Fantasy RPG Rant

[Yamo]

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?

 

Competitive? Win?

 

Silly me. I thought I was playing a roleplaying game and not a Magic: the Gathering match.

 

And in answer to your hypothesis, I would give a big fat NO. The day that what you get out of HERO isn't a factor of what you put into learning it is the day that is loses all charm for me.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Starlord

...but I LIKED those old modules.

I liked them too. 'Course I was 12 at the time...

 

Seriously, they do have their charm. I dug 'em when I was young because that was all I thought RPGs were at the time, and I dig 'em now for nostalgia's sake. But c'mon... The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief has a room where over 9000 GP in gems are stuffed into a straw mattress in an otherwise ordinary room. This kind of thing totally encourages a hack-n-slash, sack-n-pillage, style of play that's just not normally seen in fantasy literature. The characters are supposed to be putting a stop to the giant raids on surrounding human communities. Instead, they're encouraged to take time out to ransack a bedroom on the off chance they might find 9000 GP in gems in the straw.

[AnotherSkip]

And definately after finding out about that "little miss" post game discussion you immediately kick yourself and "try" to remember to be more hack and slashish.

 

really even "modern day" 3E modules are not realy that different.

 

I was in a Low level adventure and not only does the module _not_ follow the rules-as-written(a Sepia's Snake Sigil that does not radiate magic), has many areas of hidden "hack and slash loot" that is so inconsequential to the main story that actually fiding out about the information that leads to the next part of the adventure (like important story details) only nets you 1/10th of the xp needed to go from 1st to second. Enough that if you only found the story hooks and never encountered any monsters you would have to hit 10 flippin story pointers to gain a level, and that would only get you second level. Needless to say we actually go _out_ of our way in order to risk life and limb(what story characters ever do that anyways? "Hi, I need a battle so i can level!") for the benefit of leveling.

 

Complete reverse of the story characters paradgrim(advances plotline in order to do more things).

 

The main problem is that if you have too much of a set value for all monsters whether or not they are true obstacles or incidentals. Hero has Xp based upon the ends, 3E has it based upon the means. And sadly dont even really consider things like Tuckers Kobolds in their Xp allotment.

 

if I ever wanted to really really mean in 3E I would have a Tuckers Kobolds dungeon and only allow charactes of 10 levels or higher for the players. Net result 0 XP for the whole adventure of making thier lives miserable.

 

In Hero is not allowed by the rules.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Yamo

Competitive? Win?

 

Silly me. I thought I was playing a roleplaying game and not a Magic: the Gathering match.

because i suspect that in fact, in spite of this response, you actually did get the context of the post, i wont bother explaining it to you or how out of context this reply of yours is.

Originally posted by Yamo

And in answer to your hypothesis, I would give a big fat NO. The day that what you get out of HERO isn't a factor of what you put into learning it is the day that is loses all charm for me.

 

I have encountered much the same sentiment from HERo players other than you. They believe that skill at "the system" is a commodity or trait that should be rewarded in favorable odds of success. most often its to excuse various means of milking the system as producing more powerful characters and that this is "fair" sort of a valid compensation for their years of experience.

 

I would however pass on a different consideration... in that once the game becomes some inbred, so much of its "tactics" being actually system foibles and so much of its play being controlled by knowledge of system specifics ... that once you reach the point as described above where novices cannot get fun out of a one off when the Gm is trying to show them the game because the innate system balance falls apart due to veteran/novice incompatability... that the notion of rewarding player knowledge of system has gone too far and is actually serving as an impediment to players enjoyment.

 

I have seen the same type of thing happen in other games. gradual complexity and evolution from tactics being a focus to "rulesics" being a focus and a gradual transition from a game where, perhaps unintentionally, you move from an "open" format to a "closed" house where only those who know what the system does are welcome.

 

In DND, as a game, I know that if i take their basic balance methodology, classes, and if i pair four 9th level guys against 4 5th level guys then i will, barring scenario specific terrain and circumstance, see the higher level guys win. This would be the vase even with relative novices. (If i thru even on even or perhaps even a level or two off, i would expect player experience and system knowledge to determine the outcome.)

 

From this guys description, that same thing does NOT hold true for HERO. From his test, even at grossly different character levels, its knowledg of the system that holds sway and determines the outcome.

 

In HERo, playing the system seems much more important to balance.

 

I just don't think that something that should fall solidly in the PRO column.

 

The day you don't get paid back by the system for the work you put in may be the day HERO no longer interests you.

 

The day my players inexperience with the HERo system means they dont get enjoyment from my game is the day HERO system lost its appeal to me.

 

different strokes.

[Starlord]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

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!

 

Just waxing nostalgic.

 

Yeesh.

[ShadowRaptor]

Yeah, but I only had the Hero game for a month before trying it and I didn't know everything about it. It's not my fault, its never my fault. No way, It's their fault, not mine.

 

Rant aside, I do understand what your getting at and that could be the way it was, but even with their vast versatility with options common sense should dictate that with their powers and superiority, and believe me they had superiority over the robots, they just ran at them and hacked away like it was Diablo/D&D. I told them for the two weeks before this that this is not D&D, use tactics, use common sense. Pretend this is not D&D. They didn't listen to me. Heck, I didn't even know what all I could do with them. And these guys have roleplayed for much longer than myself (I've only been gaming since d20 system came out).

 

They simply used D&D actions and Diablo mentality, and they got crushed, and they got mad because they lost when they felt that they should have won, and they should have won but they didn't, and they gave up before they could even learn the system better.

 

When I say won and lost, I mean the battle between the robots. These players are so used to winning in D&D because its become so normal for the players to win against almost everything they come across that they didn't think they could lose using their typical tactics in combat, and they did.

 

But, I will also look at myself and consider how I could do things differently.

[Jhamin]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

When I say won and lost, I mean the battle between the robots. These players are so used to winning in D&D because its become so normal for the players to win against almost everything they come across that they didn't think they could lose using their typical tactics in combat, and they did.

 

But, I will also look at myself and consider how I could do things differently.

 

If I may wax nostalgic for a moment.

 

Years ago, my very first escapade outside of D&D was Marvel Super Heros, which wasn't all that far.

 

My second foray was an old superspy game called Top Secret/SI by TSR. This game simulated James Bond style gaming over Tom Clancy, but it was still a level of lethality we had never before seen in combat. Everyone made charcters and it was agreed that we would play a sample combat that would not "count". The players found themselves in a gunfight with thugs in a hotel bar. One player, who was still very much in D&D mode ran out of ammo and decided he didn't want to take a round to reload. His character was sort of a good guy mix of Odd Job and Rambo and so he pulled his knife and charged. He promptly took a shotgun to the torso and dropped. He would live, but it would take months of time to recover (no healing potions or clerics ya know).

 

It was truely a beautyful moment as the other players looked at their sheets and contemplated the fact that that would have killed any of them.

 

After that everyone focused on finding cover and bought up their stealth over their Karate. It was alot of fun.

[Lucius]

Cut and Paste

 

Cutting and pasting to respond to several people.

 

Mister Death

 

"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."

 

Yes, D&D is very much derived from wargames. And the original audience was wargamers. But as far as a "market mainly supposed to come from computer gamers" I have to interject that D&D actually PREDATES and was an influence on the kind of computer gaming you are talking about. When D&D first came out, video gaming meant "Pong." Of course, I’m sure that since then there has been a lot of influence in both directions.

 

 

Tesuji

 

"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.

 

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?"

 

This is assuming D&D is somehow more "intuitive and straightforward" than Hero, which it’s not. (try explaining the Attack of Opportunity rules to me…better yet, DON’T) But the problem here is not that he was introducing a group of novices to Hero - the problem is that he had a bunch of people who were accustomed to D&D. He would have been BETTER OFF with players who had no RPG experience whatsoever, or maybe even with people who had experienced something else, like White Wolf maybe.

 

If I understood him correctly, Shadow Raptor had only had the game about a month himself - so saying the problem was about "veterans vs novices" doesn’t seem to make sense. The problem, if I may quote Shadow Raptor himself, was

 

"they just ran at them and hacked away like it was Diablo/D&D. I told them for the two weeks before this that this is not D&D, use tactics, use common sense. Pretend this is not D&D. They didn't listen to me. "

 

Granted, Hero has a "steep learning curve" and you are even right that it is a challenge to get a new player up to speed - although I have had little trouble in the past introducing inexperienced players. The complexity of Hero does not get in the way of new players having fun, provided the players are reasonably intelligent, provided they get plenty of help at first - maybe even having characters created for them based on concepts or outlines they submit - and provided the players don’t have a concept of "fun" that is too heavily influenced by D&D, Diablo, or some other game where they learned to expect to fight all the time, and to expect to win fights without having to think. Hell, they could even have fun then, if you design your scenarios that way and cater to that style of play.

 

 

Jhamin

 

 

"My second foray was an old superspy game called Top Secret/SI by TSR. This game simulated James Bond style gaming over Tom Clancy, but it was still a level of lethality we had never before seen in combat. Everyone made charcters and it was agreed that we would play a sample combat that would not "count". The players found themselves in a gunfight with thugs in a hotel bar. One player, who was still very much in D&D mode ran out of ammo and decided he didn't want to take a round to reload. His character was sort of a good guy mix of Odd Job and Rambo and so he pulled his knife and charged. He promptly took a shotgun to the torso and dropped. He would live, but it would take months of time to recover (no healing potions or clerics ya know).

 

It was truely a beautyful moment as the other players looked at their sheets and contemplated the fact that that would have killed any of them.

 

After that everyone focused on finding cover and bought up their stealth over their Karate. It was alot of fun."

 

I think it’s instructive to contrast Jhamin’s group’s experience with Shadow Raptor’s. When one of them almost got killed, instead of crying "This is too hard! This is no fun! Go back to D&D" they said "Hmm, this is NOT like D&D, this is DIFFERENT, we better do some things differently" and they were willing to learn.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders why I bother.....

[tesuji]

Re: Cut and Paste

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Lucius

"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?"

 

This is assuming D&D is somehow more "intuitive and straightforward" than Hero, which it’s not.

Actually, its not. Its asking the question of a game which on its first try out in a session intended by the Gm to expose his players to a game which i think he preferred he managed to turn them off the game due to very lopsided and I would guess unexpected results.

 

This can be taken as a fault of some other game not used in the test, or it can be considered as a fault of the game actually played. This can be seen as a fault of the players, or a fault of the Gm who determined the scenario, the challenge AND their characters.

 

he and i, and perhaps i and you, are simply choosing different likely answers for those two "can be considereds."

 

When i used to whomp all over newbies in star fleet battles, i did not blame them or blame the fact that they used to play silent death. I figured it was a 500 page rulebook and that the "tactics" were mostly "rulesics" and the 3 year learning curve.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

(try explaining the Attack of Opportunity rules to me…better yet, DON’T)

When an opponent's defense lapses, a shot that would have normally been parried gets a chance to get thru. There is a list of things which commonly constitute lapses in defense serious enough to enable this.

 

Now, I myself have quibbles with their selections for what constitutes a lapse in defense, but i imagine each Gm has his own foibles.

 

I have my own house rules for AoO for use in my next campaign, cuz i am not thrilled with their modelling of the lapse of defense.

Originally posted by Lucius

But the problem here is not that he was introducing a group of novices to Hero - the problem is that he had a bunch of people who were accustomed to D&D.

That was certainly his conclusion. I am of course offering a different conclusion that seems more likely to me from the facts presented.

 

I think the difference is perhaps the learning curve of HERO. I think perhaps that, and this is based on my experience, a novice in hero cannot get much at all out of their character because its play is so system heavy. I think botched balance issues on first runs are more likely not the blane of the game you played last week but instead the blame of the game you are playing when the botch occurs.

 

That doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.

Originally posted by Lucius

He would have been BETTER OFF with players who had no RPG experience whatsoever, or maybe even with people who had experienced something else, like White Wolf maybe.

Thats not what my experience has shown me.

Originally posted by Lucius

If I understood him correctly, Shadow Raptor had only had the game about a month himself - so saying the problem was about "veterans vs novices" doesn’t seem to make sense. The problem, if I may quote Shadow Raptor himself, was

Now that he has clarified that, you still remain with the case of him knowing both sides, knowing both weaknesses, and them being unfamiliar with the system.

 

We could just as easily be blaming the imbalanced scenario result on the fact that they had pizza instead of burgers.

 

The GM provided the scenario, the characters, the enemies and the info the players had to go on across the board. If the players had no fun, the battle the Gm thought was going to be lopsided one way turned out to be lopsided the other, and the final result was the lack of interest in more of the game... it just seems silly and counter intuitive to say that everthing else except the GM and the HERO system was to blame... its the players and its the system they played a while back thats at fault?

 

Thats not a conclusion i would reach.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

Granted, Hero has a "steep learning curve" and you are even right that it is a challenge to get a new player up to speed - although I have had little trouble in the past introducing inexperienced players. The complexity of Hero does not get in the way of new players having fun, provided the players are reasonably intelligent, provided they get plenty of help at first - maybe even having characters created for them based on concepts or outlines they submit - and provided the players don’t have a concept of "fun" that is too heavily influenced by D&D, Diablo, or some other game where they learned to expect to fight all the time, and to expect to win fights without having to think. Hell, they could even have fun then, if you design your scenarios that way and cater to that style of play.

FUN = FUN and the definition of it varies from person to person.

 

i have no idea what the players expected coming into the game in question or what their definition of fun was. I do know that the Gm who set every single piece of the puzzle up and who is the sole source of info for them clealry misjudged the scenario. How do i know this? he expected it to be lopsided against him and he slaughtered them instead.

 

Why this happened, is to me up for grabs. He has certainly given his own conclusion.,.. its the players fault and its the system they used to plays fault. Thats his conclusion. Thats not mine. Thats my point.

 

A young girl can conclude that she is pregnant because of swimming in a pond and getting fertilized by faeries or golden showers from the gods, and that its absolutely not the unprotected sex she had with the chariot team. That doesn't mean i ought to take her conclusion as gospel.

 

other than his clear bias, nothing that he says leads me to conclude the blame for the events he describes lies with DND at all or lies with the players in toto. The most responsible party to me seems to be the GM and secondary the HERo system's complexity... although its the GMs job to handle that complexity hurdle.

 

Having run HERo and FH for novices, i know the extents to which i went in streamlining the game, removing some of its "in the way" complexities and the time I spent with the newbies.

[Yamo]

tesuji,

 

Frankly, I must say I think you're being a little obtuse and even rude here.

 

ShadowRaptor has already stated multiple times, and quite convincingly, in my opinion, that it was his players' insistance on fighting unintelligently led to their defeat.

 

You, on the other hand, continue to insist that this was actually his fault, as well as the fault of the system.

 

Well, guess what: You don't know ShadowRaptor, you don't know his players and even if you did, you weren't at that gaming session. Given this, I don't hesitate to accept his interpretation of events over yours.

 

It's clear that you're deeply unsatisfied with HERO System and might even be said to have a serious grudge against certain aspects of it. Fine. I question your decision to hang out here of all places in a abstract sense, but fine. That being said, calling ShadowRaptor's assessment of his game session and his players into doubt so strongly with no evidence to support your position and no in-depth or firsthand knowledge of the parties involved or their activites seems like so much arrogant tilting at windmills to me.

 

To what end?

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Yamo

Frankly, I must say I think you're being a little obtuse and even rude here.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Yamo

ShadowRaptor has already stated multiple times, and quite convincingly, in my opinion, that it was his players' insistance on fighting unintelligently led to their defeat.

As i have stated before, i know what his CONCLUSION was.

 

A CONCLUSION does not support itself.

Originally posted by Yamo

You, on the other hand, continue to insist that this was actually his fault, as well as the fault of the system.

Actually, i rasie the question.

 

Tyhe logic is quite simple... their characters were given to them by the GM.

Their adversaries were given to them by the GM.

The scenario was setup and presented to them by the GM.

It is unknown whether they had ANY information about the setup or the system that wasn't provided to the by the GM.

The scenario was ran by the GM.

The result was apparently not what the GM intended.

 

After all this is said and done, the GM reaches a conclusion thats its his players and the last game they happened to play's fault and not his, not the new system, etc.

 

That conclusion seems extremely odd to me and so i question it.

 

If he had concluded it was due to them having had burgers and not pizza, i would have questioned it too. That does not mean i dislike burgers or pizza.

Originally posted by Yamo

Well, guess what: You don't know ShadowRaptor, you don't know his players and even if you did, you weren't at that gaming session. Given this, I don't hesitate to accept his interpretation of events over yours.

Since i do not know shadow raptor, nor his players, i cannot just blindly accept a one sided account as being the unfettered truth. Do you often just assume when you only hear one side that its totally accurate and truthful? if so, i got a bridge for you...

 

I am NOT saying Shadowraptor is deliberately misleading us. I fully believe he does blame the dnd system and his players for the screw up.

 

I just never can get over GMs who do not take responsibility for the things that happen in their games, especially when it goes so far as to dissapoint ALL their players. he did not just fail to satisfy one malcontent troublemaker... he lost AFAIK all of them.

 

That does not tell me to blame the players or last week's system.

 

Does it you?

 

Lets put it another way... lets roleplay for a moment...

 

you are standing at your FLGS ans holding in your hands the hottest new HERo release, say Cyber HERO, and this guy walks up and sees you holding it and says "HERO, yeah, i tried hero. I got my gaming buddies together and i ran a scenario with my four robots against their four heroes. i designed all the characters and they had 300 points and i just had 175 point robots and man I cleaned their clock, wiped the floor with them. They were so stupid. They thought HERO was too hard. "

 

Is your first thought that this is an example of a bad start, a poorly run scenario, a GM being overcompetitive, etc? or is the first thing in your mind "must be dnd players."

Originally posted by Yamo

It's clear that you're deeply unsatisfied with HERO System and might even be said to have a serious grudge against certain aspects of it.

Anything can be said.

Originally posted by Yamo

That being said, calling ShadowRaptor's assessment of his game session and his players into doubt so strongly with no evidence to support your position and no in-depth or firsthand knowledge of the parties involved or their activites seems like so much arrogant tilting at windmills to me.

Ok let me explain it to you.

 

If shadowraptor continues to take from this experience that he has stupid players and blame DnD... then he leaves with nothing more than a feeling of self-superioirity. If he instead looks at his own role, his own choices, the HERO system, and examines what part his actions and decisions played in this, he can perhaps start finding things he can do differently and reach a means of solving the problem.

 

i learn more from my mistakes than from my successes, every time. In part that is because my first look is at what I did wrong, what i could have done better, etc.

 

I have encountered many a GM who felt any problems were not theirown making, who loved to blame players not getting it or bad dice and so forth for the unpleasant outcomes. here, he is blaming amoung other things the game they used to play.

 

Am i saying he was totally wrong? Well, though its certainly tempting to say that given two consecutiveTPUs (total party unhappies), no i am not saying he was totally wrong. However, with two consecutive TPUs, I also cannot see this as just a blame it on the players and absolutely cannot blame it on the game they played last before i ask him to look at his role.

 

Frankly, whenever i see a post about a breakdown in game on these or any boards where we have one side blaming it entirely on the other side, I always take that with a lot of salt, being a one sided perspective and all.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Starlord

Just waxing nostalgic.

 

Yeesh.

 

Its all good fella I know where you are coming from; about a year ago my group played a version of the classic ToEE under 3e rules for nostalgia frex.

 

I understand the intent, Im just pointing out that while nostalgia has its place, those old adventures are still examples of bad design for a role playing game.

 

Much like the Model T was good in its day and its kind of neat to sit in one for a few minutes, it still doesnt hold a candle to a modern car, and you arent going to use one as your primary mode of conveyance.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by tesuji

Actually, i rasie the question.

 

Tyhe logic is quite simple... their characters were given to them by the GM.

Their adversaries were given to them by the GM.

The scenario was setup and presented to them by the GM.

It is unknown whether they had ANY information about the setup or the system that wasn't provided to the by the GM.

The scenario was ran by the GM.

The result was apparently not what the GM intended.

 

After all this is said and done, the GM reaches a conclusion thats its his players and the last game they happened to play's fault and not his, not the new system, etc.

 

That conclusion seems extremely odd to me and so i question it.

 

He seemed to also state that he instructed his players over and over again that it was not hack and slash, charge in and do and mow down whatever is in your way. And that was, apparently, what they did. With all of the above setups and so on, there is nothing stopping a player from taking his PC and having him run in front of a bus and get blottoed.

 

IMO, it is never the system that is at fault. Having played everything from RoleMaster to Amber Diceless, the systems are just the framework. The players and GM are what make the game and, to me, the rule system is tertiary. If you think Top Secret was deadly, you should have tried Boot Hill. At least in TS, you had a variety of wound factors and locations. In Boot Hill you were either lightly wounded, incapacitated or dead. And yet, I ran a year long campaign in Boot Hill without any difficulties - deaths yes (but not alot), difficulties no.

 

Now, I just recently played my first 3rdE game and I have to say, that whole Target of Opportunity thing is silly IMO. I can't believe that I need to step back five feet just so that the person doesn't get a second swing in on me before I try again.

[doppelganger]

Tesuji, unlike many of the other posters here, I find your logic and alternative possible conclusions to be quite accurate/likely. Everything that I have read here has lead me to the same conclusions that you have already reached. The mostly likely source of the crushing defeat handed out to the players seems to be the GM. While he claims that the problem was the groups lack of tactics, he does not mention what advice he actually gave the group regarding the tactics. This information could/would arguably have made the difference here.

 

For what it's worth (nothing, just words) I also do not think that anything you wrote was off a level sufficient to be called rude.

 

I also would point out that 30 days with a copy of the rulebook results in far more knowlege of the HERO system than just sitting down to play with a pregen character sheet.

 

[AnotherSkip]

look is that Tetsujis doppleganger?

 

 

Anyways I have run across scenarios where the Gm Whupped up on 6 160-190 point characters with 30 point NPC's.

Good group tactics+a scenario where the NPC's had the advantage(Ranged monsters vs HTH PC's) PLUS Stupid player tricks made the thing terrible.

 

However that is not necessarily what happened here.

 

Given the difficulty of game balance, and a general inexperience on both parties side many different things could have happened.

 

however i will agree with the possibilty that GEE WILLIKERS they MIGHT be thoughtless hack and slashers. Groups like that happen, as shocking as it may be and unfortuneately most of them do seem to spring from AD&D.

 

Over the years i have been playing I have heard of _One_ (count them: one) Group that actually was tactically competant enough to force the Gm to use Rolemaster Dragons vs AD&D 14th level characters (yes with firebolt tables results for 'bleeding' results) out of the dozens of groups I have played in and contacted with that is it.

 

One.

 

Not very good odds bubba.

 

Perhaps a post on the comparitve heroes and monsters of the scenario would make a decent difference in opinion.

[sbarron]

Early on in my Gming days, I scolded my 125 point PCs for performing so badly against a group of 65 pt orcs. My savy players were quick to point out, however, that while they were indeed more points than their orc opponents, the orcs were 65 points of combat machine. The PCs were pretty well balanced for a variety of situations, and the points they spent on combat related abilities and skills compared pretty closely to the orcs. It was an eye opening experience for me.

 

Points systemes can be balanced. But how those points are spent goes a long ways toward determining who is most likely to win a fight. More is not always better.

[ShadowRaptor]

It's all good, I can accept that it might have been my fault in the design of the scenario and the situation, and them being so used to a set mentality, so the entire thing crashed and burned.

 

It's just a learning experience after all. I now know what kinds of games that group of players likes, and I know mine, and at least I learned that from the whole thing.

 

As for character creation goes, I made them only because I knew the system for creating characters goes. None of them really knew it, but at least they tried it.

[Killer Shrike]

If you want to salvage the group, try doing a as close as possible conversion from D&D to Hero's, and then wean them onto the new options.

 

One thing about Hack & Slashers, while they may tend to be rigid in thier 'I hit it' approach, the also tend to discover and attempt to exploit better ways of doing more damage. In HEROs this translates to learning the system better to use the more 'kewl' manuevers.

 

 

Also, as a GM tip, though there are some who would dispute this, my experience is that when breaking a group into a new system challenge them just enough to make it plausible, but fix it so that they are sure to win. Its amazing how much more people like something the think they are doing well in.

[Lucius]

More Cut and Paste

 

tesuji

 

"Why this happened, is to me up for grabs. He has certainly given his own conclusion.,.. its the players fault and its the system they used to plays fault. Thats his conclusion. Thats not mine. Thats my point."

 

First off, he was there - neither your nor I were. Therefore, I think he is a better position to judge what happenned than either of us.

 

Second of all, for YOU it may be "up for grabs." For ME, I think it is more reasonable to draw a conclusion based on A) what he tells me about what happened, and my own experience.

 

 

quote:

 

"Originally posted by Yamo

 

"Frankly, I must say I think you're being a little obtuse and even rude here."

 

 

Thanks."

 

Okay, now we know both the obtuseness and the rudeness are deliberate. It would probably be pointless to ask why.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks "Since when has pointlessness ever stopped YOU, Lucius? Pointless is practically your middle name."

[tesuji]

Re: More Cut and Paste

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Lucius

First off, he was there - neither your nor I were. Therefore, I think he is a better position to judge what happenned than either of us.

So this somehow should mean i don't question his conclusions?

 

I wonder, had he concluded that it was the HERO system's complexity that was at fault, would all you guys be lining up to say "yup, he has it right, cuz he was there and we weren't."

 

Its like suddenly as long as its anti-DnD then suddenly the critical thinking shuts down. Sudedenly, a one sided bash of his own players blaming them for the failure of his runs is no longer one sided opinion but "factual."

 

Amazing.

Originally posted by Lucius

Second of all, for YOU it may be "up for grabs." For ME, I think it is more reasonable to draw a conclusion based on A) what he tells me about what happened, and my own experience.

Why did you need to put your own experiences in? Don't we have his statements. You were not there. Why would you be so impertinent as to actuall cross reference his "HE WAS THERE REMEMBER!!!" conclusions against your own thoughts.

 

geesh.

 

next thing you know you will maybe even be thinking that its possible that a one sided "other side is all at fault" description of a scene might possibly not necessarily be automatically totally accurate.

Originally posted by Lucius

Okay, now we know both the obtuseness and the rudeness are deliberate. It would probably be pointless to ask why.

 

You can leap to that conclusion, or you could leap to the conclusion that it was simply the most polite response i could come up with at the time for his IMO unwarranted insults. He shared his feelings with us all. That doesn't mean I need to give them any significant weight.

 

So, as a more general question... should we take it for granted that when we see posts on this forum where one side of an event blames the failure on the other side we should take it for granted that this is an accurate and factual recount and that the conclusions made by the poster are to be taken without question?

 

Or is it ok to question that unless it is slamming dnd in some way?

 

If he had concluded it was HERo system's fault... would you all be lining up against people who even ask him to look at his own role?

 

Would the suggestion that the GM might be partly responsible for a gaming failure while running hero be met with such clear dismissal?

 

Well, actually, i got the answers to that a long time ago on multiple other threads...

 

The two basic axioms...

 

"if you use hero and it fails, its your fault and you did something wrong. Its not HEROs fault that you screwed up."

 

"If you used HERO and it went well, thats because the system is good and its the HERO system that deserves the credit."

 

Invert these for "other games" particularly DND.

 

Hey guys, last time i made pancakes, i burned the first one. I think Rolemaster was to blame as well as my long dead dog shep. Since you weren't there whn i burned the pancake, or when i played rollmaster and never met my dog. you gonna accept that as a reasonable conclusion?

 

Anyone interested in buying bridges, contact me!

 

and before anyone gets all bent out of shape, i am not saying SR was deliberately misleading anyone. I believe he honestly recounted his opinions.

[doppelganger]

ShadowRaptor, I think that you should try again. This time, as they go through a sample combat and start to mess up, actually stop and say "Your action is not tactically sound because ..." and explain why the player's activity and reasoning may be unsound in the context of the HERO System where it might be okay in the D&D system. Do the same in non-combat interactions and skills usage too. This may make it easier to get your players to get into the new system.

 

I think that HERO for fantasy has a great deal more to offer than D&D. If you show it to your players in an easy to understand give-and-take-stop-and-explain manner instead of saying "you guys are idiots" and stomping up and down on their character's corpses, they may begin to believe HERO is worth playing too.

[Pattern Ghost]

You know, sometimes tesuji annoys the heck out of me. Ok, a lot of the time. BUT, he does have a point.

 

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how even the worst players could get their 300 pt party trashed by 175 pt robots.

 

I know I can figure out how to build a 175 pt robot, especially with the automaton rules, that can whup a balanced 300 pt PC, but the question in my mind is: Why should I?

 

I'm thinking that the combat result is probably due more to lopsided character design, or to the GM exploiting more of the combat rules than the players, than it is to the players wanting to just walk in and smash stuff. A 300 point PC should be able to just walk in and smash 175 point stuff.

My 350 pt PCs can very easily smash my 250 pt agents in the game I'm running now, and none of them are really combat monsters or especially complex rules-exploiting designs.

 

I suspect that what we're talking about here is not so much tactics as scenario design. I would venture to guess that the GM set up a complex, perhaps subtle situation, that required roleplaying, planning, etc. to solve. Tactics has nothing to do with this. (If this is the case.)

 

Anyway, I think we'd need to see the characters in question, and a blow by blow of the scenario to figure out what didn't work here. (Not who's wrong, but what can be changed to make things work out better. Assigning blame is a pretty petty thing to do in an activity that's supposed to be fun and recreational.)

 

What I would suggest for new GMs trying to demo the game for their group is to build some pretty vanilla characters for the team -- at least in terms of power constructs -- and then use some generic thugs/agents for the first encounter. Use none of the optional combat rules. If running supers, leave out certain character types such as mentalists, or any other class of character that relies on anything other than vanilla rules.

 

Next encounter should be a fight against a somewhat weaker group of villains, designed using the same vanilla approach. They can be made weaker in numbers, by slightly lower defenses, or by an average lower SPD, or lower CVs, or some combination of things, just as long as the PCs have an advantage. Then, cut the scenario off at that point and review what happened. Look up any rules questions that weren't immediately resolvable in play, and so on. Make it clear that this is just a warm-up session, not in continuity, and that the players will be able to make any changes they might find handy. As the game progresses -- if everyone is still interested -- slowly add in layers of complexity. Throw a telepath at them, a single tough opponent that can challenge the whole team, add in optional combat stuff, such as knockback, etc.

[Mr Mole]

Pattern Ghost brought up a number of very good points. Helped me see some things from a slightly different perspective.

 

One thing I always try to do with newcomers is run them through some basic "danger room" scenarios to get in tune with the feel of combat using the Hero System. Sometimes it's sparring against NPCs or with each other. Sometimes it's against holographic simulations. Sometimes it's a solo run and sometimes it's a team session.

 

The idea is to give the Players an idea of what their PCs can do... without them having to worry overmuch about consequences. There's rarely any sort of stigma attached to losing. No permanent harm to the PCs... and only sometimes the slightest harm to the Players' or PCs' egos.

 

It's also fun, later down the road, when the enemy gadgeteer breaks into the team's Danger Room and turns off the safey protocols. I know it's cliche, but it's just so darned much fun.

[AnotherSkip]

Of course the counter to that is the TEAMS gageteer turning off the safety procols and luring an invading group into the Danger Room.

 

Staple event in Death Duel with the Destroyers.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

You know, sometimes tesuji annoys the heck out of me. Ok, a lot of the time. BUT, he does have a point.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how even the worst players could get their 300 pt party trashed by 175 pt robots.

i have been avoiding the speculation, figuring it brings more into questionable ground.

 

From my experience tho, the enemies being robots immediately started my spidey sense a tinglin'.

 

OK first off, before i saw robots i saw characters set as comparatives based on total points. NO experienced HERo guy thinks total points means all that much in terms of combat capability, right? Sure, it might on a gross scale but i guarantee you with me designing both sides even 300 vs 175 is not going to make total cp a valid measure of tactical ability. However, that was the metric raptor chose to gibe us... the only metric he chose to give us.

 

Second, robots... the automaton rules are cute but again, they are extremely open for abuse. The vast majority of Kos in hero are done by stun damage and robots can reasonably cheaply be bought immune to stun and with enough defenses to stop the average body damage. Imagine very simply a quartet of heroes with 10d6 attacks facing robots with 10 defense. Now, an even remotely experienced group could handle this, by pushing, by using maneuvers to gain extra dice, or maybe even by looking for environmental weaknesses.

 

Now put these heroes in the hands of inexperienced players who may not know a thing about pushing and who certainly do not know how to milk the speed chart to make that haymaker actually have a prayer of landing.

 

Then, remember, its all DnDs fault. After all, what else could it possibly be other than DnDs fault?

 

HERo provides NO safety nets. That in itself is not a bad thing at all. Some might desribe that as like driving a high performance sports car... a great thing when handled right.

 

But when the high precision sports car gets wrapped around a tree by a 16 year old on his first real drive, don't nlame the Chevette he drove in driver's ed last month.

 

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

I know I can figure out how to build a 175 pt robot, especially with the automaton rules, that can whup a balanced 300 pt PC, but the question in my mind is: Why should I?

Maybe you, thru inexperience, thought total points was a valid metric for tactical balance in HERO.

 

There are plent of other speculations possible, but we have only the fact that raptor chose to describe his opposing sides by total points and robots to tell us what little we know of what he saw as important.

 

A more experienced Gm might have cited cv,s powers and defenses and speed when trying to convey to the room the power level, because he would have known those to be more valuable measures of combat ability.

 

i don't think its unreasonable for someone new to hero to think total points is a valid measure of tactical ability... after all chargen is all about meeting the point total. he may have just learned his most important lesson in GMing whether in hero or otherwise... that balance does not come from the points.

 

Of course, he wont learn that lesson at all if all he takes away from the two encounters is that his players are dolts. he only learns that lesson if he questions his own decisions and roles.

 

like a certain apparently annoying someone asked him to do.

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

I'm thinking that the combat result is probably due more to lopsided character design, or to the GM exploiting more of the combat rules than the players, than it is to the players wanting to just walk in and smash stuff. A 300 point PC should be able to just walk in and smash 175 point stuff.

I tend to agree. Barring design skews or scenareio skews, 300 pointers vs 175 pointers with matching design doctrines should indeed be a slugfest the heroes would win.

 

While all these kindly people just want to deride the players for the purported sluggyfist mentality, they choose to ignore the most obvious... sluggyfist is most often the RIGHT choice for the more powerful side. its the underdogs for who sneaky, planning and lateral thinking is the wrong answer.

 

That should have been a warning flag about the recounting and conclusion.

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

I suspect that what we're talking about here is not so much tactics as scenario design. I would venture to guess that the GM set up a complex, perhaps subtle situation, that required roleplaying, planning, etc. to solve. Tactics has nothing to do with this. (If this is the case.)

I agree. it sounds to me like it was a puzzle scenario, where the answer to beating the bad guys was in say finding a specific weakness perhaps or perhaps exploiting hero rules like pushing and haymakers.

 

However, all this for me delves whole hog into speculation. my experience tells me that someone describing a battle by total cps often shows a lack of understanding of balance... looking for a single gross figure metric. My experience also shows me that constructs are often the subject of puzzle scenario setups, because their tactical differences make them ideal for ""non-routine" solutions.

 

The main issue is that any Gm who walsk away fromnot one but two TPUs with the attitude that its "their fault" or some other games fault, really really needs to look instead at his roles and his choices because he made all the salient decisions that led up to the result and made at least half the decisions within the event that drove to this result.