Fantasy RPG Rant

[Lucius]

I'll Try The Quote Function This Time.

 

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

You know, sometimes tesuji annoys the heck out of me. Ok, a lot of the time. .

 

He annoys almost everyone. He seems to enjoy it.

 

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

BUT, he does have a point.

 

When he says the complexity of Hero is a probable factor in how Shadow Raptor's scenario turned out, he has a point.

 

When he says Mr. Raptor's own inexperience is a probable factor, he has a point.

 

When he says robots are misleadingly dangerous opponents he has a BIG point. So do you in your essay about how to introduce people to Hero - and your advice looked to me doubly sound for someone who is almost as new to the game as his players.

 

When he pretends that obviously relevant factors such as what games the players have experience with are as irrelevent as what they had for lunch, he has no point other than to be annoying.

 

When he accuses Shadow Raptor of "presenting a conclusion with no support for the conclusion" or however he phrased it, he again has no point but to be annoying. If he knows Shadow Raptor's conclusion he had to have read the post, and if he read the post, he saw the support for that conclusion. Perhaps inadequate support given the circumstances, but hardly "no support."

 

When he is gratuitously insulting and deliberately exasperating, any points he has to make become moot in any case - who wants to put up with this sh1t? Nothing he has to say is worth the annoyance of reading his posts.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

It's enough to give a palindromedary a headache. Both heads.

[Markdoc]

leaving the Tesuji Issue aside ;-) there are a couple of points worth looking at here.

 

I have been through the "introduce DnD players to Hero" scenario multiple times, and there *are* some issues over translation.

 

DnD combat basically runs along the lines of hit-it-until-you-can't-anymore-and-then-fall-over.

The idea of blocking, dodging or maneuvering to get an advantage (knock or trip your oponent down, then take a head shot, or something similar) is foreign to the system.

 

I'm not saying that one approach is better than the other (although I and my players prefer the Hero system, no doubt about it). DnD combat is and always has been highly abstract - that's just the way it is. Personally, I run DnD combat much more fluidly - if players want to try different things, I let them. But many (perhaps most) GM's don't. I have lost count of the number of times I have tried something heroic (sand in the eyes, pulling the rug out from under someone's feet) only to have the action ignored because it doesn't fit within the standard game mechanics.

 

It does mean that DnD players tend to just hammer away. It also means that they are used to being able to soak up tons of "damage". I have had an ex-DnD player storm away from the table after being one-shotted by a heavy blow to the head, swearing about "what sort of stupid game lets you get taken out in one hit". He later turned into an adult and even a Hero system GM - ya gotta break things to them gently....

 

So having said all that, if you want to suck players into Hero system from DnD, you need to do it gently. Give them pretty vanilla characters to start with: a fighter, a thief, etc. Give them simple opponents - thugs and bandits, or a big, easy to hit (but tough) opponent that does non-lethal damage (ogre with a club).

 

Then introduce them to the cool stuff - opponents with a few, really obvious gimmicks - fancy two sword fighting, or funky martial arts. Use a few (but only a few) fancy maneuvers on them, like delaying actions, blocking and then counter-attacking.

 

Once they start asking "hey, can I..." they are hooked and you can do as you will with them ....BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

cheers, Mark

[Starlord]

Re: I'll Try The Quote Function This Time.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

When he is gratuitously insulting and deliberately exasperating, any points he has to make become moot in any case - who wants to put up with this sh1t? Nothing he has to say is worth the annoyance of reading his posts.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

It's enough to give a palindromedary a headache. Both heads.

 

I've followed many of tesuji's posts here and in the General Roleplaying Forum. I don't see any deliberate harm in his posts. I do believe there is an inadvertant condescension in the way he writes. Basically, he talks down to people. I don't think he knows he does it though. Perhaps that is what you (and others who've responded similar to you) find annoying.

 

However, the reason I've 'followed his posts' is because I believe they are very insightful, detailed, and well thought out. He has a unique and clever way of viewing things. I think his advice should be heeded.

[Pattern Ghost]

I agree with Lucious and Starlord. That's why I leave it at "annoyed." Some good thoughts there, but the presentation is lacking. At the moment, I'm leaning less toward inadvertant, though. Someone who's obviously as intelligent as tesuji should have gotten a clue on that after so many comments about his percieved attitude.

[tesuji]

Re: I'll Try The Quote Function This Time.

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Lucius

He annoys almost everyone. He seems to enjoy it.

Lucius, I am honestly perplexed as to why you contiue to act like your opinion of "me" is relevent?

 

Can we perhaps start a thread titled 'what we think about tesuji" so that those who want to rant about me can do so and the ones who want to discuss gaming can avoid this?

 

Originally posted by Lucius

When he says the complexity of Hero is a probable factor in how Shadow Raptor's scenario turned out, he has a point.

So i shouldn't have just taken raptors assessment at face value?

Originally posted by Lucius

When he says Mr. Raptor's own inexperience is a probable factor, he has a point.

So I shouldn't have taken raptor's post at face value?

Originally posted by Lucius

When he says robots are misleadingly dangerous opponents he has a BIG point. So do you in your essay about how to introduce people to Hero - and your advice looked to me doubly sound for someone who is almost as new to the game as his players.

So i shouldn't have taken raptors post at face value? i should not have just thrown my brain in the trash can and said "well he was there so i better not QUESTION his account and conclusion?

 

Originally posted by Lucius

When he pretends that obviously relevant factors such as what games the players have experience with are as irrelevent as what they had for lunch, he has no point other than to be annoying.

Actually, it is an example of trying to break thru a wall of bias. When questioning the one sided account which puts the blame soley on the players and soley on the other games they have played and ignores completely the posters role at near complete creation of the encounter in the results at all.

 

Look at the followups that were posted to him before mine...

first a blame it on diablo, then a post disputing whether its modern or goes all the way back to early dnd, then a couple humor posts follwed by the wonderful "not brain surgeons" post which on the basis of the one sided all-their-fault initial rant starts talking about close minded playera and tosses around words like inflexible and unimaginative before dropping back into calling them dumb beasts... althoug he did toss in a smiley on dumb beasts.

 

Then comes my response which offers a HYPOTHESIS... i even used that word... that the description could support a different conclusion. I asked him to consider the role HERo's complexity had to play and the role he himself as GM played.

 

Some people think thats rude. Some people think and posted that questioning his conclusion is rude and insulting and lets see...

 

"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."

 

This of course comes after shadow raptor himself acknowledged that he should consider his own role in the results.

 

And people seem to think i should take other people's opinions of my rudeness or insulting seriously?!?

 

Look, if shadowraptor had reached a different conclusion, if he had instead eneded with "its HERo system's fault" then the rudeness in responses would have dwarfed mine by a landslide.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

When he accuses Shadow Raptor of "presenting a conclusion with no support for the conclusion" or however he phrased it, he again has no point but to be annoying.

Actually, the only support is a DESCRIPTION and JUDGEMENT or maybe an ASSESSMENT of their choices. We were not given examples of the choices. We were not given examples of their options. The sum of their choices was CHARACTERIZED by him.

 

"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,"

 

Thats not fact but judgement, assessment and conclusion.

 

The facts we were given were that they were playing characters generated by him, in a scenario generated by him, against adversaries generated by him and that the point totals were 175 x 300, and that they lost. ("wasted" is still a judgement of his)

 

Those facts do NOT support a conclusion of its their fault or that its the DND games fault.

 

What in the post do you see as support for his conclusion that is not a judgement of his? What in that post do you see as support that is not a conclusion of his?

 

Do you really believe at face value that after getting "wasted" in this game, in this second try under him that the players leterally said to him they told him it was "too hard?" Do you think that is a factual recount or his spin on it? Do you suspect that they may have said the fight was too hard... bringing into question the scenario and not the game and that raptor's account in his rant is a little skewed maybe?

 

look, even if they were the DND-fed "dumb beasts" people around here seem fine at tossing onto them based on a one-sided "no fault for the poster at all" rant my experience does not say they would get up from a game and admit its too hard for them after a failure. "Those people" would, somewhat like shadowraptor did here, look for any reason other than their own lacks to explain t... "the system is stupid" "your scenario was screwed from the get go", "that game is totally whacked and out of balance" etc etc etc... even down to "you just screwed us" are the sorts of comments i would expect from DND-fed dumb beasts who just got "wasted."

 

At least, in my experience non-thinking hack-n-0slashers are one of the last people to immediately jump to the STATEMENT that the game is too hard... because that puts the slight onto them...

 

Is your experience different? Do you see "the game's too hard" as something you would expect to have been said by the players? Do you not suspect that they might have been talking about the scenario or the Gm setup?

 

If not, ask yourself why?

 

If his post had been critical of HERo instead of DND, would you have been as accepting?

 

Originally posted by Lucius

If he knows Shadow Raptor's conclusion he had to have read the post, and if he read the post, he saw the support for that conclusion. Perhaps inadequate support given the circumstances, but hardly "no support."

The facts given did not support the conclusion. The juedgement and assessments could have but those were not support... they were just interim conclusions.

 

Simply put, if the scenario WAS not skewed by GM inexperience and the various other notions i and other have raised, then brute force SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ANSWER. 300 vs 175, if we assume that this metric means relatively the same power balance, then BRUTE FORCE STRAIGHT AHEAD is the right answer for the bigger side. RAW POWER is their advantage.

 

The fact that he thinks they should have used non-brute force, the fact that he concludes that is why it was that they got wasted and the fact that they did lose is an argument that this scenario was not as straightforward as he makes it appear.

 

It sounds VERY much like he built a puzzle box scenario where brute force is a trap and non-brute force in a certain way is the key to victory. If thats the case then like all puzzle box scenarios the win/loss comes NOT from tactics but from whether they figure out the puzzle... which comes directly from how well the GM presents the relevent info.

 

he skipped all that. He just gave us total points and character archtypes and he then jumped to the assessment stage and the conclusion stage which is recieved apparently unquestioningly and uncritically by the gang here and i speculate that it would have been questioned more or critically analyzed or even just frankly examined more if it was not an anti-dnd conclusion.

 

Didn't you get that?

 

Why not?

Originally posted by Lucius

When he is gratuitously insulting and deliberately exasperating, any points he has to make become moot in any case - who wants to put up with this sh1t? Nothing he has to say is worth the annoyance of reading his posts.

Not dsure where i was gratuitously insulting, but its certainly possible.

 

I really do have little tolerance for Gms who come away from total wrecks of runs and who take away from that experience "its all their fault, not mine". I thought i did a fine job of posting to raptor in a not insulting and not inflamatory way that he should look at his role and the game systems role in play more than looking at the players and the last game they ran.

 

I really think that i was less insulting to him than calling the players involved "dumb beasts" was to them.

 

But if you dont think so and think that my rudeness was so over the top yahhdee yahhdee...

 

Then by all means stop reading my posts. If you want to keep reading them and responding, then please, if i can get antyhing from you, put the "why i dont like tesuji" stuff in its own thread and put any comments relative to the discussion in this one. I am pretty much in the same boat as you... i like to read your posts looking for info, but the drivel of "why i dont like tesuji" really just makes me want to skip ahead to the next poster.

 

Wonder isf we can get steve to put up a "why i dont like tesuji this time" thread of maybe an entire forum so that you and mono and the gang can vent your frustrations there?

[tesuji]

Re: I'll Try The Quote Function This Time.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

When he pretends that obviously relevant factors such as what games the players have experience with are as irrelevent as what they had for lunch, he has no point other than to be annoying.

 

I do just want to highlight something here...

 

I am not pretending.

 

I assume that the GM is RESPONSIBLE for what happens in his game. I do not make allowances for outs for him like "they were all stupid."

 

While the "players were used to something else" is to some an excuse or an out for the Gm on the responsibility side, it isn't for me. It is the job of the GM to know his players and plan accordingly.

 

In this case He DID already know their style and preference... he had the last game session with the other game thingy to show him.

 

yet he ran another game, this time with HERO, and did not account for it. heck it almost sounds like he designed a second episode to "show them".

 

If a Gm starts a game with lack of knowledge of his players so that the scenario leads them to ALL ***100% not on person got it*** figurte out the scenario and end up with ALL ***100% not one of them liked it*** end up not having fun, then i see that as the GMs fault for not being prepared, for not recognizing it during play, and letting it go so far as to wreck the scenario and even drive them to not enjoy the game at all.

 

But thats not what we have here.

 

Here we have a Gm who already tried this, who already knew this and who went ahead again and repreated the failure a second time.

 

Thats not lack of prepa, thats not inexperience, thats most definitely WILLFUL determination.

 

Thats a GM error. Thats one of the first order.

 

The players were a known quantity to him when he ran this second session. The players were not relevent to the problem recurring.

 

I was not pretending to think they weren't relevent, i actually believe that... might have been different for the first game session where he tried this but not the second. The results in the second IMO are all shadowraptors.

[Starlord]

Re: Re: I'll Try The Quote Function This Time.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Lucius, I am honestly perplexed as to why you contiue to act like your opinion of "me" is relevent?

 

Can we perhaps start a thread titled 'what we think about tesuji" so that those who want to rant about me can do so and the ones who want to discuss gaming can avoid this?

 

snip..

 

 

Well, FWIW, I was trying to play moderator because I want the thread to continue. Certain posters stand out to different people. You are one of a dozen or so that stand out to me because of your insight. Based off of the posts I have read of yours (not just here) I feel you also can be condescending. I did not intend to add to the continuation of a "Let's get tesuji" thread and I could care less if you 'insult' HERO. I have seen others respond with annoyance or anger at your posts. You seem to be convinced that its 'what' you are saying. I feel it is 'how' you are saying it.

 

You respond with basically 'so what?, the thread isn't about ME'. However, you apparently post here because you want your opinions known. I was merely offering 'advice' on perhaps why some people react badly to your opinions. Basically, your opinions will have less and less meaning if you gain a rep as a 'bad egg'. I've seen it happen twice in the last 6 months over in the Non-gaming forums where brilliant people pissed others off to point where ANYTHING they posted was just scoffed at by many others. One decided to leave altogether over it. I'll offer an example: say I have a brilliant college professor. If said professor constantly screamed his teachings right to my face day after day, then pretty soon I could care less what he said.

 

I don't know about the others here, but that was the point of my post. I had no intention of attacking, just a friendly reminder that how you say something can be as important as what you say. It is also reason enough to (briefly) go off topic in my opinion.

 

That probably sounded like a lecture, I just didn't know how else to say it. Feel free to discard at your leisure, I won't disrupt the debate again.

[ShadowRaptor]

Wow, talk about getting hammered in the head on here.

 

I already admitted that this could have been my error, did anybody see that on page 3? I don't think so. I think my last post got overlooked some.

 

As for full stats, ocv, dcv, things like that, I won't post them because its not important. I originally posted what I did because of the title of this thread "Fantasy RPG Rant" and that's all I was doing, so all those stats are needless. Yes they were my judgements and conclusions, yes I created the characters to their specifications because I was the only one who knew how to create them. Does that make sense tesuji? Perhaps not.

 

Was it my senario? Yes cuz they didn't know the system. Did I make a mistake or many? Probably to yes.

 

Did i use Automaton rules? No. I made them as regular people and labeled them robots. I should have made that point earlier but I did not. I told them that they were going to fight some robots as a exercise, one robot for each of them. 4 on 4.

 

Did I fully understand the rules? I can admit that I did not, as I already did on page 3 tesuji. Did you read that? Apparently not.

 

Was the end result my fault? As the GM I can clearly say that it was partly my fault and partly their fault, so in this case it was a total team failure if that is how you want to look at it. Did I explain that tactics would be useful? Yes I did. Did I tell them that they have options? Yes I did. Did I type up a combat maneuver sheet for them listing all the options available to them from the basic list? Yes I did. Did I type up any martial maneuvers for those that had martial maneuvers? Yes I did. Did I explain how they worked as far as I understood it to those that had them so they knew what they had? Yes I did. Did I explain all their powers and skills so they knew what they could do? Yes I did.

 

I did not go into it blind, I did make sure the players knew what they had, I asked them what they had to make sure. So, after all that, I did assume that they would not use Diablo-DnD-HackNSlash tactics to wade through. I told them that this is more lethal than what they are used to. I explained how damage worked so they knew what and how it worked.

 

Believe me if you want, I am not lying about any if this. I can understand those that may have difficulties with this tesuji, I can respect those that offer me options, explain how I might have been wrong, things I can work on so I get better.

 

Yes, tesuji, you do annoy people, and I know you don't care because you seem to be the type of person that doesn't care about any opinions but your own and it seems that you don't really respect others beyond a passing hand, but I have no respect for you. And I am sure you could care less, but thats okay because you have no respect for others.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

I already admitted that this could have been my error, did anybody see that on page 3? I don't think so. I think my last post got overlooked some.

I mentioned it more than once. i didn't overlook it at all.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Does that make sense tesuji? Perhaps not.

It makes perfect sense for the Gm to design characters, adversaries and scenarios.

 

i never questioned that.

 

All i questioned was the same GM deciding to dismiss himself from having any fault in the unpleasant outcome. As far as i was concerned, you and i had settled that a ways back.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Did I fully understand the rules? I can admit that I did not, as I already did on page 3 tesuji. Did you read that? Apparently not.

Actaually i did. i think perhaps others missed it.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Was the end result my fault? As the GM I can clearly say that it was partly my fault and partly their fault, so in this case it was a total team failure if that is how you want to look at it.

That is a definite step in the right direction. it is a far superior conclusion to just blaming the players and their other game system.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Did I...yes I did.

Thanks for the explanations of what all you did.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

I did not go into it blind, I did make sure the players knew what they had, I asked them what they had to make sure. So, after all that, I did assume that they would not use Diablo-DnD-HackNSlash tactics to wade through. I told them that this is more lethal than what they are used to. I explained how damage worked so they knew what and how it worked.

OK, so if i get this straight, you designed the scenario EXPECTING them to wade stright in and they did just that. They played "down" to the expectations you had of them.

 

So, which is the case... you expected the result, wasted by the robots, when you setup the scenario OR you expected wading straight in to work for them?

 

It soulds like you prepared all the characters and the players did exactly what you expected... so was the result what you had expected or did you misjudge the balance?

 

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Believe me if you want, I am not lying about any if this.

I think i have said repeatedly that i did not believe you were being dishonest. The only direct element i find myself unable to believe is that the players stated the game, as opposed to your scenario, was too hard for them. Thats way out of character for people as you have characterized them to be saying after a drubbing.

 

My suspicion is that is more or less what you got out of what they said and not a more or less quote.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

I can understand those that may have difficulties with this tesuji, I can respect those that offer me options, explain how I might have been wrong, things I can work on so I get better.

Until i posted you got none of that. Everyone who responded was perfectly happy to run with the DND bashing and calling your players names and laying it all at their feet.

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Yes, tesuji, you do annoy people, and I know you don't care because you seem to be the type of person that doesn't care about any opinions but your own and it seems that you don't really respect others beyond a passing hand, but I have no respect for you. And I am sure you could care less, but thats okay because you have no respect for others.

The auestions i asked of you and the attempts tpo direct you to conisder things other than the players and DnD were serious and i think helpful.

 

if you no longer feel that way, its your loss, not mine.

 

Not much more i can say.

 

Although, i might ask one more thing... have the comments i have made that have inflamed you been worse than the comments you made about your players, or worse than the follow ups you got about your players? have i treated you worse than you did your players when you took the rant to these boards? have i been less fair to you than you were to them?

 

Did you say one word on these boards in defense of your players when other people based on your comments called them "dumb beasts"?

 

I mean, no matter how flagrantly over the top abusive you think i am, at least you are getting to respond to my opinions, assessments and judgements. this is all happening right in front of you and you just did a fairly credible job of "confronting your accuser."

 

Did they get that chance? Did you give them the chance?

 

Did i do you worse than you did them?

 

I haven't called you a dumb beast?

 

YMMV and clearly does.

[ShadowRaptor]

I don't even know what YMMV means.

 

Can you do me a favor and show me my quote where I called my players 'dumb beasts'? If I did that then I'm stupider than I thought.

 

I think as a beginner I could have misjudged the balance, I can accept that possibility and even say that all beginners to HERO probably make that kind of mistake. It's a learning experience.

 

I do apologize for my rude comments in the above post. I was upset.

[tesuji]

you did not. i think it was shrike as i referenced above.

 

you did your own good job of raking them.

[ShadowRaptor]

Okay, so it wasn't me. I didn't think it was.

[ShadowRaptor]

How did all of your first attempts at running a HERO game go for you? And be honest, I can be honest and say mine royally did not go as I had hoped and blew up in my face.

 

ON a side note, I did go see Matrix Reloaded today and that movie rocked. sorry, couldn't resist.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by tesuji

you did not. i think it was shrike as i referenced above.

 

you did your own good job of raking them.

 

I think I used the term dead beats, not dumb beasts.

[Killer Shrike]

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary

[Grue]

I first started playing Hero with a group of veterans about five years ago (still playing). Even after reading through the ruleset(s) the first thing I noticed was the learning curve was very steep (even in comparison to 1st ed Twilight 2000).... while I picked up the dice conventions within a session, it took me roughly three months to figure out how to use the combat maneuvers and timing out attacks with speeds. Another three months to figure out how to draw up powers effectively (And stop the "...he's a mighty cleric, he has Two spells!" ribbing). While my first Hero character was very memorable from an rping standpoint, he was little more than a damage sponge for the party in combat (and honestly how many successful fantasy games don’t have at least one combat a session?).

 

I like the fact you can practically do anything with the Hero System (at least until points come into playJ). It’s exacting if a bit clunky (like Russian technology…it’s ugly but functional somehow:-)) but it works and by its nature Hero encourages problem solving other than by combat. It’s not a system I could recommend to a group where less than half of the players are veterans though. And newbies should almost never be the ones to draw up their character concepts.

 

I’ve run a D&D campaign since 3e came out. In comparison and my experience, Hero works best with in a gritty low magic campaign and is an increasing amount of work as you get to higher magic levels. It’s a lot easier to run magic and a epic storyline (the no built in safety net in Hero can lead to a TPK in a periphery encounter after a series of bad rolls or really good rolls) in D&D. As you start seeing 40-60 AP powers, characters with no magical abilities must begin developing magical defenses. While the group’s magical support can lend some protection their companions, the party generally is nearly always outnumbered or faces too many threats to have a reasonable chance to defend against more than a few possibilities.

 

Combat in Hero also has a tendency to become an ‘all or nothing’ affair especially at higher point levels. A group of 20 goblins in D&D can be a dink down encounter for even a 7th level party (eating up a healing spell or two, a low level magic item use or combat spell). In Hero, unless one of the goblins gets very lucky (odds of hitting and doing real damage are much less than the 5% chance it is in a stand up fight in D&D), it’s rare to see more than recoverable stun done in damage to a group in my experience. Unless there are a lot of low point creatures, it’s generally not worth running the encounter in the first place (and large fights in Hero are in general a major pain and much slower in comparison to D&D). The tried and true tactic of running away from an opponent that you aren’t prepared for is difficult when one of your companions goes down in the first phase. Or gets grabbed, mind controlled, transformed, flashed, etc.

 

It’s generally difficult to buy stats above 20 in our Hero game and nearly impossible to have one above 30. Monsters with 40 strength or more aren’t that uncommon however. Even with contortionist or martial escape (or rarely a strength aid), we’ve had more than our share of characters killed when they were used by the grabbing beastie to block a blow. It has been a work in progress trying to balance out how to do a standard high fantasy campaign in the Hero system without the severe attrition rates or fighters relegated to secondary roles (or the game turning into Fantasy Champions). While rewarding to tinker with the Hero system, d20 is a lot less work to get a mid-to-high magic\point (level) game running.

[AnotherSkip]

Actually my first (and so far only) was a 4th Champions session.

 

It went far more toward the players end(excessive success) than I thought it would. But then it was a one shot, with group of villians and heroes with no attempt to really "balance" them. I had some decent limits but other than that, I let them go free.

 

The Villians were prebuilt, the characters were Johnny on the spot and even with a point balance (250 each) me being experienced, and most of the other players newbies, they wiped the floor with me. HEAVEN! after the second Phase I started TRYING to clobber them!

most CV's were 6, DC's were mostly 12 with 1 18max , (the shrinky MArtial Artist had 10 DC attack with a DCV of 12, the "space ship" had a DCV of 4, OCV of 6-8 and could move through to get the 18DC. Poor Vilians had to teleport out of their own base!

[Grue]

Yup. The Hero system is totally dependent on the GM to balance things out. Both towards the PCs and any opposition they may face.

 

In a good number of other rpgs, play balance is somewhat 'hard wired' (at least in the non-troupe style ones). Powers, npcs, and items are standardized straight out of published materials and hopefully have been somewhat playtested. In Hero it's up to the gm to set the limits. The GM has to be very careful on what powers and abilities are allowed into the campaign and what can be done in context with the group as a whole. And then has to be very careful what sort of obstacles are in a given scenario. It's generally a lot more work and more of an artform.

 

Balance issues normally aren't too hard to control in champions if the gm has some experience and finesse. Superheroes generally have counters to powers already developed or should be able to buy them with experience after figuring out how to fit the new power in with the characters overall scheme. Fantasy Hero is much easier to keep a handle on at lower point levels than Champions but starts to break down around the 200 point level unless the GM has done his homework (at least in campaigns with a moderate+ amount of magic).

 

Our group has typically used magic items to give some survivalability to the party, but dependency on 'Ye Olde Magic Shoppe' can stretch a little thin. We're currently toying with the idea that pcs raised in a magical world would either have or be able to develop some magical resistance....even to the extent where everything is magic dependent (ala Earthdawn). Or requiring all spells and similar powers have a limitation that allows it to be fully or partially negated by a successful characteristic roll (adjusted by the AP of the power....but perhaps a bit too D&Dish). I'm looking forward to the upcoming 5e Fantasy Hero supplement to see if it has a simplier solution.

[ShadowRaptor]

Yeah by reading his regular updates as to how the Fantasy HERO book is coming it sounds as if it will really help me out a lot, and I am actually going to wait until that book comes out before I try anything with HERO.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

Yeah by reading his regular updates as to how the Fantasy HERO book is coming it sounds as if it will really help me out a lot, and I am actually going to wait until that book comes out before I try anything with HERO.

 

I suppose thats one approach, but you might as well start setting up the background of the world now in preperation.

 

Just earmark areas where crunchy bits go and fill it in later.

 

Otherwise it will be quite some time until you actually get it up and going, and interest tends to wane over that period of time....

[ShadowRaptor]

That's not much of a problem for me right now since school is getting heftier in the homework department, and finals are coming up so all I will have after that is free time to work on it.

 

Besidea, and I know this is a sin to say it here, but I got Talislanta for a gift the other day and I have been browsing through that book, and its pretty amazing.

 

Still, HERO is my favorite game and I doubt that will change.

[Markdoc]

>>>Yup. The Hero system is totally dependent on the GM to balance things out. Both towards the PCs and any opposition they may face.

 

In a good number of other rpgs, play balance is somewhat 'hard wired' (at least in the non-troupe style ones). Powers, npcs, and items are standardized straight out of published materials and hopefully have been somewhat playtested. In Hero it's up to the gm to set the limits. The GM has to be very careful on what powers and abilities are allowed into the campaign and what can be done in context with the group as a whole. And then has to be very careful what sort of obstacles are in a given scenario. It's generally a lot more work and more of an artform.<<<<

 

Man, I could not disagree more. While there is plenty of room to spread out in Hero system, my experience - based on many years play and GM'ing - is that FH is generally well balanced.

 

Not perfect, mind, but generally well balanced.

 

Balance in many other game systems is very arbitrary. This has been bought home to me in our ongoing Runequest game. One of my characters is a troll. He's actually a fairly average troll - and he'll wipe the floor with almost any of the other characters, despite the fact that they are all far more experienced. Simply because Trolls are mean. The disadvantges suffered in return for grandiose physical stat.s are minimal.

 

2e DnD suffered from this horribly, even if you were using the "official" rules (Hmm. Lemmesee. Play a Fighter or a Cavalier? Well, duh!). 3e has improved things a lot, but without an underlying metasystem, it is already starting o go the same way as "new" rules are introduced. VtM is the same: some characters, can without any particular effort, slaughter others with the same level of experience (Iron Wind springs to mind...).

 

To a certain extent that is also true of most "roll your stat.s" systems. It would be nice to think that the hardwired systems were carefully playtested to ensure that everything balanced out, but even that just ain't the case. Given that in many cases, extra rules, items, character classes, powers, etc are introduced by multiple authors over multiple books, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise.

 

You could argue that combat is not the be-all and end-all of character balance and I'd agree. But it IS the arena in which differences in character power are most starkly contrasted. Likewise, I think we can gree that some degree of GM input is essential to getting a smoothly running game - in any system.

 

But my experience has been that things go gak gak in Hero mostly when the GM starts to warp the system - taking certain powers out, adding extra things in, setting arbitrary limits. You need to do that sometimes to get the feel you want, but THAT's where the art part comes in: balancing the system with the changes you make.

 

As a base system, Hero seems to me to pretty balanced - and like I said, I have run Con games, and campaigns that lasted years, games with all veterans, all newbies or a mix of both. I have certainly seen parties get toasted by opponents of lesser power - but that is also true of many other game systems I have run.

 

cheers, Mark

[Grue]

Originally posted by Markdoc

>>>Man, I could not disagree more. While there is plenty of room to spread out in Hero system, my experience - based on many years play and GM'ing - is that FH is generally well balanced.

 

Not perfect, mind, but generally well balanced.<<<<

 

Hero system and the old FH sources only provide a menu of components and a core framework. Some guidelines are suggested, but it's totally up to the GM to set the limits and keep things balanced. It's a positive and a negative, with the negative being overcome if the GM has the time, effort, and most importantly judgement to put into his campaign.

 

I also didn’t say other systems were better balanced than Hero, just that they were standardized and required less preparation and care as a result. Not that I consider 2nd ed or Runequest paragons of Game Design and Game Balance. Both were designed in the 70’s and somewhat influenced by tabletop wargaming (innovative at the time but both carried certain sacred cows up through their multiple editions). Runequest’s big innovation was monster equality (where monsters could get the same training and receive experience just like PCs could). It also wasn’t “human-centric†like D&D was. You could play a troll…or a duck if the GM allowed. Whether this was fair or not was left up to the GM (as in Hero), but the work of laying out racial packages was already done and the effects on the campaign generally predictable.

 

I don’t know any DM that was insane enough to use or allow every supplement pushed out TSR’s doors during the era of the second edition. Not to nitpick, but your reference to playing a Cavalier over a Fighter was a 1st edition thing (from Unearthed Arcana which was rushed to publication to get TSR out of some deep financial trouble… while the book itself had some good ideas and interesting crunchy bits it was far from polished). In 2nd ed itself the only ‘standard’ rules were those not outlined in blue in the PHB and DMG, fairly simple and playable. Everything else was optional (including the slew of Complete Whatever books and the awful Players Options books). In 3e the same thing goes… only the core rulebooks (or rather the SRD) are official, everything else is ‘optional’. A point buy system for stats has always been an option throughout all of its editions. Not that most DMs don’t do their own tweaking and adjustments, but if they wanted to play a pickup game on the spur of the moment they could do so with much less prep than it would take with a Fantasy Hero game (assuming of course you don’t have a stack of pregens lying around that you’ve already invested the time in drawing up;-).

 

VtM and it’s ilk have more in common with improv theater and the early troupe games (like Ars Magica) than other rpgs which fall a little closer to their table-top wargaming roots. Fairness and game balance were totally secondary concerns to their design in favor of storytelling (at least for the initial creators). Life isn’t fair in a game of personal horror, but really in the realm of rpgs the comparison between Hero and VtM is more of and apples and oranges thing.

 

The greatest strength and weakness of Hero is the freedom it gives within its rules set without being freeform. I didn’t say other systems didn’t require GM input, I said that Hero requires proportionally more input than many systems on a whole menu of items. By way of example in 3e….there are certain assumptions of what a 5th level party can handle (and in most cases these assumptions are reasonably close…. like which monsters are generally a equal fight, traps and encounters within skill levels, and what level of magic items and spells are generally accessible to the PCs). In Hero, judging what a 125 pt. party can do is an artform. While most players don’t create 125 pt. wine tasters, a GM has to know their capabilities intimately. While I suppose you could set up a game without the GM “setting arbitrary limitsâ€, unless your groups have always consisted of roleplaying saints or you are some sort of Hero god, the amount of thought and work you would have to put into keeping a group that was allowed to buy anything they wanted (+8 ocv with great swords, a spell that tunnels, closes behind and is usable as an attack, or the myriad of power suggestions present on these boards) challenged I think would put a serious strain on your time and campaign

[Markdoc]

Me, a hero god? Gosh. I have in general not been blessed with player-saints, but more usually number-crunching rules-mongers (good players, though, which is what counts)

 

Seriously, though I HAVE had the powers you describe - if not a player with +8 OCV in Greatsword, at least one with +6 OCV and martial arts. Likewise the "closing tunnel" attack spell (although I prefer the traditional "Forlorn Encystment" name :-)

 

But that's the point - with all of assembled herodom - and the world of fantasy literature, films and comics - at my command as GM, do you really think I'm going to be challenged by some punk with a sword and 15 OCV?

 

So yes - hero system characters can vary wildly. And obviously some GM intervention (and preferably more than just "some") is a desirable thing. But I stand by my claim - OVERALL, FH has proved to be a very balanced system (at least for me).

 

I would make no claims about it being the *most* balanced system - there's far too may games I have never even read. Nor would I claim it is the easiest - for a quickie pickup game, D&D or TFT is far easier (and i use those, when I feel inclined). But "easy" and balanced are two entirely different things.

 

A good example of balance - and perhaps a formative experience for me - is what we used to do for occasional one-off fun. Give your erstwhile players a certain amount of points (100, 200, whatever). Let them make up a character - anything they like, just no GM-permission-only powers or combos. Drop them into an environment of the GM's choosing and let them fight it out.

 

At various times, we had the tunneling slug with mental powers, the mega-cannon-toting pixie, the flamethrower-armed robot, and the little old granny with a robotic arsenal in a pram, the psychotic mercenary with dimensional teleport bombs and the California beach babe in fall-apart armor with a jackhammer...

 

One thing came through: it was impossible to make a character that had all advantages and no weaknesses. Plenty of well honed hero players devised a fiendish character construct that got the toffee whaled out of it. After running a few games with that lot, a samurai wannabe with a two-handed sword is no trouble, believe me....

 

cheers, Mark

[CleverName]

Originally posted by Grue

Yup. The Hero system is totally dependent on the GM to balance things out. Both towards the PCs and any opposition they may face.

 

 

I have read your las three posts and I can't disagree with your major points. And I must say that I like the tone.

 

I agree that it takes more planning and foresight to run a successful FH campaign than D&D.

 

While there are always exceptions, play "balance" and power progression _is_ hard wired into D&D assuming you know the rules and pretty much stick to them.

 

Most popular systems do one or two things very well. I think that if the two points above, plus let' say more support material any other game in existance are important to a gamer, then D20 gets the nod.

 

I think the main rationale for playing one game over another is based on what you want. I think that FH, especially when it comes to high-magic campaigns offers a hell of a lot to gamers, far more than D&D ever could. Yeah, I know there are 10,000 d20 spells out there. But many are of questionable quality and all classes have tons of restrictions about what they can and cannot cast. Trying to create a spell or magic item in d20 is more art form than anything else.

 

HERO, OTOH, offers the players a FUNCTIONAL system as its basis -- rather than the vague guidelines of d20. The GM can set a few limits and then the characters can go to town -- making up an _unlimited_ supply of magic for their characters.