Hero System is Just Alright With Me

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

The game materials set the tone. In three editions over 30 years' date=' I can recall one scenario which set a specific "don't kill the monsters" objective. I'll admit to not having read many scenarios for 3e/3.5 - do you have examples of scenarios with primary objectives best solved by an approach other than "kill the monsters & take the loot" or, better yet, which cannot be solved by that approach? I submit that "slash & grab" remains the most effective style for the vast majhority of material published by TSR/WOTC (other publishers put their own slant on things that TSR/WOTC can't control).[/quote']

 

Not only that, but WOTC has openly declared that it builds it's system and write's it's supplements to support the idea of "system mastery." By this they mean that the game rewards the players who read all the material, spend all the time trying out the different permutations of feats and skills and whatever... how best to go along the EXP Leveling up track, etc. The idea is actually to REINFORCE the kind of play where you quote rule books at each other and argue the minutia of the effectiveness of one specialty class over the other... and effectiveness is designed by "how powerful in combat and magic you are able to become."

 

It's a conscious choice by the game design, and after three plus decades, it is one of the reasons that D&D is it's own subgenre of "fantasy" rather than a system that gives you tools to emulate/simulate the varieties of literary fantasy that is the ultimate source material.

 

The idea is that any game system can be played in any style (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist) but some support one style better than others. To play it another way often requires changing or ignoring vast amounts of the system. Hero, IMO, supports Simulationist play most strongly, but because it is a tool kit more than a game system (a meta-system as you will) it works for all three. I'm very narrativist in play style... though I go heavy Sim for combat and feel Hero supports that style of play well.

 

One of the biggest issues with game systems is that they often don't know what they want to be. They send mixed messages, like D&D, that says "Role Playing" but has no real mechanics or reward system that encourages play beyond "slash and grab and level up." Again, you CAN play D&D in other ways... but it's a chore, as almost every rule tries to drag you back into a very Gamist (IMO) style.

[buzz]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

The game materials set the tone. In three editions over 30 years' date=' I can recall one scenario which set a specific "don't kill the monsters" objective.[/quote']

Have you ever read any Planescape material? Ravenloft? Eberron? Have you read Dungeon lately?

 

I submit that "slash & grab" remains the most effective style for the vast majhority of material published by TSR/WOTC (other publishers put their own slant on things that TSR/WOTC can't control).

That publishers can produce non "slash n' grab" adventures for D&D would seem to imply that D&D is not limited to "slash n' grab" by the system.

[buzz]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

Not only that' date=' but WOTC has openly declared that it builds it's system and write's it's supplements to support the idea of "system mastery."[/quote']

And they are unique in this regard?

 

By this they mean that the game rewards the players who read all the material' date=' spend all the time trying out the different permutations of feats and skills and whatever... how best to go along the EXP Leveling up track, etc.[/quote']

I have yet to play in a game where intimate familiarity with supplements made any difference.

 

The idea is that any game system can be played in any style (Gamist' date=' Narrativist, Simulationist) but some support one style better than others.[/quote']

I can't argue with that, really. I don't know that this proves that D&D is all about hack n' slash and nothing else, though.

 

To play it another way often requires changing or ignoring vast amounts of the system.

I have yet to notice this.

 

They send mixed messages' date=' like D&D, that says "Role Playing" but has no real mechanics or reward system that encourages play beyond "slash and grab and level up." Again, you CAN play D&D in other ways... but it's a chore, as almost every rule tries to drag you back into a very Gamist (IMO) style.[/quote']

This is one of the oldest saws whipped out agianst D&D, and I still don't buy it. I find it a particularly meaningless argument when used in reference to 3.x.

 

I guess we're drifting, here. I still love your story hour, RDU!

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

I still love your story hour' date=' RDU! [/quote']

 

Uhm... thanks... but what they heck are you talking about? Story hour?

[buzz]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

Uhm... thanks... but what they heck are you talking about? Story hour?

The Secret World story hour... though I guess "story hour" is ENWorld talk for "narrative posts detailing your cool campaign," so it might be unfamiliar.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

The Secret World story hour... though I guess "story hour" is ENWorld talk for "narrative posts detailing your cool campaign' date='" so it might be unfamiliar. [/quote']

 

Ahh... ok... thanks. Glad you liked 'em, though it's been a long time since I wrote one of those.

[Zanthis]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

I'm not sure why so many people get worked up when RPGs involve a lot of combat. D&D is a popular target, but many others are mentioned too. In nearly every system, you have literally hundreds of pages on how to deal with combat. Is it any surprise that games tend to have combat be the ultimate solution to their problems?

 

To those who (apparently) play games without combat, why play HEROs at all? Or any other RPG in specific? Without combat, you need next to no rules at all to have an enjoyable session.

 

When it comes to game sessions, I'd rather have them require combat as the solution (or else an extremely clever non-combat solution the GM hasn't considered) rather than not. If I'm playing a RPG and intending to get into fights (and I am, otherwise I'd be playing Monopoly) I appreciate it when the GM makes this easy to do storywise. Sure, if the adventure involves no fighting I can always attack the local police deptment for no reason, but that's not really a "good" thing and would not be in character for any character I've ever played. But give me an unthinking beast eating children and I can exercise all 1,000 pages of rules and the hours of character creation without worrying about the tougher ethical considerations.

 

After all, I'm playing a game for enjoyment, not trying to explain to people why both presidential canidates suck and how in a given 5 minute period you can expect 2d6 lies and no less than 10 incorrect word choices (decimate being a favorite).

 

Like it or not, D&D and HEROs have a lot more similarities than differences. I'd say the main reason for slash-n-grab in D&D is the types of players playing D&D versus the types playing HEROs. Many HEROs players have it as their second (or third, or 482nd) system and have learned to expaned their adventuring content. The basic new player in D&D follows the predictable path of least resistance: 300 pages of combat rules? Guess we'll be doing some combat. Only after they've gained experience and realized how much wider their games can become to they start experimenting with other systems and hit games such as HEROs.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

I'm not sure why so many people get worked up when RPGs involve a lot of combat. D&D is a popular target, but many others are mentioned too. In nearly every system, you have literally hundreds of pages on how to deal with combat. Is it any surprise that games tend to have combat be the ultimate solution to their problems?

 

To those who (apparently) play games without combat, why play HEROs at all? Or any other RPG in specific? Without combat, you need next to no rules at all to have an enjoyable session.

 

When it comes to game sessions, I'd rather have them require combat as the solution (or else an extremely clever non-combat solution the GM hasn't considered) rather than not. If I'm playing a RPG and intending to get into fights (and I am, otherwise I'd be playing Monopoly) I appreciate it when the GM makes this easy to do storywise. Sure, if the adventure involves no fighting I can always attack the local police deptment for no reason, but that's not really a "good" thing and would not be in character for any character I've ever played. But give me an unthinking beast eating children and I can exercise all 1,000 pages of rules and the hours of character creation without worrying about the tougher ethical considerations.

 

After all, I'm playing a game for enjoyment, not trying to explain to people why both presidential canidates suck and how in a given 5 minute period you can expect 2d6 lies and no less than 10 incorrect word choices (decimate being a favorite).

 

Like it or not, D&D and HEROs have a lot more similarities than differences. I'd say the main reason for slash-n-grab in D&D is the types of players playing D&D versus the types playing HEROs. Many HEROs players have it as their second (or third, or 482nd) system and have learned to expaned their adventuring content. The basic new player in D&D follows the predictable path of least resistance: 300 pages of combat rules? Guess we'll be doing some combat. Only after they've gained experience and realized how much wider their games can become to they start experimenting with other systems and hit games such as HEROs.

 

IMO opinion the "slash & grab" issue has nothing to do with combat per se. I love combat... nothing more enjoyable than a detailed, gritty, hand-to-hand battle using Hero System martial arts and other maneuvers. But this is an issue of "story content" and flavor, IMO. The "s&g" issues is one of play style/play preferences and reinforcement through system rewards. "Slash & grab" could be played with very few rules and little in the way of detailed combat... simply "Do you kill the orc and take the gold?" "Yes, I do..." "Ok, you have earned 58 EXP" Combat didn't take place, simply a choice was made, very detached, and the system rewarded the choice. (This is highly extreme and stylized, I know, but it is just to make a point.)

 

D&D rewards such "choices" combat not-withstanding. Hero doesn't necessarily reward one choice over the other... it is a toolkit that rewards "stay in genre/character, and solve the issue" as Hugh pointed out. This allows for a much greater latitude of play styles and reinforcement. CAN you play Hero Slash and Grab? Sure... but it doesn't push you that way, and in fact the rule system actually tries to guide you away from that.

 

Combat really isn't the issue at all... at least in this discussion.

[zornwil]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

I'm not sure why so many people get worked up when RPGs involve a lot of combat. (snip)

 

Because we're not little kids playing cowboys and indians, we're adults and this is a serious hobby...

 

I'm exaggerating in ascribing the entire argument to that, but I think too many people have this motivation. I think there are valid arguments that RPGs are so combat-heavy that they discourage other forms of play.

[Zanthis]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

I cannot imagine anyone playing a slash-n-grab style game with no (or next to no) combat. They'd get bored quite quickly. In fact, many online RPGs are facing this very problem. They wrote an entirely slash-n-grab system and are finding that isn't sufficient to keep people playing. The average length of time someone plays such a game is likely around one year. People here (and elsewhere too) have played some pencil & paper games for 20+ years! There's something more than slash-n-grab going on to keep people's attention that long.

 

As far as system rewards go, XP for kills (combat victories) is meaningless. I say this because most players will fight, enjoy it, and when they get XP it doesn't really matter if it came from the number of kills or just some total based on their performance. Actually, in most AD&D games I played we quickly moved away from awarding XP after fights because it slowed down the game (with people leveling in mid adventure etc). Once we moved to lump awards at the end of a session it didn't take long before we moved away from set XP amounts based on kills, because we found they didn't accurately reflect the difficulty of a battle*.

 

However, I will say treasure rewards have been a giant headache in D&D (and many similar systems). The HEROs method of paying for everything even if you find it leads to a much nicer environment and less insane behaviour by players and GMs. In fact, it is this reason and this reason alone I try and bring any new player in using HEROs (Fantasy) instead of D&D. This is the sole area I could see an argument made that D&D encourages slash-n-grab, but even then in more mature (as in experienced, not necessarily older players) groups the item distribution becomes a lot more low-key and a much lesser focus since players start crafting their own equipment tailored exactly as they desire it. We even moved to submitting magical item preferences to the DM so that we had a chance of finding some items that we really felt would work well with our character concept. Certainly not things players new Role-Playing in general are going to be capable of.

 

So I think I'd say D&D encourages slash-n-grab in terms of equipment (so more grabbing than slashing) in groups new to role-playing or of a fairly young age. HEROs aims even very young players at a career in mathmatics...j/k . HEROs aims even young players toward a self-directed character concept approach. Experienced players however, will play the way they want to regardless of the system.

 

* One encounter I can vividly recall involved muck dwellers and needlemen. Neither particularly tough on their own. The needlemen did damage, but were easily killed. The muckdwellers couldn't do any damage we'd ever notice and also were easily killed. However, a muck dweller's attack stunned you for a round making you unable to take any action. Since we were fighting quite a few, the entire party spent round after round unable to act as the needlemen landed attack after attack until we could finally pull back. After an insane fight, XP was totalled and the GM refused to even tell us how embarrisingly low the number was and just made something up that matched the actual difficult of the fight.

[buzz]

Re: Hero System is Just Alright With Me

 

D&D rewards such "choices" combat not-withstanding.

The reason I balk at this argument is that I've seen it used against just about every system I've played, and it never jibes with my personal experience. I've been in arguments where people call HERO a munchkin's paradise for min-maxers and, yes, even the old saw about "it's just a glorified miniatures combat wargame".

 

IME, it has MUCH more to do with the group. It's particularly irrelevant when talking about 3.x, which does not give experience for killing things or accumulating treasure.