Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

There are a lot of things even i would need to "look up" if i wanted to consider my options for spending even 3 cp.

Since this is a comparison of D&D to hero powers like life support should be left out of the discussion unless we are talking about spell creation rules.

 

With regard to a 'Fantasy Hero' application of spending 3 experience points. I as a player only need to learn the choices "1" time. 'Feats' and other leveling options as they have been explained to me are different for the 'level' or 'exalted' status of the character and seem to require far more reference to the rulebooks than HERO would in the long run.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I like d20 class systems. I don't like having to buy $100's of dollars in books only to have a revised rule set come out later.

 

I'm going to be selling most of my books and keeping only the core rules actually. Save some shelf space and get me some money.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

This is mostly directed at the discussion with Testuji, no need to quote his last post.

See the difference? the first is a preference based on gameplay. The second is little more than a cop-out to be, IMO, lazy.

 

OK. For me, simply dismissing the one i dont like as a sign of laziness has not in the past served me as well.

 

YMMV.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I like d20 class systems. I don't like having to buy $100's of dollars in books only to have a revised rule set come out later.

 

I'm going to be selling most of my books and keeping only the core rules actually. Save some shelf space and get me some money.

 

So, just out of curiousity... does the FRED-to-ReFRED time make it come out quicker than the DND3.0-DND3.5 or slower or the same, now that the release for ReFRED has been moved up?

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Select the one you like:

 

(a) Yes. And I am assuming the d20 player has the requirements for all prestige classes, level bonuses for each class, skills and feats all memorized as well.

 

( No. And I am assuming the d20 player does not have the requirements for all prestige classes, level bonuses for each class, skills and feats all memorized as well.

 

you seem to be agreeing with me.

 

cool!

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

 

Since this is a comparison of D&D to hero powers like life support should be left out of the discussion unless we are talking about spell creation rules.

if you want to limit the examples to "in games where no powers or even gadgets/traits built from powers are used", thats fine, but i find thats a rather limited set of games.

 

I would say that, indeed, in a game that did not use anything but characteristics and skills, and not all skills since martial arts has a list of costs and a table of benefits to be consulted, you may have a point.

 

I just don't recall playing, or ever seeing anyone play, such a game.

 

With regard to a 'Fantasy Hero' application of spending 3 experience points. I as a player only need to learn the choices "1" time. 'Feats' and other leveling options as they have been explained to me are different for the 'level' or 'exalted' status of the character and seem to require far more reference to the rulebooks than HERO would in the long run.

 

Hey, i don't know about you, but when i spent Xp in Fh or in any HERo product, it was quite simple...

 

1. if i knew the cost and what i wanted, i did not need to look it up.

2. if i did not, i did.

3. i did not have memorized the numbers of martial maneuvers, which were common enough in Fh, or the various costs here and there for the little stuff i could buy, for everything and thus needed to look them up.

 

I will agree, however, that on a "per time i can advance" it takes less time to spend "three xp" than it does to level up in hero.

 

of course, levelling up occurs a lot less often than 'every session", at least in my experience. So what seems to be being described is the difference between "levels" and "incremental Xp" and not really anything about whether you need charts or tables.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I have seen this "flavor over generic blocks" tell itself dramatically watching the same people generate characters in different systems... where from HERO i get really complex point buy questions but when in other games i here warm chuckles and "wow, just like in the comics" or "in the movies."

 

A feat called "Thats impossible!" which allows an "ace" to "defy the laws of physics in a dramatic way once per session while piloting a ship" will (and did) reach out and grab the player who is envisioning a Han solo like pilot for a scifi game... whereas fguring out whether or not to buy extra skill levels or higher dex to raise his pilot rolls won't.

I see your point' date=' although I find that describing how "buying up your Piloting Skill roll will enable to do nearly impossible feats" helps a lot. [/quote']My thought was along the lines of: That's Impossible! +10 to Pilot skill, [20 Active Points] One Charge (-2) [7 Real Points]

 

Although I do agree with tesuji that Hero does, as a generic system, have more of a challenge to bring in 'flavor' than a single genre/setting game, just by its nature.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Maybe the name of this thread should be changed from "Hero is Hard" to "D20 is too easy". Combat resolution based on 'Hit points' derived from level advancement takes all player control of character combat interaction away. A level based character with say 50 hit points in a game where a starting character may begin with 10-15 is tougher because he is supposed to be avoiding the brunt of damage from any attack that hits him. In a sense hit points are the most complicated form of damage reduction ever devised.

 

 

The rules are not even consistent. A 50 hit point fighter could be 'assassinated' in his sleep with only a dagger to the throat but the hit points of most monsters are described in the rules as being an almost exact match of the BODY score from HERO. Do I need to bring up Armor Class vs. Combat Value? If hit points represent a character's skill in avoiding extreme damage why can't the character sometimes avoid ALL the damage from an HTH attack without declaring a special maneuver? It does not make any sense!

[BNakagawa]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Hard? Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The "hard" is what makes it great.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Hard? Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard' date=' everyone would do it. The "hard" is what makes it great.[/quote']

I probably felt this way in the past too. Today's roleplayers don't want to know 'how' or 'why' something works. They just want it to work period. 'City of Heroes' is probably a good examle. It uses a leveling engine because it is quick and simple. For what it tries to do, it does well.

 

Another analogy that has probably been posted before is that D&D/D20 is like the AOL of ISP's. Yeah you can get to the internet, but you are going through AOL's 'internet'. Most other ISP's just connect you to the internet and you are on your own so to speak. HERO was almost as bad until the release of the GREAT book Sidekick which specifically addressed new player problems at a very reasonable price.

[Korvar]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

What I think would be rather useful is a packaging of a Hero background and abbreviated rules all-in-one. If it's a Heroic game, and you don't include the power-generation rules, Hero is a fairly simple stats-and-skills game.

 

Most of the "hard" character generation comes from working out powers, and if you're playing in a Fantasy Hero game, for example, most characters don't actually need to create their powers - Warriors and Rogues and the like just have stats and skills, while your spell-casters pick spells from lists.

[lazarus]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I'm intending on sitting with my players and have them describe their characters to me. Then I, knowing Sidekick (only ) and loving to tinker, can come up with the power constructs.

 

Or just point them to HD2, which is _very_ enjoyable to use. I'm not sure why, but it is...

 

Laz

[DrFaust]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I'd just like to say that as someone who only started reading FRED a week ago yesterday, it's very intimidating to a newcomer, both physically as a tome the size and heft of a textbook, and as a system, with all you hear about calculus level maths.

 

When I first read about HERO, I decided it was too complicated for me. Then when I played it with a pregenerated character, I disliked it because combat took so long -- we spent two hours on an initial confrontation. That, I admit, probably had as much to do with the GM being only just a bit ahead of we players on the learning curve as any inherent cumbersomeness of the system.

 

But having read through and repeatedly skimmed FRED, as well as drawing on the USPD book for examples in power creation, I'm finding it, while not entirely intuitive -- there seem to be lots of exceptions and special cases and differences between situations -- then at least comprehendable.

 

And I am an admitted point monkey. Not a powergamer, mind you. I just like playing with the math. Mutants & Masterminds was my first somewhat complicated point system. I still like it for its straightforwardness and intuitive nature. But I'm liking HERO's ability to more finely grade and distinguish effects.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I'd just like to say that as someone who only started reading FRED a week ago yesterday, it's very intimidating to a newcomer, both physically as a tome the size and heft of a textbook, and as a system, with all you hear about calculus level maths.

 

When I first read about HERO, I decided it was too complicated for me. Then when I played it with a pregenerated character, I disliked it because combat took so long -- we spent two hours on an initial confrontation. That, I admit, probably had as much to do with the GM being only just a bit ahead of we players on the learning curve as any inherent cumbersomeness of the system.

 

But having read through and repeatedly skimmed FRED, as well as drawing on the USPD book for examples in power creation, I'm finding it, while not entirely intuitive -- there seem to be lots of exceptions and special cases and differences between situations -- then at least comprehendable.

 

And I am an admitted point monkey. Not a powergamer, mind you. I just like playing with the math. Mutants & Masterminds was my first somewhat complicated point system. I still like it for its straightforwardness and intuitive nature. But I'm liking HERO's ability to more finely grade and distinguish effects.

Welcome to the dark side.

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I'd just like to say that as someone who only started reading FRED a week ago yesterday, it's very intimidating to a newcomer, both physically as a tome the size and heft of a textbook, and as a system, with all you hear about calculus level maths.

 

I know what you mean. I was writing up some villains in the library one morning, and my friend thought I was doing Chemistry homework.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

Maybe the name of this thread should be changed from "Hero is Hard" to "D20 is too easy". Combat resolution based on 'Hit points' derived from level advancement takes all player control of character combat interaction away.

i found i had lots of control of character combat interaction just the other night.

A level based character with say 50 hit points in a game where a starting character may begin with 10-15 is tougher because he is supposed to be avoiding the brunt of damage from any attack that hits him. In a sense hit points are the most complicated form of damage reduction ever devised.

Ok.

 

BTW, you are aware that in the various d20 systems we have hit points, wound/vitality points, massive damage saves, non-hit-point damage saves, classes with 1-3 hp per level, and so on... so that there isn't one d20 hit point model but many... each attempting to make the combat feel match the genre, right?

The rules are not even consistent. A 50 hit point fighter could be 'assassinated' in his sleep with only a dagger to the throat but the hit points of most monsters are described in the rules as being an almost exact match of the BODY score from HERO.

So you are arguing that you think monsters and heroes should work the same?

Do I need to bring up Armor Class vs. Combat Value? If hit points represent a character's skill in avoiding extreme damage why can't the character sometimes avoid ALL the damage from an HTH attack without declaring a special maneuver? It does not make any sense!

 

I think in d20 taking no damage from a hth attack is what is usually called a miss. Enemy attacks, fails to score a damaging hit... its a miss.

 

in some d20 games, the skill at avoiding being hit is called defense and it scales with level/class.

 

So it looks like what you are wanting to see is already there.

 

perhaps its just DND thats not your cup of tea?

[Agent X]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

 

i found i had lots of control of character combat interaction just the other night.

 

Ok.

 

BTW, you are aware that in the various d20 systems we have hit points, wound/vitality points, massive damage saves, non-hit-point damage saves, classes with 1-3 hp per level, and so on... so that there isn't one d20 hit point model but many... each attempting to make the combat feel match the genre, right?

 

So you are arguing that you think monsters and heroes should work the same?

 

 

I think in d20 taking no damage from a hth attack is what is usually called a miss. Enemy attacks, fails to score a damaging hit... its a miss.

 

in some d20 games, the skill at avoiding being hit is called defense and it scales with level/class.

 

So it looks like what you are wanting to see is already there.

 

perhaps its just DND thats not your cup of tea?

Are there methods of reducing the damage done to you nowadays? I tried 3rd Ed. and found it to be a poor replacement for 2nd Ed. so I wouldn't know.

 

One thing that bugs me in old DnD (very little as game mechanics like this aren't what keep me from playing a game) is that, as entities encountered have higher and higher damage modifiers, a la +# to damage along with the die, is that when you are hit by such entities you can't really have a "glancing blow" effect that does some damage but not much.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

i found i had lots of control of character combat interaction just the other night.

 

Ok.

It is a very contrived sense of control due to the designers patching but not actually changing the flaws go all the way back to the systems roots in 1st ed. And the fact that they have to make special case rules for hit points and damage that change reinforces the complication. If a stealthy character can slit a high level characters throught, can an invisible character do the same to that high level character in combat. I don't think so.. he might have an easier time hitting but his damage will be mittigated by the 'level' of the fighter. this does not make sense if the fighter cannot perceive the attack. Hit points represent too many different things in one package. I think that most experienced D&D players that have migrated characters to Fantasy Hero would agree that the Body of the 1st level version of a particular character will not be too much lower than the score of that same character when he reached 20th level in D&D. The reason he is better at combat is due to his ability to 'roll with the punch' on virtually all attacks, the exceptions being when asleep or attacked by spells with all or nothing effects which then push you to go to another table for saving throws.

 

 

BTW, you are aware that in the various d20 systems we have hit points, wound/vitality points, massive damage saves, non-hit-point damage saves, classes with 1-3 hp per level, and so on... so that there isn't one d20 hit point model but many... each attempting to make the combat feel match the genre, right?

again a patchwork of exceptions to the basicly flawed core setup.

 

So you are arguing that you think monsters and heroes should work the same?

I think it would be nice if the same mechanic was the rule not the exception. The only exception I am aware of to this in HERO are the automaton rules used for robots and golems which by their nature do not have a stun score. The core setup of D&D does not have an intuitive stunning or subdual rule, there are methods that require as much or more bookeeping than HERO but they are the exceptions.

 

 

I think in d20 taking no damage from a hth attack is what is usually called a miss. Enemy attacks, fails to score a damaging hit... its a miss.

 

in some d20 games, the skill at avoiding being hit is called defense and it scales with level/class.

 

So it looks like what you are wanting to see is already there.

I stand corrected on the level based AC bonus. However the AC bonus from armor itself does not make intuitive sense. Say a character is wearing platemail, another character with a magic sword swings and misses, but the miss is by less than the amount of AC bonus given by the armor itself. Is this miss is explained as a bounce off of the armor? I don't even damage the armor? Can I have a magic sword that gives a bonus to hit without a damage bonus or visa-versa or are the 2 stats intertwined too closely in the rules? Say the sword has a touch effect, do you have to figure the hit based on 2 different AC's?

 

I am not arguing against the speed and ease of use of D&D and other D20 systems. I am saying that they do not lend themselves to actually explaining what is really happening. A miss is not always a miss.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I think we're degenrating into HERO vs D20 discussion ....

 

I'd like to state that I'm not really against D20 as a system, I don't particularly like it, almost solely because of it being Class based. Hit Points, Feats, the complete and total lack of a Bell Curve for skill type rolls ... all that's fine and dandy by me - I just hate having choices made FOR me because I decided to be "A Fighter" ... and what happens if I want a bard that never learned magic? Do I get to replace that part of the class with something else? Classes remove far to much flexbility in a system - I see no problem limiting a particular campaign to certain options but the system should be open ended entirely IMO.

 

Getting back to the original point ... people who don't try HERO because of some poorly conceived, or even outright ignorance of the system and dismiss it "out of hand" with things like "character creation takes to long," or "there's too much math."

 

whatever. If you play it a couple times and don't like it, fine. But if you've never played it you have no basis to tell me what's 'wrong' with the game. That's pure stupidity and blind ignorance as far as I'm concerned. And quite frankly, I'd rather not play with such people.

 

 

Of course, sometimes superiority comes right down to the bank account.

 

Any Genre, Any "Level" comparison by what you NEED:

 

Hero System:

Hero Fifth Edition Rule book: $40.

{anything you want, whatever you can imagine, in whichever setting you can come up with. flat out.}

 

D20:

Dungeons And Dragons Players Handbook: $20

While I don't feel like getting prices on all the following genres:

D20 Modern, Wild West, Sci-Fi, Traveller, Anime, Cthulhu ....

I'm pretty sure you will reach and exceed $200 US very quickly for a rule book to give guidelines for each genre.

 

And if you want to run it you need the DMs Guide and possibly some others that come have seperate Game Master books...

 

I won't go into the Settings Books (Fantasy Hero or Forgoten Realms) or supplements (Sword & First or Ultimate Series) as those aren't required to play the games.

 

judging by what I can afford ... Hero just flat out wins the "which one is better" arguement hands down no contest. game over man, game over.

 

so, trying to figure which one is better is kind of silly anyway....

 

I just get worked up over the "HERO has math, I can't do math." excuse.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I think we're degenrating into HERO vs D20 discussion .....

 

Happens so eaqsily doesn't it! I guess D20 is always going to be the main comparator because it is the main system out there that people play.

 

Hero System:

Hero Fifth Edition Rule book: $40.

{anything you want, whatever you can imagine, in whichever setting you can come up with. flat out.}

 

D20:

Dungeons And Dragons Players Handbook: $20

While I don't feel like getting prices on all the following genres:

D20 Modern, Wild West, Sci-Fi, Traveller, Anime, Cthulhu ....

I'm pretty sure you will reach and exceed $200 US very quickly for a rule book to give guidelines for each genre..

 

A big difference can be the work you have to put in. With D20 the 'work' is more likely to be fun as you read through descriptive passages on how to do stuff - like Tetsuji's 'That's Impossible' feat example. People get excited about the genre as they read about the cool stuff. In Hero, with just FRED then the work is very much about creating the framework of the genre and players seeing what they can and cant spend.

 

I understand why people think that HERO is a soulless system. I don't agree but it is a perception I understand people coming to.

 

2D6 RKA, AP, beam, 16 charges (recoverable) is so much more informative but so much less romantic than Plasma rifle.

 

judging by what I can afford ... Hero just flat out wins the "which one is better" arguement hands down no contest. game over man' date=' game over..[/quote']

 

Yeah - but people like to buy the flavour rather than have the ability to build it - fast food equivalent of gaming!

 

so' date=' trying to figure which one is better is kind of silly anyway.....[/quote']

 

it always is - nothing comes out well in a a discussion of what system is better. Any that has been about for a while has _something_ that gives it longevity.

 

Both D&D and Hero have stood the test of time - though Hero looked awful shaky before Mr Long rejuvenated it...

 

Doc

[Bloodstone]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Dungeons And Dragons Players Handbook: $20

 

Actually, these days a D&D PHB costs 29.95. click to see for yourself

 

FRED still costs $39.95.

 

And for the record, I suck at math, yet I simply adore HERO. Then again, I cheat and am addicted to Hero Designer, though I get by with a calculator when I must...

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

It is a very contrived sense of control due to the designers patching but not actually changing the flaws go all the way back to the systems roots in 1st ed.

It felt like a very real sense of control, a very real sense that my choices and my decisions were significant in determining the outcome. of cours,e in any game with dice, control is not absolute. :-)

And the fact that they have to make special case rules for hit points and damage that change reinforces the complication.

One man's complication is another man's detail. I like the notion that, while an active fighter might be difficult to take down, the same character while HELPLESS can be taken down rather easily. It emphasizes how much of his combat capability is wrapped up in his skill and training, as opposed to being an inherent trait. That seems to be fairly good within the genres of most any HEROIC genre.

 

If a stealthy character can slit a high level characters throught, can an invisible character do the same to that high level character in combat.

No. No more than i could shoot a paper target as precisely if it were dangling from a flying kite than if it were stationary a few feet from me. There is, and the rules reflect it, a big difference between "not seeing an attack" and "being inactive and stationary."

 

I will note BTW that HERO also makes a big difference between unaware out of combat and invisaible in combat. IIRC the former halves hit location penalties and doubles damage (doubles stun or is it stun and body?) while the latter gives to hit bonuses/penalties and iirc has no effect on damage.

I don't think so.. he might have an easier time hitting but his damage will be mittigated by the 'level' of the fighter. this does not make sense if the fighter cannot perceive the attack.

it says... the more experience fighter is more active and more well defended, leaving fewer gaps, moving perhaps quicker thru his maneuvers.

 

really, there is a huge difference between an unaware unmoving target and an active target who simply cannot see you. HERO recognizes this. I really do not think its a fair criticism of HERo that it makes such a distinction.

again a patchwork of exceptions to the basicly flawed core setup.

What one man calls patchworks, another calls working alterations to adapt game to genre.

I think it would be nice if the same mechanic was the rule not the exception. The only exception I am aware of to this in HERO are the automaton rules used for robots and golems which by their nature do not have a stun score. The core setup of D&D does not have an intuitive stunning or subdual rule, there are methods that require as much or more bookeeping than HERO but they are the exceptions.

I find the subdual rules in DND to work well and are as intuitive as they need to be. By that i mean when i describe them to players they rememner them and use them when it makes sense... when you want to not kill the target. Now, the subdual rules change thru different d30 books, and i am not really versed on all of them, so i will just stop at DND.

I stand corrected on the level based AC bonus. However the AC bonus from armor itself does not make intuitive sense.

In DND, a touch attack is used for attacks which do not need to penetrate to cause their effects. Those types of attacks, armor has no effect on.

 

In DND, a normal attack that needs to get damage thru the armor, that applies the armor. Misses are either complete misses or they are attacks that did not get damage thru the armor.

 

Whether or not this is intuitive or not, thats more subjective a call.

 

Other d20 games, move further along the line... in T20, (IIRC) for instance armor is a DR that reduces the attack damage and not an AC bonus. Same thing in MnM.

 

So it really comes down to which d20 you are playing.

 

Really, i think you would be more accurate if you just replaced D20 with DND.

Say a character is wearing platemail, another character with a magic sword swings and misses, but the miss is by less than the amount of AC bonus given by the armor itself. Is this miss is explained as a bounce off of the armor? I don't even damage the armor?

Bounce off the armor... yes that is one of the ways you can describe the miss. It can also be described as a miss.

Can I have a magic sword that gives a bonus to hit without a damage bonus or visa-versa or are the 2 stats intertwined too closely in the rules?

The most common magic items have those properties linked. But, many items do not. For example, weapons can have properties such as flaming or frost which add additional damage but which do not affect hit chances. Also, weapons can have true strike which adds solely to hit bonuses. There are other examples.

Say the sword has a touch effect, do you have to figure the hit based on 2 different AC's?

Usually not. the default is typically either a touch attack for the touch effect only or a combat attack for both taken together. its a simplification to avoid more rolls, which may, or may not, be to everyone's liking.

I am not arguing against the speed and ease of use of D&D and other D20 systems. I am saying that they do not lend themselves to actually explaining what is really happening. A miss is not always a miss.

Why is it hard to explain that sometimes a "miss" on the roll is actually a "hit that does no damage"?

 

The touch attack rules make it fairly easy to see the difference.

 

It may not be to everyone's taste, of course.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

I just hate having choices made FOR me because I decided to be "A Fighter" ...

Do you mean "the class called fighter"? if so, i dont get your point. Once you chose to take the basic set of traits, why complain that you got them?

 

If you mean some character who can be described as a fighter, then you need to choose the class appropriate to your concept. I have seen plenty of "fighters" who did not take the "fighter" class at all, because it did not fit their concept.

 

If your particular flavor is not exactly matched, thats where the suggestions and rules for customizing classes come in. Speak to your GM.

 

But, decisions were not made "for you". You make the decisions when you choose to represent your character with a given class. The rest is just setting defined rationale.

and what happens if I want a bard that never learned magic?

if you mean bard as "a guy who plays music and wanders around telling stories", then that character can be built using a number of classes. if your vision of him is "no magic" then it would seem rather silly to try and represent him with a magic using class.

 

If you mean by bard "a guy who does everything the bard class does but with no magic"... see the last sentence above, but if you persist, talk to your GM about customizing the class to fit your character as described in the PHb and DMG. There were, from what i saw on the web, plenty of magic-less rangers being devised and used.

Do I get to replace that part of the class with something else? Classes remove far to much flexbility in a system - I see no problem limiting a particular campaign to certain options but the system should be open ended entirely IMO.

In my fantasy world, the notion of it being "not surprising" for a 3 year old skunk to cast firecloud which will destroy an entire continent even though he has no magical training or origins... would not make it a better game.

 

So, "entirely open ended" is not IMo a good thing for any game i have ever run.

 

I prefer for traits to be linked together and make cohesive sense.

 

Thats the main thing that classes do, tell you how things work. They are of inestimable value in telling the players about the world. The "laws" of the world are expressed very well in the classes... a novice mage does not master WISh as his first spell, but must spend a long time working thru lesser magics to get there... unlike in an "entirely open ended system".

 

Now, if your GM decided the archetypal classes were sacrosanct and inviolate and permitted no customization to them... that would be a different thing, a system where classes were straightjackets, not tools.

 

Fortunately, the rules do not require that, so its really more of a "boogeyman GM" issue than a system issue.

 

 

Getting back to the original point ... people who don't try HERO because of some poorly conceived, or even outright ignorance of the system and dismiss it "out of hand" with things like "character creation takes to long," or "there's too much math."

"character creation takes too long" and "there's too much math" are not necessarily poorly conceived or ignorant viewpoints.

whatever. If you play it a couple times and don't like it, fine. But if you've never played it you have no basis to tell me what's 'wrong' with the game. That's pure stupidity and blind ignorance as far as I'm concerned. And quite frankly, I'd rather not play with such people.

I dont know about you, but there are a lot of things i have not actually tried that i am sure i wont like and can give reasons for.

 

Ebven more so, i have friends. over time, i have even come to, thru experience, learn that some of them have reasonable notions and discriminating tastes or at least preferences that run similar to mine. In short, i sometimes respect their opinions.

 

As such, even if i have not seen a movie, I can form conclusions about whether or not i will like it, and why, based on their recommendations.

 

There are even reviews.

 

So, just reigning in the scope of "valid reasons to choose not to try something" to "i have tried it myself and..." does not seem very effective.

 

Whats the saying...

a stupid man does not learn from his own mistakes.

A smart man learns from his own mistakes.

A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

 

Whwther or not i give credit to someones reasons as valid or not is primarily going to be based on whether or not it seems accurate.

 

If someone said "i played hero three times and i just could not stand it. it is so rules light and with too many holes and not enough combat definition" i would be looking at them like they were nuts... or if someone said "i never tried it once i realized that mammoth book was all rules and no setting. Thats way too much work on rules for me." that would be much more credible.

 

at least, to me.

 

I just get worked up over the "HERO has math, I can't do math." excuse.

 

I often hear nothing like that, i hear "hero requires too much math for me."

 

perhaps we have different ears.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

BTW' date=' you are aware that in the various d20 systems we have hit points, wound/vitality points, massive damage saves, non-hit-point damage saves, classes with 1-3 hp per level, and so on... so that there isn't one d20 hit point model but many... each attempting to make the combat feel match the genre, right?[/quote']

 

Not to mention Mutants & Masterminds, which foregoes hit points altogether in favour of damage saves.

[drnuncheon]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Yeah - but people like to buy the flavour rather than have the ability to build it - fast food equivalent of gaming!

 

Or perhaps just going out to a restaurant instead of cooking it yourself. After all, it lets you get to the eating with a whole lot less effort. 'Fast food' implies that it's inferior, and there are a number of great D&D games out there, as well as some crummy HERO games.

 

J