The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Hmm. This has been an interesting threadbut I haven't been tempted to respond to it. However I am currently trying to sort myself out with a set of rules that I want to use to play in the Glorantha setting. Runequest was too limited and HeroQuest (though I love the system) too narrative for my Glorantha.

 

I have decided to use Hero but in a way that probably makes it look less like any Hero game that I have ever run.

 

It has been an interesting task (despite the fact that work and fatherly duties continually interrupt) and I'm coming to see that while certain things in the Hero system can easily be dropped or replaced (SPD and the SPD chart for example) other things need too many consequential changes to be easily dropped (basing combat soley on DEX).

 

I think when I am finished I might have a better perception of what is actually core Hero System and what are flavour bits that provide the gameplay the designers want to promote.

 

Doc

[Warp9]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

I'm totally with you on this. Academic discussion about the rules can be fun and whatnot' date=' but they're just that - academic. In the end the purpose of game rules is [i']to facilitate playing games[/i] - nothing less and nothing more. A game system should be designed to meet that need. If it can provide academic side entertainment in so doing, that's pretty cool. But we should never confuse the two, nor seek to elevate the academic part to anything approaching the importance of the gaming part. In that respect, I vehemently disagree with zornwil's initial premise.

 

I play Hero because it's flexible enough to accomodate pretty much every genre of game I've run in the last 20+ years. It's complete and self-consistent enough that I can start a campaign without dithering together rules for every last eventuality. I don't run Hero because it stimulates debate about point balancing and muzzle energies and all that useless crap. That's a side show, an academic exercise for us geeks who occasionally get off on numbers and logic. The fact that it's often quite fun does not mean Hero should be designed around it. As RDU Neil says, that can make (and has somewhat already made) the system ugly and clunky.

 

Game rules are for playing games. Learn it, love it.

 

(Btw I also disagree that you have to buy anything other than the core rules to play a game.)

I believe that Academic discussion serves a purpose in game play.

 

To me the point of talking about things like muzzle energy (and how it relates to damage) is so that we may have a consistent standard for damage.

 

Why would we want or need such a standard?

 

With no such standard, damage becomes arbitrary, and you may end up getting a nasty surprise because some GM decides that a helicopter blade should do 100d6 killing damage in his game.

 

It would also be good to have consistent write-ups for characters who need to be able to withstand a given amount of damage. Marvel's Hyperion can survive a Nuke, I'd like a consistent write up for that, which means that we need a consistent standard for a Nuke's damage.

 

Using muzzle energy as a standard will mean that my write up for a given sci-fi rail gun will be rated at the same level as a very similiar gun in somebody else's campaign. Using energy I can also rate a nuke or an asteroid impact in a manner that should be consistent between games, rather than a number that each GM makes up on the spot.

 

A GM can still decide that a BB gun does 10d6 RKA in his game, but, if this is the case, we can definitely say that his game does not follow normal standards (and he should probably warn the players of this fact before the game gets going).

 

For me, the Academic observation helps guide my decisions as a GM. And as a Player, these standards make the GM's world more predictable, and give me some ability to predict the results of my character's actions within the game.

[RDU Neil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

I believe that Academic discussion serves a purpose in game play.

 

To me the point of talking about things like muzzle energy (and how it relates to damage) is so that we may have a consistent standard for damage.

 

Why would we want or need such a standard?

 

With no such standard, damage becomes arbitrary, and you may end up getting a nasty surprise because some GM decides that a helicopter blade should do 100d6 killing damage in his game.

 

It would also be good to have consistent write-ups for characters who need to be able to withstand a given amount of damage. Marvel's Hyperion can survive a Nuke, I'd like a consistent write up for that, which means that we need a consistent standard for a Nuke's damage.

 

Using muzzle energy as a standard will mean that my write up for a given sci-fi rail gun will be rated at the same level as a very similiar gun in somebody else's campaign. Using energy I can also rate a nuke or an asteroid impact in a manner that should be consistent between games, rather than a number that each GM makes up on the spot.

 

A GM can still decide that a BB gun does 10d6 RKA in his game, but, if this is the case, we can definitely say that his game does not follow normal standards (and he should probably warn the players of this fact before the game gets going).

 

For me, the Academic observation helps guide my decisions as a GM. And as a Player, these standards make the GM's world more predictable, and give me some ability to predict the results of my character's actions within the game.

 

And I totally agree with this... you are, in fact, not disagreeing with austinandrews or myself. Your discussions of muzzle velocity... while I think flawed in the attempt to be TOO exacting... are not academic discussions... they are firmly in the camp of "to better my play experience."

 

What we are using academic to mean is the pure, theoretic, "what if..." kind of discussions that masquerade as gaming discussions. These are areas where discussing the system has become an end in and of itself... like discussiong game theory and game design in and of themselves. I have no problem with such discussions, as long as they are clearly identified as such... and I would back austinandrews in his defense of game rules NOT being designed/developed to support theory and theoretical discussion... but to support a desired play experience.

 

Now... there is a blurring of these lines in a system like Hero. The reason for this is because of it's attempts to be generic/universal... trying to create a set of rules that is effective across a wide variety of games. This drives "high level" discussions of mechanics and builds and structures and design... because these things have a much greater impact on actual Hero play than a game that is purely designed to do one thing (like, say, Burning Wheel). Therefore, it is easy to slip from "discussion to help play" into "theoretical discussion" without meaning to... but high level discussions that help game play are NOT theoretical... they are eminently practical... as you described above.

 

What I mean by two games in one, is that over time, I believe Hero as a system has spawned a sub-game around "discussing Hero theory" that has nothing at all to do with actually playing an RPG, but is an entertaining divergence (a game) all on it's own. It is this sub-game of Hero: The Theory that concerns me, because I feel it has unduly influenced the rule system of Hero and perhaps detracted from the overall play experience.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Hmm. This has been an interesting threadbut I haven't been tempted to respond to it. However I am currently trying to sort myself out with a set of rules that I want to use to play in the Glorantha setting. Runequest was too limited and HeroQuest (though I love the system) too narrative for my Glorantha.

 

I have decided to use Hero but in a way that probably makes it look less like any Hero game that I have ever run.

 

It has been an interesting task (despite the fact that work and fatherly duties continually interrupt) and I'm coming to see that while certain things in the Hero system can easily be dropped or replaced (SPD and the SPD chart for example) other things need too many consequential changes to be easily dropped (basing combat soley on DEX).

 

I think when I am finished I might have a better perception of what is actually core Hero System and what are flavour bits that provide the gameplay the designers want to promote.

 

Doc

Excellent, please keep me (and us in the analysis group, too) posted!

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

(snipped to a single phrase)

 

...than a game that is purely designed to do one thing (like' date=' say, Burning Wheel). [/quote']

 

Have you any experience with Burning Wheel? I'm curious what you think of it, if you have a moment, either here or in the General Roleplaying forum so as not to get OT since this forum is for Hero (please notify me or link the thread if you start one there, please)

[Trencher]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Just a quick comment from someone who have played mostly heroic campaigns.

 

Hero is more a "random happening in a story tool" rather than a game.

 

Hero system works very well for heroic level campaign. IF you throw all the dnd stuff out of the window. All genres can be simulated and mixed without rule problems.

Game balance can be an issue but with the right attitude it will be easily fixed.

 

All serious GM's should know the hero system even if they do not use it.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Just a quick comment from someone who have played mostly heroic campaigns.

 

Hero is more a "random happening in a story tool" rather than a game.

 

Hero system works very well for heroic level campaign. IF you throw all the dnd stuff out of the window. All genres can be simulated and mixed without rule problems.

Game balance can be an issue but with the right attitude it will be easily fixed.

 

All serious GM's should know the hero system even if they do not use it.

I could make guesses, but what do you mean by "throw all the dnd stuff out of the window," out of curiousity?

[Trencher]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

It is a little difficult to explain but there are several things.

 

Danger as recourse allocation: In dnd you have many hit points you might meet monsters that can kill you but you will see how dangerous the monsters are by how many hit points you loose. Combat go back fourth but in general a couple of sword stabs from a 200 kilo grams lifting orc will not kill you.

 

Linear power gain: In dnd as you get more xp you gain levels, levels are decided and balanced. You know what you get either you want it or not. And you allways grow more powerful challenges that were horrendous to face when you started out playing is a laughable joke when you close in on the higher levels.

 

Powerful beats good tactics: In dnd tactics are less important than level a first level warrior is not going to kill a twenty level fighter even if the twenty level fighter don't wear amour and the first level has the high ground and is armed with a long bow. He can shoot and hit the twenty level ten times, stab him in the gut with his sword it does not matter the twentyleveling will yawn and kill him in one round.

Furthermore you cant shoot people a shotgun blast in the back does 3d6 points of damage end of story. How many pc's go down after being hit by 3d6? Not many.

 

I am also high level: As the dnd campaign progress you meet more high level characters. One or two people in the world might be lucky and skilled enough to explain away the reason they can take more arrows in the chest than an average black bear but twenty of them? Several hundred?

 

The rules say clearly that I can do this: In dnd every spell feat and magic item is has its own rules often jumbled together with the description and history. This leads to a lot of rules lawyering.

 

I have to get to tenth level to be somebody: In dnd you work your way up in the rank you look forward to reaching that and that level since then you can cast that and that spells or wield that and that ability and so forth. This leads to a wrongful sense of progress when it is not progress at all it is just running around in pre-made circles.

 

Hierarchical solutions- High level characters can push around lower level characters granted not everybody does this but the possibility is there.

 

Feel free to ask again or comment.

[Marcus]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Only speaking for myself...

Game Rules, and Game Application of Same:

The game rules define, to some extent, the 'laws of science' of the world that they describe. If I'm a consistency monkey in my own games, and if I drive my DMs to destraction because of what I think are questionable rules calls, it is because I feel that the rules define how things work in that world, at least as a baseline.

 

Of course, most games diverge at some point from the very rules they run by. Whether the GM's thumb on the scales to keep the PCs alive, to a simple hand-wave that keeps the -1 Stun mooks unconcious, at some point the rules are usually stepped away from. The alternative to this (having a single set of rules, that is always applied, to all beings) generates a style of play very divergent from the 'classic' superhero, or even high-fantasy hero, and more like Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, or other such games. In the typical supers or high fantasy game, the characters arent just however competent the character sheet says they are, they are in some fashion 'special'... they, like the hero of the story, are the central figure. For the more gritty games, the characters, however competent (and they may in some cases be the -most- competent), are not particularly special... and the rules apply fully, to everyone, all the time. Your not special, your not a beautiful flower, and yes, your character can slip off this mortal coil because he got unlucky. Deal.

 

In the former style game, the question becomes "Since the rules are not -always- the rules, when do we diverge"? In such a game, the rules either define the 'bubble around the PCs'... with physics subtly changing once its outside of the PCs sight-line, such that the world can continue to exist. This basically ignores those pesky questions like 'So... how do people actually DIE from gunshots to the chest' by saying that the body damage, death at -body, etc. rules only apply to PCs... offscreen normal people suffer the same results that 'real world' people do. I consider this the 'basic' rules-setting for games. No consistency is required, nothing is required, other than that it cause everything within the little bubble around the PCs to function to create the game experience intended by the creator. Of course, the PLAYERS must buy into that lack of consistency, but in many settings, this simply isnt a problem. (Note the lack of casulties in most superhero world natural disasters.. .this is simply a part of the setting). Argueably, VtM had this aspect... the world simply did not hold together if everyone within it played by the same rules the characters did.

 

The second setting for those 'PCs are different' worlds is what I consider the 'fudge-factor' ruleset... one that covers the entire world with the layer of definition necessary for physics, but in which the GM occasionally takes steps, because the RAW dont allow for Heros to act... Heroically. Sometimes ADD 3.5 has that feel... without some GM intervention, its not a good simulation of Heroing... its a simulation of D+D, with all its tactical wierdness.

 

The 'ideal' ruleset, IMHO, is one that covers both. It should be inclusive, internally consistent, and apply to all characters in the game. These are your 'gritty' or 'realistic' rules.. .rule systems that are absent 'Karma-Points' or other additional control fate mechanics, and instead allow the dice to fall where they may. Iron Age superheroing (at whatever power level, and with whatever morality) has such a feel, as do the Champions rules.

 

Just my 2c on realism and game choice, YMMV.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

It all comes around to this: If the System (or Rules) do not Enable you to Play The Game in a fun and effecient manner all the intellectual postering in the world won't help you. But it's still fun.

[Warp9]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Game Rules, and Game Application of Same:

The game rules define, to some extent, the 'laws of science' of the world that they describe. If I'm a consistency monkey in my own games, and if I drive my DMs to destraction because of what I think are questionable rules calls, it is because I feel that the rules define how things work in that world, at least as a baseline.

That is generally what I feel about the purpose of a game system, it is a kind of simplified "Laws of Physics" for a game world. A game system represents a solid objective standard upon which everybody in that game can agree.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

It is a little difficult to explain but there are several things.

 

Danger as recourse allocation: In dnd you have many hit points you might meet monsters that can kill you but you will see how dangerous the monsters are by how many hit points you loose. Combat go back fourth but in general a couple of sword stabs from a 200 kilo grams lifting orc will not kill you.

 

Linear power gain: In dnd as you get more xp you gain levels, levels are decided and balanced. You know what you get either you want it or not. And you allways grow more powerful challenges that were horrendous to face when you started out playing is a laughable joke when you close in on the higher levels.

 

Powerful beats good tactics: In dnd tactics are less important than level a first level warrior is not going to kill a twenty level fighter even if the twenty level fighter don't wear amour and the first level has the high ground and is armed with a long bow. He can shoot and hit the twenty level ten times, stab him in the gut with his sword it does not matter the twentyleveling will yawn and kill him in one round.

Furthermore you cant shoot people a shotgun blast in the back does 3d6 points of damage end of story. How many pc's go down after being hit by 3d6? Not many.

 

I am also high level: As the dnd campaign progress you meet more high level characters. One or two people in the world might be lucky and skilled enough to explain away the reason they can take more arrows in the chest than an average black bear but twenty of them? Several hundred?

 

The rules say clearly that I can do this: In dnd every spell feat and magic item is has its own rules often jumbled together with the description and history. This leads to a lot of rules lawyering.

 

I have to get to tenth level to be somebody: In dnd you work your way up in the rank you look forward to reaching that and that level since then you can cast that and that spells or wield that and that ability and so forth. This leads to a wrongful sense of progress when it is not progress at all it is just running around in pre-made circles.

 

Hierarchical solutions- High level characters can push around lower level characters granted not everybody does this but the possibility is there.

 

Feel free to ask again or comment.

This makes sense.

 

But, personally, I like levelling for certain aspects. I grafted on a Reputation Levelling system to Hero, and the players like it quite a bit. It doesn't dictate, per se, but it makes things easier to do at certain levels. Although I do have a little thing where until you get to 100 Rep (just 1-3 sessions) you don't get PRE attacks. At 2nd level you get points to spend on HQ or vehicles or similar support things, at 3rd level you get points for contacts and such, and so on (e.g., at 4th or 5th level (can't recall off the top of my head) you get some forgivenesses, you have some ability to get out of a bad spot with the gov't or public, but it still has to be explained in the game, i.e., requires SFX if you will). Moreover, though, it also tells how well known you are. The base assumption is you start off unknown, one could easily just start characters at higher levels if preferred.

 

I think some things you mention occur in any game, such as the rules sorts of issues, but acknowledge they can be worse in a system such as d20.

 

I keep meaning to buy the core system to really learn it but it's hard to justify since it's not something I'll use. Plus I kind of feel funny about buying a product from the 900 pound gorilla and boosting their base.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Only speaking for myself...

Game Rules, and Game Application of Same:

The game rules define, to some extent, the 'laws of science' of the world that they describe. If I'm a consistency monkey in my own games, and if I drive my DMs to destraction because of what I think are questionable rules calls, it is because I feel that the rules define how things work in that world, at least as a baseline.

 

Of course, most games diverge at some point from the very rules they run by. Whether the GM's thumb on the scales to keep the PCs alive, to a simple hand-wave that keeps the -1 Stun mooks unconcious, at some point the rules are usually stepped away from. The alternative to this (having a single set of rules, that is always applied, to all beings) generates a style of play very divergent from the 'classic' superhero, or even high-fantasy hero, and more like Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, or other such games. In the typical supers or high fantasy game, the characters arent just however competent the character sheet says they are, they are in some fashion 'special'... they, like the hero of the story, are the central figure. For the more gritty games, the characters, however competent (and they may in some cases be the -most- competent), are not particularly special... and the rules apply fully, to everyone, all the time. Your not special, your not a beautiful flower, and yes, your character can slip off this mortal coil because he got unlucky. Deal.

 

In the former style game, the question becomes "Since the rules are not -always- the rules, when do we diverge"? In such a game, the rules either define the 'bubble around the PCs'... with physics subtly changing once its outside of the PCs sight-line, such that the world can continue to exist. This basically ignores those pesky questions like 'So... how do people actually DIE from gunshots to the chest' by saying that the body damage, death at -body, etc. rules only apply to PCs... offscreen normal people suffer the same results that 'real world' people do. I consider this the 'basic' rules-setting for games. No consistency is required, nothing is required, other than that it cause everything within the little bubble around the PCs to function to create the game experience intended by the creator. Of course, the PLAYERS must buy into that lack of consistency, but in many settings, this simply isnt a problem. (Note the lack of casulties in most superhero world natural disasters.. .this is simply a part of the setting). Argueably, VtM had this aspect... the world simply did not hold together if everyone within it played by the same rules the characters did.

 

The second setting for those 'PCs are different' worlds is what I consider the 'fudge-factor' ruleset... one that covers the entire world with the layer of definition necessary for physics, but in which the GM occasionally takes steps, because the RAW dont allow for Heros to act... Heroically. Sometimes ADD 3.5 has that feel... without some GM intervention, its not a good simulation of Heroing... its a simulation of D+D, with all its tactical wierdness.

 

The 'ideal' ruleset, IMHO, is one that covers both. It should be inclusive, internally consistent, and apply to all characters in the game. These are your 'gritty' or 'realistic' rules.. .rule systems that are absent 'Karma-Points' or other additional control fate mechanics, and instead allow the dice to fall where they may. Iron Age superheroing (at whatever power level, and with whatever morality) has such a feel, as do the Champions rules.

 

Just my 2c on realism and game choice, YMMV.

This isn't exactly your point, but this relates to your conclusion on the ideal gameset...I think you raise two very interesting points here, and ones fundamental to any game design. The first is the ruleset as the science, as you say. What's especially interesting, though, is that this science isn't necessarily an issue of mechanical action, but even what is important. In some games combat isn't actually important, or it might only be important at an abstract level. So it doesn't matter much which guns are used or (except for dramatic differences, perhaps - and perhaps even then not!) how strong someone is, or the like. It's all about what KIND of interaction will occur, not just what kind "may" occur. If it "may" occur but has nothing to do with the game, it can just be set aside, which is why I put the word in quotes, as the fact of it possibly occurring is really a by-product of the game moving into a direction it's not intended for so in theory, in a so-called perfect (by the designer's vision) game, it shouldn't even happen. This may lead some players to feel the game system is broken...but it's not, they simply want to play a different game. At that point the players (including the GM for the moment as a member of the players) may choose to "fix" it by redesigning the game to accomodate what they want to play or play a different actual game.

 

The other point you raise, and this is crucial, is the view of the PC in the world. In so-called universal systems this actually varies. Take Savage Worlds against Hero...both, in different ways, speak to having a universal system. SW deliberately abstracts more and it's claim to fame (which it is really excellent at, as I'm now reading the rules more critically) is the streamlining of its design. But there's a reason it can streamline, and a reason that works well for most adventure gamers and why, I believe, the system is gaining such a following: the PC has a very specific and special place in the world. That place is so well-defined (they are called Aces and, tellingly, mooks and such are called "Extras", I think this alone says a lot) that it really does depart from what Hero does. Hero is more agnostic about this role of the PC; while there are some SUGGESTiONS in the system, there is not a built-in mechanic to make what SW calls Extras just that. Hero, insteads, tries to accomodate the "everyman-hero" as well as the super-hero or high-end fantasy hero, and as part of this it's mechanics don't draw distinctions except in a few rare cases (and, again, I think these might even all be optional, I can't quite recall a rule that isn't optional that dictates different treatment - oh, BOD and death, there's one).

 

So in the end, when you talk about an ideal system, it really, as one factor, depends on people's tastes about the PCs. I infer (perhaps unfairly) from your commentary that you like consistent "game science" and while you are okay, even supportive, of the idea as PC as special, you want the PCs not to have to be treated radically, or even (I think, please do correct me!) especially differently. So your ideal forms from that.

 

The idea of a universal game system is, to me, sort of a cruel joke we've played on ourselves. Setting aside the role of the PC, which is as fundamentally a personal taste as which genre people like, even more broadly the best we could hope for woudl be a universal ACTION-ADVENTURE or "COMBAT MECHANIC" system, not a true universal RPG system. We've had this debate before, but I really don't think Hero can well perform a true political roleplaying game. But I can be more concrete than that and talk about games out there on the market...how do you take baseline Hero and with any real ease do the game about the 12 days of Christmas and surviving as a gingerbread man, including the real-world interaction that game allows for in what people do with the figurines in the household? How do you take Hero and really do the Dogs in the Vineyard game? So, okay, maybe we can do a universal action-adventure game...so long as we all agree on how PCs should grow, what the PCs' place in the world is, what level of detail is sufficient to model playing a game where the characters are atomic-sized versus universe-sized, and so on...i.e., I think not!

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

That is generally what I feel about the purpose of a game system' date=' it is a kind of simplified [i']"Laws of Physics"[/i] for a game world. A game system represents a solid objective standard upon which everybody in that game can agree.

I like the phrase " a solid objective standard upon which everybody in that game can agree." Gaming is about enabling the players to work off consensus and where they lack consensus the rules are there to resolve that. This is an excellent phrase to reflect that.

[Trencher]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

This makes sense.

But, personally, I like levelling for certain aspects. I grafted on a Reputation Levelling system to Hero, and the players like it quite a bit.

 

Well I see that your system here can be helpful in the game because they have to go about getting their bases, vehicles and followers and such. Level as a matter of status and reputation is good!

Levels as an estimate of raw personal power though is harmful to certain aspects in the game in my opinion. It makes it difficult to create exactly that character you want to since most fantasy character that players are proud of can handle themselves in a fight even tough they might not be invincible.

Dnd is a game first and rpg second hero games are a role-playing tool to define character in a story and for adding a certain level of strategic maneuvering and random luck to conflict resolution. In hero you have a character concept and you assingn points after that not the other way around like in other rpg's.

And my MAIN point is that if you take your dnd game attitude with you into hero then you will not like the game much, you are lost trying to recreate heroes that can take as much damage as they would have done in dnd.

Many games have tried to copy dnd and they are all dead and gone. Even though hero can simulate dnd it can never simulate dnd as well as dnd can.

If your players need he hit point safety net and/or show hierarchal tendencies then you should just let them play dnd. Sooner or later they grow up and go tired of it then you show them hero. Works every time

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Just snipped a few things -

 

Levels as an estimate of raw personal power though is harmful to certain aspects in the game in my opinion.

 

Yes, personally, I agree as well.

 

Dnd is a game first and rpg second

 

This is a very interesting statement. I sort of agree but sort of do not...my first experience with DnD was with a very tactical war game approach per the GM. I had no clue what was going on. However, one thing I noticed with DnD, back then, was that everyone took to the roleplaying aspect in one way or another, because the system allowed for and somehow encouraged it. I don't have the old rules, I did read the first AD&D rules and have seen the old DnD rules on occasion. I am sad to say I don't recall why, but I do recall that aspects definitely put people on the path to RPGing not centered around either wargaming or pure power-gaming, as it were, so I think it is owed an awful lot of respect out of that. I think it had something to do with the class system, oddly enough; while now I hate classes, especially when people try to force them into supers games, I think perhaps that was the early path to character distinction.

 

hero games are a role-playing tool to define character in a story and for adding a certain level of strategic maneuvering and random luck to conflict resolution.

 

I would quibble a bit on that. First, it is definitely for action hero gaming, which is a restriction off the top (even if of course most RPGs are, and, btw, I prefer action hero gaming, I am not a "roleplay vs rollplay" snob). Second, I think it has some prejudices in terms of emphasizing certain types of characters and certain types of stories. However, it is certainly not driven as much towards d20s core ethos, which I've best heard expressed as "kill stuff, gain power."

 

And my MAIN point is that if you take your dnd game attitude with you into hero then you will not like the game much

 

Sure, different games with different purposes.

 

Many games have tried to copy dnd and they are all dead and gone.

 

Certainly a testament to D&D! And to proper game design - why make a game if someone else does the same one already?

 

Works every time

 

Well, I dunno, I have seen evidence plenty of people enjoy sticking to a particular limited style.

 

Heck, some people even refuse to play anything other than Hero...

[Gadodel]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

I've only been using HERO for 16 MONTHS. Right when I feel that I am comfortable with how I use the game, I read a thread like this and realize I have much more to experience/learn. You folks have given me a ton of ideas and information.

 

Thanks, everyone; for the insight.

 

Pete

[Trencher]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

This is a very interesting statement. I sort of agree but sort of do not...my first experience with DnD was with a very tactical war game approach per the GM. I had no clue what was going on. However, one thing I noticed with DnD, back then, was that everyone took to the roleplaying aspect in one way or another, because the system allowed for and somehow encouraged it.

That varies with the players many players play dnd by what they remember their old GM doing you see.. And a good GM ignores many rules in dnd. First edition dnd had rules for opening ordinary doors characters managed to open them on a successful dice roll but monsters did not have to. There was certain rooms in the dungeon that you had to be a certain level just to enter and so on.

Some spells kills everything under a certain hd or level, spells had longer range outdoors and so on.

Have you ever played any warhammer games? Those games, even though they are for the most part completely table top encourage rpging too after a fasion. I think that dnd started out as a miniature game where you only used one mini and evolved into a rpg from there.

Hero being one of the first games that really tried to leave dnd rules behind instead of just “improving†them created a plausible simulation of superpowers (and later other genres) and in so doing gave the control to the players of the game and kicked the chair under a lot of old power gamer tricks.

All rpgs or rpg inspired games have a certain element of role-playing and a certain level of wargaming (except hero I explain little further down).

Have you played mordheim? Talisman? Heroquest the board game? This is what I would call rpg inspired boardgames. Then you have dnd and such games which are not lighter on the rules but takes away the board and give the players more options. After that you have for instance shadowrun or the world of darkness series which has rules and let you utilize tactics but try to focus more on storytelling than actual gaming. And so it goes until you come upwards to diceless games and even completely gameless “games†where you only tell story and not even the line between GM and player is clear.

There are myriads of games to choose from catering to everybody to daydreaming wargamers, role-players to actors who loves improvisation.

There is a line if you will where pure wargames at the left and improvised story telling in the right. Dnd falls somewhere to the left of the centrum but as you will agree not as far as its criticizers seem to think.

Herogames comes in from another direction. As physics are a way to define actions and reactions the real world so is the hero system a way to define everything in a story. Rather than go with the tables of other games it has created a language! that can be implemented to determine what happened when the characters deal with each other in the story. As such it comes close to being a wargame but a wargames language is more like the Chinese alphabet with symbols for every word while the game-language from hero games is made up by effect, cause and definition just as the Greek alphabet is made up of symbols for every sound that can be put together to describe anything we can think of.

Hero is about character definition, it put the power in the author of the characters hands.

Just as it is in the improve camp, but in hero you can make him yourself and compare him to others. Something difficult to do for the improvesatists.

It is ironic that so many other games have made the claim to be story/character driven when the first (and best) story/character driven system has existed for so long and they (Hero games) have never made the claim.

Herogames give all power to the author of the game but so much power can easily destroy a campaign therefore it is important that the characters are mature and ready for the intellectual responsibility that a herogames role-playing game session is. (Academic and geeky remember?)

I think that it is time for Herogames to take it into next level and create a virtual world game on the computer where the players and programmers can come together and create their own worlds and characters.

Think about a completely customizable computer game with hero rules! That would be more than just an rpg it would be a cultural factor.

Rpg’s are a way for us non-authors to stretch our literal muscles herogames lets us do it.

I don't have the old rules, I did read the first AD&D rules and have seen the old DnD rules on occasion. I am sad to say I don't recall why, but I do recall that aspects definitely put people on the path to RPGing not centered around either wargaming or pure power-gaming, as it were, so I think it is owed an awful lot of respect out of that. I think it had something to do with the class system, oddly enough; while now I hate classes, especially when people try to force them into supers games, I think perhaps that was the early path to character distinction.

The class system is an easy way for beginning players to get a grip on what they are supposed to do, also different people like different things so everybody can choose something they think is cool.

After a while you don’t need that help, the training wheels come off as they must.

I would quibble a bit on that. First, it is definitely for action hero gaming, which is a restriction off the top (even if of course most RPGs are, and, btw, I prefer action hero gaming, I am not a "roleplay vs rollplay" snob). Second, I think it has some prejudices in terms of emphasizing certain types of characters and certain types of stories. However, it is certainly not driven as much towards d20s core ethos, which I've best heard expressed as "kill stuff, gain power."

Hero is in no way an action hero platform, it can be.

But it is also ideally suited for drama character interaction based games.

I have run a game based on the same time line as the Hornblower series. And there was not much action there, but the little that was where very dangerous. Most of the sessions were based on talking and trading and discovering.

I also heard of a girl that used hero for running an elf campaign where the character never fought anything but just went around in the forest and discovered mysteries and role-played elves. Yes that group were only made up from girls.

I also heard on the boards people using hero games as a platform for les-miserables kind of games.

Well, I dunno, I have seen evidence plenty of people enjoy sticking to a particular limited style.

Give them time, either they tire of role-playing altogether or drift towards wargames or they tire of dnd and becomes ready for hero. It can take several years however.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

That varies with the players many players play dnd by what they remember their old GM doing you see.. And a good GM ignores many rules in dnd. First edition dnd had rules for opening ordinary doors characters managed to open them on a successful dice roll but monsters did not have to. There was certain rooms in the dungeon that you had to be a certain level just to enter and so on.

 

The interesting thing is that the earliest GM I had (who, btw, was a wargamer actually) and most others weren't at all what I'd call good roleplayer GMs. But as I think about it, where things were interesting was where there was this whole open-ended aspect to in-between combat and the aspects of adventures in the town, where things were no longer a directed dungeon crawl. Improvisation was a necessity and no longer a purely tactical form of improvisation.

 

Some spells kills everything under a certain hd or level, spells had longer range outdoors and so on.

Have you ever played any warhammer games? Those games, even though they are for the most part completely table top encourage rpging too after a fasion. I think that dnd started out as a miniature game where you only used one mini and evolved into a rpg from there.

Hero being one of the first games that really tried to leave dnd rules behind instead of just “improving” them created a plausible simulation of superpowers (and later other genres) and in so doing gave the control to the players of the game and kicked the chair under a lot of old power gamer tricks.

All rpgs or rpg inspired games have a certain element of role-playing and a certain level of wargaming (except hero I explain little further down).

Have you played mordheim? Talisman? Heroquest the board game? This is what I would call rpg inspired boardgames. Then you have dnd and such games which are not lighter on the rules but takes away the board and give the players more options. After that you have for instance shadowrun or the world of darkness series which has rules and let you utilize tactics but try to focus more on storytelling than actual gaming. And so it goes until you come upwards to diceless games and even completely gameless “games” where you only tell story and not even the line between GM and player is clear.

There are myriads of games to choose from catering to everybody to daydreaming wargamers, role-players to actors who loves improvisation.

There is a line if you will where pure wargames at the left and improvised story telling in the right. Dnd falls somewhere to the left of the centrum but as you will agree not as far as its criticizers seem to think.

 

I haven't played the ones you mentioned, but I suspect, at least based on the ones I know, that they're fantasy, and I generally don't play fantasy. I only played fantasy early on with D&D and from something like 1983 until just this year never played fantasy again.

 

Herogames comes in from another direction. As physics are a way to define actions and reactions the real world so is the hero system a way to define everything in a story. Rather than go with the tables of other games it has created a language! that can be implemented to determine what happened when the characters deal with each other in the story. As such it comes close to being a wargame but a wargames language is more like the Chinese alphabet with symbols for every word while the game-language from hero games is made up by effect, cause and definition just as the Greek alphabet is made up of symbols for every sound that can be put together to describe anything we can think of.

Hero is about character definition, it put the power in the author of the characters hands.

Just as it is in the improve camp, but in hero you can make him yourself and compare him to others. Something difficult to do for the improvesatists.

It is ironic that so many other games have made the claim to be story/character driven when the first (and best) story/character driven system has existed for so long and they (Hero games) have never made the claim.

Herogames give all power to the author of the game but so much power can easily destroy a campaign therefore it is important that the characters are mature and ready for the intellectual responsibility that a herogames role-playing game session is. (Academic and geeky remember?)

I think that it is time for Herogames to take it into next level and create a virtual world game on the computer where the players and programmers can come together and create their own worlds and characters.

Think about a completely customizable computer game with hero rules! That would be more than just an rpg it would be a cultural factor.

Rpg’s are a way for us non-authors to stretch our literal muscles herogames lets us do it.

 

The class system is an easy way for beginning players to get a grip on what they are supposed to do, also different people like different things so everybody can choose something they think is cool.

After a while you don’t need that help, the training wheels come off as they must.

 

Hero is in no way an action hero platform, it can be.

But it is also ideally suited for drama character interaction based games.

I have run a game based on the same time line as the Hornblower series. And there was not much action there, but the little that was where very dangerous. Most of the sessions were based on talking and trading and discovering.

I also heard of a girl that used hero for running an elf campaign where the character never fought anything but just went around in the forest and discovered mysteries and role-played elves. Yes that group were only made up from girls.

I also heard on the boards people using hero games as a platform for les-miserables kind of games.

 

I really don't think Hero is as open-ended as you say. Try applying Hero to play a game like Dogs in the Vineyard, where faith and moral decisions are important, and it quickly falls flat or you reinvent it. Or other such things. "Dramatic" action, perhaps, but what about "soap opera hero"? I'd say you'd really have to do an awful lot of work to simulate, in a fun way and with rules that are appropriate to conflict resolution and further to reward genre-appropriate actions, with Hero, and by the time you're done I think you have a different game.

 

I'm not claiming you need to have combat, but the interaction system and the rewards system only goes so far in modeling social interactions and the affects of relationships and other intangibles on character changes and decisions. And at some point, if you're not even bothering with much conflict resolution and "just" (nothing wrong with that!) roleplaying, you can just as easily be using almost any system.

 

Give them time, either they tire of role-playing altogether or drift towards wargames or they tire of dnd and becomes ready for hero. It can take several years however.

 

I don't think so. The hobby is rife with veterans of D&D/AD&D/d20 for over 20 years, just as there's Heroites of similar vintage. Though it's likely that play styles changed from hack-n-slash over the years, though that can be said of many Heroites as well (even if the starting context is different from hack-n-slash and perhaps is a change from simplistic or sophomoric play to more elaborate styles).

 

PS - so style was a bad choice in my prior post - I would say that d20 "kill stuff, get power" mutates in sophistication for longer-term/more mature players.

[Trencher]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

I haven't played the ones you mentioned, but I suspect, at least based on the ones I know, that they're fantasy, and I generally don't play fantasy. I only played fantasy early on with D&D and from something like 1983 until just this year never played fantasy again.

Have you played genestaler then? What games have you played?

I really don't think Hero is as open-ended as you say. Try applying Hero to play a game like Dogs in the Vineyard, where faith and moral decisions are important, and it quickly falls flat or you reinvent it. Or other such things. "

Never played Dogs in the Vineyard but I’m going to look into it.

But it is an role-playing game and as such it made up as a theoretical version of plausible events in an fantasy/sci-fi world. Therefore that world can be simulated and those characters can be simulated in hero terms.

Dramatic" action, perhaps, but what about "soap opera hero"? I'd say you'd really have to do an awful lot of work to simulate, in a fun way and with rules that are appropriate to conflict resolution and further to reward genre-appropriate actions, with Hero, and by the time you're done I think you have a different game.

I'm not claiming you need to have combat, but the interaction system and the rewards system only goes so far in modeling social interactions and the affects of relationships and other intangibles on character changes and decisions.

Social interaction in games can not and should not be subject to rules beyond psychological limitations in my opinion. Off course you can get xp for good role-playing or weaving a clever intrigue or figuring out a mystery.

As I said right above here, hero system can simulate the characters and the world, but I freely admit that they can not copy a game mechanic directly the GM have to figure out what the source material “is†and then defining it in hero term, which can off course be a lot of work.

This is what I mean when I say that other rpg’s are games while hero is a language or science if you will.

And at some point, if you're not even bothering with much conflict resolution and "just" (nothing wrong with that!) roleplaying, you can just as easily be using almost any system.

You can always use any system, I’m a little curious about how the dogs in the vineyard system works though

I don't think so. The hobby is rife with veterans of D&D/AD&D/d20 for over 20 years, just as there's Heroites of similar vintage. Though it's likely that play styles changed from hack-n-slash over the years, though that can be said of many Heroites as well (even if the starting context is different from hack-n-slash and perhaps is a change from simplistic or sophomoric play to more elaborate styles).

Well it can take a very long time, some people never manage to free themselves from their hierarchical mindset either in their hobbies or in their life otherwise.

PS - so style was a bad choice in my prior post - I would say that d20 "kill stuff, get power" mutates in sophistication for longer-term/more mature players.

I understood you, I say the same thing but it is not only their goals that change but their understanding of their character (any character) as well.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Have you played genestaler then? What games have you played?

 

Just Top Secret, AD&D, Boot Hill, a game of Mutants and Masterminds,

 

Never played Dogs in the Vineyard but I’m going to look into it.

But it is an role-playing game and as such it made up as a theoretical version of plausible events in an fantasy/sci-fi world. Therefore that world can be simulated and those characters can be simulated in hero terms.

 

I think you're confusing setting with game objective. The system in Dogs is much more abstract and combat isn't the purpose, per se. It has a combat resolution system, sure, but that isn't the point. Not all roleplaying games are about adventure.

 

Social interaction in games can not and should not be subject to rules

 

That depends on the game, doesn't it? You're just talking about values here. There's nothing wrong with an RPG doing this. That's in fact part of what Dogs specifically does, because it must, as it is a game about social interaction, more specifically about moral values and what people do about moral quandries.

 

Like I was saying before about doing a political RPG, you would HAVE to do rules about social interaction, including mass social interactions with elections. You can do this in Hero but only with gross approximation, or you'd rewrite it massively to deal with demographic appeals, ideological attraction, sponsorship, and so on.

 

beyond psychological limitations in my opinion. Off course you can get xp for good role-playing or weaving a clever intrigue or figuring out a mystery.

As I said right above here, hero system can simulate the characters and the world, but I freely admit that they can not copy a game mechanic directly the GM have to figure out what the source material “is†and then defining it in hero term, which can off course be a lot of work.

This is what I mean when I say that other rpg’s are games while hero is a language or science if you will.

 

But it's hardly distinct in this regard from Savage Worlds or GURPS or even FUDGE. The difference among these systems lies in other things.

 

You can always use any system, I’m a little curious about how the dogs in the vineyard system works though

 

I don't want to violate its intellectual property, of course, but here's a few basics without giving away too much in details:

 

- character creation is done with all players at the table; you select a certain sort of general archetype among 4 or such, and that gives you a certain number of dice to put into Traits, and some for Stats, and some for Relationships; once you apportion these, which players all discuss but one player controls one PC as normal, you then discuss and characters create Belongings (stuff like horses or such, no points system, just what's reasonable to carry on horseback), and your character does his initial attempt at a defining accomplishment, which he might fail, and which is sort of like having another Trait but I'm oversimplifying

 

- Stats include Heart (it's sort of like PRE but more about your strength of character than your overt impact on others, necessarily), Will (like it sounds, strength of will), Acuity (general sort of keenness of mind, also affects shooting), and Body (health, strength, affects fighting);

 

- Traits are open-ended, essentially, and are any collection of skills or characteristics or such

 

- Relationships are dice you get for having a relationship to other characters or organizations or the like; it doesn't mean the relationship is good or even direct, just that you gain the ability to have influence in conflict with them

 

- Conflict Resolution; first you declare an objective, what is at stake; then, without giving away much, basically you have 4 stages - Talking (influenced by Acuity and Heart), Physical but not Fighting (influenced by Body and Heart), Fighting hand-to-hand (influenced by Body and Will), and Fighting with guns (influenced by Acuity and Will); you roll dice based on the trait, and there's basically a bidding process, if you will, and at each stage someone can choose to escalate (especially if they lose the stage of the conflict, such as, for example, they are losing an argument and refuse to be convinced, so now they move to shoving by someone) or walk away or accept defeat, if that occurs; the consequences at each stage for failure can involve both positive and negative things, you can lose something in your Stats but you can also gain a Relationship or Trait but a weak one so that it is more often a negative effect on conflicts, but some fallout can be positive depending; also, walking away before it gets out of hand allows you to bank dice for later conflicts against the same person or something similar/related, so it can be in one's interest to walk away; success means you get what you want, essentially.

 

You could model something in Hero but by the time you were done, well, you'd have a different game and you may as well have just done it this way. Or invented something new if this system weren't to one's liking. I would add that as you may expect my brief discussion doesn't do it justice, as I was trying to just give the appropriate flavor and not give too much away.

 

The point isn't that either system is better, they address different needs, different design visions.

 

You can check it out at http://www.lumpley.com/games/dogsources.html

 

Well it can take a very long time, some people never manage to free themselves from their hierarchical mindset either in their hobbies or in their life otherwise.

 

I understood you, I say the same thing but it is not only their goals that change but their understanding of their character (any character) as well.

 

Or of course people can just enjoy sticking with one particular thing because it brings a value/joy and that's fair, too. It may not have anything to do with them not growing otherwise.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

PS to above, forgot more current systems as I was typing, played also Savage Worlds, Deadlands, a game of Call of Cthuhlu. I'm probably forgetting a couple games from the old days.

[Marcus]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Proposition: All other things being equal, the level of granularity in a particular aspect of a system is directly proportional to the importance of activity in that area to the system.

 

When a system fails in this (creates alot of granularity in an area not the 'focus' of the system) then the system becomes unnecessarily complicated, relative to its overal focus.

[Trencher]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Just Top Secret' date=' AD&D, Boot Hill, a game of Mutants and Masterminds, [/quote'] All solid games, except for Adnd. (never played Boot Hill)

Off course they are all games with hit points. Reinforcing the “game†feel.

I think you're confusing setting with game objective. The system in Dogs is much more abstract and combat isn't the purpose, per se. It has a combat resolution system, sure, but that isn't the point. Not all roleplaying games are about adventure.

Actually I am not confusing the setting with the game objective, it is just that my first thought about game mechanics for social and moral action is that it is not really necessary except for defining the personality of the characters. However I have never played the game so what do I know?

 

That depends on the game, doesn't it? You're just talking about values here. There's nothing wrong with an RPG doing this. That's in fact part of what Dogs specifically does, because it must, as it is a game about social interaction, more specifically about moral values and what people do about moral quandries.

I would not go as far as calling it wrong, particularly if the game is fun. But maybe a little unnecessary?

I have spent some time checking the game out and the setting looks cool but I am not quite sure about having game mechanics for moral quandaries.

 

Like I was saying before about doing a political RPG, you would HAVE to do rules about social interaction, including mass social interactions with elections. You can do this in Hero but only with gross approximation, or you'd rewrite it massively to deal with demographic appeals, ideological attraction, sponsorship, and so on.

I actually strongly disagree with this.

 

But it's hardly distinct in this regard from Savage Worlds or GURPS or even FUDGE. The difference among these systems lies in other things.

Don’t know about Savage Worlds but neither Gurps or Fudge has the detail and flow of Hero in my oppinon.

I don't want to violate its intellectual property, of course, but here's a few basics without giving away too much in details:

Thank you for taking time to tell me about it, I must defiantly check it out. It has recently been reviewed in Imagonem a local rpg magazine, I think I buy it for that.

 

You could model something in Hero but by the time you were done, well, you'd have a different game and you may as well have just done it this way. Or invented something new if this system weren't to one's liking. I would add that as you may expect my brief discussion doesn't do it justice, as I was trying to just give the appropriate flavor and not give too much away.

Yes and no. It would be a different game yes but you could do the setting justice no matter what. Characters, issues and settings can never really be bound by something as trivial as gamestats. The stats are just the reflection in the mirror the system provide. You think of it as games and maybe your right but I think of it as stories, the best story mirror I have is the Hero system. I would go so far as to say other systems (particularly level based ones) can sometimes transcend the story and setting it self.

 

The point isn't that either system is better, they address different needs, different design visions.

That is a good point

I am not trying to trump Hero through as the final game of all time, I just try to define how I think it is vitally different from all other games. The reason is that I sometimes see dnd mindset influence in some of the Hero supplements. Dex has turned into something like levels for instance, and that is why I try to say that Hero works best when you take away the dnd influence.

Or of course people can just enjoy sticking with one particular thing because it brings a value/joy and that's fair, too. It may not have anything to do with them not growing otherwise.

I got to admit that I feel antipathy towards typical dnd play with all the xp counting and treasure dividing and endless rule evaluation (what does this spell do, what does this do, how can I use it to my advantage…)

I tell you about one incident: (Mega short version) Once several years ago my ten year long dnd campaign was nearing its end. The two highest level characters had after several years of actual play built up their power base and after tense careful negotiations between each other. They had prepared to attack the “dark overlord†of the campaign.

As a reward of their road towards peace between themselves and for their courage and skill the powers that be decided to give them aid, aid that would come from a completely unexpected source: The most powerfull dragon in the region came to join them in the fight. The players very happy about this off course and they went off to fight. War raged across the land and army after army got routed and/or decimated. After a long and exiting war the final siege of the villains main capitol began. Both armies were weak now and the dark overlord and his pet demons was attacked in his castle by the players and their dragon ally.

The fight raged, the players had their hands full with their nemesis and the dragon killed off his demons they actually had a chance! After he had dispatched of the demons he joined in helping the players and they almost killed the dark overlord but after the dragon had used his breath weapon for the third time something unexpected happened. The players attacked the dragon and almost killed it. In the confusion the dark overlord managed to escape, the dragon escaped by casting an illusion of its three family members teleporting in to join the fray and then flying off while the players where fleeing. They quickly discovered the ruse however and decided to head for the dragons cave and its hoard. In dnd the battlesystem for mass combat is very dependent on their leaders and I told the players that if their weakened armies where going to attack the city they would need to bee there. They did not want to waste any time leading their army however since they had to hurry getting to the dragons cave before it healed up. Using high level spells they flied there faster than any dragon could smashed through its defenses and got the treasure. Meanwhile the dark overlord led his army to victory of the leaderless players armies scattering them. The players took the treasure and headed home.

When I asked them why they did what they did (I was surprised since the dark overlord was their most hated enemy) they told me simply that there were simply no way they were going to get more xp and tresure for killing him than they would get for killing a dragon.

Off course the dnd game is not to blame here since you get no xp for betraying your allies or driving off already wounded creatures also since they lost the war they don’t get any xp there either. But their actions were rooted in the dnd mindset. The characters goals and personalities were not so important as the power they would gain. If it had been in a book they would never have done it since both characters were rich from before and characters in books don’t kill allies “just to learn somethingâ€. I have seen similar behavior again and again.

 

My point is that the game comes before the story in some games and dnd is such a game.

Hero simply is the story, nothing more. It does the same as the improv games do but with a game system.

[zornwil]

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

 

Proposition: All other things being equal, the level of granularity in a particular aspect of a system is directly proportional to the importance of activity in that area to the system.

 

When a system fails in this (creates alot of granularity in an area not the 'focus' of the system) then the system becomes unnecessarily complicated, relative to its overal focus.

Sure, I'd basically agree.