Hero System design considerations

[tgrandjean]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Not that I'm really adding too much here, but what exactly DOESN'T Hero do well? How does the magic system not feel magical? Is is not arbitrary enough?

*Shrugs* Screw the point costs and just give the players what you want.

Are you rolling too many dice?

Standard effects rule and reduce the dice to 2 or 3 dice.

No absolute effects (automatic hits, immune to damage)?

Why is this a problem?

I don't think that anyone should be able to survive a nuclear blast unless they have one heck of a force field, armor, or some kind of phasing.

Stun lotto getting you down?

Use hit locations, multiply BOD *3, or just drop Stun altogether and just use BOD damage.

But then again, I'm not terribly picky about mechanics.

In translating systems I don't feel the need to carry across every persnikity mechanic. And although I happily muck about with other systems and I would never consider running Hero as a beer-and-pretzels pick-up game (I'll save D&D for that), Hero works; for anything that I've been able to imagine.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Exactly HOW does a "1d6/5 pts" mechanic "create a superhero feel?"

I'm afraid that confuses me.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says the word of the day is ___________

 

 

It creates a very "generic damage" feel that is very much in genre with supers. It is not unique and flavorful... it doesn't have the depth and nuance of a spell or power that exists as part of the weft and weave of the world. No matter how you build it and trick it out with limitations and advantages... in the end, you have created a construct. This is part of the whole Hero process, which requires you to analyze and deconstruct... (the 1d6/5 is just an example of this mode of thinking) to assign values to power levels, etc. All of that is quite anti-thetical to a feel of "magic."

 

By it's very concept, magic is a wholistic, arcane, organic thing. It is unknowable and unquantifiable and capricious. Everything Hero is not. Zornwil wrote a bit about this and I took some of his words and created a phrase that I think defines Hero succinctly. Hero rationalizes the fantastic. By this I mean that it forces you to place specific values and scales to abilities that are inspired by colorful writing, art and whimsey, and very irrational thematic design.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love this aspect of it... it often meets with my desired style of play... but in many cases, I'm not a big fan of "magic." I find when I run those types of games, I move farther and farther away from "Hero by the rules" and the Hero system is only a pale framework for the stuff it does well (sword fights and action/adventure stuff... with or without superpowers) and all the "magic" is very much non-Hero... open ended story telling type things.

 

Basically... by rationalizing and quantifying the wild and fantastic, you can create a balanced game. I love this... but it does take the magic out of magic.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

So in other words for something to feel "magic" to you it has to be arbitrary and vague?

[keithcurtis]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

1) There is a point at which you modified' date=' bent or broken the rules so much that you aren't playing Hero any more. That point is different for everyboyd. EX: I despise the SPD chart. Tossed it years ago, and would never go back. To my mind, my games would be easily recognized as Hero/Champions... but others would say I'm not playing Hero any more.[/quote']And they'd be wrong. Modification of the system is encouraged by Hero. The one-true-wayism others have mentioned is a direct descendant of the old D&D tournament mentality. I've never met anyone who didn't have at least one house rule, regardless of system. Few who didn't have five or more.

2) There is no such thing as a generic tool. If you use a hammer, you are by default, creating something that can be created with a hammer. Your tools limit your creation, even if that limit is very broad. To this point... whether you call it an EB, or you think of it as 1d6 damage per five points, or you try to be extremely vague and say x game value for y points... these structures/concepts drive a certain kind of game play. The farther you get from these structures where do you cross the line from "building a game with Hero" and "building a game where I've taken some ideas from Hero" which is very different.

I would think the line is very far from the staring point. As I said earlier, the system is designed to encourage modification. There are numerous suggestions on how to do this throughout the body of DOJ's published line. Some of them are even "official".

 

(As Chris notes, and I agree, the Hero system doesn't feel like "magic" when it is used in Fantasy Hero in many cases... but if you start to diverge extremely from the 1d6 per 5 pts, which to my mind creates that superhero feel... are you still playing Hero?)

If the bulk of the ruleset and mechanics for resolution are in place, yes. Heavily modified, but not so much that an experienced player couldn't have the differences described to him. As someone else asked, how does 1d6 per 5 pts create a superhero feel?

As for generic tools, to paraphrase Orwell, "some tools are more generic than others" GURPS and HERO are excellent tools for multiple genre play. D20 is not, IMHO. The number of metastructures such as classes, levels and hit points are far more visible in d20. I think the styles of fantasy that are model-able are even greater in HERO than in d20. d20 fantasy just feels like D&D. This may be my perception, but its just as valid as "Hero feels like Supers".

This is a fine message... important as a marketing strategy... but it is a very different message from "Built originally from concepts in 5ER but self contained and independent of generic Hero rules."

That doesn't sound very exciting to play. Nor very intuitive. Or true, of course, as published.

If you are going to do this... you are basically creating your own game... so why bother with Hero at all. Just make up your own sh1t!

Because I don't want to build a new hammer. I just want to use it to buiild something different. It's a butt-load of work to create an entire workable game system. Changing a few aspects, even major ones, is not nearly the same thing as creating a system from scratch.

These are not easy questions to answer... in fact I don't think there is an answer, but calling people sheep and preening about your hyper-retentive gaming obsessiveness, and calling a complete overhaul/new game creation "tinkering" doesn't serve anybody anything worth while.

I'll only address the last clause of this...provoacative sentence, since I am the only person to have used the word "tinker". Since when does adding three figured stats with extremely campaign specific usage, some campaign-specific skills and altering a primary characteristic cost constitue "a complete overhaul/new game creation"? Espcially since all of these are "sanctioned" ie. 5ED-suggested practices?

 

Keith "Mr. Curious" Curtis

 

EDIT: Never mind the 1d6/5pt question. You posted the answer while I was composing.

 

[keithcurtis]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Basically... by rationalizing and quantifying the wild and fantastic' date=' you can create a balanced game. I love this... but it does take the magic out of magic.[/quote']

I can agree with this. I feel it is present to some degree in Super-genres as well, but particularly magic. My only suggestion would be to not tell or show players exactly the construct they are purchasing. Just give them cost/dice. Of course, give the nature of Hero, you'll have to do most of the damage resolution or things like Armor Piercing and such are revealed through normal game-play.

I don't think its too terribly differetn that "1d4 per every level" style of damage, other than that in D&D the GM has more liberty to say "This does x", without having to "show his work".

To reduce this feel, I don't usually cost out NPC and monster abilities. I just assign them.

 

 

Keith "ran out of clever statements" Curtis

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

So in other words for something to feel "magic" to you it has to be arbitrary and vague?

 

You can say that... or you could say dramatic and mysterious... but that is purely taste. You guys are so hostile, it's almost funny. Arcane doesn't have to mean arbitrary. Unquantifiable doesn't mean unknowable.

 

You can all do what you like, but at least I can describe exactly where and how... mechanically... the system doesn't support one desired play style. It doesn't make the system broken or bad... I just think we should avoid trying to say "Hero can do anything" when that simply isn't true. If it can do "anything I've needed it to" ok... fine... but that's you, and your play style... and to be honest, Hero self selects over time for those whose play style matches what it does. All systems do.

 

We should be careful to extrapolate that our shared preferences are the "right way."

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

And they'd be wrong. Modification of the system is encouraged by Hero. The one-true-wayism others have mentioned is a direct descendant of the old D&D tournament mentality. I've never met anyone who didn't have at least one house rule' date=' regardless of system. Few who didn't have five or more.[/quote']

 

True. I have no experience with the concept of a role playing game in a tournament setting. That is entirely bizarre to me.

 

I would think the line is very far from the staring point. As I said earlier, the system is designed to encourage modification. There are numerous suggestions on how to do this throughout the body of DOJ's published line. Some of them are even "official".

 

But the line is subjective... and my main point here is that we should stop making subjective statements (most often based on personal preference) as if they were objective reality. It may not be the intent of some, but it certainly comes across that way.

>>SNIP<<

 

As for generic tools, to paraphrase Orwell, "some tools are more generic than others" GURPS and HERO are excellent tools for multiple genre play. D20 is not, IMHO. The number of metastructures such as classes, levels and hit points are far more visible in d20. I think the styles of fantasy that are model-able are even greater in HERO than in d20. d20 fantasy just feels like D&D. This may be my perception, but its just as valid as "Hero feels like Supers".

 

This is a good point. I should say that "Hero feels like Hero" rather than it feels like supers... but because it did supers first and foremost for so long, Hero and Supers are somewhat synonymous. My bad, not being more precise. I would still argue that Hero is not so generic and universally applicable as others seem to think... to my point on system self-selection of those who prefer it's style.

 

That doesn't sound very exciting to play. Nor very intuitive. Or true, of course, as published.

 

I didn't intend it to be a good marketing statement, but to be indicative of the need for 5ER to be a common reference point, thus having a common effect on any game built with it. It is hard to say "there are no hard and fast rules" when everything refers back to a single source as "the" way... whether intended to be presented that way or not.

 

Because I don't want to build a new hammer. I just want to use it to buiild something different. It's a butt-load of work to create an entire workable game system. Changing a few aspects, even major ones, is not nearly the same thing as creating a system from scratch.

 

I only said this because you referred to yourself as a "system builder" in one place... though you signed off as tinkerer. Those aren't the same thing, as you noted, but tinker enough and you'll cross a very hard to define line into system building. What pissed me off was the condescending tone others were using about those who didn't want to do all that work... just wanted to play a game. That tone of superiority really bugged me, even if I'm more of a tinkerer and builder myself.

 

I'll only address the last clause of this...provoacative sentence, since I am the only person to have used the word "tinker". Since when does adding three figured stats with extremely campaign specific usage, some campaign-specific skills and altering a primary characteristic cost constitue "a complete overhaul/new game creation"? Espcially since all of these are "sanctioned" ie. 5ED-suggested practices?

 

Keith "Mr. Curious" Curtis

 

EDIT: Never mind the 1d6/5pt question. You posted the answer while I was composing.

 

 

I answered most of this above... but just to appologize. I shouldn't have wrapped you into my distaste over the rather hostile and condescending tone of many of the other posts in this thread.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

I think we need to differentiate between the System and the Game.

 

The System should be transparent - 5pts/D6 for ease of use, ease of concept and simply to be able to translate from game to game.

 

The Game doesn't have to be by any means.

 

The System says you have a 10D6 Energy Blast, The Game says you are a powerful lightning mage.

 

The System is the box of tools that KS mentioned, The Game is what you built with those tools.

 

the Hero has a very flexible system that allows us to take a skeletal frame and place whatever we want around it to make the Building. I like the Erector Set comparison the best because we're building a bunch of structures.

 

All using the same principal, none the same. And that's why Hero can model many things well. Unlike D20 where the Class system is a lot more like a bunch of Frame Houses - minor variations but otherwise the same thing. Whereas in Hero the similarities are "All the houses have doors, windows, walls, a roof and paint" and it ends there.

 

We can make all the tool analogies we want, in the end it's what we're building that matters and Hero allows us, within the rules, more freedom than any other system. Or at the least any other system I've encountered. And that flexbility only increases when you decide to alter the base building system to suit your needs, and it does so without breaking other portions of the System to the point of unusability.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

You can say that... or you could say dramatic and mysterious... but that is purely taste. You guys are so hostile, it's almost funny. Arcane doesn't have to mean arbitrary. Unquantifiable doesn't mean unknowable.

 

You can all do what you like, but at least I can describe exactly where and how... mechanically... the system doesn't support one desired play style. It doesn't make the system broken or bad... I just think we should avoid trying to say "Hero can do anything" when that simply isn't true. If it can do "anything I've needed it to" ok... fine... but that's you, and your play style... and to be honest, Hero self selects over time for those whose play style matches what it does. All systems do.

 

We should be careful to extrapolate that our shared preferences are the "right way."

Im not being hostile; Im just asking for clarification. Maybe youre just being overly touchy?

 

When people argue their position from a perspective of what something "feels" like, it is extremely subjective.

 

Better to way "I don't like it, just because" than to say "it doesnt feel right", IMO. At least its a more objective and fair statment.

 

 

And by the way, unquantifiable DOES mean unknown -- if you can't quantify a value then you don't know it -- ergo "unknown".

[BNakagawa]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

So in other words for something to feel "magic" to you it has to be arbitrary and vague?

 

Making my reflection roll on your question - Do any completely concrete and entirely determanistic systems adequetely capture the feeling of fantasy magic for you?

[dstarfire]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Wow. I haven't seen so many intelligent, insightful, or just plain interesting posts in a thread in a LONG time. WHatever you may feel about the issue, it definitely brings out the brightest in both camps. I hope the comments below measure up.

 

I tend to agree that trying to make a "universal" system is something of a pipe dream. To misquote a saying: "You can do one thing very well, many things passable, or everything poorly". As for the idea of a 'core' that can be adapted to anything, it'd have to be so vague is to be effectively useless (except maybe for game system designers).

 

Hero does adapt fairly well to a variety of genres. However, that's adapting (as in changing to fit the circumstances), and sometimes there's a lot of adapting that has to be done. Hero still retains a rather strong feel of it's superhero origins (I can name several Powers that are relevant for, and exist only for use in comic book super hero games), which can really jolt your feeling of immersion.

 

On the other hand, the hero system works very well for the glorified-board-game style of roleplaying (as opposed to the interactive story/world style of roleplaying). Unless somebody puts in a great deal of work up front, the heavy mechanics and complex rules tend to get in the way of roleplaying.

 

All that aside, the quality of your game really depends on the GM and the players, not the setting your in, or the rules you use. Those are just tools wielded by the GM and players to express their imaginings in a way everybody (or at least everybody else at the table) can understand. A master craftsman can do superb work, even with poor tools. An amateur will do amateur work, no matter how good his/her tools are.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Hero does adapt fairly well to a variety of genres. However' date=' that's adapting (as in changing to fit the circumstances), and sometimes there's a lot of adapting that has to be done. Hero still retains a rather strong feel of it's superhero origins (I can name several Powers that are relevant for, and exist only for use in comic book super hero games), which can really jolt your feeling of immersion.[/quote']

I'm curious - which Powers ... I can't think of any one Power that I would define as a "Super" Power explicitly.

 

And maybe that's because I didn't start playing Hero with the Champions setting.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Chris,

 

I understand you totally on the 'one true system' front.

 

I've been tinkering mine for years, and don't take 'official' as much more than a suggestion, really. So it's HERO's system---

 

it's my game.

 

Oh, and I've found it helps to get that 'genre feel' if you just go through the entire list of "powers" and change the names.

 

There are hundreds of other things as well-- you know them as well as the rest of us-- but that one makes an immediate difference in how the player's react to it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Interesting topic: thanks, Chris.

 

In brief, I think Hero does as good a job of being a generic system as it is possible to do: better than all the other options.

 

There is a problem with generic approaches though, and it is that you do not get a RULE system tailored to the genre.

 

I'm not talking about the build of the game: you might be able to create virtually any character or power or ability you can think of BUT having the right characters/powers/abilities is not the be all and end all.

 

Some systems have a feel at the rules level that particularly lends itself to a certain genre, or more accurately, a certain specific game world within a genre. Hero is customisable at the character level to an enorous extent BUT the rules are not truly customiseable. Sure you can leave some out and include others but the rules do not provide a toolkit for running the game, just a single system. There are simply no real alternative ways of doing things if they do not fit in with a certain core concept.

 

I am not saying that a truly customiseable rule set is possible and therefore not implying that Hero is failing in some way. The building block/toolkit approach certainly does lend itself to a huge array of concepts. However, any generic approach sacrifices something and, no matter how hard the GM and players works, whilst you'll get something pretty darned close to where you want to be, in some cases exactly where you want to be, assuming a certain level of genericity in the setting*, it can not go absolutely everywhere.

 

Sometimes we get caught up in our own hype.

 

I believe Hero is very combat oriented in approach and could do a lot more to address other areas. Part of the reason for this is absolutely tied into the root of Hero - it is a points balancing approach, and you need something to measure the points against. The basic yardstick is combat efficiency and effect. All else has grown from there. Again, not a criticism - you have to start somewhere and, if you are trying to create a coherent system, you have to make some sacrifices,

 

Hero works for me, it is far and away my favourite system, but I play other games too, and I do it for the look and feel of the system. Hero is made of remarkable cloth, that can be cut to make virtually any garment, in a wide variety of colours, but there are other materials out there, some of which do specific jobs better.

 

 

 

 

*like many comic-book superhero settings, for example

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Making my reflection roll on your question - Do any completely concrete and entirely determanistic systems adequetely capture the feeling of fantasy magic for you?

Yes.

 

But thats not to say that HERO System Power Constructs must be 100% deterministic or concrete.

 

Many Powers in the HERO System are not entirely deterministic; they rely in some fashion upon GM determination/adjudication. Images, CE, Mental Illusions, Transform, Telepathy, and Mind Control are all examples off the top of my head of Powers that are not 100% deterministic.

 

Cosmic or partially Cosmic VPPs, Variable SFX, Variable Advantage, and Variable Limitation can all be used in different ways to represent more abstract types of Magic.

 

The key point is that someone like RDU might look at the rules and form the impression that they can't build what they want from the tools presented for some subjective reason, whereas someone like me looks at the tools available, get as close to the effect I want with the available tools, and then I adapt and/or extemporize as needed for the rest.

 

 

It reminds me of a conversation I once had with another developer. There was a problem and I posited an automated solution that would account for about 95% of the circumstances. The other dev's position was not to bother since 5% would be left to fall out. My response was you cant get 100% of the places you need to go while in a car, so by his logic it was a waste of time to invent one.

 

The HERO System is like that; you'll have to get out and walk around a bit under your own power from time to time, but it sure beats hiking the whole distance.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

There is a problem with generic approaches though' date=' and it is that you do not get a RULE system tailored to the genre.[/quote']

I don't believe a Genre has "rules" and therefore cannot have a Rule System.

 

A Genre should have a feel. And a Genre can be different from a Setting.

 

Take Shadowrun, it's the Fantasy Genre in a Cyberpunk(ish) Setting, using neither/both of the traditional "rules" for each Genre. It has no "Rules" to go by, just utilizing one Genre in a different Setting than is normal/traditional.

 

Rules are for D20 Players - ok, I'm just being Mean there... but more seriously...

 

Hero is a System designed to make a Game that is any Genre in any Setting.

 

I believe it does a good job and anyone restricting themselves to "one-true-system"ism is shorting their Game and everything below it, you should alter the System (if needed, it's not always) to create the Game that defines the Genre and Setting.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Hero does adapt fairly well to a variety of genres. However, that's adapting (as in changing to fit the circumstances), and sometimes there's a lot of adapting that has to be done. Hero still retains a rather strong feel of it's superhero origins (I can name several Powers that are relevant for, and exist only for use in comic book super hero games), which can really jolt your feeling of immersion.

Thats like saying the wiring in my computer prevents me from immersing myself in a computer game, or the page numbers and toc prevent me from immersing myself in a book, or the tube in my tv prevents me from immersing myself in a movie.

 

The games is there to provide structure and quantify effects, not to immerse oneself in. Thats the job of the GM and the players -- to provide a tapestry of events which evoke the mind in such a way that one becomes immersed in the product of the collective imagination rather than the real. If the players/GM are allowing the plumbing to show thru so to speak thats their own fault.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, the hero system works very well for the glorified-board-game style of roleplaying (as opposed to the interactive story/world style of roleplaying). Unless somebody puts in a great deal of work up front, the heavy mechanics and complex rules tend to get in the way of roleplaying.

I completely and entirely reject this line of reasoning. People ARGUING about rules can get in the way of roleplaying. Any system that diminshes argument and OOC discussion is conducive to roleplaying, and any system that incites argument and OOC discussion is destructive to roleplaying. The "weight" of the system has nothing to do with that.

 

A well-designed "heavy" system encourages roleplaying because things are so well defined and covered that there is less to argue about.

 

A poorly-designed "heavy" system discourages roleplaying because there is needless complexity.

 

A well-designed "light" system encourages roleplaying because theres just a lack of rules to argue about.

 

A poorly-designed "light" system discourages roleplaying because there is needless vagueness, confusion, and lack of rules coverage for basic tasks.

 

 

Now whether you consider the HERO System to be a well or poorly designed "heavy" system is another matter.

 

All that aside, the quality of your game really depends on the GM and the players, not the setting your in, or the rules you use. Those are just tools wielded by the GM and players to express their imaginings in a way everybody (or at least everybody else at the table) can understand. A master craftsman can do superb work, even with poor tools. An amateur will do amateur work, no matter how good his/her tools are.

Yes, very true. The few shreds of modesty I have prevent me from positing my skill as a craftsman, but personally I find the HERO System to be suberb tools.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

I believe Hero is very combat oriented in approach and could do a lot more to address other areas. Part of the reason for this is absolutely tied into the root of Hero - it is a points balancing approach' date=' and you need something to measure the points against. The basic yardstick is combat efficiency and effect. All else has grown from there. Again, not a criticism - you have to start somewhere and, if you are trying to create a coherent system, you have to make some sacrifices,[/quote']

But the same can be said by just about any system out there. Combat is an essentual core to almost every RPG ever made.

 

I don't know, I suspect I get annoyed at threads like this. Instead of making threads about how to design custom rules to gain a particular desired effect, people start threads to fix it.

 

It is time for yet another analogy.

 

You want to make a minature ferris wheel for your living room about as tall as hard cover textbook. You have multiple options available. You can use tinker toys, you can use legos, you can use craft supplies, you can use ceramics, you could also use iron working supplies with electronics and make a completely 100% replica that moves and sound like the real thing. Each has their benefits and drawbacks. The metal replica takes a while and requires lots of skill to complete. The tinker toy version has the basic features of a ferris wheel but it doesn't look like a ferris wheel.

 

Hero Games is the Legos of RPG. You can build just about anything. In some cases it looks exactly like you want once you get past the fact it is a collection of bricks. In other cases the look isn't perfect but it is, at least, functional.

 

Hero Games is a system to draws a line at where they believe you can cover the most possibility without dumping too much work. There are always people on either side of that line that think it doesn't perfectly cover enough and people who believe it is too complicated. And I do believe that there are ways the system can be improved. But unless DOJ starts talking about 6th Edition, we really don't need to "fix" the system. But instead find custom rules to better fit elements we don't like.

[Eosin]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

I always like threads where everyone feels the need to tell everyone else the way they "feel" is wrong and that if they would only look at from the posters POV then everything would be peachy.

 

Just about everything mentioned in this thread is a COMMON complaint about the system. The core truth is that perception is the only thing that really matters when you are talking about consumerism. If I think red cars are ugly and a significant (but still minor) amount of people agree with me then dismissing those who think RCAU doesn't address the problem. Dismissial of an opinion does not lessen the opinion.

 

My favorite expamle is the irrational and nearly obsessive desire of people who hate the Wheel of Time to post in threads lauding its magnificent, bloated glory. Why not go to a whore house and hand out "Abstenince Works" pamphlets? If there is a topic that bugs the holy-hoo-haw out of you then don't click the link.

 

That is enough of me telling people not to tell other people what to do

 

PS - FTR, I am enjoying the illuminated discussions greatly, barring the aforementioned tendency to be dismissive and failing to address what is a commonly held belief (rightly or wrongly) by otherwise devout Herophiles. All the wonderful anecodotes aside.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

I always like threads where everyone feels the need to tell everyone else the way they "feel" is wrong and that if they would only look at from the posters POV then everything would be peachy.

 

Just about everything mentioned in this thread is a COMMON complaint about the system. The core truth is that perception is the only thing that really matters when you are talking about consumerism. If I think red cars are ugly and a significant (but still minor) amount of people agree with me then dismissing those who think RCAU doesn't address the problem. Dismissial of an opinion does not lessen the opinion.

 

My favorite expamle is the irrational and nearly obsessive desire of people who hate the Wheel of Time to post in threads lauding its magnificent, bloated glory. Why not go to a whore house and hand out "Abstenince Works" pamphlets? If there is a topic that bugs the holy-hoo-haw out of you then don't click the link.

 

That is enough of me telling people not to tell other people what to do

 

PS - FTR, I am enjoying the illuminated discussions greatly, barring the aforementioned tendency to be dismissive and failing to address what is a commonly held belief (rightly or wrongly) by otherwise devout Herophiles. All the wonderful anecodotes aside.

The reason I like these discussions is because we all Like the Hero System, we're on the same side just looking at it from different angles. Thus I believe we're being a bit constructive.

 

At the very least, when a non-Hero fan asks us what it is about Hero that we DO like the majority of us here will now have a rather definative and concise answers, and if asked what we DON'T like, we'll be able to answer that too.

 

None of us are Blind Followers by any means - and that is a very very good thing. Any flaws we recognize we are either able to "fix" or live with, but we do recognize them even if they aren't flaws to others around us.

 

And we're friendly - my experience is that on any other gaming board this would have degenerated into Flames about two pages ago. Sadly.

[Eosin]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

I agree with everything you just typed.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

And we're friendly - my experience is that on any other gaming board this would have degenerated into Flames about two pages ago. Sadly.

I hate you and you suck. You are having stupid lame uncool bad fun with your HERO System. Baby Jeebus weeps for your misguidedness.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

I don't believe a Genre has "rules" and therefore cannot have a Rule System.

 

A Genre should have a feel. And a Genre can be different from a Setting.

 

Take Shadowrun, it's the Fantasy Genre in a Cyberpunk(ish) Setting, using neither/both of the traditional "rules" for each Genre. It has no "Rules" to go by, just utilizing one Genre in a different Setting than is normal/traditional.

 

Rules are for D20 Players - ok, I'm just being Mean there... but more seriously...

 

Hero is a System designed to make a Game that is any Genre in any Setting.

 

I believe it does a good job and anyone restricting themselves to "one-true-system"ism is shorting their Game and everything below it, you should alter the System (if needed, it's not always) to create the Game that defines the Genre and Setting.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Take a genre like Cthulu: it is built in an entirely different way to a standard Hero port: first off combat is more or less discouraged (you ar going to lose a lot of the time) secondly the core mechanics are largely predicated on the idea that the world out there is a scary place that is going to get you.

 

Sure you can come up with custom rules to mimic the mechanics of another game, but they will be bolt ons or odd contractions of existing rules and mechanics (like using cumulative mind control or PRE attacks to mimic insanity or going and creating a brand new SAN stat)

 

If you are willing to make up enough new stuff you can make anything work, but it isn't really Hero then: it is based on Hero at best.

 

Take the recent (amusing) discussion on the cost of a flashlight.....

 

Actually cyberpunk is a good example: Cyber Hero seems to me one of the poorer genre-shots, when compared to the custom built jobs such as well, CyberPunk and ShadowRun. The point is that those games are not about trying to point balance, so they have a greater degree of freedom to mould their genre they want, and the rules can reflect genre conventions: witness the appalling hash we always make of cyberspace: EDM? Desolid? Clairsentience? We are trying to fix it into our pigeonholes and whilst, if you are willing to ignore quite a lot of the rules you can make it work, that is not because Hero is appropriate for that genre - it is because you have a GM and players determined to make it work.

 

In fact something that I sometimes, perversely, perceive as a weakness of Hero is the very plethora of choices as to how to do something. Take poisons: there is no 'right' way to build the so no logical way to defend against them. The official take seems to be they are NND RKAs, but that hardly covers all the bases. OK there may be a limited amont of space in an already huge book, but other systems cram it in, becasue they are not focussed on getting it balanced in the construction phase, so long as it is balanced in game play.

 

Sometimes limiting your choices makes getting on with it a far better bet.

 

Let me re-iterate: I am not knocking Hero - it is the best there is at what it does - but I get a little ticked off when it is suggested it is the cure for what ails you, no matter what that might be: Hero is not a sovereign remedy: there isn't one.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

...........................but we do recognize them even if they aren't flaws to others around us.

 

And we're friendly - my experience is that on any other gaming board this would have degenerated into Flames about two pages ago. Sadly.

 

 

Right, that's it! Where's my Guinness?

[Storn]

Re: Hero System design considerations

 

Take a genre like Cthulu: it is built in an entirely different way to a standard Hero port

Actually cyberpunk is a good example: Cyber Hero seems to me one of the poorer genre-shots, when compared to the custom built jobs such as well, CyberPunk and ShadowRun.

 

I agree with you Sean.

 

Cyberpunk cybernetics should never cost character pts. Cyberpunk is all about the haves and have nots. A cyberpunk game should charge astronomical amounts of money for cybernetics... and GMs should really watch how money is acquired. But not experience pts... which is a blatant disconnect (example: I'm a down on my luck Street-Ronin, but I can afford to get a 5 million yen upgrade just because I had a couple of adventures last week?) This means tossing out the Wealth perk for example, which changes the game from the core rule.

 

Not that Cybernetics wouldn't have Hero mechanics "under the hood". A Cyberarm is +5 STR, +3/3 Armor and is OIF. It is still very much the same system... but how it is applied to the canvas is different. But it is a fundemantal difference.

 

I don't like Fantasy Hero magic, I have never come up with a way to have it go Wild (unless an 18 is rolled, but that happens very rarely). Side Effects are not situational, but are spelled out (sry, bad pun) during creation 90% of the time. Magic in Hero has this cut & dried, same outcome over and over again. Feels like superpowers to me. I have the same problem with D&D btw. But at least 3rd Ed FH had a Heal ability... no more shoehorning Aid or Regen.

 

I still think that Danger International's approach to small arms is FAR superior to either 4th or 5th Ed. Autofire is handled extremely elegantly (useful when in close, worthless at med. range or beyond). D.I.'s gun rules are a bit more involved than 4th edition... but that is the lifeblood of the genre... modern day adventures with NO powers.

 

I think that folks are not stupid. I had no problem switching from 3rd ed Fantasy Hero to Champions to Danger International at will. If I liked something in one book and wanted to take it to another genre... just plug in and play. It was no biggie. But the 3rd Ed's felt different from one another... and to me, that was a good thing. Feel is a big part of how I approach gaming.

 

Last word: Strength is too cheap for any genre except Champions... and maybe even then. I don't want to start that debate up again, but from my POV it makes an argument that Strength is a stat that has vast consequences in Fantasy games, and therefore should be expensive... and less so in a Danger International game, where it makes ya bit tougher, but bullets are flying and a wondernine will take down the strongest man if he isn't armored. Strength's impact is not as deep in a D.I. game.