Lets cut the crap...

[Enforcer84]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I've played Champions in one form or another since 84.

It's hardwired in my brain and each successive revision 3rd, 4th, and 5th has been almost a revalation for me. Judging 5th against the others I give it an A

 

I've played alot of games

I still play D&D. I like 3.5, I have not qualms about playing it. Heck, I'd play a crappy system if that's what my gaming group played, I love to game.

 

HERO is my favorite system for Superheroes, Ninja/Martial Arts, epic, high end

fantasy, and sci-fi. D&D is my fave for mid level and low level fantasy. Palladium games have nice charts.

Marvel and DC's attempts at Role playing has decent art and gives me conversion to HERO material.

V&V is fun to play and to make characters with, the art makes me nostalgic and happy.

I've begun divesting myself of game systems I don't play. With the exception of V&V, because I love it so, I've begun dismantling my Palladium collection because, I hate them I hate them so very much (The company) and because they have more or less stopped supporting Heroes Unlimited which while it wasn't always fun to play was always fun to futz with. Any game I have never played was shown the door.

I now had a nice place of honor for my HERO System as its the most prevalent game I paly.

[Guzalot]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Overall I give it an A-. The system has it's flaws but it does the job well. I hear alot of people griping that the rules have gotten so complex with all the suplements. My take on it is this: If it's slowing my game down too much I chuck it. Some things I just handwave. A 60 STR brick wants to break through an exterior wooden wall? No problem, save the dice rolling, he's plenty strong and its in concept. That same brick wants to smash through a bank vault? Get out the dice and roll. I'm not a rules junkie and neither are my players.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Dude... that's a LOT of freakin' monsters!

 

YEah. It;s the collector in me - I wanted every hardcover monster book for D&D and D&D based d20.

Sigh.

 

But each book had one monster or idea that I could hang an adventure, character or major story arc on, most had three or 4 - at that rate it will take me 10 years plus to get the use out of just the basic ideas I got from first read through - so I pretty much feel like it isn't wasted money.

 

My mantra has been "You can never have too many monster books".

Can you guess that I loved the "Endless Enemies" from the ICE days.

 

And to bring the drift back to topic, I think that may be some of my problem with a lot of the 5th ed Champs books - very little in those books has grabbed me and shook me around and screamed "Use me". Every single enemies book or org book in 4th had at least one character or concept that did that to me. In 5th very little has... Dr Silverback and the halfangel half demon thing in Vibora bay, and maybe some of Demon, but that is about all (well beside a lot of cool stuff in Villiany Amok). Most of my "disillusionment" from 5th HERO has been nothing has been inspiring in it's support books - whereas the myriad D&D books I get all have something that grabs me and screams to be used - which I do - in my FH game.

Love the system, but just don't care for most of the support stuff.

 

Well I take that back - the two Star HERO settings grabbed me and really took hold, but that line just sort of faded away. *sigh*

[Agent X]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

YEah. It;s the collector in me - I wanted every hardcover monster book for D&D and D&D based d20.

Sigh.

 

But each book had one monster or idea that I could hang an adventure, character or major story arc on, most had three or 4 - at that rate it will take me 10 years plus to get the use out of just the basic ideas I got from first read through - so I pretty much feel like it isn't wasted money.

 

My mantra has been "You can never have too many monster books".

Can you guess that I loved the "Endless Enemies" from the ICE days.

 

And to bring the drift back to topic, I think that may be some of my problem with a lot of the 5th ed Champs books - very little in those books has grabbed me and shook me around and screamed "Use me". Every single enemies book or org book in 4th had at least one character or concept that did that to me. In 5th very little has... Dr Silverback and the halfangel half demon thing in Vibora bay, and maybe some of Demon, but that is about all (well beside a lot of cool stuff in Villiany Amok). Most of my "disillusionment" from 5th HERO has been nothing has been inspiring in it's support books - whereas the myriad D&D books I get all have something that grabs me and screams to be used - which I do - in my FH game.

Love the system, but just don't care for most of the support stuff.

 

Well I take that back - the two Star HERO settings grabbed me and really took hold, but that line just sort of faded away. *sigh*

I have no earthly idea why every supplement that has come out has been presented almost as if it was a lesson on gaming. Some of the stuff I've seen in Digital Hero has had a lot more "spark" to it.

 

Another poster made a statement that DOJ wasn't interested in putting out a lot of NPC books like the old ICE days. That's a shame because I snatch those up real fast. The only book that I picked up from their Mystic line was Arcane Enemies because it would be easy to ignore a lot of their assuptions about mystic cosmology and still use the bulk of the characters.

 

Maybe, they are under the impression that it's too easy for folks to grab each other's characters off boards like these. I hope they don't because I just can't see that as being a real worry.

[Starlord]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I'm keeping the "good" books.

 

I'm keeping the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk Adventure, 3rd Edition Dragon Lance Settings, Forgotten Realms Settings, all of the TMNT books, the Stronghold Building Guide, and a couple of other ones that slip my mind at the moment.

 

It's nice to see someone else who considers Forgotten Realms stuff to be 'good'.

[zornwil]

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

I think 5 years is way too long, BUT I also think that rules editions should only infrequently incorporate large change, so frugal consumers should (at least in my vision as opposed to reality) feel pressured to buy every other edition or every third edition. I also think that it's a non-issue, anyway, in that (and I give D20 the same credit) it's not as if anybody is required to buy this stuff and upgrade their games. I'd also be good with an approach of infrequent rules editions but some sort of annual product for new ideas and "rules to come" or such.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

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.

I see M&M as substantively a different system, meaning it addresses different though intersecting needs of the game consumer. HERO will never be M&M and so true is the vice-versa. However, I don't disagree there's an intersecting audience that the systems can and will compete for. But I fully expect players to move from one system to the other as their changes need. I could also imagine running both systems.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

My point was that I play Hero, so I rated those games based on how easy it was for me to read them, learn them, and play them in a reasonable amount of time. I found Exalted, SAS and M&M to be easier to read and understand, and easier to get to the playing, then Hero. If I were to play any of those games for 6 months on a weekly or bi-weekly basis I might find serious faults with them. But for what limited play I have done with them the games were much easier to learn and use than 5E.

 

There are plenty of people who come to these boards lost and confused after trying to read 5E. I did not experience that problem with either SAS, M&M, or Exalted. To me those games were intuitive and designed to get people playing rather than reading.

I think ease of learning is way too limited a basis for evaluation, too singular. By that method, as others have said MSH would be a superb system. I'd argue d20 "sucks" because I don't think that's easy to learn, either, anymore. Both Champions and AD&D (at least early AD&D) were reasonable to learn, though neither scored high marks for overall ease in my book, with Champions having a major edge due to its high consistency.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think ease of learning is way too limited a basis for evaluation' date=' too singular. By that method, as others have said MSH would be a superb system. I'd argue d20 "sucks" because I don't think that's easy to learn, either, anymore. Both Champions and AD&D (at least early AD&D) were reasonable to learn, though neither scored high marks for overall ease in my book, with Champions having a major edge due to its high consistency.[/quote']

I believe my criteria was how easy it was for me to "read them, learn them, and play them." Not just learn them.

 

For example, 5E has a complicated layout style. You're constantly flipping between sections to find all the necessary advantages, limitations, rules exceptions, etc. to create a power. So for me that's a drawback. Trying to flip through the book to find the combat chart, maneuvers section, ect is a pain in the butt. That's an unneeded complexity that most other games don't have.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

i find the index in 5Er to be essential. It's a great help that they have a very good index

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think ease of learning is way too limited a basis for evaluation' date=' too singular. By that method, as others have said MSH would be a superb system. I'd argue d20 "sucks" because I don't think that's easy to learn, either, anymore. Both Champions and AD&D (at least early AD&D) were reasonable to learn, though neither scored high marks for overall ease in my book, with Champions having a major edge due to its high consistency.[/quote']

 

Personally I think that ease of learning (at least enough to play) is definitely up there as one of the two or three important features of a game.

 

Sidekick was an attempt to get people playing quickly and lead them into the full game.

 

RDU Neil's sportscar analogy is along this line as well.

 

People simply do not tend to spend time learning a game - they want to dive in and play it befoer they have to learn it.

 

Doc

[proditor]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I believe my criteria was how easy it was for me to "read them, learn them, and play them." Not just learn them.

 

For example, 5E has a complicated layout style. You're constantly flipping between sections to find all the necessary advantages, limitations, rules exceptions, etc. to create a power. So for me that's a drawback. Trying to flip through the book to find the combat chart, maneuvers section, ect is a pain in the butt. That's an unneeded complexity that most other games don't have.

I still think that's completely subjective however. I tore through H5 in no time and was able to assimilate most of the changes quickly and easily and get to running and playing Champions.

 

Mutants and Masterminds however had me rereading the same paragraph several times and questioning "Did they mean X or Y by that?" a lot more often. And I had been playing d20 for 3 years before I looked at M&M, so my proficiency in the "core" of each game (d20, Hero 4) was roughly equivalent with arguably the nod going to d20 since I had been running it fairly constantly since it was published.

 

I'll state this lack of a clear definition and vague english seems to be endemic with d20 stuff, and admittedly it was better than most in M&M.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think people are grading all sorts of different stuff and not stopping to indicate it's not the same grading system (though of course some are being more specific). Are we talking about the rule system or the rules book? I wouldn't argue a whole lot with MitchellS' low grade (would still disagree but not so much is all) if he's grading the rules book. But if grading the system, that's a very different story.

 

I haven't played other games enough to grade them so I won't be comparative. But to me the HERO system is highly consistent, which is important, because THAT is what really makes for portability among games. Players have had no or at least little trouble adapting to any of my house rules because mostly they're consistent enough and they're consistent because they build off a core that is already understood - for example, picking the easiest one, Supernatural Defense is INT/5 and the Supernatural Attacks work against it, so while it's "all new" it's completely wedded to the core mechanics for distinct attacks and defenses and so has been very easy for people to pick up if they knew HERO at all. But the system does still have lots of inconsistencies - uncertainty around handling absolute powers (and no guidelines for doing so) ranks up there, but so do the (too many) exceptions that have popped up as the system has grown and designers or managers of the company have been either intellectually lazy or simply acknowledged the difficulty of changes when addressing a legacy audience in addressing issues. On the whole, if we call "A" the highest class and one which we would give special recommendations for, "B" a solid class of acceptability which also leads to recommendations if less enthusiastic, "C" reasonable and useful but nothing special, "D" marginal at best and not recommended, and "F" an outright failure, something we'd recommend against, I'd give HERO an A- or B+ here, hard to say, I'll stick with A-.

 

Aside from that, it becomes a matter of just how solid the system is in terms of being functional out of the box, i.e., playability and how well it promotes an interesting and fun Play Experience. HERO is pretty solid. There are some rough edges, but that's due to an extremely broad scope, which I'll talk about later. There are also some ways in which HERO is very easy to MAKE functional and playable, but those, I think, fall more into adaptibility and consistency. The system, though, really is bedevilled by a lot of nuance, making it easy to stop in play if GMs are not attentive to keeping flow going, and there is a bit required to effectively start up and run a HERO game. Being a toolkit, it just doesn't flow "out of the box". But it is nonetheless very functional for what it is. Tough call, and this is often the most contentious part of HERO discussion. I tend to go for a B or B- here, I'll go with B.

 

Scope isn't something to grade on, but how well the scope is addressed is something that can be graded. The scope of HERO is extremely broad, it's intended as a universal system now. Built-in, then, is some difficulty in achieving it. Setting aside a grade for effort or simply having a "desirable" scope, HERO really does struggle, as do other universal systems, with delivering for all circumstances. I'd give it a B if not a B-. It sacrifices genre accuracy in many cases for consistency or complexity. I'll go with B-.

 

Ease of learning is important, of course. I think the consistency promotes that and it's not so hard as people make it. But I fully agree it's not as easy as other systems, and probably never will be. I think the method by which the systems are presented comes in here, inevitably, so we end up having to talk about the rulebook, but setting aside the rulebook minutiae and presentation and all that, I think we can limit this scope to simply the "rulebook approach" and consider that there's an intro book and a "full" book, and we can speak to the depth of those works. I think the approach is still a little muddled, I think the "simple book" could be something between these two, something complete and easy to learn. I'm giving it a C here.

 

Then there's pure adaptibility, how easy is it to adapt the system to one's needs. I'd say this is an A-, many inconsistencies and such detract a bit, but on the whole the game is highly adaptable. This really rescues the genre-specific and playability issues the game may have.

 

So how important are these? That is highly individual. Attempting an "objective" valuation, trying to say "what probably matters more to most", I guess I'd go with:

 

Consistency - 15%

Functionality/Playability Out of the Box - 25%

Addressing Scope - 25%

Ease of Learning - 20%

Adaptability - 15%

 

So if we go with A+=4.3, A=4.0, A-=3.7, B+=3.3, B=3.0, B-=2.7, C+=2.3, C=2.0, C-=1.7, D+=1.3, D=1.0, D-=0.7, F+=0.3, F=0.0, F-=-0.3:

 

Consistency - 3.7

Functionality - 3.0

Scope - 2.7

Learning - 2.0

Adaptability - 3.7

 

SUMMARY (with above %s) - 2.935, a B. That's pretty good.

 

However, my percentage in grading is different for what I need, it's more like:

 

Consistency - 25%

Functionality/Playability Out of the Box - 20%

Addressing Scope - 25%

Ease of Learning - 10%

Adaptability - 20%

 

So it would be a blended grade of 3.14, well, surprisingly not all that different, just above a B but still not a B+.

 

Still, these grades don't really tell the tale. The importance of a game is how well it also "fits" individually, and nothing objective can get to that, it involves not just the criteria above applied according to one's values but also, importantly, the innate system prejudices/approaches that match one's own. And different games are good for different things. HERO's toolkit fits my mentality, it works well for me. The scope is a scope I like, not just a scope it reasonably well addresses. The approach is one I like a lot, not just that it works reasonably well on its own. Whereas there might be a far superior game system, but it might not match my interests.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I believe my criteria was how easy it was for me to "read them, learn them, and play them." Not just learn them.

 

For example, 5E has a complicated layout style. You're constantly flipping between sections to find all the necessary advantages, limitations, rules exceptions, etc. to create a power. So for me that's a drawback. Trying to flip through the book to find the combat chart, maneuvers section, ect is a pain in the butt. That's an unneeded complexity that most other games don't have.

Except for d20...

 

Anyway, I call that mostly a rulebook issue, not a system issue. You can easily arrange the tables and charts you need (I find most are on the GM screen but I forget to have that handy). The Lims and all that, I dunno, I don't find myself "flipping around" a lot unless it's something more esoteric, and that's really at character construction.

 

Obviously, mileage varies.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Personally I think that ease of learning (at least enough to play) is definitely up there as one of the two or three important features of a game.

 

Sidekick was an attempt to get people playing quickly and lead them into the full game.

 

RDU Neil's sportscar analogy is along this line as well.

 

People simply do not tend to spend time learning a game - they want to dive in and play it befoer they have to learn it.

 

Doc

I certainly agree it's important to a lot of people, and have advocated as have you for ways to streamline and promote such for HERO.

 

Thing is, though, I could care less for myself. Not just because I know the system, but because I never let not understanding a system get much in the way of playing it. If I don't understand something, initially, I just make it so that I do, reworking it because I didn't see why it should be a certain way, or I just try to work around it. Then learn more in play either from feedback or "oh, THAT is why that didn't work!"

 

I think some of that learning issue is a real problem as gamers mature and, frankly, as our ability to learn lessens while our understanding of how, in life, it's important not to come into things half-assed - both negative and positive influences. Thing is, for games, this approach doesn't work so well as in our naive youth when we'd grab a game, had time, inclination, and still relatively better learning ability, and just "go for it". I've heard LOTS of people talk about how they misinterpreted Champions rules early on, especially in the absence of a networked larger community. I surely did misinterpret a lot or ran things a simple way for a long time before learning "the right way". Thing is, this is the right way to learn. Too many people, way too many, moan and worry about whether they're playing "right" and feel they have to learn a whole system.

 

But I acknowledge of course this is the reality, especially in a maturing consumer base, and so I think it's important. I just think it's more important than it should be, even while I grant it's reality. And I think we as a consumer base are measuring HERO and all other games in a very different way than we did early on.

[Troll]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Ok. If other people are going to grade systems, I'll grade some I haven't seen listed

 

Fantasy Trip: A+ : It got me into RPG's.

 

Same for me. In fact the last FH game that I ran was located in the Duchy of Dran.

 

I would rate Hero 5th at a good solid B. It gets done what I want it to for fantasy, supers, and horror.

 

The only other system that I have played in the last 8 years is Call of Cthulhu and the larp version of Vampire. I would rate CoC at an A for simulating cthuloid horror and Vampire at a D+ for larp.

 

Cheers,

 

Todd

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Except for d20...

 

Anyway, I call that mostly a rulebook issue, not a system issue. You can easily arrange the tables and charts you need (I find most are on the GM screen but I forget to have that handy). The Lims and all that, I dunno, I don't find myself "flipping around" a lot unless it's something more esoteric, and that's really at character construction.

 

Obviously, mileage varies.

Again, as I said in the post, I'm grading based on reading, learning, and ease of use from a non-core user perspective. I didn't hide that fact at all. I put it in black and white.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I still think that's completely subjective however. I tore through H5 in no time and was able to assimilate most of the changes quickly and easily and get to running and playing Champions.

 

Mutants and Masterminds however had me rereading the same paragraph several times and questioning "Did they mean X or Y by that?" a lot more often. And I had been playing d20 for 3 years before I looked at M&M, so my proficiency in the "core" of each game (d20, Hero 4) was roughly equivalent with arguably the nod going to d20 since I had been running it fairly constantly since it was published.

 

I'll state this lack of a clear definition and vague english seems to be endemic with d20 stuff, and admittedly it was better than most in M&M.

Everything posted to these boards is subjective. The only non-subjective material here is that posted by the owners. The rest of us just give our opinions.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

BTW, I think, given the criteria, you ought to factor in the role of the SW tool, Hero Designer, if you have not already. No need for additional comment, I am just noting that I think it's a part of the experience even if "only" to those with computers and interested in using them. There's no need to elaborate on how positively or negatively HD impacted this, if at all, but just saying I think it's a factor.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Again' date=' as I said in the post, I'm grading based on reading, learning, and ease of use from a non-core user perspective. I didn't hide that fact at all. I put it in black and white. [/quote']

 

I don't think anyone is questioing whether your basis for grading was up front and clear. They're questioning its appropriateness as a sole basis for grading.

 

Coin Toss Hero can be read, learned and easily used. It works as follows:

 

(a) Define your character with any abilities you wish.

 

( Whenever you need to resolve any task (skill success; picking up a Sherman tank, catching a falling comrade, hitting a target, KOing a target, killing a target, whatever) toss a coin. Heads, you succeed. Tails, you fail.

 

© If two characters are doing something in opposition (eg. I'm trying to hit, and you're trying to avoid being hit; I hit and want to KO you but you want to avoid being KO'd, I want to persuade you to play Coin Toss Hero, but you want to play a differnt system, whatever) you both flip coins until one of you fails and the other succeeds. The successful flip succeeds.

 

Easily read, simple to learn, and you can start playing immediately. "A moment to learn; less to master" so I grade it an F. But I'm considering issues beyond ease of learning and playing it. I suspect you are as well (esp for Hero, since the "cracks beginning to show" has nothing to do with ease of reading or learning).

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I don't think anyone is questioing whether your basis for grading was up front and clear. They're questioning its appropriateness as a sole basis for grading.

 

Coin Toss Hero can be read, learned and easily used. It works as follows:

 

(a) Define your character with any abilities you wish.

 

( Whenever you need to resolve any task (skill success; picking up a Sherman tank, catching a falling comrade, hitting a target, KOing a target, killing a target, whatever) toss a coin. Heads, you succeed. Tails, you fail.

 

© If two characters are doing something in opposition (eg. I'm trying to hit, and you're trying to avoid being hit; I hit and want to KO you but you want to avoid being KO'd, I want to persuade you to play Coin Toss Hero, but you want to play a differnt system, whatever) you both flip coins until one of you fails and the other succeeds. The successful flip succeeds.

 

Easily read, simple to learn, and you can start playing immediately. "A moment to learn; less to master" so I grade it an F. But I'm considering issues beyond ease of learning and playing it. I suspect you are as well (esp for Hero, since the "cracks beginning to show" has nothing to do with ease of reading or learning).

I think everyone understand the concept of reading, learning, and playing a game within the confines of a role-playing game system. Not dominos, not checkers, not coin-toss. Role-playing games. The criteria I used were fairly simple:

 

#1: How difficult was the game to read and find things you are looking for in the book. I rated M&M, SAS, and Exalted higher than Hero. Those books were easier to read and easier to find the things I was looking for. I didn't need to look in 3 different sections [limitations, power, and power category] to find what I needed to build a particular thing. With Hero I spend as much time in the index as I do in the meat.

 

#2: How difficult was it to learn. Again, the 3 games I rated higher than Hero seemed fairly easy for me to learn. The concepts seemed easily grasped, the rules were easy to follow, I got into character creation fairly quickly. In M&M I had a character in about 15 minutes. In SAS it took me a little longer. Exalted was very fast. There are many people who come to the Hero boards after being confused by the rules in the book. I didn't have that problem with these 3 books. I did have that problem with D&D and all the optional books I looked at.

 

#3: How difficult was it to play. All 3 of those games seemed fairly simple. There were not massive amounts of dice to deal with. The combat charts were easy to follow. My character played about how I would expect him to. There were no hidden surpises [like Hero's stun lotto] that I could find in the few times I played them. It was enjoyable, even if it wasn't my cup of tea.

 

I didn't like those games better than Hero, but for someone who exclusively plays Hero I found them fairly easy to grasp and use. There are things in 5E I'm still having difficulty understanding [how damage with advantages adds, for example] after over 3 years.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

I think everyone understand the concept of reading, learning, and playing a game within the confines of a role-playing game system. Not dominos, not checkers, not coin-toss. Role-playing games. The criteria I used were fairly simple:

 

#1: How difficult was the game to read and find things you are looking for in the book. I rated M&M, SAS, and Exalted higher than Hero. Those books were easier to read and easier to find the things I was looking for. I didn't need to look in 3 different sections [limitations, power, and power category] to find what I needed to build a particular thing. With Hero I spend as much time in the index as I do in the meat.

 

#2: How difficult was it to learn. Again, the 3 games I rated higher than Hero seemed fairly easy for me to learn. The concepts seemed easily grasped, the rules were easy to follow, I got into character creation fairly quickly. In M&M I had a character in about 15 minutes. In SAS it took me a little longer. Exalted was very fast. There are many people who come to the Hero boards after being confused by the rules in the book. I didn't have that problem with these 3 books. I did have that problem with D&D and all the optional books I looked at.

 

#3: How difficult was it to play. All 3 of those games seemed fairly simple. There were not massive amounts of dice to deal with. The combat charts were easy to follow. My character played about how I would expect him to. There were no hidden surpises [like Hero's stun lotto] that I could find in the few times I played them. It was enjoyable, even if it wasn't my cup of tea.

 

I didn't like those games better than Hero, but for someone who exclusively plays Hero I found them fairly easy to grasp and use. There are things in 5E I'm still having difficulty understanding [how damage with advantages adds, for example] after over 3 years.

It really sounds a lot, though, like "grass is greener" mentality. Certainly M&M has its own numbers of "gotchas" that have been documented on its own boards (of which, btw, I never got a single response after 2 notes about my login no longer working there, not exactly great customer service); I think saying it has nothing like stun lotto, while true in and of itself, is not so true when you look at the spread of powers and the adaptation has to do to prevent being one-punched if one comes from other systems. Personally I had to rework a lot of values in M&M to make the whole system less one-punchy, and it's not at all clear to me how balanced those adaptations will work out to be.

 

But I'm not saying that against M&M, nor am I saying that such a "discovery" would apply to you or others...,many quite like how M&M functions in that way even if I find it wholly annoying, though, as far as I can tell, fairly reasonably fixable.

 

I really disagree M&M is so simple...there are tons of exceptions, and character creation has its own pitfalls, such as checking requirements for a given skill or talent being one of them - the interdependence of items in M&M is a bit vexing and certainly one "flips around" at least as much as with HERO because there isn't the same level of design consistency in many respects. Our group didn't find it simpler in combat, even though we do think it might be a more streamlined system once we get it down, if we do (the "if" merely being dependent on playing a few sessions).

 

Now, I agree that 5ER makes HERO harder to learn, as did 5th, when studying it in opposition to 4th edition or certainly simpler editions. But I think if a player/GM just gets Sidekick, I think it's pretty darn easy. Is it easier than SAS or M&M? M&M I'm not so sure. SAS, well, personally, I definitely think so, if you're talking d20, though I can't speak to Tri-Stat, which I hear is simpler.

 

I'm really trying not to be a HERO fan-boy. I think M&M has a lot going for it, particularly in its lack of granularity and its power build system. I think the power build system has its own elegance in M&M, even if other aspects of the system lack elegance - in fact its sort of an inversion from HERO, where I think HERO's lack is much more in some powers areas than elsewhere. I wasn't impressed with SAS d20 much at all; I felt it was in-between M&M and HERO in a number of ways, and ended up failing to measure up to either's strengths while lacking clear strengths of its own in comparison. But I didn't try to play it.

 

I think the whole "advantages adds" thing is a bit of a red herring when we talk about "learning the system" though. Now, I agree that it's a red herring in the system itself because of the way the book presents the info, yes. But nonetheless, a red herring it is. It is a real level of nuance, a level of real granular detail, that is largely unnecessary to play and can easily be hand-waved. It should have been shuffled further into the back and relegated to an "oh by the way" clause. Maybe not "strictly" optional, but virtually so. My larger point here, to be clear, is that there's all sorts of specific and granular rules in HERO. There ought to be. But we shouldn't confusing learning or playing the system with getting into evey niche rule. Now, I think the book mistakenly encourages this, and that's why I'd prefer a mid-sized book between Sidekick and HERO 5ER or I'd prefer simply a HERO book as it is now but with more shuffled to the back as "Further Rules for Specific Situations and/or GM Inspiration" or whatever. I don't dismiss the general issue here. But I think the issue is mistakenly being made into a mountain if we think the level of nuance is in and of itself the problem and not the presentation of nuance.

 

The "ultimate toolkit" should ultimately be thousands and thousands of pages across compendiums, magazine articles, genre books, setting books, and so on. I, for one, see not only nothing wrong with that, but the inevitable and desirable direction of a system that proclaims to be what HERO does. It caters to a particular audience. We can't turn HERO into Fudge. We can do some great interim things - like make an all-in-one HERO game or make Sidekick or such. But the larger HERO system is a thing of complexity by absolute design. The ultimate toolkit for all RP situations. It's gotta be massive.

 

So presentation is the control issue, and confusing learning the system with learning every rule are entirely different things.

[MitchellS]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

It really sounds a lot' date=' though, like "grass is greener" mentality. [/quote']

There is no grass is greener mentality at all. For some reason you've made it your personal mission to attack me over the fact that I rated Hero a C and 3 other games I have played slighty higher, based on my perception of them. Your attacking me for my opinion because it differs from yours. Yes, that does sound very fan-boyish to me.

 

For some reason you're making this an M&M versus Hero thing, and it's not. Hero is the better system. Unfortunately too small of a percentage of people will every have the chance to learn that because of the unnecessarily steep learning curve and encyclopedia-like look of the book. And you are 100% correct when you say Sidekick is the way to learn the system. But when suggest that to every fan then you're creating a "basic" and "advanced" mentality. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does have it's drawbacks. You're also admitting that Hero via 5Er is too hard to learn on it's own.

 

Sidekick is a great book for teaching people the game. Now imagine it were twice as big: 256 pages. You could fit in all the rules which were cut and still have plenty of room to expand upon what is already in the book. Yet even at 256 pages this new Sidekick would still only be 40-45% of what 5Er is. I don't believe any game should need 600 pages of rules and another 50 pages of FAQ just to be able to play it. I seriously doubt you do either, based on other comments you have made in the past.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

There is no grass is greener mentality at all. For some reason you've made it your personal mission to attack me over the fact that I rated Hero a C and 3 other games I have played slighty higher' date=' based on my perception of them. Your attacking me for my opinion because it differs from yours. Yes, that does sound very fan-boyish to me. [/quote']

 

Define "attacked" before I respond to this.

 

I'll address the rest below.

 

For some reason you're making this an M&M versus Hero thing, and it's not. Hero is the better system. Unfortunately too small of a percentage of people will every have the chance to learn that because of the unnecessarily steep learning curve and encyclopedia-like look of the book. And you are 100% correct when you say Sidekick is the way to learn the system. But when suggest that to every fan then you're creating a "basic" and "advanced" mentality. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does have it's drawbacks. You're also admitting that Hero via 5Er is too hard to learn on it's own.

 

Sidekick is a great book for teaching people the game. Now imagine it were twice as big: 256 pages. You could fit in all the rules which were cut and still have plenty of room to expand upon what is already in the book. Yet even at 256 pages this new Sidekick would still only be 40-45% of what 5Er is. I don't believe any game should need 600 pages of rules and another 50 pages of FAQ just to be able to play it. I seriously doubt you do either, based on other comments you have made in the past.

 

My point is, no system requires the entire book to play, or, more accurately, relatively few do. You seem to be grading the system based solely on 5ER's presentation and how easy it is to learn from that, which doesn't seem fair. I contend that the system is taught in Sidekick already and 5ER is just a lot of other stuff, aside from the annoyance that a few powers were left out.

 

As to M&M and SAS, my point is that I simply disagree as to what you say the ease of learning is to the magnitude you state it. I've watched people fumble around with M&M. And SAS' book, unlike M&M's, didn't come across as at all simpler. (I still think SAS d20 was harder than either system)

 

But that's because I think you're judging the ease of learning HERO based on learning everything in 5ER, and I think that's a patently false evaluation from the get-go and does not in fact speak to "learning the system". To learn "a system", one doesn't learn everything there is in the rulebook. I know how to play d20...based on a couple d20 books. Do I know D&D as it is today, the d20 version? Actually, not at all, but I bet I could now sit down and fake it through a game with some trouble. I don't know GURPS, but I bet I don't have to read the GURPS book cover to cover to GM a game, let alone play one, effectively. At least I surely hope not.

 

My point is, further, that you are judging based on all the nuances you know exist in HERO. Well, what good are those, again, to "learning the system"? Not much at all, actually. Which comes back to my point precisely as to why the book doesn't have to be the length or depth 5ER is now.

 

In the end, 5ER could be rewritten to 256 or 128 or whatever pages and it would be the same system and "the system" would be no easier and no harder to learn relative to the others.

 

But anyway, my more specific point is I just don't see at all this major convenience of not flipping around pages and all that of M&M relative to HERO. I see M&M as somewhat simpler, yes, but not even remotely simple as its promise and its boosters have said, and I think that while the learning curve is less steep, it's a matter of 4 hours, let's say, to learn M&M whereas it's 12 for HERO. But it's not 15 minutes (not that you said it was, either, just that it only took 15 minutes to make a character, and all I can say to that is my hearty congratulations to you, I have zero clue how you did that unless you just reused an archetype) for M&M and 80 hours for HERO, which seems to be the recurring theme.

 

Regardless, I understand you don't agree and you apparently wouldn't even if you considered Sidekick the rulebook (which I think it is, to "learn the system"), and I should rephrase my "grass is greener" comment to say that I cannot fathom how you reached your conclusions, to the magnitude/extent that is, in light of my own observations of having read and tried to play M&M and having read SAS d20. (Again, to be clear, I can't state re Tri-Stat). And because I can't fathom it, to the extent stated, I can only ascribe it to thinking too much about HERO and glossing over too much with the other systems, which I ascribe to "grass is greener". Or you simply learn radically different than I do, I suppose, which I should say is entirely a valid other explanation. Perhaps the ways in which M&M and other games are internally consistent appeals to you whereas HERO's way of being internally consistent does not.

[zornwil]

Re: Lets cut the crap...

 

Okay, I should point out, Mitchell, that I have no quarrel with the grading. it's with your comments which sure don't sound like a C versus a B and B-. So perhaps nearly all my commentary is therefore irrelevant, since the grading itself is apart from how I view subsequent rhetoric.

 

Regardless, I would use Sidekick, HD, and 5ER all together when weighing the learning curve issue.

 

(PS - well, I do have a quarrel with the grading, but it's in a reasonable enough range that any quarrel devolves to merely preference and too-subjective a level of opinion)