Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

[Mentor]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

The point is' date=' realism isn't important. Having a good time is important. If realism was the whole point, you could go wash the dishes and take out the trash like your wife wants you to back in the real world. If more rules doesn't mean more fun, more rules is bad.[/quote']

It is only a game and the purpose is to have fun and stimulate some both competetive and cooperative intellectual functions for our gaming groups. Thus the D & D "roll three dice and you hit somewhere or you don't; it doesn't matter where or what the opponent was doing. I don't care of King Harold or Couer de Leon were ultimately killed by incapacitating arrows, nobody in D20 is going to be, etc.

 

Some realism is important or Hero as a system would not be necessary to many of we gamers. I agree that the mundane aspects are something that should not hamper the PCs, but let the actions taken be determinative of the result. That does require some rule complexity to accomplish. But always within the tolerance of the players and GM alike.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I think designers' date=' by virtue of what they do, get too wedded to "cool" things they really like, and we don't have a wealth of system editing and game design heritage to tighten that up. It's developing, and much of it is nothing more than applying the lessons of general art. But it's definitely true that people traditionally haven't taken extreme care to end up with systems that include only what they need and need only what they include. And that's a painful process to a designer, to shed things he's proud of that aren't absolutely necessary.[/quote']

I suppose we got lucky in that Steve's idea of really "cool" things is to research a whole buncha stuff and then tell us all about it in very large tomes.

 

like Pulp Hero.

[zornwil]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I suppose we got lucky in that Steve's idea of really "cool" things is to research a whole buncha stuff and then tell us all about it in very large tomes.

 

like Pulp Hero.

Well, also, setting stuff is different from system/rules, too.

[Zed-F]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I like the idea of elegance in a rule system. Rules should follow from first principles which are very clear and well-balanced. By and large, Hero does a good job of this.

 

There are some portions of the game that are a bit too complex, and depart too much from this idea of elegance -- oftentimes where two or more first principles intersect in a complex fashion. Those portions could stand to be re-worked. And I'm not sure that putting FAQ entries into the main rules was the best idea; not everyone agrees with all the FAQ entries, and there will always be more of them. Still, overall I think the level of complexity in Hero is about right.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

Well' date=' also, setting stuff is different from system/rules, too.[/quote']

I think that hits on part of the draw to HERO for me.

 

The first book is the rules. All the other setting books are The Setting, not needing to dedicate pages to new or more rules.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

You know I get really tired of seeing people say things like this, it is about a dumb as people who tell paint ballers to join the army if they want to shoot at people (they get shot at with PAINT BALLS, not BULLETS). The fact is realism (or at least something approaching realism) is important to some people, sure if you play supers or a similar genre that is well outside of the real world having a fairly good simulation of the real world doesn't matter much, but if you are playing a genre set in the real world it is important, there are dozens of games I've played in over the years where the group (not just me) gave up on it because of the disregard for what we knew as real. I do agree on the good time part though, if your not having fun, then why are you playing, however lack of realism can easily result in no fun, its just not important to you. Sure Married guy working two jobs and doing the honey do list probably wouldn't be a big seller, but you know there are some real people on this planet that lead pretty interesting lives, whats wrong with playing a game where you are one of them.

 

For all of you out there (and you are not alone Bonedaddy), who routinely make these realism is not important and the pursuit of it is a waste of time, try replacing the word realism with genre conventions and tell me the statement isn't silly.

 

I agree for the most part, but I prefer to be lumped in with those who say "it's a game, not reality". Yeah, if I wanted reality, I could go become a real vigilante and probably get killed or arrested or even lose my job. That kind of activity is best kept in the game. However, it's when realism gets taken to such an extreme it takes away from the enjoyment of the game. Also, reality is not fair, and thus a realistic game would also not be fair. But, at least in my opinion, a game should be fair, at least between all the players. There is no way to do that and still make the game truly realistic. You can get close maybe, but you always have to sacrifice realism for fair play, or sacrifice fair play for realism.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

Wow! I inspired a thread and didn't even notice it until now!

 

...to wonder if people think that HERO has achieved a point where more complexity would be okay, in that there might be worthwhile causes left to pursue at the expense of introducing more complexity, or if HERO has achieved a point where any further complexity should be avoided pretty much at all cost, that if there is a worthy cause, then it must include reducing complexity somewhere else if it increases complexity in any one area.

 

By the way, I'm not suggesting that Phil F.'s opinion is one way or the other or that the particular issue weighs in on this, per se, though his answer seems to indicate to me he's likely in the former camp.

I'd have to say I'm in Killer Shrike's camp: the question is meaningless. As I often do, I'll illustrate with an analogy: Driving a car is a task with a certain level of complexity. Building a car has another level of complexity. You can easily imagine a car with a built-in AI, such that all you have to do is get in and say, "Take me to grandma's house," and it takes you there while you take a nap or read a book. Such a car would increase the complexity of building, but greatly decrease the complexity of driving. Likewise you could have a car that's less complex to build, but it would be probably be more complex to drive. A motorcycle comes to mind - a lot of the parts and systems of a car don't exist in a motorcycle, but there are more complexities to deal with when driving one: balance, safety, etc. Also a train is less complex to drive than a car, at the cost of not being able to go all the places a car can go. Building railroad tracks is more complex than building roads.

 

To make a game analogy, chess has very simple rules, it's easy to learn how all the pieces move and the object of the game, but it's very complex to actually play (at least to play well). In general, I think RPG's should be the opposite of chess in this regard: greater complexity of the rules is desirable if it decreases complexity of play. And BTW, greater complexity of character creation usually adds no complexity to the play experience: once it's on the character sheet, it doesn't matter how complex it was to put there.

[zornwil]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

Well, just to be specific, though I like many of the different takes on complexity, I was starting specifically (rightly or wrongly) with complexity in use of the core system, as opposed to what might be under the covers. Though I was not differentiating (and personally would not) between character creation and play execution; probably in some part because increasingly the use of adjustment powers and adjustable powers (so to speak) forces revisiting character builds in-play, although I'm not saying that was a primary or even conscious thought at the time.

 

BTW, I am good with adding complexity in house rules.

[Phil]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I don't care of King Harold or Couer de Leon were ultimately killed by incapacitating arrows' date=' nobody in D20 is going to be, etc.[/quote']

 

Perfectly possible to be 'ultimately killed' by arrows in D20. Just not the first one. Harold was killed at the climax of a day of fighting. Those HP gradually dropped down through tiredness, exhaustion, loss of focus, occasional nicks, etc. etc.

 

Historical realism note: Harold was almost certainly not killed by an arrow. This assumption has been drawn from the bayeux tapestry which was mis-stitched during a repair/adjustment at some point in the past. You must also remember that the tapestry isn't a still image, but has a sense of motion, almost like a comic book. So the same figure may appear several times in sequence, and it is believed that this is what happens with Harold. The key feature is generally considered to be the figure cut down by Norman cavalry immediately beneath the phrase 'interfectus est': he is killed. The famous 'arrow in the eye' figure may be Harold, but equally he looks like he could well have been part of a shield-wall or honour guard protecting the king.

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux31.htm

 

Coeur de lion was killed by infection following a crossbow wound to his shoulder. No HP there either ;-)

[Springald Jack]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I think the HERO system is about as loaded as is practical. Especially in Character Creation. While to some degree I accept Front-loaded complexity (ie in creation that doesn't complicate play) there is a limit.

 

In fact I agree with some others that in some places the rules are over complex.

 

Although to be honest I wouldn't mind complexity in terms of a way of executing Mental Powers that doesn't suck. Just my opinion of course.

[Mentor]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

Perfectly possible to be 'ultimately killed' by arrows in D20. Just not the first one. Harold was killed at the climax of a day of fighting. Those HP gradually dropped down through tiredness, exhaustion, loss of focus, occasional nicks, etc. etc.

 

Historical realism note: Harold was almost certainly not killed by an arrow. This assumption has been drawn from the bayeux tapestry which was mis-stitched during a repair/adjustment at some point in the past. You must also remember that the tapestry isn't a still image, but has a sense of motion, almost like a comic book. So the same figure may appear several times in sequence, and it is believed that this is what happens with Harold. The key feature is generally considered to be the figure cut down by Norman cavalry immediately beneath the phrase 'interfectus est': he is killed. The famous 'arrow in the eye' figure may be Harold, but equally he looks like he could well have been part of a shield-wall or honour guard protecting the king.

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux31.htm

 

Coeur de lion was killed by infection following a crossbow wound to his shoulder. No HP there either ;-)

Heh he. Historically accurate, but the fact remains that an experienced warrior type, say 7th to 10th level, getting killed by an arrow is nearly impossible.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I think any good gamer is going to modify the Game System to fit his view of the best game system.

 

The thing I love about Hero System is it can be as Complex as desired or as Simple. It is all a matter of personal preference.

 

Cheers

 

QM

[zornwil]

Re: Has HERO achieved maximum desirable complexity?

 

I think the HERO system is about as loaded as is practical. Especially in Character Creation. While to some degree I accept Front-loaded complexity (ie in creation that doesn't complicate play) there is a limit.

 

In fact I agree with some others that in some places the rules are over complex.

 

Although to be honest I wouldn't mind complexity in terms of a way of executing Mental Powers that doesn't suck. Just my opinion of course.

True, as a practical note, I could see in one sense increasing complexity in vehicle builds, although by substituting mechanics for new mechanics, so not that I'm saying to add further complexity to the way it is done but add add complexity in that there'd be an additional mechanic to the overall system (maybe - it could be that it'd be just as easy to pre-build basic vehicle abilities of acceleration and so on as sort of "Talents", powers that are lumped together into a single unexplicated ability - but I dunno about that and either way you end up having to do vehicles in some way involving new basic attributes, probably).