What is HERO about? [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 07:28 AM

I was just thinking, in a PM exchange with MitchellS, that we don't really talk about the most important and fundamental thing regarding our system...what is it about? Sure, it emulates heroic fiction blah blah blah, but what is it actually about in terms of what drives the players in the system's rewards and mechanics? Can anyone agree on this, even? A big problem with universal systems is their underlying intent/purpose is often quite muddled - which to be fair can be a strength as well since it allows for a greater imposition of the play group's a priori values even as it obscures the designer's intent. Plus like most games, and especially those created early on in the RPG era, there wasn't a lot of conscious thought, I believe, aside from "a superhero setting" with some general notions and prejudices.

Anyway, out of the primordial ooze and through today, I posit that it's approximately about self-realization in a bootstrapping manner among cinematic action-adventure lifestyle/events, migrating from an original purpose that would be much the same except among a traditional superhero setting; in any case, the system's universality, to the extent any such thing exists, derives from that basis and that's why it works for many heroic action-adventure games, all those basically that work from that sort of heroic basis, a very "human" one which is also very much about self-fulfillment out of sheer will.

From this basis, the rationalization of the fantastic, as RDU Neil puts it, proceeds - after all, in order to represent that "bootstrapping", self-realization, and human basis, we need that rational grounding which is represented by the points' mechanics and the level of granularity.

To me, anyway, the self-realization part is an important aspect, it explains the "human template" of the game as a form of clear and overt identification between player and PC, as well as it explains why the mechanics are so granular and rationalized, those being necessary components to a humanistic self-realization that's in this broad adventure-action lifestyle. I also include the comment on "sheer will" as the experience system is so open-ended in application.

Then again, I'm not pretending this is a necessarily-accurate commentary or that anyone intended the system in such an overt manner whatsoever, but I think this is the underlying basis.

It's quite broad, too, and the degree to which it's muddled speaks to the general conundrum of so-called universal games and why individual play experiences of these "universal" systems varies so dramatically. Necessarily, a universal system, and in the case of HERO even more so given its "toolkit" nature, is open towards great repurposing by the players participating in it. And out of this, I indeed want to be quite clear that I'm not suggesting all play experiences of HERO conform to the system's inferred purpose, rather that this inferred purpose is influencing all such play experiences and where it coincides with the players' desired experience it will of course be strongest in execution.

But I imagine answers on the topic will vary tremendously...anyway, the pivotal question in any game design ought to be "what is this game about" (and I should give credit to Jared Sorenson's game design workshop for driving this point home, and specifically to Jared for his harping on the question in general), and a game isn't about some setting - it's about the ethos, if you will (and my term, not his or others'), driving the PC actions and the players' play experience.

Mentor

Jan 20th, '06, 07:38 AM

Free will and the rewarding of the decisions and action of the players because of those decisions and vicariously through their characters. By eliminating some of the previous game conventions of alignment and character class, Hero allows most player characters to choose whether to be physical, mental and/or spiritual in their approaches to conflict. There are equally powerful and valid capabilities to convince, punch, blast or escape ones way out of a situation which are only paid lip servive in other systems.

RDU Neil

Jan 20th, '06, 07:43 AM

Anyway, out of the primordial ooze and through today, I posit that it's approximately about self-realization in a bootstrapping manner among cinematic action-adventure lifestyle/events, migrating from an original purpose that would be much the same except among a traditional superhero setting;

Uh... yeah...

No... seriously, I know what you mean... I just happen to disagree that Hero (anymore) is "about" anything at all.

A toolkit is not about anything. You use it to build something that has meaning.

I think Hero is an excellent "task resolution system" emphasizing the action/adventure type of task resolution. Nothing else about it is set. Bootstrapping (to me) assumes you start incomplete in character... and through play... build to the realization of your concept. Certainly this is a traditional way of playing Champions... but there is nothing in the toolkit to force you to do it this way. You can build a character to full concept... just ignore points... or assign values as you choose... all of which is built in as "expected" in using the toolkit.

More and more I've realized that Hero is the system I fall back on when a task needs to be resolved "What happens when I drive my car through the brick wall?" But as a system it has nothign to say about what is "meaningful" in the game... Why did I drive through the wall? What story is told by my decision to drive through the wall? Even, what challenge am I hoping to "step up" and overcome by driving through the wall? Etc.

Hero isn't about anything. Whatever game you build with Hero... now THAT needs to be about something. Unfortunately... the downside of the universal system concept is that it treats the idea of "meaning" or "being about something" as irrelevant... or outside it's scope.

Cancer

Jan 20th, '06, 07:47 AM

You raise valid points, and some of the disagreements that crop up here arise from subtle (and often unarticulated) differences in what people want their game to do for them.

My interests are not in messing with game systems, but in finding a tool that lets me cast real/fantasy world situations into a roleplaying framework. As long as the system allows me to do everything I think the game-world is likely to have in it, and doesn't require some other wonkiness that offend my sense of how reality works, then I'm not too fussy.

That said, I am quite interested in situations where normal physics breaks down in interesting ways; in other words, I like to flirt with the edges of my sense of how reality works. A toolkit type of approach to a game world seems more likely to be versatile enough to withstand the relaxation of the laws of nature. This puts me at odds with the hard-core gamists; I recall e.g. Fox1 required everything to be mapped out, and I'm interested in (among other things) situations where the idea of a map as one is used to thinking about it may not be fully applicable.

Finally, the skill system is at least a useable start at abstracting knowledge and skill based actions so that a roleplaying session doesn't get bogged down in minutiae at the wrong level.

bigdamnhero

Jan 20th, '06, 07:49 AM

Interesting - I hadn't really thought about it this way before.

The problem, I think, with trying to enumerate a purpose for a universal rules system, is that you can always come up with a genre and/or a setting that conflicts with that purpose. (Self-fulfillment in a post-modern Cthulu game anyone?) Does that mean that genre/setting is "invalid" because it's not what Hero is about?

I guess where I'm going with this (and I'm making this up as I go) is that IMO a rules system isn't about anything other than an attempt to model a game genre/setting. Or multiple settings, in the case of Hero and other universal systems. Now when you start talking about settings, those are about something - or at least they should be, even if it only "kill the monsters and take their treasure.

So at the risk of sounding all-too-pat: HERO is about letting GMs and players create any genre, any setting, and any character, and "giving the game the 'feel' of a good action novel or movie." (FRED pg347)

[Edit: typed too slow, so wound up me too-ing others.]

bigdamnhero
“Having great purpose isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've had great purpose and I've had no purpose. And I have to say, no purpose is a lot easier. Expectations are low. People don't ask you for anything. Count your blessings.”

ghost-angel

Jan 20th, '06, 07:52 AM

It's about telling a story through a group experience.

Everything else is simply what color your painting the scenery.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 07:59 AM

Uh... yeah...

No... seriously, I know what you mean... I just happen to disagree that Hero (anymore) is "about" anything at all.

A toolkit is not about anything. You use it to build something that has meaning.

I think Hero is an excellent "task resolution system" emphasizing the action/adventure type of task resolution. Nothing else about it is set. Bootstrapping (to me) assumes you start incomplete in character... and through play... build to the realization of your concept. Certainly this is a traditional way of playing Champions... but there is nothing in the toolkit to force you to do it this way. You can build a character to full concept... just ignore points... or assign values as you choose... all of which is built in as "expected" in using the toolkit.

More and more I've realized that Hero is the system I fall back on when a task needs to be resolved "What happens when I drive my car through the brick wall?" But as a system it has nothign to say about what is "meaningful" in the game... Why did I drive through the wall? What story is told by my decision to drive through the wall? Even, what challenge am I hoping to "step up" and overcome by driving through the wall? Etc.

Hero isn't about anything. Whatever game you build with Hero... now THAT needs to be about something. Unfortunately... the downside of the universal system concept is that it treats the idea of "meaning" or "being about something" as irrelevant... or outside it's scope.
But I think that the "proof is in the pudding," so to speak, in that I think there's a reason GuRPS functions at the level it does and Savage Worlds as it does, as opposed to how hERO does. Underlying are a number of powerful prejudices which amount to, in the lack of conscious intent, the system being about "something."

At the least, as you said, HERO "rationalizes the fantastic". Right away, it's not going to be about unnatural ascendance over environment; it's going to be a rather human/mechanical form of mastery over the environment. Hence, I think there's a true system "driver" in play experience.

HOWEVER, as you say, it's quite easy to take HERO (or Savage Worlds or GURPS or d20) and simply use it against any intended purposes. It's a bit harder in some ways to do so, compared to a thematic game, but it's not at all unfeasible. This, to me, is what clouds any of what the system intentions (explicit or implicit) are. But clearly HERO has certain intentions, however muddled and/or ill-executed.

But what you say about universal system is, by the way, the core of the objection of indie RPGers denouncing such.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 08:02 AM

It's about telling a story through a group experience.

Everything else is simply what color your painting the scenery.
No offense, but isn't that kind of a cop-out? That describes RPGs on the whole, and while I can admit RDU Neil's or others "HERO isn't about anything" argument may well be true, it's clear that many if not most non-universal systems are "about" something beyond just that. So either HERO is so purposeless as an RPG as to be a true blank slate (but I think if it were we wouldn't see so many powerful prejudices in it), which is one answer, or it is about something more specific than you say here.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 08:03 AM

ghost-angel

Jan 20th, '06, 08:12 AM

No offense, but isn't that kind of a cop-out? That describes RPGs on the whole, and while I can admit RDU Neil's or others "HERO isn't about anything" argument may well be true, it's clear that many if not most non-universal systems are "about" something beyond just that. So either HERO is so purposeless as an RPG as to be a true blank slate (but I think if it were we wouldn't see so many powerful prejudices in it), which is one answer, or it is about something more specific than you say here.
Look at it this way.

Start with Role Playing, because that's what the "game" is. RPing is a mutual experience shared between a group of people to tell a story - or to waste an afternoon - as a creative endeavor. Even hack'n'slashers do this, their story is just closer to a bad action flick than others.

Ok, that's what you're doing: telling a story of some kind. From a full blown Regency Era romance and political intrigue story to a "we saw some Orcs, and killed them" story.

Next is how to build the scenery.. the system you're going to use. It really doesn't matter which one you use because they all have the same underlying idea: to tell the story outlined above. Some do some stories better than others, some are designed to tell multiple kinds of stories. But all they are is the vehicle, the first coat of paint on the scenery of the story.

After that you're picking genre's, archetypes, ideas, specifics... shades of color.

Some people like red. Some people like blue.

If HERO is "about" anything it's about trying to provide as many colors as you can think of to use as you see fit. But in the end it's still a group experience telling a story.

Killer Shrike

Jan 20th, '06, 08:16 AM

I actually agree with RDU Neil for once. My tool cabinet is about providing me the tools I need when I need them to do something I want to do. The HERO System is no different, save that it represents tools of the mind rather than tools of the hand.

So I suppose in that sense you could say that tool kits are about empowering a user to get things done, but this is such a bleedingly obvious truism that it doesn't really need to be said at all.

Warp9

Jan 20th, '06, 08:48 AM

But I think that the "proof is in the pudding," so to speak, in that I think there's a reason GuRPS functions at the level it does and Savage Worlds as it does, as opposed to how hERO does. Underlying are a number of powerful prejudices which amount to, in the lack of conscious intent, the system being about "something."

At the least, as you said, HERO "rationalizes the fantastic". Right away, it's not going to be about unnatural ascendance over environment; it's going to be a rather human/mechanical form of mastery over the environment. Hence, I think there's a true system "driver" in play experience.

HOWEVER, as you say, it's quite easy to take HERO (or Savage Worlds or GURPS or d20) and simply use it against any intended purposes. It's a bit harder in some ways to do so, compared to a thematic game, but it's not at all unfeasible. This, to me, is what clouds any of what the system intentions (explicit or implicit) are. But clearly HERO has certain intentions, however muddled and/or ill-executed.

But what you say about universal system is, by the way, the core of the objection of indie RPGers denouncing such.
Hmm. . . looking at GURPS (3rd Edition), and thinking about how it compares to HERO. . . .

How are these 2 Universal Systems different and what does it mean about their core values?

First I would point out that 2 people may take different paths to the same destination, so the differences in the games may not be the result of actual differences in ultimate goals.

That being said, I think that GURPS focuses more on the level of normal humans. It has about the same stat range for normals as HERO (avg 10, max 20), but in GURPS there is a huge difference between INT 8 and INT 12.

In GURPS you roll your stat or less on 3d6.

8 INT has an INT roll of 8 or less

12 INT has an INT roll of 12 or less

Skills are also based directly on stats (not stat / 5 like in HERO). So as you can see there is a much bigger difference between people with "normal stats" than there is in HERO.

On the other hand, GURPS does not handle the high end very well, I've seen a GURPS nuke rated at 1.5 million dice of damage.

GURPS is also not as generic as HERO. GURPS has a magic system, and if you don't like it you must wait for a new source book (like the GURPS version of the White Wolf Mage:TA), or write your own rules. The same goes for psionics.

It does seem like GURPS was more designed for human level events, whereas HERO is intended to be about a larger scale of events. But I do think that HERO is the better game (at least from a generic perspecitve). HERO it is able to deal with a wider range of characters, from normal humans to cosmic power supers, and HERO gives you more control over how your character's powers work.

boomer

Jan 20th, '06, 09:29 AM

Hero is an "open source" gaming system. That's what I like about it. You can do just about anything, play any kind of character with ease. No alignment restrictions, no boring combat system...."I attack. It does this much damage. He attacks me. I have to take it...." I've done more with characters in Hero than in any other gaming system. That's what I think it's about.

bigdamnhero

Jan 20th, '06, 10:09 AM

You know, Zornwil, I think you may have just hit on part of why HERO is so hard to market. Most games are pretty easy to explain what they're about:

"It's about fear of the unknown and Things Man Was Not Meant To Know." (CoC)

"What if Victorian-age Britain built space ships and colonized Mars." (Space 1889)

"It's about killing monsters and taking their treasure." (Munchkin)

...etc.

HERO is harder to sell: "It's about being able to build and simulate anything you want." "Gee, I dunno...that sounds like work to me..." That's pitching to a smaller market.

If the other "universal" systems (GURPS, d20) don't suffer from this problem as much, maybe it's because they place more emphasis on their settings: "This setting is about _____; oh, and here are the rules you need to play it; BTW these rules also allow you to play these other settings...." Of course, that's easier to do when you can afford to license well-known settings.

I've said this before and I know not everyone agrees with it, but I still feel that for 90% of gamers settings sell rules, not the other way around. I'm not saying this is a deficiency of the system itself, or of DOJ. But I do think it makes HERO a harder sell.

bigdamnhero
“Good tea. Nice house.”

Blue

Jan 20th, '06, 10:33 AM

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 12:32 PM

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 12:34 PM

First thing yer asked when you introduce people to RPGs (See how many people remember this): "How do you win?"

After they've becom indoctrinated to D&D, the next stage becomes about collecting fictional "stuff" (weapons, magic items, spells) and Experience.

When you introduce them to Champions (and many other games subsequently), the questions are more like "How do you level?" and "Where's my treasure?"

Hopefully they outgrow that :)
Which is interesting, because it means - to me - that HERO is about something - whatever that is - that AD&D/D&D/d20 is not. And it's certainly not genre per se, since HERO Fantasy doesn't work that way.

I think the empowerment that KS mentions is not just a participant empowerment, it's a PLAY EXPERIENCE empowerment, though to be fair it remains in a traditional GM-player mode.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 12:37 PM

Hmm. . . looking at GURPS (3rd Edition), and thinking about how it compares to HERO. . . .

How are these 2 Universal Systems different and what does it mean about their core values?

First I would point out that 2 people may take different paths to the same destination, so the differences in the games may not be the result of actual differences in ultimate goals.

That being said, I think that GURPS focuses more on the level of normal humans. It has about the same stat range for normals as HERO (avg 10, max 20), but in GURPS there is a huge difference between INT 8 and INT 12.

In GURPS you roll your stat or less on 3d6.

8 INT has an INT roll of 8 or less

12 INT has an INT roll of 12 or less

Skills are also based directly on stats (not stat / 5 like in HERO). So as you can see there is a much bigger difference between people with "normal stats" than there is in HERO.

On the other hand, GURPS does not handle the high end very well, I've seen a GURPS nuke rated at 1.5 million dice of damage.

GURPS is also not as generic as HERO. GURPS has a magic system, and if you don't like it you must wait for a new source book (like the GURPS version of the White Wolf Mage:TA), or write your own rules. The same goes for psionics.

It does seem like GURPS was more designed for human level events, whereas HERO is intended to be about a larger scale of events. But I do think that HERO is the better game (at least from a generic perspecitve). HERO it is able to deal with a wider range of characters, from normal humans to cosmic power supers, and HERO gives you more control over how your character's powers work.
Interesting. My guesstimate is that GURPS is about "real humans" conquering adversity, or some-such, even though of course non-human characters can be created (I find GURPS automoton/robot rules quite interesting, btw, though they are, as with many things GURPS, dripping with SFX and anti-DIY embedded into mechanics). Certainly, it's all shades of gray among "universal" RPGs, though. I do think that "kill stuff get power" is a bit of an oversimplification of d20/AD&D/D&D, one that they don't entirely deserve but get in some part because of the system's infamous lack of coherency.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 12:41 PM

Look at it this way.

Start with Role Playing, because that's what the "game" is. RPing is a mutual experience shared between a group of people to tell a story - or to waste an afternoon - as a creative endeavor. Even hack'n'slashers do this, their story is just closer to a bad action flick than others.

Ok, that's what you're doing: telling a story of some kind. From a full blown Regency Era romance and political intrigue story to a "we saw some Orcs, and killed them" story.

Next is how to build the scenery.. the system you're going to use. It really doesn't matter which one you use because they all have the same underlying idea: to tell the story outlined above. Some do some stories better than others, some are designed to tell multiple kinds of stories. But all they are is the vehicle, the first coat of paint on the scenery of the story.

After that you're picking genre's, archetypes, ideas, specifics... shades of color.

Some people like red. Some people like blue.

If HERO is "about" anything it's about trying to provide as many colors as you can think of to use as you see fit. But in the end it's still a group experience telling a story.
Although I would note if we take that approach as to simulation and we don't really "care" about the system and bastardize it heavily to suit our needs - as I and others do - wer'e not really playing the game that was designed, and our ability to then comment on the intended play experience is limited, perhap even crippled.

But if we use a system "as is" and actualy "obey" its constraints, even HERO's, I think we find different play experiences even in the same setting, and it's not simply a matter of mechanics. In fact, player choices will probably differ, although I very well admit that as it's only shades of gray in the intent of the various "universal" action-adventure (? - are there any "universal" NON-action-adventure RPGS???), so too is it only incremental differences in play experience. But I think they exist. The reward systems of HERO, Savage Worlds, AD&D, and d20 all differ slightly in part for these reasons - to incent different behavior.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 12:47 PM

"giving the game the 'feel' of a good action novel or movie" is a pretty fair comment. I don't think it's too pat. I just think there's something more specific going on...but that might just be me!
PS to this - and I'd add, that if it is for that "feel", then the question is, "what is that feel about?" A difficult question, and one which I think it's fair to say HERO (like similar systems) is trying to be multi-faceted with, and thus making any answer non-definitiive, even though I would think a gross approximation could be agreed upon.

So what is the "feel of a good action novel or movie?" We have a sympathetic protagonist of some sort. We have a character(s) around whom the entire world revolves, in some manner (of course, this can be in many ways, including demonstrating his oppression by that world). There's action! And as such, that means the system MUST reward action, and NOT reward inaction (though I think HERO suffers from a rewards proposition almost as poor as traditional AD&D; then again, I'm cool with it). It must have a narrative flow - though I feel like HERO deliberately tries not to address this, again an understandable convention from its time, and I tend to think it should remain this way, personally, and also where I think HERO deviates from this definition of what it is "about".

Some rambling - anyway, just thoughts - the point is if something is about a type of fiction, that means it's about some sort of theme, however broad. But I'm not suggesting that one needs to give a deeper definition than you gave, despite that approach being my prejudice in such analysis.

Captain Obvious

Jan 20th, '06, 12:47 PM

RDU Neil

Jan 20th, '06, 01:08 PM

I hate to sound Clinton-esque... but what do we mean by "about"?

What is "is" ?

We can look at this in a couple of ways. In Forge terms... and in my opinion only... "about" refers to the Creative Agenda of the game... and there can be a variety of techniques that try to achieve that CA.

In this manner, I see Hero as useful for my Sim elements... accepting that what I'm Simulating is the Hero System version of Action/Adventure.

Crap... this is so hard to put directly.

Yes... I believe there are tendencies/biases/prejudices in Hero... but I don't feel these prejudices enforce a specific CA as much as they drive certain techniques. They tend to set a certain tone and feel to the task resolution that is uniquely Hero... but the feel of the game is not what the game is "about"... at least IMO.

Example: My long running campaign is probably best expressed as Vanilla Nar... using Hero/Champions as the task resolution system... but the focus is not on "how things play out" but "why did you make the choices you did that lead to those events" and "what were the morale/ethical choices going on that played themselves out with the trappings of superheroes and villains?" Hero as a system did nothing to promote the exploration of premise with any mechanics... but it provided a consistent playing field of "rational fantasy" on which to play out these explorations.

Fox1 (as someone mentioned above) seem to approach using Hero in what I would not call gamist, but instead an extreme Simulationist mode. It was about establishing a coherent, internally consistent world... and then exploring that "dream" to see what plays out. (I'm supposing here, but that is how I interpreted many of his posts.) His use of the system and mine would have been very, very similar... but with vastly different expectations of what the resultant game was "about."

Now... on the Gamist front, I've more and more come to think that Hero is actually NOT a good support for this.

Example 2: In D&D (as much as I've experienced it) there is the base assumption that the players are supposed to master the system in order to create the "best" characters. One way this is shown in through how a player chooses feats... in what order... which ones build on previous ones... which ones are most efficient at certain levels, etc. You "win" by figuring this out, so that your character can take on the threats that are pre-determined to be appropriate for your level. A poorly designed 3rd level fighter loses to the bugbear shaman... a well built 3rd level fighter kicks the bugbear's ***. The game is designed to reward this behavior.

Without these pre-set "X level vs. Y level is a fair fight" concepts built into it... I think Hero fails at a certain gamist level. In allowing "any kind of character" that idea of a "fair fight" is really vague. In character construction, the gamist rules... but actual play is different. Anybody with any experience in Hero will recognize that all the metrics in the world will never create true balance or "fairness" (IMO, all the kludginess and complexity many of us balk at in the latest editions are complications trying to systematically fend off the gamist attempts to build the "best" character.) The game allows for the ultimate in min-maxed characters in construction... but goes out of it's way to discourage such in play... pushing for "build within concept... to the idea of the game world... etc." Almost every new player to Hero (in my experience) with a classic D&D background... the first things they've played around with is the Invisible/Desol/One power with affects real world... character. The ultimate munchkin type... and from their point of view theyv'e done what they were supposed to do. Read the rules... see where the most efficient beat stick combination comes from... where the loop holes in the rules are... and use 'em. It just doesn't mean that the character is the least bit fun in play most of the time. The open construction allows this... but all the talk of DC limits and AP limits and character concept and genre emulation are anti-gamist.

So... to make a long post even longer... if Hero is about something... in GNS terms... it is about a certain kind of Sim/Task Resolution... and is quite usable in Vanilla Nar... and inadvertantly encourages some of the worst kind of Gamist in construction, but not really in play.

Does that make sense, Zorn?

Kristopher

Jan 20th, '06, 02:15 PM

I don't think HERO is about anything. It's just mechanics to systemize and make fair the group role-playing experience.

Personally, I think DoJ should put more effort into making the various settings stronger, more alive, and more attractive. Not because that's necessarily what I want, since I like to create my own settings and NPCs, but because I think that it would make the game easier to sell. The various stock settings can each have their own "about", then.

Mentor

Jan 20th, '06, 02:19 PM

Look at it this way.

Start with Role Playing, because that's what the "game" is. RPing is a mutual experience shared between a group of people to tell a story - or to waste an afternoon - as a creative endeavor. Even hack'n'slashers do this, their story is just closer to a bad action flick than others.

Ok, that's what you're doing: telling a story of some kind. From a full blown Regency Era romance and political intrigue story to a "we saw some Orcs, and killed them" story.

Next is how to build the scenery.. the system you're going to use. It really doesn't matter which one you use because they all have the same underlying idea: to tell the story outlined above. Some do some stories better than others, some are designed to tell multiple kinds of stories. But all they are is the vehicle, the first coat of paint on the scenery of the story.

After that you're picking genre's, archetypes, ideas, specifics... shades of color.

Some people like red. Some people like blue.

If HERO is "about" anything it's about trying to provide as many colors as you can think of to use as you see fit. But in the end it's still a group experience telling a story.
It would seem to me that to many if not most gamers, especially Hero gamers, that the purpose is to be part of the story rather than just tell the story. In an RPG setting, there is no controlled guarantee that the heroes will win or even come out OK. Some genres weigh the campaingn in that favor, but telling a story is still too distant a description for my view. Taking the beating as Spiderman or ndiana Jones is something that players try to prevent their players from doing rather than just accepting it as part of the tale.

Trebuchet

Jan 20th, '06, 02:47 PM

It would seem to me that to many if not most gamers, especially Hero gamers, that the purpose is to be part of the story rather than just tell the story. In an RPG setting, there is no controlled guarantee that the heroes will win or even come out OK. Some genres weigh the campaingn in that favor, but telling a story is still too distant a description for my view. Taking the beating as Spiderman or Indiana Jones is something that players try to prevent their players from doing rather than just accepting it as part of the tale.I think you're on to something here. "Telling a story" is still a story at at least one remove. A far better approach or goal is mutually experiencing the story. When things click just right, even the GM can (and should!) get caught up in the excitement as his players thread their way through the obstacles and antagonists prepared for them. I know I derive tremendous enjoyment when the players are having a good "cinematic" experience in a game I'm running. I love to role play, but I really enjoy gamemastering as well.

For me Hero is still first and foremost Champions and its variants, but the basic system works so well that IME it's very good at genres like fantasy, modern action adventure, and pulp. That's not to say there may not be systems that do those other genres as well as Hero, but why invest the money and time in learning two or three systems when one does them all well and some excellently?

And as another not-to-be-minimized bonus, what other game system gives you the kind of support and interaction with the staff and writers as Hero does?

TheRavenIs

Jan 20th, '06, 03:10 PM

I see Hero as having the ‘hidden’ aspect that you see, as well as it doesn’t. I play Hero for the main reason that it allows me to make a Character that then allows me to explore my own mind in a shared world. Do I see Hero having a self-realization part … yes? I see ANY game system if it is any good to allow you to do that, but … you have to approach Hero or any game with that as part of it to find it.

Hero to me allows me to do things that only one other game did, Traveler, to go beyond the basic set-up of the game system. Hero allows me to explore things inside myself that I can’t do in the ‘real’ world. Hero gives me the means to do this for the reason that it is UNIVERSAL. I can do a Character that is in a Fantasy game, Dark Champion game, Pulp game, Space Hero game, and always in a Champions game or any weird combo I can create, that allows me to do this. Now that isn’t to say you can’t do it in another game, but I’ve found after RPing for over 20+ years that Hero allows you the ultimate flexibility to do it.

Hero gives me the feeling that when I play it, I can do a Character that can go against the convention of the basic’s in a way that doesn’t either destroy the game for others or make the experience of the game for the others I play with less than enjoyable. If I play DnD3.5 I can’t do that, you play against kind and that action makes it hard for you and the others to have fun, I find that is that in that style of game you are encouraged to play to convention.

Now as to the point that Hero doesn’t have the self-realization, like everything you do a system like life, only what you bring to something is what you find.

bigdamnhero

Jan 20th, '06, 03:22 PM

do you believe the toolkit has: a) some inherent prejudices;
Obviously; all simulations have their own biases. Hero favors Individual Heroic Action, with a "reasonable" balance between accuracy, complexity, and cinematic style. (These are all, of course, highly subjective terms and some may prefer to tilt the balance in one direction or another - something I would argue the system permits, BTW.)

b) if so, does it therefore fits more with certain play experiences than others
Sure. For instance, I think it's one of the few (only?) systems that handles Superheroic level play as well as it handles Heroic Action, but that does come at the cost of some granularity at the "realistic normal" level. Similarly, I think the complexity of the combat system makes it hard (tho not impossible) to run huge "skirmish-level" fights with 30 or 40 minis on the table. (Savage Worlds seems to be better-suited towards that kind of "fast & furious" play, `tho I haven't played it.) And the "action is his reward" idiom would seem to make it hard to capture the "fear & futility" of a CoC game.

But then, there are folk on these boards who will argue all three of those points; and not just the arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing folks, either. :D

and c) - IF so - wouldn't this constitute some form of theme or the like, even though I can well grant it's rather vague?
I guess so... :think: Maybe I'm just not comfortable using the word "theme" in this context. I hate semantic debates, but theme to me implies more narrative purpose than I'm comfortable ascribing to the tool box. But I can't think of a better word off the top of my head.

Some rambling - anyway, just thoughts - the point is if something is about a type of fiction, that means it's about some sort of theme, however broad. But I'm not suggesting that one needs to give a deeper definition than you gave, despite that approach being my prejudice in such analysis.
I see your point. But even if we say that Hero's theme is Individual Heroic Action... how is that different from 90% of the other RPGs on the market? Is that a bias of Hero's, or of the RPG hobby as a whole?

bigdamnhero
“Is this the human value you call friendship?”
“Don't give me any of that 'Star Trek' crap. It's too early in the morning.”

bigdamnhero

Jan 20th, '06, 03:27 PM

Hero to me allows me to do things that only one other game did, Traveler, to go beyond the basic set-up of the game system. Hero allows me to explore things inside myself that I can’t do in the ‘real’ world.
Interesting comparison. One thing I always felt both Traveller and Hero do very well is focus on the characters themselves, rather than on how many magic swords they're carrying. Hero characters (and Traveller characters) always seemed more like people to me, and less like a list of levels, feats, and gear. Of course, that could just be my biases.

bigdamnhero
“I said it was our only chance -- I did not say it was a good one.”

Springald Jack

Jan 20th, '06, 03:51 PM

What is HERO about?

I think that the rules of HERO are organized around the task of pitting beings with very specifically described Superhuman abilities against each other in Combat. Powers and Combat. This can be seen in things like that mental powers rules are based on the way a damage power works.

That said HERO has a less strong flavor than most games.

This is not a judgement, but I feel it to be true.

hancock.tom

Jan 20th, '06, 05:53 PM

This is a really interesting thread, and you have found a very difficult question to answer.

I'm just glad I can keep having fun playing this game without answering it. :D

ghost-angel

Jan 20th, '06, 06:29 PM

The Hokey Pokey is what it's all about.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 06:35 PM

Does that make sense, Zorn?

Actually, yes, I think so, quite a bit.

On a tangent, I feel it's not at all the same as, but it's not terribly dissimilar from (um, in other words there's a vague relationship to) a line of argument I pursued briefly with Jared during the seminar. I was making the point that a game in which the pursuit in and of itself is exploring the rules as mechanics and the "academia" of it (not the word I used, but something approximating that) itself is the purpose, and that I don't think that's wrong, even if it isn't really "about" something in the sense he searches for. I was thinking of HERO in this regard, though I'm not pigeonholing HERO as such.

Anyway, that doesn't address your actual points. I wouldn't naysay those. And I think you raise an interesting enough and valid approach. Will have to continue to think about it.

I do want to pursue that I don't think you, I, or even a large portion of the people on these boards play "real HERO". And that, to be fair, is very much a result of the ethos of HERO - which does play into "what is HERO about." As to KS and others' similar points, it does speak to that toolkit essence, and I think it should be noted that this, well, zeitgeist of the game is echoed successfully by people's adaptations of it. It's why Mentor and Trebuchet can play a relatively "straight" comic book adaptation with HERO, why I do a sort of (as someone put it) "Rockford files" cum superhero feel with a heavy dose of X-Files (brief comment - I did that long before the X-Filles, too!), and why you have your sort of "legendary gritty" (well, I hope that the quick take doesn't annoy you/isn't too far off...) supers game.

So it's an important point and I think your post successfully explores this. Thanks. And I want to acknowledge others have been hitting at the same thing, I just am finding this clinches and moreover formulates those sentiments a bit more.

In any event, it is an important distinction for HERO. And it is what I like about HERO so much. (And, by the way, it's why I disagree with DOJ's unwillingness to license "built using HERO" (as in games that don't look like HERO directly anymore) games, even though I do understand and appreciate their position)

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 06:38 PM

It would seem to me that to many if not most gamers, especially Hero gamers, that the purpose is to be part of the story rather than just tell the story. In an RPG setting, there is no controlled guarantee that the heroes will win or even come out OK. Some genres weigh the campaingn in that favor, but telling a story is still too distant a description for my view. Taking the beating as Spiderman or ndiana Jones is something that players try to prevent their players from doing rather than just accepting it as part of the tale.
I just want to add to what you've said, even at the risk of repeating to some degree my most recent post. I don't think HERO gamers are so unique in the regard you cite, even if they are more that way than, say, "traditional" RPGers; I think they share this attitude, perhaps ironically, with many of the most vocal recent wave of gamers, but what makes HEROites unique, I think, is they take this to the logical extreme I do cite above, of actually not just tinkering but "daring" to remake the game, in fact virtually IGNORING (okay, I'm overstating for effect... :) ) Steve Long, Steve Peterson, Bruce Harlick, et. al. (my apologies to those not mentioned). But they're doing so BECAUSE of the toolkit ethos that has developed.

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 06:42 PM

Obviously; all simulations have their own biases. Hero favors Individual Heroic Action, with a "reasonable" balance between accuracy, complexity, and cinematic style. (These are all, of course, highly subjective terms and some may prefer to tilt the balance in one direction or another - something I would argue the system permits, BTW.)

Sure. For instance, I think it's one of the few (only?) systems that handles Superheroic level play as well as it handles Heroic Action, but that does come at the cost of some granularity at the "realistic normal" level. Similarly, I think the complexity of the combat system makes it hard (tho not impossible) to run huge "skirmish-level" fights with 30 or 40 minis on the table. (Savage Worlds seems to be better-suited towards that kind of "fast & furious" play, `tho I haven't played it.) And the "action is his reward" idiom would seem to make it hard to capture the "fear & futility" of a CoC game.

But then, there are folk on these boards who will argue all three of those points; and not just the arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing folks, either. :D

I guess so... :think: Maybe I'm just not comfortable using the word "theme" in this context. I hate semantic debates, but theme to me implies more narrative purpose than I'm comfortable ascribing to the tool box. But I can't think of a better word off the top of my head.

I see your point. But even if we say that Hero's theme is Individual Heroic Action... how is that different from 90% of the other RPGs on the market? Is that a bias of Hero's, or of the RPG hobby as a whole?

bigdamnhero
“Is this the human value you call friendship?”
“Don't give me any of that 'Star Trek' crap. It's too early in the morning.”

Just to isolate that last question, it's very much why I refer to the "shades of gray" among HERO, GURPS, d20, Savage Worlds, etc..

Although I would hasten to say that I think the "individual heroic action" is more endemic to the "universal" RPGs, and as you get into more specific/nuanced settings the role of that hero (if there is one) is more specific and, sometimes, even unique. I think some games also tend to play around a lot more with "individual".

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 06:43 PM

This is a really interesting thread, and you have found a very difficult question to answer.

I'm just glad I can keep having fun playing this game without answering it. :D
Ha! :D Me, too!

zornwil

Jan 20th, '06, 06:45 PM

Free will and the rewarding of the decisions and action of the players because of those decisions and vicariously through their characters. By eliminating some of the previous game conventions of alignment and character class, hero allows most player characters to choose whether to be physical, mental and/or spiritual in their approaches to conflict. There are equally powerful and valid capabilities to convince, punch, blast or escape ones way out of a situation which are only paid lip servive in other systems.
Upon reflection, this statement tends to unite the "it's a toolkit to make your own - so you must make your own" with fuzzy "self-realization" aspects.

Just another thought...

Lucius

Jan 20th, '06, 09:58 PM

Zornwill:

What is the English Language about?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary urges you to look again. Think about it. It's a serious question with a bearing on the matter.

Lemurion

Jan 20th, '06, 10:25 PM

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 01:00 AM

Zornwill:

What is the English Language about?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary urges you to look again. Think about it. It's a serious question with a bearing on the matter.
RPGs to language is a great comparison as there's some validity to it given both are communication facilitators, but I think it ignores both the consensus-building or consensus-defining and the intentional aspects of RPGS that don't exist, at least not in any real similar manner, in language

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 01:02 AM

Hero is about creating heroes. I know that sounds trite, but that's really what it comes down to.

Right from the beginning, heroes have differed from the rest of us not only through their strengths, but also in their weaknesses. Nothing defines a hero as much as his flaw. It goes as far back as Gilgamesh. The first hero on record, who had an unnatural fear of death. Moving forwards, we have Achilles, whose name has become synonymous with a heroic flaw. How many time have you seen the term "Achilles' heel?"

To the best of my knowledge, Hero introduced the idea of "disads" to the RPG world; the idea that in return for greater than average abilities a character would have commensurate limitations. Previous games may have had flaws (Gamma World anyone?) but Hero was the game that really brought forth the notion that part of a hero's very ability grew from their greater "disability," from flaws and limitations.

That is what I think Hero is for.
I like the "creating" word in that. I don't know that I necessarily agree, but it lends an important aspect to the conversation, since it means that the entire system is about "creation". Very intrigueing idea. It fits the character growth method/reward system as well as it is such a generic statement it fits the broad nature of the game. The only thing is perhaps "hero" lacks definition, but no matter, this may be the most precise definition as it is in fact the common seed among all prior posts. It refers to the "vanilla" nature, the toolkit nature (after all, you can't form a game around the "creation" process without being rather toolkit), informs the notion of self-realization, and does spill over into the idea that people will in turn recreate the game as creation is its central ethos.

Huh - you know, that might be the most appropriate phase yet. Wow, nice! :thumbup: Repped!

bigdamnhero

Jan 21st, '06, 09:49 AM

Hero is about creating heroes. I know that sounds trite, but that's really what it comes down to.
I don't think it's trite - I think you've hit the nail on the head. "Be A Hero," as the book says.

:smack-with-the-rep-stick:

What is the English Language about?
Actually, that's not a bad analogy. Languages may not have "themes" as such, but they too have their own built-in biases and assumptions. It's something liguists & translators have to keep in mind. And there are things you can say in English that you simply cannot say in (for example) Arabic, and vice-versa.

bigdamnhero
“As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?”

ghost-angel

Jan 21st, '06, 09:58 AM

You know .. on the English Analogy. It probably is the best since English has more words than any other language. You have more choices of how to say somthing like with HERO you have more choices on how to build something.

This has its drawbacks, naturally, but that comes with that kind of versitality.

Springald Jack

Jan 21st, '06, 10:17 AM

You know .. on the English Analogy. It probably is the best since English has more words than any other language.

English also has a much simpler grammer than pretty much any other Indo-European language and has severly debased phonetic rules because we don't change spelling and barely change pronuncation when we appropriate a loan word.

English is the d20 System. An occasionally elegant mess of whatever those responible threw together.

HERO is Attic Greek a very complex structure that nonetheless comes together pretty elegantly.

I could probably extend this metaphor to other games but chose not to. (hint the Munchkin card game is Pig Latin :thumbup:)

Derek Hiemforth

Jan 21st, '06, 10:42 AM

bigdamnhero

Jan 21st, '06, 11:08 AM

To me, asking what the HERO System is "about" is vaguely akin to seeing a man reading a book, and asking him what the paper and ink are "about." The paper and ink themselves aren't "about" anything... they're just the medium for conveying the story. It's the story being conveyed that's "about" something.

Similarly, the HERO System is a medium for conveying ideas and stories. It's not "about" anything on its own, except perhaps conveying the ideas and stories with as little distortion and as much clarity as possible.
True, however the medium does influence the message; movies are different from TV shows, which are different from books, which are different from magazine articles. I think what zornwil is trying to examine is how the HERO system medium influences the games we play with it.

bigdamnhero
“Mercy is the mark of a great man. [stab] Guess I'm just a good man. [stab] Well, I'm okay.”

bigdamnhero

Jan 21st, '06, 11:13 AM

English is the d20 System. An occasionally elegant mess of whatever those responible threw together.

HERO is Attic Greek a very complex structure that nonetheless comes together pretty elegantly.
Good analogy, as far as structure goes. But where the analogy breaks down is that you can say a lot more with English than you can say with Attic Greek; that is to say, there are more things you can say in English but not in Greek than vice-versa. (I'm not a linguist, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Which is the reverse of the case with d20-vs-Hero.

bigdamnhero
“Rasputin, bring in the bucket of soapy frogs and remove his trousers!”

Springald Jack

Jan 21st, '06, 11:26 AM

Good analogy, as far as structure goes. But where the analogy breaks down is that you can say a lot more with English than you can say with Attic Greek; that is to say, there are more things you can say in English but not in Greek than vice-versa.

Fair enough call HERO Latin then (I didn't want to cause I was going to use Latin for another game but I digress) The Vatican keeps the vocabulary of Latin up to date so it can say all kinds of things that in all fairness Attic Greek can't. (I have the Cat in the Hat in Latin)

Gadodel

Jan 21st, '06, 01:12 PM

It's about the use of a superb toolkit and the self actualization of one's imagination.

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 02:21 PM

I don't think it's trite - I think you've hit the nail on the head. "Be A Hero," as the book says.

:smack-with-the-rep-stick:

Actually, that's not a bad analogy. Languages may not have "themes" as such, but they too have their own built-in biases and assumptions. It's something liguists & translators have to keep in mind. And there are things you can say in English that you simply cannot say in (for example) Arabic, and vice-versa.

bigdamnhero
“As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?”
I really like his original term "create" rather than "be", and I think that's just the right emphasis. Maybe nit-picky but I think it's a critical difference in verbs.

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 02:27 PM

I know I'm coming into this kinda late, but... I think you might have the question slightly out-of-focus, Zornwil. :)

To me, asking what the HERO System is "about" is vaguely akin to seeing a man reading a book, and asking him what the paper and ink are "about." The paper and ink themselves aren't "about" anything... they're just the medium for conveying the story. It's the story being conveyed that's "about" something.

Similarly, the HERO System is a medium for conveying ideas and stories. It's not "about" anything on its own, except perhaps conveying the ideas and stories with as little distortion and as much clarity as possible.
I dunno, I think Jared Sorenson's original question is pretty solid, but I like bigdamnhero's comment that the medium affects the message, and we're saying how does it do that. I think when you design a game, you should be able to say "what is this game about," and although I think Jared's bar is difficult, it's not at all impossible. I'm creating an action-adventure game that I'm sure some will say is redundant to HERO, GURPS, and Savage Worlds, but I think its emphasis, which is what it is "about," is an answer he found acceptable, so I know from experience the question can be answered reasonably in terms of how Jared phrased it, and I hope I'm phrasing it in a similar enough manner. I think that every game influences play experience, to one degree or another - or it's just a junky system, frankly, something without focus and lending nothing, at which point why use that system as opposed to any other? It would be purposeless...unless each system has its own sort of sublte influence.

Though I might give Fudge a pass on the question and just say "it's about a blank slate". :) Then again I've only cursorily read through the system. As an interesting side note to those interested, Luke Crane, the designer of Burning Wheel, recommends Fudge (hmm, is that all caps?) as a mechanical system to use when you first start testing out your thoughts and before you really have devised your own system. Personally, I'd use HERO of course, given my experience, unless my design were something radically different from action-adventure (in which case I'd have to revisit and see if Fudge is a bit more "blank").

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 02:29 PM

As a sidenote, I think reading through the comments in this thread highlights in some places where RPGing, in terms of design, is the same as traditional art-forms and where it departs from traditional art-forms. I find the whole issue of "how is RPG design and play an art" to be an interesting question in and of itself.

Derek Hiemforth

Jan 21st, '06, 03:00 PM

I think when you design a game, you should be able to say "what is this game about," and although I think Jared's bar is difficult, it's not at all impossible.
(snip)
Though I might give Fudge a pass on the question and just say "it's about a blank slate". :) Then again I've only cursorily read through the system. As an interesting side note to those interested, Luke Crane, the designer of Burning Wheel, recommends Fudge (hmm, is that all caps?) as a mechanical system to use when you first start testing out your thoughts and before you really have devised your own system. Personally, I'd use HERO of course, given my experience, unless my design were something radically different from action-adventure (in which case I'd have to revisit and see if Fudge is a bit more "blank").This really gets us into deeply philosophical territory about "what is a game?" ;)

I think the HERO System (speaking strictly about the rules engine, now) is much more akin to Fudge than it is to, say, Pendragon. HERO is less of a blank slate mechanically than Fudge is, but I think it's just as much a blank slate in terms of what those mechanics are designed to convey.

In fact, reading back over what I just wrote above, I think I've hit upon where I'm having the disconnect. I think it could be cogently argued that the HERO System is not a game per se, but rather a rules engine that you can use to drive games. A game is "about" something... a rules engine is just about making the game work. :)

This is an esoteric distinction I know, but let's compare the HERO System to, say, Monopoly for a minute. Is Monopoly a game? Certainly. It's about strategic buying, trading, and development of properties, combined with a fairly heavy dose of random fortune, where each player's goal is to drive the others into bankruptcy. It has a specific goal, which you try to achieve within the constraints of a set of mechanical rules.

But is the rules set itself the "game?" Apparently not. We've all seen the gazillion Monopoly-esque games available out there as well. Many of them are virtually the same game as Monopoly, changing names and artwork, but keeping the same goal. But many are very different... in many of them, your goal is not driving opponents into bankruptcy, or buying, trading, and developing properties, etc.

However, even in the "different" ones, there is an underlying "rules engine" that remains consistent. You roll dice to move. You circle a board, in a clockwise direction, that's 10 spaces on each side. You roll again when you roll certain dice combinations. You draw cards when you land on certain spaces. And so on. These mechanics are not a game unto themselves, and they are not "about" anything, but they are the rules engine underlying Monopoly and all the similar games.

I think you could make a strong argument that the HERO System is a rules engine in this sense... it's a consistent framework of mechanics that you can drape the finishing touches of a game around -- and have it be nearly-interchangeable with other games using the same rules engine -- but it is not, strictly speaking, a game on its own.

I think a game by definition includes an object... a goal that the players are trying to achieve. And I don't think the HERO System defines an object. At the point when an object is introduced, that's when it becomes a game. In RPG terms, I think it's a loose, but generally fair, assumption that the "object" comes into play when you define a setting and roles for the characters.

Therefore, of course, many (most!) RPG books are games (or game expansions). The HERO System is more like a game-building tool; it's one step further upstream in the process than most RPGs are. :)

OddHat

Jan 21st, '06, 03:21 PM

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 03:22 PM

Dereck, I do agree with a lot of what you say, but I would note that HERO only supports certain types of play experiences, at least directly; it's difficult (and I think, without really remaking it to the point where it's no longer the same system) to make HERO do what, say, Dogs in the Vineyard does. So I think it's definitely not as simple as just being a system and saying that excuses whether it has an impact on play experience (which I'm not saying you said, but I think you imply that territory a bit).

However, I would also note that HERO grew out of a game - Champions - and retained that game as its core, too, so I think the kernel that drove that game continues to drive these mechanics, at least to a degree.

And part of what you say is why I think the "HERO is about creating a hero" is getting to a close approximation of what the system is about, as we know whatever that is, it is of course vague and took place without a lot of intent.

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 03:24 PM

HERO the rules engine will almost always add the flavor of cinematic heroic fiction to any game you build with it, unless you are very careful in your house rule selection.

Heroic fiction is about problems that can ultimately be solved by hitting somebody and/or blowing something up.
That last sentence is an INCREDIBLY important observation about action-adventure RPGing in general. I think too often we forget that and doing so pollutes our understanding, and sometimes creates unrealistic expectations of gaming systems intended to support that (it's also why I think GURPS' social combat rules, while useful and I'm not dismissing entirely, are a bit off-axis).

OddHat

Jan 21st, '06, 03:36 PM

That last sentence is an INCREDIBLY important observation about action-adventure RPGing in general. I think too often we forget that and doing so pollutes our understanding, and sometimes creates unrealistic expectations of gaming systems intended to support that (it's also why I think GURPS' social combat rules, while useful and I'm not dismissing entirely, are a bit off-axis).

One of the central problems with White Wolf games is the disconnect between mechanics that seem to describe an action/adventure setting and game worlds and scenarios that emphasize social and political conflict above all. Most White Wolf settings (imo) work much better in LARPS than when approached as tabletop RPGs.

Similarly, while social role playing and conflict (imo) absolutely should play a part in HERO System games, I would not be happy with a purely social-conflict based HERO system game. HERO can be adjusted to handle such a game, but it's not the system (if any) I'd choose to use.

Just Joe

Jan 21st, '06, 05:41 PM

To those who see it as purely (so to speak, I don't mean to overstate so don't take that quite literally) mechanical tooklit, a question: do you believe the toolkit has: a) some inherent prejudices; b) if so, does it therefore fits more with certain play experiences than others (I think we can say, for instance, it's less applicable to certain genra such as a pure political game or to do a game like Dogs in the Vineyard in HERO, for example, would be, I think, a bit difficult though I'm not suggesting it's impossible), and c) - IF so - wouldn't this constitute some form of theme or the like, even though I can well grant it's rather vague? My initial reaction to you original question was to give a "toolkit" type reply, much like the one RDU Neil first gave and others echoed -- and I would stick to this as my answer to the unqualified question, "What is HERO about?" Nevertheless, I think you are getting at an important question that cannot be answered in this way, and I'm not particularly concerned with semantic quibbles about the most precise way to articulate that question. Furthermore, I think your answer to your own question is a plausible one.

Yet I don't think that what HERO is "about" in your sense limits what it is good for as much as you suggest. For example, I don't know much about Dogs in the Vineyard, but from what I've heard, I might really enjoy a game using its setting and themes (though God or the Devil is in the details). But if I played such a game, I would want to do it using HERO. My reaction to what I've heard of the mechanics of DitV is similar to my reaction to human consumption of arthropods; that is, I do not claim that it is objectively inferior to what I do, but I have no desire to have anything to do with it.

On another note, your analysis of what HERO is "about" helps me understand some of the ways my values are out of sync with the game. For example, as a GM I am very stingy with experience points. Though thre are probably multiple reasons for this, I think it is partially because I don't (at least not fully) buy into the boot-strapping self-realization thing.

Just Joe

Jan 21st, '06, 06:15 PM

True, however the medium does influence the message; movies are different from TV shows, which are different from books, which are different from magazine articles.Which is what irks me about DOJ's (IMO) excessive emphasis on modelling cinematic action and many HEROphile's similarly (IMO) excessive emphasis on modelling particular source material. RPG's are their own kind of medium (of which HERO is one particular medium) and deserve their own approaches. By analogy, it can be legitimate to use a stage whisper in an original film, and there is nothing wrong with making a movie of Hamlet, but film-makers would be making a terrible mistake if they thought that all film-making had to proceed along these lines.

Just Joe

Jan 21st, '06, 06:34 PM

Heroic fiction is about problems that can ultimately be solved by hitting somebody and/or blowing something up.Though of course the best heroic fiction doesn't fit this mold exactly. As a GM, I strive (not always sucessfully) to present problems that can't be solved so simply. Alas, most Hollywood writers (and/or producers) appear to have no such qualms.

OddHat

Jan 21st, '06, 06:42 PM

Though of course the best heroic fiction doesn't fit this mold exactly. As a GM, I strive (not always sucessfully) to present problems that can't be solved so simply.

So it takes some time to find the right person to hit, or the right thing to blow up? ;)

Gadodel

Jan 21st, '06, 06:58 PM

Though of course the best heroic fiction doesn't fit this mold exactly. As a GM, I strive (not always sucessfully) to present problems that can't be solved so simply. Alas, most Hollywood writers (and/or producers) appear to have no such qualms.
I like these sort of campaigns.

Lucius

Jan 21st, '06, 07:11 PM

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the word "Hero" comes from the Greek meaning "to seize or grasp." At its most basic it means to grab something and hold it in your fist, but it also has a military meaning of "seizing" territory, or taking or "holding" a city, as well as a mental meaning, as in to "grasp" an idea or "have a handle" on a technique or situation.

Lucius Alexander

Or, observes the palindromedary, perhaps not.

zornwil

Jan 21st, '06, 11:15 PM

My initial reaction to you original question was to give a "toolkit" type reply, much like the one RDU Neil first gave and others echoed -- and I would stick to this as my answer to the unqualified question, "What is HERO about?" Nevertheless, I think you are getting at an important question that cannot be answered in this way, and I'm not particularly concerned with semantic quibbles about the most precise way to articulate that question. Furthermore, I think your answer to your own question is a plausible one.

Yet I don't think that what HERO is "about" in your sense limits what it is good for as much as you suggest. For example, I don't know much about Dogs in the Vineyard, but from what I've heard, I might really enjoy a game using its setting and themes (though God or the Devil is in the details). But if I played such a game, I would want to do it using HERO. My reaction to what I've heard of the mechanics of DitV is similar to my reaction to human consumption of arthropods; that is, I do not claim that it is objectively inferior to what I do, but I have no desire to have anything to do with it.

On another note, your analysis of what HERO is "about" helps me understand some of the ways my values are out of sync with the game. For example, as a GM I am very stingy with experience points. Though thre are probably multiple reasons for this, I think it is partially because I don't (at least not fully) buy into the boot-strapping self-realization thing.
Thanks, great comments, but I would just point out that while you might well play Dogs' setting with HERO, you'd play an extremely different game unless you completely modified HERO's mechanics. The reason is that the conflict resolution system in DitV is for a rather different effect, and its processes revolve around the axis of moral quandaries and judgements. And it is geared towards a very specific play experience, one which requires such a heavy modification to HERO's deliberate open-endedness that I think you'd end up with a game different from HERO - but very likely not too much like Dogs, either.

Now playing an action-adventure game in the Dogs setting with HERO, sure, that makes a lot of sense.

Just Joe

Jan 22nd, '06, 02:22 PM

. . . I would just point out that while you might well play Dogs' setting with HERO, you'd play an extremely different game unless you completely modified HERO's mechanics. The reason is that the conflict resolution system in DitV is for a rather different effect, and its processes revolve around the axis of moral quandaries and judgements. And it is geared towards a very specific play experience, one which requires such a heavy modification to HERO's deliberate open-endedness that I think you'd end up with a game different from HERO - but very likely not too much like Dogs, either.

Now playing an action-adventure game in the Dogs setting with HERO, sure, that makes a lot of sense.The fact that the DitV setting and gameplay focus on moral quandries and judgements is the main thing that strikes me as interesting about the game. However, I don't see any particular advantage to having a system that revolves around these things. Now I admit that I would want a certain amount of sneaking and at least the potential for violence in most adventures in such a setting, but even if I didn't want these things, I'd probably use HERO. I don't claim that HERO is ideal for such a game, but I think it would work perfectly fine, and I would have no incentive to try a new system for it.

bigdamnhero

Jan 22nd, '06, 03:41 PM

I really like his original term "create" rather than "be", and I think that's just the right emphasis. Maybe nit-picky but I think it's a critical difference in verbs.
OTOH while I do enjoy character creation in its own right, isn't the whole point of creating characters to then play with those characters? What's the point of creating a hero if he/she/it never gets a chance to do anything heroic?

bigdamnhero
“Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!”

zornwil

Jan 22nd, '06, 03:49 PM

zornwil

Jan 22nd, '06, 03:53 PM

The fact that the DitV setting and gameplay focus on moral quandries and judgements is the main thing that strikes me as interesting about the game. However, I don't see any particular advantage to having a system that revolves around these things. Now I admit that I would want a certain amount of sneaking and at least the potential for violence in most adventures in such a setting, but even if I didn't want these things, I'd probably use HERO. I don't claim that HERO is ideal for such a game, but I think it would work perfectly fine, and I would have no incentive to try a new system for it.
You'd really be missing out by not trying DitV if you want to play such a game. It's tuned to this and has very different precepts about the whole character creation process as well as conflict resolution, which is also completely different. You declare stakes for a conflict, your narrative is driven not by mechanics but by what you say and the mechanics only serve in terms of defining success at each level, the narrative defining what actually happens to characters. You'd really have to radically alter HERO to do the same thing. And that's not just me saying that - it was Darren Watts who did (and does) recommend DitV as a game and noted how differentiated it is. I don't mean this as an "appeal to authority," I mean this to say that it's not some sort of anti-HERO statement plus to point out that my comment/experience is not unique (we don't have another common acquaintance steeped in HERO as a reference point).

PS - yes, DitV supports violence directly in the game system, but violence is a way of achieving your stakes, not necessarily (it can be) an end in itself.

Lemurion

Jan 22nd, '06, 04:15 PM

OTOH while I do enjoy character creation in its own right, isn't the whole point of creating characters to then play with those characters? What's the point of creating a hero if he/she/it never gets a chance to do anything heroic?

bigdamnhero
“Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!”

As the person who used that verb "create" I'm going to take a stab at it. Creating a hero is something that I would differentiate from simply creating a character. A hero is more than simply a character, they are rather what a character grows into. So in a very real way the character does not become a hero until they do see play. That is when they can become a hero, rise above the page and enter your own local group's myth.

Hierax

Jan 22nd, '06, 05:14 PM

Part of the difference is that these new generation of "Indie" games that sites like the Forge talk about have games that have built-in meaning and the mechanics of the game actually support that meaning. Dogs in the Vineyard (DitV) is one but there are others.

HERO is a great system but the mechanics of these other games address something that HERO doesn't quite do right out of the box -- Disadvantages are close but some of these games go further at bringing meaning directly into the game play with the mechanics.

The question is how can the HERO System Toolkit be used to have Game Mechanics that support Meaning for a game?

Zeropoint

Jan 22nd, '06, 07:33 PM

Coming in late:

Earlier, it was pointed out that the medium defines, or at least influences, the message. To me, Hero is about having a medium that influences the message as little as possible, letting the intended meaning come through clearly.

It's about not having to fight the system to create what you envision.

Zeropoint

ghost-angel

Jan 23rd, '06, 05:51 AM

It's about not having to fight the system to create what you envision.
That hit the nail on the head as to why I like HERO.

RDU Neil

Jan 23rd, '06, 06:09 AM

You'd really be missing out by not trying DitV if you want to play such a game. It's tuned to this and has very different precepts about the whole character creation process as well as conflict resolution, which is also completely different. You declare stakes for a conflict, your narrative is driven not by mechanics but by what you say and the mechanics only serve in terms of defining success at each level, the narrative defining what actually happens to characters. You'd really have to radically alter HERO to do the same thing. And that's not just me saying that - it was Darren Watts who did (and does) recommend DitV as a game and noted how differentiated it is. I don't mean this as an "appeal to authority," I mean this to say that it's not some sort of anti-HERO statement plus to point out that my comment/experience is not unique (we don't have another common acquaintance steeped in HERO as a reference point).

PS - yes, DitV supports violence directly in the game system, but violence is a way of achieving your stakes, not necessarily (it can be) an end in itself.

And this is what is meant by the difference between a "Task Resolution" system and a "Conflict Resolution" system. (At least as far as I can understand.)

Task Resolution is classic Hero. "I swing my fist to punch him." Roll to see if you hit, where you hit, how much damage you do. But there is NO mechanic of "what does that hit mean? How does that hit influence character behavior? What is the social repercussion... the meaning of that punch? What did you intend to have happen if the punch succeeded? Why?"

Task Resolution abstracts actions into discreet mechanics. I don't actually punch you to see if my character hits... we roll it out.

Conflict Resolution does the same, but for Intent and Social Interactions. I don't actually argue with you... player to player... we roll a mechanic that determines whether or not my POV wins over yours... AND (most importantly) by winning, I force certain events to be "true" in the game.

In task resolution... even if I succeed with my punch, the GM still has to make a totally subjective judgment call on say... whether the opponent flees, get's angry, takes a hostage, strikes back, gives up, etc. In Conflict Resolution, the result is determined by who wins. "If I succeed with my blow, he falls to his knees, renouncing evil and gives me the name of the sinners in the town!" And the "GM" does not just take the situation and say "Ok... he falls to his knees and does such... but when you turn around, he was really faking it and stabs you in the back!" That is not appropriate. You won the Stakes, so you control the outcome. He truly does give up and repent, because you say so.

Stakes and Intent are crucial to this mechanical abstracting of social interaction. Violence can happen... but it is simply a descriptive element to what is really important which is imposing your control over the story and events and meaning of the game. It is a vastly different use of mechanics for a very different reason... a reason/meaning that is

Hero has nothing (and shouldn't, IMO) mechanically that involves true Conflict Resolution... Stakes, etc. Intent is a technique that is very easy to incorporate in a general way. We do it all the time in our group. But it isn't "built into" Hero... nor does the system support it. You can have all kinds of themes and philosophy and Intent... but it is freeform role playing and doesn't matter whether you are playing Hero or D&D or GURPS... because mechanics play no part in it.

Edited: Just realized that I came across as arguing with you, Zorn. I think we are on the same page here. Most of above was more a response to what Just Joe stated... quoted below.

The fact that the DitV setting and gameplay focus on moral quandries and judgements is the main thing that strikes me as interesting about the game. However, I don't see any particular advantage to having a system that revolves around these things. Now I admit that I would want a certain amount of sneaking and at least the potential for violence in most adventures in such a setting, but even if I didn't want these things, I'd probably use HERO. I don't claim that HERO is ideal for such a game, but I think it would work perfectly fine, and I would have no incentive to try a new system for it.

Markdoc

Jan 23rd, '06, 06:22 AM

Vondy

Jan 23rd, '06, 09:14 AM

Precise and flexible character definition that is mostly internally coherent and player or GM driven (as opposed to random). I'm a guy who wants to know everything about the character, both in terms of mechanical design and the write up. As a result, I use Hero. I'm a design time fanatic. On the other hand, when in comes to run time, there are several systems I like better, but they don't do characters as well - so I don't use them.

Vondy

Jan 23rd, '06, 09:30 AM

To elaborate on my design time vs. run time issue, I'll explain. Hero is an excellent run-time system for superheroic and cinematic games, especially in genres and play styles where there are large assumed differences between the protagonists and the "common man." In other words, hero works better for games with a high reality distortion level, which is great, when you are running those kinds of games. On the other hand, I tend to run games with a grittier feel and a greater sense of versimiltude (the characters are impressive, and do pull off cinematic feats now an again, but they aren't superheroic or legendary by most standards).

My long term players preferred this style of play as well (now I only do PBEM). My games tend to be heavily character centered with long-term plot lines. They often involve extensive interaction and investigation, and tend to be skill heavy as opposed to power and stat heavy. There are big brawls and action sequences (you have to include some to keep the tension and pace up), but those are there as plot elements as opposed to the main event. As a result, a system that does supers and cinematic genres best isn't the best system for the style of games I run. On the other hand - it can be used for my games, though another system might prove superior in terms of simulation.

On yet another hand, few games provide the massive amount of precision and flexibility I want when building characters. Hero characters tend to be well defined. If I build a character in Hero I know exactly what they can do, and exactly what range they fall into.

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 06:36 PM

Actually you don't - I routinely do precisely this sort of thing and hero lends itslef to it very elegantly (a few weeks ago, we had a session where the "conflict" was several warriors attempting to charm a passel of ladies, using what skills they had and was "won" by one of the players combining roleplaying and deft use of his existing skils. You do however need to alter your preconceptions both during character creation and gaming.

Just to be contrary, I've found that games where those preconceptions are built in (those which are "about something", if you like) tend to HINDER play. The mechanisms inevitably seem to rely on the GM's skill for narrative continuity and player satisfaction: and if the GM has that degree of skill, the mechanisms are irrelevant (see the recent thread on combat resolution for Heroquest as one example. This is precisely why we converted from Heroquest rules to Hero system for RQ and found the resulting play ended up closer to the source material than when using the somewhat clunky system Laws devised). The only place where these "context-aware rules" are beneficial (IMO) is in character generation since they lay out explicitly what the players and GM can expect. In that regard they are "about something" in a way that Hero system is not.

Of course, that's why some people find Hero to be "bland", I suspect.

cheers, Mark
I routinely adapt HERO as well and most people add a layer of stakes resolution, whether informally or formally. But I really think you're missing the point if you adapt HERO to do what DitV does, just as you would if you tried to adapt it to the Secret Lives of Gingerbreak Men or Capes. Read either Capes or DitV at least among those systems (I haven't read Gingerbreak Men myself but from what I've heard it's also fairly unique, so I throw it in) and come back and try to do them with HERO and either you'll have rewritten HERO fundamentally and rather pointlessly to do what somebody else has already built, or you'll end up with something that simply isn't the same play experience and therefore misses the point.

While I admit I'm failing to explain the nuances well and it really requires someone reading the systems in question, I'd put it this way as to the proof being in the pudding - buy a game system geared towards a very specific, non-"universal" play experience, play it a few times as written and as the author suggests, then do the same by revamping HERO to do so, or at least think about it...and I think you'd find that doing so is (at least in a well-desigend system, otherwise all bets are off) a rather silly exercise. Unlike the issue with Heroquest, which is where you simply didn't want the play experience it offered (whether through incompetence on the system's part or simply not liking it even though it was well-delivered for what the game designer intended).

I've yet to see anyone who enjoyed either DitV or Capes (though I'm not a fan of Capes and haven't really looked into it nearly as much) turn around and say "cool, I'll rewrite ("univeral" system of choice)" to do that. I've seen it with systems that are less pointed, such as Call of Cthuhlu or various other superhero systems which still rely on the basic GM-player structure of action-adventure games, sure. And of course the reason is these systems aren't so specific themselves in enforcing play experience.

As to your point about systems tuned to a very specific play experience, of course they will either not match what people want to play or some will just not be well-designed. I'm not suggesting that a specific, niche play experience is superior whatsoever to a "universal"-intended one; after all, I'm writing a "universal" one myself. It depends on what people want to play, assuming the system is well-done. I'd note that if it's well-designed, then the issue isn't that it's "hindering" anything, it's that the group doesn't like that sort of play experience. But of course that's a good reason to take what one likes and then put it into mechanics better supporting a more desirable play experience. This has been one of the great strengths of all the better "universal" systems in my experience - it's relatively easy to take elements enjoyed from other games and incorporate them, such as Savage Worlds/Deadlands-style chips in HERO or adding a form of d20ish levelling to HERO or the like.

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 06:40 PM

Edited: Just realized that I came across as arguing with you, Zorn. I think we are on the same page here. Most of above was more a response to what Just Joe stated... quoted below.

Thanks, but no worries, I got it - though I grant, it took a minute but before I even got to your closing note here I realized you were speaking to the point I had made, not against it.

Just Joe

Jan 23rd, '06, 07:11 PM

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 07:29 PM

After what you (Zorwil & RDU Neil) have written, I am somewhat intrigued about "Dogs", and if I had ten times as much time to game as I do now, I'd probably give it a try (thus my arthropods analogy breaks down, as I would have to be starving before I'd eat centipedes or shrimp). But overall, it doesn't sound like the thing for me. It sounds like players are granted a level of authority that I, as a player, wouldn't want and that I, as a GM, wouldn't want to cede. This certainly has something to do with gaming philosophy, but the traditional GM-player relationship that HERO and I employ is shared by a large number of games. And though I think other models might have their uses, I don't see how the fact that a game accepts this relationship limits what the game is "about".

I'm not sure whether or not this constitutes a disagreement with you.
Re the game itself, one player was particularly hesitant, he confided after playing, in playing a religious judge in a conservative society, as it's very much against his nature (as it is mine) - which isn't the same issue as you cite - but he ended up being quite pleasantly surprised.

As to the power issue, sure, that's valid. Players DO have a tremendous power and GMs have less, in terms of overt game influence, but that's also what makes for interesting discussions on what to do, and I found it fun as GM to watch and then throw in an NPC to challenge.

On a side note, despite what I thought when I read it and before I played it, it's a nice mix of narrative, gamist, and simulationist elements. It's stronger narratively, I'd say, but as one player who enjoys having the gaming/competitive element said, the gamist part is quite satisfying (which I agree with and was a bit surprised by).

Anyway, I'm definitely not trying to sell you on it, just elaborating. I can understand your view in not wanting to play that way. I just do want to say the game is well-designed enough that the players' power comes with great responsibility, however trite that sounds, and this creates a strong check-and-balance in the system. But I fully admit I'm a bit zealous having been bitted hard by this! The people who played all agreed they'd like to go ahead and take advantage of our limited F2F sessions to play this for a while instead of the supers game we've long been playing (and that one of the guys only recently joined for, I feel sort of bad, as if somehow, though this was definitely not the intent, I baited-and-switched), putting the supers game into PBP mode (which I have to work on some more tonight...). So for us it was a smashing success.

Warp9

Jan 23rd, '06, 08:03 PM

It sounds like players are granted a level of authority that I, as a player, wouldn't want and that I, as a GM, wouldn't want to cede.
I see things a bit differently; I like the idea that the GM has less power, and the Players have more.

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 08:52 PM

I see things a bit differently; I like the idea that the GM has less power, and the Players have more.
Yeah, knowing how you run games, I think you'd dig DitV a lot. Basically, the GM has to take a more simulationist role (although you can't neglect some narrative responsibilities, but that's on your NPCs' part anyway, of course) - basically, the GM's most important responsibility is setting up the situation for the players to come across, and then it's to play the NPCs but not to direct the players' activities. This is a good bit more codified than many other games.

Warp9

Jan 23rd, '06, 09:04 PM

Yeah, knowing how you run games, I think you'd dig DitV a lot.
I'll definitely have to check it out! :thumbup:

TheQuestionMan

Jan 23rd, '06, 09:19 PM

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Derek Hiemforth again.

Good stuff

QM

Lucius

Jan 23rd, '06, 10:44 PM

And this is what is meant by the difference between a "Task Resolution" system and a "Conflict Resolution" system. (At least as far as I can understand.)

Task Resolution is classic Hero. "I swing my fist to punch him." Roll to see if you hit, where you hit, how much damage you do. But there is NO mechanic of "what does that hit mean? How does that hit influence character behavior? What is the social repercussion... the meaning of that punch? What did you intend to have happen if the punch succeeded? Why?"
.

Well, you could use the punch to get the "violent action" bonus on a PRE roll.

As for deep philosophical questions about why one person hits another, I suspect it is often hard to get "meaningful" answers in real life, let alone a game.

Task Resolution abstracts actions into discreet mechanics. I don't actually punch you to see if my character hits... we roll it out.

Conflict Resolution does the same, but for Intent and Social Interactions. I don't actually argue with you... player to player... we roll a mechanic that determines whether or not my POV wins over yours... AND (most importantly) by winning, I force certain events to be "true" in the game.

In task resolution... even if I succeed with my punch, the GM still has to make a totally subjective judgment call on say... whether the opponent flees, get's angry, takes a hostage, strikes back, gives up, etc. In Conflict Resolution, the result is determined by who wins. "If I succeed with my blow, he falls to his knees, renouncing evil and gives me the name of the sinners in the town!" And the "GM" does not just take the situation and say "Ok... he falls to his knees and does such... but when you turn around, he was really faking it and stabs you in the back!" That is not appropriate. You won the Stakes, so you control the outcome. He truly does give up and repent, because you say so..

Well, there's the Interrogation skill to force information from an unwilling subject. And there's Oratory and Persuasion to try to make someone change their mind about something.

But to do, in Hero, the Magic Fist of Converting Someone to My Way of Thinking by Hitting Them, you'd have to buy a Transformation attack, Based on EGO Combat because it's a mental transform, with the limit Based on CON because the delivery system is physical (quite crudely so in fact....) probably linked to STR or to a hand to hand attack....maybe with a limit that it only kicks if in you stun the target...

Stakes and Intent are crucial to this mechanical abstracting of social interaction. Violence can happen... but it is simply a descriptive element to what is really important which is imposing your control over the story and events and meaning of the game. It is a vastly different use of mechanics for a very different reason... a reason/meaning that is
.

Interesting. Can player characters pull this on one another? Can nonplayer characters do it to player characters?

What other changes can be wrought? Can I say "I hit this person and she sprouts wings and flies away - Because I Say So?"

Does it work on the inanimate? If the event I want to make "true" in the game is, say, a better house to live in for my character, can I say "I'm tired of this shack, I'm going to run around kicking the walls until it turns into a mansion?"

You know, I was thinking of asking "Why would anyone want to play a superpowered inquisitor?" but maybe I CAN see the appeal.

I went through a phase, when I was with a group playing the Marvel Super Hero game, of having trouble coping with the Comic Convention that the villains always escape or get freed somehow and come back. I don't think I'd have put it that way, but I may have agreed if someone said it was "meaningless" to beat up on villains and toss them in jail if they're only going to get out and cause trouble again. I was doing a lot of questioning of the motivations of all the villains - the idea being, if I can figure out why they do what they do, maybe I can figure out how to make them stop. I even (I was playing a super mage) asked if I could work out a spell to deprive a villain of powers, and at least turn them into merely ordinary crooks.

I have to say, though, it would never have occurred to me to try to reform someone by hitting them. After all, we're talking about people who were ALREADY getting beat on by heroes regularly, and it didn't seem to help. But then, we weren't playing Dogs in the Vineyard.

What the heck does that name mean, anyway? I've heard of a dog in the manger, but what's a dog in the vineyard?

Lucius Alexander

And a turkey in the straw, and a palindromedary in the palindormitory

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 11:41 PM

I don't know where Baker got the phrase, he may have made it up. The imagery of guard dogs in a vineyard though is apt, they are the protectors among God's bountiful fruits - which may go bad sometimes...

Basically put, conflict resolution in Dogs is first performed with something at Stake. The Stake could be "I want my brother to stop cheating with that woman." Or it could even just be "I want him dead."

Then an opening Arena (as well as a Setting but that's simple enough). It might be Talking, Physical but not Fighting, Fighting, or Gunfighting. It can escalate from Talking on up or start right at Gunfighting (as in "I want him dead.").

If we take the "I want my brother to stop cheating" example, of course the PC likely starts by Talking. Roll dice based on various Stats and any applicable Traits and Relationships (certainly his being a brother is involved; that adds a d6, but his brother gets a d6, too). The brother might be losing the argument - but not want to stop cheating. So he might escalate to Physical - which could simply be "Forget it, I'm leaving," and he shoves the guy aside, moving on. But the PC won't let it go - he grabs him...soon it escaltes to Fighting, maybe worse.

Each character takes something called Fallout damage, if such occurs. Low-level Fallout will change their Traits or Relationships or such; higher Fallout, what with injuries, can kill of course.

At the end, the winner (which is not directly related to Fallout; that's a separate accounting) gets to win the Stakes. If the PC won the "cheating" thing, he'd probably have convinced the brother (either by fear or reasoning, depending on the nature of the conflict) to stop. If the brother wins, he has rebuffed the attempt.

Similarly, if the stakes are "I'm going to kill him," then if the attempting killer iwns, it really doesn't matter what Fallout occurs - the killer kills. Of course with severe enough Fallout he might also lay dead and bleeding, but that's a separate matter.

The way Stats and Traits and Rellationships and Belongings (forgot those earlier) work is they lend dice to the conflict resolution, very basically put.

Like any good system, there's other stuff to consider; I didn't get into what Fallout really means, how it affects your various abilities, nor did we discuss the setting's boundaries, and so on. This is just some simple mechanical elements to give you an idea how it works.

PS - similarly, you wouldn't make Stakes like "Be a good person from now on!" or similarly vague or unlikely ones.

PPS - and of course, if playing longer term, it's not as if the woman the brother cheats with couldn't attempt to come back and seduce him

Markdoc

Jan 24th, '06, 01:50 AM

I routinely adapt HERO as well and most people add a layer of stakes resolution, whether informally or formally. But I really think you're missing the point if you adapt HERO to do what DitV does, just as you would if you tried to adapt it to the Secret Lives of Gingerbreak Men or Capes. Read either Capes or DitV at least among those systems (I haven't read Gingerbreak Men myself but from what I've heard it's also fairly unique, so I throw it in) and come back and try to do them with HERO and either you'll have rewritten HERO fundamentally and rather pointlessly to do what somebody else has already built, or you'll end up with something that simply isn't the same play experience and therefore misses the point.

Perhaps so - I haven't read Capes or Gingerbreak men - I have read a friend's copy of DitV though. As for play ... I dunno. He wants me to run it (lazy sod) and though I find the setting intriguing, it's not enough to grab me, when I've got a regular FH campaign to run. Perhaps if my prior experience with narrative systems was not so overwhelmingly negative for anything more than a one-shot or short adventures...

Still, you could be right about the importance of system.

Unlike the issue with Heroquest, which is where you simply didn't want the play experience it offered (whether through incompetence on the system's part or simply not liking it even though it was well-delivered for what the game designer intended).

The situation here is somewhat different, in that the designer (and the new owners of the intellectual property) were developing a new system for an established setting with a huge (and dare I say it, rather cultish) fanbase. The old Chaosium system was showing it's age, no question. But in this case, there were clear expectations of what a new system should deliver - and given the number of people (the clear majority, in my experience) who have chosen to use a different system, plus the unrestraining whining on the 'net, the designer clearly failed to deliver something that met most people's expectations. I'd go further - if used as intended the system could actually generate results that had everyone at the table going "? But that's just plain stupid!" at which point the GM need to over-ride. In my lexicon, a system which frequently breaks suspension of disbelief, is not simply providing a different experience than that expected: it is providing a poor experience.

So those are two different things. You can look at the debate on the Iron Kingdoms game on the Fantasy Hero boards: that's another example of a system which was grafted somewhat unhappily onto an existing background- the original (and rather cool) vision was not intended to include fireball and lightningbolt flinging wizards, nor human warriors who could take on a couple of Khador warjacks with a normal sword. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a fun game (in fact, the people I know who came to IK from D20, love it). On the other hand the people with an IK background, seem to be generally unhappy with the conversion - even they are otherwise d20 players. There's expectations and there's execution - they're different things and need to be managed differently.

As to your point about systems tuned to a very specific play experience, of course they will either not match what people want to play or some will just not be well-designed. I'm not suggesting that a specific, niche play experience is superior whatsoever to a "universal"-intended one; after all, I'm writing a "universal" one myself.

Heh - actually I wasn't meaning to suggest the inverse: that a universal system was superior to a niche one. I certainly don't think so - nor would I expect a system promoting a certain mindset/approach to deliver a flawless experience when used for something else. Merely that a genuinely universal system tends to be less "about" something than a niche one. To take an example, d20, though it has been expanded, is still a niche system: it's basically about beating people up and taking their stuff and that pervades the design of derived systems (see the comments on IK above).

To some extent, this was true of Hero system too, but the expansion of the system over the years has made this original intent so faint it's barely discernible.

Point in case - I'm having to alter my gameplan in the current game because the players have made up a group biased heavily towards business and social skills (not, as far as I am aware, a conscious decision to play against the grain - merely that this was what these players found most attractive when browsing the rules. For them, there *was* no grain). The original combat roots of Hero have become so diluted that they passed these players right by. In that sense, Hero is no longer "about" anything at all.

It depends on what people want to play, assuming the system is well-done. I'd note that if it's well-designed, then the issue isn't that it's "hindering" anything, it's that the group doesn't like that sort of play experience. But of course that's a good reason to take what one likes and then put it into mechanics better supporting a more desirable play experience. This has been one of the great strengths of all the better "universal" systems in my experience - it's relatively easy to take elements enjoyed from other games and incorporate them, such as Savage Worlds/Deadlands-style chips in HERO or adding a form of d20ish levelling to HERO or the like.

Agreed: but here the key part is "assuming the system is well-done". Anyway, here, I was perhaps not very clear in what I meant. I'll try again. Gaming is at core, whatever system you use, a shared experience. The players and GM together, shape - hopefully - a shared memeory of events that actually never happened. Narrative systems, as you noted, transfer more "memory-shaping" power to players. If everyone is on the same page, that may work fine. In my experience, however, as time goes on and players begin to develop their characters they also push the envelope in different directions. That can be acceptable - but it can also begin to generate friction in that actions/consequences are *explicitly* plotted for characters that their players do not want: this is doubly poisonous if those actions/consequences are generated by other players. It's the explicit part that's the problem. To my mind, consequences and fallout should flow naturally as a result of play and environment: to have them "built-in" smacks of railroading.

Of course, this may be a matter of preference. But I can't shake the sneaking feeling that much modern game design is not really intended to optimise the shared experience, so much as to enhance the uniqueness (and thus brief commercial prospects) of new games. Like modern art, it's becoming self-referential, aimed primarily at reviewers and other game designers rather than players.

cheers, Mark

zornwil

Jan 24th, '06, 06:43 AM

Perhaps so - I haven't read Capes or Gingerbreak men - I have read a friend's copy of DitV though. As for play ... I dunno. He wants me to run it (lazy sod) and though I find the setting intriguing, it's not enough to grab me, when I've got a regular FH campaign to run. Perhaps if my prior experience with narrative systems was not so overwhelmingly negative for anything more than a one-shot or short adventures...

FWIW, I agree, DitV is more of a short campaign, I don't think most people would generally enjoy more than 6-12 sessions in a given run, then take a break for other games. And I think a lot of these games are intended that way.

Still, you could be right about the importance of system.

The situation here is somewhat different, in that the designer (and the new owners of the intellectual property) were developing a new system for an established setting with a huge (and dare I say it, rather cultish) fanbase. The old Chaosium system was showing it's age, no question. But in this case, there were clear expectations of what a new system should deliver - and given the number of people (the clear majority, in my experience) who have chosen to use a different system, plus the unrestraining whining on the 'net, the designer clearly failed to deliver something that met most people's expectations. I'd go further - if used as intended the system could actually generate results that had everyone at the table going "? But that's just plain stupid!" at which point the GM need to over-ride. In my lexicon, a system which frequently breaks suspension of disbelief, is not simply providing a different experience than that expected: it is providing a poor experience.

That's fair.

So those are two different things. You can look at the debate on the Iron Kingdoms game on the Fantasy Hero boards: that's another example of a system which was grafted somewhat unhappily onto an existing background- the original (and rather cool) vision was not intended to include fireball and lightningbolt flinging wizards, nor human warriors who could take on a couple of Khador warjacks with a normal sword. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a fun game (in fact, the people I know who came to IK from D20, love it). On the other hand the people with an IK background, seem to be generally unhappy with the conversion - even they are otherwise d20 players. There's expectations and there's execution - they're different things and need to be managed differently.

Heh - actually I wasn't meaning to suggest the inverse: that a universal system was superior to a niche one.

Oh, I didn't think so! I just thought perhaps you were thinking I was saying that a niche one was superior to a universal one, so that's really what I was trying to clarify from my end.

I certainly don't think so - nor would I expect a system promoting a certain mindset/approach to deliver a flawless experience when used for something else. Merely that a genuinely universal system tends to be less "about" something than a niche one. To take an example, d20, though it has been expanded, is still a niche system: it's basically about beating people up and taking their stuff and that pervades the design of derived systems (see the comments on IK above).

To some extent, this was true of Hero system too, but the expansion of the system over the years has made this original intent so faint it's barely discernible.

Point in case - I'm having to alter my gameplan in the current game because the players have made up a group biased heavily towards business and social skills (not, as far as I am aware, a conscious decision to play against the grain - merely that this was what these players found most attractive when browsing the rules. For them, there *was* no grain). The original combat roots of Hero have become so diluted that they passed these players right by. In that sense, Hero is no longer "about" anything at all.

Agreed: but here the key part is "assuming the system is well-done". Anyway, here, I was perhaps not very clear in what I meant. I'll try again. Gaming is at core, whatever system you use, a shared experience. The players and GM together, shape - hopefully - a shared memeory of events that actually never happened. Narrative systems, as you noted, transfer more "memory-shaping" power to players. If everyone is on the same page, that may work fine. In my experience, however, as time goes on and players begin to develop their characters they also push the envelope in different directions. That can be acceptable - but it can also begin to generate friction in that actions/consequences are *explicitly* plotted for characters that their players do not want: this is doubly poisonous if those actions/consequences are generated by other players. It's the explicit part that's the problem. To my mind, consequences and fallout should flow naturally as a result of play and environment: to have them "built-in" smacks of railroading.

Of course, this may be a matter of preference. But I can't shake the sneaking feeling that much modern game design is not really intended to optimise the shared experience, so much as to enhance the uniqueness (and thus brief commercial prospects) of new games. Like modern art, it's becoming self-referential, aimed primarily at reviewers and other game designers rather than players.

cheers, Mark

That's a fair observation, re the last paragraph, but I don't think it's that bad. Does it occur? Surely. But I think a lot of the approach is intended not so much to optimize a shared vision as it is to optimize the DESIGNER's vision in play. Now, that's a very tricky proposition, because one argument I have against that school of thought is that by its very nature RPGing is even a shared experience at the DESIGN level, the participants in a game EXPECT to be able to alter it to their liking, at least to some degree, as that's the very ethos of our tradition - and it ought be, too, I say! I think therefore it's incumbent on a good designer to impart what is important in his game to get the experience he wants to get over and what is not so critical, so that participants in the game can make a conscious and well-informed decision. One of the reasons I've been impressed with the design of DitV is that Baker did an excellent job at explaining this. So I was able to adapt the setting in a way that made sense to me/suited my tastes without disrupting the game (I think) as he intended it, in general, while leaving alone the mechanics (actually entirely, aside from trivial nomenclature issues), and it hangs together pretty well.

RDU Neil

Jan 25th, '06, 12:24 PM

But I think a lot of the approach is intended not so much to optimize a shared vision as it is to optimize the DESIGNER's vision in play. Now, that's a very tricky proposition, because one argument I have against that school of thought is that by its very nature RPGing is even a shared experience at the DESIGN level, the participants in a game EXPECT to be able to alter it to their liking, at least to some degree, as that's the very ethos of our tradition - and it ought be, too, I say!

This is really interesting Zorn... because it opens a whole can of worms... or more properly, maybe this frames a way to look at a can of worms that has already been opened.

1: What is "playing true Hero?" We get this on these boards all the time, and I don't think a single person agrees with anyone else. Hero is "designed" to be modified... but at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? I think this is too broad a statement and belies your own bias. I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book. Everbody is somewhere on this continuum, with probably few if any in the Rewrite It All or By-The-Book extremes... but folks lean one way or another.

3: Who is part of the shared vision? The whole 4th vs. 5th design debates that go on here are really about which vision trumped the other. Not right or wrong, but Steve & Co.'s take on Hero clearly was supported in a shared vision way be many long time Hero folks... but distressed a lot of 'em, too. These boards and the FAQ are clearly results of DOJ trying to incorporate a "shared design vision" with the actual players... and some like it and some don't.

4: Building from that, is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game? Do the designer's of Monopoly design with the expectation of the the game turning into a crashcart derby between the Shoe, Tophat and Racecar? (I've seen this happen.) The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations. I can't really agree with that. The designer should have specific objectives for her game... "This is intended to..." as well as "This is NOT intended to... so play something else." Anything else is practically false advertising. (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?)

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of, where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?"

All of this is not to say I don't share some of your ideas... as well as what Markdoc wrote about. Having read and played around a bit with Burning Wheel... as well as owning Polaris, and having read much of DitV... I do think those games are highly self referential... and they strike me as more concerned with the idea of what a game could be... rather than of making a really playable game (playable outside of a very unique niche audience.)

Just Joe

Jan 25th, '06, 12:55 PM

This continues to be a very interesting thread.

1: What is "playing true Hero?" . . . at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.My POV is that this is an unanswerable question. And I'm not even sure it's one of those unanswerable questions that's worth discussing anyway.

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? . . . I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book.I have a friend who's a strict All to By-The-Book-er. As a player, he would begrudgingly accept GM tinkering, but he did not approve. Admitedly, he has since dropped role-playing (at least for a while) for wargaming, and he was always a wargamerish roleplayer, but he has played in dozens if not hundreds of HERO game sessions in the past.

3: Who is part of the shared vision? I have nothing to add at this time.

4: Building from that, is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game? . . . The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations. I can't really agree with that. . . . (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?).I wouldn't say that players should expect to alter a game, but I do think they should feel entitled to do so. I wouldn't say that a designer is obligated to go out of the way to support player alterations, but if s/he sees ways of doing so, I think it's a good thing to do. (I don't think the novel analogy is apt.)

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of, where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?".I'm not sure I get your point here. As for the final question of #5, I'd say one should not quite expect literally anything, but HERO can cover such a monumentally large range that it's a fair slogan. As for the rest of #5, I think I'm missing something . . .

Gadodel

Jan 25th, '06, 06:24 PM

HERO is like a recipe book. Tons of great foods, yet everyone will want to alter them to fit their own tastes. They'll find others who like what they made and others who don't. The system is like food for the mind. Some game recipes are well received, others are not.

zornwil

Jan 25th, '06, 07:46 PM

This is really interesting Zorn... because it opens a whole can of worms... or more properly, maybe this frames a way to look at a can of worms that has already been opened.

1: What is "playing true Hero?" We get this on these boards all the time, and I don't think a single person agrees with anyone else. Hero is "designed" to be modified... but at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.

I think to the extent HERO is about something or anything, the muddle of "playing true HERO" reflects that, quite simply. It's easier to say that with the niche systems as you imply.

But I don't mean that as a simple answer - I think it's an interesting question, because it also begs to what degree this system has a core or even needs a core. Not easy questions/answers. If I had more time, I'd probably dwell on those but I should be moving along to other things tonight...

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? I think this is too broad a statement and belies your own bias. I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book. Everbody is somewhere on this continuum, with probably few if any in the Rewrite It All or By-The-Book extremes... but folks lean one way or another.

Agreed that's giving away my bias, but I do mean there's what Just Joe better refers to as a "sense of entitlement." From what I see most people don't realize that "by the book" is its own trap, much as (and I reveal another bias here) literal interpretation of sacred text is - the point being that there's the rules then there's the rules...there's what's stated, what's implied, what's central and is a truly meaningful part of the game, what's peripheral and less necessary or even unnecessary, and what the intent "really" is. And in my experience in interpreting comments, even people who claim to run "by the book" have made informal house rules based on situations which may or may not be in accordance with some aspects of what the original game may be pushing, or they may be choosing not to use aspects of the rules (not that they violate them, they just try not to engage in that part of the system), or simply may even be slight mods. But anyway that's really a tangential response as I agree that many do like to run systems "as is" and often the informal mods I refer to are consequently trivial even if they exist.

What I find is also divergent though is:
- play groups sometimes find a certain subset or tangent or even a sort of counterculture to the system "as given"; as you and I discussed, some Champions gamers ended up, with the rationalized system, going very much away from comics, while I think the designers originally hoped and even overtly intended for people to play something like "regular" superhero comics; this "cultural" shift against the game ethics can still occur while following all mechanics of the game (as a simple example, as highly coherent as DitV is, it would be fairly easy to end up ignoring much of the moral questions it begs and simply engage in hack-n-slash, as the gamist element is strong and the things which reinforce the desired play experience can truly still be countered by a willful play group without actually breaking a single rule)
- the lack of surprise/debate if GMs depart from the core rules; it seems as if relatively few players actually get upset about this unless it goes into some stranger, somehow clearly "wrong" territory

But I risk overstating...sure, people often do follow what's intended and given. I just find a "readily-tolerated recklessness", if you will, in general that doesn't translate to necessarily even a majority of gamers but is so prevalent and allowed for that it creates a willful climate of "redesign".

And I think that stands apart from many (not all) forms of vaguely-similar expression and commercial design.

3: Who is part of the shared vision? The whole 4th vs. 5th design debates that go on here are really about which vision trumped the other. Not right or wrong, but Steve & Co.'s take on Hero clearly was supported in a shared vision way be many long time Hero folks... but distressed a lot of 'em, too. These boards and the FAQ are clearly results of DOJ trying to incorporate a "shared design vision" with the actual players... and some like it and some don't.

Just to be clear, my statement was in specific reference to the niche/indie/young turks of game design who are overtly claiming to write to a single vision (or they seem to be, though I think they are not so averse to this shared vision thing as they claim - I think Burning Wheel is an example of a supremely commercial game continuing to strive to reach a nearly-common denominator, but then again unlike you I"ve not experienced it).

4: Building from that, is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game?

We had quite a debate about that at GenCon. The Forge folk were adamantly opposed to this expectation, generally.

Do the designer's of Monopoly design with the expectation of the the game turning into a crashcart derby between the Shoe, Tophat and Racecar? (I've seen this happen.) The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations.

No, not quite that, anyway. I tried to explain that via the comment in the post I reference "I think therefore it's incumbent on a good designer to impart what is important in his game to get the experience he wants to get over and what is not so critical, so that participants in the game can make a conscious and well-informed decision." My point here is not whether a game designer should allow for alteration but that he should realize that this is a strong ethos and he should address it head-on. The reason I changed none of the mechanisms in DitV was that Baker gave clear and pressing reasons not to; had he not, I would not have caught on in at least some respects. The only wiggle room he allowed was in setting, and he was explicit as to what needed to be preserved and what could be allowed to change. IMHO it's a rare game that has no room for change, though it's possible.

I can't really agree with that. The designer should have specific objectives for her game... "This is intended to..." as well as "This is NOT intended to... so play something else." Anything else is practically false advertising. (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?)

The way you phrased it, I completely agree and am on the same page. I'm trying to write my game with that explicitly in mind. My point is that the designer should really go ahead and state that in his book - not just leave us guessing as to what is essential and what is okay to mess with.

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of, where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?"

Failure and success at once, maybe.

I think that a major problem with HERO is that there's a hesitancy to come out and state in the system "this is sacrosanct" and "this can be changed in this way," just as I was discussing earlier. I think, with all due respect, that 5th is really in trouble in this aspect; 4th's relative terseness created some disservice but seemed to give a heavier implication as to what was core to the system, but I don't claim it had a great advantage here, just some.

I think you can see that early on, as you sort of allude to, Champions was so much clearer in SOME ways that it supported a given experience better. Just considering "Goodman's School of Efficiency" (or whatever the precise title was) is almost shocking in comparison to today's climate, a climate which is influenced by latter gaming attitudes but stands in contrast to the points-mania of the system's origin. And the reason it's shocking is that in that early edition, the "Goodman tips" were overt declarations of how to play the math, and now we try to pretend that we somehow shouldn't play the math...when the whole bloody game is based around it on some sort of clearly fundamental level!

Okay, that's a bit of a muddle as I'm thinking more about it as I type...anyway, great point and a good way to come back to the topic at hand.

All of this is not to say I don't share some of your ideas... as well as what Markdoc wrote about. Having read and played around a bit with Burning Wheel... as well as owning Polaris, and having read much of DitV... I do think those games are highly self referential... and they strike me as more concerned with the idea of what a game could be... rather than of making a really playable game (playable outside of a very unique niche audience.)

I can't speak to the others (and Burning Wheel doesn't interest me I'll mention, in way of supporting your point, though for many reasons not related to its nuanced edge), but one surprising thing was how DitV attracted players who came at it with rather different expectations, ranging from enthusiasm to apprehension. I think it's quite playable to a wide range of roleplayers, as it really addresses things we just don't make central stage in a mechanical fashion in games even though I think gamers do so in others way; but I just think it's a bit pointed, and deliberately so, such that anyone would burn out if played too long. But I want to stress my bias in being so enthusiastic about this game.

Gadodel

Jan 25th, '06, 08:00 PM

play groups sometimes find a certain subset or tangent or even a sort of counterculture to the system "as given"; as you and I discussed, some Champions gamers ended up, with the rationalized system, going very much away from comics, while I think the designers originally hoped and even overtly intended for people to play something like "regular" superhero comics; this "cultural" shift against the game ethics can still occur while following all mechanics of the game

But I risk overstating...sure, people often do follow what's intended and given. I just find a "readily-tolerated recklessness", if you will, in general that doesn't translate to necessarily even a majority of gamers but is so prevalent and allowed for that it creates a willful climate of "redesign".

I find the 'free form' style very attractive. Consensus is nice and often safe, but perhaps isn't what everyone can follow faithfully and truthfully.

Markdoc

Jan 26th, '06, 03:40 AM

I do think those games are highly self referential... and they strike me as more concerned with the idea of what a game could be... rather than of making a really playable game (playable outside of a very unique niche audience.)

Here, encapsulated, is what I was trying to get at!

I think it is possible to identify (not just in gaming, but in many things) bad design. Bad design, does not, necessarily mean something that doesn't work. For many people or many tasks, "good enough" is sufficient.

Also "bad design" does not necessarily mean "just plain awful" - it's a technical description - albeit one which has important consequences. In short, design is about "how things work" not "why things work" or "why is this thing here at all?" - though of course how something works will alter people's responses to those last two questions.

What that means in context is that - for me - a game system needs to be "designed". And design of course can be summed up as "does this thing deliver the thing for which it was made?"

In the context of games that means two (at least) things. First: does it deliver an atmosphere of the kind envisioned by the designer (the vision thing)? That's important - it's one reason that designers are payingincreasing attention to art and layout (point in case: Iron Kingdoms or Burning Wheel). Second: does it deliver gameplay? In other words, can the game engine, the nuts and bolts, deliver a shared experience which is both fun ('cos we're not getting paid to do this) and lead (not force) the user in the direction of the vision.

To take one example, Paranoia is what I would call a well-designed system - even though the game engine is downright primitive. It communicated a clear vision, and provided an experience that matched the vision. Not everybody *liked* the vision (I personally can't stand the game) - but that's a whole 'nother game. Iron Kingdoms takes a somewhat matured descendant of that same system - so mechanically, it's slicker - but the game is more poorly designed. I say that because of the decision to keep as much of the standard d20 tropes as possible in the interests of attracting as wide a market as possible. The rules structure could - without too much effort - have been tailored to stick closer to the vision. That it was not, was a design decision (you could say, I guess, that the design was good for marketing but poor for gameplay).

So to come (circuitously) back to the quote above, if a game is not designed for actual use by GM+players, then it harms part 2 of the design rules: it does not provide fun gameplay, no matter how atmospheric it may be, no matter how beautiful the layout. In case you wondered, Burning Wheel, I'm looking at you. Good design, in contrast to bad design, does not stand out. You use something and the use is so natural, that you almost don't think about the act of using - you just do it.

Bad design is like reaching for something and it's not there. In this regard, an obsession with language or imagery may be self-defeating if it obscures use. This, in indie game design seems to be a missing message, just as it is in much of what is caled modern art and the impact will be the same: irrelevance. Art and gaming are both, at core, formalised methods of communication. If the creators are most concerned about talking to each other, they should not be surprised if everyone else wanders away. Even Ken Hite, who's part of the community being talked to, noticed and made a nod to it in his 2005 round-up ("maybe it's not on-line orc-bashing...").

cheers, Mark