zornwil
Feb 8th, '06, 07:06 AM
I think there's a real dichotomy between how the system is really built and how we often use it. I think that's evident in many reactions on Killing Attacks, but also when we discuss how effective/ineffective something is for a task, and how people have related many of the system's actual efficiencies. Against this, I am in a play group where at least 2 people are strong on efficiency, and while at times they very much play this, they mostly know the boundaries against good RPGing, so they restrain their munchkinness to ensure a good game.
But as Sean Waters has mentioned elsewhere, at its core this game uses points and balance as its focus, and we also should be well aware these mechanisms are built in a way that does often lead to experiences divergent from the intent we might have in a genre, whether or not the intent to diverge is really in the system. For example, we all know that KAs simply do create more stun damage on average. Sean well demonstrates that FWs aren't that effective against KAs point-for-point, and in general I think a lot of us see FWs as at least a little less effective than they feel they ought to be.
But I think in experience, in actual usage, we use all these things frequently as we perceive we should, against their efficiency in the system. For example, my players are quite good about not misusing KAs; they use them to destroy stuff, not to get more stun on people. I use KAs for villains not to increase damage, but to distinguish the more evil among them, basically, or at least those who have killing power and may simply not be careful in applying it.
What about this dichotomy? Is it evidence of a break in the system - or is it evidence that we are playing "out" of the system, playing against its intent in many cases? Of course I present a black and white choice there, I realize it's more gray, but wanted to phrase it in a way to make a distinction.
Personally, I think this all relates back to the side effects of a generic system - the players must imprint a play experience against whatever emphasis the system has. HERO has, at its core, an extreme rationalization behind it and its own inexorable inclination towards prizing efficient builds. This is at odds with many genre builds and conventions. So basically, I think we "have" to play against this, and HERO in some cases tries to mitigate it by building in rules (often kludges, IMHO) to support those adventure conventions where they are more specific in certain genra. I think this creates problems mainly because HERO (like all so-called universal RPGs) doesn't readily admit to these limitations and isn't entirely explicit about its choices where it mitigates its own central design principles in application.
But as Sean Waters has mentioned elsewhere, at its core this game uses points and balance as its focus, and we also should be well aware these mechanisms are built in a way that does often lead to experiences divergent from the intent we might have in a genre, whether or not the intent to diverge is really in the system. For example, we all know that KAs simply do create more stun damage on average. Sean well demonstrates that FWs aren't that effective against KAs point-for-point, and in general I think a lot of us see FWs as at least a little less effective than they feel they ought to be.
But I think in experience, in actual usage, we use all these things frequently as we perceive we should, against their efficiency in the system. For example, my players are quite good about not misusing KAs; they use them to destroy stuff, not to get more stun on people. I use KAs for villains not to increase damage, but to distinguish the more evil among them, basically, or at least those who have killing power and may simply not be careful in applying it.
What about this dichotomy? Is it evidence of a break in the system - or is it evidence that we are playing "out" of the system, playing against its intent in many cases? Of course I present a black and white choice there, I realize it's more gray, but wanted to phrase it in a way to make a distinction.
Personally, I think this all relates back to the side effects of a generic system - the players must imprint a play experience against whatever emphasis the system has. HERO has, at its core, an extreme rationalization behind it and its own inexorable inclination towards prizing efficient builds. This is at odds with many genre builds and conventions. So basically, I think we "have" to play against this, and HERO in some cases tries to mitigate it by building in rules (often kludges, IMHO) to support those adventure conventions where they are more specific in certain genra. I think this creates problems mainly because HERO (like all so-called universal RPGs) doesn't readily admit to these limitations and isn't entirely explicit about its choices where it mitigates its own central design principles in application.