Evaluating The Hero System (Or Any Game System)

[schir1964]

Several threads prompted me to think about how people evaluate the Hero System, or any game system for that matter. Therefore, I created this thread to gather information and to explore how I and others evaluate a game system.

When I asked myself why I liked the Hero System, several things came to mind and I prioritized them.

1) Genre
2) Flexibility
3) Consistency

First: For me to evaluate a game system, I personally have to have some interest in a Genre that the game system is capable of handling or was designed for.

Second: I personally like being able to create characters as I envision them, thus the game system must be very flexible to handle most of what I can imagine creating.

Third: I personally like consistency in a game system. I'll overlook complexity of a game system, if I can see a consist method within the complexity of the system.

The question then becomes, does this game system score high in each of these areas that are a priority to me?

For the Hero System, it has the best score in all these areas.
The RMSS system comes in second, only because the Genre is not one I'm that attracted to.

How does everyone else rate game systems?
What are your priorities?
How does this affect what you like/dislike about different game systems?

- Christopher Mullins

[TheEmerged]

Speaking for myself?

#1> Internal Consistency. Nothing torques me off worse than having to do X in circumstance Y but A in circumstance Z. One of my strongest criticisms of d20 for example is the exception-heavy attack-of-opportunity rules.

#2> Random but overcomable chance. Both randomness and the ability to overcome that randomness are equally important to me. I got bored with chess, for example, because it lacks any randomness. On the other hand the wide spread of the chance curve relative to skill scores in d20 is on the list of things I feel is wrong with it.

#3> Accessibility to house ruling & variants. Some systems are just easier to tweak than others. One reason I prefer Robo Rally over Settlers is that Settlers (while a perfectly fun game) is quite limited compared to the way Robo Rally encourages you to create mini-games and full variants.

#4> Handles genre conventions without twisting into pretzels. It's not enough that the system can handle the genre -- the system needs to handle the genre's conventions without heavy modifications. One of the failures of psionics under 3rd Edition D&D (still present but mostly fixed under d20 Modern) and Alternity was that a standard psionic genre convention -- the psion who's powers are in direction opposition to his/her capabilities -- was almost impossible to build without ignoring core functions in the rules.

#5> Fun > Work. Subjunctive I'll admit, but I've run into game systems that simply weren't fun enough for the amount of work that went into a turn.

[Toadmaster]

Hmmm, I don't really actively evaluate a game system "I just know what I like when I see it" there are a few things that come to mind.


Genre - If it is not something I'm interested in I probably won't even look, I never look at Supers games because I don't really like the genre and Champions is my choice for those rare times I'm in a spandex mood.

Players - The average player or my stereotype of the players, I will probably never look at anything with LARP or White Wolf on the cover just because of my imagined stereotypical player. (I don't like professional sports or organized religions for the same reasons).

Consistancy - Don't tell me that this is how something is done and then make exceptions left and right.

Does it fit with the setting - Judge Dredd (the original version) or Paranoia are good examples, the rules were pretty lame by most standards but they were perfect for those games.

Do the rules make sense - If I constantly think "why are they doing this" I'm probably not going to be happy.

Can I play it - are the rules too complex for the pay off or are they overly simplistic. Also are they well written, there are many games that the rules are ok if you can figure out what the author means. Complexity or simplicity just for the sake of being super detailed or simple usually don't work for me and are often complaints I have. Examples are games with multiple rolls for nearly every action or on the other extreme games where the ammunition in guns have been compressed (every shot is three bullets) because it really doesn't add anything to the game (like it is really that much harder to mark of 3 boxes instead of just 1).

Is the game world interesting - I may buy a game I'm not interested in if the world sounds interesting.

What mood am I in - This can have a huge effect on my opinion, there are some games I won't touch with a 10 foot pole on most days but when the stars are right thats all I want to play.

Like I said mostly its just one of those things I "feel" right about not an actual thought process.

[Jhamin]

For me...


1) Do the rules not only enforce the Genre but encourage it's typical bits?
I love games that have metasystems whose logical outcome are adventues typical of the genre they emulate. A staff weilding wizard in long robes is one example. If the wizard has no real need of either one in game, but keeps them because they are cool I won't like your game nearly as much as I would if the magic rules encouraged 6 foot long wooden dowels.

2) Does character creation allow for a diversity of characters beyond the examples.
I feel that true character creation has to result in character who are different from each other through the blending of various character options in interesting ways. I am always a little turned off by games that have meaningless character choices that boil down to picking the premade that most closely fits your concept the then hoping for good stats.

3) Do I have a clear idea what the characters are supposed to be doing in your game?
This seems like an easy one, but I find a suprising number of games fail in this basic regard. I'm all about not straitjacketing the GM & his players, but give me some coherent place to start. Genre books that talk about a culture without giving me a reason to ever play there are pretty but don't help me. Likewise a world so heavily metaplotted that there aren't any quiet corners for me to set my game in are annoying. Games that provide a rich world or a solid genre simulation then get out of the way and let us game are the ones I want.

[Lord Mhoram]

1) Flexibility - the system has to be able to handle whatever kind of character I want to make. There must be no randomness in character creation.

2) Cross genre ability. Many have mentioned the ability to handle genres - that is something I don't look for as much. I play cross genre games SF/Western/Kaiju, Crossworld Fantasy, or sky's the limit superpowers. I could care less if a system can handle one genre, if it cannot do multiple genres at the same time. Crossworld fantasy is probably my mostplayed (and GMed) kind of game. So the system has to be able to handle Cyberpunk, High Fantasy, Jedi, Modern Action adventure, and pulp - all at the same time, and with consistent rules across them. After that you have to be able to do supers... in such a way that Superman and Batman can work in game together and both have something to do (or if you prefer the other company, Thor and Captain America).

Those are my big two criteria. I've not found a system that does that to my satisfaction but HERO.

[Rene]

For RPGs that try to simulate a genre, obviously I look at how closely it manages to do it. Any superhero RPG that claims to simulate comic book reality, but fail my "Justice League" test is instantly considered trash.

For "generic" RPGs, obviously what matters here most is how generic they really are, after all. GURPS fails this badly for trying to be at the same time generic and "realistic", overlooking the fact that 90% of heroic fiction isn't realistic to the extent that GURPS tries to be.

For games that contain descriptions of a world/setting, it's very important that the book manages to get across the mood and make it come alive for me. You can say what you will of White Wolf products, but at least in this I think they do fine. I still remember the first time I've read "Vampire", it was a very powerful experience (I'm less fond of most supplements, though).

Now that the broad bases are covered, here is my list of pet peeves. There is a big chance I'll like a game more if it avoids them:

- Random character generation.
- Attack disconnected from defense.
- Too much predictability in damage, when you just know you can easily kill someone with a single punch or you don't stand a chance to scratch them.
- Very deadly systems, I think they encourage tactical thinking instead of Roleplaying.
- Games where the PCs are very weak and unimportant.
- Settings that values the NPCs too much. They may be cool to read about, but I like it more when the spotlight is on the PCs, both when I GM and when I play

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Rene
- Very deadly systems, I think they encourage tactical thinking instead of Roleplaying.

Sorry to get off topic and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but why is tactical thinking disassociated from role playing, I'd think it would encourage roleplaying by reinforcing the fact that you don't stand still in the open during a firefight for example. Personally I've found more deadly systems encourage players to talk before going for a gun (or sword, monofilament carrot etc), in otherwords less hack and slash and more finding alternate means of resolution (unless the other guys really deserve it :) )

[Rene]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
Sorry to get off topic and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but why is tactical thinking disassociated from role playing, I'd think it would encourage roleplaying by reinforcing the fact that you don't stand still in the open during a firefight for example. Personally I've found more deadly systems encourage players to talk before going for a gun (or sword, monofilament carrot etc), in otherwords less hack and slash and more finding alternate means of resolution (unless the other guys really deserve it :) )

Well, some players are better than others. Some people can handle both intense roleplay and intense tactical thinking simultaneously and do everything in character. Some (most) can't do this very well. My impression is that when the game system is too deadly, most players will, obviously, put survival first. The intense fear of losing their characters at any moment will override any other considerations.

That means they spend most of their time munchkining their characters during character creation. During the game proper, they will all act like machine-cold master tacticians and chess players, no matter if that is in character or not. You will not see traits like impulsiveness, arrogance, bravery, paralyzing cowardice, or anything that is contrary to survival in game (except if the player is a loose cannon that don't value his character, but loose cannons mostly are disruptive and don't care really for the game).

I saw characters in AD&D that NEVER took their armor off, for instance. NEVER. Not even when they were in their own houses. They never bathed, never got laid, etc. Because they were too afraid to die "I have only 6 hit points, you know, I can be attacked by surprise if I take my armor off". It's a kind of meta-game "roleplaying" that I don't really care for.

I prefer systems that insulate characters from death a little more, allowing the player to relax a little bit and play it up. Of course, systems where death or defeat is too rare can be equally bad, because players then become complacent.

[Pattern Ghost]

That's just bad players. I don't think the system can help them either way.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
That's just bad players. I don't think the system can help them either way.

Some are salvageable.

I "inherited" a group from a GM that used to terrorize us. It was the kind of game where multiple PC deaths in a game session are the rule, not the exception. The system (it was AD&D) was very deadly and the GM was a "simulationist" who didn't cared if everyone died in the first encounter.

To make things worse, most players there were used to this kind of game. The mood in that group wasn't good. There was some excitement, but it was closer to the excitement you feel when you're about to do a really hard and important math exam. That and a bit of how soldiers in bloody wars must feel. There wasn't much real fun, and no one roleplayed. Everybody was too afraid and nervous.

That experience soured me big time for deadly systems.

Anyway, when I started to GM I chose to change things completely. Make it more like a movie and less like a war experience. Let the players relax a little. Give them the center stage instead of the grave and back to character building yet again.

Took me a while to cure them of their paranoia ("check every single stone in the road for traps!"), but eventually I suceeded and they started to roleplay.

[mightybruce]

I saw characters in AD&D that NEVER took their armor off, for instance. NEVER. Not even when they were in their own houses. They never bathed, never got laid, etc. Because they were too afraid to die "I have only 6 hit points, you know, I can be attacked by surprise if I take my armor off". It's a kind of meta-game "roleplaying" that I don't really care for

What kind of twisted DM makes there players that paranoid?:rolleyes:

Anyway, back to the topic. When I was younger, my criteria for a good system centered around realism. But I'm older, and what I want nowadays is for the game to be fun.
Example, simple percentile systems are not fun. You roll a d100 and your done. Boring!:confused: On the other hand D&D 3rd is fun. Roll d20 to hit AC, roll damage OR cast spell, roll lots of damage, OR cast spell, give pluses to your buddies, OR perform Feat to trip foe, OR etc. Simple? Not really. Realistic? Are you kidding!? Fun? Oh yeah!

[Badger]

I have to agree pretty much with Lord Mhoram. The thing that got me so interested in HERO was the possibility of cross-genre action.

I do have to say my pet peeve is when systems have the random character generation. No fun. I'm a guy who has a certain idea of what character should be. I usually like playing characters with high DEX and SPD (cant hit what you cant catch). With the randoms I would always seem to get the high STR who moved about as fast as a tree. Very hard for a guy like me to play a character like that. Actually I usually got unlucky and would have low stats across the board. And my only use would be as a shield if I got killed.

:(

But I saw an idea a couple years ago somewhere on the internet that really caught my eye. Basically the idea was a dimension where people from all other dimensions and time periods could get sent into to interact with each other. The ultimate in cross-genre if you will. Kind of an endless possibilities. You could have wizards living side by side with someone from an advanced civilization. And what would happen if said wizard say got assimilated by the Borg? Just some thoughts.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Badger
I do have to say my pet peeve is when systems have the random character generation. No fun. I'm a guy who has a certain idea of what character should be. I usually like playing characters with high DEX and SPD (cant hit what you cant catch). With the randoms I would always seem to get the high STR who moved about as fast as a tree. Very hard for a guy like me to play a character like that. Actually I usually got unlucky and would have low stats across the board. And my only use would be as a shield if I got killed.

Tell me about it! :( There is nothing worse than random generation. It seems like everybody rolls the kinds of characters they most hate. Murphy's Law.

Fortunately, in 3rd Edition D&D you can chose where to put every roll. Still bad when only one guy in each group has several 17s and 18s, while the rest is always mediocre. There is always one lucky guy in every group, and it usually is the guy that is least interested in the game, ironically.

I HATE random character generation.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Speaking for myself?
One reason I prefer Robo Rally over Settlers is that Settlers (while a perfectly fun game) is quite limited compared to the way Robo Rally encourages you to create mini-games and full variants.
Robo Rally Rulz -- its just about the only board game I can stand to play. Ive had a full set for many years now, and it was worth every penny. :D

[lemming]

Originally posted by Rene

I HATE random character generation.
I prefer point systems, but sometimes random generation can be fun.

[tesuji]

My systems use the following...

1. Genre: How well will the mechanics make the results and PC decisions mesh with the feel of the genre i intend to run? This is number one. Over the years, this has led me to move from GENERIC systems to GENREic ones.

2. Introducability: How easy is it and how much time will it take to go from "they envision a character they want to play" to " they have a character on paper they like and understand" FOR A NEWCOMER. In every campaign i run, i try and get one new roleplayer, or at least one new roleplayer to me. So, i do not prefer games with a long learning curve or where the mechanics of chargen get too complex or too abstract.

3. Consistency: The mechanics have to be consistent so that a reasonable grasp of the common elements means you dont need to know how everything works to be able to guestimate your odds and make sound decisions in play. Additionally, the values for "points" need to be consistent too. If a system produces multiple ways to "build X" then the costs should be the same. Cost for benefit needs to be consistent, not a buffet table of different costs for the same item.

HERO, IMO, comes in as follows.

1. Poor except for supers.
2. poor.
3. Mid-to-high depending on whether the design precept is mostly" i built it right" or "what do the results say". Far too often in HERO games, I see the argument that "if its built right" then the final costs must be right... even when a second or two of looking and comparison will show thats simply not true. Like most systems, HERO math will work IF and ONLY IF the GM scripts the sceanarios to make sure the amounts paid pan out as woth it. There is just a whole lot more math involved in getting there. The math doesn't proof the result in HERO.

[Vondy]

Does it allow for an elegant simulation of the genre in question while leaving me free to engage in unencumbered creative exercise in terms of tailoring the setting and developing the story?

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Badger
But I saw an idea a couple years ago somewhere on the internet that really caught my eye. Basically the idea was a dimension where people from all other dimensions and time periods could get sent into to interact with each other. The ultimate in cross-genre if you will. Kind of an endless possibilities. You could have wizards living side by side with someone from an advanced civilization. And what would happen if said wizard say got assimilated by the Borg? Just some thoughts.

I ran a game like this in the HERO System for a while oh -- about 7 years ago now I guess.

It featured "Legion", a complicated Multiform character and the basis for the whole campaign. The original character was Doc Brown, the same Doc Brown as in Back to the Future, but from a different dimention. Instead of inventing the Flux Capacitor he instead invented the Weft Condenser which allowed one to break Dimensional, Spatial, and Time barriers! Slight problem: Not Mobile. Bigger problem: while he was working in the Weft Booth his cat Oppenheimer jumped on the control panel outside the booth, sending Doc Brown across the dimensions and times in rapid succession in the blink of an eye. Great Scott! Doc zapped in and out over a hundred thousand times over the course of a minute and thirty six seconds (give or take a few picoseconds).

His entrance and exit in most locales was so brief as to have almost no impact, but in a few places he overlapped other entities and they got sucked into his anomaly field -- thereafter, only one instance of Doc or the trapped entites could be in existance at a time (the Multiform), and none of them could control it -- the Multiform was NCC, and each form had at least one Accidental Change which would trigger a random roll on a list of forms.

As a further complication, the diplacement field extended slightly around Doc, and a few people were caught in the field, though not trapped in the Doc anamoly. I.e., the other PCs.

Oppenheimer finally jumped off the control panel, leaving Doc stranded on a space ship from the Star Wars galaxy, which in turn got pulled into another dimension along w/ Doc and promptly crash landed on a primitive primordial planet.

The randomness doesnt stop there however. Doc Brown (in all his many permutations) was a magnet for dimensional, temporal, and spatial anomalies and would randomly get sucked into one along with everyone nearby whenever I felt like switching genres.

Off the top of my head, Doc Browns known forms (those that came out during play) were:

Doc Brown-- the root character; massive science geek, model builder, and planner. Though his models werent always "to scale", he could figure a way out of almost any situation given enough time and modelling supplies.

Mark Shner -- modeled after Chris Elliot in that stupid Paper Boy sitcom, but dumber. He had a subconscious Unluck field that affected those around him, a small cumulative Transform "Thing into broken version of Thing" always on, which affected anything he handled (so eventually he would "oops!" break just about anything). And he could throw a rolled up paper with uncanny accuracy (an EB vs PD, Range based on STR).

Joe Smith-- had every professional skill in the book, practically. He had worked just about every job imaginable, particularly blue collar. Got along with everybody, could make himself understood via pantomime and pidgin in just about any language, and had several All Skill Levels.

Lance Dashing-- a genetically engineered wrestler/entertainer from another dimension. Super-strong (around 40 or 50 STR IIRC), somewhat durable, somewhat skilled at wrestling (though mostly it was for show), and incredibly self centered and vain.

Tak Gora-- a power suited bounty hunter from a Star Wars-esque universe. He was actually about to collect a bounty on one of the PCs, a Jedi fleeing the New Republic when Doc Brown warped in and trapped Tak Gora in his anomaly field, and sucked the Jedi along w/ him to the next dimension.

Pierre-- a French Cat Burglar from a variant Earth dimesion. Completely normal, but really skilled at 2nd story work.

Lucky the Cat-- a black cat with gobs o Luck and a Drain vs Dex AoE Selective.

Cornelius-- a 17th century Alchemist, built around a massive Transform with various Alchemy-oriented limitations.

Warp-- a Mutant Teleporter from a Supers dimension

more later

[NuSoardGraphite]

Mark me down as one of the I Hate Random Character Generation! crowd. I don't just hate them, I despise them.

I began to be disallusioned by them when during my AD&D phase, I managed to roll a character who had all 18's (woo-hoo!) and yet, another player in the group had a character who had no stat above 12 (most were lower than 11) and couldn't reach the minimums to be the class he wanted. Even though I was on the winning end of that bargin, it didn't sit well with me. Seemed completely unfair.

Now that I have experienced point-based game systems, I absolutely refuse to play anything with randomly generated characteristics (or any other major aspect of the character...random background generation is okay though)

Now on to my system evaluation procedure;

First, I evaluate a games Flexibility. In this I include such things as the ability to handle various power levels (Low to Super) the abililty to simulte any power or skill I can think of. The ability to handle any genre and the ability to handle any type of combat situation.

Second, I evaluate a games Mechanics, or what others have referred to as its Internal Consistancy. Internal consistancy is very important, as the more consistant a game is, the quicker it is to learn. When most of the die rolls are based on the same (or very similar) mechanics, you only have to explain them once (or twice for the dim-witted players). This makes the game flow faster and more naturally if the players aren't all constantly checking the books for a particular mechanic.

Third, I evaluate a games Setting. This is the least important to me, as I generaly come up with my own settings (or set my games in fictional settings that I and my players enjoy) but a game with a very well defined setting is a big plus. A good example of this is the World of Darkness setting and the original Rifts book. Grade A+ on the setting for both products (Rifts needed major work on the mechanics though!)

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
One reason I prefer Robo Rally over Settlers is that Settlers (while a perfectly fun game) is quite limited compared to the way Robo Rally encourages you to create mini-games and full variants.
.

Color me confused but what are these games? I don't know of them, and I consider myself fairly well versed in the RPG world.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
Color me confused but what are these games? I don't know of them, and I consider myself fairly well versed in the RPG world. They are board games. Robo Rally is a really cool game designed by Richard Garfield, the guy that designed Magic The Gathering and the Jyhad/VTES card games. You program your robot in 5 phase turns w/ randomly drawn cards like Move [1-3], Turn [Right or Left], U-Turn, and Backup. The playing board is a death trap type environment with spinners, crusher, lasers, conveyor belts, walls, pits, teleporters, oil slicks, radiation, water traps, ramps, and other effects. Also, each robot has a forward firing laser, and you can get all sorts of cool option cards for your robot like The Big Gun, Ablative Coat, Crab-legs, and what have you. The goal is to drive around and touch a series of numbered flags in order without getting killed 3 times (a not inconsequential undertaking -- some people have managed to get killed all 3 times within 15 minutes). The game is also very friendly to making up little variants, making it very replayable. The board tiles are also interchangeable and modular. All around a very very cool game.

Settlers of Cataan is a resource management game, with random crops of various resources like Sheep and Clay (in fact our in-house name for the game is "Sheeps and Clay"). I find Settler rather boring myself.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
They are board games.

My mistake, I used non-RPG products to explain something I feel about all games, RPG's included.


Settlers of Cataan is a resource management game, with random crops of various resources like Sheep and Clay (in fact our in-house name for the game is "Sheeps and Clay"). I find Settler rather boring myself.

Depends on how heavily your fellow gamers get into meta-games. I find it less fun that Robo Rally but I wouldn't go so far as to say boring...

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
They are board games.

Ah that would explain it. The last board game I looked at was Trivial Pursuit back in '87.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Depends on how heavily your fellow gamers get into meta-games. I find it less fun that Robo Rally but I wouldn't go so far as to say boring... Im not a big board game afficianado to begin with. I just cant get too into trying to wheedle my fellow players into giving me a 1 wood for 3 wheat so I can make that last road which will cinch the game for me once I get the Longest Road card, or similar. Not that exciting for me. My wife loves the game however. Favorite quote from her while playing Cataan: "You dont understand; these sheep are from Montana"; while trying to force a trade.

[PhilFleischmann]

(also a big RoboRally fan, but I'll try to stay on topic)

I see good or bad points about RPGs that don't even directly deal with the rules. In any RPG system's books there is almost always a detectable "attitude" towards the players. 1st Ed. AD&D was very condescending and seemed almost actively hostile to the players. The original players handbook didn't even tell you what your saving throws and attack rolls were! That was privileged information for the DM only. The books were peppered with words that most of my young friends and I had never heard of, and just assumed that we all knew them. It was like Gygax was more interested in impressing us with his vocabulary than explaining how to play his game. And make no mistake about it - it was HIS game, not yours. Sure it was easy to make house rules, but EGG made it clear that he did not approve. I remember a quote in those books somewhere like, "Only official D&D products should be used. Material from other sources will unbalance the game at best and completely ruin it at worst." I appreciate the opportunity to learn new words (how many of you had ever used the word "charisma" in a sentence prior to playing deendee?), but I definitely felt "talked down to." The rules were full of "can't"s. The 3rd ed. is a lot better, but there is still this attitude of generosity whenever they release a new book from on high: "Here are some new spells, feats, and prestige classes that you are now allowed to use. Aren't we magnanimous?" The books were written in ways that make players paranoid as mentioned in previous posts. If you do X then bad things can happen, but if you do Y to prevent those bad things, then other bad things can happen. The message was "Hey, DM's! Here's some more evil things to do to your players!" IMHO, the underlying attitude of a system shapes the whole game.

[Badger]

Never thought about that way but you have apoint about D&D they did seem to believe in their own system's perfection. And wanted you to know it. Probably why I always felt it was too limiting.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
I see good or bad points about RPGs that don't even directly deal with the rules. In any RPG system's books there is almost always a detectable "attitude" towards the players. 1st Ed. AD&D was very condescending and seemed almost actively hostile to the players. The original players handbook didn't even tell you what your saving throws and attack rolls were! That was privileged information for the DM only. The books were peppered with words that most of my young friends and I had never heard of, and just assumed that we all knew them. It was like Gygax was more interested in impressing us with his vocabulary than explaining how to play his game. And make no mistake about it - it was HIS game, not yours. Sure it was easy to make house rules, but EGG made it clear that he did not approve. I remember a quote in those books somewhere like, "Only official D&D products should be used. Material from other sources will unbalance the game at best and completely ruin it at worst." I appreciate the opportunity to learn new words (how many of you had ever used the word "charisma" in a sentence prior to playing deendee?), but I definitely felt "talked down to." The rules were full of "can't"s. The 3rd ed. is a lot better, but there is still this attitude of generosity whenever they release a new book from on high: "Here are some new spells, feats, and prestige classes that you are now allowed to use. Aren't we magnanimous?" The books were written in ways that make players paranoid as mentioned in previous posts. If you do X then bad things can happen, but if you do Y to prevent those bad things, then other bad things can happen. The message was "Hey, DM's! Here's some more evil things to do to your players!" IMHO, the underlying attitude of a system shapes the whole game.

AD&D taught me (i.e) and several interesting colors (ochre and mauve come to mind).

At the risk of restarting "the thread that shall not be named" :eek:
One of the recent trends I've noticed with many d20 products is the use of the female pronoun in place of the male. I have no problem (and in fact encourage) alternating examples between male and female but it is improper english to use the female pronoun genericly and the hobby is male dominated. To me it just comes across as horny teenage males hoping "to get some".

[Rene]

Originally posted by lemming
I prefer point systems, but sometimes random generation can be fun.

The only situation that I feel random generation can be cool is for one-time-only games (when no one can afford the time to custom-design characters) or short campaigns at best.

BTW, I just got a used copy of Heroes Unlimites out of curiosity. Very, very weird game. I had never read a Palladium Book before. I found chargen to be fascinating in the way a car accident can be fascinating. Seems to me like you roll for everything and the rules are shock-full of special cases. And classes/levels for superheroes is a mind-boggling concept.

And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
Sorry to get off topic and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but why is tactical thinking disassociated from role playing, I'd think it would encourage roleplaying by reinforcing the fact that you don't stand still in the open during a firefight for example. Personally I've found more deadly systems encourage players to talk before going for a gun (or sword, monofilament carrot etc), in otherwords less hack and slash and more finding alternate means of resolution (unless the other guys really deserve it :) )

Interesting point, and I can vouch for it actually. Someone ran a Deadlands game, which is a deadly setting, and I played a gambler/con artist, a rather extreme one who really didn't know the difference between his own truths and lies. So I always had him try to talk his way out of any conflict. Not that he wouldn't take risk - if money was involved, he would. But basically this character was one of a few circumstances that geared the game away from being so violent and also wreaked havoc with some of the GM's plans.

However, I do think that most violent systems are made thay way FOR hack-n-slash reasons. Just my feeling, I can't point to a survey of systems that would indicate it.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene
(snip)And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

I've been thinking of collecting Super RPGs; this helps reinforce that thought, at least this sounds amusing. BTW, I know of some people (some HEROites) who did really like that system, but can't remember who.

I just really liked your last sentence. I could see that as a weird marketing effort - "It's just like I'm in the room - SHOUTING AT YOU!"

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Badger
Never thought about that way but you have apoint about D&D they did seem to believe in their own system's perfection. And wanted you to know it. Probably why I always felt it was too limiting.

There's a few hEROites who act that way, as well, and personally I think that the HERO rulebook has a certain ring of "this is THE system" to it. But I also think that's inevitable; you create a "serious" RPG system with the intent to make it as good as possible, and it's easy to get sucked into believing it's the best.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil
I just really liked your last sentence. I could see that as a weird marketing effort - "It's just like I'm in the room - SHOUTING AT YOU!"

:D

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive.

Some of the best paragraphs had stuff like this:

"You have noticed that there is no 'Mega-Hero' option in this game. No Superman, no gods. It's because this is a thinking man game. Too powerful characters are skull-bashers, get lost."

"There is no Neutral alignment in this game and there will never be. It's impossible for a human being to have something like true neutrality, he wouldn't be able to fight, adventure, eat, sleep, etc. etc."

"The first issue of this game had no magic-using characters, that is why I don't like magic in superhero games. But now I've been forced to include it, because too many players wished for it. I still don't like magic in supers, but what can I do."

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Rene

BTW, I just got a used copy of Heroes Unlimites out of curiosity. Very, very weird game. I had never read a Palladium Book before. I found chargen to be fascinating in the way a car accident can be fascinating. Seems to me like you roll for everything and the rules are shock-full of special cases. And classes/levels for superheroes is a mind-boggling concept.

All palladium games are weird. All of them.


Originally posted by Rene
And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

Its not just heroes unlimited.

[zornwil]

I haven't given it much thought, but here's how I think has been the underlying factors in the past:

1 - Genre

2 - Genre

3 - Genre - I like systems that work well for a genre, the better they work, the better I like them. Deadlands I really enjoyed because of its genre feel, and Boot Hill, even if a little broken, I also really liked for traditional Western stuff (though I kno many didn't, it seemed to work well to me). I really don't care if it's generic, and I personally tend to find that generic games tend to lose some flavor compared to genre-sensitive games. HERO is a bit of an exception with super-hero roleplaying but not really if you consider that was its birthplace. I'm all for using HERO to run non-super genres though, I just think as good as it is, there's subtle differences that matter a little. AD&D's convoluted magic system to me expressed the arcane feel of magic better than HERO ever will.

4 - Richness/Variety - I don't get into short, simple systems like FUDGE (though one could argue that FUDGE is rich in its simplicity, please take it as an example only at face value). I like to look at them, but for longer-term interest I tend to enjoy systems that have some variety in mechanics and a mix of constructs.

5 - Integrity and "Entry Ability" - I didn't want to use the term "consistency", as many others have, because I don't really care about that much, except where it relates to the ability of the system to play well without using all the rules: i.e., the core of the system, such as movement, chargen, action, once understood, are enough, once understood, to run/play a session. If the system is constructed in such a way that just to make a few movements you have to learn 50 pages of rules, that's no good. I want something that even if I corrupt it and don't understand all the rules, I can still play it without it feeling broken. Consistency, of course, serves as the rational basis for this, but isn't the be-all/end-all by itself. The effect of being able to use a reasonable subset of the system and have no serious gaming problems is what I'm really focused on. Also, systems like this are usually well built enough that I can customize it (which I always do) without corrupting it completely.

6 - Uniqueness - I like to feel the system has something unique to offer. HERO is less this way now, but primarily because of its influence on other systems. IIRC, Top Secret really didn't have too much in the way of innovation, and I think that's part of the reason I never got into it. OTOH, I really loved Traveler's chargen system as it was unique at the time (or at least it was unique to me).

I think that summarizes the major factors that influence my adoption of a game system. I don't at all have a problem with chargen being random; that's usually easy to house-rule into effectiveness. Even way back in D&D/AD&D days, it was easy to just let people roll 2x or 1.5x the number of characteristics and pick the best rolls. In fact one could argue - and I would - that randomization serves the simulation function better as of course people don't have the abilities they necessarily want, they get an assortment based on biology and environment. However, one could also argue - and again I would - that such a simulation is not a priority to a typical RPG, and is more often a deterrent to enjoyment. But basically, I think random chargen is easy to tame and can be its own great experience if so handled.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by Rene
:D

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive.


It's not just in print. Kevin Sembieda talked that way in real life.

Got trapped talking to him at Gen Con one year. Not sure how long, probably 45 minutes, but it darn well felt like forever.

Of cource, that was a few years ago, maybe he's changed.

D

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene
:D

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive.

Some of the best paragraphs had stuff like this:

"You have noticed that there is no 'Mega-Hero' option in this game. No Superman, no gods. It's because this is a thinking man game. Too powerful characters are skull-bashers, get lost."

"There is no Neutral alignment in this game and there will never be. It's impossible for a human being to have something like true neutrality, he wouldn't be able to fight, adventure, eat, sleep, etc. etc."

"The first issue of this game had no magic-using characters, that is why I don't like magic in superhero games. But now I've been forced to include it, because too many players wished for it. I still don't like magic in supers, but what can I do."

Those are funny, thanks for the examples. I wasn't going to respond publicly on this one as I've got too much in this thread already BUT...it reminded me of another funny example...

I had this sequencer, a device to control electronic keyboards/drum machines (basically), playing them as preprogrammed. In the manual, which was translated from Japanese to English, it said, (I don't have it in front of me so I'm paraphrasing a bit but this is VERY close to the quote) "If you get this error message, it is due to idiotic operation, such as turning the machine off during playback or recording"

I tried not to engage in "idiotic operation", thanks to the manual.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
AD&D taught me (i.e) and several interesting colors (ochre and mauve come to mind).
Other vocabulary words I learned from D&D (and will be eternally grateful):
mileu
melee
charisma (previously mentioned)
continuum
constitution (the definition meaning "health")
dweomer
cantrip
There were probably lots of others that I can't remember now.


At the risk of restarting "the thread that shall not be named" :eek:
One of the recent trends I've noticed with many d20 products is the use of the female pronoun in place of the male. I have no problem (and in fact encourage) alternating examples between male and female but it is improper english to use the female pronoun genericly and the hobby is male dominated. To me it just comes across as horny teenage males hoping "to get some".
Amen! If the use of the word "he" as a generic pronoun offends you, that's your problem. (Oh. Was there already a thread covering this? I must have missed it.)

As for arrogance in RPG books, I don't have a problem with the attitude "This is the best RPG system around." I expect that. I don't begrudge them their opinion. The thing I have a problem with is when they say, "This is the best system, but you can't do X, Y, or Z with it, therefore those things are forbidden." HERO says, "This is the best system, and you can impliment any concept you can think of. You are allowed to do what you want." Even if there's something "missing" from the system, or some concept that you can't figure out how to impliment, they have the correct attitude toward satisfying the customer.

It's like a restaurant that will happily make substitutions vs. one that won't.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil
I'm all for using HERO to run non-super genres though, I just think as good as it is, there's subtle differences that matter a little. AD&D's convoluted magic system to me expressed the arcane feel of magic better than HERO ever will.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I'd disagree with this last statement.

Apart from some Jack Vance stories and novels published by TSR and set specifically in the D&D worlds, D&D-like spell systems are pratically unheard of in fiction.

D&D spell system has some of the same trappings of fantasy fiction (dusty books, some of the spell names and effects), but works in a completelly different way that don't look much archaic or fantasy-like to my mind.

Fantasy magic don't work in the memorize-fire-forget way, it don't has the "scientific" predictability and reliability, it don't comes from a neat list compiled by the mage, and don't has a times-per-day limit.

All of that gives D&D magic a kind of "science fantasy" aspect that is quite unlike how magic is depicted in traditional fantasy and even most science fantasy stories.

I understand why they did it this way though. Mostly for easy of play and simplicity. It also underscores D&D's origins as a tabletop/combat game. It's telling that D&D-style of magic is much more common in videogame fantasy. In fact, to my mind, it conjures the same "feel" of videogame fantasy, and very little of the mistery and wonder of literature fantasy.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene
I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I'd disagree with this last statement.

Apart from some Jack Vance stories and novels published by TSR and set specifically in the D&D worlds, D&D-like spell systems are pratically unheard of in fiction.

D&D spell system has some of the same trappings of fantasy fiction (dusty books, some of the spell names and effects), but works in a completelly different way that don't look much archaic or fantasy-like to my mind.

Fantasy magic don't work in the memorize-fire-forget way, it don't has the "scientific" predictability and reliability, it don't comes from a neat list compiled by the mage, and don't has a times-per-day limit.

All of that gives D&D magic a kind of "science fantasy" aspect that is quite unlike how magic is depicted in traditional fantasy and even most science fantasy stories.

I understand why they did it this way though. Mostly for easy of play and simplicity. It also underscores D&D's origins as a tabletop/combat game. It's telling that D&D-style of magic is much more common in videogame fantasy. In fact, to my mind, it conjures the same "feel" of videogame fantasy, and very little of the mistery and wonder of literature fantasy.

Given videogame stuff came after and much of the videogame fantasy genre was influenced by D&D, makes sense.

I'm not a big fantasy fan and never got into Tolkien so fair enough. I think I could just say it this way - AD&D magic feels like magic in a general sense, whereas HERO magic doesn't really have a feel, to me. My only comparison back in the late 70s/early 80s would be folk tales, horror stories (mostly EC or Poe), stray odds and ends from popular fiction from Bewitched to Shakespeare, and comic-book magic. With those reference points, AD&D magic felt like magic for me.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil
I'm not a big fantasy fan and never got into Tolkien so fair enough. I think I could just say it this way - AD&D magic feels like magic in a general sense, whereas HERO magic doesn't really have a feel, to me. My only comparison back in the late 70s/early 80s would be folk tales, horror stories (mostly EC or Poe), stray odds and ends from popular fiction from Bewitched to Shakespeare, and comic-book magic. With those reference points, AD&D magic felt like magic for me.

Horror and folklore magic is even further distant from D&D magic than fantasy (Tolkien, say, is closer to D&D), IMO. Horror magic uses to be unpredictable, risky, moody, somewhat "chaotic". Whereas D&D magic is "science-like" and clean.

I can even agree with you that HERO magic don't have a "feel". I think it's hard to give it a feel, it depends a lot on how the GM designs the world and presents it to the players. That D&D magic has "more" of a feel of magic than HERO is like saying a elephant is closer to a human being than a fish. It's true, but none of them really looks like a human.

I think D&D is a fun and successful game in several ways. But I also think it's the most spectacular failure in genre simulation in the RPG industry. It's only to be expected that a RPG will have a hard time influencing the field that originated it. But D&D has become a kind of negative touchstone for many fantasy writers. It's not unusual to see comments like "the further a fantasy story is from D&D, usually the better it is".

BTW, I hate Tolkien.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene
Horror and folklore magic is even further distant from D&D magic than fantasy (Tolkien, say, is closer to D&D), IMO. Horror magic uses to be unpredictable, risky, moody, somewhat "chaotic". Whereas D&D magic is "science-like" and clean.

I can even agree with you that HERO magic don't have a "feel". I think it's hard to give it a feel, it depends a lot on how the GM designs the world and presents it to the players. That D&D magic has "more" of a feel of magic than HERO is like saying a elephant is closer to a human being than a fish. It's true, but none of them really looks like a human.

I think D&D is a fun and successful game in several ways. But I also think it's the most spectacular failure in genre simulation in the RPG industry. It's only to be expected that a RPG will have a hard time influencing the field that originated it. But D&D has become a kind of negative touchstone for many fantasy writers. It's not unusual to see comments like "the further a fantasy story is from D&D, usually the better it is".

BTW, I hate Tolkien.

Heh, I didn't mean to imply you liked Tolkein, just picking the obvious one.

I tihnk any generic system is cursed to not imbue a lot of flavor into its mechanics. HERO has some superhero flavor as a holdover of their legacy.

I think it's unfair to characterize D&D as such a failure considering its success. I understand your feeling and I think a lot of HERO people feel that way, but please take into account the D&D fan base. And don't get me wrong, I'm not part of that fan base as I never really enjoyed D&D and only ran it heavily, heavily bastardized the 3 or 10 times I ran it (it's been a very long time, High School, so I am not sure where in the range that number is). But I know a lot of people who were really into it and found it worked really well for them, and, of course, there's an awful lot still feeling that way.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil
I think it's unfair to characterize D&D as such a failure considering its success. I understand your feeling and I think a lot of HERO people feel that way, but please take into account the D&D fan base. But I know a lot of people who were really into it and found it worked really well for them, and, of course, there's an awful lot still feeling that way.

I don' think D&D is a failure. It's very successful as a game. I only said D&D was a spectacular failure as genre simulation. It does a extraordinarly poor job of simulating literature fantasy.

I'm not a snob. I think everything that sells a lot has to have something right about it. D&D works very well as a game. But it's so different from fantasy novels that we could say that "D&D fantasy" (such as the fantasy of some videogames and novels published by TSR) is a altogether different genre than literature fantasy.

I just had a interesting thought. If there is something that is closer to D&D it's some anime/manga fantasy.



Originally posted by zornwil
I think any generic system is cursed to not imbue a lot of flavor into its mechanics. HERO has some superhero flavor as a holdover of their legacy.

That is true. The GM has to do all the work if he wants to create flavor. And even if he does his job right, it can be hard. I've heard some players saying that generic systems are like seeing how the magician does the trick, it kills the mystery. I don't agree, but I can understand why some people feel this way.

Still, with HERO one can hope to recreate the magic system from a particular fantasy novel, and that is impossible with D&D. Of course, the best possible solution would be to have a entire system designed from the ground-up based on the novel. But since most novels don't spawn RPGs, HERO is still the best bet.

[Killer Shrike]

Personally, I cant stand the actual system of 1e or 2e AD&D, and think (from personal experience) that 3e falls apart after 15th Level or so. Also, I really dont like level based systems -- I dont mind some loose "class" concepts so long as they are just "suggestions" or rough archetypes (like the HERO System's Brick, Blaster, Mentalist, Gadgeteer, etc archetypes -- not binding or restrictive, but useful conceptually as shorthand to describe a characters general focus), but I really do not like level structures.

I dont like Forgotten Realms, never liked Dragonlance, dont like pre-Carl Sargeant Greyhawk, thought Darksun could have been very very cool if done with a different system, found some amusing/interesting bits in Al Quadim, disliked Birthright, overlooked Red Steel and Mystara (or were they the same thing....never looked at them), and think that Planescape was horribly flawed with an attempt at WW-esque clans/sects/tribes/traditions/etc but was otherwise rife with possibilities and generally kind of cool.

However, the one thing I like about xD&D is the gamist philosophy of PCs who are skilled adventurers, able to actually do something other than just die. Granted, you have to waste several weeks of play killing Orcs and such to get there if you start at 1st, but after a while experienced groups often skip all that nonsense and start off at a middling level so that the game can just get started without all the Kobold and Goblin (insert low-level foe of preference here) slaying.

The actual system of xD&D, particularly 1e and 2e, often got in the way, but once you got going w/ a good DM, you could actually have a really good time w/ xD&D. The sad part was that this was the exception other than the rule. The dumbed-down no-thought-required aspects of xD&D also seems to attract gamers with "low user-head-space". So, while there are intelligent people doing fun things with the game, IME there is a larger number of not-so-bright troglodytes clogging the demographic.

The one redeeming feature of xD&D to me is that there is an absurdly vast amount of adventures, concepts, and content written and published over the last 28 years or so for it in some permutation or other. This vast pile of content is of mixed quality of course, but nevertheless -- its a stupendous source for material convertable into a much better (IMO) game system like, of course, the HERO System. The implementation of much of it may suck, but ideas are priceless -- even just kernels of an idea are not to be discounted. Plus maps, illos, figurines, etc exist to support xD&D -- but are of course greppable into system-of-choice; I know Im pointing out the obvious on this one, but people often forget that these things wouldnt exist if not for xD&D. One can be dismissive of the game, or one can recognize that its existance is good for the hobby and can serve as a useful cornucopia of material to be harvested from.


Also, as a minor benefit, because of its sheer presense as the juggernaught of FRPGs some concepts from xD&D are so widespread they serve as a useful gamers shorthand. If I say "The group needs a Thief-type character" to a prospective player, if they have any knowledge of D&D at all they get the general idea with one sentence -- even if what that means mechanically in some other system (like the HERO System ;) ) bears no resemblance to an xD&D Thief/Rogue/Whatever, the idea was still communicated quickly and succintly.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene
I don' think D&D is a failure. It's very successful as a game. I only said D&D was a spectacular failure as genre simulation. It does a extraordinarly poor job of simulating literature fantasy. (snip)

Fair enough, but even there I think you may be wrong in terms of popular perception and therefore IF so it isn't a failure so much as "wrong" by your tkae. The people I know back in the day who were so big on AD&D were Tolkein fans, and that is a staple of the genre even though I understand in many ways he was one of the more superficial of the fantasy writers compared to Dunsany et al.

Please don't take it as me having any passion or opinion of my own though, I'm just playing devil's advocate out of perceived fairness/observation.


That is true. The GM has to do all the work if he wants to create flavor. And even if he does his job right, it can be hard. I've heard some players saying that generic systems are like seeing how the magician does the trick, it kills the mystery. I don't agree, but I can understand why some people feel this way.

Still, with HERO one can hope to recreate the magic system from a particular fantasy novel, and that is impossible with D&D. Of course, the best possible solution would be to have a entire system designed from the ground-up based on the novel. But since most novels don't spawn RPGs, HERO is still the best bet.

Agreed. I do like systems that work well for a specific purpose, as stated earlier in this thread, but that does mean they are very limited. The only thing I'd say is that I wouldn't HEROize, for example, Deadlands or some similarly distinctive system.

Re magic in HERO, I should add an important caveat that I really haven't made my way through that section of Fantasy HERO, I glanced at it but haven't seriously reviewed it. I was going to bring it on this trip but it's BIG which means HEAVY which means more weight in my already-heavy laptop bag, plus I have 2 other HERO books ahead of it I really want to finish (Ninja HERO and TUV).

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
(all but this snipped) Also, I really dont like level based systems -- I dont mind some loose "class" concepts so long as they are just "suggestions" or rough archetypes (like the HERO System's Brick, Blaster, Mentalist, Gadgeteer, etc archetypes -- not binding or restrictive, but useful conceptually as shorthand to describe a characters general focus), but I really do not like level structures.


As a rule, I'm with you, I should add. I don't generally like something in any system that so totally controls character growth and stereotypes as such. D&D/d20 (particularly reviewing even SAS' admirable attempt at adapting d20) is NOT the exception to my rule.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil
Fair enough, but even there I think you may be wrong in terms of popular perception and therefore IF so it isn't a failure so much as "wrong" by your tkae. The people I know back in the day who were so big on AD&D were Tolkein fans, and that is a staple of the genre even though I understand in many ways he was one of the more superficial of the fantasy writers compared to Dunsany et al.

I'd say D&D is closer to Tolkien and Howard than to most other fantasy writers. It's just that I don't think it's particularly close even to these writers. And D&D is closer to genre simulation IF we ignore the magic system.

It's in the magic system that D&D is the most different from fantasy literature. In Tolkien, magic is low-key, subtle, mostly off-stage. In Howard, magic is dangerous to cast, sinister, unpredictable.

Even with fantasy writers that portray magic as colorful and powerful, it's very different from D&D magic. In most fantasy literature, magic differs from D&D magic in the following ways:

- Magic almost never is a times-per-day thing. Wizards can cast spells as many times as they wish, but usually it's a tiring process and/or requires time-consuming preparations. Magic is more of a END Cost thing than a Charges thing, to put it in HERO terms.

- The memorize-cast-forget thing also is very rare in fiction. Magic most times involves study, but once learned, a mage don't need to memorize a spell every time he casts it. Some spells may require reading from a book, but this works more like D&D scrolls than spells per se. I. e. the mage needs to have the book to cast the spell, he can't just memorize it for later (it's more or less a Independent Focus).

- Magic almost never has a set result. Circunstances affect it heavily and how "well" a mage casts a spell in a given moment should affect it heavily too. In system terms, the best way to simulate magic is as action that depends on a roll, with higher rolls giving better results. Likewise, magic that backfires or has some side effect is very common.

- Most magic in fantasy is, to an extent, "free form". Even when mages use to restrict themselves to some known tried-and-true effects, they also can "stretch" their muscles and improvise in times of dire need.

All of this is very counter to the way D&D magic works.



Originally posted by zornwil
Please don't take it as me having any passion or opinion of my own though, I'm just playing devil's advocate out of perceived fairness/observation.

Don't worry. You've always been very polite. If anything, it's I that should apologize.



Originally posted by zornwil
Re magic in HERO, I should add an important caveat that I really haven't made my way through that section of Fantasy HERO, I glanced at it but haven't seriously reviewed it. I was going to bring it on this trip but it's BIG which means HEAVY which means more weight in my already-heavy laptop bag, plus I have 2 other HERO books ahead of it I really want to finish (Ninja HERO and TUV).

I think games like 'Ars Magica" and "Mage: the Ascension" generally manage to portray magic in a way much more fitting to fantasy literature than D&D. Even if these games have too-powerful magic for most fantasy novels, the basic mechanics are very fitting.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Personally, I cant stand the actual system of 1e or 2e AD&D, and think (from personal experience) that 3e falls apart after 15th Level or so. Also, I really dont like level based systems...

First, let me suggest from my moderately extensive playing of 3D&D (3rd Edition D&D) that it breaks down *WAY* before level 15. It's broken in one way until about level 4 or 5, and starts breaking down in a different way around level 11 -- and 3.5 didn't really address either problem set. But that's a rant for a different time :D

What I wanted to address was the final system I quoted above. There's a flaw almost inherent to level-based systems that you won't notice playing pencil-and-paper -- but becomes a critical problem affecting almost all MMORPG's.

Level-based killability. Anybody that played EQ during "the bad old days" when The Vision(tm) ruled has run into the bad end of this -- monsters that were designed to merely challenge higher leveled characters that could and would KOS ("Kill On Sight" in the truest sense -- one blow) lower levels. These days there are enough high levels running around these aren't an issue -- I actually grouped with someone the other night that didn't even know giants could spawn in West Commmons. But before you reached that point your evening would periodically be ruined by something way over your head suddenly killing you because you happened to be sitting where it spawned or someone "trained" it to you.

[Rene]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Level-based killability.

That can be a problem in pencil-and-paper too, when you get a hardcore simulationist GM. Low-levels are too easy to kill and high-levels are too hard. It takes a careful GM to avoid the problem (and it must be said that 3rd edition alleviated the problem somewhat, making the mage class less wimpy, for instance).

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by zornwil
I think I could just say it this way - AD&D magic feels like magic in a general sense, whereas HERO magic doesn't really have a feel, to me.

I can see where your coming from and it is a common belief but I feel this is more a limitation of imagination regarding the use of the rules rather than a real failure of the rules. I think the reason HERO magic seems to "feel" like super powers is not so much because the rules were made for supers but because most people build their spells like super powers. It would take alot of work I'm pretty sure it would be possible to make a really close approximation of D&D magic in HERO.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Rene
That can be a problem in pencil-and-paper too, when you get a hardcore simulationist GM. Low-levels are too easy to kill and high-levels are too hard. It takes a careful GM to avoid the problem (and it must be said that 3rd edition alleviated the problem somewhat, making the mage class less wimpy, for instance).

Most DM's however aren't going to have a hostile Storm Giant with 6 levels of Monk walking where 1st and 2nd level characters are going to be, either.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Amen! If the use of the word "he" as a generic pronoun offends you, that's your problem. (Oh. Was there already a thread covering this? I must have missed it.)

I don't know if you are joking or not? But yes there was quite a thread on this on the old boards non gaming discussion (back when I was brave or foolish enough to delve into that maelstrom, now I just beat my head against walls it is far more productive).

At great personal risk (I think it would be safer to start chanting the names of the outer gods of the Cthulhu mythos) I will explain. Somebody started a rant about DoJ's writer's guidelines because DoJ insisted that the male pronoun be used when required by the rules of the english language (ie when non specific gender such as "the gm will" is used) as opposed to the increasingly common d20 style. There were a few vocal (all male as far as I could tell) posters who were planning to boycott DoJ for their insensitive anti-female policies and were blaming much of the ills of womenhood on "chavenists" like Mr Long. It went on for a really insanely long number of posts (like 50 pages or so) , many of them pleas to stop wasting bandwidth. Supposedly it was actually bogging down the server, eventually it crashed under its own weight partially deleting itself.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
I can see where your coming from and it is a common belief but I feel this is more a limitation of imagination regarding the use of the rules rather than a real failure of the rules. I think the reason HERO magic seems to "feel" like super powers is not so much because the rules were made for supers but because most people build their spells like super powers. It would take alot of work I'm pretty sure it would be possible to make a really close approximation of D&D magic in HERO. Im making a go of it again(http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/Magic.htm), but also plan to do other types of magic systems once I finish getting all of the D&D3e spells converted (or most of them anyway). The trick is balancing them against one another for concurrent use.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene
IDon't worry. You've always been very polite. If anything, it's I that should apologize.

Don't even consider it, you're cool.

If it means anything to you, I could easily imagine that D&D works well for those who really aren't interested in simulating their fantasy genre, rather, they want a "fun game", which probably describes the larger mass of fantasy players (which is by no means an insult at all - there's nothing wrong with that, few people really want details and weeds). Particuarly based on your descriptions and feedback I'd guess that's the case.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
I can see where your coming from and it is a common belief but I feel this is more a limitation of imagination regarding the use of the rules rather than a real failure of the rules. I think the reason HERO magic seems to "feel" like super powers is not so much because the rules were made for supers but because most people build their spells like super powers. It would take alot of work I'm pretty sure it would be possible to make a really close approximation of D&D magic in HERO.

I agree, I do think it's an imagination thing. That's why it doesn't bother me - if I wanted to "rectify" it, I could, but it does require more GM work - or devotion to Fantasy HERO's take on it.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil
Don't even consider it, you're cool.

Hey, thanks. :) It's just that I can get heated in discussions.



Originally posted by zornwil
If it means anything to you, I could easily imagine that D&D works well for those who really aren't interested in simulating their fantasy genre, rather, they want a "fun game", which probably describes the larger mass of fantasy players (which is by no means an insult at all - there's nothing wrong with that, few people really want details and weeds). Particuarly based on your descriptions and feedback I'd guess that's the case.

I'd add one more thing in D&D's favor. Genre simulation not always translates to ease of play. D&D's philosophy has always been "if you try to do A, and roll X, then Y happens", it's straighforward and there is very little left to GM's interpretation in the magic system.

Accurate simulation of magic in genre would require more from the GM. And I don't think that is D&D's style.

[TheEmerged]

RE: d20 and genre interpretation. Actually, I've seen a magic system under d20 that works *very* well and comes much closer to how it works in genre fiction -- the one from the non-TSR Sovereign Stone product. It's not 100% where I want it to be but it's much closer than casting Magic Missile into the darkness...

[Rene]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
RE: d20 and genre interpretation. Actually, I've seen a magic system under d20 that works *very* well and comes much closer to how it works in genre fiction -- the one from the non-TSR Sovereign Stone product. It's not 100% where I want it to be but it's much closer than casting Magic Missile into the darkness...

Interesting. Could you give more details? Some fans said the magic system from d20 Modern would do the job, but I think it's the same old same old magic system, only powered down.

I was thinking, as bad as the wide disparity among levels can be in D&D, at least it's more in genre than the magic system. There are a lot of fantasy stories (specially the fat book trilogies) where the main characters finish the story a lot more powerful than they begun.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Rene
Interesting. Could you give more details? Some fans said the magic system from d20 Modern would do the job, but I think it's the same old same old magic system, only powered down.

I was thinking, as bad as the wide disparity among levels can be in D&D, at least it's more in genre than the magic system. There are a lot of fantasy stories (specially the fat book trilogies) where the main characters finish the story a lot more powerful than they begun.

d20 Modern's magic system -- at least the one in the core book, I wasn't impressed enough to purchase Urban Arcana -- really isn't much different from the 3D&D model. The difference is that it only goes to level 6 spells if I recall properly. Since 3D&D was only adequately tested through 11th level (allegedly the sum total of >11th level testing was 5 groups going through 3 adventures -- and not all 5 groups went through all 3 adventures) -- which again is an allegation but one that suits the evidence -- you don't have to worry about the completely-out-of-whack 7th through 9th level spells.

/begin summary
Sovereign Stone's system replaces the arcane/divine distinctions between magic and replaces it with a 5-elemental system -- the four traditional elements opposing "evil" magic. It also replaces the manifester level & spell level mechanics with a VERY interesting system. Instead of having a spell level, each spell has a "threshold" you must beat to cast the spell. Each turn you roll d20 and add your spellcasting bonus (think "manifester level") -- your attributes don't figure in. If that result is higher than the casting threshold you cast the spell.

Where it gets interesting is in the likely event it isn't. You then have to make a Fortitude save -- fail and you take Fatigue damage. Succeed or fail at that roll however and you can continue rolling next round, with cumulative results (and additional Fortitude saves that get harder), until you either pass out from Fatigue damage or reach the CT.

That means that yes, a first level character could theoretically cast a Fireball -- they'd just need a series of good rolls (CT 66 so they'd need at least 4 rolls in the upper teens plus successes of 3 fortitude saves) and it would take them several rounds.
/end summary

/begin opinion
Which isn't to say it's perfect, because it isn't. Because of the way your spellcasting bonus is figured it runs into the multiclassing problem indemic to 3D&D -- absolutely screaming for a mechanic like 3.5D&D's Mystic Theurge in my opinion. The official mechanic for quickening spells in Sovereign Stone is also a bad joke. I personally am not fond of the fact that race matters more for spellcasting bonus than attributes.

However, with some tweaking for these areas it seems, at least in our limited tests, to work a LOT closer to the way magic tends to work in genre fiction.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
I don't know if you are joking or not? But yes there was quite a thread on this on the old boards non gaming discussion (back when I was brave or foolish enough to delve into that maelstrom, now I just beat my head against walls it is far more productive).
Not only is it more productive, it's also less painful. No, I wasn't joking. It shows how long it's been since I learned to stay away from the Non-Gaming Discussion area. I've always believed that, as a whole, RPGers tend to be of above-average intelligence. The non-gaming discussion area was shaking my faith in that belief. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy non-gaming discussions, I just don't turn to a gaming site to have one.

(50 pages!? Boycott?! Man, I'm glad there's a separate are for those people.)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Not only is it more productive, it's also less painful. No, I wasn't joking. It shows how long it's been since I learned to stay away from the Non-Gaming Discussion area. I've always believed that, as a whole, RPGers tend to be of above-average intelligence. The non-gaming discussion area was shaking my faith in that belief. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy non-gaming discussions, I just don't turn to a gaming site to have one.

(50 pages!? Boycott?! Man, I'm glad there's a separate are for those people.)

Maybe your experience has been different, but there's no way I'd expect the average gamer to be more intelligent, educated, mature, or erudite than the average of the general population.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Maybe your experience has been different, but there's no way I'd expect the average gamer to be more intelligent, educated, mature, or erudite than the average of the general population. Sadly, I would be forced to concur. Ive met some really stupid people gaming. Of course Ive also met a (smaller) number of highly creative, extremely intelligent people gaming as well.

Personally, I find that the cut off seems to hover between those who are productive and knowledgeable and those who have the occasional good idea but are far too lazy to do anything about it.

When I started playing hardcore/seriously in highschool, everyone of us in my group (which fluctuated between 5 and 7 players) tested at genius level intellects. I was somewhat spoiled I think. Ever since those days its been a frustrating search for equally talented people, and its never been matched overall. However, over the years Ive had groups of very solid rpg-ers across the gamut of mental depths.

I dont think that gamers are perforce any brighter than anyone else in objective terms, but a healthy imagination and decision making skills certainly dont hurt and therefore some of the people attracted to RPGs in general are probably brought into the hobby bcs they have those qualities and RPGs subsequently play to their strengths. Conversely RPGs take up a lot of time and arent really productive in any real measurable way and dont require much in the way of actual skills/knowledge/or ability (thats what skill rolls are for in most systems, afterall), so they will also tend to attract people that have no real skills and nothing better to do with their time.

It probably all balances out at some point.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Maybe your experience has been different, but there's no way I'd expect the average gamer to be more intelligent, educated, mature, or erudite than the average of the general population.
Well, I certainly didn't say "mature" or "erudite", but I would say intelligent and educated. RPG's and games in general, tend to be fairly intellectual pursuits. Players use their imagination, make plans, and in general must exercise their minds more than many other hobbies. Often they are inspired to learn about topics related to their games, history for instance. It's certainly true in my case, and most of the gamer's I know. As was mentioned previously, games often increase the player's vocabularies.

But no, I don't think gamer's are any more mature than non-gamers.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Well, I certainly didn't say "mature" or "erudite", but I would say intelligent and educated. RPG's and games in general, tend to be fairly intellectual pursuits. Players use their imagination, make plans, and in general must exercise their minds more than many other hobbies. Often they are inspired to learn about topics related to their games, history for instance. It's certainly true in my case, and most of the gamer's I know. As was mentioned previously, games often increase the player's vocabularies.

But no, I don't think gamer's are any more mature than non-gamers.

As I said, your experience must be different. *shrug*

I've also learned, from working in a computer store/shop, that bieng intelligent and educated doesn't protect people from holding completely counter-factual and even idiotic ideas about the world.

[Rene]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
However, with some tweaking for these areas it seems, at least in our limited tests, to work a LOT closer to the way magic tends to work in genre fiction.

I liked it. From what you described, it resembles the Ars Magica system a little.

You could easily model several kinds of magicians by giving bonuses/penalties to cast certain "schools" of spells according to your class, forbidding certain schools to certain classes, or requiring that certain classes make use of specific props or rituals to avoid getting penalties (or gaining bonuses) in spellcasting.

The flexibility of this kind of system is infinite, it's very easy to modify too.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I've also learned, from working in a computer store/shop, that bieng intelligent and educated doesn't protect people from holding completely counter-factual and even idiotic ideas about the world.

"Counter-factual" and "Idiotic" ideas?

Well, intelligent and educated people are humans too. Usually they're oppinionated, argumentative humans. And some of them will have oppinions contrary to yours (or mine).

I've learned that sometimes it can be more relaxing to circulate among your intelectual lessers. Less educated people either don't try to argue, or they do it poorly and are easy to dismiss.

It's when you get to know people as intelligent as yourself and that don't feel intimidated by your ideas that things can get explosive very fast.

[schir1964]

Bump

[Zeropoint]

Regarding the "feel" of magic in Hero: I don't recall there being a Magic chapter in 5er. ;) If you want magic, you'll have to build a magic system, and the feel you get is the feel you build. If you want wizards that can throw a fireball with nothing more than the decision to do so and a little bit of END, there you go. It'll feel a lot like superpowers. If you want a wizard to cast spells by spending a week researching the proper rituals and invocations, and then another week gathering the components, and then a third week preparing the ingredients and the magic circle, you can build that, too.

If I have to go through all that to cast a fireball, though, I'm just going to get me a clay pot full of oil.

Regarding the problems of D&D: I, too, dislike random character generation and class/level systems, particularly classes. No surprise there. Also, I dislike pretty much every design decision made in the game, on an individual mechanic-by-mechanic basis.

That's all personal opinion, though. My biggest problem is something that really only crystallized in my mind recently. The D&D book market is flooded with books of prestige classes, books of extra feats, books of templates, books of huge lists of various game-mechanical add-ons. I realized the other day that the game is infused with the unspoken assumption that you can only do what the game books give you explicit permission to do.

Hero is based on the clearly stated premise that you can do anything. It gives you the tools you need to do almost anything, then gives not only permission, but encouragement to those who wish to go beyond, even going so far as to give advice for doing so.

Most of my friends are D&D gamers, and I've seen them being subtly affected by the attitude I mentioned above. (or so it seems to me) They buy bestiary after bestiary, but I don't think they'd really consider creating their own original creatures. They buy books of prestige classes, but no D&Der would ever consider creating his or her own new class. And, if you're going to go for one of those prestige classes, you have to follow the book's vision for that class. They buy the new books with an excited attitude of, "Ooh, look what this new book allows me to do!"

In Hero, once you have 5er, you can do anything.

Zeropoint

[ghost-angel]

In Hero, once you have 5er, you can do anything.

Zeropoint
This is it in a nutshell.

I said somewhere else: I own a lot of Hero System Books, but when I go game the only thing I bring with me is the Core System Book, and that's all I ever need To Game.

[Tim]

This is it in a nutshell.

I said somewhere else: I own a lot of Hero System Books, but when I go game the only thing I bring with me is the Core System Book, and that's all I ever need To Game.
I add "The Ultimate Martial Artist" and whatever genre book we're playing.

[BNakagawa]

One of the things I think about when judging a game system is:

What sort of player is this game system likely to attract?

There are some games (Star Fleet Battles, Advanced Squad Leader) that are near-legendary for their ability to draw rules lawyers out of a crowd like moths to a flame. I don't play them much, unless it's with friends that I know are not going to spend hours with their noses buried in rulebooks, quoting errata at eachother. Actually, I don't play them at all, anymore. I don't have that kind of time.

[Shike019]

Most of my friends are D&D gamers, and I've seen them being subtly affected by the attitude I mentioned above. (or so it seems to me) They buy bestiary after bestiary, but I don't think they'd really consider creating their own original creatures. They buy books of prestige classes, but no D&Der would ever consider creating his or her own new class. And, if you're going to go for one of those prestige classes, you have to follow the book's vision for that class. They buy the new books with an excited attitude of, "Ooh, look what this new book allows me to do!"

In Hero, once you have 5er, you can do anything.

Zeropoint


That's not entirely true I am a D&D gamer, yes i know, don't hit me over the head please. And I and my friends have often times created our own classes, prestige classes, feats, etc. Also on some of the DND boards at wizards, homemade classes, feats, prestige classes, spells, etc. are posted regularly for crituque by the community, though that particular community tends to be vicious at times.

[BNakagawa]

That's not entirely true I am a D&D gamer, yes i know, don't hit me over the head please. And I and my friends have often times created our own classes, prestige classes, feats, etc. Also on some of the DND boards at wizards, homemade classes, feats, prestige classes, spells, etc. are posted regularly for crituque by the community, though that particular community tends to be vicious at times.

one example to the contrary does not render the generalization invalid.

You can get very bad data by assuming that the population on a message base are a representative cross section of a larger population.

[tesuji]

Major considerations for me are:

Workload: This comes in two-parts: GM and player. I don't want to need to do a lot of work to build the basics to suit my needs. As such, toolkit systems usually fail this test. Similarly, i don't want my players to need to do a ton of work to get their characters going. i really want chargen to be longer at coming up with concept and name than putting stats down. I want to be able to fit most if not all relevent PC stats on an index card of about 4x5. (Serenity = scores high here. MNM scores OK (better for MnM 1e than 2e)NWOD score OK DnD= poor. HERO lower.)

Buy-in: How much monye and how many books does it take to get going? Is there a downloadable chargen or SRD for the players? if the buy-in for my players is high, then I will likely have to create a chargen guide myself. If the system is heavy enough to require rulebooks for the players, not just be helpful, then its likely dropping in this category. (D20 scores high here. Serneity OK, MNM OK, HERO scores low but sidekick might change that.)

Intuitiveness: How understandable is the game play in terms of "i have to look that up" vs "i can figure that works this way". I really want systems where the basic "how to" is so friggin' obvious and consitent most people can sit down, get handed a character sheet and go! (Serentiy and NWOD get high scores. MNM gets decent, HERo gets medium DND gets low.)

Genre: How well does it fit my setting and genre of choice and capture the feel and flavor. Basically, genre/flavor take prec3dence and system will be made to fit. (Serenity gets high. NWOD gets moderate. OGL gets moderate MNM gets OK, D20 gets low HERO gets low with the exception of supers where it gets medium. DND gets an exception bucause it is defining its own genre by now.)

[David Johnston]

Regarding the "feel" of magic in Hero: I don't recall there being a Magic chapter in 5er. ;) If you want magic, you'll have to build a magic system, and the feel you get is the feel you build. If you want wizards that can throw a fireball with nothing more than the decision to do so and a little bit of END, there you go. It'll feel a lot like superpowers. If you want a wizard to cast spells by spending a week researching the proper rituals and invocations, and then another week gathering the components, and then a third week preparing the ingredients and the magic circle, you can build that, too.


What I have tried and failed to do is capture the GURPS magic system in Hero. Maybe the way to go about that is to give mages a variable power pool with the limitation "Must find a book or make an spell invention roll to add a new possible power". But even then you don't have the kind of gradual ascent where because you've mastered "Ignite Fire" now you can move on to "Shape Fire", and once you've mastered that, you can move on to "Fireball" that really gives me the feeling that magic is more about what you know than what you can do.

[ghost-angel]

What I have tried and failed to do is capture the GURPS magic system in Hero. Maybe the way to go about that is to give mages a variable power pool with the limitation "Must find a book or make an spell invention roll to add a new possible power". But even then you don't have the kind of gradual ascent where because you've mastered "Ignite Fire" now you can move on to "Shape Fire", and once you've mastered that, you can move on to "Fireball" that really gives me the feeling that magic is more about what you know than what you can do.
Just add a -0 Limitation must know Spell X to Learn/Use This Spell on everything.

And roleplaying, that's what it's there for.

[prestidigitator]

What I have tried and failed to do is capture the GURPS magic system in Hero. Maybe the way to go about that is to give mages a variable power pool with the limitation "Must find a book or make an spell invention roll to add a new possible power". But even then you don't have the kind of gradual ascent where because you've mastered "Ignite Fire" now you can move on to "Shape Fire", and once you've mastered that, you can move on to "Fireball" that really gives me the feeling that magic is more about what you know than what you can do.
You can certainly grant bonuses for knowing similar spells. Couple that with a penalty that is based upon the size of the new spell and/or the Modifiers on it, and things become a lot more interesting.

[schir1964]

Bump.

Just thought this thread needed to input from new posters.

- Christopher Mullins

[bwdemon]

For me, it comes down to these three things...

1. Balance: 1pt of X = 1pt of Y in effectiveness
2. Accessibility: almost a catch-all, this includes time until playable, time until mastered, and absence of needless complications
3. Flexibility: should be able to handle a wide variety of genres and capabilities

[GAZZA]

I'll take a crack with my favourite 4 RPGs, my least favourite, and a "middle of the road" (hopefully I can squeeze this under the message length limit).

Top 4
Amber: Genre-wise, you're either a fan of Zelazny's universe or you aren't. Or possibly you like the Corwin series and not the Merlin books. Regardless, while arguably the whole "diceless" idea is not really necessary to properly simulate the genre, if you buy in to the game's explanations it really does fit the setting remarkably well. It also scores very well on flexibility (since you can find Shadows that do virtually anything, or create items or followers with a large toolkit of powers that is not exhaustive), but unfortunately this very flexibility means it isn't entirely consistent. Despite the tongue-in-cheek "every attribute is the most important attribute", it's not really true in play (Strength and Endurance get short shrift compared to Psyche and Warfare), and the interaction of lots of the Shadow Knight stuff isn't well explained with examples (you are essentially on your own as far as what the advantage of this system is over just buying objects - even different versions of the book characters do it both ways). This is not a strong complaint, though, because Amber is more of a narrative than a simulationist game.

Hero: I only use it for Champions, and I wouldn't use anything else (I've tried M&M, V&V, MSH, DC Heroes, and Superworld). Fits the genre perfectly, virtually infinite flexibility, but that flexibility is well designed mechanically so that it doesn't suffer from inconsistency the way Amber does. I don't think it's perfect, but it's "perfect enough" (and I find the mailing list and message board Hero enthusiasts over the years to be a generally very polite and thought provoking lot, which is something I cannot say for many other game fans).

RuneQuest: I came into the story late with 3rd edition, and this has always been one of my favourite games as well as one that I have played the least. As far as being genre appropriate, Greg Stafford seems not to think so (otherwise HeroQuest would never have been invented), but personally I think the world of Glorantha that RQ represents is a more interesting place than HeroQuest (having said that I've yet to play HQ). The basic BRP system that underlies it has proven to be extremely flexible (Call of Cthulu, Superworld, Stormbringer) though not to the level of Hero. If you ignore certain oddities in the critical hit system it's a pretty consistent system. My biggest beef with RQ is that calculating Special, Critical, and Fumble chances is quite ridiculously over complex to do "on the fly" (we use a system requiring two rolls that dispenses with all the complexity and delivers the same results).

Shadowrun: 1st edition was not well thought out (armour was way too good); 2nd edition was a great improvement, and it took me a while to warm to 3rd edition. I've not yet bothered with 4th because I don't like the sounds of some of the changes (in the same way that Hero would feel different if it started using d20s, I kind of think that target numbers and counting successes are a big part of Shadowrun - but not 4th edition). I prefer Shadowrun to all other Cyberpunk games as well as many fantasy games (you can strip out the cyber and play fantasy, or strip out the magic and play cyberpunk - I prefer the blend, but it's perfectly doable). That flexibility extends to the magic system (a "roll your own spell" system was provided) as well as the numerous books of equipment (including stuff for building rigs and decks - you can spend a lot of time solo making stuff for your SR characters, which is either a bonus or not depending on who you are). 3rd edition was very consistent; the balance between cyberware and magic characters was very well thought out and rarely caused problems in play (I had more issues with Riggers than any other PC).

The Worst
I loathe D&D. Don't get me wrong - I'll play it, and due to the other players in my group I play it often - but I would rather play just about anything else. I dislike levels, I really dislike classes, and while I applaud the efforts to unify the task resolution system that 3rd edition brought about, I dislike the fact that they use a d20 for it (flat curve, as opposed to bell curve - yes, I know what they did it, but that still doesn't mean I like it). D&D doesn't do a particularly good job even of simulating Vancian magic (there's no way to cast the spells "in full"), so it fails the "genre" angle. The numerous classes and prestige classes do make it fairly flexible - I'll give it that, it would be unfair not to considering the 1000s of spells, feats, and so forth that are available - but it's not at all consistent. There are no real rules about spell design, for example (and those that are proposed are violated in the core rules - Fireball, for example, does more damage than a 3rd level spell "should" according to Tome and Blood, and the Epic Level Handbook rules for Epic spells cannot duplicate the effects of most of the 9th level spell list).

The Middle
I have a soft spot for Traveller, the original Black Book game. It was the first game I ever played, and it had some really unique concepts (like the possibility of dying during character creation). The genre was sort of strange (it's hard to see how a large Empire could really hold together considering the travel time problems) and the original rules had starship computers that were inferior even to the latest machines available when the books came out (by today's standards barely useful as paperweights). It scores OK on flexibility (you could port the basic system to other genres, though I'm not aware of any great movement to do so); consistency was largely slap dash in the original version but is considerably improved now (as far as skill resolution and so forth goes). It's not one of my favourite games, but it's a fun system that is absolutely excellent soloing (as a referee you can spend many more hours designing starships and planetary systems than you'll ever play, and to computer programmers like myself it offers an endless variety of pet projects to write generators for).

[CourtFool]

I like to attempt to recreate books and movies in my games. I guess there is some simulationist in me. To me, the most important thing in books and movies are the characters. Therefore, the most important thing to me in RPG's are how they handle characters.

Flexible: The game should be flexible enough to handle nearly any type of character concept. I see class based systems as counter to this. If a Rogue is suppose to be the skill monger, why does he need Sneak Attack?

Consistent: The game should have some bit of consistency throughout. I am terrible at memorizing but excel at understanding concepts. I do not want to buy supplement after supplement for new abilities that are completely arbitrary and have no consistency with the core rules.

I prefer a bell curve to wild randomness, but this is not a deal breaker.