Lets cut the crap...

[Beetle]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I give FREd a B+/A- (I don't have 5er yet). The level of minute details is a bit offputting, as is the tendency to give powers names and then use them in ways that the name is all wrong for. For example, using Clairsentience to define a spy network when "clairsentience" is a mental ability ... arrgh! Words mean things and shouldn't be arbitrarily tossed around. Granted, this is my own irrational issue.

 

Still it is a great system that I've had success using for supers, fantasy and other genres. Every time I think it's too detailed, I think of GURPS, and then I don't mind the detail so much (HERO is bridge, GURPS is euchre).

 

On a related note - let's not be so quick to bash first edition AD&D. Yeah, we all know the tremendous flaws in the system, but didn't we all have many hours of fun with that game (even if it was because there wasn't anything else easily available at the time)? For all its flaws, it was the gateway game that got most people into gaming in the first place, so it deserves some respect for its historical position if for no other reason.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

you wont hear me criticize until they

do 6th edition any sooner than 5 years from now.

 

if they start going the GW/amway route they will lose me,

not that they may care

[Dragonblade]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I have played HERO since 4th edition. And recently ran HERO 5th game that was converted to M&M. I still consider HERO a superior system to M&M, but being a full-time working and part-time student GM, I just didn't have the prep time that HERO requires. Plus all my players are d20 diehards who just didn't want to learn the system. I was expected to not only make their characters for them, but tell them repeatedly in every combat what they could do, what their bonuses were for doing X and so on. It was a real pain, so I switched over.

 

HOWEVER, HERO still has the best super hero supplements and source material for superhero gaming, hands-down. I own every single 5th Ed product put out and plan on buying all the others that Hero Games puts out. The only non-HERO supers supplement that rivals Hero Games stuff is Freedom City.

 

Also M&M is somewhat limited in certain power constructs. Whenever I run into those situations, I build my power in HERO and then convert it over.

 

HERO system - A-: System is solid and stress tested. I love it. However, its complexity makes it difficult to recruit newcomers and requires more prep time than most other game systems that I have played. Plus the fact that the complexity all but requires a character generator that costs 40 bucks is a major turnoff. M&M has an Excel based character generator created by free for a fan, and the company was even gracious enough to the fan that they gave him an NDA and prerelease copy of M&M 2e so that he can make an official 2nd Edition version of his character generator. Now that is what I call customer support.

 

HERO system sourcebooks and supplements - A: HERO has some of the best gaming supplements in the industry. I buy every HERO book that comes out.

 

M&M - B+: Nice elegant rules design. It is lightning fast to play and pretty easy to make characters. However, oversimplification of certain things, and illogical point costs for certain powers leads to a lot of house rules and a lot of arguments with my players as to why X costs more points relative to power Y. Or why is power Y a stunt of power X, but an extra of power Z? Never had those arguments with HERO. When 2e comes out, my grade may move up or down. We'll see.

 

Heroes Unlimited - D-: Palladium Games super hero system. Its functional but barely. The book is written from Kevin Siembieda's old skool view that the GM and the rule book are gods, never to be disobeyed. You pick from a laundry list of powers that are entirely preset. And if you want to play Superman or a JLA level game, the book doesn't really support it and all but calls you a munchkin for even suggesting it. The revised version does include a "Mega-Hero" class, but the author's contempt for such "power-gaming" is barely concealed in the text. Stay away.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Hero 5 - A- - not a 100% perfect but fairly close

Hero 4 - A-/B+ - pretty close to 5th, but when I played fourth I had more houserules than I do under fifth.

Hero 3rd or before - B - had flaws but enjoyed the system. Our group had already started using Danger Int skills and Martial arts with Champions before 4th came out.

 

D&D 1st - C-

D&D 2nd - D

D&D 3rd B- (I do enjoy it, but it has some problems)

Marvel Supers (the chart version) D

DC Supers 1st - C

Mythus - C-

Rolemaster 1st C

Fuizon F

M&M C- or D+ - I _really_ dislike the whole Damage Save concept. Doesn't fit into my playstyle at all. So understandibly I will be avoiding "True20" games in the future (aside from source material - I have blue rose).

 

The above ratings are for the game system iself. For setting material and such (non mechanical things)-

Hero 5th C+

I really don't like the "oversetting" of the HERO line (which I ignore) and I dislike how tight the published Champs U is, I much prefer a more generic approach. I also generally don't care for the tone and style of HERO 5th CU.

Hero 4th A-

M&M B+

[Nadrakas]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Ok, I’ll give this a shot (Forgive the level of detail…it’s just how I am). Below is a listing of a few of the RPGs I’ve played in the last 30 years. This is not a complete list, but I figured that the majority of people here might have at least heard of them. For the most part they are in alphabetical order.

 

- Note: If you want my opinion on a game that isn’t listed below, then ask. If I’ve played it then I’ll rate it. I decided not to put every game I’ve played here because it would take up way too much room.

Now…your going to notice something – I do not rate 5E or 5ER at the top of the list. In fact, no game gets an overall A or F. I’m pretty critical when it comes to things like this…I have to be in my job and it carries over into my private life too.

 

Does the fact that I didn’t rate Heroes at the top mean I’m going to abandon Heroes? No…I love Heroes, but I took a step back and rated it as objectively as I could. I’m here to stay…though, like others here on these boards, I think it could use some improvement. Then again…so can most things in life. Other than that…5ER is the best version (IMO) of the Heroes system.

 

- Oh…and I am not a Steve Long “Hater.†Steve has done a lot to revive Heroes (along with everyone else at DoJ) & actually takes the time to answer questions from his customers on a regular basis. I don’t know many other game developers who do that for more than a month or two…and definitely not for years on end. Thank you Steve!!!

 

Onwards:

 

I have broken each Game into six areas for rating purposes, not including its name, and have given it an Overall Rating based on the average rating of rated each area:

 

Name of System: Exactly what it says.

- Appearance: Overall artwork & layout

- Character Creation: Ease of making character, modularity & upgrading.

- Index/Table of Contents: How accurate are they & how easy is it to find things

- Rules Complexity: Simple to Overly complex

- Rules Consistency: Is there any consistency?

- Tinkering Ability: Can you tinker with the rules without upsetting the balance?

- Overall Rating: An average of the above.

 

 

 

Here is what an A to F means to me (I don’t use + or – except in the Overall Rating)

 

A = Absolute Best: Nothing more needs be done.

B = Above Board: Could use some work, but otherwise it’s very solid in this area.

C = Average: Work needs to be done in this area but it suffices, if barely, to do what it was intended to do.

D = Borderline: This area needs a lot of work.

F = Miserable Failure: This area needs to be completely overhauled and reworked.

 

 

Here are the RPGs I rated:

 

AD&D 1st Edition

- Appearance: C

- Character Creation: F. Pigeonholing the player from the start. Non-Humans limited in class levels.

- Index/Table of Contents: F

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D

 

 

AD&D 2nd Edition

- Appearance: C

- Character Creation: D. Still Pigeonholing. Skills were a good addition…but were of limited value. Non-Humans still limited in class levels.

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D+

 

 

Call of Cthulhu (All versions)

- Appearance: C. Nice flavor art, a little jarring on layout.

- Character Creation: C. Randomness leads to some PCs getting more skill points than others.

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: C-

 

 

Cyberpunk 2020

- Appearance: C. Flavor art was good, but layout could have been improved.

- Character Creation: B. Some randomness for history, but you can put your points anywhere (Except Special Abilities).

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: C

 

 

D&D (Basic to Immortal)

- Appearance: C

- Character Creation: F. Pigeonholing. Non-Humans are their own class (5th Level Elves anyone?)

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: D+

 

 

d20 System (Both 3.0 & 3.5. Only the books by WoTC)

- Appearance: B. Nice art, well laid out.

- Character Creation: C. More Pigeonholing, but skills & feats help a lot, not to mention Prestige Classes & Epic Levels. Non-Humans not limited in levels & monsters can also have levels

- Index/Table of Contents: B

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: B. A vast improvement.

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: C+

 

 

d20 System – Mutants & Masterminds

- Appearance: B. Nice artwork, with good use of color. Well laid out.

- Character Creation: B. No Character Classes, which is a big plus. No Pigeonholing.

- Index/Table of Contents: B

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: B

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: B-

 

 

GURPS (All editions, except the new one)

- Appearance: C

- Character Creation: C

- Index/Table of Contents: B

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: B

- Overall Rating: C+

 

 

Hackmaster (Knockoff of the Original AD&D)

- Appearance: C. Looks like the original.

- Character Creation: F. Pigeonholing.

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Rules Complexity: D

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D

 

 

Hero 5th Edition/5th Edition Revised (While there are changes between 5E & 5ER, for the purposes of rating they are the same)

- Appearance: C

- Character Creation: B

- Index/Table of Contents: B

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: B

- Overall Rating: C+

 

 

Hero (Champions) – I’ve lumped all of the previous versions together for the sake of brevity (Does not include the “much loved†Fuzion Version)

- Appearance: D

- Character Creation: D, upgrading to C as skills became more prominent.

- Index/Table of Contents: D, tended to be difficult to find specific things.

- Rules Complexity: B, downgrading to C as more rules became prominent.

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: D+ for early versions rising to C- for later versions.

 

 

Hero (Champions: The New Millennium (Fuzion Version))

- Appearance: C. Good art, but jarring layout.

- Character Creation: D. Clunky

- Rules Complexity: D

- Rules Consistency: D

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D

 

Marvel Superheroes (TSR Version)

- Appearance: D. Some art, poor layout.

- Character Creation: C. Easy, but limited. Too random, even for TSR.

- Index/Table of Contents: C. The thinness of the books help on this.

- Rules Complexity: D. Simple…too simple.

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D+

 

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (The new game)

- Appearance: B. Nice art, good use of color & well laid out.

- Character Creation: C. Can create what you want, but…I don’t like stones.

- Index/Table of Contents: B

- Rules Complexity: D

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: C

 

Palladium (Fantasy, Heroes Unlimited, Beyond the Supernatural, Ninjas & Superspies, TMNT, Robotech, Rifts & everything else)

- Appearance: D. Too much of the same artwork, too many “groin-lasers†& very bland layout.

- Character Creation: D. Pigeonholing – Skills are the only saving grace.

- Index/Table of Contents: D. I shouldn’t have to buy separate books to get an Index for another book.

- Rules Complexity: D.

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D

 

 

Shadowrun

- Appearance: D. Some nice artwork, but most of the art is “blah.†Many pages go without art which causes them to run together.

- Character Creation: B

- Index/Table of Contents: D

- Rules Complexity: D

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: D+

 

 

Star Trek, the RPG (FASA)

- Appearance: F. Bad artwork, grainy pictures, poor layout

- Character Creation: D. Pigeonholing without the character classes (Your Career – ie: Engineering, Medical, etc)

- Index/Table of Contents: F

- Rules Complexity: D.

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: D

- Overall Rating: D-

 

 

Star Wars (d6 from WEG)

- Appearance: B. Good layout & solid artwork.

- Character Creation: B. Great freedom and simple. 5 minute characters.

- Index/Table of Contents: C

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: C+

 

 

Warhammer, Fantasy Roleplay

- Appearance: D. Flavor art is well done, but the layout is very jarring.

- Character Creation: B. A strength of the system is that you can create a character and take him/her through several careers.

- Index/Table of Contents: F. Real hard to find specific references.

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: D+

 

 

White Wolf - Exalted (By WW. Precursor to WoD)

- Appearance: B. Nice art, especially if you like Anime/Manga. Good layout – better than WoD books.

- Character Creation: C. Similar Pigeonholing as the WoD books.

- Index/Table of Contents: C. You can find most things with relative ease.

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: C

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: C+

 

 

White Wolf - WoD (Original. CtD, MtA, VtM, WtA, WtO, and all the others)

- Appearance: D at first, then increased to B toward the end. Had a lot of amature looking art at first, but later the art was very professionally done. No color (except early CtD) but the B&W is nicely done.

- Character Creation: C. Pigeonholing without the character classes.

- Index/Table of Contents: D. Hard to find things. Find Vampire stuff in a Mage book.

- Rules Complexity: C

- Rules Consistency: D

- Tinkering Ability: C

- Overall Rating: D+

[Ghost Archer]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Wow! Tough act to follow, Nadrakas. My method is somewhat simpler. If I play the game system, it Passes. If I don't, it Fails. Hero Passes, everything else, Fails.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Wow! Tough act to follow' date=' Nadrakas. My method is somewhat simpler. If I play the game system, it Passes. If I don't, it Fails. Hero Passes, everything else, Fails.[/quote']

 

Now, that's what I call a biased point of view.

[Agent X]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Nadrakas put a lot of work into that but there are underlying assumptions about what is good and bad that I don't share. While I have no interest in a class-based system in Superhero Campaigns I think they have their place in certain other settings. Also, no mention was made up support, supplements, etc.

 

One of the things that won the day for AD&D for me, was the wonderfully huge assortment of spells that I didn't have to come up with by myself. In a fantasy setting, that sort of thing matters a great deal to me.

[Ghost Archer]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Now' date=' [i']that's[/i] what I call a biased point of view.

 

You could be right but I have played a couple of dozen other game systems since I started D&D in '77. The one thing I love most about Hero is the ability to create a character exactly like you envision.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

The one thing I love most about Hero is the ability to create a character exactly like you envision.

 

Me, too. That, and the ability to create items and locations and POWERS just like you envision, as well.

[Tim]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

- Note: If you want my opinion on a game that isn’t listed below, then ask. If I’ve played it then I’ll rate it.

 

 

Have you played WW's Abbereant/Trinity setting/ rules? Pretty close to the original WOD but with some changes that made a better flow. And they contained less angst. How would you rate them?

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Have you played WW's Abbereant/Trinity setting/ rules? Pretty close to the original WOD but with some changes that made a better flow. And they contained less angst. How would you rate them?

 

For my 2 cents, I've played Aberrant... I'd give it, oh, a C+.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Sorry Hugh. Somehow I completely missed this post.

 

I'm a bit confused by this assessment' date=' 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.[/quote']

I don't believe older fans are fan-boys. That would be putting words in my mouth. A fan-boy is someone in whose eyes Hero can do no wrong. A fan-boy will argue that you are wrong and Hero is right if you complain about a piece of art or how a book didn't meet your expectations. To a fan-boy all things DOJ/Hero are golden no matter what.

 

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.

Of the games I've played more than once in the last few years:

 

SAS: B

M&M: B-

Exalted: B

D&D: D+

Action!: C

 

I should point out that my scale is based on ease of learning and use for someone who is not a core system user. As I primarily play Hero picking up new systems generally means learning a new system from zero.

 

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.

I applaud Steve for answering questions but I should point out that answering rules questions is a fairly common practice on gaming boards. You can go to the M&M, GoO, Scarred Lands, White Wolf, Mongoose, and several other boards and get answers directly from the designers and owners. The internet has made that a common practice now.

 

And yes, I fully understand those answers became part of 5Er but I would question the need for any independent game to have a 100 page FAQ when it already has a 400 page book.

 

Steve Long has a reputation in the industry of being wordy. There's nothing wrong with that but publishing books the size of 5Er and FH does not inspire most [most meaning the vast majority of gamers who are not into overly crunchy system] people to read them. The long-time fans will. The newbies won't, and Hero desperately needs more newbies in the fold. I'm far more interested in the long-term future of DOJ/Hero Games than I am in having one book to rule them all. Size doesn't impress me. Longevity does.

 

Over the last 23 years I have played Champions after Hero Games crashed [twice], ICE crashed, Cybergames couldn't get off the ground, and now with DOJ. I have played more Champions with the rules not being published than with in that time. I can keep playing Champions whether DOJ is here or not. I'd prefer them to be here. I happen to have a lot of respect for the chance the partners have taken. I don't want to see them fail if it can be helped.

[Tim]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Oh yeah, my ratings.

 

Hero 5th/5er: (not enough changes to rate seperately) I give it a B/B+, a few things I don't like, but pretty well the best out there.

 

Hero 4th: Solid B. A few powers and advantages/limitations needed a lot of work, but overall a good system to use.

 

SAS(non d20): B. Not as flexible as Hero but a good, solid system for a 1st ed. I look forward to later editions.

 

WOTC D20: C+. Better than the original d20, but unless you powergame, you really can't do much.

 

Spycraft/ Stargate d20: B-. Better than regular d20 for modern/sci-fi campaigns, still suffers from classes and levels, but is flexible in design.

 

Gurps (not including the new): C. Not a universal system. A lot of the point costs seem arbitary.

 

WW-WOD: C-. You can't mix books because of no balancing between types. (A werewolf is much more powerful than a vampire or mage)

 

WW-Abberant/Trinity: C. Streamlined the system, making it easier to use. While it is hard to mix the 2 major books they are better balanced overall.

 

AD&D 1st: D-. cookie cutter approach. not enough difference between characters.

 

AD&D 2nd: D: better than first but still not able to really make the character you want.

 

Buffy system: B. Light, easy to use rules. fits the genre they are trying to duplicate. Fun to play.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Condsider the fact that for a moment that I'm currently getting ready to start another major batch of AD&D 2nd and 3rd Edition Supplement books to sell on eBay. The first paypal sale I get from this auction is going to be the final bit of money I need to buy an annual subscription for Digital Hero to get me most of the issues they have. Also consider the fact that I'm going to be using the newly saved shelf space to make room for more 5th Supplement books.

 

I like the system a whole lot.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Condsider the fact that for a moment that I'm currently getting ready to start another major batch of AD&D 2nd and 3rd Edition Supplement books to sell on eBay. The first paypal sale I get from this auction is going to be the final bit of money I need to buy an annual subscription for Digital Hero to get me most of the issues they have. Also consider the fact that I'm going to be using the newly saved shelf space to make room for more 5th Supplement books.

 

I like the system a whole lot.

 

What a fantastic idea. I must have at least 50 near-mint condition 3e and 3.5e books I could sell.

 

That's like... $500. Hahaha, now I can buy every 5e HERO sourcebook! Yay!

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Nadrakas, you didn't give out a single A in any of the sub-categories for any of the game systems.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

What a fantastic idea. I must have at least 50 near-mint condition 3e and 3.5e books I could sell.

 

That's like... $500. Hahaha, now I can buy every 5e HERO sourcebook! Yay!

I'm also running a test auction to see if I can sell some of my comics in grab bags. If that works, I'm going to start a huge auction to hopefully bring in $200 - $400 but that money will likely be used to pay off some bills.

 

I get happier the closer I get to D-Day.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Wow! Tough act to follow' date=' Nadrakas. My method is somewhat simpler. If I play the game system, it Passes. If I don't, it Fails. Hero Passes, everything else, Fails.[/quote']

 

Now, that's what I call a biased point of view.

 

The way I see it, it's about the most accurate rating system I've seen so far. If you play the system, it's obviously good enough to play. If you don't (and wouldn't) play it, it obviously isn't good enough to play.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

The way I see it' date=' it's about the most accurate rating system I've seen so far. If you play the system, it's obviously good enough to play. If you don't (and wouldn't) play it, it obviously isn't good enough to play.[/quote']

 

I totally agree -- but if you've never even tried anything else....

 

But yes, the fact that we all play HERO is already a given all across the "board" -- literally.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

What a fantastic idea. I must have at least 50 near-mint condition 3e and 3.5e books I could sell.

 

That's like... $500. Hahaha, now I can buy every 5e HERO sourcebook! Yay!

 

Why would anyone need 50 D&D books. I own, maybe 10... and they're all I'll never need (PHB, DMG, MM, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance & each of the class books (from Wotc, not Mongoose)).

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Condsider the fact that for a moment that I'm currently getting ready to start another major batch of AD&D 2nd and 3rd Edition Supplement books to sell on eBay. The first paypal sale I get from this auction is going to be the final bit of money I need to buy an annual subscription for Digital Hero to get me most of the issues they have. Also consider the fact that I'm going to be using the newly saved shelf space to make room for more 5th Supplement books.

 

I like the system a whole lot.

Be careful what you sell. One of the best Fantasy Hero games I ever ran was set in Greyhawk. You never know with might be useful in 5-10 years.

[Starlord]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Over the last 23 years I have played Champions after Hero Games crashed [twice]' date=' ICE crashed, Cybergames couldn't get off the ground, and now with DOJ. I have played more Champions with the rules not being published than with in that time. I can keep playing Champions whether DOJ is here or not. I'd prefer them to be here. I happen to have a lot of respect for the chance the partners have taken. I don't want to see them fail if it can be helped.[/quote']

 

You certainly have a right to your opinion, but it is very confusing to me how you've kept playing a game for so long that you think is only average at best. Furthermore, from the much more positive ratings you gave the other straight-up 'supers' games I'd think you'd be over on their boards pushing harder for them to stay afloat than here (perhaps you are, I dunno). Seems a strange waste of your time to me.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

You certainly have a right to your opinion' date=' but it is very confusing to me how you've kept playing a game for so long that you think is only average at best. Furthermore, from the much more positive ratings you gave the other straight-up 'supers' games I'd think you'd be over on their boards pushing harder for them to stay afloat than here (perhaps you are, I dunno). Seems a strange waste of your time to me.[/quote']

I guess you didn't read my post very well then. Try again.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I have broken each Game into six areas for rating purposes, not including its name, and have given it an Overall Rating based on the average rating of rated each area:

 

Name of System: Exactly what it says.

- Appearance: Overall artwork & layout

- Character Creation: Ease of making character, modularity & upgrading.

- Index/Table of Contents: How accurate are they & how easy is it to find things

- Rules Complexity: Simple to Overly complex

- Rules Consistency: Is there any consistency?

- Tinkering Ability: Can you tinker with the rules without upsetting the balance?

- Overall Rating: An average of the above.

 

That's a really excellent rating system (and repped), but I do think you are missing some key areas.

 

Support: How well is the system supported, not just from the publisher, but from other players who may have useful information on the web concerning the game.

Flexibility: While "tinkering" would be included in this, I think it's important for rules to be flexible, with many consistant options depending on how complex or simple a game you'd like to play. Rules Complexity would probably indicate the required or default level of complexity, rather than the maximum (or range of)complexity.

 

Other than that, you seem to have a heavy bias against what you call "pidgeonholing" and what I call character classes.