A Mind in Crisis (Rant Warning…)

[Ndreare]

I have a problem every time I want to shoe someone the hero system the first thing they want to do is recreate either D&D or Ultima characters. This seems so narrow minded it is killing me.

They want to make a wizard so I say sure go ahead lets talk about what you think or want a wizard to do…

Next thing I know it came down too, their idea of a wizard is a friggen conversion of some other systems wizard. Now on this alone I am fine but low and behold when they discover something in the game that does not fit their former style or desire it becomes “What the he** a man in chain mail can Control The Wind?� then I try to explain to them the whole the “Only limitations are the ones you want� thing.

Then comes the endless discussion of how a wizard is this or a fighter is that. (It kills me.) I do not force restrictive character classes usually (actually it is quite rare as I use a general rule of X type thing). But then when I do it is like this whole paradigm conflict anyways.

Even references to characters like the Sword wielding Gandalf from the LOTR books or Jerald Tarrant from the Cold Fire Trilogy get the well those are exceptions. Another fighter example would be Daemon Vrice from the Cold Fire Trilogy or many of the characters from the Amber series.


So what I want to know is do you or your players often put limitations on others or characters based on older game design?

[cutsleeve]

The kind of mindset you describe is not absolutely due to D&D it has more to do with game systems and the players familiarity with them.

If a player has only played D&D they would be prepared to play a game like ars magica where wizards are enormously powerful. If they play V:TM exclusively and you send them into D&D and they get bitten by a vampire they will give you the same disgruntled arguement about what their abilities should be and theyre suseptabilities.

The vast majority of gamers play one system and thats pretty much it. they dont play other systems because they feel its cumbersome to learn new rules or that the new system they learn is somehow flawed in comparison with the more familiar system. It just bias which is created from playing only one particular game or only a particular type of game or system. Its only through sampling other systems that you can finally see the flaws in any given system. Even Hero system has flaws but it does a good job of being a universal system.

theres not much you can do about players who cant adapt to other systems. They will either accept the system or not.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've ranted similarly in the past.

My advice: Let 'em play what they want. Introduce NPCs who tweak the stereotypes. Let their arrows tink off the evil wizard's hidden breastplate. Let the warrior-rogue toss off a spell. Watch them gape when the evil priest throws a fireball or has a hidden crossbow under the altar.

When they call you on it, as they inevitably will, respond with "Oh, that's allowed in this game world."

[Alibear]

Originally posted by cutsleeve
Even Hero system has flaws

Burn the heretic!

[Captain Obvious]

I'm guessing the guys you play with only read R.A. Salvatore or other authors who primarily write about D&D worlds. Otherwise they'd see that characters that follow strict class lines are the exception and not the rule.

The Grey Mouser is a cat burglar, a duellist, and a magician (albeit this last skill area has been largely neglected). Anra Devadoris was as good a duellist as the Mouser, and a better wizard by far. How many guys did Conan (himself a burglar/pirate/bandit/soldier/king) fight who wielded a sword and magic with equal skill?

For that matter, how many pure wizards follow D&D lines? Some seem to only have a few spells, but at powerful levels. Some have a wide range of minor effects. How does this fit with D&D's "X spells per level per day" scheme?

Get them into some classics of fantasy and have them create those characters in D&D. Once they see they can't do it, or can only do it with a lot of hand-waving and force-fitting, show them the exact character in Hero terms. If they're not more willing to play after that, they are married to the idea of D&D as the ultimate fantasy game and will never leave it.

[Hierax]

Ndreare,

I can sympathize with your problem. Some people have a real problem with change from what they've always done and seeing the benefits of a more flexible system.

It might be helpful to frame things for them in terms of xD&D. Please bear with me as I explain. Put these players in a situation where they are limited to the way things used to be with D&D and show them all the things that D&D can now do that it couldn't do before and you'll get them to agree that the more options offered are better, then take them to the next step and show them the things that HERO can do that D&D can't.

E.G., in old D&D a fighter was a fighter and didn't really have any special powers, there were no Paladins, Cavaliers, Barbarians, no non-weapon proficiencies, no feats, no prestige classes, etc. but if people were happy with just this total basic fighter then they would have rejected all of the options -- I'd expect that your players wouldn't want to play D&D without having access to all of the cool options that were evolved over the years. Show them how HERO really is just an extension of how xD&D has been evolving all these years, but that they don't have to wait for official designers to give them more options that they can make the evolution themselves in exactly the way that they want.

Mind you if they just want to play a plain old d8 hp fighter who has no special abilities and don't appreciate any of the advances then there might not be any hope for them with HERO.

I'm not putting this very well but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at -- they don't understand HERO (because it is new), so show them something that they (presumably) do understand (D&D) and show how HERO has all the things that they like about D&D but only more so and maybe that will bring them around, it might take time but maybe this will put them on the path to seeing the true light...

[Hierax]

In terms of Wizards (or Magic-users), you could limit Magic-users to the spells of the old 'white box' D&D and not let them cast any of the spells after that or allow for any specialist wizards, metamagic feats, etc. and see how they like it when they lose all of the neat stuff that D&D Wizards have gained over the years. Then show them all the great stuff the can have their wizards do in HERO -- e.g., Fireball with Personal Immunity or Selective Targets in the Area of Effect are something that I've heard numerous people ask for in xD&D even though they didn't know the terms for it.

[tesuji]

Actually, while people keep talking about flexible "systems" this is actually a world definition thing.

Wizards cannot wear armor and only clerics can heal and rogues dont learn greatswords often is a small set of world defining aspects. They show the players how things work in the world. Your players are naturally falling back on the "fantasy worlds" they have the most experience with and its probably for a very simple reason.

"you do not seem to have defined your game world and its limits for them. The entire notion of "Only limitations are the ones you want " is practically anti-defining.

For example... if they want to play a toddler "normal human" who is as smart of the worlds smartest sage and has strength of 8 men, would you go sure? if they wanted to play a "normal human" who had six arms and a tail, would that be OK? Or are you going to stop and say "well that doesn't make sense?"

At the point that you stop them and say "that doesn't make sense?" you have just admitted "well there are some limitations... i just haven't told you about them."

Can your player choose a strength based skill for his magic skill roll? This way he can be a fighter mage and not have to fret with watsing points boosting int or ego.

******************************

It boils down to something very simple... if you, the gm, had given your players a guide to "how things work in this fantasy world" they would know these things and try to play within your world as it makes sense and is explained. lacking a world definition, lacking a sense of things, and lacking any instructions as to what should be expected as normal... people are going to fill in the blanks with what is comfortable.

Should they expect normal squirrels to rush at them wielding two handed swords? Should this be seen in your world as just another hazard for those who do not drop adequate nutly offerings to the squirrel god?

[Captain Obvious]

Good points, Tesuji.

I would suggest, Ndreare, that you choose a literary world that your players are familiar with, preferably one that exhibits some feature that D&D doesn't model well, and go with that. This will let them know what sorts of characters are common in this world and what is virtually unknown. In particular point out explicitly what they can do that they can't do in D&D, and what they can't do that they could in D&D (and how that presumably makes for a more rewarding game experience...I personally would rather barely survive in a more realistic setting against two opponents than wade into a sea of "low-level" opponents and come out with nary a scratch).

[Ndreare]

For the Record


I told the players that we would be adventuring in the world presented in the “Cold Fire Trilogy� starting about 100 years before “Black Sun Rising�.

So their was set of limitation and genre however this is something that I often run into is the magic must be this way or fighters are that way. (I did warn it was a rant after all.)

P.S.: if you have read the cold fire trilogy you know the entire idea behind a character class is missing in these stories some thing I like very much.

They have little areas were they talk about adepts and priest but it is nothing like a character class as an Adept can wield a sword as well as any man or even a casual person may be able to try a spell or to.

[xanatos]

If I have to tell the truth, in fantasy campaigns I quite often use the limitation that each "type" of mage has "limited" schools (and I simulate this by telling my players that they can use only half the AP on spells of that school), so Wizards can heal very little and Clerics can damage very little. This leaves the "feel" of DnD (and probably of many other books where magical healing is not a common commodity). For the GreatSword Thief, well, with 3rd ed. you can (just a feat or a level of Fighter)... and you can even have a mage with full plate (you will need to still his spells to cast them without problem, and you will need a feat or a level of another class)

[Citizen Keen]

While tesuji has solid points, there is something I might want to add...

Explain to your players that the "wizards can't wield swords" and "clerics can only use blunt objects" and all that is a form of game balance.

HERO's game balance is done by points.

Can a wizard wield a sword? Yes.

Can a cleric use a sword? Yes.

Can a rogue cast spells? Yes.

Can a fighter leap fifty feet in the air? Yes.

But...

Can you build a versatile arcane/divine spellcaster with stealth skills and weapon skills and elf abilities and dwarf abilities and the ability to fly? Not all at once.

Some thing I always tell my players is...

In HERO, you can do anything, but not everything.

-cK

[Ndreare]

Originally posted by Citizen Keen
In HERO, you can do anything, but not everything.

-cK

I like this you can expect that sone I will be using it.

[Melchior777]

It seems to me that most of the people so far have mentioned what you can and can't do "in combat." In this context you are limiting the Hero systems effectiveness by comparing it to what D&D does best. D&D is a combat system with a few extras added, plain and simple. Hero is much, much more. You can simulate more situations with Hero, and with much greater detail. You actually have statistics and rules for handling social, political, and other types of situations that don't fall under the realm of combat. This is the strength of Hero, to be able to deal with almost any situation. As for your players, I wouldn't blame them to much. Players tend to want things a certain way. Either they want to play one system because that's the system they have all the books for and don't want to spend the money to buy new ones, or they've learned how to tweek characters in this system and don't want to get used to a new one. I've found the impact of Hero's extensive rules can be softened by the GM not just handing the players the rule book and saying "make a character." In D&D, this is perfectly feasable. In D20 (3ed) the rules are so cut and dried that it is difficult to even introduce house rules to the system. Anyway, as to your predicament: Hero converts very easily to D&D and vice versa. All you need do is create some NPC's, bases, monsters, etc. that will take you players by surprise. (What do you mean, "The dragon fascinates you, you can't act on your next turn?" or "Um... I don't have the Knowledge skill, Courtier. Can't I just roll Diplomancy?") Show them the depth of the characters created using Hero. If that's what they want, they'll come around. If they want to continue playing role playing games like they were computer games, well that's up to them.

[Lucius]

Believe it or not - I'm actually going to say something in defense of D&D.

I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "a combat system with some extras added." Even in my day (and I know it has evolved since I played it) I don't think that was quite true. Or if it is fair, it is also fair to say the same about Hero. Lots of RPGs seem to overemphasize the combat aspect of things.
At most, I'd say the statement is "more true" of D&D than of Hero - but I'm not sure everyone would even agree with that.

As for the rant that started this - I have a question. I know the players were told that the gameworld was based on a particular set of books - are they in fact familiar with those books? If not, perhaps more explanation is needed, and it is understandable, as Tesuji says, if they "fall back" on what they are familiar with. If they DO know the books, and basically didn't believe you when you said "this is how the world works," then I'm not sure what to say...

Disclaimer - I have not played D&D for a long time, so what I'm about to say may no longer be valid. However, based on this rant, I suspect it's still a valid point.

D&D, unlike Hero, builds world defining elements right into the rules. "Clerics may not use edged weapons" was the RULE, and imposed regardless of religion, culture, or game world - it was an assumed part of how ANY D&D world worked. Someone who has played Hero for a while, even if only in fantasy campaigns, is going to be exposed to a variety of "models" just as someone who reads fantasy literature is. Someone who has played a lot of D&D has seen the SAME basic assumptions about numerous things reinforced repeatedly, perhaps even in game worlds where such assumptions made little sense, certainly when they had no intrinsic reason to be there. These assumptions can become so ingrained that I can well believe that the players in this example knew the books the game world was based on, clearly heard the Game Operations Director explicitly state that THAT was the basis, and nonetheless they never even questioned that the arbitrary assumptions of D&D would still apply.

Now, the last time I spent much time with D&D, was about the time Dark Sun came out, I think. That was a world with a LOT of different assumptions from the "standard" D&D rules. So even based on my outdated experience (clue: I still think of the Drow as "those newfangled dark elves") it is an exaggeration to say D&D is absolutely inflexible. If the players have had some experience with such "variants" they may find it more comprehensible that yes, a wizard could use a sword, and yes, a priest with a vow of ahimsa can't use ANY weapons edged or not, and it is not only possible but probably advisable for a warrior to learn stealth and concealment.

I'm running on again. But I'll add this. Next time a player starts to define a character purely in terms of some other game systems stereotyped "character class" stop them and ask "why?" Also ask "Do you want to....?"

"Why do you want to only be able to cast each spell once a day?"
"Well....isn't that how magic works?"
"Not necessarily."

"Do you want your priestess of Artemis to have tracking, survival, and a level with bows, since She is a Goddess of the hunt as well as of the moon?"
"Bows? But a cleric can't use bows."
"Sure she can, if you pay the points for it."

"Why don't you equip him with a shield? He uses a one handed sword and putting a shield on the other hand could be useful."
"Because he's a thief."
"So? Maybe he stole somebody's shield and learned to use it."

In other words, LET THEM KNOW WHEN THEY ARE GRATUITOUSLY LIMITING THEMSELVES. Raise their consciousness. Don't let their assumptions remain unchallenged and unquestioned. Maybe that's what you did wrong? If you had not said "okay, fine" when they present character concepts based on more restrictive systems, they may still have chosen those characters, but they would consciously KNOW that it was a choice, and that other characters could be different.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary recalls the lines from Lucius' song "Everybody Must Get Stunned."
They'll stun your black belt, lock up all his joints
They'll stun you with their secret pressure points
They'll stun you with their martial arts so strange
They'll stun you with a shotgun at close range
Hey! Where'd that NINJA get a GUN?
EVERYBODY just got stunned.