Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

[Derek Hiemforth]

In an email exchange today with an old gaming group of mine, who has since moved on (without me) to D&D 3.5 (and later to Pathfinder), one of the guys said I'd like Pathfinder, and another then gently mocked me, saying I turn my nose up at games where characters are created by choosing from pre-defined lists of abilities. The following was my response, explaining why I stick with HERO for fantasy instead of Pathfinder. I'm curious to hear other folks' thoughts on why you stick with HERO for fantasy (or why you don't, if you don't).


Actually, I don't have anything against choosing from lists of abilities with specific, pre-defined benefits to build my characters. I've used the powers and equipment books for the Hero System, and that's exactly what those are. Heck, if you think about it, everything in the Hero System is on some list of abilities with specific, pre-defined benefits. It's just that each ability on the list is more flexible in terms of what it simulates than the items on most other games' lists are (though not all games; Fudge is even less specific and more flexible than Hero, for example). And you can combine the items to get differences in the effects, but you can often do that in d20 too, I believe (some Feats have extra or different effects if you also have this other Feat, etc.)

My main gripes with d20-based games like Pathfinder (as compared to the Hero System) are:

1. My list of abilities to pick from is incomplete unless I'm willing to/interested in searching through many, *many* different books in search of all the Feats, Prestige Classes, etc. With the Hero System, the core rules contain the complete list of abilities.

2. The way that the game elements interact -- such as different Races having different numbers of Skill Points, or different Classes getting certain Feats, or how various Feats stack with each other, and so on -- creates a very powerful incentive to "optimize" the growth path a character will take, and plot the whole thing out exhaustively from the initial creation of the character. In Hero, there's rarely, if ever, a special benefit from having certain abilities in certain proportions, or from getting them in a certain order, etc.

3. So in d20, you're tactitly encouraged to "min/max" your character's actual *abilities* pretty thoroughly. In Hero, min/maxing is mostly only a factor in getting round-offs, and to a small extent in costs. And both of those elements are much less pronounced in Hero 6 than they were in previous editions. Removal of the "figured" nature of the former Figured Characteristics, and elimination of Elemental Control, got rid of the two worst min/maxing areas by far…


But even having said all of that, my lack of interest in playing (or more accurately, *running*) Pathfinder isn't because I don't think it works, or even that it might work just as well for fantasy as Hero does. It's that I don't think it works *better* than Hero. Or at the very least, not *enough* better to justify the hassle and expense of becoming deeply familiar with another rules engine, and buying a bunch of new books.

I stick with Hero because I know it exceptionally well, and it works well for any genre. It may not work *better* than a genre-specific game; I do think it works better than any other game for *the set of all genres*, but that's not a big deal in my decision. Mostly, it's just that neither the strengths of other games, nor the weaknesses of the Hero System, are significant enough to me to entice me to switch. :-)

[Lord Mhoram]

I stick with Hero because I know it exceptionally well, and it works well for any genre. It may not work *better* than a genre-specific game; I do think it works better than any other game for *the set of all genres*, but that's not a big deal in my decision. Mostly, it's just that neither the strengths of other games, nor the weaknesses of the Hero System, are significant enough to me to entice me to switch. :-)

On RPG net the value of universal systems to games tailored to genre - and a lot of it comes down to "The specific system do better genre emulation" and the idea of learning new games vs "It emulates the genre well enough for me" and the ease of mastering a single system.

What you just posted is almost verbatim some things I've said over there. Good call.

[Balabanto]

On RPG net the value of universal systems to games tailored to genre - and a lot of it comes down to "The specific system do better genre emulation" and the idea of learning new games vs "It emulates the genre well enough for me" and the ease of mastering a single system.

What you just posted is almost verbatim some things I've said over there. Good call.

Oddly, I play Hero because it simulates superheroes better than anything else.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Oddly, I play Hero because it simulates superheroes better than anything else.

Where I actually think MEGS (aka DC Heroes RPG) simulates superheroes at least as well as Hero, possibly better. But the scale of it -- which works so ingeniously for supers -- really suffers at the low end, which keeps it from working (well) as a multi-genre game...

[The Engineer]

HERO is really good for when I have a concept that isn't easily covered by something else. However as a rookie GM preparing two campaigns side by side, (one in HERO and one in FantasyCraft,) I have to say that HERO is not the easiest to prep for without extensive experience in it. And as was previously stated, other systems work better for individual flavors.

Now that I think about it, one of the things I think could be improved would be better advice for noobs who want to run a game. There really isn't much advice out there.

[Old Man]

For fantasy, Hero is better than all other game systems because:

- It is scalable enough to handle anything from historical medieval campaigns to Clash of the Titans-scale demigod combat
- Its combat system can be set from gritty realism to superheroic or anywhere in between
- Its combat system includes organic, well balanced rules for martial arts, most typical 'tricks' like tripping and grabbing, and pure skill
- Or even unconscious vs. dead/dying--I really haven't seen any other fantasy system do this well
- Different weapons have different in-game effects
- Powers can simulate the magic system from any fantasy setting I can think of
- Character creation can simulate any creature from any fantasy setting I can think of
- Players and GMs can design an infinite variety of spells or even use freestyle/'wild' magic
- The disad system encourages at least a rudimentary level of roleplaying
- A bunch of other things I'm forgetting

For fantasy, Hero has only a handful of flaws that should be easily overcome. The points costs are wrong for the genre, the learning curve is too high for new players, and there needs to be a greater effort to make it 'feel' less like supers. That's about it, and you could pretty much solve all three with one genre book.

[tkdguy]

Fantasy HERO can also be easily mixed with other genres such as Star HERO. From what I heard, there was a lot of mixing sci-fi with fantasy in the early days of D&D, so there is a precedent for it.

And you can create different types of fantasy campaigns (Steampunk, high fantasy, historical, etc.) without needing new rules or game mechanics for each type.

[Markdoc]

My approach is this.

I prefer Hero as a GM, because it's far easier to build campaigns. I like to customise my game, and I did exactly that when GM'ing D&D back in the dark ages.
There's two reasons for that. The first, is obviously that it's meant for building things from scratch.
The second (and under-appreciated) thing is that because of its Supers heritage, it scales well. You can build the powerful, nigh -invulnerable avatar of the gods and the annoying talking animal sidekick, without any kludges needed.
The last game I ran had several different magic systems (which was major plot element) and was generally lower-powered magically than your typical high fantasy game - but it morphed into a high fantasy game over the course of 5 years' play. I didn't need to tweak the rules at all.
You can certainly do that with D&D (I know, because I have) but it's much, much, harder: the system really wasn't designed with customisation in mind.

But as a player, I am equally happy playing D&D/Pathfinder because I enjoy building characters and then playing them. I actually don't have too many problems building "my" character in D&D because I know the rules well and can draw on a vast array of sourcebooks (as an aside, though I was impressed by the design vision in D&D 4E, the system didn't appeal, because it was/is very much more restricted than the earlier versions. That's good if you just want to get a game up and go, but bad if you like to customise). Customising a fantasy character in D&D is far harder than in Hero - the system forces you to plan out a character's development in at least some detail ahead of time, even for starting characters - but it's certainly doable. And for me it's a pleasure: I like building characters - it's pleasant, non-stressful intellectual exercise, and the many restrictions placed in your way by the rules simply add to the challenge. I do understand that this is not the case for everyone, though .
Hero lets me customise more simply.

So there you go. I don't think I could ever bring myself to GM more than a one-off game of D&D ever again. But as a player, Iam happy to swing either way.

cheers, Mark

[Steve Long]

To expand on a point some others have made, one reason I prefer the HERO System for Fantasy gaming is that it lets me tailor the magic system and spells to the campaign setting better than any other RPG I know. If you're going to play D&D (or Pathfinder), you have to play with the D&D magic system. Attempts to do "D&D versions" of other types of settings (Newhon, Hyboria) have IMO all been failures because the magic in those settings doesn't work like D&D magic... and if you take the magic out of D&D, you're essentially not playing D&D.

Obviously there are some ways to make D&D magic a little more flexible (see, e.g., what Charles Ryan and I did with it for the Wheel Of Time RPG). But by and large you're stuck with what they give you -- and usually that's not what I want. I want to create a magic system that works for my world, and that means I need the customizability of Hero.

[The Engineer]

Excellent point Steve. However I can't help but think there's a sense of bias to your statement. =P

[Doc Democracy]

I think that Steve's point is exactly right. I think that HERO allows me to approximate the setting more closely than any comparable system beyond one that has been designed specifically for that setting.

I say comparable as D&D and HERO are directly comparable they are very much a game that allows you to co-operatively produce a story. Neither of them is comparable to, for example, Heroquest which is a narrative system, far more along the lines of a guided storytelling. I think that I can do things with Heroquest that I just cannot with HERO (and vice versa). These provide very different play experiences.

Doc

[mayapuppies]

To expand on a point some others have made, one reason I prefer the HERO System for Fantasy gaming is that it lets me tailor the magic system and spells to the campaign setting better than any other RPG I know. If you're going to play D&D (or Pathfinder), you have to play with the D&D magic system. Attempts to do "D&D versions" of other types of settings (Newhon, Hyboria) have IMO all been failures because the magic in those settings doesn't work like D&D magic... and if you take the magic out of D&D, you're essentially not playing D&D.

Obviously there are some ways to make D&D magic a little more flexible (see, e.g., what Charles Ryan and I did with it for the Wheel Of Time RPG). But by and large you're stuck with what they give you -- and usually that's not what I want. I want to create a magic system that works for my world, and that means I need the customizability of Hero.

This is exactly why I chose Hero System for Kamarathin. It would be impossible to try and shoehorn my setting into one those other 'Pre-Defined' systems.

[Hugh Neilson]

To expand on a point some others have made, one reason I prefer the HERO System for Fantasy gaming is that it lets me tailor the magic system and spells to the campaign setting better than any other RPG I know. If you're going to play D&D (or Pathfinder), you have to play with the D&D magic system. Attempts to do "D&D versions" of other types of settings (Newhon, Hyboria) have IMO all been failures because the magic in those settings doesn't work like D&D magic... and if you take the magic out of D&D, you're essentially not playing D&D.

Obviously there are some ways to make D&D magic a little more flexible (see, e.g., what Charles Ryan and I did with it for the Wheel Of Time RPG). But by and large you're stuck with what they give you -- and usually that's not what I want. I want to create a magic system that works for my world, and that means I need the customizability of Hero.

I think this is both a strength and a weakness of Hero. You get the exact magic system you want and can tailor it to the specific game/setting as desired. But you have to do the work to tailor it where D&D/other games come with the setting and system work already done.

If the goal is to play D&D under a different system, I don't see the point. But there are lots of other approaches to magic that don't work in D&D, but can be readily modeled in Hero.

The same is true for a lot of abilities, with Magic just the most obvious one. If I want the Whirlwind Attack feat, I have to take all the predecessor feats in D&D. If I want that ability in Hero, I just build that ability. Unless the point cost is enormous, my starting character can have that ability - but maybe he lacks something a 1st level D&D character would have to offset that.

[Reality]

I'm speaking more from a super than fantasy standpoint, but I really like the depth of detail HERO provides if you want it.

I recently tried the DC Adventures/ Mutants & Masterminds system, and while it is modular like HERO, the skills covered far too broad a scope to really give characters individuality. It made the characters too skillful at too wide a field of ability. HERO has more Skills with tighter focus, which really allows for individuality in characters.

[Nolgroth]

Interesting thread. Why I choose Hero?

I don't. At least I don't always choose Hero. I love Hero and use it rather frequently. On the other hand, it has some immense drawbacks. Not only can you design highly customized magic systems, you must create highly customized magic systems. You could choose a pre-existing set of rules, such as Turakian Age or one of the excellent systems from Kamarathin, but you are back to the taking what is given. Even taking the example systems from Fantasy Hero still requires work in building an actual list or "grimoire" of spells. Sometimes that means a lot of work. None of this is wrong, but sometimes I just want to roll dice and interact with my players. For that I have other options like D&D Essentials or Pathfinder.

On the positive side, one of the things I love about Hero is that the GM can define a certain range of abilities for characters. This can allow for the story around the characters to develop more. They aren't so worried about getting to the next level so they can get that "Buzzsaw of Death" feat. That combines intrinsically with the Experience system for Hero. The ability to gain improvement immediately or save up for something big, adds to the organic feel of progression and character development. That range of abilities (CV, DC, Active Points, Body, Endurance, Stun, etc) allows for a relatively easy way to tailor opponents. It can be broken (just a few levels higher in CV is potentially hugely game breaking for instance) but some care and planning makes for a GM's treat. The limited amount of "expendable" stats (Body specifically) means that there is a real sense of danger added to the game.