chargen when I've spent countless hours building the campaign setting...
If it's not fun for them, there's not much you can do. Ideally, a GM will assess the tastes of the players before embarking on building a campiagn. I've tried it the other way around before, and it really just ends up in frustration for both sides.

(And, again, chargen just doesn't take two hours. Not for any game in my collection, at least now that I've sold my copy of C&S2e. ;) )

[Black Lotus]

And here Black Lotus points out that everyone without his tastes are worthless and without value- thus the debate ends up with "people who don't buy this model SUX0RZ, I R0Xx0rzZ!!!!!11"

I guess that was to be expected.

First, thanks for taking the juiciest parts of my post out of context to criticize. That's a misquote without the entire post, I'm sorry. It loses all meaning when you prune it to your snide-arsed Fox1 purposes.

No, I demonstrate that the fact that I spent dozens of hours on a game, and a player who wants to play, but isn't willing to expend minimal effort to take part in the campaign is an ---hole. No question about it.

[Fox1]

(And, again, chargen just doesn't take two hours. Not for any game in my collection, at least now that I've sold my copy of C&S2e. ;) )

I beg to differ.

It typically takes me 3-4 hours to fully complete a HERO system character. My constructs are rather detailed and have to be balanced into a significant pre-existing world.

A good 1-2 hours of that time is spent with the player explaining various different approaches and how they fit into the campaign.

[Black Lotus]

If it's not fun for them, there's not much you can do. Ideally, a GM will assess the tastes of the players before embarking on building a campiagn. I've tried it the other way around before, and it really just ends up in frustration for both sides.

(And, again, chargen just doesn't take two hours. Not for any game in my collection, at least now that I've sold my copy of C&S2e. ;) )

I know where you're coming from, but if a person can't reserve two hours for a roleplaying game -- and assuming that they want to take part in the campaign, but are scared off by chargen -- why? How can a person be so lumpy that they can't make time for a couple of hours to prepare for a game?

It makes me angry because it's an "instant need gratification, everything as easy for me as possible" approach, which I find extremely offensive considering how much work I -- and all GMs on this board -- put into running a game for people.

[Fox1]

First, thanks for taking the juiciest parts of my post out of context to criticize. That's a misquote without the entire post, I'm sorry. It loses all meaning when you prune it to your snide-arsed Fox1 purposes..

I'll go back and edit it to include your entire post.

You still come off like an self-important ass. if anything the editing reduced it's impact along with its word count.

[Black Lotus]

I'll go back and edit it to include your entire post.

You still come off like an self-important ass. if anything the editing reduced it's impact along with its word count.

How is disliking lazy ----ers self-important? I just feel people should all contribute to an effort as best they can. Roleplaying is a group effort, not me whoring myself out for the players' gratification. If people aren't willing to do the bare minimum to take part in a game in which they have expressed interest, ---- 'em.

I don't feel special for being a GM. I never lord it over players. I'm just there to have fun with the group. If people don't like HERO because they don't like HERO, fine. If they don't like HERO simply because they have to spend -- OMG! -- two hours making a character, they're lazy. I wouldn't blame anyone for their RPG preferences, only for their astounding laziness. As I've said, instant-need-gratification, least-amount-of-effort-on-my-part, selfish people offend the hell out of me.

Oh... and YOU calling me arrogant...

RRRROOOOFFFFLLLLL!!!

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



The original loop model was not presented in the context of what players should prefer. It was presented within the body of a review in terms of assessing a system critically.

Whatever its original purpose was is not at issue. What is at issue for me is the role to which the poster(s) here are using it. its is simply not relevent to the mass of the complaints i have seen, heard and expressed about HERO chargen, although, as you guys now keep relimiting the selection of complaints, it does seem more relevent to a much smaller set.

however, the ever growing smallness of the complaint set being addressed was not made clear in the initial post on this thread. reading that post even now, i do not see that it should not be pertaining to games with a GM involved or to games where the issue is preference for chargen time as opposed to some games which claim an objective meter for chargen time.




It was as a counter to claims about HERO's inherrent quality, i.e., "HERO is crap because...", not "I don't enjoy HERO because..."

Can you point me to the mass body of these threads where people are somehow claiming hero chargen length issues are not preferences but are somehow "inherent quality"?

From my experience, reading these boards and others, chatting rpging etc, I RARELY see (frankly i dont recall ever seeing but maybe i forgot one) a complainer expressing it in those terms or anything close.


It very well may, but this really has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.

Total agreement that quality and size are separate issues. Which is why linking "should try" and "more lengthy chargen" seems wrong to me. The should try hero notion fails unless you can prove aside from size that it does have those features which produce better gaming experience which seems inherent in the assumptions that this applies to hero arguments.



Simply anecdotal evidence that the threshold you're talking about can be all over the map. Barring opposite extremes, there's really no threshold you can point to and say, "RPG X is bad because it exceeds this threshold," or even "RPG X will not appeal to most people because it exceeds this threshold."

Agreed. But the lack of a single universal benchmark doesn't mean there aren't significant effects. For example, someone pointed out recently that on EBay current minis were selling for 3-4 times their normal price, even though they are on sale at the manufacturer. The fact that there isn't one clear price doesn't mean that if the manufacturer raises his price to the outrageous ebay price he wont be cutting his sales. Some buyers will simply look to other manufacturers who don't charge as much if he did that.



You've made it clear that HERO chargen exceeds your threshold. HERO's decent market share (for a non-WotC company) shows that it has not exceed that of everyone.

and you wont find me saying anything to the contrary.


I didn't see anyone telling people what they should do.


Read the posts on this very page...


But isn't it a part of the point that Players should be willing to play a game even if it has complex chargen?

emphasis mine.

Thats what he took away from the arguments on this thread. Apparently he missed the now more and more limited scope of what this thread was supposed to be about too.

[Fox1]

How is disliking lazy ----ers self-important?

Please...

You've defined an entire group of gamers (those who don't like complex chargen) as "azy ----ers", condeming them in the strongest language possible that won't get you banned. And for what?

Because they don't like complex chargen like you do. These are people that wouldn't even *want* to play in your game.

People who don't play HERO are not deserving of name calling.


Take a deep breath. Walk away for a while. Talk to a neighor and pet a dog.

You need a change of perspective.

[Black Lotus]

Please...

You've defined an entire group of gamers (those who don't like complex chargen) as "azy ----ers", condeming them in the strongest language possible that won't get you banned. And for what?

Because they don't like complex chargen like you do. These are people that wouldn't even *want* to play in your game.

People who don't play HERO are not deserving of name calling.


Take a deep breath. Walk away for a while. Talk to a neighor and pet a dog.

You need a change of perspective.

You misunderstand. If players have a problem with the whole FACT hat chargen is complex -- a philosophical difference of opinion -- I'm fine with it. If it's purely the fact that it takes "too long," then yes, that upsets me. Who would want to play with a GM who does absolutely no prep work because "they don't prefer that style of gameplay"? (Well... aside from stoners playing D&D for entertainment... ROFL.)

[buzz]

A good 1-2 hours of that time is spent with the player explaining various different approaches and how they fit into the campaign.
I'm not including "conceptual" time like this, as this is usually independant of system. Once you've decided what you want to create, IME, chargen doesn't take two hours. The possible exception is knowing what you want and then scouring through a pile of sourcebooks for mechanical bits to make it happen. I see this mostly in D&D and similar games.

[Black Lotus]

I'm not including "conceptual" time like this, as this is usually independant of system. Once you've decided what you want to create, IME, chargen doesn't take two hours. The possible exception is knowing what you want and then scouring through a pile of sourcebooks for mechanical bits to make it happen. I see this mostly in D&D and similar games.

Yeah, I was just thinking that D&D chargen takes almost as much time as HERO chargen -- AND you have to take more time to consider which Feats/ Skills you want AND need (because of prerequisites). So all in all, after 20 character levels, I'd say players have spent far MORE time on character maintenance than a HERO gamer after a comparable number of game sessions.

[Fox1]

I'm not including "conceptual" time like this, as this is usually independant of system. Once you've decided what you want to create, IME, chargen doesn't take two hours. The possible exception is knowing what you want and then scouring through a pile of sourcebooks for mechanical bits to make it happen. I see this mostly in D&D and similar games.

I can easily spend up to two hours per character in pure mechanical chargen in HERO.

[Fox1]

You misunderstand. If players have a problem with the whole FACT hat chargen is complex -- a philosophical difference of opinion -- I'm fine with it.

That is type (and the only type) of long chargen under debate in this thread.

[Black Lotus]

I can easily spend up to two hours per character in pure mechanical chargen in HERO.

Have you ever built, say, a fully-fleshed-out Wizard 8/ Sorcerer 3 NPC from scratch for D&D? Hoooooooooooooooo boooooy.

[Black Lotus]

That is type (and the only type) of long chargen under debate in this thread.

Well, I'm referring to people who just can't find a couple hours to spend in chargen pre-game. If that's totally out of context to the thread, in your opinion -- or even in everyone's opinion -- feel free to ignore me.

[Fox1]

Have you ever built, say, a fully-fleshed-out Wizard 8/ Sorcerer 3 NPC from scratch for D&D? Hoooooooooooooooo boooooy.

The last edition of D&D I played was 1st edition AD&D. There such a task would be easy. I can't speak to 3rd edition.

Chargen of a similar PC in the current system I use for Fantasy would take less than 30 minutes. I've easily generated 5 PCs and had time for a small game in our typical weekend meetings.

Unless we're more interested in shooting the bull then we are rushing through chargen.

[Fox1]

Well, I'm referring to people who just can't find a couple hours to spend in chargen pre-game. If that's totally out of context to the thread, in your opinion -- or even in everyone's opinion -- feel free to ignore me.

I can't imagine a non-complex chargen *system* that would require two hours.

[buzz]

...although, as you guys now keep relimiting the selection of complaints, it does seem more relevent to a much smaller set.
I didn't see that I was relimiting anything, barring aknowledgement that, yes, the loop model is very player-centric. You're focusing on preference, and the original quote and my commentary wasn't really talking about preference. ("Complaints about complexity", not "complaints that they don't enjoy playing HERO".)


Can you point me to the mass body of these threads where people are somehow claiming hero chargen length issues are not preferences but are somehow "inherent quality"?
I could point you to just about any HERO thread on RPG.net and many of the "HERO vs. M&M" threads I've seen you (and myself) in before where, intentional or no, people made objective statements ("System X is crap because") rather than subjective ones ("I don't enjoy X becasue"). The whole impetus of the ENWorld thread that started this was countering the assertion that "lite" is inherrently better design (which originated on Mearls' blog, if you want to read it).


From my experience, reading these boards and others, chatting rpging etc, I RARELY see (frankly i dont recall ever seeing but maybe i forgot one) a complainer expressing it in those terms or anything close.
IME, it's usually someone trying to tell me why I'm not really having fun, because HERO (or D&D, or whatever) "is bad" (or "can't do") in such-and-such ways.


Which is why linking "should try" and "more lengthy chargen" seems wrong to me.
FWIW, I have not been asserting that the loop model is a rationale why people "should try" HERO.


Agreed. But the lack of a single universal benchmark doesn't mean there aren't significant effects.
No argument there. Complexity (real or perceived) and required effort can be off-putting.


Read the posts on this very page...
Things did get awful heated all of a sudden. :fear:


Thats what he took away from the arguments on this thread. Apparently he missed the now more and more limited scope of what this thread was supposed to be about too.
Actually, I think it was you who widened the scope, and now I'm trying to bring it back to where I think I started. :)

[buzz]

I can easily spend up to two hours per character in pure mechanical chargen in HERO.
Does the system require you to take up to two hours, though? Or is this just trying different builds?

The only systems I've played where the required bookkeeping steps took a huge amount of time were Synnibar (*shudder*) and C&S2e, particularly when rolling up a mage.

HERO, otoh, especially with access to HD, just takes me minutes assuming I know what I'm building. If I don't, or I'm looking for the best ways to reflect a concept, then, yes, it can take longer. This is the flipside of flexibility (or crunchy flexibility, a la HERO and GURPS, at least).

[Fox1]

Does the system require you to take up to two hours, though? Or is this just trying different builds?

I'm my own enemy here.

Lots of different builds, lots of time staring at various drafts running play tests in my mind, swapping out clumsy wording or construction for something that is smoother.

And then if it's a character that will see repeated use, I repeat the process in a kind of 'review pass' every so often in case something new occurs to me.



So I would have to agree, a quick design using HD or a spreadsheet would not take two hours. But such a design wouldn't be a warm fuzzy for me either.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Some players are such milquetoasts that they don't have two hours to make a character? What do they need to do, check their stocks on the New York Stock Exchange? Meet the million-dollar star clients? See the governor? Singlehandedly rescue a busful of kids?

I rescue a bus load of kids before breakfast. And still have time on my lunch break for character creation.

It's because i'm ruthles

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I beg to differ.

It typically takes me 3-4 hours to fully complete a HERO system character. My constructs are rather detailed and have to be balanced into a significant pre-existing world.

A good 1-2 hours of that time is spent with the player explaining various different approaches and how they fit into the campaign.

I usually do those 1-2 hrs while walking, working, eating, sleeping talking to someone else etc. so i don't consider it part of char gen in the same way as stating them out. But i take about the same amount of time now that i think of it.

[Black Lotus]

Well, I suppose time spent in chargen depends on the player -- so we really can't use HERO's "long" chargen as a basis for comparison.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

You misunderstand. If players have a problem with the whole FACT hat chargen is complex -- a philosophical difference of opinion -- I'm fine with it. If it's purely the fact that it takes "too long," then yes, that upsets me. Who would want to play with a GM who does absolutely no prep work because "they don't prefer that style of gameplay"? (Well... aside from stoners playing D&D for entertainment... ROFL.)

I'm one of those GMs sometimes (and by no time i mean less than an hour)

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I've spent nights (like 3 nights 4-6 hrs each), making 15th lvl PCs. In the time it took for people to make one, i had made about 6, in varing degrees of silly.

A half-ogre ferral barbarian monk

a warforged psyonic warrior called "gutotron"

a mage who traveled the planes (ok, pretty normla)

an anthropomorphic baleen whale who could wield a gigantc greatsword dealing 8d6+50

and i think one or two more.

Just picking magical items takes forever!

[Fox1]

I usually do those 1-2 hrs while walking, working, eating, sleeping talking to someone else etc. so i don't consider it part of char gen in the same way as stating them out. But i take about the same amount of time now that i think of it.

As GM, I'm very involved in matching the concept to the world and the specific campaign.

So I was counting the time I spent interacting with the player.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

As GM, I'm very involved in matching the concept to the world and the specific campaign.

So I was counting the time I spent interacting with the player.

ah, i'm mostly a player so i was coming from another PoV

[Black Lotus]

ah, i'm mostly a player so i was coming from another PoV

Yeah, I'm pretty much exclusively a GM. Must be fun to play, though.... ;)

[Onyxclaw]

Character generation take me 1 hour to a week or more, depending on the charcter I am making. I'm still working on getting my Ketera Templates mapped out, and I don't have a single of 32 finished...I started them in may.

I do have 4 finished characters. Completely finished one, ready to be PCs in a nother game even.

Unfortunately each of these templates is for a critter built on 900 points or more. Which doesn't help matters.

If it is a simple character with powers that easily fit into the hero system then generation is much faster...but when (for example) one of the powers requires devouring the soul of another character and has triggered effects due to range that are not related to getting more dice AND optional outcomes by choice as well, it makes getting the right combination of powers, links, triggers, and SFX to be as true to concept as possible very difficult and time consuming. You can of course throw together something and fudge the rest, but thats not always as satisfying and often feels a little cheap to me.

As long as the final outcome is satisfying I certainly don't mind taking the time to build them. Most of the time it's even fun. I just have to make sure I have all the time I need.

PC creation for games is much easier for me than NPC creation, I can usually finish a good PC in a couple hours if I already have an idea or about what Foc and Roy take if I don't...but that's mainly because I have a whole lot less options.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Yeah, I'm pretty much exclusively a GM. Must be fun to play, though.... ;)

it is, i run a game, and some of my players run games, and invite me to their games, etc. so it's really a cycle of gaming

[Fox1]

it is, i run a game, and some of my players run games, and invite me to their games, etc. so it's really a cycle of gaming

I get to do both as well. Some of the campaigns use shared GM, so I get to play and GM in the same world.

As a rule, it seems that GMs come to boards like this more than players and are over represent as a result. I have no idea if that's true here.

[Black Lotus]

As a rule, it seems that GMs come to boards like this more than players and are over represent as a result. I have no idea if that's true here.

Pretty much a universal rule. There are players on RPG boards, but not nearly as many as full-time (relatively speaking) GMs.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

hmmm that's interesting, although i know OC, Zod, Fireg0lem and I are all at least part time GMs (actually all of us run and play)

[tesuji]

but if a person can't reserve two hours for a roleplaying game -- and assuming that they want to take part in the campaign, but are scared off by chargen -- why? How can a person be so lumpy that they can't make time for a couple of hours to prepare for a game?

Its not CAN'T!

Thats the mental disconnect.

Its not "i wont play in a campaign because i can't do two hour chargen."

Its more "well, instead of doing two hour chargen for that game, i will instead do half-hour chargen for this other game which will be just as fun."

The guys turning away from HERo because of its weight are not turning their back on RPGs and going off to a monastary to sulk. They are instead CHOOSING OTHER GAMES where the effort-to-reward is better... in their eyes.

For example, the jarring thing for me about the T20 18 lines per character vs CT 3 lines per character was having played the old game too I know it was one of if not the most enjoyable RPG games i ran. I can tell you more about the characters and how they would act and decide from that campaign now decades long past than i can about the much more mechanicly defined and detailed out HERo character from the campaigns of only one decade ago.

The extra effort and detail of the chargen mechanics and writeups did not produce an improvement in the game play and enjoyment.

So its not someone is too lazy to spend the time to play a game, its that they have other games, other rpgs, other campaigns to choose that offer every bit as much enjoyment in the PLAY TIME LOOP with significantly less upfront work and effort in chargen.



It makes me angry because it's an "instant need gratification, everything as easy for me as possible" approach, which I find extremely offensive considering how much work I -- and all GMs on this board -- put into running a game for people.

This is unfathomable to me. Whatever "work" i choose to do as a Gm i do because i enjoy it.

Still, I do everything i can to do that work as efficiently as possible. if creating excel spreadhseets to track PC traits helps me plan scenarios, then i do so instead of each and every time doing the shuffle thru pc sheets looking it up again." I find creating a cheat sheet means i get less work but just as good a design.

So a player can also reasonably decide "because i will get as much fun from bob's fudge based stargate game as i would from steve's HERO based fantasy hero game, but the FH game will require more work due to more heavy system and complex chargen, I am better off choosing to play the stargate game." he chooses the game which best meets his desires for enjoyability and his workload preferences.

At least, IMX its not normally a case of HERO or nothing.

[Onyxclaw]

hmmm that's interesting, although i know OC, Zod, Fireg0lem and I are all at least part time GMs (actually all of us run and play)

yep, I know about the same as you Roy of course. most of our other players aren't partial to a system and don't want to put in the effort to GM. They aren't as crazy as us and think we are such dorks for being here =P

Kech says I spend too much time on the boards. But he's curious..hehe

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

yep, I know about the same as you Roy of course. most of our other players aren't partial to a system and don't want to put in the effort to GM. They aren't as crazy as us and think we are such dorks for being here =P

Kech says I spend too much time on the boards. But he's curious..hehe

it's not that they arn't partial to it. They like it more than any other RPG except daniel i think. it's just that they don't like RPGs as much. It's like having 100% of 2% of their attention.

And brian, brian might love hunter, not sure...

[Black Lotus]

Its not CAN'T!

Thats the mental disconnect.

Its not "i wont play in a campaign because i can't do two hour chargen."

Its more "well, instead of doing two hour chargen for that game, i will instead do half-hour chargen for this other game which will be just as fun."

Lazy.


The guys turning away from HERo because of its weight are not turning their back on RPGs and going off to a monastary to sulk. They are instead CHOOSING OTHER GAMES where the effort-to-reward is better... in their eyes.

I'm sure they'll use that extra 1/2 hour they'll save to cure cancer or write a dissertation on string theory.


For example, the jarring thing for me about the T20 18 lines per character vs CT 3 lines per character was having played the old game too I know it was one of if not the most enjoyable RPG games i ran. I can tell you more about the characters and how they would act and decide from that campaign now decades long past than i can about the much more mechanicly defined and detailed out HERo character from the campaigns of only one decade ago.

I am FINE with liking a system better because the system is better and seems cooler and more fun to you. I'm not fine with liking a system better because it allows you to be lazier.


The extra effort and detail of the chargen mechanics and writeups did not produce an improvement in the game play and enjoyment.

And if that is the case, I AGREE. I even said before that a system which requires cumbersome chargen, but offers nothing extra in return,m is a bad thing.


So its not someone is too lazy to spend the time to play a game, its that they have other games, other rpgs, other campaigns to choose that offer every bit as much enjoyment in the PLAY TIME LOOP with significantly less upfront work and effort in chargen.

An extra hour of chargen allows for... what, 1/2 a game of Monopoly?


This is unfathomable to me. Whatever "work" i choose to do as a Gm i do because i enjoy it.

Have you ever GMed before? In my experience, there's always a sucky part to fleshing out a campaign, sometimes a long and gritty one. If you always have fun creating the campaign world every second you're doing it... awesome, man. I don't believe you, though.

But, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Onyxclaw]

it's not that they arn't partial to it. They like it more than any other RPG except daniel i think. it's just that they don't like RPGs as much. It's like having 100% of 2% of their attention.

And brian, brian might love hunter, not sure...

haha, yeah you nailed it there.

He doesn't love hunter. It just rewards him for being a trigger happy a$$hat. that's what he loves.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



I didn't see that I was relimiting anything, barring aknowledgement that, yes, the loop model is very player-centric.

Again, givn every game i ever ran or played in had a GM, i do think this heavily hits the relevence of the loop theory applied to RPg issues. YMMV.


I could point you to just about any HERO thread on RPG.net and many of the "HERO vs. M&M" threads I've seen you (and myself) in before where, intentional or no, people made objective statements ("System X is crap because") rather than subjective ones ("I don't enjoy X becasue").

Well, frankly, while this may be a bug up your bonnet, in my experience most of the people who say "X is bad" tend to see it as the same thing as "I don't like X." When someone tells me that so-n-so's checken is bad, i don't take it to mean the store sells spoiled rotted meat, but that its not something they like.

So, once you parse your selection of HERo complaints down to those who believe HERO is BAD in an inhrent organic way as opposed to HERo does things i dont like... i think you have again limited very narrowly the scope of complaints you are applying this to.



IME, it's usually someone trying to tell me why I'm not really having fun, because HERO (or D&D, or whatever) "is bad" (or "can't do") in such-and-such ways.

People actually tell you "you are not having fun"? or is that your spin on their take on things? Is them telling you why they don't have fun what you are taking as "you are not having fun?"

I ask because i have seen many of those threads yet i have never seen anyone actually tell others "you are not really having fun".

if there are threads aplenty on RPG net where this occurs, can you provide me a link to one.

Now, my suspicion is that you are reinterpreting their comment a bit, but i am willing to have you prove me wrong by posting a link to the thread(s) in which someone did the "usual" thing and told you you were not really having fun.




FWIW, I have not been asserting that the loop model is a rationale why people "should try" HERO.

but others have indicated that was the point. So a statement that no one is making such a claim is a trifle inaccurate.


Actually, I think it was you who widened the scope, and now I'm trying to bring it back to where I think I started. :)

Had you stated in the initial post something about "not including games with Gms" then i might believe i widened it appreciably. instead, what i see as having happened is we have further defined the original posts scope... unfortunately it has now been refined to such a narrow space that it might be accurate within its tiny box of games but its such a tiny box that its really a lot of effort about a trifling percentage.

Most games have a GM and won't be covered by this model.
IMX, maybe not yours, most chargen complaints don't involve repetitive chargen among players.
IMX, maybe not your, most chargen time complaints from players are (some perhaps not stately as clearly as you would like) about the threshold being too much for the gain, its not worth the effort for them, not about their being some universal set figure at which point good and bad suddenly divide.

The loop model may handle the rest of the player chargen time complaint cases fine, but since i havent ever seen a game which fits in that box, its only a cute hypothetical more or less rather than something useful in resolving (or i guess "countering") these complaints or differences.

back to the original point, the way to "counter" the complaints about hero complexity and chargen is not to try and just say "you are wrong" whether by loop or crook, but to instead show them in some demonstrable fashion the benefits gained that make the extra time worthwhile. you already "know" its worth it, so start with what you know instead of starting with where you think they are wrong.

All of course, IMO.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



Lazy.

Phenomenal.

the way i use the term, it would be called efficient. you gain just as much but do less work to get the gains.

Lazy would be turning down the game you would enjoy and doing nothing enjoyable instead because of the work involved. You LOSE due to less effort.


I'm sure they'll use that extra 1/2 hour they'll save to cure cancer or write a dissertation on string theory.

they may spend it masturbating, which means they get funned twice. The key is, they aren't spending extra effort for no net gain. That would be considered wasting time.


I am FINE with liking a system better because the system is better and seems cooler and more fun to you. I'm not fine with liking a system better because it allows you to be lazier.

Ok but what if you like it because its AS FUn and yet takes less time so you can do other enoyable thing and get your gaming too? to me, thats efficient.

Hey, how about this. if a Gm buys Crooks conquerors and killers and uses those character as foes for his game (which turns out just as fun for those involved) to save time and spend more time on plots, is he being lazy? If he spent that extra time watching DNDS instead, is he being lazy?



And if that is the case, I AGREE. I even said before that a system which requires cumbersome chargen, but offers nothing extra in return,m is a bad thing.

So its not maybe LAZY if the game that results is as fun as the one which took more work? Well, thats my point.


An extra hour of chargen allows for... what, 1/2 a game of Monopoly?

The better question is "what does the extra hour of chargen GAIN ME? To the players, speaking generally here, that reject HERo due to chargen length, they do NOT SEE a gain to be had for that extra effort that is worthwhile when compared to their options.

you seem to be coming at this from the angle of "you dont have anything better to do" but when it comes to effort people think the reverse... what do i gain for my work.

people who see "this is worth the effort" in HERO chargen are not the ones choosing other options.


Have you ever GMed before?

contantly since about 1981 with HERO being heads and shoulders above the rest in terms of GMing time.


In my experience, there's always a sucky part to fleshing out a campaign, sometimes a long and gritty one. If you always have fun creating the campaign world every second you're doing it... awesome, man. I don't believe you, though.

you shouldn't believe that because those words are yours, not mine.

I gm because i enjoy it. The work i put into it is for that reason. if thats not the same for you, thats cool. However, thats certainly not the same as saying "every second of time i spend GMing is enjoyable." which i never said.


More to the point perhaps, when i Gm i do do things ti minimize my workload and make efficient the time i spend. So it would be rather unsportsmanly for me to, because i do more work, not expect my players to make similar judgements and choose the "as enjoyable but less work" options available to them. Thinking "they should choose the more work option for the same fun" while i choose the "same fun option with less work" is one heck of a warped standard, IMO.

[Black Lotus]

Phenomenal.

Rad.


Lazy would be turning down the game you would enjoy and doing nothing enjoyable instead because of the work involved. You LOSE due to less effort.

A lot of people DO do that, though. I've seen it. Worse, people occasionally won't even try systems like HERO because it's "too much work."


they may spend it masturbating, which means they get funned twice. The key is, they aren't spending extra effort for no net gain. That would be considered wasting time.

Personally, I see a huge gain in doing HERO chargen the way it is done. It is the most comprehensive system I have ever seen, and allows for the most freedom. There's an EXPONENTIAL net gain for the extra time spent in chargen. And as I said before, a lot of these systems end up having you spend WAY more time building your character than HERO does -- hidden costs, so to speak.


Ok but what if you like it because its AS FUn and yet takes less time so you can do other enoyable thing and get your gaming too? to me, thats efficient.

Then it's a better system because it's as good, but faster.


Hey, how about this. if a Gm buys Crooks conquerors and killers and uses those character as foes for his game (which turns out just as fun for those involved) to save time and spend more time on plots, is he being lazy? If he spent that extra time watching DNDS instead, is he being lazy?

Time is money. All it means is that the GM has invested a different kind of resource to get the game going. I never said he/ she should hand-tailor absolutely everything, though I believe creative effort is important.


So its not maybe LAZY if the game that results is as fun as the one which took more work? Well, thats my point.

Sigh. I've played d20 for years. It's cripplingly restrictive. People play it because it uses the rules that everyone knows. And I have WAAAY more fun GMing HERO than D&D. Because what's fun for ME is being creative, instead of selecting crap off of a fricking list and having to follow the creators' ideas of what a spell or a sword should be all the time.


The better question is "what does the extra hour of chargen GAIN ME? To the players, speaking generally here, that reject HERo due to chargen length, they do NOT SEE a gain to be had for that extra effort that is worthwhile when compared to their options.

If they don't see the advantage of HERO's chargen system over, say, d20's system, they're in extreme denial. And lazy.


I gm because i enjoy it. The work i put into it is for that reason. if thats not the same for you, thats cool. However, thats certainly not the same as saying "every second of time i spend GMing is enjoyable." which i never said.

OMFG. You're skewing the issue. What I'm trying to show is that an extra hour of chargen shouldn't ruin the overall playing experience any more than extra GM effort for campaign creation ruins the GMing experience.

[Fox1]

What I'm trying to show is that an extra hour of chargen shouldn't ruin the overall playing experience any more than extra GM effort for campaign creation ruins the GMing experience.

You near omnipotent ability to decide what other people can and should find acceptable is amazing.

[Black Lotus]

You near omnipotent ability to decide what other people can and should find acceptable is amazing.

Your love for electronic criticism and insult is without equal.

I won't decide for them. I'll simply call their decision lazy if I think it's lazy. Thanks for telling ME (albeit subtly) I'm not allowed to decide that, though.

[Fox1]

I won't decide for them. I'll simply call their decision lazy if I think it's lazy. Thanks for telling ME (albeit subtly) I'm not allowed to decide that, though.

You can hold whatever opinion you wish about them.

However attacking them in public over their dislikes and likes in gaming? Will, at best expect back the same.

[Black Lotus]

You can hold whatever opinion you wish about them.

However attacking them in public over their dislikes and likes in gaming? Will, at best expect back the same.

If you would like to make fun of me for wanting to put as much thought and effort as possible into creating an in-depth, enjoyable, quality game for my players, that's fine with me. I spare no expense to create the best game I know how.

Me, I'll never sacrifice time for quality. I feel that that's what SOME of these players/ GMs do when using a crap system -- they just use it because it's easier. Others just use a faster system because they like the system more. Those, I have no problem with.

[Fox1]

If you would like to make fun of me for wanting to put as much thought and effort as possible into creating an in-depth, enjoyable, quality game for my players, that's fine with me. I spare no expense to create the best game I know how..

I would never make fun of you for such commitment to your hobby. Such is to be respected.

But I don't think the public airing of scorn on other people who are having a perfectly good time in their own very games is either proper or positive. Everyone plays in this hobby for their own reasons, and if they are not deserving of respect- they are at least deserving of peace.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



A lot of people DO do that, though. I've seen it.

you have seen a lot of people chose to do nothing else they enjoyable over playing hero? What do they do, sit in a closet instead of at least watching shows they like on TV?

Everyone i know who chose to not do hero gaming due to workload chose to do other things they enjoy.

Well, Ok, those who did not have a choice because of work/family related obligations might actually have ended up doing something unenjoyable, but it really wasn't a choice.


Worse, people occasionally won't even try systems like HERO because it's "too much work."

How is that worse? If they are enjoying their other activity and don't see any compelling reason that HERO is worth the extra effort, why SHOULD THEy try it? If i am having fun now and you cannot show me why i would have more fun with HERO if i do more work, why is it worse somehow for me to make my decisions?

Sure it might be worse for you, since you want me to help you see repayment for your investment, but if there is nothing showing me benefits on my end...



Personally, I see a huge gain in doing HERO chargen the way it is done.

and let me guess, you aren't one of those saying no? see how that works. you see a huge benefit and you make the choice for yourself to invest the time and effort. Others don't see the benefits, and invest the extra time and effort somewhere else.



And as I said before, a lot of these systems end up having you spend WAY more time building your character than HERO does -- hidden costs, so to speak.

hero is certainly not the only game with "too high" chargen costs in some people's eyes.


Sigh. I've played d20 for years. It's cripplingly restrictive.
People play it because it uses the rules that everyone knows. And I have WAAAY more fun GMing HERO than D&D. Because what's fun for ME is being creative, instead of selecting crap off of a fricking list and having to follow the creators' ideas of what a spell or a sword should be all the time.

in case you missed it, some people who play DND, they are creative too and make stuff for their games too.
In case you missed it, some people who play hero use the genre books and campaign books a lot, and don't invent everything from hand.

Many people, in either camp, fall in between the extreme of "i make everything" and "i use the provided lists". I would risk a guess that most Gms use both published materials and personal built materials in their games.

having a published book for DND that lists classes doesn't prevent me from creating my own anymore than having setting books with characters and beastiary and vehicle source books for HERo prevents people from creating their own.

I don't know why you feel D20 somehow prevents you from making up your own stuff and being creativ, but its a limitation no GM i have met of d20 has stated he believes.




If they don't see the advantage of HERO's chargen system over, say, d20's system, they're in extreme denial. And lazy.

certainly, someone is in denial, but i think its you if you cannot see the case of DND being an adequate chargen system for some games or some players without it being a derogatory description of them.



OMFG. You're skewing the issue. What I'm trying to show is that an extra hour of chargen shouldn't ruin the overall playing experience any more than extra GM effort for campaign creation ruins the GMing experience.


Then let me try and give you a simple example...

If the extra hour of chargen prevents players you would enjoy having from playing at all, then it can not just ruin the gaming experience, it can even eliminate it if it results in too few players for the game.

but, more to my point, if the extra hour of chargen won't noticeably improve the gaming experience, then why should players/GM be expected to do the extra work?

before you make it reasonable for someone to do the extra effort, you are the one who needs to show them the benefit. They aren't obliged to justify not doing more work to you.

[tesuji]

If you would like to make fun of me for wanting to put as much thought and effort as possible into creating an in-depth, enjoyable, quality game for my players, that's fine with me. I spare no expense to create the best game I know how.

Where has he made fun of your putting effort into your game at all?

His comments have been directed at your posts here. Are you claiming that these posts here are examples of you putting effort and thought into your game? How will your next session be better by dint of these posts?

he seems to be focusing on your continual drive to insult others as lazy because they share different preferences for where they spend their time than you.

[Black Lotus]

I would never make fun of you for such commitment to your hobby. Such is to be respected.

But I don't think the public airing of scorn on other people who are having a perfectly good time in their own very games is either proper or positive. Everyone plays in this hobby for their own reasons, and if they are not deserving of respect- they are at least deserving of peace.

I never referred to anyone in particular, I simply described what I thought about a certain type of behavior. If you (the general you) feel you fit that type of behavior, I apologize, but I stand firm on my judgement. I never pester people specifically for their preference. If someone says they like D&D, or Magic: The Gathering even, I leave them alone about it. I can still decide what I think about the games, though.

My belief is simple: if you trade quality for ease of play, and do so with full knowledge that better quality is to be found out there, that bothers me. If that's your preference, fine; but I find it sad and disappointing. If, on the other hand, your favorite system happens to also be less complex and easy to play, that's fine. In other words, if your choice rests mainly on how easy it is, bleh.

[Black Lotus]

you have seen a lot of people chose to do nothing else they enjoyable over playing hero? What do they do, sit in a closet instead of at least watching shows they like on TV?

I'm talking about persons who abandon HERO (or the equivalent) for an easier system. I will not venture to discuss giving up roleplaying for non-roleplaying activities.


Everyone i know who chose to not do hero gaming due to workload chose to do other things they enjoy.

Well, since that's everyone you know, I guess you must be right. I don't know any of them personally, though, so I can't really use your claim as a point for making a decision.


Well, Ok, those who did not have a choice because of work/family related obligations might actually have ended up doing something unenjoyable, but it really wasn't a choice.

Again, choosing to do non-roleplaying activities over roleplaying activities is not at ALL what I mean.


in case you missed it, some people who play DND, they are creative too and make stuff for their games too.
In case you missed it, some people who play hero use the genre books and campaign books a lot, and don't invent everything from hand.

I simply stated that I liked being creative. I never said anyone else wasn't creative, even D&D players. I simply said I personally don't feel creative selecting stuff off of lists.


Many people, in either camp, fall in between the extreme of "i make everything" and "i use the provided lists". I would risk a guess that most Gms use both published materials and personal built materials in their games

Yeah, but you can't even DO the "making everything yourself" extreme with d20. But yes, you're right, most people do fall between.


having a published book for DND that lists classes doesn't prevent me from creating my own anymore than having setting books with characters and beastiary and vehicle source books for HERo prevents people from creating their own.

BS. It's thousands of times easier to create these things in HERO than in d20. I've played the system long enough to know that creating all-new classes WHICH ARE ALSO PROPERLY BALANCED is extremely difficult. HERO 5ER tells you how to make everything yourself; d20 does not.


I don't know why you feel D20 somehow prevents you from making up your own stuff and being creativ, but its a limitation no GM i have met of d20 has stated he believes.

It doesn't prevent it; it stunts it, though, and makes it difficult, IMHO.


certainly, someone is in denial, but i think its you if you cannot see the case of DND being an adequate chargen system for some games or some players without it being a derogatory description of them.

Nah, because looking back on it, d20 characters take MORE work over time than HERO ones. :)


Then let me try and give you a simple example...

If the extra hour of chargen prevents players you would enjoy having from playing at all, then it can not just ruin the gaming experience, it can even eliminate it if it results in too few players for the game.

but, more to my point, if the extra hour of chargen won't noticeably improve the gaming experience, then why should players/GM be expected to do the extra work?

before you make it reasonable for someone to do the extra effort, you are the one who needs to show them the benefit. They aren't obliged to justify not doing more work to you.

It DOES improve the playing experience. To use your own tactics against you, me and my players all feel that it does.

And I never said anyone answers to me... where did you get that idea?

[Fox1]

I never referred to anyone in particular, I simply described what I thought about a certain type of behavior. If you (the general you) feel you fit that type of behavior, I apologize, but I stand firm on my judgement. I never pester people specifically for their preference. If someone says they like D&D, or Magic: The Gathering even, I leave them alone about it. I can still decide what I think about the games, though.


This is likely the best that we'll manage, so I'll have to be content. It is a improvement :)

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



I'm talking about persons who abandon HERO (or the equivalent) for an easier system.

Man its tough to keep up with your flip flops.

The exchange was, since you have forgotten...

i said :"Lazy would be turning down the game you would enjoy and doing nothing enjoyable instead because of the work involved. You LOSE due to less effort. "

u quoted that specifically and responded : "A lot of people DO do that, though. I've seen it."

i replied: "you have seen a lot of people chose to do nothing else they enjoyable over playing hero? What do they do, sit in a closet instead of at least watching shows they like on TV? "

and now you claim to not have been discussing people who do nothing, even though that was what you quoted, and only to be discussing those who choose other systems?

Wow!

if you weren't responding about people who do nothing enjoyable blah blah, why did you mislead us by quoting it?




Well, since that's everyone you know, I guess you must be right.

not hardly, but i have it from another source, you that the people you are discussing ALSO went to other systems and did not just do nothing.

So, if my experience says they do other things, and your experience says they do other things, why the tough time on you seeing this?


I don't know any of them personally, though, so I can't really use your claim as a point for making a decision.

but you know the ones you have seen.


I simply stated that I liked being creative. I never said anyone else wasn't creative, even D&D players. I simply said I personally don't feel creative selecting stuff off of lists.

but can you see other using lists and doing creative and being just fine and maybe just maybe not being worthy of net insults over it?

if so, we might have made a major breakthru here!


Yeah, but you can't even DO the "making everything yourself" extreme with d20.

uhh... sure you can. you can toss the classes in favor of your own...
Ok lets be pretty clear, haven';t you noticed a ton of third party D20 stuff, some of which made their own stuff up, dropping the classes for their own, dropping spells or replacing them with their own, and so forth.

Sure, the core system underpinnings might still be there like skills feats attributes, d20 vs dc etc, but anything meaningful as setting including even hit points has been done in variant d20 products put out all over the place.

If a third party company can publish it, a gm could do it to for his own purpose.


BS. It's thousands of times easier to create these things in HERO than in d20. I've played the system long enough to know that creating all-new classes WHICH ARE ALSO PROPERLY BALANCED is extremely difficult. HERO 5ER tells you how to make everything yourself; d20 does not.

Ok here we get into the HERO is better balanced argument and i wont go into that nonsense. Suffice it to say that for me and perhaps others the math underpinnings and build-it models do not equate to better balance oe even easier balanced. I can create a new class, a magic item, or spell for my game in d20 pretty quickly.. i have done it, without balance problems.

It may be true for you that HERO helps you create better balanced stuff than DND, but its not true for everyone.




It doesn't prevent it; it stunts it, though, and makes it difficult, IMHO.

then you are one for whom HERo is a god mathc and you probably should not be insulted by others for making that choice.

unfortunately, you do not seem to share that view when it comes to others making their own choices.


Nah, because looking back on it, d20 characters take MORE work over time than HERO ones. :)

for you, perhaps.


It DOES improve the playing experience. To use your own tactics against you, me and my players all feel that it does.

which means you have a reason to choose hero over less erroft-prone systems. for others whose goals are different, whose priorities are different, who make different choices, it would be nice if they could make those choices and not be insulted by hero guys for it.

just a little open mindedness and live and let live goes a long way sometimes.

BTW if you somehow believe, since you keep trolling up D20, i think d20 has the chargen right, i think a few pages back you will see me also list d20 as in the "too much work for chargen" basket alongside hero. its not as egregious, but its definitely off my future choices playlist.

An exception for TRUE20 or MnM is possible, but not if other efforts pan out.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

not happening. So far we've had no challangeing encounters. The GM is trying to make challenging encounters, but with 12 PCs we're an army

[nobody]

Of course, some would argue that having an army is a bad thing. And I should point out that the months of character creation was inflated by the fact that we found out the game was going to exist in November, but not be played to January. Except for a few cases, many of the characters probably wouldn't have required more than a few hours of sitting down and hammering out what was desired for the characters. Of course, the problem was compounded by the fact that only two of the players and the GM had ever played hero before and a few of the players had never played a PnP RPG before.

I admit, Roy, I sometimes wish some of the army would fall (particularly the guy who is way to obsessed with his friggin' hat) permenantly. Of course, that is nearly impossible because the healer can resurrect anyone who actually dies. I guess I can't complain too much. Other than the dwarf who challenged an Ork warboss to single combat, I was the only character to really take a walloping. Of course, I wouldn't mind having the cyborg "die" and have him come back tweaked.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

wait, what's this about a hat?

and i wouldn't mind a few deaths, i figure we've got half a dozen extraneous PCs.

My pet peeve is that people who don't do anything get the same XP. but that's because i'm a greedy XP whoring bastard.

And i'd also like to act. That'd be nice. You know, in the season finale?

[LordGhee]

Not often i see a new word

fa·ce·tious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-sshs)
adj.
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French facétieux, from facétie, jest, from Latin factia, from factus, witty.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fa·cetious·ly adv.
fa·cetious·ness n.

[nobody]

wait, what's this about a hat?

and i wouldn't mind a few deaths, i figure we've got half a dozen extraneous PCs.

My pet peeve is that people who don't do anything get the same XP. but that's because i'm a greedy XP whoring bastard.

And i'd also like to act. That'd be nice. You know, in the season finale?


Well, maybe not half a dozen... Hmm, let me count... funny, I thought there were twelve too, but I keep coming up with only ten PC's (You, me, dragon, Rocky, Two catgirl's, dwarf, ghost, shapeshifter, and the bug... am I missing anyone?). That leads me to conclude that there are two extraneous characters, though I wouldn't shed too many tears if we lost three other people who weren't really extraneous. No offense to the players, I think they are great. It's just that the game is really slowed down when half the party has a different idea what is fun compared to the other half. On the XP issue: well, I really don't have that much of a problem with it because it's not like the XP is drawn from some communal pool, like in DnD.

About the hat: Who is the person that freaks out if you do anything with his hat? The person who decided to do a duel.

Yeah, the season finale stunk. Character death makes for a better ending IMO. As for not being able to act, all I can say is that I am glad I made sure to have a three spd.