Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

[zornwil]

There's been various comments over time on whether players coming into HERO are better served having some experience RPGing first or not.

 

So curious on thoughts - is HERO a reasonable entry level game? If not, should it be? (Similarly, if so, is that okay?)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

The idea of what is and is not "entry level" varies so much from person to person it can't be answered well.

 

On one hand - if they have no experience with RPGs then Hero might look a bit daunting, or the built in lingo might be more of a learning curve for someone.

 

On the other hand - if it's their first RPG they have no pre conceived notions and probably very if, if any, expectations based on previous expereinces. Nothing will seem "out of place" as there is no previous context to work against.

 

I say, sure. If the person isn't afraid of basic math and is willing to learn I see no reason why Hero can't be "entry level" or their first RPG.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

Hero should be an entry level system. At the current time I definitely don't think it is ideal though. It is set up to accommodate super style games which probably skews things and it doesn't do enough in the core to provide a playable game.

 

I think that the core rules could do with a decent 8-10 page game insert where all the main decisions of the game are made and explained and provide an introductory scenario - something as simple as the bank robbery (for supers), bar-room brawl for Fantasy Hero or Pirate Attack for Star Hero. No production value - should be considered a throw-away but it would show a new GM, what they should be thinking about.

 

 

Doc

[Manic Typist]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

HERO was my first RPG experience...

 

It works. It does.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

It is set up to accommodate super style games which probably skews things and it doesn't do enough in the core to provide a playable game.

 

I'm curious as to why I keep seeing this, or similar, statements about Hero and Supers.

 

I don't see it. It isn't unless purposely viewed that way. This honestly and seriously bugs me. A lot.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

I'm curious as to why I keep seeing this, or similar, statements about Hero and Supers.

 

I don't see it. It isn't unless purposely viewed that way. This honestly and seriously bugs me. A lot.

It bothers me as well, and I primarily play supers! Hero System is isn't geared toward any particular genre, nor does it favor one. Yes, it was born as a superhero game, but after 5 editions it's fairly obvious the game has changed and matured and is no longer a superpowered infant but a superpowered, magical, science fiction, fantasy, pulpy, kung fu, action-adventure hero game.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

HERO was my first RPG experience...

 

It works. It does.

There we go. Proof! Hero System is perfect!

 

Honestly, the Hero System could use a bit of a newbie primer of some kind. A sort of "this is role-playing" spelling out the idea behind the game and what the Hero System does to make it happen. An suitably generic starter adventure would be nice as well.

[SAVeira]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

Champions was my third or fourth RPG system, but it was the first RPG system I really like and understood. It was also the first RPG which I GMed.

 

I also introduced a number of people to RPGs with the HERO System.

[OddHat]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

I've introduced new gamers to RPGs through HERO, and Champions before it.

 

Pedagogic method means much less than the relationship between teacher and student. HERO's "Complexity" and "Unfriendliness" mean something if you're trying to make the jump from player to GM, or if you're coming in as a solo player, but mean much less when coming in as part of a group under an experienced, enthusiastic and welcoming GM.

 

I'd love to see the simplified rules, improved presentation, entertaining game world, great art, one-book HERO product we all talk about. Of course it would help bring in HERO players. Still, I've had folks who had never touched an RPG sit down at the table with HERO and have a great first game.

 

So, at least adequate, though not ideal.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

The thing about Hero more than other systems is I've taken, or seen, people sit down without knowing a single rule, get a few instructions on how to roll and then BAM! They're a Hero Player for at least a little while.

 

The walk away and couldn't tell you a single thing on how to build that character they just had a good time with, but dang if they didn't get it right off the bat at the table.

 

You just need 1 person to understand the rules, everyone else just needs a character sheet and some 6 siders.

[SAVeira]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

You just need 1 person to understand the rules' date=' everyone else just needs a character sheet and some 6 siders.[/quote']

Very true. That is how a number of my games have gone.

[gamerz123]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

A good GM and players can easily accomodate and mentor a newbie no matter what the system

 

Zorn, you're an excellent GM and player. You always keep in mind that it's called 'role-playing', not 'role-lawyering' or 'role-accountant.' You always remember Rule #1: It's supposed to be fun for everyone. (Ie. You don't pander to the guy who likes to argue some esoteric rule for the sake of arguing or the bully-brat who demands everything go the way he wants it.)

[Susano]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

HERO was my... () (D&D, Traveller, RoleMaster, Fantasy Trip), roughly 5th RPG. However, it made the biggest impact on me, as it the the first game where I could make anything I wanted, and the first one where you didn't automatically die from enemy attacks. The game "clicked" for me, and I found 3rd Edition to be something I could get my head around and work with. 5th Edition? Not so sure. It's a huge book, and has a lot of material in it. But then, I've seen some people be brought over from other RPGs just go crazy with the possibilities inherent in HERO.

[Barton]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

As a GM of Pulp Hero and Champions I can attest it is a great system for newbies. It does the job very well.

I GM games at Origins, GenCon, and RockCon DESIGNED and PROMOTED for newbies. It does the job very well.

I explain at conventions that Hero has a bad rap for being complex, too much math and too many rules. I then show them the 5ER and the small proporation (under 60 pages) that a PLAYER should now. Then I show them how much of the book is powers and explaination of genres (well over 300 pages) that the GM should know. It is obivious to the new player that it is easy to play. I tell them within the end of the game session they will know enough to be able to play the system.

Newbie players seem to like my games, and often say good things about the system. Also I know that some of them BUY the books after my convention games.

I believe that the system, presented by someone who will take the small amount of time to teach the player mechanics (which does not take a lot of time) is good for a newbie player.

 

Now some issues: character creation and GM time/skills.

Character creation; with a laptop and Hero Designer with character packs a character can be created QUICKLY and easily. I created a Pulp Hero character with the player in 20 minutes total start to finish. Creation of a character can be time consuming, but in all point based systems this can take some time.

GM time/skills. Hero takes effort and time from a GM standpiont. But ALL RPG systems require much more effort and time from the GM.

So IMHO it is a great system for newbies, and the character creation and GM issues are just the way it is and not overwhelming for thoses who are willing to take the time (that is a topic for another post).

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

Hero/Champions was my third RPG (with only AD&D and Gamma World before it). I understood it fairly quickly.

I had a checklist of things for the perfect RPGame before I found it.

1)No dice in character generation.

2)Roll to hit - the defense was how well they didn't get hit

3)Roll damage - subtract some value for armor.

4)Flexible.

 

Well I found HERO and that was it. Then I really learned about charater background and personalities because of disadvantages, something I didn't do much in previous years.

 

Then I grokked the mechanical SFX split, fell in love with the speed chart, and I was lost for good.

 

Champions was the game where I truly learned about roleplaying, instead of wargaming with consistent characters. I always did a little, but the approach Champions had completely changed my gaming worldview.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

Hero System was, if I'm counting right and not mixing things up too badly, the 7th system I was introduced to. That's counting all of the various Palladium Books stuff as a single system, and not counting strategy games like Car Wars, or home brewed player invented non-published systems. It was also introduced to me only two years after being introduced to role-playing games as a whole. It was the best of the bunch, and after learning another 8+ rpgs (this time counting everything by WW as a single system, and not counting D&D 3e as a separate system), it still is the best of the bunch, and one of the easist to learn (yet the most difficult to master).

[Steve]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

...it still is the best of the bunch' date=' and one of the easist to learn (yet the most difficult to master).[/quote']

 

When I read this, my initial thought was "Hero is the RPG answer to the game of Go, easy to learn the basics, but it takes a lifetime to master."

 

Actually, it's not quite that bad, but I do seem to pick up new tips and tricks on how to use the system or create characters every time I'm around other Hero players and GMs. Hero was my third game system to learn, after going through 1st Edition AD&D and Call of Cthulhu (which shows me to be about as Old School as they come).

 

In my experience, the thing which seems to freak out new players the most is character creation. Actual gameplay is really pretty straightforward once that hurdle is passed, but I've watched people practically sweat over creating a character, even using the various Hero character creation softwares as an aid.

[Funksaw]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

HERO isn't a bad system for new gamers but it certainly might be one of the most daunting, from the MASSIVE book to the terminology, to the math, etc.

 

GMs have to be very patient with new gamers and say: "Hero is designed to be very, very flexible, which is why the book is big, and it's designed to be front loaded, so that once you're done creating your character, most of the hard work is done, and you can just enjoy playing."

 

It would not hurt for the GM to create the character with the player looking on and going over it step by step...

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

and one of the easist to learn (yet the most difficult to master).

 

"HERO: The 'No-Limit Texas Hold'em' of RPGs."

[Lemurion]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

I've used it as an introductory system and it works very well.

 

One of the great advantages is that it's a consistent system, whenever someone wants to do something it's "roll three dice, you want to roll low." It's one basic mechanic for everything. Combat may involve different calculations, but for the player it's the same as anything else, rolling low on 3d6.

 

Damage is different but at the same time it's simple. Total minus defenses.

 

Give someone a character and they can play quickly. Once they have a little exposure then you can get them to build a character. Even that's not hard once you know what you're doing and package deals make it easier.

 

It may be difficult to learn solo, but it's one of the easiest games to learn for a newcomer who is joining an experienced group.

[zornwil]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

A good GM and players can easily accomodate and mentor a newbie no matter what the system

 

Zorn, you're an excellent GM and player. You always keep in mind that it's called 'role-playing', not 'role-lawyering' or 'role-accountant.' You always remember Rule #1: It's supposed to be fun for everyone. (Ie. You don't pander to the guy who likes to argue some esoteric rule for the sake of arguing or the bully-brat who demands everything go the way he wants it.)

Awww, shucks, thanks. Nice of you to say - maybe a good thing, I wonder if people ever think I actually analyze this stuff in games? Bleh, I like to just play! As an aside, we had a very nice young guy come to our table at the Reservoir Dogs game I was running at GenCon, and he immediately stated asking about the game's GNS standing and was obviously just getting into such analytical takes on RPGs. Great guy. But I tried to deflect the question since I don't think it's really important to sitting down and playing (if the game is well-structured, you shouldn't have to and shouldn't even want to think about it). Somebody else did that more forecefully than I with a nice but firm "I don't want to even her about that, let's play" response (not verbatim but pretty much as that).

 

I enjoy your running a lot, too, by the way are you running at DDC?

 

As to the main topic, I was just curious. I found Champions (which is hard to compare to 5th Edition HERO in terms of apparent simplicity) much more intuitive than D&D and at least equal to other RPGs in that realm.

 

To me, the inner logic of HERO is sound. I think the weightiness and crunchiness of 5th obscures that, but of course I've said that before. The point is, I think it is good for newbies, but I like and agree with DD's and others' comments as to it really should have a little opener scenario, and even better if it had a simple one that it then repurposed/recast for 3 genra (supers, fantasy, sci-fi, or something like that, maybe it needs something more low end, or perhaps the sci-fi version could be more cyber-punk or street level).

[zornwil]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

I'm curious as to why I keep seeing this, or similar, statements about Hero and Supers.

 

I don't see it. It isn't unless purposely viewed that way. This honestly and seriously bugs me. A lot.

GA, you must have seen many of the "supers ruined this game" threads here? I wouldn't wonder why - 2:1 STR, names of powers, orientation towards a heroic level that is certainly > street level by default and by volume of what the book explores, mixture of fantastic with mostly rationalized, etc..

 

That being said, I have as of late tried to more or less avoid this line of exploration, partly because I feel rather biased. Unlike you but like DR, I play a lot of supers and my history with the system is supers. So anything I comment on comes from that lens and it seems most/many of the people who argue about this are coming from the fantasy side, which I simply have no real connection to. I'll play a fantasy game with friends, but I don't really like the genre in general, it has zero appeal to me.

 

But since it has come up as of late, and because I rarely shut up, I'll have to say that I think the "HERO is ruined by supers" is greatly exaggerated. HERO, in my view, IS weighted towards a level of action compatible with supers, yes. It does have prejudices in the system arising from its past. But I think these prejudices and the system's basic orientation supports play similar to supers such as fantasy and sci-fi quite well.

 

The kinds of things that "elevate" the system above street level in way not seen in GURPS or some other systems (BRP is another good example that comes to mind) is simply where the system's sweet spot happens to be. This is simply a matter of how the system orients its definition of what a hero is and what heroic fiction is about. And this is where I personally am supportive of 2:1 STR, as I have argued elsewhere - heroic fiction simply has strength as a more common attribute and one which is exaggerated for lots and lots AND LOTS of characters. Even John Constantine has demonstrated what I would call unusual strength on occassion, certainly Xander in Buffy did even though we weren't supposed to see him as the strong type.

 

So it's more an issue, to me, of play experience, how gritty and how balanced one wants, and the more one is pushing towards gritty and balanced, the more troublesome the system's sweet spot, which is fueled originally by supers, is. The good and bad thing is that the system appears flexible enough to accomodate those needs for grittiness and even-stronger balance; that appearance (which I think is mostly but not entirely accurate) encourages frustration as issues (whether minor or major, that's a matter of debate) are encountered.

 

But I will say this, in the end. I have run, as some of you know, Marginally Powered Sit-Com Heroes. The game is decidedly "street-level" sit-com. I found no issues in creating these low-powered characters in HERO, using a 50+50 base and deliberately forcing myself to shoe-horn characters to fit that (btw, I found the points balancing feature of HERO quite useful - when I encountered characters that couldn't possibly fit at all, I realized it was simply because they're too powerful). More importantly, and really good to hear, was that a player in my game at DunDraCon last year said, "I never knew HERO could do low level stuff. This is great, I'll have to check it out now." First, of course, it's nice to hear that as a GM, it means the game went well. But much more importantly, for the health of a system most of us here care about, it was great to hear someone realizing that. And it was finally a confirmation that this system can work at non-super-powered low levels quite well.

[zornwil]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

PS - obviously, Marginally Powered... is neither gritty nor obsessed with balance!

 

I think those who come from that perspective are finding a more legitimate challenge. But I would generally rather try to tackle grit and "hard" balance in HERO than GURPS, for example. I do like BRP, I must say, from what I've read so far, but haven't played it. (PS - but BRP is hardly gritty, either, at all)

[zornwil]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

I've introduced new gamers to RPGs through HERO, and Champions before it.

 

Pedagogic method means much less than the relationship between teacher and student. HERO's "Complexity" and "Unfriendliness" mean something if you're trying to make the jump from player to GM, or if you're coming in as a solo player, but mean much less when coming in as part of a group under an experienced, enthusiastic and welcoming GM.

 

I'd love to see the simplified rules, improved presentation, entertaining game world, great art, one-book HERO product we all talk about. Of course it would help bring in HERO players. Still, I've had folks who had never touched an RPG sit down at the table with HERO and have a great first game.

 

So, at least adequate, though not ideal.

Again, I think the real problem in making the leap from player to GM is, IMHO, entirely two-fold:

- one, perception, since we have a massive daunting tome (even 4th you could to a degree say that, and back in the earliest days the innovative mathematics-"heaviness" of it also created that perception

- two, an absolute unwillingness of both people and system to make it clear that you only have to know the core well and know how to adjudicate based on that well to run a game; my first Champions games could be viewed, from a strict mechanics level, as quite half-assed - but did that matter? I really don't thnik so, not a bit. I think that because I used the core stuff appropriately, whether I had funky ECs or a different take on STUN/BOD damage application or ignored (even back then) lots of nuances didn't matter. And I think anybody could GM a good game from that. Two things intrude - people who "know" the system and think it should be run "correctly," and the sense people have (in general) that they should "know it all" before trying to do something. That being said, the system doesn't make it easy, either. Or, I shouldnt' say that, I should say it's the BOOK as written, and that is NOT just a comment on 5th - it goes all the way back. RPG books in general are, to me, notoriously bad at delivering to their readers the true core, the true "look, here's the half dozen things you really need to know to play, don't worry about the other stuff yet." I am trying hard (and finding it extremely difficult, to be honest, but I thnik it's a responsibility) to do that with what I'm working on. It's something I find really well done in very few places, namely only Call of Cthuhlu and, to a far lesser degree, Dogs in the Vineyard to date (DitV suffers from organization and a system that is way more nuanced in play than you realize at first, but at least I do like his handy flow-chart of how to play, that helps a lot, and the way the book is written is at least in the right direction). A lot of systems think they do that (ranging from indie to traditional), but I find that mostly they are just confusing in trying to throw out a few ideas and then you realize as you read later that there's fundamental stuff not really included in the "summary" of how to play. GURPS and octaNe make reasonable attempts, but I think both are examples of well-intended failures (as I fear mine will be, too).

[zornwil]

Re: Is HERO an ideal or even an adequate game for those new to RPGs? Should it be?

 

HERO was my... () (D&D' date=' Traveller, RoleMaster, Fantasy Trip[/i']), roughly 5th RPG. However, it made the biggest impact on me, as it the the first game where I could make anything I wanted, and the first one where you didn't automatically die from enemy attacks. The game "clicked" for me, and I found 3rd Edition to be something I could get my head around and work with. 5th Edition? Not so sure. It's a huge book, and has a lot of material in it. But then, I've seen some people be brought over from other RPGs just go crazy with the possibilities inherent in HERO.

I had played D&D, Boot Hill, Traveller, Top Secret, aside from various home brew systems (being an inveterate tinkerer and back then quarter-assed would-be game designer (I'd like to think I've graduated to half-assed could-be by now), before Champions. I also found it stressed survivability in an engaging way, as well as "really clicking" as others have said.