Printable View
The Hero System has been getting a lot of criticism on a couple of threads lately so I'm curious:
On a grade scale how would you rate the current system?
Personally I give it an A-. Sure it has flaws but it's still playable (and fun) but I don't think I'd make any major changes to it.
A+ on a bell curve, because in comparing it to all the other systems I have used -- and that's a lot of systems -- it is the best.
A, without the bell curve.
I'm one of the long time players and I give %th somewhere around an A- imperically or an A++ on a bell curve.
I've looked at and played a lot of other systems and HERO is my long time top choice for the vast majority of genres. The only other systems I've ever enjoyed almost as much have been Chaosium, which I still like for some types of games (Call of Cthulhu, for instance), and once in a blue moon I get nostalgic for Rolemaster/Spacemaster, which back in the day REQUIRED that the GM spend weeks just figuring out which optional rules systems would form HIS particular version of the game, and which made most characters completely non-compatible with any other groups games. the main things I miss from it... whacked out but potentially neat magic systems, uber powerful mages, and a seperate boardgame each for Starship combat and sci-fi ground warfar, both of which were completely compatible with the RPG's.
Despite how it may seem from some of my posts, I don't really think HERO is broken. My desire to continually tweak the system is a combonation of my chronic rules tinkerer mentality and an almost fanboyish desire to eliminate anything about my favorite system that someone might be able to point to and say "That's why I don't play HERO".
OK...amend that..
anything that doesn't immediately illicit the responce "So, you're telling me you're an idiot, then?"
i'd have to rate it at A to A- depending on the mood. DnD gets somewhere around D+ for fun but silly (maybe a C), Whitewolf gets a failing grade, and 7th Sea gets a C+ to B- for what it tries to be (that gives you a sense of my scale)
Hmm. I think personally I'm going to have to put 4E at A, 5E at A+, and 5ER at B.
For comparison, I would give WoD 2nd and 3rd a B+, the new WoD (e.g. Vampire the Reqium, etc., which I just call 4th ed.) a C-, D&D 1st and 2nd an F, and D&D 3rd a D. I will restrict my answer to those systems already addressed rather than going further.
While I think of 3rd as the A+ and 4 just wasn't up to expectations. 5 is going to get an A-. A lot of improvement over 4 IMO, while doing few wonky things. (Regen, Instant Change, not restoring -1/3"...)
I think I'm close to pres on this one.
To really get an idea of how I think, I'll follow suit and "grade" other games I enjoy, or don't enjoy, along with Hero:
Hero System (4th edition): A
Hero System (5th edition): A+
Hero System (5th edition revised): A- (mainly do to unnecessary complications added to the rules)
AD&D 2nd Edition: D+ (it passes, but only barely)
D&D 3.x: A- (yeah, I like it. Granted, Hero is better overall, but for what it does, it does it better than Hero could... of course, Hero can do more than one type of magic system, psionics system, etc...)
GURPS: B- (a nice but oversimplified system with far too many sourcebooks)
Palladium Fantasy: F (it's AD&D written by people who hated AD&D)
Rifts: D- (written by the same people as Palladium Fantasy, but they grew up a little first)
World of Darkness (vampire, werewolf, mage, etc.): C (a solid system that leave a lot in the hands of the players/GM, but very little inspiration of what to actually do in a game)
Amber Diceless RPG: A- (more simplified than GURPS, more GM/player arbitration than WoD... it's freeform role-playing at it's best... the "Hero System" of rules-light role-playing)
Cyberpunk 2020/Cybergeneration: B+ A nich genre that is done extremely well, but lacks any kind of versitility.
Ive been playing the HERO System for 15 years, and I give 5ER an A-.
The minus is mostly for the many superheroisms still embedded in the system and some of the faulty math issues lurking in the Characteristics.
4th Edition HERO = A
5th Edition HERO = A (some really good changes like Change Environment but some bone-headed changes like removing better constructs for instant change, regeneration, and damage shield)
5th Edition HERO ignoring a few changes and a lot of the FAQ = A+
1st Edition AD&D pre-Unearthed Arcana = B-
1st Edition AD&D w/Unearthed Arcana = B
What I suspect Gygax's version of 2nd Edition AD&D would have looked like* = A-
2nd Edition AD&D = B+
2nd Edition AD&D w/Options = A-
3rd Edition D&D = D (Oversimplification and Overcomplication somehow achieved at the same time)
Mechwarrior (the only version I played) = A- (Limited but great for what it was intended to do)
Palladium = C
White Wolf = B for character design mechanics becomes an F for telling me how to roleplay and limiting what stories could be told to a ridiculous extent
Buck Rogers = C+ (Desperately needed to find a use for the bulk of the skills characters could have.)
* Gygax wanted to take the Unearthed Arcana approach to its logical conclusion. There was going to be a host of Classes/Sub-Classes in the system Gygax wanted to introduce. I would have really liked to have seen what he would have come up with.
A- overall for me. It would have been lower because of rules density, as MithchellS points out, but with Sidekick to help people for whom this would be a real problem the whole package is more accessible than it has been in many years.
Grade the system? I dunno...I just like to play Supers and this works good for me. All the editions have worked. You just have to play and take what works. I don't see a bad vibe going around, not any more than there always is. People like to tweak. Cripes, from the looks of it sometimes I think there are many people here who like to tweak games more than play them. :rolleyes: The core game is 20+ years old now. That seems pretty obvious proof that it's good.
I'd say A- to B+ on an objective scale (but I'm considered a tough marker in other contexts :whistle: ) It's good but could be improved (primarily for constructs and ruling I disagree with, but others may not).
Grading on the curve, I give Hero an A+, since I consider it the best of what's out there. While it needs some tweaking in some areas (at least IMNO), it also can accomodate such tweaking rather easily, without the underlying system collapsing.
I'm a bit confused by this assessment, given you generally seem to believe that older hHero gamers are pure fanboys incapable of perceiving, much less articulating, negative concepts about the system. I take it you include in "not new" Hero gamers those who gagve it a reasonable chance and concluded they preferred other systems. That, to me, would reconcile the apparent inconsistency.Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellS
I'm curious how you would grade other well-known systems. Given your historyu on the Boards, I have the sense you'd be a pretty tough marker overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellS
[QUOTE=MitchellS]It does the job, but it does it in a far more cumbersome fashion than previous versions have. The game has become and encyclopedia of rules rather than a rules system. While rules density appeals to a certain segment of the gaming population it does not appeal to all, which is why you see so many former Hero gamers talking about leaving the system on other message boards once 5E was published. Hero is still a very good game system but it's becoming engulfed in rules minutiae. [\QUOTE]
I think much of this is due to the ease of designers receiving and responding to questions about the game. The D&D FAQ is now 52 pages in length, and they don't actively solicit rules questions on their web site. Add Dragon's monthly Sage Advioce feature, and it could likely be a lot larger, but WOTC hasn't taken that approach, so it's a bigger search for gamers wanting these answers. One of 5e Hero's strengths has been the ability to get the designer to answer rules questions online with rapid turnaround. With that resource of information, it seems like a logical next step to incorporate the answers in an ongoing document. That document then became, in large part, the revisions in 5er.
While I agree that this may result in rules minutiae, and I don't agree with all of the book itself, much less all of the rulings, I think this is an approach many games are now taking, to greater or lesser extent, and the sales of 5er to 5e owners indicates the clarifications offered by these minutiae are in some demand, although there will certainly be some, like yourself, who prefer to go it alone and make their own rulings (and many more who prefer to house rule away many areas of disagreement).
[I'm not much into them, but my understanding is that collectible card games and, I assume, the more recent collectible miniature games have the same issue to a greater degree, since they require consistent application of rules due to their more competetive nature.]