Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

...lets be honest' date=' the GM is more important to the game than the players to some extent. If any one player quits the game goes on, but if the GM quits it all comes to a halt.[/quote']

 

While I do agree that the GM has a greater responsibility than do the rest of the players, I have also seen more than one game fold up and die when a lynchpin player left the game. It happens.

 

Ideally, the players (a group which includes the GM, I should point out) all talk about what they want to play, and choose something that they'd all find mutually acceptable. Perhaps that ideal is not always possible, but I think it's worth aiming for.

[tesuji]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

Keys come in pairs, GM's typically dont.

 

However, in the analogy department, the GM is more like car and the players are more like the passengers.

 

I would be more inclined to say "driver" or at least "driver and passengers" than just "passenger."

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

I wonder why it always comes down to duelling car analogies? No one ever wins, but still we wind up facing off with our competing car analogies strapped to our belts, hands tensed, steely eyes glinting in the sun....

 

I think I'll call this The Detroit Effect.

[Agent X]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

I have been GMing a while and i gotta say, i cannot agree with this, especially with the tenor.

 

The Gm and the players are equally vital to the process. Each has the right to express and to expect to be taken seriosuly about their preferences, both in game style and in system.

 

Sure, the Gm will do whatever degree of work he feels necessary for his game, but the players will spend work and time on their characters, on the plots and permutations as well.

 

i game with friends as well as acquaintances i meet thru gaming. When i decide to run a game and look for an audience, i also look at what system would be good FOR THEM, based on their backgrounds and preferences. often that means streamlining down a complex system or dropping elements i would like to add to keep it at a degree of complexity and work that they will bear more readily than I, a gamer of decades, would normally need.

 

Honestly, i put the players first.

Their preferences are not branded petty when the clash with mine.

 

FWIW

That doesn't work for me at all. I have too many real world responsibilities to let someone else dictate that much of my time for me. I put much less work into a game as a player than as a GM. As a GM, I spend hours every week preparing and I want that time to be as efficient and pleasant as possible. From what I've seen, a hard-working GM will put more time into their game than it is really possible for the players to do.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

I wonder why it always comes down to duelling car analogies? No one ever wins, but still we wind up facing off with our competing car analogies strapped to our belts, hands tensed, steely eyes glinting in the sun....

 

I think I'll call this The Detroit Effect.

Cuz we all love to "go the distance"?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

I would be more inclined to say "driver" or at least "driver and passengers" than just "passenger."

Youre driver and a winner, I can feel it.

 

If you let your players dictate what you do, what system you run, how you run your game, and youre fine with that, then I guess that works for you.

 

I dont have it in me to be submissive, personally. When Im investing my time, money, and creativity to run a game it's by my own terms, end of story.

 

Whatever works for you works for you. {shrugs}

[tesuji]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

This is what you apparently took out of what I said...

 

If you let your players dictate what you do, what system you run, how you run your game, and youre fine with that, then I guess that works for you.

 

While, what I actually said was...

 

"The Gm and the players are equally vital to the process. Each has the right to express and to expect to be taken seriosuly about their preferences, both in game style and in system. "

 

and...

 

"i also look at what system would be good FOR THEM, based on their backgrounds and preferences. often that means streamlining down a complex system or dropping elements i would like to add to keep it at a degree of complexity and work that they will bear more readily than I, a gamer of decades, would normally need."

 

So, its not surprising at all that we seem to disagree here.

 

Enjoy your games.

[BlackSword]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

And lets be honest' date=' the GM is more important to the game than the players to some extent. If any one player quits the game goes on, but if the GM quits it all comes to a halt. So whose sustainability is more critical then? The GM's, obviously.[/quote']

I think my opinions on the matter align more with Tesugi's. Its a team effort.

 

Our group had a mutual parting with the GM, and we still meet and game weekly. We didn't come to a screeching halt. A dedicated GM is a nice-ta have, not a have-ta have, however without a group the GM is just speaking to air.

 

Probably the biggest difference in opinions is that you game with gamers, to get together and game. Many others game to get together with friends and socialize, the game just happens to be the vehicle. Neither is a better way of gaming (though I prefer the latter, though it can get frustrating when the socializing goes too long). Gaming to game, you can set down the rules and say this how it is, if you don't like it find another group. Gaming with friends we work together so that we have an evening together.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

I think my opinions on the matter align more with Tesugi's. Its a team effort.

 

Our group had a mutual parting with the GM, and we still meet and game weekly. We didn't come to a screeching halt. A dedicated GM is a nice-ta have, not a have-ta have, however without a group the GM is just speaking to air.

 

Probably the biggest difference in opinions is that you game with gamers, to get together and game. Many others game to get together with friends and socialize, the game just happens to be the vehicle. Neither is a better way of gaming (though I prefer the latter, though it can get frustrating when the socializing goes too long). Gaming to game, you can set down the rules and say this how it is, if you don't like it find another group. Gaming with friends we work together so that we have an evening together.

True, which is why I pointed out to the OP that if he wants to keep the group together as is, he would be ill advised to force a system change on them if they are unwilling.

 

Personally, I would just run the game and let them sort themselves out and decide if they want to play in the game, and have done so on many occasions quite successfully, but as I pointed out I play to play not to rub elbows and chat.

 

In otherwords, my approach is a lot more goal-oriented and driven by what I want. That wont work for everyone. If I were more socially oriented I would conform to what the majority want, but since Im more aggressive and A+++ in my approach I dont. The OP on the otherhand sounds loathe to fracture his group, thus the advice to not force the issue.

 

Im not saying my way is the right and only way, Im just saying its A way, it works for me, and why I favor it.

[arcady]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

Found a similar thread:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12682

[John Desmarais]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

So if I get it into my head to run a campaign in genre Y with system X, then I tell the group that Im considering it and get feedback, but once I make the decision to do it they can either get on board with it or hit the road.

 

And by the way, before you say it, yes I am somewhat elitist. I dont see that as being a bad thing. I put a lot of emphasis on Quality Control, and part of that emphasis is reflected in the System I choose to run a game in.

 

I'm half there. I give the players a LOT of say in the genre of games that I run (heck, I've been know to simply allow them to decide with virtually no impout from me), but the choice of game system is (if I'm the GM) mine.

 

I my case though it's not elitism - it's laziness. Coming up with plots, NPCs, etc, etc, etc, for a regular game requires a significant portion of my limited free time. I don't want to add "learn a new game system" into the mix. This is the very core of why I gravitated towards a universal system in teh first place.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

Ibut the choice of game system is (if I'm the GM) mine.

 

This whole discussion is one I'm thankfully immune to. Our group plays HERO. Pretty much exclusively. I've been a HERO-ite for 19 years; my wife has 22 under her belt, my players have 20, 19 and 15 years with the system, and for eveyone it is thier system of choice. When we need a player, and put up the ad in the local GS we ask for HERO players.

 

So our only discussion are which genre to run.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

FWIW, in D20, you get Xp for challenges, not combats. A mystery story should, or rather could, feature as many challenges of the mystery solving variety session by session as a combat one should and those would provide as much Xp as well.

 

if you got little XP, it wasn't because of d20, but because your GM cut down on the challenges he was presenting to you. perhaps he did not realize how to script non-combat challenges or did not know how to (or that he should) give Xp for them.

 

but regardless, there is no reason in d20, or dnd 3.0 that a mystery adventure in a village should result in advanacement lag solely due to story focusing on non-combat challenges.

 

Please don't misunderstand -- I'm not trying to bash D&D3; it's a good game that I've had a lot of fun in as both player and GM, and probably will have more fun in the future. But for this particular campaign, it was not giving me what I needed.

 

I was the GM in that game, and I was allowing the characters to advance their combat and magic abilities exactly as quickly as I wanted them to. However, my game needed a different way of doing skill advancement. I didn't want a 10th level party that was simply able beat up my badguy (end of threat!) -- I wanted my not-so-combat-oriented group to outthink and outperform their adversary, using their skills and their smarts.

 

With HERO, I find that I can easily tell the group that their CVs and spells are maxed out and to spend the XPs elsewhere. I couldn't figure out a way to do that in D&D3 w/o breaking the system down -- "You've gained a level, but you don't get any combat bonuses, new spells, or more feats. Oh, and you only get half your skill points now, you'll get the rest next session."

 

(Not to say there is no such way; I'm sure some GMs have made it work just fine -- and if anyone has any stories to share, I'd love to hear 'em!)

 

To any experienced DND player' date=' this would not be a good example of "why switch to hero?"[/quote']

 

It was intended simply as an example of why my group moved over. I wasn't expecting Arcady to use my reasoning for his game. He's got his own reasons for wanting to make the switch -- his need for a different magic system and his players' desire for a better way of multiclassing. I think it would be good if he makes those reasons clear to his group in order to bring them on-board (like I did with my group in order to change my game over).

 

Bill.

(Trying to keep the thread on topic, hopefully not failing too badly...)

[tesuji]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

 

I was the GM in that game, and I was allowing the characters to advance their combat and magic abilities exactly as quickly as I wanted them to.

So if i get this straight, you deliberately stalled the expected rate of advancement (by not awarding xp or awarding less XP or not scripting challenges that earn xp or whatever means) for the non-combat challenges your mystery plot adventure would be producing. this served your goal of restricting/slowing the tactical gains of the party, to fit with your overall plan for how they should have to resolve the challenges.

 

At the same time you were doing this, you set the mystery/info-based story in a setting deliberately chosen so that no characters had the communication skills toi interact with the people they are involved with. (I assume this was deliberate. if it was accidental, thats another thing.)

 

After months of this, you were able to show your team that the system was bad and another system (which coincidentally, stroke of good fortune, scratched this particular itch just so) was preferable.

 

Ok, i think i get it now.

 

As a devil's advocate, i would like to point out, as i tried earlier, if you had allowed normal Xp for challenges, set typical levels of challenges for your mystery-based plot, and let the system run the way the system was designed, then your pcs would have started the adventure with linguistic difficulties but levelled up after a while (maybe a few wweeks depending on your game/plot pacing but typically after say 4-6 sessions) and been able to gain the skills to overcome the language barriers, at least somewhat.

 

So, i would not necessarily see this as an example of the system having a problem or lacks, but rather an outcome determined by two decisions on the GMs part (stall advancement & set info-based plot where they have none of the needed languages) that collided (whether this was intended or just unforseen is irrelevent) to manufacture a problem.

However, my game needed a different way of doing skill advancement. I didn't want a 10th level party that was simply able beat up my badguy (end of threat!) -- I wanted my not-so-combat-oriented group to outthink and outperform their adversary, using their skills and their smarts.

But, isn't whether thay can solve the challnge by beating up your bad guy or whether they have to use other methods not a matter of their level at all, but a matter of the setup, the particulars of the plot and the NPC you build? A third level party can decide to be direct nd beat up the bad guy, if you as Gm do not script it so that the villain is too tough, too guarded or other in story reasons prevent them from doing so. The level of the party simply seems to provide you the basic starting point for where the challenges need to be.

 

I don't get where the stalling the xp award thing made a difference in this regard.

 

We clearly do things differently.

With HERO, I find that I can easily tell the group that their CVs and spells are maxed out and to spend the XPs elsewhere.

Ahhhh... now i do see our underpinning differences.

 

See, i would not want to do this, i think ever.

 

I would not want to put the players in a situation where i told the scout player "sure, there is time for you to improve your stealth and sneaking and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." and tell the sage player "sure, there is time for you to improve your knowledge skills and pick up the local languages and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." and tell the healer "sure, there is time for you to improve your medical skills and learn about local curative herbs and find out about local diseases and poisons and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." but to then tell the soldier "Nope, there is no time for you to improve your swordsmanship and maneuvering and such. There is no time and no opportunity to train in those things. However, sure, there is time for you to improve your riding or climbing and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train for that."

 

of course, whatever other in game reason for permitting the work or not permitting the work can be put in.

 

I don't want to put myself in the position of telling my players some of them can work on improving their character in their focused areas but that others cannot, especially if there is no in the game world justification for it.

 

So this alone explains to me why i am having such a hard time understanding your perception here, and why I see the pwoblem" you are describing as one where the GM changed the system and that change created the problem.

 

dont take this as a negative comment about Gm changing the system i do it all the time. just a recognition that if my change creates a problem, thats not the same thing as saying the system has a problem.

 

I couldn't figure out a way to do that in D&D3 w/o breaking the system down -- "You've gained a level, but you don't get any combat bonuses, new spells, or more feats. Oh, and you only get half your skill points now, you'll get the rest next session."

 

(Not to say there is no such way; I'm sure some GMs have made it work just fine -- and if anyone has any stories to share, I'd love to hear 'em!)

Well, had i somehow found myself in your situation, and realized i had painted myself into that corner, my possible solutions would have been...

 

1. reevaluate my villains stats and situation to enable the normally levelling party to face suitable challenges, and let the party level up. Its easier for me to design appropriate villains and challenges than it is for me to start monkeying with which parts of which characters can advance and which cannot case-by case and a lot less "i am getting into your stuff" telling the players how to advance their characters.

 

2. If for some reason i felt i could not do the above and had to "break the system", i would simply allow the PCs to acquire 0 level skill ranks in the language and other locally relevent skills and then make INT checks (aka 0 level skill checks) to participate in discussions. That should enable them to make tolerable conversations with a fewe good opportunities for "misunderstandings" which can serve the plot very well, especially in a mystery. (I don't BYW see this as "breaking the system" more than say "i wont give xp and let them level up for these challenges" is.)

 

It was intended simply as an example of why my group moved over.

 

Well it seems like you run and its problems did indeed manage to convince your players to move into your preferred system.

 

One question tho, before the decision to move was made, did you tell them that you were the one who decided to stall the xp advance while they were in the "cannot speak the language" situation or did their frustration with the things that had happened just rush past the "why" stage and head directly into your preferred system which just happened to, coincidentally- a stroke of good fortune, fix this specific problem this last plot's problems brought to the surface?

[arcady]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

So if i get this straight' date=' you deliberately stalled the expected rate of advancement (by not awarding xp or awarding less XP or not scripting challenges that earn xp or whatever means) for the non-combat challenges your mystery plot adventure would be producing. this served your goal of restricting/slowing the tactical gains of the party, to fit with your overall plan for how they should have to resolve the challenges.[/quote']

I think you're reading an ulterior motive into things when the situation lacks one.

 

DnD gives no advice on what to do when the game involves no combat. It's all well and good to sit there apart from the situation and claim they had plenty of challenges and should have leveled anyway...

 

But you don't know that, and frankly, they might not know it either.

 

The game gives no advice on the situation. It's very hard to guage when to give XP when there isn't an Orc standing around somewhere with a sign over his head saying 'CRx'. What is the CR of a debate over crop rotation? What is the CR for proposing to the alderman's daughter? What is the CR for putting up a barn? What is the CR for getting your issue put through at Court with the nobles? What is the CR for being midwife to a peasant woman when caught in a storm on a country road?

 

If they went for months with just roleplay - hang'n it with the locals in the village - it could easily be very difficult for anyone to know what events where the challenges.

 

On DnD boards you'll see long flame wars over the idea that commoners level. A lot of people, a lot of people who write DnD product even, see it that commoners never face challenges - they don't kill Orcs...

 

The game never says what aspects of daily life qualify.

 

Most of the people who do level their commoners simply say that 'life gives XP and doesn't need a challenge'. Rather than find the challenge, they sidestep the issue - your commoner gets x*age*level XP per year, or something like that...

 

It is a flaw of the system' that the XP system breaks down in times like this. You can award for challenges, but you need guidance. The lack of that guidance is where it breaks down. DnD actively encourages only one style of play, and GMs or players who seek another find themselves lost. If they've got the talent for house ruling, they'll be able to find their own guidance.

 

But many of us feel uncomfortable there, or lack that talent, or lack the energy to 'work it all out'. When there's another choice that does give an XP system that works for this issue - it just makes it easier to toss the first one out.

 

 

Under Hero's XP system, they can gain skills or abilities gradually and smoothly - not in sudden steps. I would not restrict their combat abilities in the given situation, but if they wasted their XP there they'd have to deal with the results of never learning the skills that actually came up in play.

 

Hero's XP system also works on a more session per session roleplay and goals method. It's much easier to work with regardless of what style of play comes about at the table.

[Old Man]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

I would not want to put the players in a situation where i told the scout player "sure, there is time for you to improve your stealth and sneaking and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." and tell the sage player "sure, there is time for you to improve your knowledge skills and pick up the local languages and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." and tell the healer "sure, there is time for you to improve your medical skills and learn about local curative herbs and find out about local diseases and poisons and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." but to then tell the soldier "Nope, there is no time for you to improve your swordsmanship and maneuvering and such. There is no time and no opportunity to train in those things. However, sure, there is time for you to improve your riding or climbing and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train for that."

 

I would avoid doing this as well. I think the only limit would be on stats but NCM pretty much covers that already.

[tesuji]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

 

I think you're reading an ulterior motive into things when the situation lacks one.

Didn't i include the possibility of accidental?

 

Besides, he said specifically that the rate of levelling his scenario provided was precisely what he intended.

DnD gives no advice on what to do when the game involves no combat. It's all well and good to sit there apart from the situation and claim they had plenty of challenges and should have leveled anyway...

Actually, i included the possibility that the Gm controlled their advancement by not providing challenges he would provide XP for in part of my post.

 

A Gm can, moving back into the combat situation, have his guys spend months hunting a crazed beast, but never have them find anything to kill, in which case he has not provided them any COMBAT challenges even though they have done a whole lot of running around and such, and they get no XP.

 

In the same way, a Gm can provide them a couple months in a small village but if he doesn't provide encounters and events which he will consider "a challenge worth XP" then they will stew for months and not advance.

 

of course, again, as he said, he wanted them to not advance amd the xp he awarded met his intended goal.

 

This isn't a case of him erring in the xp he gave at all.

But you don't know that, and frankly, they might not know it either.

huh? I only know what he has said.

The game gives no advice on the situation. It's very hard to guage when to give XP when there isn't an Orc standing around somewhere with a sign over his head saying 'CRx'. What is the CR of a debate over crop rotation? What is the CR for proposing to the alderman's daughter? What is the CR for putting up a barn? What is the CR for getting your issue put through at Court with the nobles? What is the CR for being midwife to a peasant woman when caught in a storm on a country road?

The system DOES provide advice for XP for non-combat situations. off the top of my head, without going downstairs, they give mentions of XP for traps, for puzzles, and so forth.

 

The Xp for getting something done is assigned by the GM. The basic level of measure is "how tough was the guy you won out over?" So, if you are trying to get your issue thru to a court appointment the Gm if he has no clue whatsoever what to do, will use the level of the "other guy" who is trying to get his appointment instead or the level of the legate who makes the decision who does not want you to do so. (This assumes this is a challenge the Gm wants to put to his party, of course.) When the Gm scripts the encounter he figures out what the PCs need to do to overcome and the difficulty. In the case of a challenge that is opposed, the level of the other guy limits the amount of challenge and thats why it can be used as a part of the El.

 

 

If they went for months with just roleplay - hang'n it with the locals in the village - it could easily be very difficult for anyone to know what events where the challenges.

and if they hunted in ther woods for months, finding nothing, they would not get xp for that from the 'combat side" either. "I was there, i breathed and i ate" are not default reasons for getting xp in the dnd system. its based on challenges, which can be combat or non-combat. if the Gm is going to run a story that is non-combat driven, thats cool, but that story will likely still feature events, challenges and opportunities for the PCs to "do something" and those are the challenges.

 

On DnD boards you'll see long flame wars over the idea that commoners level. A lot of people, a lot of people who write DnD product even, see it that commoners never face challenges - they don't kill Orcs...

some commoners probably dont but others do, hence the class levels for commoner.

The game never says what aspects of daily life qualify.

Wont that vary from story to story?

Most of the people who do level their commoners simply say that 'life gives XP and doesn't need a challenge'. Rather than find the challenge, they sidestep the issue - your commoner gets x*age*level XP per year, or something like that...

i haven't see that at all, so if most of the people you know who do feel that way, Ok. i don't think its in the books, but i could be wrong.

It is a flaw of the system' that the XP system breaks down in times like this.

but the system doesn't break down.

 

let me be clear... in the case given, the xp did not break down. According to the Gm himself, the xp he awarded produced the level of advancement he wanted. he did not want the pcs to advance and so they did not get the xps to advance.

 

here is the exact quote...

I was the GM in that game, and I was allowing the characters to advance their combat and magic abilities exactly as quickly as I wanted them to.

 

arcady, no matter how much you want to spin this to it being an uninformed GM making an error because the system did not spell everything out for him for running non-combat plots, thats not what happened here.

 

he chose the pace of advancement, made it happen in play to match exactly the rate he wanted.

 

So, while you might have a peeve about the wording for non-combat challenges, this aint such a case.

 

You can award for challenges, but you need guidance. The lack of that guidance is where it breaks down. DnD actively encourages only one style of play, and GMs or players who seek another find themselves lost. If they've got the talent for house ruling, they'll be able to find their own guidance.

again, he got what he wanted. he deliberately set the rate of advancement. this is not a case of a Gm saying "ooopps, i never knew i should give cp for anything but combat. it never said so in the books." (which it does, but thats no never mind.)

 

as an aside, when i was using the dnd system xp "by the book", i never had a problem assigning challenges for non-combat stuff. The text in the book provided me with enough info to make the decisions and calls i needed to. believe me, i would not have wanted it to try and list every situation, but instead give me some examples and some general guidelines, such as "use the level of the opposition", "a challenge of their level should drain about 20% or so of their resources" and so forth to give me a ballpark. Thats what they do.

 

But many of us feel uncomfortable there, or lack that talent, or lack the energy to 'work it all out'. When there's another choice that does give an XP system that works for this issue - it just makes it easier to toss the first one out.

Again, he got the rate of advancement he wated, exactly!

 

no matter what personal thing you have against DND and its lack of a list of every conceivable situation and an xp calculator, you are in the wrong thread or at least talking down the wrong case.

 

this is not a case of a GM giving out too little xp because he misunderstood how to give out XP.

 

this is a case of a Gm giving out exactly the amount of xp he wanted and his players (and perhaps he) not liking the results (due to a conflict with his setting/scenario demands) and then springboarding off that to move to his preferred system.

 

 

Under Hero's XP system, they can gain skills or abilities gradually and smoothly - not in sudden steps. I would not restrict their combat abilities in the given situation, but if they wasted their XP there they'd have to deal with the results of never learning the skills that actually came up in play.

 

Hero's XP system also works on a more session per session roleplay and goals method. It's much easier to work with regardless of what style of play comes about at the table.

 

ive run both as well as my own in game after game. i dont find either more reasonable than the other.

 

The last several games in HERo i ran, everyone gained an xp per session, whether they showed up or not. There were no roleplaying awards or clever idea awards or any "you sucked up to the GM" awards. i offered to raise xp in excahnge for cash (20 bucks per xp) but no one ever took me up on it.

 

In my DND game of three years, i started with the by the book and moved to just telling them when they levelled up. (I did not have a problem with calculating xp, but with Xp themselves, it seems a middle man between "~15 encounter/challenge" and "advancement" that was not needed.)

 

In my first MnM game, i again went with one pp per session whether you showed up or not. No bonus points for anything.

 

In my stargate d20 game, i went with "you will level up every three months real time, which means every 9 sessions aka three episodes/missions, roughly." They know, for instance, they will level up to 8th at the end of september and again at the end of december (barring too many holidays off.)

 

In my current MnM game, they started with 50 pp, gained 75 pp at the end of session one, and will not see another pp for about a year, at which point they are in store for another 75 pp chunk.

 

What i can say about the "wheni want them to" advancement is that it give me exactly what i want, pacing under my control, with no real work.

 

but i never had a problem understanding the dnd system.

 

i can imagine some might.

 

just as i can imagine some might have trouble wading thru hero.

 

but, i really really must say, that if a GM is so underskilled as to not be able to figure out how to award xp in dnd for anything but monster situations, I really really do not want to direct him towards running HERO, a system on the whole a lot more complex and which relies on the Gm to be the much more on the ball in case after case for chargen, powers, balance etc. I mean, if he cannot gauge the challenge level of a social duel because he doesn't have hit dice, how in the heck is he going to have the wherewithall to keep things in line when the NND AOE autofires start flying?

 

I am sorry, HERO is many things (some good and some not so good), but its not the game for novice GMs or Gms without the "talent" level needed to run DND.

 

all this of course, IMO.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

 

but i never had a problem understanding the dnd system.

 

i can imagine some might.

 

just as i can imagine some might have trouble wading thru hero.

 

but, i really really must say, that if a GM is so underskilled as to not be able to figure out how to award xp in dnd for anything but monster situations, I really really do not want to direct him towards running HERO, a system on the whole a lot more complex and which relies on the Gm to be the much more on the ball in case after case for chargen, powers, balance etc. I mean, if he cannot gauge the challenge level of a social duel because he doesn't have hit dice, how in the heck is he going to have the wherewithall to keep things in line when the NND AOE autofires start flying?

 

I am sorry, HERO is many things (some good and some not so good), but its not the game for novice GMs or Gms without the "talent" level needed to run DND.

 

all this of course, IMO.

 

Now who's being elitist?

[teh bunneh]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

So if i get this straight, you deliberately stalled the expected rate of advancement (by not awarding xp or awarding less XP or not scripting challenges that earn xp or whatever means) for the non-combat challenges your mystery plot adventure would be producing. this served your goal of restricting/slowing the tactical gains of the party, to fit with your overall plan for how they should have to resolve the challenges.

 

At the same time you were doing this, you set the mystery/info-based story in a setting deliberately chosen so that no characters had the communication skills toi interact with the people they are involved with. (I assume this was deliberate. if it was accidental, thats another thing.)

 

I am detecting a small amount of deliberate misreading -- though perhaps I'm just not being very clear. On the assumption that this is a serious question, I'll do my best to answer.

 

I set the adventure in a foreign country deliberately, because I wanted a "fish out of water" tale, in which the beginning PCs had no experience with the culture or the language, but would gradually grow in their knowledge of the situation and their understanding of the people (and vice versa, as the provincial people became accustomed to the foreigners in their midst).

 

There were no combat challenges, and little time for "dummy practice," so allowing the characters to spontaneously become better at fighting seemed counter to the game I was running. Ditto for magical advancement. There were, however, plenty of other things to keep the characters busy -- searching for a missing child, trying to keep a band of gypsies from being attacked by an angry mob (and at the same time, not hurting anyone in the mob), rounding up a herd of stray cattle that somehow got out of their pen, putting out a burning building, and searching through piles of moldering genealogical records to find a specific clue, just to name a few. Even the final confrontation with the “bad guy†was more Perry Mason than Legolas.

 

These were (I hope you'll agree) challenges -- they were, at the very least, a lot of fun. They were also, to my mind, challenges worthy of reward, but not combat or magical advancement. YMMV.

 

 

After months of this, you were able to show your team that the system was bad and another system (which coincidentally, stroke of good fortune, scratched this particular itch just so) was preferable.

 

Ok, i think i get it now.

 

If this is your understanding, I think it's safe to say that you don't "get it" at all.

 

 

I would not want to put the players in a situation where i told the scout player "sure' date=' there is time for you to improve your stealth and sneaking and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." and tell the sage player "sure, there is time for you to improve your knowledge skills and pick up the local languages and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." and tell the healer "sure, there is time for you to improve your medical skills and learn about local curative herbs and find out about local diseases and poisons and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train." but to then tell the soldier "Nope, there is no time for you to improve your swordsmanship and maneuvering and such. There is no time and no opportunity to train in those things. However, sure, there is time for you to improve your riding or climbing and such. There is plenty of time and opportunity to train for that."[/quote']

 

Rather, "You spent a lot of time in the woods trying to find clues, so you can improve your survival/stealth/tracking skills. You spent time hitting the local hangouts, so you can put points towards the local language, or streetwise, or conversation. You helped deliver a new calf, so you can put experience into veterinarian, or maybe even midwife or chirugeon. But you never got into any fights, or had a chance to peruse ancient arcane manuscripts, so no CVs or magic skills."

 

Other people might find this a heavy-handed restriction on character development, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Again, YMMV.

 

 

of course, whatever other in game reason for permitting the work or not permitting the work can be put in.

 

I don't want to put myself in the position of telling my players some of them can work on improving their character in their focused areas but that others cannot, especially if there is no in the game world justification for it.

 

I guess I'm getting forgetful... were you in my game? I'm not trying to be smarmy, but you seem to have a pretty strong opinion on whether or not there were game-world reasons.

 

 

1. reevaluate my villains stats and situation to enable the normally levelling party to face suitable challenges' date=' and let the party level up. Its easier for me to design appropriate villains and challenges than it is for me to start monkeying with which parts of which characters can advance and which cannot case-by case and a lot less "i am getting into your stuff" telling the players how to advance their characters.[/quote']

 

Is it actually possible for a GM to not, in some way at least, direct the advancement of characters? It seems like that would be a confusing way to run a game. But maybe someone has found a way to make it work. “OK, you’ve spent the entire adventure studying ancient tomes in a forgotten tongue, and you now level up.†“Great! I’m going to take a level of fighter!†“OK.â€

 

(EDIT)Actually, thinking more about this, the simplest way would probably be to say at the beginning of the game, “This is a RP-heavy game, lots of mysteries and player-to-player / player-to-NPC interactions, with very few opportunities for combat. Design your characters appropriately.†Which, of course, I did.

 

But that doesn’t exactly solve the in-game problem... why should the party fighter get better at combat when the only time he ever took out his sword was to clean it after being caught in an unexpected rain shower? How can the mage learn more powerful spells when the most he’s stretched his magical abilities was to put on a light show for the amusement of the village children?

 

 

2. If for some reason i felt i could not do the above and had to "break the system"' date=' i would simply allow the PCs to acquire 0 level skill ranks in the language and other locally relevent skills and then make INT checks (aka 0 level skill checks) to participate in discussions. That should enable them to make tolerable conversations with a fewe good opportunities for "misunderstandings" which can serve the plot very well, especially in a mystery. (I don't BYW see this as "breaking the system" more than say "i wont give xp and let them level up for these challenges" is.)[/quote']

 

I must admit that I never thought to give anyone 0-level skill ranks. It may very well have worked for my needs. Is that a suggestion in the core books, or just a house rule?

 

 

Well it seems like you run and its problems did indeed manage to convince your players to move into your preferred system.

 

One question tho, before the decision to move was made, did you tell them that you were the one who decided to stall the xp advance while they were in the "cannot speak the language" situation or did their frustration with the things that had happened just rush past the "why" stage and head directly into your preferred system which just happened to, coincidentally- a stroke of good fortune, fix this specific problem this last plot's problems brought to the surface?

 

Strangely enough, I don't believe I ever mentioned the words "preferred system," in this or any other post. I also never said anywhere that D&D is a bad system (you may be mistaking me for someone else -- I'm the guy with the cowboy hat-wearing bunny as my avatar, for future reference). I did, on the other hand, say:

 

(D&D3 is) a good game that I've had a lot of fun in as both player and GM' date=' and probably will have more fun in the future. But for this particular campaign, it was not giving me what I needed."[/quote']

 

You seem to be reading an awful lot into that. Or maybe you just missed it.

 

 

let me be clear... in the case given, the xp did not break down. According to the Gm himself, the xp he awarded produced the level of advancement he wanted. he did not want the pcs to advance and so they did not get the xps to advance.

 

Quote:

I was the GM in that game, and I was allowing the characters to advance their combat and magic abilities exactly as quickly as I wanted them to.

 

*Combat* and *magic* abilities were advancing as quickly as I wanted (that is, not much at all). Other abilities (such as skills) were not. Doesn’t seem like an unclear statement to me, but obviously you’re having some trouble with it. How can I clarify to help you better understand my position?

 

 

but, i really really must say, that if a GM is so underskilled as to not be able to figure out how to award xp in dnd for anything but monster situations

<…>

I am sorry, HERO is many things (some good and some not so good), but its not the game for novice GMs or Gms without the "talent" level needed to run DND.

 

Harsh. Did I accidentally run over your dog or something? This is awfully mean language towards a person you’ve never met, a game you’ve never played, and a situation you’re apparently not quite getting.

 

None of my reasons would be suitable for you to change your campaign. That’s great! If you’re happy with the way things are going, then by all means you should keep on keepin’ on. I wasn’t happy; I felt that the system was limiting my game in ways that I didn’t see an easy way around (or enjoy very much), and so I switched over. I’m not asking you (or anybody else) to change your game.

 

Bill.

(Of course, I could just be reading you wrong -- if so, my apologies).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

Harsh. Did I accidentally run over your dog or something? This is awfully mean language towards a person you’ve never met, a game you’ve never played, and a situation you’re apparently not quite getting.

...

 

(Of course, I could just be reading you wrong -- if so, my apologies).

No, thats pretty much quintessential tesuji

[arcady]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

Besides' date=' he said specifically that the rate of levelling his scenario provided was precisely what he intended.[/quote']Your argument seems to depend on reading just one part of one post in the entire discussion with a certain slant.

 

You're reading something into it, that I don't think is there in the larger debate. Or perhaps you're not giving the poster the same 'benefit of the doubt' that I am trying to give. Posting can often be unclear and hard to make a point with - so unless somebody hits one of my 'trigger points' (and we all have them [fn*]) I try to give slack and read with better intention than the words themselves convey, rather than worse intention.

 

And DnD does not provide anyway to guage chalenges that are not related to combat, traps, or other non roleplay aspects of dungeon crawling. Perhaps I need to expand my wording a bit there...

 

It lacks anything on judging CRs. It provide a list of CRs for critters and traps - if you don't have a critter or trap, you've got no CR, and thus no XP.

 

It's also not at all clear on what actions done to a critter give you it's CR. Would helping a level 10 rogue through childbirth give you a CR 10 reward? Have you thus 'overcome the challenge of her?' In this moment, the way that challenges is not made more difficult by her level, but by the situation...

 

 

Assuming that the characters did advance at an ideal pace in the mentioned game... but not assuming that this is somehow bad GMing with suspicious motives...

 

That still ties any skill development to combat development - which might completely fail to match the story events and the needs of the game. If the GM does invent somereward for uncovering the secret of gunpowder after months of research and political scheming to keep your assistants and bed down with that wench who runs the taven across from your boarding house...

 

Why should any of that make you better able to kill somebody or avoid being killed?

 

Converesly, why does killing Orcs make you better at understanding crop rotation or the heraldry of kings?

 

Not only is the XP system thus flawed by the means I was discussing, but accepting your presumptions (save for the one that this GM has negative motives against his players) I still come back finding flaw with it.

 

And finally... the stepped nature of it. Months of nothing, then suddenly you're an expert on the fruit bats of lower Mandovia and can hold two swords with expert grace... all thanks to one last dead kobold, or having a fire trap blow off your mustache.

 

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

The above all said... DnD is a playable game, but it is not the perfect game for everyone, and not what everyone desires to play, or this board would not be here.

 

So...

 

Given that...

 

The thread's intention, is to find ways to get people to try out Hero.

 

Any takers on that... Or any more discussion for that?

 

[fn*]: A good way to spot one of my trigger points: If I say something very harsh, or seem to misspell a lot of words, or have way too much emotion in my post... then I disapear for a few days or more from that thread... That disapearing is me realizing that even if I really want to discuss the issue, posting is just going to cause a fight with somebody, or drag it out if it's already started. This thread isn't that, but that's how it seems to go when threads go that way for me...

[Agent X]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

 

 

Didn't i include the possibility of accidental?

 

Besides, he said specifically that the rate of levelling his scenario provided was precisely what he intended.

 

Actually, i included the possibility that the Gm controlled their advancement by not providing challenges he would provide XP for in part of my post.

 

A Gm can, moving back into the combat situation, have his guys spend months hunting a crazed beast, but never have them find anything to kill, in which case he has not provided them any COMBAT challenges even though they have done a whole lot of running around and such, and they get no XP.

 

In the same way, a Gm can provide them a couple months in a small village but if he doesn't provide encounters and events which he will consider "a challenge worth XP" then they will stew for months and not advance.

 

of course, again, as he said, he wanted them to not advance amd the xp he awarded met his intended goal.

 

This isn't a case of him erring in the xp he gave at all.

 

huh? I only know what he has said.

 

The system DOES provide advice for XP for non-combat situations. off the top of my head, without going downstairs, they give mentions of XP for traps, for puzzles, and so forth.

 

The Xp for getting something done is assigned by the GM. The basic level of measure is "how tough was the guy you won out over?" So, if you are trying to get your issue thru to a court appointment the Gm if he has no clue whatsoever what to do, will use the level of the "other guy" who is trying to get his appointment instead or the level of the legate who makes the decision who does not want you to do so. (This assumes this is a challenge the Gm wants to put to his party, of course.) When the Gm scripts the encounter he figures out what the PCs need to do to overcome and the difficulty. In the case of a challenge that is opposed, the level of the other guy limits the amount of challenge and thats why it can be used as a part of the El.

 

 

 

and if they hunted in ther woods for months, finding nothing, they would not get xp for that from the 'combat side" either. "I was there, i breathed and i ate" are not default reasons for getting xp in the dnd system. its based on challenges, which can be combat or non-combat. if the Gm is going to run a story that is non-combat driven, thats cool, but that story will likely still feature events, challenges and opportunities for the PCs to "do something" and those are the challenges.

 

 

some commoners probably dont but others do, hence the class levels for commoner.

 

Wont that vary from story to story?

 

i haven't see that at all, so if most of the people you know who do feel that way, Ok. i don't think its in the books, but i could be wrong.

 

but the system doesn't break down.

 

let me be clear... in the case given, the xp did not break down. According to the Gm himself, the xp he awarded produced the level of advancement he wanted. he did not want the pcs to advance and so they did not get the xps to advance.

 

here is the exact quote...

 

 

arcady, no matter how much you want to spin this to it being an uninformed GM making an error because the system did not spell everything out for him for running non-combat plots, thats not what happened here.

 

he chose the pace of advancement, made it happen in play to match exactly the rate he wanted.

 

So, while you might have a peeve about the wording for non-combat challenges, this aint such a case.

 

 

again, he got what he wanted. he deliberately set the rate of advancement. this is not a case of a Gm saying "ooopps, i never knew i should give cp for anything but combat. it never said so in the books." (which it does, but thats no never mind.)

 

as an aside, when i was using the dnd system xp "by the book", i never had a problem assigning challenges for non-combat stuff. The text in the book provided me with enough info to make the decisions and calls i needed to. believe me, i would not have wanted it to try and list every situation, but instead give me some examples and some general guidelines, such as "use the level of the opposition", "a challenge of their level should drain about 20% or so of their resources" and so forth to give me a ballpark. Thats what they do.

 

 

Again, he got the rate of advancement he wated, exactly!

 

no matter what personal thing you have against DND and its lack of a list of every conceivable situation and an xp calculator, you are in the wrong thread or at least talking down the wrong case.

 

this is not a case of a GM giving out too little xp because he misunderstood how to give out XP.

 

this is a case of a Gm giving out exactly the amount of xp he wanted and his players (and perhaps he) not liking the results (due to a conflict with his setting/scenario demands) and then springboarding off that to move to his preferred system.

 

 

 

 

ive run both as well as my own in game after game. i dont find either more reasonable than the other.

 

The last several games in HERo i ran, everyone gained an xp per session, whether they showed up or not. There were no roleplaying awards or clever idea awards or any "you sucked up to the GM" awards. i offered to raise xp in excahnge for cash (20 bucks per xp) but no one ever took me up on it.

 

In my DND game of three years, i started with the by the book and moved to just telling them when they levelled up. (I did not have a problem with calculating xp, but with Xp themselves, it seems a middle man between "~15 encounter/challenge" and "advancement" that was not needed.)

 

In my first MnM game, i again went with one pp per session whether you showed up or not. No bonus points for anything.

 

In my stargate d20 game, i went with "you will level up every three months real time, which means every 9 sessions aka three episodes/missions, roughly." They know, for instance, they will level up to 8th at the end of september and again at the end of december (barring too many holidays off.)

 

In my current MnM game, they started with 50 pp, gained 75 pp at the end of session one, and will not see another pp for about a year, at which point they are in store for another 75 pp chunk.

 

What i can say about the "wheni want them to" advancement is that it give me exactly what i want, pacing under my control, with no real work.

 

but i never had a problem understanding the dnd system.

 

i can imagine some might.

 

just as i can imagine some might have trouble wading thru hero.

 

but, i really really must say, that if a GM is so underskilled as to not be able to figure out how to award xp in dnd for anything but monster situations, I really really do not want to direct him towards running HERO, a system on the whole a lot more complex and which relies on the Gm to be the much more on the ball in case after case for chargen, powers, balance etc. I mean, if he cannot gauge the challenge level of a social duel because he doesn't have hit dice, how in the heck is he going to have the wherewithall to keep things in line when the NND AOE autofires start flying?

 

I am sorry, HERO is many things (some good and some not so good), but its not the game for novice GMs or Gms without the "talent" level needed to run DND.

 

all this of course, IMO.

Please go somewhere else with this crap. I know you are doing your level best to twist his words with your responses but Bill Keyes has a point. If you don't want to hear it don't read his post. If you do want to hear it and don't agree with it, give answers to what he is actually saying instead of changing the meaning of his post. I think I and a lot of people on these boards don't have the patience to humor the kind of tactic you are using in response to his posts.

[tesuji]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

 

These were (I hope you'll agree) challenges -- they were, at the very least, a lot of fun. They were also, to my mind, challenges worthy of reward, but not combat or magical advancement. YMMV.

I agree they were challenges and they were worthy of reward.

Rather, "You spent a lot of time in the woods trying to find clues, so you can improve your survival/stealth/tracking skills. You spent time hitting the local hangouts, so you can put points towards the local language, or streetwise, or conversation. You helped deliver a new calf, so you can put experience into veterinarian, or maybe even midwife or chirugeon. But you never got into any fights, or had a chance to peruse ancient arcane manuscripts, so no CVs or magic skills."

 

Other people might find this a heavy-handed restriction on character development, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Again, YMMV.

I will address this now and this may be at the heart of our differences.

 

In any game i have run, except for the rare events here and there, we don't roleplay every minute of every day. often a session will cover a week or more, often there will be time lapses between sessions and so forth. in short, their is a decent amount of 'off screen time" we never show.

 

I generally assume the work and training the character needs to maintain or advance his skills is done there. I usually only require "on screen showing" for the acquisition of some new talent heretofore unseen that was not a logical extension of their usual stuff.

 

The notion that, in his off screen time, the archer is practicing his archery and the mage is working with his spells and the rogue is sharpening his skills and so forth is perfectly acceptable to me.

 

So it would be a very exceptional case where i would feel the urge to step in and tell the players their characters had not shown me enough on screen to advance their abilities.

 

BTW, had you done this all along? When they were in combat heavy levels,did you refuse them experience unless they would only spend skill points on skills they had used?

I guess I'm getting forgetful... were you in my game? I'm not trying to be smarmy, but you seem to have a pretty strong opinion on whether or not there were game-world reasons.

did you perhaps notice the words i used, like "i" and "if" which are noticeably different from say "you" and "given"?

Is it actually possible for a GM to not, in some way at least, direct the advancement of characters? It seems like that would be a confusing way to run a game. But maybe someone has found a way to make it work. “OK, you’ve spent the entire adventure studying ancient tomes in a forgotten tongue, and you now level up.†“Great! I’m going to take a level of fighter!†“OK.â€

for some, there are things like a sense of scale or degree. often the scale and degree can make the difference between a game people enjoy and one that convinces them its time for a change.

But that doesn’t exactly solve the in-game problem... why should the party fighter get better at combat when the only time he ever took out his sword was to clean it after being caught in an unexpected rain shower? How can the mage learn more powerful spells when the most he’s stretched his magical abilities was to put on a light show for the amusement of the village children?

Again, you seem to be focusing on on screen moments. Was there no offscreen time? How did the fighter maintain his "champion psyque? Did you roleplay him working out?

 

I was loosely involved, invited anf kibitz once then declined, for a game where the Gm actually based advancement on on screen uses of skills. if you used a skill you got a tick and x number of ticks amounted to a skill increase. It was fun to watch the character try and find any means to use the skills possible. Any locked door saw the two thieves rush to see who could unlock it first. (there was even one time where one fighter in jest locked a door they had already been thru, and the other player eyed the Gm wondering if he would let him get a tick for unlocking it again. I left for beer at that point.)

 

If i told my players that the advancement would be based on in game use across the board, i myself would then feel somewhat obliged as Gm to be providing them with scene after scene designed to provide them those cases.

 

Me, i am much happier to just let the off screen time handle the paperwork so to speak and let my players worry about story and character in the game, leaving the "level up" stuff to the post game every once in a while.

 

I must admit that I never thought to give anyone 0-level skill ranks. It may very well have worked for my needs. Is that a suggestion in the core books, or just a house rule?

neither, its just an idea i would have considered given i knew ahead of time i was altering the xp and advancement and that that would be creating a prolonged language problem given my choice of story at that point. If i knew i was about to create a problem, it would be my job to figure out how to deal with it without it becoming such a point of frustration for my players they were ready to scrap the game.

 

 

Strangely enough, I don't believe I ever mentioned the words "preferred system," in this or any other post.

i am sorry, i made an inferrence. i assumed that you would not migrate your group to a system you preferred less than dnd.

 

Was i wrong?

 

are you saying when you got your people to switch from dnd to hero you moved to a system you preferred less than dnd?

 

if so, why?

*Combat* and *magic* abilities were advancing as quickly as I wanted (that is, not much at all). Other abilities (such as skills) were not. Doesn’t seem like an unclear statement to me, but obviously you’re having some trouble with it. How can I clarify to help you better understand my position?

i do understand that, but some people were getting, i think, the wrong conclusion... that you were mistakenly not allowing xp and getting a slower advancement by mistake, as opposed to by conscious choice.

Harsh. Did I accidentally run over your dog or something? This is awfully mean language towards a person you’ve never met, a game you’ve never played, and a situation you’re apparently not quite getting.

OK, now i am confused.

 

that statement was made in response to someone else, and they brought up the concept of the Gm not having the talent.

 

i did not direct it at you or mention you nor was it in a response to you.

 

why did you chose to jump me for my mention rather than the guy who brought up less talented GMs in the first place.

 

None of my reasons would be suitable for you to change your campaign. That’s great! If you’re happy with the way things are going, then by all means you should keep on keepin’ on. I wasn’t happy; I felt that the system was limiting my game in ways that I didn’t see an easy way around (or enjoy very much), and so I switched over. I’m not asking you (or anybody else) to change your game.

 

now again, really confused. i haven't said anything about changing my game.

 

oh well.

[tesuji]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

No' date=' thats pretty much quintessential tesuji[/quote']

 

more like this is vintage hero... take a response i made in a post to someone else, in response to their post when the quote did not reference or apply to him at all and turn it on its head like its a personal attack ignoring the multiple times i credited him with deliberately doing what he wanted to do.

 

and then just watch the piling on begin.

 

i could set my watch by you guys.

[nexus]

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

 

oh now, tseuji come on, at least have some dignity. That's laying it on a bit thick.