Lets cut the crap...

[specks]

The Hero System has been getting a lot of criticism on a couple of threads lately so I'm curious:

 

On a grade scale how would you rate the current system?

 

Personally I give it an A-. Sure it has flaws but it's still playable (and fun) but I don't think I'd make any major changes to it.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

A+ on a bell curve, because in comparing it to all the other systems I have used -- and that's a lot of systems -- it is the best.

[JTesla]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

A, without the bell curve.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think it's easier for the newer Hero gamers to give 5E a higher "grade" because they haven't had years to fully tweak through the system. I would rate 5E as a firm C. It does the job, but it does it in a far more cumbersome fashion than previous versions have. The game has become and encyclopedia of rules rather than a rules system. While rules density appeals to a certain segment of the gaming population it does not appeal to all, which is why you see so many former Hero gamers talking about leaving the system on other message boards once 5E was published. Hero is still a very good game system but it's becoming engulfed in rules minutiae. In the past only the fans did that.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I'm one of the long time players and I give %th somewhere around an A- imperically or an A++ on a bell curve.

I've looked at and played a lot of other systems and HERO is my long time top choice for the vast majority of genres. The only other systems I've ever enjoyed almost as much have been Chaosium, which I still like for some types of games (Call of Cthulhu, for instance), and once in a blue moon I get nostalgic for Rolemaster/Spacemaster, which back in the day REQUIRED that the GM spend weeks just figuring out which optional rules systems would form HIS particular version of the game, and which made most characters completely non-compatible with any other groups games. the main things I miss from it... whacked out but potentially neat magic systems, uber powerful mages, and a seperate boardgame each for Starship combat and sci-fi ground warfar, both of which were completely compatible with the RPG's.

 

Despite how it may seem from some of my posts, I don't really think HERO is broken. My desire to continually tweak the system is a combonation of my chronic rules tinkerer mentality and an almost fanboyish desire to eliminate anything about my favorite system that someone might be able to point to and say "That's why I don't play HERO".

 

OK...amend that..

anything that doesn't immediately illicit the responce "So, you're telling me you're an idiot, then?"

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

i'd have to rate it at A to A- depending on the mood. DnD gets somewhere around D+ for fun but silly (maybe a C), Whitewolf gets a failing grade, and 7th Sea gets a C+ to B- for what it tries to be (that gives you a sense of my scale)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Hmm. I think personally I'm going to have to put 4E at A, 5E at A+, and 5ER at B.

 

For comparison, I would give WoD 2nd and 3rd a B+, the new WoD (e.g. Vampire the Reqium, etc., which I just call 4th ed.) a C-, D&D 1st and 2nd an F, and D&D 3rd a D. I will restrict my answer to those systems already addressed rather than going further.

[lemming]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

While I think of 3rd as the A+ and 4 just wasn't up to expectations. 5 is going to get an A-. A lot of improvement over 4 IMO, while doing few wonky things. (Regen, Instant Change, not restoring -1/3"...)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think I'm close to pres on this one.

 

To really get an idea of how I think, I'll follow suit and "grade" other games I enjoy, or don't enjoy, along with Hero:

 

Hero System (4th edition): A

 

Hero System (5th edition): A+

 

Hero System (5th edition revised): A- (mainly do to unnecessary complications added to the rules)

 

AD&D 2nd Edition: D+ (it passes, but only barely)

 

D&D 3.x: A- (yeah, I like it. Granted, Hero is better overall, but for what it does, it does it better than Hero could... of course, Hero can do more than one type of magic system, psionics system, etc...)

 

GURPS: B- (a nice but oversimplified system with far too many sourcebooks)

 

Palladium Fantasy: F (it's AD&D written by people who hated AD&D)

 

Rifts: D- (written by the same people as Palladium Fantasy, but they grew up a little first)

 

World of Darkness (vampire, werewolf, mage, etc.): C (a solid system that leave a lot in the hands of the players/GM, but very little inspiration of what to actually do in a game)

 

Amber Diceless RPG: A- (more simplified than GURPS, more GM/player arbitration than WoD... it's freeform role-playing at it's best... the "Hero System" of rules-light role-playing)

 

Cyberpunk 2020/Cybergeneration: B+ A nich genre that is done extremely well, but lacks any kind of versitility.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Ive been playing the HERO System for 15 years, and I give 5ER an A-.

 

The minus is mostly for the many superheroisms still embedded in the system and some of the faulty math issues lurking in the Characteristics.

[Agent X]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

4th Edition HERO = A

5th Edition HERO = A (some really good changes like Change Environment but some bone-headed changes like removing better constructs for instant change, regeneration, and damage shield)

5th Edition HERO ignoring a few changes and a lot of the FAQ = A+

1st Edition AD&D pre-Unearthed Arcana = B-

1st Edition AD&D w/Unearthed Arcana = B

What I suspect Gygax's version of 2nd Edition AD&D would have looked like* = A-

2nd Edition AD&D = B+

2nd Edition AD&D w/Options = A-

3rd Edition D&D = D (Oversimplification and Overcomplication somehow achieved at the same time)

Mechwarrior (the only version I played) = A- (Limited but great for what it was intended to do)

Palladium = C

White Wolf = B for character design mechanics becomes an F for telling me how to roleplay and limiting what stories could be told to a ridiculous extent

Buck Rogers = C+ (Desperately needed to find a use for the bulk of the skills characters could have.)

 

* Gygax wanted to take the Unearthed Arcana approach to its logical conclusion. There was going to be a host of Classes/Sub-Classes in the system Gygax wanted to introduce. I would have really liked to have seen what he would have come up with.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

A- overall for me. It would have been lower because of rules density, as MithchellS points out, but with Sidekick to help people for whom this would be a real problem the whole package is more accessible than it has been in many years.

[Starlord]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Grade the system? I dunno...I just like to play Supers and this works good for me. All the editions have worked. You just have to play and take what works. I don't see a bad vibe going around, not any more than there always is. People like to tweak. Cripes, from the looks of it sometimes I think there are many people here who like to tweak games more than play them. The core game is 20+ years old now. That seems pretty obvious proof that it's good.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I'd say A- to B+ on an objective scale (but I'm considered a tough marker in other contexts ) It's good but could be improved (primarily for constructs and ruling I disagree with, but others may not).

 

Grading on the curve, I give Hero an A+, since I consider it the best of what's out there. While it needs some tweaking in some areas (at least IMNO), it also can accomodate such tweaking rather easily, without the underlying system collapsing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think it's easier for the newer Hero gamers to give 5E a higher "grade" because they haven't had years to fully tweak through the system.

 

I'm a bit confused by this assessment, given you generally seem to believe that older hHero gamers are pure fanboys incapable of perceiving, much less articulating, negative concepts about the system. I take it you include in "not new" Hero gamers those who gagve it a reasonable chance and concluded they preferred other systems. That, to me, would reconcile the apparent inconsistency.

 

I would rate 5E as a firm C.

 

I'm curious how you would grade other well-known systems. Given your historyu on the Boards, I have the sense you'd be a pretty tough marker overall.

 

It does the job' date=' but it does it in a far more cumbersome fashion than previous versions have. The game has become and encyclopedia of rules rather than a rules system. While rules density appeals to a certain segment of the gaming population it does not appeal to all, which is why you see so many former Hero gamers talking about leaving the system on other message boards once 5E was published. Hero is still a very good game system but it's becoming engulfed in rules minutiae. [\QUOTE']

 

I think much of this is due to the ease of designers receiving and responding to questions about the game. The D&D FAQ is now 52 pages in length, and they don't actively solicit rules questions on their web site. Add Dragon's monthly Sage Advioce feature, and it could likely be a lot larger, but WOTC hasn't taken that approach, so it's a bigger search for gamers wanting these answers. One of 5e Hero's strengths has been the ability to get the designer to answer rules questions online with rapid turnaround. With that resource of information, it seems like a logical next step to incorporate the answers in an ongoing document. That document then became, in large part, the revisions in 5er.

 

While I agree that this may result in rules minutiae, and I don't agree with all of the book itself, much less all of the rulings, I think this is an approach many games are now taking, to greater or lesser extent, and the sales of 5er to 5e owners indicates the clarifications offered by these minutiae are in some demand, although there will certainly be some, like yourself, who prefer to go it alone and make their own rulings (and many more who prefer to house rule away many areas of disagreement).

 

[i'm not much into them, but my understanding is that collectible card games and, I assume, the more recent collectible miniature games have the same issue to a greater degree, since they require consistent application of rules due to their more competetive nature.]

[atlascott]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think it's easier for the newer Hero gamers to give 5E a higher "grade" because they haven't had years to fully tweak through the system. I would rate 5E as a firm C. It does the job' date=' but it does it in a far more cumbersome fashion than previous versions have. The game has become and encyclopedia of rules rather than a rules system. While rules density appeals to a certain segment of the gaming population it does not appeal to all, which is why you see so many former Hero gamers talking about leaving the system on other message boards once 5E was published. Hero is still a very good game system but it's becoming engulfed in rules minutiae. In the past only the fans did that. [/quote']

 

 

Bingo. Except I give the rules a B/B+ and the sourcebooks a C/C-. Even tho I am close to having bought EVERY ONE OF THEM! DOH! I LOVE it the HERO system!

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Bingo. Except I give the rules a B/B+ and the sourcebooks a C/C-. Even tho I am close to having bought EVERY ONE OF THEM! DOH! I LOVE it the HERO system!

I've taken to buying the pdfs of things I'm not interested in owning. That way DOJ gets the pure profit [no priting costs, no shipping costs, etc.].

[Warp9]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I'd give Hero an A.

 

It's not perfect, but it seems much better to me than most other games which are out there.

 

 

D&D 1st and 2nd Ed suck big time (IMO of course), the whole class thing, rememorize each spell each time you use it--blah Rating: F-

 

I don't know enough about 3rd Ed D&D to rate it (but it sounds better than 1st or 2nd from what I've seen, bt it's still not Hero). Rating: ? (probably C)

 

 

Rifts, a whole bunch of different scales for STR (normal, extraordinary, robotic, supernatural, mega-supernatural), and it is still not as flexible as Hero's single exponential scale. Rifts, and Palladium in general, totally suck. Rating: D-

 

 

 

Shadowrun, a decent enough system, but it really can't handle the subject matter. You've got a massivly built troll (10+ foot tall, and very muscular), with lots of extra heavy bone-like material, and the thing is only 280 lbs. And its STR is much lower than what you'd expect because the system just wasn't made to handle that kind of thing. And the actions sequence is not anywhere near as nice as the Hero SPD chart, of course, very few other games come close to that (although I did convince at least one Shadowrun GM to adopt the Hero SPD chart). Rating: C

 

 

GURPS: (what I'm about to say relates to 3rd Ed. GURPS, I don't know about 4th Ed.) this system is NOT generic in my book, at least not more than any other system. The rules are very limiting, if you want a different magic system than the default, or different spells than those in the book, you'll hae to find a supliment that creates rules for you, or house rule everything. It doesn't handle high powerlevels very well. And it is worse than Hero about mixing Linear Stuff with Exponential Stuff. Rating: B

 

DC Heroes (Mayfair Games): This system was totally exponential/logarithmic, which was good. It had some cool ideas, but it was not as flexible as Hero in terms of what you could build. Rating: B

 

Amber Diceless: Interesting System. Not really rules heavy enough for me. Too much handwaving and all that. Still it does a good job of letting Players take the role of Amberites (no punchs pulled) Rating: B

 

 

White Wolf: Interesting Concepts. Horrible System (waaayyy too random, and too arbitrary). Rating: D

[specks]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think it's easier for the newer Hero gamers to give 5E a higher "grade" because they haven't had years to fully tweak through the system. I would rate 5E as a firm C. It does the job, but it does it in a far more cumbersome fashion than previous versions have. The game has become and encyclopedia of rules rather than a rules system. While rules density appeals to a certain segment of the gaming population it does not appeal to all, which is why you see so many former Hero gamers talking about leaving the system on other message boards once 5E was published. Hero is still a very good game system but it's becoming engulfed in rules minutiae. In the past only the fans did that.

 

MitchellS, If you're giving it that low of a grade, why are you sticking to the system? It seems to me that you see more flaws in the game than they can be fixed easily (or at all). I don't think Steve and the group are going to be making any major changes based on just your criticisms. I've been playing the game since 1st edition myself and it's gotten better with age (but thats just me)

 

I don't mean to offend but I'm just pointing out that maybe if you're unhappy with the game that maybe it's time for a change.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

If you're giving it that low of a grade, why are you sticking to the system? It seems to me that you see more flaws in the game than they can be fixed easily (or at all). I don't think Steve and the group are going to be making any major changes based on just your criticisms. I've been playing the game since 1st edition myself and it's gotten better with age but thats just me

 

I don't mean to offend but I'm just pointing out that maybe if you're unhappy with the game that maybe it's time for a change.

 

This is why I ask how Mitchell rates other systems. I suspect a C may be as high as any lasting system has achieved on his rating system. I can't imagine he would be as passionate about calling attention to the system's faults if he didn't care about it, or would stick around if he had a few B's and A's to choose form as an alternative.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

MitchellS, If you're giving it that low of a grade, why are you sticking to the system? It seems to me that you see more flaws in the game than they can be fixed easily (or at all). I don't think Steve and the group are going to be making any major changes based on just your criticisms. I've been playing the game since 1st edition myself and it's gotten better with age (but thats just me)

 

I don't mean to offend but I'm just pointing out that maybe if you're unhappy with the game that maybe it's time for a change.

The only game I've played for nearly 24 years is Hero. Yes, I've played a few one-shot games of different systems, but when I campaign I play Hero. And don't assume just because I am not in awe of the overly-wordy and complex 5Er that I don't like the game system. There are probably far more people on these boards playing Hero 4.5 then are playing 5.0. I just happen to be one of the vocal ones.

 

To you the game is a hobby. To me the game is a hobby and an intellectual exercise to get some use out of my MBA now that I'm retired. While you're thinking about how much you enjoy playing it on Sunday nights I'm thinking about how we can get 1,000 more people to play it. We're looking from two different mountain peaks.

 

And btw, if I do change systems it will be for M&M. This week we lost a 20-year Champions player from our group so that he could continue to play with his M&M group full-time [that group is a playtest group for 2.0]. I also have a friend who will be publishing Superlink material at the end of this year. The new 2.0 M&M rules look pretty good. So if I do switch it would be to the enemy.

[atlascott]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Here's more detail.

 

5thER: B (much larger book, more examples)

5thE: B (more approachable because smaller, but errata and fewer examples)

4th ED: A- (I mainly used it for supers, which it did great, and it also contained source materials in a book shorter than 5th ED. Definitely less universal than 5th, but the layout was nicer and the rules more straightforward. 5th seems needlessly complicated in its 5th ED iteration).

 

D&D 1st ED: B+ (Very limited system, did simply did what it was supposed to. I freely admit my bias to the grand-dadddy of all RPG's).

D&D 2nd ED C+ (Felt like they just sort of bolted on skills. Felt like a money grab, but their production values obviously took a large step forward)

D&D 3.0: C (Change, it seems, solely for the sake of change. The whole system is turned upside-down, and character progression results in quantum leaps in power levels--from weaklings to world-beaters in 7 scenarios)

D&D 3.5: C (Blatant money-grab with seemingly-random rules changes necessitating re-purchasing all core rulesbooks. But the system itself works almost identically to 3.0--which is why, after a couple of us bought the books, we unanimously decided to sell our 3.5 stuff and just play 3.0--which I hate to run, BTW).

 

All FLesh Must Be Eaten: A- (One book, ALL the rules you need to run the game. All black and white, but the narrative and artwork is so consistent in tone that it really sells the book. It got a - because the Unisystem is too simplistic for my tastes).

Armageddon: A- (This book is evidently not selling as well as All Flesh, but that is a shame. It also uses the Unisystem, but is at least as good for other reasons as All Flesh)

 

Call of Cthulhu: A (It almost doesnt matter what Edition (as long as it aint d20), though the later Editions gave you more and more for your dollar. GREAT, simple rules that did what you needed them to, GREAT source materials, and the best scenarios ever published for any game system, period)

 

Cyberpunk: B+ (Great game--1 book, most everything you need to run, a simple, effective rule system.)

 

Shadowrun: C+ (Odd combination of Orcs and cyerpunk. The production value was sky high, with beautiful art, good narrative interspered in the rules, to really 'grab' you. Unfortunately, it was too fanciful to be gritty sci-fi, and too sci-fi to be fanatasy. The rules system mechanics were atrocious, and the scenarios were simplistic and boring).

 

Warhammer RPG: B+ (Again, one books, all you need. Really different but workable character advancement scheme. Fun, and beautiful art drew you in, but was, again, all black and white--which did not detract in the least).

 

Delta Green: B (A fairly well done CoC mod).

 

(More later if I have time...)

[nHammer]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

A

 

If people would just sit down and play the game and have fun, there wouldn't be a problem. The problems come when people overanalyze the system and try to apply real world thought to a make beleive world.

[Vondy]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Objectively I give it a B+. Its a great system, but some wonky mechanics add unecessary complexity (not to mention external parts of the system that don't really follow the core premises), and the new approach of micromanaging GM decisions is extremely bothersome. I don't mind the book density in terms of necessary parts. Lots of hobbies require literacy. On a personal scale I give it an A. There's only a few systems I'll use at all and Hero is my system of choice.

[tesuji]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Depending on the class...

 

When comparing 5e® to all other games i have experience with: i give it a C+. Better than average in some places but with some playability issues that prevent it from being preferred.

 

When comparing 5e® to other generations of HERO, i give it a B-.

 

The best short-version of my feeling of unease about 5e® thqt keeps it from being an A or better is it seems to this old-guy that 5e® has an identity crisis, with a lot of effort spent on being a extremely rules-hard, numbers-cruch cover-everything kind of system (leading to the spiralling page count) yet at the same time embracing a fluffy-rules "Use Gm discretion taking into account common sense, dramatic sense and a sense of balance" notion but ONLY when the by-the-numbers mechanics-math produce bad results. IE its not like the system is built with "Use Gm discretion taking into account common sense, dramatic sense and a sense of balance" as a core belief or a model taken to heart, but that "Use Gm discretion taking into account common sense, dramatic sense and a sense of balance" is thrown in as a band aid to dodge fixing math model issues when they are not easy fixes.