Fantasy RPG Rant

[sbarron]

I've been playing in a D&D3 game for about 3 months now. (Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, I can't find a Hero game, and this problem isn't directly the fault of D&D3) The game is OK, but the lack of any sort of purpose or design to the game world is really starting to get me down. Magic doesn't make sense, the character classes make less sense, the other players are good guys, but they seem to have zero sense of style or concern with continuity. There is no mystery, no drama...I don't know, something is missing.

 

I just got copied in on an e-mail between one player and the GM today. I think it really highlights my problem....

 

"I have been looking at upgrading my mace as discussed on the phone. What needs to be done in order to to enhance a magical item by giving it more magical powers..is there an upper limit?

 

For instance...I would like to add greater shock (DM's manuel) a +1 improvement to the gloves and maybe disruptor a +2. Brigning the total of improvements to +3. According to the table in the DM's guide this costs for a new item about 18,000 gp (don't quote me on that) Is it the same price or less for adding in the improvement to an already exisitng item?

 

As it is not creating the item over again is it cheaper or harder? Does it just requier a spell caster.

 

This is also why I am all whiny about the devaluation of Kurants mithril currency. In effect, my character lost about 250,000 gp that would have made some seriously nice improvements. Especiall since I was going to burn off about 75,000 to upgrade the mace to have incorpreal, shock, and energy blade. Now it would do 1d6+ base and ignore AC.

 

There is also an item called a packmaster fail in the arms and equipment guide. It is the ultimate gnoll weapon. It proveds a +10 diplomacy and +10 intimidation to gnolls who use it. Also, all gnolls treat me as friendly ( I need to look at the book to confirm this) and I can summon 1d3 fiendish gnolls to assist me once a day for 10 minutes. Cool cool cool!"

 

Now obviously, this player is psyched about these magic items he's trying to get created, and that is good for any game. But the fact that he is so concerned with the +'s and GP costs of "upgrading or creating" magic items, and the exact effect that they will have the game mechanics, is leaving me cold. There is no story here, no mystery, no in game excitement. There is only, "well, the DM Guide says this, so I'm going to do it."

 

I realize a big part of the problem is the GM, and the fact that he has not really checked any of this. Having talked to him, in his mind the DM's Guide is gospel. Anything in any of the other "official" published books is as well. But to me, this approach has left us with a campaign world that makes little sense, with characters who have powers and abilities that make little sense, and with tons of magic and magic weapons that have no mystique.

 

Now I am going to take a shot a D&D, because I think they are part of this problem. But first, let me just say that I have been having fun, and I think they have done an excellent job of improving the core system. But so much of it just makes NO sense.

 

One of our characters picked up a pestige class from the Fighters handbook called "Ghostwalker" (or something like that). Now it's my understanding that anyone who takes this Prestige class can turn incorporeal 3 times a day. There is other stuff they can do to, but this one just seems absurd! As far as I know, there is no explaination of why they can do this. No "brush with the ethereal plane," no "studying of archaic texts," nothing. Just, "you take this class, you can..." Much in the system seems to be like this. Just some kewl effect with little or no attempt at explanation or continuity. In a way, the lack of continuity is the continuity.

 

No one else in my group seems to even notice this, much less see it as a problem. And when I have mentioned it, they have given me looks like I was speaking Draconic (another topic that makes no sense to me). Given the fact the D&D does little to address these issues, it's no wonder many players don't ever worry about it making any sense. I guess you don't need to to have a good time, and some people seem to relish in it. I just don't think it's for me.

 

Am I crazy, or can anyone relate to this?

 

Thanks for listening

[Talon]

As someone who's running a 3E campaign for the same reason you're playing in one, yeah, I can relate.

 

It's a constant battle to evaluate feats/classes/items that players want to bring from the d20 supplement of the week. Not that I blame the players -- my policy is that I'll potentially accept anything, but it has to be run by me first (with at least a 1 session lead time; no on-the-spot rulings). I combined the PHB gods and races with a homegrown map/history, and so far things are making pretty decent sense. I have specialty weapons (i.e., named items that are growing in power) as well as PC-constructed stuff, various and sundry plot lines, prophecies, etc. However, there's only so far I can take it -- the players have to carry their end as well.

 

Good thing this is a rant thread so I don't need a point here!

[Monolith]

It is a really fine balance between actually playing within genre and playing within the rules. Over the years (and thanks to the novels) D&D has created its own fantasy genre, unique unto itself. For example, how many non-D&D novels have you read where the primary purpose of the heroes is to acquire wealth and magic? Now too many.

 

Of course HERO has a similar flaw. Ever have the 18 DEX brick decide he wants a 29 DEX because he has managed to save the 33 EXP points? Some players just do not care about genre conventions, they only care about getting the most bang for the buck. All any of us can do is play the game, let the GM deal with the issues, and try to have as much fun as possible (games are sometimes fleeting after all).

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Monolith

For example, how many non-D&D novels have you read where the primary purpose of the heroes is to acquire wealth and magic? Now too many.

 

The DM encouraged me to make an elaborate background in his world (which I knew nothing about). So I did. Now, when everything about my character screams he needs to be avenging his family and finding out what destroyed his villiage, we're getting ready to sail across the ocean to convert our recently won mithril currency into GP, because the local economy can't handle doing it. You can see from above that the rest of the party has big plans for this gold and the magic it can buy. For me...what the hell is the point to that?

 

I must admit I've been having more fun playing Neverwinter Nights modules off the net than I have been in my P&P. It's because of the story, I just know it. I like my gaming to have one, and my character important in it. Fortune, glory, and power without a good story is...hollow, I guess.

[MarkusDark]

Re: Fantasy RPG Rant

 

Originally posted by sbarron

One of our characters picked up a pestige class from the Fighters handbook called "Ghostwalker" (or something like that). Now it's my understanding that anyone who takes this Prestige class can turn incorporeal 3 times a day. There is other stuff they can do to, but this one just seems absurd! As far as I know, there is no explaination of why they can do this. No "brush with the ethereal plane," no "studying of archaic texts," nothing. Just, "you take this class, you can..." Much in the system seems to be like this. Just some kewl effect with little or no attempt at explanation or continuity. In a way, the lack of continuity is the continuity.

 

I do not play 3E, but did partake in a couple of sessions as a break from my Champs game. Someone gave me the Wizard's Handbook and I read about their Prestige classes. I also read some of the Prestige classes in Forgotten Realms. I am not sure of where the Ghostwalker comes from, but the ones I read seemed to have good story backgrounds. The Blood Mage needing to have died and been brought back to life, for example. And most of the abilities they get have a brief sentence or two as to why the person can now do it. I will fully admit that the body teleport with the Blood Mage (it stuck in my head) seems far fetched but they do explain about how the essense of the blood is intertwined and so such.

 

The trouble will always be with the groups you find. I have players who could care less about points. it is about the game. I want to play in the 3E game again - not because of kickass abilities and powers but because I LOVE watching the Dwarf (another PC) of Int 5 trying to teach his "War Pony" how to charge - it is jut a donkey but someone told him it was a trained war pony and he will get it to charge or will kill it trying.

[Killer Shrike]

Sounds like youve outgrown the maturity level of your group. Its probably time for you to move on to a new group that shares your focus on the story and internal versimilitude.

 

The system you play in has less to do with this than the DM/GM and the other players.

 

Good luck!

[AnotherSkip]

part of the fact of the matter is the same problem with some of the styles of the game.

unless you choose FR _and_ have all the books and histories together it's not gonna make sense.

Secondly some people (and i agree with this in some ways) believe that no one except the Gm should have the DMG. if the players know what to ask for and how much then they will want everything to be "by the book".

 

For example in first edition AD&D most magical items had command words. Sure you could maybe tell how powerful an item was and maybe one of the weaker powers with identify but in the end you needed to do "mage things" and spend time pouring over musty old books and experimenting with the items is question to get even something as simple as a Wand of magic missiles to work.

Part of the mystique of the game was lost in mass merchandising. People becam Gm's without "training" and did what they wanted. People learned from those people and pretty much the game became a series of expediencies. Identify got more or less unoficially house ruled as telling _everything_ about an item "Okies this is a Wand of Fire the command word is 'Flaming Shite', it has 55 charges and needs to absorb charges from a Wall of Fire from a mage 16th or higher Level." When the intent behind identify was "This wand can cast burning hands and contains medium power."

 

That is the problem with random Charts, you really need to create histories behind each item. Take, Sting and Orcrist for example. These are famous blades with histories, not some random junk.

 

And Spells and mages? Don't even get me started!!!!

[Enforcer84]

I think this is more a problem with the group you are playing with. I can't think of a game system where a group of gamers all with the same goals or at least the same level of maturity can't make it work. This is everyone's responsibility; GM and players. I know it sounds cliched but you should seek a group with motivations more to your liking.

[Mr Mole]

I think (almost) everyone will agree that the problem stems far more from the group than from the rules.

 

I'm not the world's biggest WotC/D&D3/d20 fan. I do think, however, that the core rules have shown tremendous improvement over the years. Some parts are looking more and more like Hero all the time. For example, lifting capacity in 3E is based on doublings now, unlike previous editions, allowing for a far greater range of effects.

 

There are "good" and "bad" gamers using every system and in every genre. The proportions aren't all that different, for the most part, from any other game. D&D just tends to have a larger pool of gamers.

 

It takes a truely advanced, enlightened, and sophisticated game like FREd to bring out the very best , of course.

[Derek Hiemforth]

To an extent, this problem is built into D&D. Many of the most interesting monsters (Undead, Demons, Dragons, etc.) require that you have magical weapons to hit them at all, and the more powerful the monster, the more powerful the magic weapon required. This means that -- assuming you want to use these classic monsters -- you must provide magic items for the characters. This in turn builds in an "arms race" mentality, where the stuff a character has is extremely important... perhaps even more important than his abilities. Since almost no fantasy literature works like this, it's little wonder that many D&D players have trouble identifying their characters and environment with the genre conventions of fantasy novels... the D&D world doesn't work like fantasy novels (other than D&D novels, of course).

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

...where the stuff a character has is extremely important... perhaps even more important than his abilities.

 

That's so true. When I am playing FH and my character gets into a tight jam, I immediately start going through my skill list, trying to figure out what my character should do next. When I play D&D and get into a jam, I start looking over my magic items. D&D has gotten better about this with Feats and Skills, but magic items still tend to define character capabilities. It's a small difference, but I think highlights one of the reasons I like Hero better.

[sbarron]

Since a few posters mentioned that my complaints are more the group's fault than the system's, I want to reiterate that I agree with them. The right group of gamers can make any system work. I just think that many of the conventions in D&D, as Derek pointed out, tend to steer players toward a style of play that is not typical of the genre and not really what I'm into anymore. And because many of them have never played any fantasy RPG other than D&D, they don't realize what (I think) they are missing. This is the root of my frustration. I can't even talk to them about changing things up. To them, there is only one way to play a fantasy RPG, and it's what we're doing.

 

I don't like my chances of trying to ween these guys off the teat of D&D, so maybe I can at least begin to shape their gaming away from the accumulation of wealth and magic and more towards the rewards of a good story. But in the slightly altered words of our favorite starship doctor..."dammit Jim, I'm a Hero gamer, not a miracle worker."

[misterdeath]

Mainly because you get so few feats and skills, and so much cash that it's easier to come up with magic items than to give your character the abilities he needs.

 

My Cleric just took a level of Barbarian, because it was easier to get the Movement abilties and Weapon Proficiencies that he needed than to try to wait for feats. He spent his cash on stuff to augment his spell casting, so he's not giving up much. I even role played the change last level (all of which spent in the wilderness fighting things), so it's not completely out of the blue why a NE cleric of the god of seduction, manipulation, and control took a level of barbarian.

 

I was talking to my wife about this last night (she's the 3E GM). She thinks that it might be fundamental to D&D. I'll try to reproduce her logic.

 

D&D is derived from a wargame, through many permutations, and based on the Attacks of Opportunity rules, it still seems to hold quite a bit of wargame feel.

 

D&D was designed to be simpler, and to appeal to a broader market. This market was mainly supposed to come from computer gamers. Hence the rapid level ups, the "Kewl" feats and magic items, the lots of abilities at each level.

 

And at each level, you have to step out of game play, and metagame to determine what you get for a level/what you can spend your money on/what spells you can take.

 

Now, it comes into play differently in Hero. Most of the math permutations happens during character creation. Once you're playing, since the jumps in XP are much smaller, you tend to spend them during play, and so, don't spend a session metagaming trying to get your character up to speed.

 

If you were to drop 30 points on the character every three weeks, then you'd see some metagaming in Hero too.

 

D

[tesuji]

OK, first off, i applaud your courage and daring.

 

There are just not too many people who would come to a HERO GAMES board and start complaining about players and GMs being too hung up on points and game mechanics. Thats Daredevil Dan levels of intestinal fortitude right there.

 

I have been GMing a DND 3e campaign for over two years now, having picked it up at about 2nd level and the 7 PCs are now to 13th level. i expect the game to conclude in about 7 months when our 3 year anniversary comes up with them being about 16th level or so.

 

DnD provides a wide variety of classes, PRCs and the like for you to use or not for your campaign. The number of PRCs even from the core books, witc products including splatbooks" is large and obviously intended to cover a wide range of character archtypes, some from the lit and some from previous game implementations.

 

I always too this as an embarrassment of riches... not as a requirement. I figured that each Gm would pick and choose the ones that make sense for his world and allow them. The ones that did not make sense for his world, he would disallow.

 

It sounds like you and your GM have differing standards, and so the ones he has allowed are not to your taste. Thats an issue you might ought to address with your GM.

 

In my game, as a for instance, i knew the PRCs were "works in progress", i knew that in many cases to do a PRC you needed to start out with that goal in mind, I knew that the core books for the PRCs (the five splatbooks) were not available at campaign start and would be trickling out slowly... so i said "NO PRCS" from the get go.

 

In my next campaign, and any after that, at day 1 i will hand my players a list of acceptable classes, including PRCs. Once the game starts, this list will not change, barring some extreme situation.

 

This way, all the players and myself start with an idea of "what the world looks like."

 

This is simply to me a case of campaign management in an ongoing development.

 

But, having classes doesn't mean you as a GM can just turn off your brain and somehow accept everything published as soon as it goes black and white. You still need to vette the material against the story you are telling and the world you want your characters to see.

 

You may not like the ghostwalker, perhaps your friends do and perhaps others would. WOTC, like every other game company, is trying to appeal to more than just one taste and they, i suspect, understand that some of what they provide will be "way cool" to one person and at the same time "silly" to another.

 

Thats also why they have customization of classes worked into the game. A ranger with TWF might not fit your world... it didn't mine, so you can tweak it (as i did.) I did leave the original class in, just gave it a "common source of training" to explain why they all got the same combat style... rangers of "that goddess" all learn TWF... makes more sense.

 

I don't recall the ghostwalker prc specifically but iirc it was an attempt to port the clint eastwaood "mysterious pale rider" once dead character into a fantasy setting. I seem to recall thinking it was "cute" iirc and have considered it for a subset of my game because i treat back from the dead as significant in my game with cults and sects who either find it appealing or find it an abomination and with special feats with prereqs like "been dead but got better" and with "afterlife" scenes whenever a PC dies which make the event a truely "life altering" experience, significant and special.

 

As such a prc or several which do put into the game potential changes for after-death... doesn't seem bad to me. (Tho i might have them black-lined on the initial "what classes" handout... so the players know there are more PRCs that they will only know of in play after certain circumstances.)

 

Anyway, i can see how with any game a GM who defaults on his choices and does not worry about continuity and the like would be bugging to players with differing standards.

 

Can you imagine if a Gm sat down with HERO in any genre and just said "buy what you want, as long as you total under X"? Now that would be a horrible experience for someone who wanted continuity and reason and such.

[tesuji]

On DND and Xp...

 

IMO the biggest single difference in DND vs FH is "starting level".

 

DND allows you to start very low, 1st level being barely more than common folk in abilities. It then expects your power level to drastically increase over time, so that by mid-campaign challenges that were tough early on are inconsequential.

 

FH, by default, using 100 pt ot 150 pt characters, instead starts you off much more competent, you are aleady past those early stages and ready to jump in. The power level increase is thus not as drastic over time.

 

A decent example of this is seen in MnM which basically starts your super at 10th level.

 

Most DND games i have seen starting in 3e have started at higher than 1st. I personally prefer starting between 3rd-5th myself with an eventual goal of 15th or so by game's end.

 

However, since DND does not require you to start at first any more than FH forbids you from starting at 25... this is still a GM decision about his campaign.

 

As for spending Xp vs levelling up... the fegree to which these interrupt or follow from the play is entirely a GM thing. In my game, leveling up occurs at the end of one session and the players have until the next session to provide me with a sheet. Since it never happens "in game" it never interrupts the flow. I require them to also submit their "nexts" (whats your next feat, your next attribute, etc) whenever they advance so everything they gain is "something i have been working at for a while." When we played FH years ago, Xp worked much the same way... given out at the end of an adventure and spent between sessions. I don;t know of any game i have played in where it was customary to spend XP for stuff during play. (In my current MnM game the gap between earning XP, spending XP and seeing that Xp in play is likewise a series of stages taking time... it takes an entire episode to earn the 2-3 xp and another entire episode to have the changes kick in... an episode means a month's worth real world gaming... usually 3-4 sessions of play.) Its similar with my dnd game although the leveling up is a bigger thing and occurs much less often.

[AlHazred]

As far as starting out with a "green" character...

 

If that's what you want, Hero is as capable of serving you as any other game. In D&D, because they use level to determine ability, they have to start out very low to accomodate those who want very unskilled characters. Dark Sun got around this by giving everyone a couple of levels at the very start.

 

In Hero, you can start at any level of play. The 150 point "standard" allows you to start out as good as most fantasy novel characters. At 100 points, you are "grittier", like one of the main characters in the Black Company series. If you want to be really gritty, you can shove that starting total all the way back to 0 point base + 25 in disads, as one of our group's GMs was thinking of doing. Would have made things challenging...

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by tesuji

As for spending Xp vs levelling up... the fegree to which these interrupt or follow from the play is entirely a GM thing. In my game, leveling up occurs at the end of one session and the players have until the next session to provide me with a sheet. Since it never happens "in game" it never interrupts the flow.

 

Oh, ours too. You get xp at the end.

 

Unfortunately, everyone rarely has time to do all the work before hand. Only Joe, who has the next ten levels of his character all worked out has his character done next week. I come close, but there's always something I need to consult with someone else with (we've got two clerics, no need for too much overlap).

 

Because we all have jobs, families, and lives, it's hard for us to not take time at the beginning of the session to do the work for the game.

 

I require them to also submit their "nexts" (whats your next feat, your next attribute, etc) whenever they advance so everything they gain is "something i have been working at for a while."

 

That would work, I think. Do you allow for changes to the plan? When do you require the "nexts" list? If at the beginning of the level you're in the city and the character is planning to take another level of rogue, but then the campaign moves to the wilderness for the forseeable future and the player wants to take a level of ranger instead, when does he have to give you advanced notice?

 

 

I don;t know of any game i have played in where it was customary to spend XP for stuff during play. (In my current MnM game the gap between earning XP, spending XP and seeing that Xp in play is likewise a series of stages taking time... it takes an entire episode to earn the 2-3 xp and another entire episode to have the changes kick in... an episode means a month's worth real world gaming... usually 3-4 sessions of play.) Its similar with my dnd game although the leveling up is a bigger thing and occurs much less often.

 

It's because it's a bigger thing that makes it a "problem". Buying stuff happens more often than that.

 

How do you handle keeping buying stuff metagame things out of the session?

 

D

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by misterdeath

Because we all have jobs, families, and lives, it's hard for us to not take time at the beginning of the session to do the work for the game.

We all have lives and families and jobs too... our average age is now somwhere in the mid 40s and the youngest is mid 30s. Two are over 50.

 

We take a different view... if you dont have time, dont play. Dont expect everyone else who MADE TIME... none of us expect free time really ever exists anymore... to lose out because of you.

 

My rule is simple... if i dont have your revision by the session start, you just use last weeks stats for this session. Then, between now and next time, try and find the time. if this is not acceptable to you, then perhaps you need to find a different game.

 

twice in two years we have had people play level down.

 

never have we spent a session or even really part of a session with everyone who did get their characters done waiting for the others to catch up.

 

playing 1 level down for one session is not gonna kill you.

Originally posted by misterdeath

That would work, I think. Do you allow for changes to the plan? When do you require the "nexts" list? If at the beginning of the level you're in the city and the character is planning to take another level of rogue, but then the campaign moves to the wilderness for the forseeable future and the player wants to take a level of ranger instead, when does he have to give you advanced notice?

The only changes allowed are when something drastic happens that changes the possibilities. One example would be an after death scene that produces a radical change in the character. Another would be if new material, such as happened with the five splatbooks, is added to the "rules of the campaign" list. (it only happened for those 5 books img.)

 

Otherwise, your selections are not changeable under normal circumstances.

Originally posted by misterdeath

How do you handle keeping buying stuff metagame things out of the session?

 

I generally keep the session in character more than not. If two players want to discuss rules or such, they do so while others are playing their scenes. With 7 players, i tend to keep things running more as group activities than solo so there isn't a lot of offline discussion.

 

of course, it varies, some good, some bad.

 

Another thing we do is we have a campaign BBS. During the week, players can post messages and hold discussions at their convenience and i can handle out of character stuff like rules questions and buying selling and the like.

 

We even manage to do some roleplaying there on occasion. This is the place for one-on-one conversations and sidebar roleplaying... stuff which would not serve as well in a 7 people face-toface three hour session.

 

That helps keep a bit of the bookkeeping down.

 

The only time we "lose session time" is about three times a year the party typically has to sit down and do a loot run. While they can divvy simpler loot online and out of the way, every once in a while they need to discuss the back and forth and what do we keep what do we sell face-to-face.

 

When the list of unclaimed items gets too long they spend about a half hour divvying up and selling off their loot... in character mind you... i cannot count the times i have seen the player wince as his character gave up something the player wanted.

 

but the combination of offline bbs, email and basically a zero tolerance for not getting things done... means most of our sessions are sessions of roleplaying, not accounting.

[ShadowRaptor]

oooooooo.....I wanna rant about D&D/fantasy rpg also. *waves hand in air to get attention*

 

To me D&D is one of those love it/hate it games. I like it for the options (in 3e), and yet at the same time I hate it for that exact same reason. There is soooooo much for it now that a person could drown in the material, and sifting through it all can cause more of a migraine than getting hit in the head with a hammer.

 

I have noticed a trend with steady D&D players, in my own experience, and that is many players that have only played D&D, or just play it more than other games, really have a set mentality about how they look at the games as far as combat goes, and that's why I say D&D breeds Hack-N-Slash mentality and tactics in both character creation and metagame thinking. I have tried taking a group of D&D regulars into other games, we did a one shot Exalted with four Exalted and they got their butts handed to them by a group of four Dragon-Blooded because they were so used to fighting everything in both a system manner and metagame thinking that they got hosed. Once that happened, they put the game away and said that it was too hard and that D&D is better.

 

Last month I also tried doing a Champions one shot. I made the characters because I am the only one that knew the system, but I did make sure I got the jist of what they wanted to know. Basically the group was a spiderman clone, cyclops clone, wolverine clone and iron man clone, and all were made with 300 points. Despite the variety involved in their powers, they got wasted by 4 175 point robots because they used their typical ways of fighting bred from playing D&D for ten years, and after the game they said they would only play D&D from now on because this game was also too hard for them, and they weren't used to it.

 

I don't know if this sounds familiar to any of you, but if it does relate to something you have epxerienced then you know what I am getting at.

 

It is for these reasons that I no longer play D&D.

[Spyritwind]

Part of the problem is that there is so much Diablo (arcade game) mentality in 'roleplaying' these days. Many people have been playing hack & slash, kill the monster, get the treasure & go up in level mentality and have never really learned how to roleplay. Many people don't even realize that they are not role playing, but are roll playing instead. It's just an arcade game on paper.

 

Now this doesn't make the game bad ... for some people. Much of the mass market is completely happy with the ease of this type of game play, but for others it can be quite frustrating and even boring.

 

It can be very hard to find a group that fits your persnal style of play and maturity level ... unless your 15 - 22 with a Diablo mindset.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Spyritwind

Part of the problem is that there is so much Diablo (arcade game) mentality in 'roleplaying' these days. Many people have been playing hack & slash, kill the monster, get the treasure & go up in level mentality and have never really learned how to roleplay.

While I don't disagree at all with your conclusion, I do disagree about it being a phenomenon of "these days." Have you ever read some of those old Gygax modules? Room after room with no personality, plot, or motivation information at all... just what kind of monster, trap, or dungeon dressing is in it, and what kind of booty you can find if you're thorough enough.

[Starlord]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

While I don't disagree at all with your conclusion, I do disagree about it being a phenomenon of "these days." Have you ever read some of those old Gygax modules? Room after room with no personality, plot, or motivation information at all... just what kind of monster, trap, or dungeon dressing is in it, and what kind of booty you can find if you're thorough enough.

 

 

 

...but I LIKED those old modules.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Starlord

 

...but I LIKED those old modules.

Yeah, you can never have too many Stirges hiding in the rafters or magic swords buried under flagstones, or farmer's barrels full of gold and random treasure!

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

....and after the game they said they would only play D&D from now on because this game was also too hard for them, and they weren't used to it.

 

 

I take it you dont play with a group of brain surgeons?

 

Small minds concern themselves with small things. --folk saying

 

Well, 20 sided dice are small.....

 

Seriously though, ANY game can be fun. Its the players and the GM that matter. If the players are heavily limited and, more importantly, close minded and stuck in a rut Id bail. Unimaginative and inflexible people have no business playing a game that is completely visualized VIA IMAGINATION!

 

Raptor, dump those dead beats and get in with a new group as soon as possible

[tesuji]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

I don't know if this sounds familiar to any of you, but if it does relate to something you have epxerienced then you know what I am getting at.

 

Juts as an aside, the exact same results you gave could be used as evidence for a different conclusion than you reached.

 

Instead of using it to reach a conclusion about your players... doesn't it also lend itself to support the following conclusion?

 

Hypothesis: HERO system has such a steep learning curve and its system and knowledge of how to use the system is so ingrained and inbred that novices vs veterans in terms of player skill level in terms of system familiarity will be a more determining factor than the system's own purported balance.

 

I mean, maybe its not a PLUS that hero throws its own sense of balance (300 beaten solidly by 175) totally out the window when non-veterans try and play. Maybe thats a bad thing, not a good thing.

 

You ran two different games to try and show your players different alternatives and managed in two out of two to convince them it was a bad idea.

 

Maybe that should not be taken as a example of **their** faults.

 

Why wouldn't it be a better thing for a game for it to be so intuitive and straightforward that even in a one-off a novice player could have fun, "get it", and be at least competitive if against a veteran although unlikely to win?

 

If i had run the exact same session you did and gotten the exact same results you did the first thing i would look at critically was MYSELF because clearly i did not create a scenario that accomplished my goals and then i would look critically at the game system i tried. After all, after i set all the pieces, even built their characters, set the terrain and such, and gave them all the info they have of the system, blaming a really lopsided result on THEM and not ME or not the SYSTEM seems really off.