Review of 5e up on RPG.net

[BoneDaddy]

the point about daggers costing more than an MA English seems a little odd to me. The pen is mightier than the sword and all, but Mack the MFA never made the three penny opera. Daggers are more useful in the game than a masters degree, so they cost more. A really good English roll might garner a bonus on a PRE attack, or supplement a social interaction roll, but not necessarily. I just don't get what the critic was talking about.

 

I sense a tendancy towards munchkinry, both as a player and a GM. The only use for Eidetic Memory is to not have to take notes, or to prevent the GM from decllaring "You Forgot." Likewise, the MA Eng.

GM: *makes PER roll, shakes head, makes another, shakes head, makes another.

"You find a note on the refrigerator."

Player: "I read it."

GM: "Make an English skill roll."

Player: "I don't have one."

GM: "Well then, a raw Int roll will have to do." *rolls dice, shakes head. "You can't read it."

Player:"If only there were an English Major here..."

[Pseudo Nymh]

As a long time RPG.netizen and HERO fan, I can say that I have always been puzzled by Almafeta's behavior. S/he seems to enjoy saying highly inaccurate opinionated flamey-things about HERO and then arguing with the people who are more informed and level-headed.

 

S/he's been doing this for months if not years, and the best tactic I think is to ignore him/her, as s/he's clearly not interested in being reasonable or open minded. Please, don't feed the troll.

 

Although I did get a chuckle out of the write up for buxom busts.

[Darren Watts]

As I remarked in my response to the review, I'm unconcerned with Almafeta's actual review, as his/her utter looniness has been an uncontested fact for several years. I *am* severely disappointed in RPG.Net's choice to print a review so full of personal attacks and factual errors, coming from somebody who's bias is worn so openly. The lack of any sort of editorial responsibility (combined with the utter disregard for threadcrapping and other violations of netiquette by the small handful of Hero-haters, which makes any sort of discussion of our games an ordeal, and the great difficulty we've had getting reviews of any sort of our products on RPG.Net despite all the free review copies we send them) has caused the site to cross over the line to complete valuelessness. Which is a disappointment, because for a while they provided a valuable service to the gaming community. dw

[Caveman]

come now

 

You had to expect that from him.

 

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Wow. Did you actually read the rulebook? I can't recall the last time I read a review that was so misinformed and factually inaccurate. Almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy or outright falsehood.

 

But thanks for sharing!

[Chris Goodwin]

On the validity of reviews, there's not a lot of top-down editorial control; they'll pretty much print whatever people send them. On the other hand, the community exerts a good bit of pressure, as you'll see if you read the responses to the "review". Several years ago the RPG.net reviews were pretty uniformly bad, usually in the area of being not informative enough. Pressure from people responding to the reviews have made them a lot more useful in this respect. You still have to consider the source, though, and don't just read one review (in fact, that's necessary anywhere, whether you're reading RPG.net reviews or Roger Ebert's movie reviews).

 

Almafeta is well known in RPG.net as a Hero hater, so the source is easy to consider in this case.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Pseudo Nymh

Although I did get a chuckle out of the write up for buxom busts.

 

Yes, that wasn't bad, actually. It does seem to imply that Shanya has a better understanding of the system than his/her "review" would indicate.

 

Not to mention demonstrating that you really can write up anything in HERO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Realms of Chaos

Did he just make this up, or did he genuinely confuse a penalty to social interaction for a penalty to movement? If the latter, I'm staggered at his lack of ability to understand straightforward English instructions...

 

Isn't that in the rules right beside "If your INT falls below -30, you spend your days posting reviews of games you bought even though you hate them." Or do I misremember?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Darren Watts

I *am* severely disappointed in RPG.Net's choice to print a review so full of personal attacks and factual errors, coming from somebody who's bias is worn so openly. The lack of any sort of editorial responsibility (combined with the utter disregard for threadcrapping and other violations of netiquette by the small handful of Hero-haters, which makes any sort of discussion of our games an ordeal, and the great difficulty we've had getting reviews of any sort of our products on RPG.Net despite all the free review copies we send them) has caused the site to cross over the line to complete valuelessness.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's inconceivable to me that they allow reviews with blatant errors in fact, particularly from someone who is so well known for slandering Hero. Imagine if Roger Ebert posted a movie review of Return of the King, in which he wrote:

 

"Return of the King is the story of Elvis Presley (played with compelling subtlety by Don Knotts), who returns to Memphis as a vampire bent on winning a thrilling NASCAR race against a beautiful young female racing phenom (enchantingly played by Harvey Fierstein.) Only the laughable special effects mar this directorial debut by Britney Spears."

 

Think the Chicago Sun-Times would print it? Somehow I doubt it.

 

I can appreciate RPG.net wanting to allow reviewers to express honest opinions even when they're not flattering. But allowing this kind of error-strewn and comically prejudiced (in the literal meaning of the word: pre-judged) review just destroys their credibility. After this, why should I believe anything I read at RPG.net? For all I know, it might be as much of a fairy tale as this is...

[Dr.Device]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I agree wholeheartedly. It's inconceivable to me that they allow reviews with blatant errors in fact, particularly from someone who is so well known for slandering Hero. Imagine if Roger Ebert posted a movie review of Return of the King, in which he wrote:

 

"Return of the King is the story of Elvis Presley (played with compelling subtlety by Don Knotts), who returns to Memphis as a vampire bent on winning a thrilling NASCAR race against a beautiful young female racing phenom (enchantingly played by Harvey Fierstein.) Only the laughable special effects mar this directorial debut by Britney Spears."

 

Think the Chicago Sun-Times would print it? Somehow I doubt it.

Probably not, but man, now I want to see that movie.

[Guest Keneton]

Its absurd to ever allow anyone to print "here say" like I was flamed by a previous owner. . .

 

RPG Net should be ashamed of themselves. Reviews are to be unbiased (he/she admits to being biased from the start), be factual (even a casual read shows this be untrue) and be informative (actually does not describe the system or mechanics at all.)

 

Also how did the comments about fuzion and gurps get past the rpg guys? How old is this gamer (uses term losely?)

 

I am so happy to play a game that is always under attack! It makes me feel like a star belly sneech. And as you know the star bellied sneeches are the best on the beaches! He/she is just mad 'cause he/she doesn't have a star on thars!

[Caveman]

True...

 

And I love the Cat in the hat reference...

Originally posted by Keneton

Its absurd to ever allow anyone to print "here say" like I was flamed by a previous owner. . .

 

RPG Net should be ashamed of themselves. Reviews are to be unbiased (he/she admits to being biased from the start), be factual (even a casual read shows this be untrue) and be informative (actually does not describe the system or mechanics at all.)

 

Also how did the comments about fuzion and gurps get past the rpg guys? How old is this gamer (uses term losely?)

 

I am so happy to play a game that is always under attack! It makes me feel like a star belly sneech. And as you know the star bellied sneeches are the best on the beaches! He/she is just mad 'cause he/she doesn't have a star on thars!

[Solomon]

Their hat of HRO Sytsem know no limit !

[Chris Goodwin]

An honest review of Almafeta's review

 

This is less of a flamefest and more of an attempt to address what Almafeta is saying.

 

Shanya Almafeta writes:

What Hero Is About: Hero is the settingless version of Champions, a superhero combat wargame.

 

Pursuant to a discussion on RPG.net previously about what exactly is a roleplaying game, Champions and Hero are both one in every sense of the definition.

 

 

Attributes

 

Hero uses eight primary stats: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Body, Intelligence, Ego, Presence, and Comliness. These are priced oddly; anywhere from half of a point (Comliness) to three points (Dexterity) per +1. Generally, although the physical stats usually give you something every 'plus' you buy, you need to buy at least three points of a mental stat before it has any effect on characters in play. Characters can also now 'sell down' stats, to represent a flawed hero -- something that has long been needed.

 

Technical note: This has always been part of the system.

 

There are seven figured characteristics; all are used for combat. All can be increased with CP, if you're so inclined.

 

Caveat #1: Since the stats can now be sold down, they added in mechanics to penalize those with low (below 0) and very low (below 30) stats (there is no lower limit, and stats do not count against disadvantage limits).

 

The reason for this was actually to explain what happens when stats are Drained below 0. It is technically possible but highly unlikely for characters to buy stats to 0 or below in order for this to come into play. (Strength is an exception; many small creatures can have Strength scores even below -30.)

 

Which was needed, surely -- but Comliness breaks this. First, you have to pay to have a negative Comliness -- and then you have to make willpower rolls to even move around because you're so very ugly!

 

You pay to have a negative Comeliness because it can provide you with a positive benefit. I'm not sure what the part about willpower rolls is about. Confusion with another stat? Points lost here for making a simple mistake that could have been rectified with a little reading.

 

Caveat #2: A character has 'casual strength' equal to 1/2 his normal strength that he can use without thinking (for example, to push someone aside). If a character has a Strength of -10, does that then mean his Casual Strength is -5 (twice as strong as normal)?

 

This isn't actually addressed in the rules. Two possible fixes:

 

* Disallow casual STR for characters below 0 Strength.

* At 0 to -5, casual STR is STR-5; below -5 STR, casual STR is twice STR.

 

Caveat #3: There's still a Comliness stat in Hero at all. If you listen closely, you can hear the other games on my shelf snicker (except for CP2020 and ATB, with which it has formed a support group).

 

Hero, Cyberpunk 2020 and After The Bomb are hardly the only games out there in which there is a game mechanical component defining a character's looks.

 

Skills cost a certain amount of points for a base roll of 11 (plus attribute modifiers, excluding certain skills), and then another certain amount of points for a +1 to the roll; each skill is a rule of its own, and requires you to look it up on a table seperately (shades of Palladium!). You also have to buy 'familiarities' for many skill, a boring but acceptable part of character creation.

 

Skills divide roughly into four types: stat-based, background, languages, and combat. Stat-based skills (Agility, Intellect, and Interaction) all cost 3 points for a base roll of (9 + stat/5) or less, 2 points for +1. Background skills are 2 points for 11 or less (alternately, 3 points for (9 + stat/5) or less), 1 point per +1. Languages have a table and some explanation, but the basic idea is you pay 1-5 points depending on your fluency (1 point for a few words up to 5 for the ability to imitate dialects); literacy is 1 point extra. For combat skills, pay 1-2 points for familiarity with a weapon group, and buy Combat Skill Levels separately.

 

Caveat #1: Combat Skill Levels. They aren't skills, and they don't always come in levels.

 

I'm not sure what he means here. They are skills by several definitions of the word, and they are levels in the sense in which that term is used in the Hero System.

 

Caveat #2: Overall Skill Levels. As well as penalizing characters who buy heavily-skilled characters, every turn, you can trade them in for 'combat skill levels'. How, exactly, do we do this? Do we trade OSLs for CSLs on a one-for-one basis, or is it point based? How this was done wasn't explained.

 

How to use skill levels is explained in the sections under Combat Skill Levels and Skill Levels. One Overall Skill Level is written out as +1 Overall Level; it can be used as a +1 with any skill the character possesses or +1 in combat.

 

Caveat #3: At first glance, it looked like they simplified the skill ssytem. They didn't.

 

See my commentary beginning the Skills section.

 

Talents are the Feats of the Hero System; they're binary abilities you either have or you don't. In an interesting change, all Talents are now bought as Powers; although the costs are now consistent with those of normal 'powers', some of them had to be horribly contrived to fit in Hero's power structure ('Eidetic Memory' as Clairsentience?).

 

Clairsentience includes the ability to perceive forward or backward in time. It's built as "the ability to see into the past, limited to things the user has personally perceived".

 

Caveat #1: If Talents were built this way, why weren't Skill Enhancers also built this way?

 

Skill Enhancers are one of the basic building blocks of the system.

 

Caveat #2: Because of the way they priced it, Eidetic Memory is now only 5 points, not 10. Poor move; its price needed to be increased, not decreased, due to its utility.

 

I fail to see a need to increase the cost. If anything, it wasn't useful enough to cost 10 points; it doesn't really do a lot besides grant perfect recall. Still, this is opinion; if you see a need to increase the cost in your campaigns, by all means do so.

 

 

The power system requires you to think of the effect you want, and apply modifiers as necessary. However, this is not a pure effect-based system, as are some; each power assumes certain things, and if you want to change it, you must 'buy off' their assumptions. Here's an example: "Handcuffs: Entangle 3d6 (standard effect: 3 BODY), 6 DEF, Takes No Damage From Attacks (+1/2) (67 Active Points); OAF (-1), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4), Set Effect (Hands Only, -1), Does Not Prevent Use Of Accessable Foci (-1), No Range (-1/2), Must Follow Grab Or Target Must Be Willing (-1/2), 1 Recoverable Charge (-1 1/4), Can Be Escaped Automatically With Modified Lockpicking Or Contortionist Roll (-1/2). Total cost: 9 points."

 

Given an (at least partly) effects-based system, why not describe objects in terms of the effects? The description of handcuffs given tells you exactly what they are, exactly what they do in game terms, and exactly what needs to be done to get out of them. Sure, you could just write "handcuffs" down on an equipment list somewhere, but then you run the danger of assumption clash: how exactly do they work again?

 

The most notable changes to powers in this edition were to Aid and Healing (doubling the cost), Change Environment (which does not actually change the environment anymore; rather, it inflicts combat penalties on an area),

 

Had you read the entire description of Change Environment you would have seen that this is a false statement. You lose points for making an error that could have been rectified by simply reading the Power.

 

and to senses and sense-affecting powers (they now operate by sense group instead of by sense, a rule I had been using in my own Fuzion games).

 

This is also a rule that has been present since fourth edition.

 

The biggest addition to the rules (no pun intended) is Megascale; Hero can now build Rifts-scale powers now. Good for campaign creativity, bad for balance; you can now fairly easily build a killing attack that has a 'megascale explosion' miles wide cheaper than you can build a guaranteed knockout punch. This section needed much more testing before being incorporated.

 

I can agree with this. There are other ways it could have been implemented; it should have probably started at +1 for 1 kilometer and gone up from there.

 

Major problem: Unfortunately, Elemental Control was retained in Hero 5. Although it is now more difficult to determine the cost (a needed change), the cost benefits are now as large or larger as they were in previous editions of Hero. (The examples given in the book granted 75 and 100 points free for a drawback that would normally be worth 5 or 10 points, easily making any character with those powers the most powerful in their game.)

 

I have no idea what he meant here. The basic rules for determining the cost of slots and the pool for an Elemental Control have not changed since third edition. One thing that did change is that in fifth edition, Drain, Transfer, and Suppress now affect the pool and all slots of an Elemental Control simultaneously (and this is in fact a litmus test for determining whether a group of Powers should be part of an EC).

 

Caveat #1: Succor was added so that characters from Hero 4 with Aid could be easily 'grandfathered in' (5 points, costs END, both of which were changed in Hero 5). As well has having a stupid name, doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of fixing Aid?

 

More points lost for failing to read. The section on grandfathering Aid Powers is right next to the one on Succor. (And what's wrong with the name?)

 

Caveat #3: Yes, you still need to know precalculus to do the math in this section. Why not switch to a simpler algebra equation, I don't know; not to mention the fact that a system based on multiples of 5 is virtually screaming for a simple percentile system.

 

Allow me to put this bugbear down like a rabid dog, here and now. There is no math in the Hero System that is any more complex than sixth grade arithmetic. Points lost here for outright falsehood.

 

Caveat #4: It costs more to make a power AVLD (reducing a normal defense) than to make it NND (unable to be defended against). WTY?

 

An NND Power is stopped completely by the appropriate defense. An AVLD Power still gets through; it is simply reduced by the appropriate defense.

 

Caveat #5: A ranged Killing attack costs as much as a melee Killing attack; there is no difference other than one reaches 75 tiles away per level.

 

Hand-to-hand Killing Attack allows you to add your Strength. More points lost here for simply failing to read.

 

Caveat #6: The system only works well for 'flashy', innate powers; it gets less and less usable the further from four-color you get. For example, an effect like 'warm up this room' cannot be built in Hero, because there is no point cost for 70 degrees Farenheit -- you'd have to make it a special effect of a 'real' power, i.e., one that has some kind of combat effect. Good luck writing your own rules if you want Hero to do something that is not an 'innate' feature (such as a divine blessing or D&D-style magic).

 

The specific example you mention can in fact be built in Hero; see Change Environment. Change Environment, Summon, Mind Control, Telekinesis, and Transform are often used as "when in doubt" types of Powers. (And I'm not sure what he meant by "innate" features. Other systems' crunchy bits? Divine blessings are simple, as long as you have an idea of what you want the blessing to do, and I submit that D&D style magic can be completely emulated by the Hero System rules as written, using the fifth edition rulebook alone. I have serious doubts that the final result would be worth the sheer amount of work it would take, mind you, but it can be done.)

 

Hero 5 makes the simplifying (and incorrect) assumption that something that is balanced for players is also balanced for Ferraris, buildings, and computers. For example, a dagger costs 10 character points; you could buy a Masters in english for fewer points. It is suggested in a few places that there is an option for 'heroic' campaigns to not have to pay points for gear; however, how gear exactly is purchased if not with character points is not explained. As this has not been fixed, a point was taken off of Substance.

 

It specifies that in this case you use money to buy equipment rather than points. Price lists are not given because those will vary by game world.

 

Combat is still based on tactical superhero combat; real-world measurements are eschewed in Hero, replaced by wholly abstract units of measurement.

 

This is incorrect. Meters (two per hex) and seconds (twelve per Turn) are in fact real world measurements.

 

You get so many phases to spend per turn, based on your Speed (which is underpriced; expect to see all types of characters approching the maximum in every genre of game),

 

Which, in practice, doesn't happen.

 

Caveat #1: Presence Attacks are still resolved like an energy blast. Even my copies ATB and CP2020 have shunned Hero now.

 

Incorrect. The mechanics for resolving Energy Blasts (combat) and Presence Attacks are different.

 

Caveat #2: Many actions you perform or situations you are in halve your DCV. What happens when you have your DCV is halved twice? Is it reduced to zero? Is it quartered? Does the halving only last for that segment, until the next segment, until the next turn, what? If these questions were answered in the book, I couldn't find it.

 

Bonuses and penalties to CV last until the beginning of the character's next Phase (p. 253). The rulebook actually doesn't specify what happens with multiple modifiers to CV, unless it's somewhere it shouldn't be.

 

Many times, you are told to "Roll Xd6 and figure the 'body'". This refers to an obscure section of the combat chapter. Please name this mechanic, if you are going to use it so often!

 

Not terribly obscure. Its name is "count the BODY".

 

Ignore the index. Although large, many of the page references are wrong; and since this book mentions many important bits of data only once in a place where you wouldn't expect it to be, you will be hunting through the book often. A point was taken off of Style for this.

 

I won't disagree on the organization, but I haven't found any incorrect page references in the index.

 

The phrase 'At the GMs option' is repeated incessantly in the book. By the end, I was wondering what, exactly, players were allowed to do.

 

The GM's option is to permit something that would either break the game or otherwise be against the rules.

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I agree wholeheartedly. It's inconceivable to me that they allow reviews with blatant errors in fact, particularly from someone who is so well known for slandering Hero.

 

RPG.net seem to let anything that calls itself a review pass. I've seen reviews on there written by people who didn't even have the most basic grasp of grammar or spelling. I've seen reviews there that had nothing more intelligent to say than THIS GAME SUX or THIS GAME ROCKS, literally. Reviews that are both factually inaccurate and biased as hell, or in which the reviewer simply completely missed the point of whatever they're reviewing, quite literally swarm like locusts on RPG.net.

 

In fact, I'm kinda tempted to hunt down some of the most outrageous and amusingly bad reviews I've read on RPG.net and post a list of links...

[James Gillen]

Originally posted by Darren Watts

I *am* severely disappointed in RPG.Net's choice to print a review so full of personal attacks and factual errors, coming from somebody who's bias is worn so openly. The lack of any sort of editorial responsibility (combined with the utter disregard for threadcrapping and other violations of netiquette by the small handful of Hero-haters, which makes any sort of discussion of our games an ordeal, and the great difficulty we've had getting reviews of any sort of our products on RPG.Net despite all the free review copies we send them) has caused the site to cross over the line to complete valuelessness.

 

Hey, the fact that they exert no editorial control means that they published a few of MY reviews, and I wasn't hating on anybody.

 

Maybe I should start.

 

JG

[Lightray]

Holy cheese! The number of comments on that review already is astonishing. And I see a number of the usual Hero champions are fighting the good fight once again.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Lightray

Holy cheese! The number of comments on that review already is astonishing. And I see a number of the usual Hero champions are fighting the good fight once again.

I normally avoid RPG.net like the plague, but even I was motivated to replay to this one a bit. Its just so misinformed you dont really know where to start....

[James Gillen]

Hey Ben,

since Almafeta just joined, does the "No Flaming"rule still apply?

 

 

JG

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Lightray

Holy cheese! The number of comments on that review already is astonishing. And I see a number of the usual Hero champions are fighting the good fight once again.

 

I really don't object to people not liking HERO and saying so; they have the right to dislike it, and I actually prefer if they can intelligently express why. But the degree of inaccurate information and inference presented in that review as fact just demands correction - it's serious misinformation to anyone who reads it.

[Qamar]

Re: Review of 5e up on RPG.net

 

Originally posted by Almafeta

You may not agree with what I had to say, but that's what I thought of it.

 

I'm amazed you:

a) had the audacity to post a link here to your so-called review, and,

that you're still a registered member here. Which pretty much disproves your statements about Mr. Long flaming you in public.

[Almafeta]

Re: Re: Review of 5e up on RPG.net

 

Qamar:

 

One, I do this with all my reviews; I did it with Anime d20 and After The Bomb, for example. And, please don't misrepresent me; I never said anything about Mr. Long.

[Qamar]

Re: Re: Re: Review of 5e up on RPG.net

 

Originally posted by Almafeta

And, please don't misrepresent me; I never said anything about Mr. Long.

 

So who were you talking about with your statement, "I have the dubious honor of having been flamed publicly by the current owner of the system, as well as a couple of previous owners.) "

[rjcurrie]

Almafeta may be referring to this post by Darren Watts (remember Steve Long is not the only owner of Hero Games) from rpg.net:

 

Well, I'm pretty familiar with Mr. Almafeta's low opinion of our product, but I'm afraid I can't let this particular falsehood pass.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Almafeta

 

Gaming stores sell GURPS. Hero requires you to special order it in. Advantage: GURPS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In point of fact, Hero products are available in the *vast* majority of game stores, and in many of them outsell GURPS by a fair margin, at least according to what information is made available by sources like Comics and Games Retailer. While Mr. Almafeta is entitled to his opinions, I do wish he'd stick to posting them and not creating new "facts" about us.

 

Darren Watts

President

Hero Games

[Qamar]

That is considered to be a flame? Darren is correcting the guy.

[rjcurrie]

I'm just saying Almafeta may be interpretting this post as a flame. Or there may be some other exchange that Almafeta is referring to.