Is Hero too preditable?

[Seenar]

I recently had a friend say to me he thought that Hero was no fun because once you start rollilng a lot of dice, the outcome was too predictable. In other words, 10 dice is usually pretty close to 35 points.

Obviously, the more dice you roll, the closer to the mean you will tend to roll. But, I for one like the excitment of rolling lots of damage dice and counting up to the high number.

I have given what he said a lot of thought and wondered if he might have been looking for the "crit on 20" sort of thing, where players get the excitement of rolling again.

What are people's thoughts on this?

[Simon]

Errr....

The per-die average is close to 3.5 the more dice you roll. The actual total will vary by an ever-increasing number the more dice you roll.

Roll 10d6 for a while....let us know how many times you roll 35. Your rolls will average around 35, but will vary in both directions.

[Derek Hiemforth]

He's right that Hero is more predictable than most RPGs. However, I consider this a feature, not a bug. :) It's one of the game traits that drew me to Hero in the first place, and that keeps me a die-hard Hero loyalist almost 20 years later.

IMO, games that have mechanics like a critical success one time in ten or twenty are too chaotic. There should be a fair amount of predictability in results. If my character could lift a sofa yesterday, then he should be able to lift the same sofa today. If shooting one bad guy in the chest with a crossbow killed him, then shooting a similar bad guy in the chest with a crossbow should probably kill him too, and so on. :)

[Mentor]

Interesting point. If one only views the Hero combat as a matter of how much STUN and BODY penetrate the various defenses at the end of the day, then the game is predictable in the extreme. Nothing could interest me less.

OTOH, how the team got to the the villains, what obstacles were overcome to engage the final guardians, what the Heroes say and do; how they respond to threatened normals and an easy cheap shot based on their characters; what do they say to the villains; do they give thm an opportunity to surrender or attack with hot and passionate lust for justice or revenge? Do players whine when the Brick or nergy pProjector dish out or take less STUN than the Mentalist or Martial Artist in an average twelve phase turn? Number crunching? "Yawn".

These and the numerous role playing aspects which can only be engaged in the imagination of the players and GM alike through descriptive language from both parties is what separates hero from Yahtzee or craps, where it is all just about the pips on the dice. Even those games make it more interesting with a wager or limited number of sets.

So in the final analysis, hero, or any RPG for that matter is only as predictable as the participants make it.

[Cancer]

Yeah, this is a rephrasing of the flat versus peaked probability distribution function debate. I hate flat p.d.f.'s with a passion, so my comments have to be taken with that in mind.

Preferring a flat p.d.f. (like d20) is saying you'd rather be lucky than good, so you'll never be good. You'll always have that 5% critical failure chance, and IMO, no one who's actually good at something will fail at routine tasks in that endeavor anywhere close to 5% of the time.

[Thia Halmades]

I don't consider it "predictable" as much as I consider it "stable." In d20, the rule applies in a similar fashion, really - you add the insane bonuses you receive based on circumstance, strength, enchantments, etc. and toss 2d6 for great sword damage. The d20 provides a variable chance of a critical threat (5 - 15% for most weapons) and then is rolled again to determine if a critical hit is rolled. I suppose, from a PC standpoint, that's very exciting.

But from the DM chair I sit in, I don't see a great deal of difference. Yes, yes, I know I tend to use a tilda to represent an equals sign more often than I should, but hear me out for a moment. In HERO with normal damage, each 6 deals 2 body, each pip is STUN. People have a to hit, they have defenses. You're still calculating damage, looking to make the most of opportunities, etc. Because there are so many ways to hurt people in HERO, I have difficulty thinking in terms of "This effect works the same every time, therefore it's boring."

IMHO, d20 spells cap out to similar effects. A 10th level Fireball is no different from a 15th level Fireball - you've reached the maximum effect of the spell, but it'll never be Armor Piercing, any more than your opponent is likely to be Hardened. There are more variables in how damage is handled the deeper you get into HERO.

I think what I'm saying is that you're comparing apples & oranges, so what I see as being roughly equating (dealing damage with dice to an appropriately powerful foe) may be a left field concept for some people. But as a convert to the Church of FREd, I can say with total honesty that HERO combat is far from boring. I consider it to have more options, and be more interesting, than d20 combat.

[ghost-angel]

It sounds like an excuse or cop out on the part of your friend to actually learn and play the system.

[Vondy]

In my Freedom Patrol game I used a modified standard effect chart based on the margin of the to hit roll. This made the damage effects and to some degree combat aspects of characters more linear, but also sped up play, and really rewarded good "to hit" rolls with a big payoff. The motivations were:

1) I had one player with an advanced degree (not math) who couldn't count up 10D6 to save his life or tell me what DCV he hit, and another who could handle arithmatic without a pen and paper... but time crept on like a slow worm on a straight razor.

2) Its really lame to roll a "3" to hit at a critical moment and then turn around and roll "12" on 10D6 for damage (its happened).

3) As you add more dice the flatter the curve gets - and using time to count up a flattish curve isn't my biggest joy (though others love it). If its predictable, then lets not waste time verifying what we already know and focus on the cool descriptions and collective story.
It had the following positive effects:
1) The quality of the hit corresponded to the quality of the damage, and that meant really good to hit rolls could have dramatic effects.

2) Because most effects were in an expected range my players worried more about "character" and less about "build."

3) The focus on better to hit rolls than more damage dice ended the attack/defence arms race common to champions games, which made my life easier in terms of long-term campaign planning and maintenance.

It had the following neutral effects:
1) There was a shift towards skill levelism as opposed to big attackism, which meant martial artists and super-soldiers became very popular, though other character concepts can also support skill level buys.

2) Characters on the low end of the DCV chart tended, because they had to roll well to hit at all, to hit big. This, however, often proved both in-concept or dramatically appropriate.

And the following negative effect:
1) Sometimes the builds I received (or made) were, well, predictable. They were built to linear standards because the expectations were fairly linear. On the other hand, this meant the look and feel of the character, as well as their special effects and story, were the main course. This is good if you are story-centered, bad if you are a mechanics hound.

2) I needed to pay close attention at design time to builds to ensure the combination of damage dice and high CV wouldn't be a total killer. I didn't have a rule of X beyond an experienced GM gut, but there it was.
Overall, because my players were mostly "dramatists" and "thinkers," and because we were very big on descriptive action over abstract number effects, the speed it provided, as well as the linear mechanical expectations, freed us to do what we enjoyed most. Other groups, especially tinkerers, might not feel that way. I got to the point where, beyond a quick notation, I just looked at the "level of effect" and described the results accordingly.

Basically, I divided the characters "to hit margin" into three parts. For example, a character with a 10OCV attacking a character with a 9DCV (12 to hit) would have the following margins (STN/BDY):
Roll 10-12: Standard Effect: 3/1

Roll 7-9: Standard Effect: 4.5/1

Roll 3-6: Standard Effect: 6/2

For killing attacks I did the following:
1) If the attack was purchased with "normal weapon" then:

Effect: 3 Body per die + Stun X.

This kept players who liked bricks and power-armored types from buying ridiculously high defenses that skewed the campaign levels upward in fear of goons holding up convenience stores with handguns.

2) If the attack wasn't purchased with "normal weapon then, if we use the same CV ratios as above:

Roll 10-12: 3 Body per die + Stun X.

Roll 7-9: 4.5 Body per die (round up) + stun X.

Roll 3-6: 6 Body per die + stun X.

For us it worked, but different people have different wants and needs. Your mileage may vary.

[Kristopher]

I'm pretty sure that the average per-die on d6 is always 3.5, no matter how many dice you're rolling.

[Vondy]

I'm pretty sure that the average per-die on d6 is always 3.5, no matter how many dice you're rolling.

You are correct.

And as an aside, the fact that the "standard effect" rules state you round down for each die instead of rounding up for the total dice is kind of a raw deal.

[Sean Waters]

HA! I only THINK it is predictable, then, just when I've got the next seven moves worked out to the fourth decimal place it goes and does something unpredictable.

Have your friend roll one damage die and multiply by the DC :)

Seriously folks, Hero damage is completely different from dnd: for one thing we have important thresholds, like defences which subtract damage (unlike most games) and CON levels for stunning: a few points difference can make all the predictability fly out of the window and turn into butterflies.

Thinking that the range of possible damage is the measure of predictability is not thinking the whole thing through - probably because your friend is assuming that Hero is just another sort of dnd - it is not - it is qualitatively different.

[Seenar]

Interesting point. If one only views the Hero combat as a matter of how much STUN and BODY penetrate the various defenses at the end of the day, then the game is predictable in the extreme. Nothing could interest me less.

OTOH, how the team got to the the villains, what obstacles were overcome to engage the final guardians, what the Heroes say and do; how they respond to threatened normals and an easy cheap shot based on their characters; what do they say to the villains; do they give thm an opportunity to surrender or attack with hot and passionate lust for justice or revenge? Do players whine when the Brick or nergy pProjector dish out or take less STUN than the Mentalist or Martial Artist in an average twelve phase turn? Number crunching? "Yawn".

These and the numerous role playing aspects which can only be engaged in the imagination of the players and GM alike through descriptive language from both parties is what separates hero from Yahtzee or craps, where it is all just about the pips on the dice. Even those games make it more interesting with a wager or limited number of sets.

So in the final analysis, hero, or any RPG for that matter is only as predictable as the participants make it.


I think this is a good point. If you want to emphasis role-playing, a stable sysstem is the way to go.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I'm pretty sure that the average per-die on d6 is always 3.5, no matter how many dice you're rolling.Yes, but that doesn't mean the total doesn't become more "stable" or "predictable" (or whatever you want to call it) as you add more dice.

Your chance of rolling maximum damage on 1d6 is one in six.

Your chance of rolling maximum damage on 15d6 is about one in 50 million. :)

[tesuji]

Preferring a flat p.d.f. (like d20) is saying you'd rather be lucky than good, so you'll never be good. You'll always have that 5% critical failure chance, and IMO, no one who's actually good at something will fail at routine tasks in that endeavor anywhere close to 5% of the time.

Just to add some facts here...

In D20, for skills, there is not "fail on a 1 rule" in MOST versions of D20 (like DND and most of its derivatives) though some OGL games (Spycraft for one) do add criticals on skills rolls for success and fail they also have a second element, like spending a hero point, to activate said critical. So when talking skills, D20 games usually don't do the crit/fail thing.

In D20, for attacks, which do have the 1 and 20 rule, it is actually very rare for the 55 chance to be your only chance of failure. most challenges will by their defense vs your offense have you failing by the numbers 3 or more times in 20. In cases where the target is stationary and so "only on a 1" might be an issue, you don't have to roll. As for crit successes, the probability varies and requires a second roll, so its really not so clean.

Now, some might feel missing an actively evading combatent 1 time in 20 is too frequent... but for me, it really hasn't ever seemed so in practice.

As for flat vs bell curve, and the predicatbility of outcomes, its much more in the choice of the DC than the dice used that gives you probability "flatness" or "predictability. if HERo says 12- and D20 says 6+ they are both saying "75% success" and "25% fail" even though one says it with 3d6 and the other says it with one d20.

The big difference between the two is one hands me as Gm nice even 55 increments to scale with while the other hands me variable increments from 12.5% to way less than 1%.

[Rapier]

Oh...I thought maybe Hero was running around eating all the rest of the other RPGs. Chew on some D20? Talk about indigestion!

[Doc Democracy]

There's nothing wrong with predictable. I've run several games over the years using average damage [10d6 = 35 stun, 10 body] instead of rolling it, and then just giving extra damage for a to-hit roll of 3 [+10 stun, +3 body] or 4 [+5 stun, +1 body]. By doing that I was able to speed up the game and give a "crit" factor without really changing the system.

I kind of like this, though I think I would make the extras relative to the to hit roll - +10 STUN for rolls 8 less than required, +5 for rolls four less than required.

I did a version of that but I lost all the fun of rolling fistfuls of dice and have recently decided that I would add 1D6 to the damage dice for every 2 I rolled below the to hit number (but retained a maximum STUN and BODY based on the original dice).

That had the side bonus of adding to the number of dice being rolled but didn't change the extreme ranges in anything but probability - the randomness of the 3D6 to hit roll was counterbalancing the tendency to the mean of the 10+D6 damage rolls...


Doc

[Ockham's Spoon]

I don't find Hero combat that predictable; if it were then I wouldn't mismatch combats so badly as GM. There are so many variables (defenses and such as Sean mentioned, and various attack powers as Thia mentioned) that you can't really say it is predictable. If I hear something like that from a player, my response is that you need to be more creative in combat if you are bored just throwing 10d6 each time you hit. This is a role-playing game, not Monopoly.

That said, I do empathize with the idea that you can roll a 3 and then do lousy damage. Our house rule is that if you roll under half of what you needed to hit (that is if you need a 12 to hit and you roll a 6 or lower), or a 3 in any event, then you get to roll damage twice and take the better roll. It does take slightly longer, but let me tell you players love being able to redo a bad roll.

__________________________________________________ ________
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little influence on society." - M. Twain.

[Kristopher]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the total doesn't become more "stable" or "predictable" (or whatever you want to call it) as you add more dice.

Your chance of rolling maximum damage on 1d6 is one in six.

Your chance of rolling maximum damage on 15d6 is about one in 50 million. :)

Well, yeah, but that's not what I was addressing. I saw a comment by someone that the average moves closer to 3.5 the more dice you roll.

[Dust Raven]

Just to add some facts here...

In D20, for skills, there is not "fail on a 1 rule" in MOST versions of D20 (like DND and most of its derivatives) though some OGL games (Spycraft for one) do add criticals on skills rolls for success and fail they also have a second element, like spending a hero point, to activate said critical. So when talking skills, D20 games usually don't do the crit/fail thing.

It's not so much the crit thing in d20. Crits are damn difficult to get unless you are skilled. You might get lucky, but being skilled actually helps. You have to make a second roll upon getting that lucky 20, and that second roll just has to succeed normally. If you are completly unskilled and need that 20 just to succeed, you probably aren't going to crit.

But there is this happy little rule that a 20 always succeeds anda 1 always fails. And this is regardless of skill. There's a tiny little rule that says if you would fail by 10 or more even if you roll a 20, you automatically fail without a roll, and something similar to succeeding on a 1, but such things are rare. You basicly have a 5% chance of failing something you are really good at (with is way too high) and a 5% chance of succeeding at anything you totally suck at (which again, is too high).

Does it make the game more unpredictable? Sure as hell does! The skilled failing and the unskilled succeding would define upredictable.

[Dust Raven]

But we were talking about dmage rolls or something, right?

I recently had a friend say to me he thought that Hero was no fun because once you start rollilng a lot of dice, the outcome was too predictable. In other words, 10 dice is usually pretty close to 35 points.

Obviously, the more dice you roll, the closer to the mean you will tend to roll. But, I for one like the excitment of rolling lots of damage dice and counting up to the high number.

I have given what he said a lot of thought and wondered if he might have been looking for the "crit on 20" sort of thing, where players get the excitement of rolling again.

What are people's thoughts on this?

As your friend some questions:

1) Which do you find more fun: rolling dice, or role-playing? If he answers rolling dice, suggest he play Yatzee.

2) Which do you find more enjoyable: skilled characters failing do to random chance while unskilled characters succeed for the same reason (making whether or not a character is skilled at something of little importantance), or the knowledge that if your character is skilled at something, he'll succeed where the unskilled fail? Or in otherwords, when protraying his character, would he rather depend on random chance, or on making good decisions and having the skill and ability to carry them out?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Well, yeah, but that's not what I was addressing. I saw a comment by someone that the average moves closer to 3.5 the more dice you roll.Ah, gotcha. They should have said it the other way around... the more dice you roll, the closer the total on the dice stays to (3.5*x), where x is the number of dice rolled.

[Simon]

Ah, gotcha. They should have said it the other way around... the more dice you roll, the closer the total on the dice stays to (3.5*x), where x is the number of dice rolled.
Which is not, in fact, the case.

The observed average of the dice that you roll will get closer to 3.5. The total on the dice that you roll will average 3.5*x, but the deviation will increase (note: as a number, not percentage of total) the more dice that you roll.

Roll 100d6. You'll see rather large swings in the total vs. what you see when you roll 2d6.

[Dust Raven]

Which is not, in fact, the case.

The observed average of the dice that you roll will get closer to 3.5. The total on the dice that you roll will average 3.5*x, but the deviation will increase (note: as a number, not percentage of total) the more dice that you roll.

Roll 100d6. You'll see rather large swings in the total vs. what you see when you roll 2d6.

Numerically, yes, but only because you are dealing with larger numbers. With 2d6, the max you can possible deviate from the mean is 5. I've no doubt that when you roll 100d6 you'll deviate by more than 5 on nearly any roll. But while you'll roll a 2 or a 12 very often on 2d6, you'll almost never roll 100 or 600 on 100d6. You won't ever get close. Compared to the possible results, you'll almost always roll within a very tight group centered around the average result of 350. In fact, the chances of getting above 400 or below 300 is very very low. Imagine rolling just 1d6 and only ever rolling a 3 or 4.

[Simon]

Numerically, yes, but only because you are dealing with larger numbers. With 2d6, the max you can possible deviate from the mean is 5. I've no doubt that when you roll 100d6 you'll deviate by more than 5 on nearly any roll. But while you'll roll a 2 or a 12 very often on 2d6, you'll almost never roll 100 or 600 on 100d6. You won't ever get close. Compared to the possible results, you'll almost always roll within a very tight group centered around the average result of 350. In fact, the chances of getting above 400 or below 300 is very very low. Imagine rolling just 1d6 and only ever rolling a 3 or 4.
Which changes nothing about what I said. I'm not talking about maxing out your roll -- I was discussing the amount of variation (net, not as a percentage) that you will see. Since you don't average your numbers in Hero, there's very little point in saying that your percentage variation is less and less the more dice you roll -- it's the raw numbers that count, and they will vary by ever-increasing amounts.

[Dust Raven]

Which changes nothing about what I said. I'm not talking about maxing out your roll -- I was discussing the amount of variation (net, not as a percentage) that you will see. Since you don't average your numbers in Hero, there's very little point in saying that your percentage variation is less and less the more dice you roll -- it's the raw numbers that count, and they will vary by ever-increasing amounts.

How would the raw numbers count? In the contect of the game, we don't ever deal with raw numbers.

If your roll will typically vary by around 50 points when you increase the number of dice by a factor of 10, how does that matter when you also increase the typical DEF and STUN fof the target by the same amount?

If you roll 10d6 for an average of 35 against an average DEF of 25, you'll do an average of 10 STUN per hit. This may vary, typically, by 10 points in either direction, so you'll be doing between 0 and 20 points to the target. Assuming an average STUN of 40, you'll be doing anywhere from nothing to to half the target's STUN with an average result of one forth.

x10 everything. 100d6 has an average of 350, but doesn't have a typical spread between 250 and 450. It's more like 320 to 380. Against the average x10 DEF (250) and x10 STUN (400) this leaves an average result of 100 STUN (1/4 total, as above) but a spread of only 70 to 130 STUN after defenses.

Sure, the difference between 130 and 70 is larger than the difference between 25 and 45, but not when you bring in the other factors of the game. The game play difference makes the "larger spread" give a more predictable final result.

[tesuji]

But there is this happy little rule that a 20 always succeeds anda 1 always fails. And this is regardless of skill.



Again, for many versions of D20, like DnD, that is for attacks against defending targets.

Skills have no such rule, normally.

That rule is there to provide for the unpredictability of COMBAT against active adversaries or when you are under the gun yourself.

That doesn't seem all that out of whack, in that context.

For skills, typically you do not have any autofail or autosucceed. Whether you do or don't is simply a mqtter of the DC, your bonuses and your roll and a 1 can still succeed and a 20 can still fail.

Out of combat/strees, you can even take-10 and take-20 to avoid the dice and their unpredictability entirely.

Again, doesn't seem that out of whack.

A guy who can pick a lock tuesday can pick the same lock wednesday, unless on wednesday someone is shooting at him while he is trying it.

However, as already stated, some OGL games and maybe some oddball D20 ones do have added elements like Crits/errors on skill checks and some of them might have a 1 always succeeds and a 20 always wins but As i don't own everything d20 i cannot be certain.

[tesuji]

1) Which do you find more fun: rolling dice, or role-playing? If he answers rolling dice, suggest he play Yatzee.


uhh.. Ok but remember, the complaint is that he rolls MORE dice in HERO than in whatever "other game" he prefers. So if you are going to put role playing up as in either/or to "rolling dice" then you are driving the "prefers roleplaying" AWAY FROM HERO... as HERO means more dice to him.

Now that may be your intent but if not, perhaps this approach should be reconsidered?

[archermoo]

uhh.. Ok but remember, the complaint is that he rolls MORE dice in HERO than in whatever "other game" he prefers. So if you are going to put role playing up as in either/or to "rolling dice" then you are driving the "prefers roleplaying" AWAY FROM HERO... as HERO means more dice to him.

Now that may be your intent but if not, perhaps this approach should be reconsidered?

Actually unless I'm misreading the initial post the complaint was that once you start rolling lots of dice that it becomes to predictable. Not that he doesn't like rolling lots of dice.

[Eosin]

A note of interest.

Reading several of the designers notes and some of the R&D for d20 – their opinion is thus: the more variable a system the more likely that a TPK is the outcome. Players receive an inordinate number of attacks on them (opposed to a mook who gets a whack and dies), this dramatically ups the odds that the dice will play against the PCs rather than for them. This reasoning factored into crits and into the progression of attacks, saves, and damage. If you take a quick look-see under the hood of d20 by about 7-10th level the die to modifier number flips and the bulk of your success is dependant on those modifiers…. i.e. at 8th level the fighter has +14 to hit and does 1d8+10 to damage…… The die continue to decrease in significance as the level goes up. Hero System is already build this way to a large degree, particularly when it comes to damage. Dice level out with averages and it is significantly harder to break the curve with 10d6 than it is with 2 or 3 d6.

Predictability is a player and game survival factor. The less of it there is, the more likely a game will meet an abrupt outcome.

PS – This is why the Stun Lotto is constantly bemoaned. IMO

[Blue Jogger]

I recently had a friend say to me he thought that Hero was no fun because once you start rollilng a lot of dice, the outcome was too predictable. In other words, 10 dice is usually pretty close to 35 points.

Obviously, the more dice you roll, the closer to the mean you will tend to roll. But, I for one like the excitment of rolling lots of damage dice and counting up to the high number.

I have given what he said a lot of thought and wondered if he might have been looking for the "crit on 20" sort of thing, where players get the excitement of rolling again.

What are people's thoughts on this?


Actually, if you want less predictability start buying the high end with Activation Rolls. Like this:

6D6 Energy Blast
+4D6 Energy Blast, Activation 11-
+4D6 Energy Blast, Activation 8-

Now, you'll have at least 6 dice all of time, 10 dice 50% of the time, and 14 dice 25% of the time.
This works out to be cheaper than 10 dice, but you will have to suffer with ONLY 6 dice, 25% of the time.

[tesuji]

Actually unless I'm misreading the initial post the complaint was that once you start rolling lots of dice that it becomes to predictable. Not that he doesn't like rolling lots of dice.

Ok so its not that he doesn't like rolling more dice, its just that he dislikes what happens when he rolls more dice.

I still don't see where pitting rolling dice vs roleplaying moves him towards the game where rolling more dice is what he expects there as op[posed to away from it.

[coolie]

Look man, I have been a dm and I remember the first time I met the loophole player, they find a loophole and exploit it, all games have them and against a player like that its unavoidable, there are certain things you can do to make a game exciting, and Alex, a really good DM frien of mine said he played a really cool game in which the DM took normals, no powers, no real advantages, and found a way to get the players. He did it with mass quantities of villians all bent to take down the heroes at any cost. Also, in my games I like to mix it up a little, instead of focusing on obvious combat try this, create a villian who is not very pysically strong, maybe give the villian no powers at all, give that criminal or villian a high intelligence, I have done this twice already, then build a campaign in which the villian is the actual friend of the character, I mean don't make it obvious, make the villian very appealling, then drive into the character a form of trust, I mean have the villian as an NPC type, kind of like a free contact they gained in the game. Then let the villian have a belief, something that both the player and the players character would believe in, then have cool adventures, then bam, unpredictable concept which works in any roleplaying game. Don't do it to soon, I have had a really cool game because the character giving away the plans to the major villian in my game was his characters closest friend in the game, he kinda did not want to play anymore. I know u r talking more in terms of the system itself being predictable. hold on let me read the post again, for a different kind of awnser.

[coolie]

If you want to balance things out heres another thing u can do. Its tedious but its worked for me in Mayfairs DC game.take the characters in your game and calculate the point values, then find where those point values are actually spent and make villians who are there equal or just a tad better. Also, look at what they have. If they are slow, put them up against something with high dex. If they have a high dex, build vilians with powers who set traps before hand and make them role detection roles, if they fail they get zonked, almost as if the villian new they would dodge right and they were counting on that, make loopholes of your own and it becomes a loophole chessgame, which can actually be kind of fun.

[Dust Raven]

...snip...

All I have is D&D, and I recall such a rule applying to skills. I could be wrong here, or else it's one of those other changes when they made 3.5. Dunno. You seem the larger authority having experience with other d20 games, so I'll step down from this.

[Dust Raven]

uhh.. Ok but remember, the complaint is that he rolls MORE dice in HERO than in whatever "other game" he prefers. So if you are going to put role playing up as in either/or to "rolling dice" then you are driving the "prefers roleplaying" AWAY FROM HERO... as HERO means more dice to him.

Now that may be your intent but if not, perhaps this approach should be reconsidered?

It seemed to me that the guy didn't like Hero not because it used more dice, but because more dice meant reducing the random factor. Role-playing games, at least for me, should be more about role-playing than about rolling dice for random crap to happen.



Ok so its not that he doesn't like rolling more dice, its just that he dislikes what happens when he rolls more dice.

I still don't see where pitting rolling dice vs roleplaying moves him towards the game where rolling more dice is what he expects there as op[posed to away from it.


A role-playing game just uses dice as a random factor to determin a outcome based on the decisions of the characters. Most of what happens is in the direct hands of the players, not the dice. My remark about Yatzee is that if he would rather have the majority of the game be in the hands of the dice, then he might as well play a game like that (which Yatzee is, I could have easily has Monopoly or any number of other games, but I like Yatzee myself, when I'm in that kind of mood).

[tesuji]

All I have is D&D, and I recall such a rule applying to skills. I could be wrong here, or else it's one of those other changes when they made 3.5. Dunno. You seem the larger authority having experience with other d20 games, so I'll step down from this.

Actually, neither 3.0 or 3.5 had such a rule for SKILLS. It applied to combat rolls (attack rolls) only.

Now, I seem to recall there being disagreement over whether it also applied to saving throws and that may have changed between 3.0 and 3.5 since they seemed to flip-flop about it.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



It seemed to me that the guy didn't like Hero not because it used more dice, but because more dice meant reducing the random factor. Role-playing games, at least for me, should be more about role-playing than about rolling dice for random crap to happen.

We don't really disagree on this. I just don't see these as things you choose between, as an either/or, but in both cases as independent of each other ranges. I can roleplay my character, have him make decisions based on his personality and experience, and still have the determination of success /fail at certain actions be more random or less random regardless.

For example, i can play a WILD TALENT mage who has very unprecictable magic spells with frequent side effects and activation rolls for the level of power and rolls for how much endurance they suck and so on and so forth and role play that guy just fine even though a lot of his "results" are determined highly randomly.

I can also play a serious mage academic who takes extra time and never makes a roll for magic and never suffers side effects and role play him just fine too, regardless of the fact that his results are entirely predictable.

Role-playing is not at odds with unpredictability or increased randomness of results.

That said, I disagree with his initial premise that HERo is more predictable than say DND. I mean, when i roll a 10d6 fireball in either system, its the same and once you get down to just comparing the d20 to the 3d6 its going to be the DC that sets the predictability more than anything else.


A role-playing game just uses dice as a random factor to determin a outcome based on the decisions of the characters. Most of what happens is in the direct hands of the players, not the dice.

OK


My remark about Yatzee is that if he would rather have the majority of the game be in the hands of the dice, then he might as well play a game like that (which Yatzee is, I could have easily has Monopoly or any number of other games, but I like Yatzee myself, when I'm in that kind of mood).

Yeah, the only thing is, the guy didn't say he wanted the majority of the game to be in the hands of the dice. You have gone to an extreme.

All he said was it was "too predictable" and thats a far sight removed from the majority of the control being in the dice.

truth be told, how predictable HERo is really comes down to genre and campaign more than anything else. Do your typical spells run with normal damage (more dice, more predictable) or with killing damage (fewer dice with more impact and stun lotto)? What level of competence do the PCs play at?

[Mentor]

I am still rather surprised by the number of posts which have determined the predictability of the Hero systme based on the dice rolled. The player rolling 10D6 averaging 35 points of STUN damage neither determines how much damage will penetrate defenses, given the variables of PDvs ED attack and the respective PD/ED of the target. The liklihood of hitting the target is based on the character construction of the attacker and defender as well as actions being taken by both. Range and skill levels also are part of this equation.

Thus for Hero to be as predictable as detractors think, one must assume that the attacker always hits and all defenders have the same defense.

[Eosin]

Thus for Hero to be as predictable as detractors think, one must assume that the attacker always hits and all defenders have the same defense.

I think that goes without saying. Just like a d20 example could be a dagger against a foe with -/10 DR... nothing says he hits or penetrates the defenses.

More to the point ~ Predictibility is a good thing in game design at in as much as nearly every professional designer ascribes to its benefits and derides too much varibility.

[Rapier]

I don't think much of any RPGs are predictable. Well, I mean it depends on how you define predictable. Its easy to predict:

- Going insane in Cthulu
- Getting screwed by your friends in Paranoia
- Getting silly in Toon

But the general eb and flow of dice rolls? What a putz (and you can tell him I called him that)! :) When it comes down to it, while an increasing sample will tend to hit the average of 3.5, rolling 10 or 12 dice is still not much of a sample to push the average to an unsurprising median.

If you are rolling 100 or 1000 dice, yes, the total rolled is not going to be that surprising...you've got a very large sample. When rolling 10, 12 or even 15 or 18 dice, the sample is simply not large enough to throw the curve.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

[Dust Raven]

We don't really disagree on this. I just don't see these as things you choose between, as an either/or, but in both cases as independent of each other ranges. I can roleplay my character, have him make decisions based on his personality and experience, and still have the determination of success /fail at certain actions be more random or less random regardless.

For example, i can play a WILD TALENT mage who has very unprecictable magic spells with frequent side effects and activation rolls for the level of power and rolls for how much endurance they suck and so on and so forth and role play that guy just fine even though a lot of his "results" are determined highly randomly.

I can also play a serious mage academic who takes extra time and never makes a roll for magic and never suffers side effects and role play him just fine too, regardless of the fact that his results are entirely predictable.

Role-playing is not at odds with unpredictability or increased randomness of results.

That said, I disagree with his initial premise that HERo is more predictable than say DND. I mean, when i roll a 10d6 fireball in either system, its the same and once you get down to just comparing the d20 to the 3d6 its going to be the DC that sets the predictability more than anything else
It's hard to compare. D&D is as predictable or unpredictable as it is, and there is nothing to do about it. You either play it that way or you don't play it. With Hero System, you can set the prediticability level by allowing or disallowing Complimentary Skills, using or not using Activation Roll/RSR Limitations and whether or not Standard Effect is used. Hero can be more predictable, or less predictable as the players see fit.

But this is really here nor there I suppose.


OK

Yeah, the only thing is, the guy didn't say he wanted the majority of the game to be in the hands of the dice. You have gone to an extreme.
Yes I have. I like to exagerate. It's fun and makes people run in terror of what someone might have meant. :D


All he said was it was "too predictable" and thats a far sight removed from the majority of the control being in the dice.
I know. It's why I suggesting asking him. Exagerate I do, but I don't know this guy from Adam.


truth be told, how predictable HERo is really comes down to genre and campaign more than anything else. Do your typical spells run with normal damage (more dice, more predictable) or with killing damage (fewer dice with more impact and stun lotto)? What level of competence do the PCs play at?

[Trebuchet]

I recently had a friend say to me he thought that Hero was no fun because once you start rollilng a lot of dice, the outcome was too predictable. In other words, 10 dice is usually pretty close to 35 points.

Obviously, the more dice you roll, the closer to the mean you will tend to roll. But, I for one like the excitment of rolling lots of damage dice and counting up to the high number.

I have given what he said a lot of thought and wondered if he might have been looking for the "crit on 20" sort of thing, where players get the excitement of rolling again.

What are people's thoughts on this?I don't even see how your friend could have reached such a conclusion about Hero. Even were Hero system combats nothing more than simply standing and blasting/hitting each other until one opponent or the other falls over it would not be all that predictable. Any character can:

Attack
Move
Block
Dodge
Dive for Cover
Grab
Throw
Disarm
Brace
Set
Push
Haymaker
Hold Action
Abort

Then the number of possible attacks with different Powers is quite large - Flash, RKA/HKA, EB, Transform, Change Environment, Ego Blast, etc. Start adding in various Advantages like NND, AP, PEN, AVLD, AOE, EX, and counters like Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Power Defense, Hardening. CON, STUN, and defenses increase the variations further. The number of possible permutations is practically infinite; and we haven't even discussed SPD or mobility differences.

Yes, if you define combat solely as "I shoot him with my 10d6 EB" then there might be grounds to say it's predictable. But I've never seen an actual Champions battle done that way. :)

[Rick]

I'm sure how predictablity is a deterent to roleplaying. Considering that players spend points on these abilities a little predictability is a bonus. Besides if you want randomness gamble, go to vegas. Sorry for the dig but it seems like a very odd complaint. In regards to PC doing the same thing over and over again, well that sounds like the PC is predictable, the system has little to do with that.

[Dust Raven]

Something just occurred to me. Maybe we're all coming at this from the wrong side of the fence. We're all Hero System fans, right? One of the reason's we like Hero System is that we can just spend out points and get exactly what we want? We don't randomly roll our stats or randomly roll on some chart to see how many of what types of powers we get.

Maybe these players of other system actually like that kinda thing. I can even see how throwing something completely random might be fun and challenging to play.

Then again, once play starts, I think I'd rather have a good idea of what's likely to happen when Mr. Powerful starts lobbing Uberbeams at everybody. It'd be ridiculous to jump right out in the hopes that the damage is rolled low, or live in fear of high roll when your stats are down.

Besides, no one ever in fiction ever says: "One more hit like that and we're finished... unless it's an unlucky shot that does little damage."

[Barton]

At RockCon I played a DC comic RPG game. I HATED the system, the GM was rather good but the mechanics were VERY random. It uses a D6 like system with a "wildcard die" (I think that is what they called it). If you rolled a 1 it was a miss NO matter what and a 6 was a hit no matter what. I found 16% change of critical failure or of critical success was too large. It leads to random unpredicitable combat. Mooks could easly hit a superhero, while sometimes the supers could not hit the street-level mooks. IMHO that is not in genre. So is HERO predicitable, yes to an extent, but as a I GM I like that that. It makes making villians easier, I can predict to some extent the outcome of battles and not have to worry too much about under or over powering my players's opponents.

[Agent X]

Not using a bell curve for damage classes could be a bit problematic if you are using autofire attacks, rapid fire attacks, and the like.

There is a reason why I think any Munchkin worth his salt should understand the wonderful(?) exploits one can make of autofire 3 rkas.

[casualplayer]

Damage swings mightily in HERO. More dice means a greater range of results with a predictable mean. If you don't like the buzzkill that happens when you score a beauty Hit Roll and crap out on damage, you could do what I do. I roll and track all damage in my games (END too.) If I don't think the damage roll is appropriate to the situation and the Hit Roll, I fudge it. Of course I track HPs in d20 games also. Play the game, not the system.

[Dust Raven]

Damage swings mightily in HERO. More dice means a greater range of results with a predictable mean. If you don't like the buzzkill that happens when you score a beauty Hit Roll and crap out on damage, you could do what I do. I roll and track all damage in my games (END too.) If I don't think the damage roll is appropriate to the situation and the Hit Roll, I fudge it. Of course I track HPs in d20 games also. Play the game, not the system.

I use a "critical" hit rule that turns low numbers rolled on individual dice to higher numbers depending on how good the roll was. A roll of 5 turns all ones into twos, and roll of 4 turns all ones and twos into threes and a roll of 3 turns all ones twos and threes into fours.

[zornwil]

I think this is a good point. If you want to emphasis role-playing, a stable sysstem is the way to go.
I don't think that follows, I think there's a lot of ways to reward roleplaying in systems which have wide variance in outcomes (which I substitute for "non-stable" since that's not quite the same as saying the system isn't stable).

That being said, the issue of predictability is, as has been said, a matter of taste and what sort of play experience the system is promoting. HERO promotes a fairly notable level of predictability, although by the same token I have seen many people complain it's not predictable enough, even, with answers varying in degree from "just hand-wave where it's dramatically correct" to using standard effect.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all. Deadlands was highly unpredictable and IMHO one of the best games ever designed - for what it did. Savage Worlds promotes much higher unpredictability in damage/degree of an outcome (not so much actual probability of success) than HERO. I personally think that for more over-the-top adventure, a 2d10 curve works well. And so on. But I also think that any number of probability curves for damage and success can work, just depends on the game.

Anyway, yes, HERO is more predictable, and for the level of heroism it tends to work best with, I think this is okay. It's also easy enough to fix without undue tweaking.

[zornwil]

It's not so much the crit thing in d20. Crits are damn difficult to get unless you are skilled. You might get lucky, but being skilled actually helps. You have to make a second roll upon getting that lucky 20, and that second roll just has to succeed normally. If you are completly unskilled and need that 20 just to succeed, you probably aren't going to crit.

But there is this happy little rule that a 20 always succeeds anda 1 always fails. And this is regardless of skill. There's a tiny little rule that says if you would fail by 10 or more even if you roll a 20, you automatically fail without a roll, and something similar to succeeding on a 1, but such things are rare. You basicly have a 5% chance of failing something you are really good at (with is way too high) and a 5% chance of succeeding at anything you totally suck at (which again, is too high).

Does it make the game more unpredictable? Sure as hell does! The skilled failing and the unskilled succeding would define upredictable.
Well, it's not a core system feature, it's easy to ignore/modify, and furthermore, importantly, one can (and generally should) not require a skill roll in ANY heroic roleplay system for something that is (as kicked this off) "routine". One does skill rolls for time-sensitive things or challenges.

[Sean Waters]

What is predictable about Hero?

Well, someone who is good at combat can expect to hit reliably, but it is by no means certain. To hit, Hero uses 3d6: a bell curve, but not too steep: extreme reults do happen (with alarming frequency in practice)

Someone who hits hard can expect a certain range of damage when they land a bow, but they won't know what they are going to get. Now Hero damage applies differently to almost every other system: we have substantial reductions from damage in the form of defences, and the amount through defences can be critical if it amounts to a stun result; a small differnce in damage rolled can make a huge difference in effect.

I strongly suspect that anyone who does not think that Hero is random enough has little real feel for the way the game works and how the mechanics mesh in practice. To assume that it works like other games and should therefore have 'greater' randomness is to miss the subtlety and beauty of the system.

[Zeropoint]

A skeleton with a battle axe versus a fighter in banded mail seems pretty unpredictable in Hero. It could roll 4 Body and a x1 stun multiplier, and the fighter barely feels it. Or, it could roll an 11 Body and a x5 stun multiplier, and the fighter is badly injured, Stunned, and very nearly KO'ed.

You can ask one of my players how he feels about that. :)

I actually feel that the stun multiplier is too UNpredictable.

[Dust Raven]

Well, it's not a core system feature, it's easy to ignore/modify, and furthermore, importantly, one can (and generally should) not require a skill roll in ANY heroic roleplay system for something that is (as kicked this off) "routine". One does skill rolls for time-sensitive things or challenges.

Automatically succeeding when you roll a 20 isn't a core system feature in d20? Seems like it's all over the books concerning attack rolls and skill rolls and saving throws and such.

I agree about when a skill should be asked for though. My grudge is that when it really matters, the unskilled and ignorant have too high a chance of success and the skilled and talented have too high a chance for failure.

[zornwil]

Automatically succeeding when you roll a 20 isn't a core system feature in d20? Seems like it's all over the books concerning attack rolls and skill rolls and saving throws and such.

I agree about when a skill should be asked for though. My grudge is that when it really matters, the unskilled and ignorant have too high a chance of success and the skilled and talented have too high a chance for failure.
First, I was referring to failure, and the question is, when we discuss "core", is does the game break if you remove automatic critical failure?

Actually, I have heard that WotC has said that only thac0 is really the core part of the system. Think about what that means!

[Silbeg]

That said, I do empathize with the idea that you can roll a 3 and then do lousy damage. Our house rule is that if you roll under half of what you needed to hit (that is if you need a 12 to hit and you roll a 6 or lower), or a 3 in any event, then you get to roll damage twice and take the better roll. It does take slightly longer, but let me tell you players love being able to redo a bad roll.
My group used to treat a 3 as a critical hit, which allowed for max damage. However, based on someone's idea (on these boards), we have recently changed this to allow the damage to be the nest possible result. This is, in part, due to certain characters' Psych Lims, such as CvK, being violated by a "good" roll.

As for the idea of the lack of variability in Hero System combat, I would say that practical experience (about25 years of Hero gaming) shows variability is the norm, not the exception

[SteelDoom]

Your chance of rolling maximum damage on 15d6 is about one in 50 million. :)

About the best I've done is all sixes on 8d6 (almost 1 in 2 million), then again I wonder how many times I've rolled dice in 17 years of gaming. And yes, I'm the guy that everyone around the table complains that I suck up all the good rolls ;)

[Kristopher]

The "Probability Sink", as it were.

[Dust Raven]

First, I was referring to failure, and the question is, when we discuss "core", is does the game break if you remove automatic critical failure?
I assume you mean normal automatic failure and not critical, since a critical failure is not even remotely automatic (and the d20 rules specifically say it's a bad idea to use critical failures in the first place). If you do remove the roll a 1 and automatically fail rule, the system for determing success and failure become more fair/balanced. Removing the roll a 20 and automatically succeed would seem to destroy all hope for some characters though, so I'm not sure. I just think the 3d6 bell curve is a much better way of determing success and failure.


Actually, I have heard that WotC has said that only thac0 is really the core part of the system. Think about what that means!
Funny, because THAC0 was one of the first things WotC tossed out when they redid the system.

[Dust Raven]

The "Probability Sink", as it were.

Probability Sink:

Term used to describe a boat with a hole in it.

[zornwil]

I assume you mean normal automatic failure and not critical, since a critical failure is not even remotely automatic (and the d20 rules specifically say it's a bad idea to use critical failures in the first place). If you do remove the roll a 1 and automatically fail rule, the system for determing success and failure become more fair/balanced. Removing the roll a 20 and automatically succeed would seem to destroy all hope for some characters though, so I'm not sure. I just think the 3d6 bell curve is a much better way of determing success and failure.


Funny, because THAC0 was one of the first things WotC tossed out when they redid the system.
From the game designers discussing it at DDC, that's how I heard it. I haven't read the system yet but just bought it; perhaps there's some sort of core of that, dunno myself.

[Dust Raven]

From the game designers discussing it at DDC, that's how I heard it. I haven't read the system yet but just bought it; perhaps there's some sort of core of that, dunno myself.

From what I can tell, having read the previous AD&D 2nd edition and the new WotC 3e and 3.5e, the only element I can find that's "core" is you roll a d20 to determine success and failure. Nothing else seemed sacred enough to keep as it was. Even how abilities were rolled up was changed.

[prestidigitator]

From what I can tell, having read the previous AD&D 2nd edition and the new WotC 3e and 3.5e, the only element I can find that's "core" is you roll a d20 to determine success and failure. Nothing else seemed sacred enough to keep as it was. Even how abilities were rolled up was changed.
Yep. I even occaisonally call the new D&D, "Class/Level-Based D20 Hero." :eg:

[SteelDoom]

It's worth noting that the auto fail or succeed does not apply to skill checks, just saving throws and attack rolls. DnD 3.5 is a good system at it's core and quite balanced. If you bring in the suppliments then that balance has to be re inforced by GM edict, just like Hero. I do disagree to an extent, Ghost Raven, I think the spirit of AD&D is reasonably well preserved overall. Though I've always been a Rolemaster fanboi (until recently) at heart ;)

[Dust Raven]

I do disagree to an extent, Ghost Raven, I think the spirit of AD&D is reasonably well preserved overall. Though I've always been a Rolemaster fanboi (until recently) at heart ;)

Personally, I feel AD&D's spirit was broken, brainwashed and rereleased into the public in much the same way a psychopath is when declaired sane just because he couldn't manage to eat someone's kidneys with a straightjacket on.

Of course, I'm also a bitter, jadded, cynical bastard. And I think WotC is the best thing to happen to the D&D franchise since Harvard, though it's still just a pale shadow of the reality that is the Hero System.

[prestidigitator]

Personally, I feel AD&D's spirit was broken, brainwashed and rereleased into the public in much the same way a psychopath is when declaired sane just because he couldn't manage to eat someone's kidneys with a straightjacket on.
Yeah. D&D 3+ just doesn't feel like 2nd Edition. Of course, most of the, "2.5 Edition," stuff (like Skills and Powers and Combat and Tactics) didn't either. With the lack of nostalgia and the Heroification of the system mechanics, I really see zero reasons to play it at this point.

[zornwil]

My impression is 3/3.5 was a deliberate overhaul and as such wasn't necessarily supposed to feel like 2nd.

[Kristopher]

Yeah, but it's still class and level based, and still uses a single die with no curve, and still crams armor and avoidance into "armor class", so to me it still feels exactly like an itchy, ill-fitting, smelly old sweater, er, I mean exactly like D&D.

[prestidigitator]

My impression is 3/3.5 was a deliberate overhaul and as such wasn't necessarily supposed to feel like 2nd.
Sure. The point is that if it doesn't feel like D&D, and it only comes mechanically part of the way toward Hero, there is absolutely no reason you shouldn't just go all the way to Hero instead of sticking with, "D&D."

[Sean Waters]

Personally, I feel AD&D's spirit was broken, brainwashed and rereleased into the public in much the same way a psychopath is when declaired sane just because he couldn't manage to eat someone's kidneys with a straightjacket on.

Of course, I'm also a bitter, jadded, cynical bastard. And I think WotC is the best thing to happen to the D&D franchise since Harvard, though it's still just a pale shadow of the reality that is the Hero System.

Would you like a dash of bile with your venom, Sir?

This is so beautifully put I'd rep you if I could, and I will if I remember, when I can.

[Dust Raven]

Yeah. D&D 3+ just doesn't feel like 2nd Edition. Of course, most of the, "2.5 Edition," stuff (like Skills and Powers and Combat and Tactics) didn't either. With the lack of nostalgia and the Heroification of the system mechanics, I really see zero reasons to play it at this point.

I rather like it actually. I find the new edition actually playable and balanced. I'd say the brainwashing worked. Of course, it can only do fantasy, only allows for a limited number of roles (which must be adhered to strictly to have successful characters), and a rigid magic system, but I must say it does these things quite well.

[Dust Raven]

Would you like a dash of bile with your venom, Sir?

No bile thank you, but a side of spittle would be nice. :D

[zornwil]

Sure. The point is that if it doesn't feel like D&D, and it only comes mechanically part of the way toward Hero, there is absolutely no reason you shouldn't just go all the way to Hero instead of sticking with, "D&D."
That would suggest that there aren't other valid flavors of heroic roleplay rntended for multiple genra, which doesn't really make sense.

[Markdoc]

I rather like it actually. I find the new edition actually playable and balanced.

I'm an old grognard who can remember the truly 'orrible "brown books" and still owns a copy ofChainmail - and even I like it.

I would not, however, describe it as even remotely balanced. Hero system, while not perfectly balanced, does give you reasonable guidelines. d20, OTOH, seems to actively encourage munchkinism: a player who plays a standard fighter or a standard sorceror for example, is going to be totally overshadowed by any one of the variety of combo characters.

I don't think this is entirely by accident - the cynic in me says the system is deliberately designed to be unbalanced, to encourage players to buy the splatbooks like Defenders of the Faith and so on. Why play a boring old cleric when you can have a Cleric/Hospitallar, who's stronger, faster, more hygenic? Of course to include one, you have to buy the add-on book. Good for sales, but not good for balance, especially when you combine add-ons from different books which can unexpected synergies.

In last week's game, my wife (having seen the party saved, once again by my character creatively using power combos) gave me a withering look and said "You're such a munchkin" - and I was thinking "Just wait. Two more levels and I'll not only have the butt-kickingest stealth fighter with great saves - but I'll also take no damage from any attack that I can save against!"

And to get this killer combo, I had to give up.... well almost nothing, really.

It's a fun game, but D20 is really a "D&D simulation" game. Taken in that light, munchkinism is simply part of the deal, just like a group of peculiar folk going undeground to kill wierd creatures and get loot their bodies.

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

It's a fun game, but D20 is really a "D&D simulation" game. Taken in that light, munchkinism is simply part of the deal, just like a group of peculiar folk going undeground to kill wierd creatures and get loot their bodies.

cheers, Mark


...and one of the best and easiest XP earners is assassinating party members. Truly bizarre. Also quite fun to play in short bursts: well they have to be short:

DM: The party meets in a roadside tavern.

Rogue: I'll use stealth to get around behind the wizard....

[prestidigitator]

That would suggest that there aren't other valid flavors of heroic roleplay rntended for multiple genra, which doesn't really make sense.
Oh, hardly. I just can't help but see how incredibly far D&D went toward the basic Hero mechanics. They kept levels and classes in there, sure, but still made small changes to move away from the class/level system (Cross-Class Skills, Character Level, etc.). I see D&D 3+ as pretty much half-way between AD&D and Hero, with very little change that went orthogonal to the line between them.

EDIT: Some people say, "Nah. D&D just went the way all RPGs are tending to evolve," but I don't buy that. The direct corollaries are just too close and too many.

[prestidigitator]

I'm an old grognard who can remember the truly 'orrible "brown books" and still owns a copy ofChainmail - and even I like it.

I would not, however, describe it as even remotely balanced. Hero system, while not perfectly balanced, does give you reasonable guidelines. d20, OTOH, seems to actively encourage munchkinism: a player who plays a standard fighter or a standard sorceror for example, is going to be totally overshadowed by any one of the variety of combo characters.

I don't think this is entirely by accident - the cynic in me says the system is deliberately designed to be unbalanced, to encourage players to buy the splatbooks like Defenders of the Faith and so on. Why play a boring old cleric when you can have a Cleric/Hospitallar, who's stronger, faster, more hygenic? Of course to include one, you have to buy the add-on book. Good for sales, but not good for balance, especially when you combine add-ons from different books which can unexpected synergies.

In last week's game, my wife (having seen the party saved, once again by my character creatively using power combos) gave me a withering look and said "You're such a munchkin" - and I was thinking "Just wait. Two more levels and I'll not only have the butt-kickingest stealth fighter with great saves - but I'll also take no damage from any attack that I can save against!"

And to get this killer combo, I had to give up.... well almost nothing, really.

It's a fun game, but D20 is really a "D&D simulation" game. Taken in that light, munchkinism is simply part of the deal, just like a group of peculiar folk going undeground to kill wierd creatures and get loot their bodies.
LOL. Yeah. Some of the supplements even have Prestige Classes that essentially let you advance in two normal Classes at once, giving you the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither.

It is also so bloody easy to pick combinations of Classes, equipment, Feats, etc., that are going to be soooo much less effective than others. Make a character and show it to someone who has lived and breathed the system for a few years and they will invariably shake their head and say, "Don't take that combination of Feats...oh, and you should have one level of Rogue because...." A character concept you want to play is almost certain to be so dramatically less powerful than the standard muchkin builds as to be almost pointless.

[Dust Raven]

I wouldn't say D&D 3+ is a munchkin machine so much as it forces players to assume specific roles with specific expected abilities for such roles. If any set of rules is a munchkin machine, it's the Hero System. Where else is there a system that lets you min-max EVERYTHING and take only what you need to do what you do well (as it, it doesn't for you to take all those package deals that come with classes, if you want a fighter that specialized in a single weapon, you just take that WF and a bunch of levels with it; you aren't forced to take all WFs and buy levels with everything to advance).

[zornwil]

Oh, hardly. I just can't help but see how incredibly far D&D went toward the basic Hero mechanics. They kept levels and classes in there, sure, but still made small changes to move away from the class/level system (Cross-Class Skills, Character Level, etc.). I see D&D 3+ as pretty much half-way between AD&D and Hero, with very little change that went orthogonal to the line between them.

EDIT: Some people say, "Nah. D&D just went the way all RPGs are tending to evolve," but I don't buy that. The direct corollaries are just too close and too many.
But retaining what it does makes for a play experience different from HERO and I don't see that one embracing the changes of 3.5 is necessarily desiring HERO, which is the direction of your comment about (basically) "why not go all the way." The reason not to is in fact to retain classes and levels as "balancing" or otherwise desired mechanisms, along with the probability curve and inter-play of Feats and so on.

[Markdoc]

...and one of the best and easiest XP earners is assassinating party members. Truly bizarre. Also quite fun to play in short bursts: well they have to be short:

DM: The party meets in a roadside tavern.

Rogue: I'll use stealth to get around behind the wizard....

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

My Wife: "But we could all die!"
Me: "Well, all except me :D. Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset. At one point she berated my character for walking into an (obvious) ambush - and my reaction (in character) was "Of course, it was an ambush. That's WHY I went there. So much more convenient than having to hunt them down one by one! Now - stop whining and heal me."

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

A character concept you want to play is almost certain to be so dramatically less powerful than the standard muchkin builds as to be almost pointless.

And that's kind of the point, I think. There are so many dramatically unbalanced prestige classes, that at this point, I think it has to be intentional. At first, I was inclined to think it was simply due to the lack of metasystem, but there are increasing numbers which do exactly what you said - allow you to advance in the original class AND add mad-kool l33t skillz. In a few cases, there is literally no attempt to balance them at all. I put that down to the idea of luring people to purchase the books.

And as I say, if you start from the precept that an adventuring party is not a bunch of people in armour with weapons, but something that looks like it escaped from a wild anime series, then that's fine. I really look forward to our d20 games. Sure it's kinda dumb, but it's kinda dumb fun!

cheers, Mark

[BlackSword]

LOL. Yeah. Some of the supplements even have Prestige Classes that essentially let you advance in two normal Classes at once, giving you the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither.

That's not a supplement, that's the DMG.

Eldritch Knight: Lose a single (technically two as you have to take a level of fighter) arcane caster level, advance with Fighter BAB and all of your arcane spells.

Mystic thuerge: +1 level of Arcane Spellcaster, +1 level of Diving Spellcaster, every level.

[BlackSword]

And that's kind of the point, I think. There are so many dramatically unbalanced prestige classes, that at this point, I think it has to be intentional. At first, I was inclined to think it was simply due to the lack of metasystem, but there are increasing numbers which do exactly what you said - allow you to advance in the original class AND add mad-kool l33t skillz. In a few cases, there is literally no attempt to balance them at all. I put that down to the idea of luring people to purchase the books.

As most of my money goes into non-d20 products, I don't have much comparison. But it seems to me that most of the munchkined Prestige Classes come from third parties who are looking at ways to draw players away from the WotC books. Sure you could buy that book, but our books are %100 guarenteed to make the GM cry when they see this prestige class. The GM in my d20 group did a good job at the start of the campaign laying out what prestige classes would be allowed, and which would not. In addition he and another player know the system fairly well, so they help us non-d20ers with builds to keep us from being too hosed when compared to the munchkin builds.

[RDU Neil]

LOL. Yeah. Some of the supplements even have Prestige Classes that essentially let you advance in two normal Classes at once, giving you the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither.

It is also so bloody easy to pick combinations of Classes, equipment, Feats, etc., that are going to be soooo much less effective than others. Make a character and show it to someone who has lived and breathed the system for a few years and they will invariably shake their head and say, "Don't take that combination of Feats...oh, and you should have one level of Rogue because...." A character concept you want to play is almost certain to be so dramatically less powerful than the standard muchkin builds as to be almost pointless.


Word for word... the above is my recent experience. One of my friends wants to run the Worlds Largest Dungeon. The idea of a mindless hack & slash with minis and maps and monsters is somewhat appealing. I came up with a character idea... he and his friend, both D&D gurus, spent the next three hours telling me how my character wouldn't be effective and were having a blast looking through all the books to plot out the different character classes I should be and which to take in order to maximize stacking bonuses, etc. (Every PC is a gestalt class and to munchkin you have every level and advancement plotted out in advance so you get all the good ones and none of the bad and you don't "waste a level" getting a prerequisite you could have taken early on.)

I was mindboggled at the ENJOYMENT they got from doing that, and while the "kewlness" factor of my eventual character was good, it wasn't the original concept at all

[RDU Neil]

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

My Wife: "But we could all die!"
Me: "Well, all except me :D. Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset. At one point she berated my character for walking into an (obvious) ambush - and my reaction (in character) was "Of course, it was an ambush. That's WHY I went there. So much more convenient than having to hunt them down one by one! Now - stop whining and heal me."

cheers, Mark


And while hilarious... that mindset is simply NOT something I can stomach as a role player. The fact that the game encourages such actions makes it so much more a "game" than a "story telling vehicle" and I really fall on the Nar side of things. The idea that character story means nothing... it is all about making sure you have some kind of Fighter class in order to maximize the increased chaance to hit every level (which is the stated purpose of character creation, as far as I can tell) just leaves me cold.

[Markdoc]

And while hilarious... that mindset is simply NOT something I can stomach as a role player. The fact that the game encourages such actions makes it so much more a "game" than a "story telling vehicle" and I really fall on the Nar side of things. The idea that character story means nothing... it is all about making sure you have some kind of Fighter class in order to maximize the increased chaance to hit every level (which is the stated purpose of character creation, as far as I can tell) just leaves me cold.


Oh, to some extent, I'd agree. I simply could not run D20 as a GM anymore. It'd drive me nuts. However, I have HERO so I don't have to. :D

But that's what I meant about mindset - I look at d20 as a pen and paper video game. Yes, to function well often means doing bizarre and unexplainable things - but that's how it's set up. It's like those games where you have to fire a grenade through a little window to hit a switch to open a door. Why build your door-opening system like that? Well, it's more of a challenge than just building a switch into the wall beside the door. :D And besides, it just is.

cheers, Mark

[RDU Neil]

Oh, to some extent, I'd agree. I simply could not run D20 as a GM anymore. It'd drive me nuts. However, I have HERO so I don't have to. :D

But that's what I meant about mindset - I look at d20 as a pen and paper video game. Yes, to function well often means doing bizarre and unexplainable things - but that's how it's set up. It's like those games where you have to fire a grenade through a little window to hit a switch to open a door. Why build your door-opening system like that? Well, it's more of a challenge than just building a switch into the wall beside the door. :D And besides, it just is.

cheers, Mark


On this I agree. When I played Baldur's Gate some years ago I was pleasantly surprised to find that "D&D makes a great video game!" (This became my rallying cry for while.) Just not what I want in an RPG.

[Lucius]

Word for word... the above is my recent experience. One of my friends wants to run the Worlds Largest Dungeon.

One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to someday create a 60 level dungeon.


The idea of a mindless hack & slash with minis and maps and monsters is somewhat appealing. I came up with a character idea... he and his friend, both D&D gurus, spent the next three hours telling me how my character wouldn't be effective and were having a blast looking through all the books to plot out the different character classes I should be and which to take in order to maximize stacking bonuses, etc. (Every PC is a gestalt class and to munchkin you have every level and advancement plotted out in advance so you get all the good ones and none of the bad and you don't "waste a level" getting a prerequisite you could have taken early on.)

I was mindboggled at the ENJOYMENT they got from doing that, and while the "kewlness" factor of my eventual character was good, it wasn't the original concept at all

Now, it seems to me that it would be fun to take that basic, videogamelike premise, but give it the freedom of Hero to make whatever concept you have work. In other words, run it in Hero.

Of course, I don't want to claim that Hero is completely free of that phenomenon you describe - I think we've all seen threads here revolving around "This power/ character isn't amazingly powerful, why can't I find a book-legal and affordable way to get what I want?"

Lucius Alexander

Somebody DID write up a D&D palindromedary. I ought to go sue for royalties.

[Kristopher]

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

My Wife: "But we could all die!"
Me: "Well, all except me :D. Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset. At one point she berated my character for walking into an (obvious) ambush - and my reaction (in character) was "Of course, it was an ambush. That's WHY I went there. So much more convenient than having to hunt them down one by one! Now - stop whining and heal me."

We've done that in games where killing doesn't generate XP, that aren't d20 at all. There's a certain mindset that goes with a certain type of character, that says "Yes, I know it's a trap, but we'll beat them anyway." or in other words, "They've got us right where we want them."

[RDU Neil]

One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to someday create a 60 level dungeon.



Now, it seems to me that it would be fun to take that basic, videogamelike premise, but give it the freedom of Hero to make whatever concept you have work. In other words, run it in Hero.

Of course, I don't want to claim that Hero is completely free of that phenomenon you describe - I think we've all seen threads here revolving around "This power/ character isn't amazingly powerful, why can't I find a book-legal and affordable way to get what I want?"

Lucius Alexander

Somebody DID write up a D&D palindromedary. I ought to go sue for royalties.


I think the big issue is that Hero encourages asking the quesetion "Why doesn't this concept work like I want it to... and can we figure something that will work."

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"

I read something from the creators of D&D that specificall stated that the point of the game was for players to develop "mastery" of the system... by that meaning that they were supposed to develop the in depth knowledge (read "buy the books") in order to build the most effective/effecient/munchkined charcter. Doing so is "winning" and that is what D&D is designed to promote. The play experience rewards the min-maxed character... and the game intends that to be the case.

In Hero... while it certainly can appeal to that mind set of player (find the most broken stacked advantages for powers that make you invulnerable and others unable to defend)... but I would argue that the Hero PLAY EXPERIENCE does NOT support this kind of character.

The game does not give more experience points to the invisible, desol, AVLD attack character than it does the straight up energy blaster. You don't "lose" in Hero games the same way you can "lose" in D&D. GM guidelines are all about DC limits and Stop Signs, etc. Cooperative "genre play" is rewarded, etc.

Munchkin games have built in reward systems that support munchkinism in play. D&D is the perfect example of this. Hero could be seen as rewarding munchkinism in the character construction part of the game... but I've never seen an example of actual PLAY explicitly rewarding the munchkin.

[prestidigitator]

But retaining what it does makes for a play experience different from HERO and I don't see that one embracing the changes of 3.5 is necessarily desiring HERO, which is the direction of your comment about (basically) "why not go all the way." The reason not to is in fact to retain classes and levels as "balancing" or otherwise desired mechanisms, along with the probability curve and inter-play of Feats and so on.
Eh. Look at where I am posting this. :p

[prestidigitator]

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

My Wife: "But we could all die!"
Me: "Well, all except me :D. Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.
Heh. Yeah. I've always had a bit of problem with XP splitting. Does D&D 3+ still do that? I forget. I know it calculates XP based upon the whole challenge of the encounter, which already takes party size into account to some degree, so splitting would seem like double punishment.


It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset.
Yeah. And I think I will no longer make a good D&D player because I don't want to conform to the D&D mindset, nor take the time, energy, and money to fully immerse myself in it to begin with. :) (I'll still play if that is all that is being offered, but I can't really be bothered to care how effective I am.)

[prestidigitator]

I think the big issue is that Hero encourages asking the quesetion "Why doesn't this concept work like I want it to... and can we figure something that will work."

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"
Well said. Sounds about right to me.


I read something from the creators of D&D that specificall stated that the point of the game was for players to develop "mastery" of the system... by that meaning that they were supposed to develop the in depth knowledge (read "buy the books") in order to build the most effective/effecient/munchkined charcter. Doing so is "winning" and that is what D&D is designed to promote. The play experience rewards the min-maxed character... and the game intends that to be the case.

In Hero... while it certainly can appeal to that mind set of player (find the most broken stacked advantages for powers that make you invulnerable and others unable to defend)... but I would argue that the Hero PLAY EXPERIENCE does NOT support this kind of character.

The game does not give more experience points to the invisible, desol, AVLD attack character than it does the straight up energy blaster. You don't "lose" in Hero games the same way you can "lose" in D&D. GM guidelines are all about DC limits and Stop Signs, etc. Cooperative "genre play" is rewarded, etc.

Munchkin games have built in reward systems that support munchkinism in play. D&D is the perfect example of this. Hero could be seen as rewarding munchkinism in the character construction part of the game... but I've never seen an example of actual PLAY explicitly rewarding the munchkin.
Yeah. :sick: This feels like the same mentality that led my friends to run regular, "player dueling," sessions at the local gaming store TO INTRODUCE PEOPLE TO THE, "ROLEPLAYING," SYSTEM! Pure tournament-style, player vs. player, hack-and-slash, wargamming using the D&D system. Most of them would rather do that than roleplay, and I hate to imagine the kind of gamers they were birthing. I just really couldn't stomach the whole thing.

[zornwil]

(snip)

And as I say, if you start from the precept that an adventuring party is not a bunch of people in armour with weapons, but something that looks like it escaped from a wild anime series, then that's fine. I really look forward to our d20 games. Sure it's kinda dumb, but it's kinda dumb fun!

cheers, Mark

I think one of the great things about RPGs includes games which don't reflect any particular source material and are instead self-derived/unique playsets. Whether it's as you say that weird sort of world or Deadlands (which in some fashion approximates what one reads of weird west but which employs a bizarre "game physics" that violates many of the precepts of such source material), I think such things are neat. Personally, I increasingly prefer RPGs which aren't attempting to emulate anything than their own designer's vision.

[zornwil]

I think the big issue is that Hero encourages asking the quesetion "Why doesn't this concept work like I want it to... and can we figure something that will work."

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"

I read something from the creators of D&D that specificall stated that the point of the game was for players to develop "mastery" of the system... by that meaning that they were supposed to develop the in depth knowledge (read "buy the books") in order to build the most effective/effecient/munchkined charcter. Doing so is "winning" and that is what D&D is designed to promote. The play experience rewards the min-maxed character... and the game intends that to be the case.

In Hero... while it certainly can appeal to that mind set of player (find the most broken stacked advantages for powers that make you invulnerable and others unable to defend)... but I would argue that the Hero PLAY EXPERIENCE does NOT support this kind of character.

The game does not give more experience points to the invisible, desol, AVLD attack character than it does the straight up energy blaster. You don't "lose" in Hero games the same way you can "lose" in D&D. GM guidelines are all about DC limits and Stop Signs, etc. Cooperative "genre play" is rewarded, etc.

Munchkin games have built in reward systems that support munchkinism in play. D&D is the perfect example of this. Hero could be seen as rewarding munchkinism in the character construction part of the game... but I've never seen an example of actual PLAY explicitly rewarding the munchkin.
I read an interesting comment by D. Vincent Baker, the Dogs designer, who said basically that if one is min-maxing Dogs in the Vineyard, then one is playing correctly! It was a very interesting comment from a game commonly taken as strongly narrative and oriented towards a particular play-experience to the point of snobbery and hob-nobbish attitude. But it's not at all incorrect - the game has a very strong gamist element, and I think min-maxing is not the same as munchkinery. I tend to think we tend to unfairly disparage min-maxing in HERO, that the game has a strong intent to encourage such a thing (as a point in fact, the 2nd edition advice to end char.s in 3s or 8s, with a couple exceptions, points towards that).

My point...none really, except that min-maxing in gaming is: a) just an interesting topic; and b) unfairly dissed as if it were somehow betraying a nobler purpose. It is a "roleplaying game" and most games have their aspect of efficiency.

[zornwil]

On this I agree. When I played Baldur's Gate some years ago I was pleasantly surprised to find that "D&D makes a great video game!" (This became my rallying cry for while.) Just not what I want in an RPG.
Conversely, it's fun to introduce roleplaying into games in which it's counter-productive. When we played the Monsters game (I'm spacing on the name, the one by Bruce Harlick and Patrick Sweeney), which is basically a "monsters kill each other"/tactical game, at DunDraCon, some of us ended up roleplaying some fo the monsters which led to of course an unbalanced game which doomed our own monsters but was terribly fun.

PS - and the game has a rule introduced by a moment of Darren Watt's RPing a monster simply because he had lost touch with what was going on so RPd what he thought was appropriate, and that in turn actually influenced the game design (basically, your monster spends a turn celebrating after victory (killing another monster), losing an entire turn)

[RDU Neil]

My point...none really, except that min-maxing in gaming is: a) just an interesting topic; and b) unfairly dissed as if it were somehow betraying a nobler purpose. It is a "roleplaying game" and most games have their aspect of efficiency.

It's not that min-maxing is the issue... as much as being railroaded into a ceratin format of play is not comfortable to me in RPGs. If I approach D&D as a minis game... then it can become fun, because it really is about just rolling dice and seeing what you can kill... and if you reach 20th level before being killed, you win! It is like playing Talisman or some continuing game of Magic or some such. Fun as a game, but not what I consider role playing... no matter what the GNS model says. :rolleyes:

And yes, I do find games like DitV or Polaris to be quite similar to gamist cousins in their heavy mechanistic methods. I'm not sure that their emphasis on mechanics and min-maxing to drive the effect you want really tells a "story" in the way they insist.

That's really off topic... but maybe what I'm getting at in my sleep deprived ravings is that a heavily mechanistic approach to actual play where the reward system drives increasing mechanistic efficiency as the "way to win" seems to diminish any need for a real "role" to be played... making the game closer to Monopoly than "cooperative story telling." You don't normally say, "I'll play the part of the Shoe!" when you play Monopoly... you just choose your piece and follow the rules. When D&D reinforces, "Choose the piece that is most efficient at "killing" in order to gain more resources, so you can "kill" more efficiently... I just don't see much "role" in that playing.

[Markdoc]

We've done that in games where killing doesn't generate XP, that aren't d20 at all. There's a certain mindset that goes with a certain type of character, that says "Yes, I know it's a trap, but we'll beat them anyway." or in other words, "They've got us right where we want them."

True enough, but in my case the motivation was "The only path to self-improvement is killing. Yo more blood yo better."

In one of my games, players could have gotten equivalent experience for avoiding the ambush, or tricking or cowing the ambushers. Now I admit I did that when I ran D&D too, but I also admit that when I ran D&D, I was making up 40-60% of the rules on the spot and disregarding a good 30% of what was left, so calling it D&D is actually a bit misleading.

cheers, Mark

[RDU Neil]

Conversely, it's fun to introduce roleplaying into games in which it's counter-productive. When we played the Monsters game (I'm spacing on the name, the one by Bruce Harlick and Patrick Sweeney), which is basically a "monsters kill each other"/tactical game, at DunDraCon, some of us ended up roleplaying some fo the monsters which led to of course an unbalanced game which doomed our own monsters but was terribly fun.

PS - and the game has a rule introduced by a moment of Darren Watt's RPing a monster simply because he had lost touch with what was going on so RPd what he thought was appropriate, and that in turn actually influenced the game design (basically, your monster spends a turn celebrating after victory (killing another monster), losing an entire turn)

Oh... absolutely. Giving character and motivation and personality and "story" to an otherwise mechanistic game is a hoot... but it is often "free form role playing" and very difficult to sustain outside of one shots and Con-games.

I have other things to say about the "role" in role playing... but I need to think them through a bit more.

[Kristopher]

I usually sum up the difference as "Roleplaying" vs "Roll-playing".

[zornwil]

It's not that min-maxing is the issue... as much as being railroaded into a ceratin format of play is not comfortable to me in RPGs. If I approach D&D as a minis game... then it can become fun, because it really is about just rolling dice and seeing what you can kill... and if you reach 20th level before being killed, you win! It is like playing Talisman or some continuing game of Magic or some such. Fun as a game, but not what I consider role playing... no matter what the GNS model says. :rolleyes:

And yes, I do find games like DitV or Polaris to be quite similar to gamist cousins in their heavy mechanistic methods. I'm not sure that their emphasis on mechanics and min-maxing to drive the effect you want really tells a "story" in the way they insist.

That's really off topic... but maybe what I'm getting at in my sleep deprived ravings is that a heavily mechanistic approach to actual play where the reward system drives increasing mechanistic efficiency as the "way to win" seems to diminish any need for a real "role" to be played... making the game closer to Monopoly than "cooperative story telling." You don't normally say, "I'll play the part of the Shoe!" when you play Monopoly... you just choose your piece and follow the rules. When D&D reinforces, "Choose the piece that is most efficient at "killing" in order to gain more resources, so you can "kill" more efficiently... I just don't see much "role" in that playing.
I would generally agree, and FYI I was pretty much making an aside, not really a direct comment "at" you (just to be clear).

[zornwil]

It's not that min-maxing is the issue... as much as being railroaded into a ceratin format of play is not comfortable to me in RPGs. If I approach D&D as a minis game... then it can become fun, because it really is about just rolling dice and seeing what you can kill... and if you reach 20th level before being killed, you win! It is like playing Talisman or some continuing game of Magic or some such. Fun as a game, but not what I consider role playing... no matter what the GNS model says. :rolleyes:

And yes, I do find games like DitV or Polaris to be quite similar to gamist cousins in their heavy mechanistic methods. I'm not sure that their emphasis on mechanics and min-maxing to drive the effect you want really tells a "story" in the way they insist.

That's really off topic... but maybe what I'm getting at in my sleep deprived ravings is that a heavily mechanistic approach to actual play where the reward system drives increasing mechanistic efficiency as the "way to win" seems to diminish any need for a real "role" to be played... making the game closer to Monopoly than "cooperative story telling." You don't normally say, "I'll play the part of the Shoe!" when you play Monopoly... you just choose your piece and follow the rules. When D&D reinforces, "Choose the piece that is most efficient at "killing" in order to gain more resources, so you can "kill" more efficiently... I just don't see much "role" in that playing.
More on the topic of your note as I reread, I think D&D has been and remains popular more for what it inspires than what it delivers, and the "roleplaying" aspect is primarily encouraged from that inspiration.

[RDU Neil]

More on the topic of your note as I reread, I think D&D has been and remains popular more for what it inspires than what it delivers, and the "roleplaying" aspect is primarily encouraged from that inspiration.


Beautifully put. What it "inspires" rather than what it "delivers." Those that find they like what it delievers find themselves enjoying a different kind of game than what they first might have been "inspired" by... and that's cool. Those of us who looked for something to fulfill that inspiration went and looked elsewhere.

[greymankle]

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"

OK I have to jump in late on this one. Sorry for the tardiness. When playing a true D&D campaiign, anything will work. Druids work well in the forest, rogues in the city etc. An open campaign will have that variance to let each class shine at different times.

But when churning through "The Worlds Largest Doungeon" you wont have that variance. So, as a GM, to let a player create a caharacter which doesn't jive with the game he is going to run, is irresponsible. This is no different than in Hero.

A GM says "I am going to run a Dimensional superhero game. A new dimension each week. "

Player says "I want to play a character really invovled in the community, with contacts and everybody knows him. But he has to maintian a Secret Identity"

GM explains why that doesn't work and they work out a compromise. Re-occuring NPCS in each dimension.

No different than what we did.
GM: I want to run the worlds largest Doungeon"

PLayer: I want to play a Druid Assassin. Who kills for nature.

GM: OK that's cool, but wont work well in this game. Not a lot of forests so 50% of your druid class will be worthless. What part of the Druid assassin do you like?

PLayer: I want to be a methondical killer that everyone is afraid of.

GM: OK cool, well you can be a methodical killer without taking assassin levels. Try paladin/monk. Similar concept but different class levels.

Player: Sweet, so I can be a mystical kung-fu killer. Sent on missions from my emporer?

GM: yup

SO then my 3rd ed. guru buddy and I, took the paladain/monk combo, and min/maxed the F*** out of it.

Don't compare the experience with the WLD, to 3rd ed. as a whole. The point of this campaign is to make powerful characters who might actually live. So, as a GM to make sure your character lived, and wasn't out shone by other players, I had to help you along. Not too much fun if your methodical killer keeps dying, or watching the un-couth barbarian fight better then you.

Any other campaign and a Druid worlks fine. Heck even bards can work in the right campaign. :)