What is HERO about?

[zornwil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

Actually you don't - I routinely do precisely this sort of thing and hero lends itslef to it very elegantly (a few weeks ago, we had a session where the "conflict" was several warriors attempting to charm a passel of ladies, using what skills they had and was "won" by one of the players combining roleplaying and deft use of his existing skils. You do however need to alter your preconceptions both during character creation and gaming.

 

Just to be contrary, I've found that games where those preconceptions are built in (those which are "about something", if you like) tend to HINDER play. The mechanisms inevitably seem to rely on the GM's skill for narrative continuity and player satisfaction: and if the GM has that degree of skill, the mechanisms are irrelevant (see the recent thread on combat resolution for Heroquest as one example. This is precisely why we converted from Heroquest rules to Hero system for RQ and found the resulting play ended up closer to the source material than when using the somewhat clunky system Laws devised). The only place where these "context-aware rules" are beneficial (IMO) is in character generation since they lay out explicitly what the players and GM can expect. In that regard they are "about something" in a way that Hero system is not.

 

Of course, that's why some people find Hero to be "bland", I suspect.

 

cheers, Mark

I routinely adapt HERO as well and most people add a layer of stakes resolution, whether informally or formally. But I really think you're missing the point if you adapt HERO to do what DitV does, just as you would if you tried to adapt it to the Secret Lives of Gingerbreak Men or Capes. Read either Capes or DitV at least among those systems (I haven't read Gingerbreak Men myself but from what I've heard it's also fairly unique, so I throw it in) and come back and try to do them with HERO and either you'll have rewritten HERO fundamentally and rather pointlessly to do what somebody else has already built, or you'll end up with something that simply isn't the same play experience and therefore misses the point.

 

While I admit I'm failing to explain the nuances well and it really requires someone reading the systems in question, I'd put it this way as to the proof being in the pudding - buy a game system geared towards a very specific, non-"universal" play experience, play it a few times as written and as the author suggests, then do the same by revamping HERO to do so, or at least think about it...and I think you'd find that doing so is (at least in a well-desigend system, otherwise all bets are off) a rather silly exercise. Unlike the issue with Heroquest, which is where you simply didn't want the play experience it offered (whether through incompetence on the system's part or simply not liking it even though it was well-delivered for what the game designer intended).

 

I've yet to see anyone who enjoyed either DitV or Capes (though I'm not a fan of Capes and haven't really looked into it nearly as much) turn around and say "cool, I'll rewrite ("univeral" system of choice)" to do that. I've seen it with systems that are less pointed, such as Call of Cthuhlu or various other superhero systems which still rely on the basic GM-player structure of action-adventure games, sure. And of course the reason is these systems aren't so specific themselves in enforcing play experience.

 

As to your point about systems tuned to a very specific play experience, of course they will either not match what people want to play or some will just not be well-designed. I'm not suggesting that a specific, niche play experience is superior whatsoever to a "universal"-intended one; after all, I'm writing a "universal" one myself. It depends on what people want to play, assuming the system is well-done. I'd note that if it's well-designed, then the issue isn't that it's "hindering" anything, it's that the group doesn't like that sort of play experience. But of course that's a good reason to take what one likes and then put it into mechanics better supporting a more desirable play experience. This has been one of the great strengths of all the better "universal" systems in my experience - it's relatively easy to take elements enjoyed from other games and incorporate them, such as Savage Worlds/Deadlands-style chips in HERO or adding a form of d20ish levelling to HERO or the like.

[zornwil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

Edited: Just realized that I came across as arguing with you' date=' Zorn. I think we are on the same page here. Most of above was more a response to what Just Joe stated... quoted below.[/quote']

 

Thanks, but no worries, I got it - though I grant, it took a minute but before I even got to your closing note here I realized you were speaking to the point I had made, not against it.

[Just Joe]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

After what you (Zorwil & RDU Neil) have written, I am somewhat intrigued about "Dogs", and if I had ten times as much time to game as I do now, I'd probably give it a try (thus my arthropods analogy breaks down, as I would have to be starving before I'd eat centipedes or shrimp). But overall, it doesn't sound like the thing for me. It sounds like players are granted a level of authority that I, as a player, wouldn't want and that I, as a GM, wouldn't want to cede. This certainly has something to do with gaming philosophy, but the traditional GM-player relationship that HERO and I employ is shared by a large number of games. And though I think other models might have their uses, I don't see how the fact that a game accepts this relationship limits what the game is "about".

 

I'm not sure whether or not this constitutes a disagreement with you.

[zornwil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

After what you (Zorwil & RDU Neil) have written, I am somewhat intrigued about "Dogs", and if I had ten times as much time to game as I do now, I'd probably give it a try (thus my arthropods analogy breaks down, as I would have to be starving before I'd eat centipedes or shrimp). But overall, it doesn't sound like the thing for me. It sounds like players are granted a level of authority that I, as a player, wouldn't want and that I, as a GM, wouldn't want to cede. This certainly has something to do with gaming philosophy, but the traditional GM-player relationship that HERO and I employ is shared by a large number of games. And though I think other models might have their uses, I don't see how the fact that a game accepts this relationship limits what the game is "about".

 

I'm not sure whether or not this constitutes a disagreement with you.

Re the game itself, one player was particularly hesitant, he confided after playing, in playing a religious judge in a conservative society, as it's very much against his nature (as it is mine) - which isn't the same issue as you cite - but he ended up being quite pleasantly surprised.

 

As to the power issue, sure, that's valid. Players DO have a tremendous power and GMs have less, in terms of overt game influence, but that's also what makes for interesting discussions on what to do, and I found it fun as GM to watch and then throw in an NPC to challenge.

 

On a side note, despite what I thought when I read it and before I played it, it's a nice mix of narrative, gamist, and simulationist elements. It's stronger narratively, I'd say, but as one player who enjoys having the gaming/competitive element said, the gamist part is quite satisfying (which I agree with and was a bit surprised by).

 

Anyway, I'm definitely not trying to sell you on it, just elaborating. I can understand your view in not wanting to play that way. I just do want to say the game is well-designed enough that the players' power comes with great responsibility, however trite that sounds, and this creates a strong check-and-balance in the system. But I fully admit I'm a bit zealous having been bitted hard by this! The people who played all agreed they'd like to go ahead and take advantage of our limited F2F sessions to play this for a while instead of the supers game we've long been playing (and that one of the guys only recently joined for, I feel sort of bad, as if somehow, though this was definitely not the intent, I baited-and-switched), putting the supers game into PBP mode (which I have to work on some more tonight...). So for us it was a smashing success.

[Warp9]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

It sounds like players are granted a level of authority that I' date=' as a player, wouldn't want and that I, as a GM, wouldn't want to cede. [/quote']

I see things a bit differently; I like the idea that the GM has less power, and the Players have more.

[zornwil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

I see things a bit differently; I like the idea that the GM has less power' date=' and the Players have more.[/quote']

Yeah, knowing how you run games, I think you'd dig DitV a lot. Basically, the GM has to take a more simulationist role (although you can't neglect some narrative responsibilities, but that's on your NPCs' part anyway, of course) - basically, the GM's most important responsibility is setting up the situation for the players to come across, and then it's to play the NPCs but not to direct the players' activities. This is a good bit more codified than many other games.

[Warp9]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

Yeah' date=' knowing how you run games, I think you'd dig DitV a lot.[/quote']

I'll definitely have to check it out!

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Derek Hiemforth again.

 

Good stuff

 

QM

[Lucius]

Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition....

 

And this is what is meant by the difference between a "Task Resolution" system and a "Conflict Resolution" system. (At least as far as I can understand.)

 

Task Resolution is classic Hero. "I swing my fist to punch him." Roll to see if you hit, where you hit, how much damage you do. But there is NO mechanic of "what does that hit mean? How does that hit influence character behavior? What is the social repercussion... the meaning of that punch? What did you intend to have happen if the punch succeeded? Why?"

.

 

Well, you could use the punch to get the "violent action" bonus on a PRE roll.

 

As for deep philosophical questions about why one person hits another, I suspect it is often hard to get "meaningful" answers in real life, let alone a game.

 

Task Resolution abstracts actions into discreet mechanics. I don't actually punch you to see if my character hits... we roll it out.

 

Conflict Resolution does the same, but for Intent and Social Interactions. I don't actually argue with you... player to player... we roll a mechanic that determines whether or not my POV wins over yours... AND (most importantly) by winning, I force certain events to be "true" in the game.

 

In task resolution... even if I succeed with my punch, the GM still has to make a totally subjective judgment call on say... whether the opponent flees, get's angry, takes a hostage, strikes back, gives up, etc. In Conflict Resolution, the result is determined by who wins. "If I succeed with my blow, he falls to his knees, renouncing evil and gives me the name of the sinners in the town!" And the "GM" does not just take the situation and say "Ok... he falls to his knees and does such... but when you turn around, he was really faking it and stabs you in the back!" That is not appropriate. You won the Stakes, so you control the outcome. He truly does give up and repent, because you say so..

 

Well, there's the Interrogation skill to force information from an unwilling subject. And there's Oratory and Persuasion to try to make someone change their mind about something.

 

But to do, in Hero, the Magic Fist of Converting Someone to My Way of Thinking by Hitting Them, you'd have to buy a Transformation attack, Based on EGO Combat because it's a mental transform, with the limit Based on CON because the delivery system is physical (quite crudely so in fact....) probably linked to STR or to a hand to hand attack....maybe with a limit that it only kicks if in you stun the target...

 

Stakes and Intent are crucial to this mechanical abstracting of social interaction. Violence can happen... but it is simply a descriptive element to what is really important which is imposing your control over the story and events and meaning of the game. It is a vastly different use of mechanics for a very different reason... a reason/meaning that is

.

 

 

Interesting. Can player characters pull this on one another? Can nonplayer characters do it to player characters?

 

What other changes can be wrought? Can I say "I hit this person and she sprouts wings and flies away - Because I Say So?"

 

Does it work on the inanimate? If the event I want to make "true" in the game is, say, a better house to live in for my character, can I say "I'm tired of this shack, I'm going to run around kicking the walls until it turns into a mansion?"

 

You know, I was thinking of asking "Why would anyone want to play a superpowered inquisitor?" but maybe I CAN see the appeal.

 

I went through a phase, when I was with a group playing the Marvel Super Hero game, of having trouble coping with the Comic Convention that the villains always escape or get freed somehow and come back. I don't think I'd have put it that way, but I may have agreed if someone said it was "meaningless" to beat up on villains and toss them in jail if they're only going to get out and cause trouble again. I was doing a lot of questioning of the motivations of all the villains - the idea being, if I can figure out why they do what they do, maybe I can figure out how to make them stop. I even (I was playing a super mage) asked if I could work out a spell to deprive a villain of powers, and at least turn them into merely ordinary crooks.

 

I have to say, though, it would never have occurred to me to try to reform someone by hitting them. After all, we're talking about people who were ALREADY getting beat on by heroes regularly, and it didn't seem to help. But then, we weren't playing Dogs in the Vineyard.

 

What the heck does that name mean, anyway? I've heard of a dog in the manger, but what's a dog in the vineyard?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a turkey in the straw, and a palindromedary in the palindormitory

[zornwil]

Re: Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition....

 

I don't know where Baker got the phrase, he may have made it up. The imagery of guard dogs in a vineyard though is apt, they are the protectors among God's bountiful fruits - which may go bad sometimes...

 

Basically put, conflict resolution in Dogs is first performed with something at Stake. The Stake could be "I want my brother to stop cheating with that woman." Or it could even just be "I want him dead."

 

Then an opening Arena (as well as a Setting but that's simple enough). It might be Talking, Physical but not Fighting, Fighting, or Gunfighting. It can escalate from Talking on up or start right at Gunfighting (as in "I want him dead.").

 

If we take the "I want my brother to stop cheating" example, of course the PC likely starts by Talking. Roll dice based on various Stats and any applicable Traits and Relationships (certainly his being a brother is involved; that adds a d6, but his brother gets a d6, too). The brother might be losing the argument - but not want to stop cheating. So he might escalate to Physical - which could simply be "Forget it, I'm leaving," and he shoves the guy aside, moving on. But the PC won't let it go - he grabs him...soon it escaltes to Fighting, maybe worse.

 

Each character takes something called Fallout damage, if such occurs. Low-level Fallout will change their Traits or Relationships or such; higher Fallout, what with injuries, can kill of course.

 

At the end, the winner (which is not directly related to Fallout; that's a separate accounting) gets to win the Stakes. If the PC won the "cheating" thing, he'd probably have convinced the brother (either by fear or reasoning, depending on the nature of the conflict) to stop. If the brother wins, he has rebuffed the attempt.

 

Similarly, if the stakes are "I'm going to kill him," then if the attempting killer iwns, it really doesn't matter what Fallout occurs - the killer kills. Of course with severe enough Fallout he might also lay dead and bleeding, but that's a separate matter.

 

The way Stats and Traits and Rellationships and Belongings (forgot those earlier) work is they lend dice to the conflict resolution, very basically put.

 

Like any good system, there's other stuff to consider; I didn't get into what Fallout really means, how it affects your various abilities, nor did we discuss the setting's boundaries, and so on. This is just some simple mechanical elements to give you an idea how it works.

 

PS - similarly, you wouldn't make Stakes like "Be a good person from now on!" or similarly vague or unlikely ones.

 

PPS - and of course, if playing longer term, it's not as if the woman the brother cheats with couldn't attempt to come back and seduce him

[Markdoc]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

I routinely adapt HERO as well and most people add a layer of stakes resolution' date=' whether informally or formally. But I really think you're missing the point if you adapt HERO to do what DitV does, just as you would if you tried to adapt it to the Secret Lives of Gingerbreak Men or Capes. Read either Capes or DitV at least among those systems (I haven't read Gingerbreak Men myself but from what I've heard it's also fairly unique, so I throw it in) and come back and try to do them with HERO and either you'll have rewritten HERO fundamentally and rather pointlessly to do what somebody else has already built, or you'll end up with something that simply isn't the same play experience and therefore misses the point.[/quote']

 

Perhaps so - I haven't read Capes or Gingerbreak men - I have read a friend's copy of DitV though. As for play ... I dunno. He wants me to run it (lazy sod) and though I find the setting intriguing, it's not enough to grab me, when I've got a regular FH campaign to run. Perhaps if my prior experience with narrative systems was not so overwhelmingly negative for anything more than a one-shot or short adventures...

 

Still, you could be right about the importance of system.

 

Unlike the issue with Heroquest' date=' which is where you simply didn't want the play experience it offered (whether through incompetence on the system's part or simply not liking it even though it was well-delivered for what the game designer intended).[/quote']

 

The situation here is somewhat different, in that the designer (and the new owners of the intellectual property) were developing a new system for an established setting with a huge (and dare I say it, rather cultish) fanbase. The old Chaosium system was showing it's age, no question. But in this case, there were clear expectations of what a new system should deliver - and given the number of people (the clear majority, in my experience) who have chosen to use a different system, plus the unrestraining whining on the 'net, the designer clearly failed to deliver something that met most people's expectations. I'd go further - if used as intended the system could actually generate results that had everyone at the table going "? But that's just plain stupid!" at which point the GM need to over-ride. In my lexicon, a system which frequently breaks suspension of disbelief, is not simply providing a different experience than that expected: it is providing a poor experience.

 

So those are two different things. You can look at the debate on the Iron Kingdoms game on the Fantasy Hero boards: that's another example of a system which was grafted somewhat unhappily onto an existing background- the original (and rather cool) vision was not intended to include fireball and lightningbolt flinging wizards, nor human warriors who could take on a couple of Khador warjacks with a normal sword. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a fun game (in fact, the people I know who came to IK from D20, love it). On the other hand the people with an IK background, seem to be generally unhappy with the conversion - even they are otherwise d20 players. There's expectations and there's execution - they're different things and need to be managed differently.

 

As to your point about systems tuned to a very specific play experience' date=' of course they will either not match what people want to play or some will just not be well-designed. I'm not suggesting that a specific, niche play experience is superior whatsoever to a "universal"-intended one; after all, I'm writing a "universal" one myself.[/quote']

 

Heh - actually I wasn't meaning to suggest the inverse: that a universal system was superior to a niche one. I certainly don't think so - nor would I expect a system promoting a certain mindset/approach to deliver a flawless experience when used for something else. Merely that a genuinely universal system tends to be less "about" something than a niche one. To take an example, d20, though it has been expanded, is still a niche system: it's basically about beating people up and taking their stuff and that pervades the design of derived systems (see the comments on IK above).

 

To some extent, this was true of Hero system too, but the expansion of the system over the years has made this original intent so faint it's barely discernible.

 

Point in case - I'm having to alter my gameplan in the current game because the players have made up a group biased heavily towards business and social skills (not, as far as I am aware, a conscious decision to play against the grain - merely that this was what these players found most attractive when browsing the rules. For them, there *was* no grain). The original combat roots of Hero have become so diluted that they passed these players right by. In that sense, Hero is no longer "about" anything at all.

 

It depends on what people want to play' date=' assuming the system is well-done. I'd note that if it's well-designed, then the issue isn't that it's "hindering" anything, it's that the group doesn't like that sort of play experience. But of course that's a good reason to take what one likes and then put it into mechanics better supporting a more desirable play experience. This has been one of the great strengths of all the better "universal" systems in my experience - it's relatively easy to take elements enjoyed from other games and incorporate them, such as Savage Worlds/Deadlands-style chips in HERO or adding a form of d20ish levelling to HERO or the like.[/quote']

 

Agreed: but here the key part is "assuming the system is well-done". Anyway, here, I was perhaps not very clear in what I meant. I'll try again. Gaming is at core, whatever system you use, a shared experience. The players and GM together, shape - hopefully - a shared memeory of events that actually never happened. Narrative systems, as you noted, transfer more "memory-shaping" power to players. If everyone is on the same page, that may work fine. In my experience, however, as time goes on and players begin to develop their characters they also push the envelope in different directions. That can be acceptable - but it can also begin to generate friction in that actions/consequences are *explicitly* plotted for characters that their players do not want: this is doubly poisonous if those actions/consequences are generated by other players. It's the explicit part that's the problem. To my mind, consequences and fallout should flow naturally as a result of play and environment: to have them "built-in" smacks of railroading.

 

Of course, this may be a matter of preference. But I can't shake the sneaking feeling that much modern game design is not really intended to optimise the shared experience, so much as to enhance the uniqueness (and thus brief commercial prospects) of new games. Like modern art, it's becoming self-referential, aimed primarily at reviewers and other game designers rather than players.

 

cheers, Mark

[zornwil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

Perhaps so - I haven't read Capes or Gingerbreak men - I have read a friend's copy of DitV though. As for play ... I dunno. He wants me to run it (lazy sod) and though I find the setting intriguing' date=' it's not enough to grab me, when I've got a regular FH campaign to run. Perhaps if my prior experience with narrative systems was not so overwhelmingly negative for anything more than a one-shot or short adventures...[/quote']

 

FWIW, I agree, DitV is more of a short campaign, I don't think most people would generally enjoy more than 6-12 sessions in a given run, then take a break for other games. And I think a lot of these games are intended that way.

 

Still, you could be right about the importance of system.

 

 

 

The situation here is somewhat different, in that the designer (and the new owners of the intellectual property) were developing a new system for an established setting with a huge (and dare I say it, rather cultish) fanbase. The old Chaosium system was showing it's age, no question. But in this case, there were clear expectations of what a new system should deliver - and given the number of people (the clear majority, in my experience) who have chosen to use a different system, plus the unrestraining whining on the 'net, the designer clearly failed to deliver something that met most people's expectations. I'd go further - if used as intended the system could actually generate results that had everyone at the table going "? But that's just plain stupid!" at which point the GM need to over-ride. In my lexicon, a system which frequently breaks suspension of disbelief, is not simply providing a different experience than that expected: it is providing a poor experience.

 

That's fair.

 

So those are two different things. You can look at the debate on the Iron Kingdoms game on the Fantasy Hero boards: that's another example of a system which was grafted somewhat unhappily onto an existing background- the original (and rather cool) vision was not intended to include fireball and lightningbolt flinging wizards, nor human warriors who could take on a couple of Khador warjacks with a normal sword. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a fun game (in fact, the people I know who came to IK from D20, love it). On the other hand the people with an IK background, seem to be generally unhappy with the conversion - even they are otherwise d20 players. There's expectations and there's execution - they're different things and need to be managed differently.

 

 

 

Heh - actually I wasn't meaning to suggest the inverse: that a universal system was superior to a niche one.

 

Oh, I didn't think so! I just thought perhaps you were thinking I was saying that a niche one was superior to a universal one, so that's really what I was trying to clarify from my end.

 

I certainly don't think so - nor would I expect a system promoting a certain mindset/approach to deliver a flawless experience when used for something else. Merely that a genuinely universal system tends to be less "about" something than a niche one. To take an example, d20, though it has been expanded, is still a niche system: it's basically about beating people up and taking their stuff and that pervades the design of derived systems (see the comments on IK above).

 

To some extent, this was true of Hero system too, but the expansion of the system over the years has made this original intent so faint it's barely discernible.

 

Point in case - I'm having to alter my gameplan in the current game because the players have made up a group biased heavily towards business and social skills (not, as far as I am aware, a conscious decision to play against the grain - merely that this was what these players found most attractive when browsing the rules. For them, there *was* no grain). The original combat roots of Hero have become so diluted that they passed these players right by. In that sense, Hero is no longer "about" anything at all.

 

 

 

Agreed: but here the key part is "assuming the system is well-done". Anyway, here, I was perhaps not very clear in what I meant. I'll try again. Gaming is at core, whatever system you use, a shared experience. The players and GM together, shape - hopefully - a shared memeory of events that actually never happened. Narrative systems, as you noted, transfer more "memory-shaping" power to players. If everyone is on the same page, that may work fine. In my experience, however, as time goes on and players begin to develop their characters they also push the envelope in different directions. That can be acceptable - but it can also begin to generate friction in that actions/consequences are *explicitly* plotted for characters that their players do not want: this is doubly poisonous if those actions/consequences are generated by other players. It's the explicit part that's the problem. To my mind, consequences and fallout should flow naturally as a result of play and environment: to have them "built-in" smacks of railroading.

 

Of course, this may be a matter of preference. But I can't shake the sneaking feeling that much modern game design is not really intended to optimise the shared experience, so much as to enhance the uniqueness (and thus brief commercial prospects) of new games. Like modern art, it's becoming self-referential, aimed primarily at reviewers and other game designers rather than players.

 

cheers, Mark

 

That's a fair observation, re the last paragraph, but I don't think it's that bad. Does it occur? Surely. But I think a lot of the approach is intended not so much to optimize a shared vision as it is to optimize the DESIGNER's vision in play. Now, that's a very tricky proposition, because one argument I have against that school of thought is that by its very nature RPGing is even a shared experience at the DESIGN level, the participants in a game EXPECT to be able to alter it to their liking, at least to some degree, as that's the very ethos of our tradition - and it ought be, too, I say! I think therefore it's incumbent on a good designer to impart what is important in his game to get the experience he wants to get over and what is not so critical, so that participants in the game can make a conscious and well-informed decision. One of the reasons I've been impressed with the design of DitV is that Baker did an excellent job at explaining this. So I was able to adapt the setting in a way that made sense to me/suited my tastes without disrupting the game (I think) as he intended it, in general, while leaving alone the mechanics (actually entirely, aside from trivial nomenclature issues), and it hangs together pretty well.

[RDU Neil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

But I think a lot of the approach is intended not so much to optimize a shared vision as it is to optimize the DESIGNER's vision in play. Now, that's a very tricky proposition, because one argument I have against that school of thought is that by its very nature RPGing is even a shared experience at the DESIGN level, the participants in a game EXPECT to be able to alter it to their liking, at least to some degree, as that's the very ethos of our tradition - and it ought be, too, I say!

 

This is really interesting Zorn... because it opens a whole can of worms... or more properly, maybe this frames a way to look at a can of worms that has already been opened.

 

1: What is "playing true Hero?" We get this on these boards all the time, and I don't think a single person agrees with anyone else. Hero is "designed" to be modified... but at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.

 

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? I think this is too broad a statement and belies your own bias. I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book. Everbody is somewhere on this continuum, with probably few if any in the Rewrite It All or By-The-Book extremes... but folks lean one way or another.

 

3: Who is part of the shared vision? The whole 4th vs. 5th design debates that go on here are really about which vision trumped the other. Not right or wrong, but Steve & Co.'s take on Hero clearly was supported in a shared vision way be many long time Hero folks... but distressed a lot of 'em, too. These boards and the FAQ are clearly results of DOJ trying to incorporate a "shared design vision" with the actual players... and some like it and some don't.

 

4: Building from that, is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game? Do the designer's of Monopoly design with the expectation of the the game turning into a crashcart derby between the Shoe, Tophat and Racecar? (I've seen this happen.) The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations. I can't really agree with that. The designer should have specific objectives for her game... "This is intended to..." as well as "This is NOT intended to... so play something else." Anything else is practically false advertising. (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?)

 

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of, where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?"

 

All of this is not to say I don't share some of your ideas... as well as what Markdoc wrote about. Having read and played around a bit with Burning Wheel... as well as owning Polaris, and having read much of DitV... I do think those games are highly self referential... and they strike me as more concerned with the idea of what a game could be... rather than of making a really playable game (playable outside of a very unique niche audience.)

[Just Joe]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

This continues to be a very interesting thread.

 

1: What is "playing true Hero?" . . . at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.

My POV is that this is an unanswerable question. And I'm not even sure it's one of those unanswerable questions that's worth discussing anyway.

 

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? . . . I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book.

I have a friend who's a strict All to By-The-Book-er. As a player, he would begrudgingly accept GM tinkering, but he did not approve. Admitedly, he has since dropped role-playing (at least for a while) for wargaming, and he was always a wargamerish roleplayer, but he has played in dozens if not hundreds of HERO game sessions in the past.

 

3: Who is part of the shared vision?

I have nothing to add at this time.

 

4: Building from that' date=' is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game? . . . The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations. I can't really agree with that. . . . (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?).[/quote']I wouldn't say that players should expect to alter a game, but I do think they should feel entitled to do so. I wouldn't say that a designer is obligated to go out of the way to support player alterations, but if s/he sees ways of doing so, I think it's a good thing to do. (I don't think the novel analogy is apt.)

 

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of' date=' where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?".[/quote']I'm not sure I get your point here. As for the final question of #5, I'd say one should not quite expect literally anything, but HERO can cover such a monumentally large range that it's a fair slogan. As for the rest of #5, I think I'm missing something . . .

[Gadodel]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

HERO is like a recipe book. Tons of great foods, yet everyone will want to alter them to fit their own tastes. They'll find others who like what they made and others who don't. The system is like food for the mind. Some game recipes are well received, others are not.

[zornwil]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

This is really interesting Zorn... because it opens a whole can of worms... or more properly, maybe this frames a way to look at a can of worms that has already been opened.

 

1: What is "playing true Hero?" We get this on these boards all the time, and I don't think a single person agrees with anyone else. Hero is "designed" to be modified... but at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.

 

I think to the extent HERO is about something or anything, the muddle of "playing true HERO" reflects that, quite simply. It's easier to say that with the niche systems as you imply.

 

But I don't mean that as a simple answer - I think it's an interesting question, because it also begs to what degree this system has a core or even needs a core. Not easy questions/answers. If I had more time, I'd probably dwell on those but I should be moving along to other things tonight...

 

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? I think this is too broad a statement and belies your own bias. I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book. Everbody is somewhere on this continuum, with probably few if any in the Rewrite It All or By-The-Book extremes... but folks lean one way or another.

 

Agreed that's giving away my bias, but I do mean there's what Just Joe better refers to as a "sense of entitlement." From what I see most people don't realize that "by the book" is its own trap, much as (and I reveal another bias here) literal interpretation of sacred text is - the point being that there's the rules then there's the rules...there's what's stated, what's implied, what's central and is a truly meaningful part of the game, what's peripheral and less necessary or even unnecessary, and what the intent "really" is. And in my experience in interpreting comments, even people who claim to run "by the book" have made informal house rules based on situations which may or may not be in accordance with some aspects of what the original game may be pushing, or they may be choosing not to use aspects of the rules (not that they violate them, they just try not to engage in that part of the system), or simply may even be slight mods. But anyway that's really a tangential response as I agree that many do like to run systems "as is" and often the informal mods I refer to are consequently trivial even if they exist.

 

What I find is also divergent though is:

- play groups sometimes find a certain subset or tangent or even a sort of counterculture to the system "as given"; as you and I discussed, some Champions gamers ended up, with the rationalized system, going very much away from comics, while I think the designers originally hoped and even overtly intended for people to play something like "regular" superhero comics; this "cultural" shift against the game ethics can still occur while following all mechanics of the game (as a simple example, as highly coherent as DitV is, it would be fairly easy to end up ignoring much of the moral questions it begs and simply engage in hack-n-slash, as the gamist element is strong and the things which reinforce the desired play experience can truly still be countered by a willful play group without actually breaking a single rule)

- the lack of surprise/debate if GMs depart from the core rules; it seems as if relatively few players actually get upset about this unless it goes into some stranger, somehow clearly "wrong" territory

 

But I risk overstating...sure, people often do follow what's intended and given. I just find a "readily-tolerated recklessness", if you will, in general that doesn't translate to necessarily even a majority of gamers but is so prevalent and allowed for that it creates a willful climate of "redesign".

 

And I think that stands apart from many (not all) forms of vaguely-similar expression and commercial design.

 

3: Who is part of the shared vision? The whole 4th vs. 5th design debates that go on here are really about which vision trumped the other. Not right or wrong, but Steve & Co.'s take on Hero clearly was supported in a shared vision way be many long time Hero folks... but distressed a lot of 'em, too. These boards and the FAQ are clearly results of DOJ trying to incorporate a "shared design vision" with the actual players... and some like it and some don't.

 

Just to be clear, my statement was in specific reference to the niche/indie/young turks of game design who are overtly claiming to write to a single vision (or they seem to be, though I think they are not so averse to this shared vision thing as they claim - I think Burning Wheel is an example of a supremely commercial game continuing to strive to reach a nearly-common denominator, but then again unlike you I"ve not experienced it).

 

4: Building from that, is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game?

 

We had quite a debate about that at GenCon. The Forge folk were adamantly opposed to this expectation, generally.

 

Do the designer's of Monopoly design with the expectation of the the game turning into a crashcart derby between the Shoe, Tophat and Racecar? (I've seen this happen.) The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations.

 

No, not quite that, anyway. I tried to explain that via the comment in the post I reference "I think therefore it's incumbent on a good designer to impart what is important in his game to get the experience he wants to get over and what is not so critical, so that participants in the game can make a conscious and well-informed decision." My point here is not whether a game designer should allow for alteration but that he should realize that this is a strong ethos and he should address it head-on. The reason I changed none of the mechanisms in DitV was that Baker gave clear and pressing reasons not to; had he not, I would not have caught on in at least some respects. The only wiggle room he allowed was in setting, and he was explicit as to what needed to be preserved and what could be allowed to change. IMHO it's a rare game that has no room for change, though it's possible.

 

 

I can't really agree with that. The designer should have specific objectives for her game... "This is intended to..." as well as "This is NOT intended to... so play something else." Anything else is practically false advertising. (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?)

 

The way you phrased it, I completely agree and am on the same page. I'm trying to write my game with that explicitly in mind. My point is that the designer should really go ahead and state that in his book - not just leave us guessing as to what is essential and what is okay to mess with.

 

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of, where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?"

 

Failure and success at once, maybe.

 

I think that a major problem with HERO is that there's a hesitancy to come out and state in the system "this is sacrosanct" and "this can be changed in this way," just as I was discussing earlier. I think, with all due respect, that 5th is really in trouble in this aspect; 4th's relative terseness created some disservice but seemed to give a heavier implication as to what was core to the system, but I don't claim it had a great advantage here, just some.

 

I think you can see that early on, as you sort of allude to, Champions was so much clearer in SOME ways that it supported a given experience better. Just considering "Goodman's School of Efficiency" (or whatever the precise title was) is almost shocking in comparison to today's climate, a climate which is influenced by latter gaming attitudes but stands in contrast to the points-mania of the system's origin. And the reason it's shocking is that in that early edition, the "Goodman tips" were overt declarations of how to play the math, and now we try to pretend that we somehow shouldn't play the math...when the whole bloody game is based around it on some sort of clearly fundamental level!

 

Okay, that's a bit of a muddle as I'm thinking more about it as I type...anyway, great point and a good way to come back to the topic at hand.

 

All of this is not to say I don't share some of your ideas... as well as what Markdoc wrote about. Having read and played around a bit with Burning Wheel... as well as owning Polaris, and having read much of DitV... I do think those games are highly self referential... and they strike me as more concerned with the idea of what a game could be... rather than of making a really playable game (playable outside of a very unique niche audience.)

 

I can't speak to the others (and Burning Wheel doesn't interest me I'll mention, in way of supporting your point, though for many reasons not related to its nuanced edge), but one surprising thing was how DitV attracted players who came at it with rather different expectations, ranging from enthusiasm to apprehension. I think it's quite playable to a wide range of roleplayers, as it really addresses things we just don't make central stage in a mechanical fashion in games even though I think gamers do so in others way; but I just think it's a bit pointed, and deliberately so, such that anyone would burn out if played too long. But I want to stress my bias in being so enthusiastic about this game.

[Gadodel]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

play groups sometimes find a certain subset or tangent or even a sort of counterculture to the system "as given"; as you and I discussed, some Champions gamers ended up, with the rationalized system, going very much away from comics, while I think the designers originally hoped and even overtly intended for people to play something like "regular" superhero comics; this "cultural" shift against the game ethics can still occur while following all mechanics of the game

 

But I risk overstating...sure, people often do follow what's intended and given. I just find a "readily-tolerated recklessness", if you will, in general that doesn't translate to necessarily even a majority of gamers but is so prevalent and allowed for that it creates a willful climate of "redesign".

 

I find the 'free form' style very attractive. Consensus is nice and often safe, but perhaps isn't what everyone can follow faithfully and truthfully.

[Markdoc]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

I do think those games are highly self referential... and they strike me as more concerned with the idea of what a game could be... rather than of making a really playable game (playable outside of a very unique niche audience.)

 

Here, encapsulated, is what I was trying to get at!

 

I think it is possible to identify (not just in gaming, but in many things) bad design. Bad design, does not, necessarily mean something that doesn't work. For many people or many tasks, "good enough" is sufficient.

 

Also "bad design" does not necessarily mean "just plain awful" - it's a technical description - albeit one which has important consequences. In short, design is about "how things work" not "why things work" or "why is this thing here at all?" - though of course how something works will alter people's responses to those last two questions.

 

What that means in context is that - for me - a game system needs to be "designed". And design of course can be summed up as "does this thing deliver the thing for which it was made?"

 

In the context of games that means two (at least) things. First: does it deliver an atmosphere of the kind envisioned by the designer (the vision thing)? That's important - it's one reason that designers are payingincreasing attention to art and layout (point in case: Iron Kingdoms or Burning Wheel). Second: does it deliver gameplay? In other words, can the game engine, the nuts and bolts, deliver a shared experience which is both fun ('cos we're not getting paid to do this) and lead (not force) the user in the direction of the vision.

 

To take one example, Paranoia is what I would call a well-designed system - even though the game engine is downright primitive. It communicated a clear vision, and provided an experience that matched the vision. Not everybody *liked* the vision (I personally can't stand the game) - but that's a whole 'nother game. Iron Kingdoms takes a somewhat matured descendant of that same system - so mechanically, it's slicker - but the game is more poorly designed. I say that because of the decision to keep as much of the standard d20 tropes as possible in the interests of attracting as wide a market as possible. The rules structure could - without too much effort - have been tailored to stick closer to the vision. That it was not, was a design decision (you could say, I guess, that the design was good for marketing but poor for gameplay).

 

So to come (circuitously) back to the quote above, if a game is not designed for actual use by GM+players, then it harms part 2 of the design rules: it does not provide fun gameplay, no matter how atmospheric it may be, no matter how beautiful the layout. In case you wondered, Burning Wheel, I'm looking at you. Good design, in contrast to bad design, does not stand out. You use something and the use is so natural, that you almost don't think about the act of using - you just do it.

 

Bad design is like reaching for something and it's not there. In this regard, an obsession with language or imagery may be self-defeating if it obscures use. This, in indie game design seems to be a missing message, just as it is in much of what is caled modern art and the impact will be the same: irrelevance. Art and gaming are both, at core, formalised methods of communication. If the creators are most concerned about talking to each other, they should not be surprised if everyone else wanders away. Even Ken Hite, who's part of the community being talked to, noticed and made a nod to it in his 2005 round-up ("maybe it's not on-line orc-bashing...").

 

cheers, Mark

[Warp9]

Re: What is HERO about?

 

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? I think this is too broad a statement and belies your own bias. I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book. Everbody is somewhere on this continuum, with probably few if any in the Rewrite It All or By-The-Book extremes... but folks lean one way or another.

IMO one of the cool things about HERO is that you can create almost anything you can imagine and still do everything By-The-Book.