The MISSING Philosophy

[CleverName]

FUN

Steve Long, you are a great game designer, but I think the fun-factor should be the first and last thing considered regarding each and every rule designed for the new system:

"Does X make the 6th edition more fun for the players?"

[buzz]

A man after my own heart.

(See my "Guiding Philosophy #7" thread.)

[Bloodstone]

Of course, this is largely subjective...

So clearly we need to stat it out, giving it appropriate advantages and limitations.

Only then will we know if FUN is balanced

[Chris Goodwin]

Where is our Minister of Fun when we need him? Sean?

[CleverName]

Of course, this is largely subjective...

So clearly we need to stat it out, giving it appropriate advantages and limitations.

Only then will we know if FUN is balanced

...That would be he HERO way I guess. I'm just afraid that under the current system it has a SPD of 2.



Actually, I love the game, but I am afraid that its herd of sacred cows will derail the engine that should be pushing its re-design. Basically, it needs some chainsaw work and it needs to focus on making the game fun and exciting, while still using the basic assumptions of point balance.

[nexus]

The problem is "Fun" is truly subjective. One group, for the matter, one player's idea of "fun" is not another's That's always going to be true. You have to determine what sort of "fun" your going for is that's going to be one of your core design issues.

A Wushu player's idea of fun is not a hardcore D and D's player idea of "Fun". People advocating "Fun" as a design principle usually turn out to be advocating "their idea of fun". Which not in and of itself bad but that shouldn't be mistaken for some universal objective idea.

[gregghelmberger]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nexus again"

His point is EXTREMELY valid. If Hero is to be a UNIVERSAL system, then it needs to accommodate as wide a range of ideas of what's fun and what's not as possible. The Toolkit approach is the right one, I think, in that it lets you apply as many or as few layers as you want to the basic structure.

One of the problems in this redesign is also one of the great opportunities: the chance to distinguish baby from bathwater, keep one -- and make the other optional. It's just when I see talk of chainsaws, I start to think that Hero 6th will be so different from Hero 5 as to be HINO (Hero In Name Only). And that makes me nervous.

[steamteck]

I got both Nexus and Gregghelmberger.. That truth has been very forgoten in lots of the shuffle for change IMO.

[CleverName]

The problem is "Fun" is truly subjective.

Well, I think you are wrong when in comes to PnP game design.

I think there are basic ways in which any system can get in the way of player's enjoyment of the game.

Since HERO attempts to create a universal system for all genres that makes it more difficult than, say a re-design around Call of Cthulhu, or Vampire.

But if the players are not having fun with various aspects of character design, then you need to go after that. If players are not having fun waiting for a chance to do something, or if they are ineffectual -- those things are never fun.

I would also look at the most popular genres and their tropes (and Steve certainly understands those since his genre books are great) and ask is HERO modeling these successfully and easily. Could this be better?

[nexus]

Edit: Never mind I see this turning into one of those circular shouting matches that just wastes everyone's time.

[gregghelmberger]

Well, I think you are wrong when in comes to PnP game design.

So let me see if I have this straight: you're saying that some things are OBJECTIVELY fun? That's a unique take. I've never encountered anything objectively fun, but it sounds like...fun.

I think there are basic ways in which any system can get in the way of player's enjoyment of the game.

Since HERO attempts to create a universal system for all genres that makes it more difficult than, say a re-design around Call of Cthulhu, or Vampire.

I agree that there are ways that a system can get between players and enjoyment, but I disagree that it's necessarily more challenging with a universal system than a specific one. What you need in a universal system, and what I think Hero has always provided by and large, is a sound set of core mechanics that are both flexible and detailed. There's no particular reason that the core mechanics of a universal system need to be more obstructionist than the core mechanics of a specific system or that it would be more difficult to make the core mechanics of a universal system non-obstructionist.

However, what Hero provides, and what I'm sure it will continue to provide, is a set of core mechanics that are are more on the detailed and "rules-heavy" end of the game spectrum. That's what Hero is, and the simple fact is that, subjectively, some players don't find that fun. Those players ought to play with a different system.

But if the players are not having fun with various aspects of character design, then you need to go after that. If players are not having fun waiting for a chance to do something, or if they are ineffectual -- those things are never fun.

It is demonstrably true that players who aren't having fun, aren't having fun.

I would argue, however, that the very things that some players don't find to be fun, other players do find fun. Some players look to the various aspects of character design as an independently enjoyable activity. Any other aspect of the game that some people don't like (the Speed Chart, for example) other people love.

Waiting is inevitable in games, but I don't think that there's anything inherently more onerous in waiting for your turn in Hero than there is in D&D (anyone else remember 12-hour combat sessions in D&D? I sure do), Mutants & Masterminds, Call of Cthulhu or Vampire. Once you understand the mechanics of Hero turns flow as quickly or quicker in Hero as in any other system, IME -- that's where the detail of the system is a boon, because the niggling arguments that arise constantly in less detailed systems are circumvented here. If someone has good ideas on how to streamline learning the system so that more people can enjoy it, then I'm all for it, but I don't want to see the detail be eliminated just for the sake of eliminating detail, and I don't want to see the nuances the system allows for excised in favor of a rules-liter system that sacrifices depth for ease of learning.

I would also look at the most popular genres and their tropes (and Steve certainly understands those since his genre books are great) and ask is HERO modeling these successfully and easily. Could this be better?

Steve's genre books have been very good for the most part, I agree. However, if Hero isn't modeling a specific aspect of a given genre, I think it is, philosophically, better to make genre-specific adjustments rather than throw out entire systems that model more genres in an acceptable way.

The issue I fear with a large-scale redesign of the system is that some of the core elements that have made Hero enjoyable for me over the decades will be discarded in favor of other elements I don't find as fun.

[CleverName]

It is demonstrably true that players who aren't having fun, aren't having fun.

Well, I'm glad that we agree. And if the system is responsible for that...

>TONS OF SNIPPAGE<

I would argue, however, that the very things that some players don't find to be fun, other players do find fun. Some players look to the various aspects of character design as an independently enjoyable activity. Any other aspect of the game that some people don't like (the Speed Chart, for example) other people love.

I agree with your point, but love of some artifact of the system does not make them correct, does not make the system well designed, much less appealing to more gamers.

Hmm.. I have spent a lot of time on the boards today. I was initially enthused that Steve is going to do a re-design. But the amount of folks freaking out about their various holy bovines is well, really depressing and does not bode well for the future of the game.

I do not see how the second of the two primary goals for 6th ed. can be met without serious re-design work:

That gives us access to a whole new customer base that’s never been exposed to our products before, and we want to publish books (primarily Champions books) that will appeal to them.

IMHO, I don't see a way in that the boated toolbox/linux man pages that HERO has become is going to be appealing if it just gets a tummy tuck. If its just a .5 edition (which ALL the other additions have been) this ain't going to work.

This means conceding that there are substantive things about the system that a lot of gamers don't find fun, that need change to attract new players.

[Chris Goodwin]

IMHO, I don't see a way in that the boated toolbox/linux man pages that HERO has become is going to be appealing if it just gets a tummy tuck. If its just a .5 edition (which ALL the other additions have been) this ain't going to work.

I've lately been calling 3rd edition and prior "first generation", because there were major changes between all of those books and 4e. I don't know that 5e was a generation shift from 4e, so I think we're coming up on the end of the second generation. 6e appears from here to be the next generation, for sure!

[gregghelmberger]

I agree with your point, but love of some artifact of the system does not make them correct, does not make the system well designed, much less appealing to more gamers.

Hmm.. I have spent a lot of time on the boards today. I was initially enthused that Steve is going to do a re-design. But the amount of folks freaking out about their various holy bovines is well, really depressing and does not bode well for the future of the game.

I don't think me saying some players like the Speed Chart constitutes a freakout about a "holy bovine," but be that as it may, some "artifacts of the system" constitute core elements of the system and can't be removed or substantially modified if you want to call the game a continuation of what has come before. Whether or not any given element is one of those pillars is of course a topic open to debate, but such pillars do exist and you can't yank them out without fundamentally changing the nature of the system. And if you fundamentally change the essential nature of the system, then it stops being Hero and becomes something else that may be good or bad in its own right but isn't the game that some of us have been playing since the early 80s.

Notice here that I'm not arguing against all change. I'm not even arguing against massive change. I've read a lot of good ideas on these boards that I hope get implemented, and some of them are really significant changes (starting everyone's characteristics at Base 0 and getting rid of figured characteristics come to mind as eminently sensible but major shifts in the game). But in the end there's a reason that people who play Hero play it and not some other game system: the core principles of the game are ones we like. If we didn't, we wouldn't be playing it. And if you rip out one of those core principles you also rip out everything else that comes with it, only to replace it with something that, as stated, may be good or may be bad but definitely eliminates one of the reasons that fans of the game play it.

IMHO, I don't see a way in that the boated toolbox/linux man pages that HERO has become is going to be appealing if it just gets a tummy tuck. If its just a .5 edition (which ALL the other additions have been) this ain't going to work.

I personally know three gamers in my small circle of gaming friends who've adopted Hero precisely because of the Toolkit approach. That same flexibility and detail you decry is what sets Hero apart from other games and makes it Hero. Yes it's intimidating to some people, but some people are going to be intimidated by anything more complex than BESM -- that's why BESM exists, so that those people have a game they can enjoy and have fun with. Chase the "rules-lite" people and you lose the core of the game.

This means conceding that there are substantive things about the system that a lot of gamers don't find fun, that need change to attract new players.

Change to attract new players is well and good as long as you don't drive away the old ones doing it. I'm not betrothed to Hero. There are plenty of other things I can spend my money on. If Hero changes too much, I and others simply won't buy it because it won't be what we want. Do you alienate your existing base to chase the potential of new people who may or may not ever become consistent customers? "Substantive" things can change, but not the core essence that makes Hero what it is, or it won't be Hero anymore.

[Vondy]

Do not feed them if they are three, unliving, and in a baggie.