Learning from the mistakes of others

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I started to early on, but the thread I started got a rather negative reaction and then Steve shut it down. So I don't know that I feel particularly sanguine about participating further.

Isuppose I ought to at least check things out again...

 

I took some time to look over your thread again... I don't think the thread got a really negative reaction. (Take a look at the COM debate under Characteristics for a really, really negative reaction. On both sides. And I'm probably one of them.) Granted, some of the posts were pretty negative, but I saw a number of 'neat idea' and 'I'd like to see this' posts too. It's just that the negative ones were a bit more...enthusiastic in their postings.

 

And Steve eventually shuts down all the threads other people set up on that forum. It looks like he wants to keep things focused on the threads he set up, to minimize the amount of stuff he has to wade through when he sets up to actually do 6E. For that matter, when he shut it down it sounded to me like he is contemplating using some of the stuff from the thread in 6E. Maybe not in the core book, but that's still something to be proud of when it happens.

 

So don't give up just because a few people disagreed with you. (I did, but the thread was already shut down by the time I got onto this board.) That doesn't mean your ideas weren't sound. You might well have an idea that will spare us a lot of debate. Or open a whole new one, but what the heck. It's kinda fun, helping design a new edition of the game!

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The Monster states quite perfectly what I feel too. I am pretty sure that someone somewhere on the internet came up with "D4 is liek MMOPRG!" and from then on' date=' everyone copied it. I have even seen people write that in the D4 thread in the fantasy hero forums. And they admitted they didn't even bother to read through the books. DnD is so important to the geeks that fans and haters stop thinking and just defend/attack the system [i']because[/i].

 

MMORPG: You cannot say "it's like an MMORPG", then follow up with "I don't have evidence" and reason "That's your oppinion!". Logic does not work that way. That has nothing to do with oppinion. Now before you flame me: Of course "This feels MMORPG-ish" is based on oppinion. But all the quotes I see name things that are present in MMORPGs, but actually have been present in DnD (or other P&P) for a looong time. Like the "once a day" powers. If you look at the 3.0 rules, it's full of them. Or HERO: Charges/Healing. And "At will" powers: Aren't those like nearly all hero powers? I mean sure, we have END costs, but that is a complex mechanic which is not absolutely necessary (and the END rules explicitly state that you can do away with it if you want to).

 

"Fighter feels like Wizard": Yes. No. Yes. He can use abilities (spells), like a wizard. Ok, I give you that. Which is also very WoW-ish. Oh, and very Hero-ish too. And also very -ish. Gamers have long ago realized that the basic D1 fighter was hellaboring to play. D4-Developers have finally figured that out too, after all other systems gave the fighters more interesting powers. Now, is he a wizard? Sure, he uses the same mechanics. But a Hero wizard also uses the same mechanics as a hero fighter, doesn't he? I think to answer that question, you would have to play both characters and see how well they designed the powers themselves. Sure, if you give both of them the same power with a different name, that won't be nice, but if you do it differently (like in hero: slap some limitations on the spell, and some other limitations onto the Bull Rush attack).

 

Many other changes are very, very hero-like: You start off at a decent powerlevel, you can cast more than one Magic Missile per day at level one. Why? Because that is boooring. Also, that was very MMORPGish. First level, you suck. Go kill some rabbits. Second level? Well, there are some rats over there, but be careful. So there it's less like a MMORPG.

 

 

Swapping out skills: A great idea. Why did nobody else come up with that? It does:

- Give inexperienced players a chance to replace a skill which looked good on paper but was pointless in practice. More fun!

- Give munchkins something more to think about. More fun!

- Gives everyone the ability to "fix" a messed up character. More fun!

Disadvantage? Well, you might argue "why does my character forget x?". Well, two sides to this: Either I don't give a damn, because it's a problem in game, like a broken construct. Or it might just be the +1 damage becomes +2 damage. Only in the last case (+1 damage becomes +3 heal) it's a bit weird. And even then: You probably already got something which would qualify as an upgrade to what you replace.

 

And by the way: If a player comes to me and says: "Hey, look, my character is constructed like this but I totally don't have fun with it because of xyz.... Can we change that?" My answer will be: "Sure, go ahead!" Now of course, they should not do that for every encounter, but I'm not playing with sensible people. If you don't allow this, then you are preventing people from having fun. Or for the slow: You are a bad GM.

So for people who are not experienced enough to realize this, it's put into the rules. Why not. It does not hurt.

 

 

Rules: Striker, Tank, Whatever. These are there. Have you seen many references to them in the PHP? I don't think so. Because it's a GM-help. Instead of having to spend horrible amonuts of prep-time for battles (D3.5 is worse than Hero in that regard) because you need to write down 40 spells from three books and a selection of 800 spells, and then write down the class combinations and saves and items and whatdoIknow, you can look at the monster manual, and choose according to the roles. Takes me like 5 minutes to set up a "fair" encounter for any party. Even if I know my players have strong characters, I can just up the ante by 20%, or if they all have non-combat chars, -20%. I adore this idea. Once again, I only ask: Why didn't anyone else come up with this?! GM prep time is one of the big P&P problems. Anything that can help reduce it is a great idea. By the way, HERO is a big sinner in that regard. I hope we learn something from it, but then I'm not sure how to do this, since character write ups are just complex in this game. No way around that I'm afraid.

 

The only thing that really strikes me as videogameish: Presentation. Lots of colour, every ability with it's own box of text, you could even print them on small playing cards and so on. The strong naming of everything (Stunned, Dazed, Shove, Shift, etc etc) is also something like that. And you know what? It also helps the game. Because where you had to have 20 books ready in case someone wanted to use a power (I play my D2.5 mage with a PHP on my knees, because every spell is an exception to everything), now you can figure out what they do eeeaaasily. You know, like HERO. If it says "EB", then you will roll some D6. And if it says "Double Knockback", then you double Knockback. You don't have to look up the spell which states: "The afflicted target will also be knocked back twice as much as usual." somewhere in a long paragraph of text. D4 became a lot like HERO. They took the good stuff mostly. The bastards

 

So for 6th: Lets drop our crap (we have collected enough of it) and focus on our strengths. And don't be afraid of changes.

 

DnD definitely pulled off a good version (much better than 3.0/3.5). You may disagree with that, but at least give it a fair chance. I have seen exactly ONE post which stated: "I've played it and did not like it." and about a thousand of "I have not played it and only skimmed the book, but it totally sucks!"

 

I accept your criticism, I did just skim through the PH, and didn't even touch the DMG/MM. And perhaps I am being overly hard on the new system.

 

Sean Waters, on the other hand, actually bought the book, read it thoroughly, and regretted it. He regretted it enough to start this thread. With that, I think he has earned the right to complain a bit.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The Monster states quite perfectly what I feel too. I am pretty sure that someone somewhere on the internet came up with "D4 is liek MMOPRG!" and from then on' date=' everyone copied it. I have even seen people write that in the D4 thread in the fantasy hero forums. And they admitted they didn't even bother to read through the books. DnD is so important to the geeks that fans and haters stop thinking and just defend/attack the system [i']because[/i].

 

MMORPG: You cannot say "it's like an MMORPG", then follow up with "I don't have evidence" and reason "That's your oppinion!". Logic does not work that way. That has nothing to do with oppinion. Now before you flame me: Of course "This feels MMORPG-ish" is based on oppinion. But all the quotes I see name things that are present in MMORPGs, but actually have been present in DnD (or other P&P) for a looong time. Like the "once a day" powers. If you look at the 3.0 rules, it's full of them. Or HERO: Charges/Healing. And "At will" powers: Aren't those like nearly all hero powers? I mean sure, we have END costs, but that is a complex mechanic which is not absolutely necessary (and the END rules explicitly state that you can do away with it if you want to).

 

"Fighter feels like Wizard": Yes. No. Yes. He can use abilities (spells), like a wizard. Ok, I give you that. Which is also very WoW-ish. Oh, and very Hero-ish too. And also very -ish. Gamers have long ago realized that the basic D1 fighter was hellaboring to play. D4-Developers have finally figured that out too, after all other systems gave the fighters more interesting powers. Now, is he a wizard? Sure, he uses the same mechanics. But a Hero wizard also uses the same mechanics as a hero fighter, doesn't he? I think to answer that question, you would have to play both characters and see how well they designed the powers themselves. Sure, if you give both of them the same power with a different name, that won't be nice, but if you do it differently (like in hero: slap some limitations on the spell, and some other limitations onto the Bull Rush attack).

 

Many other changes are very, very hero-like: You start off at a decent powerlevel, you can cast more than one Magic Missile per day at level one. Why? Because that is boooring. Also, that was very MMORPGish. First level, you suck. Go kill some rabbits. Second level? Well, there are some rats over there, but be careful. So there it's less like a MMORPG.

 

 

Swapping out skills: A great idea. Why did nobody else come up with that? It does:

- Give inexperienced players a chance to replace a skill which looked good on paper but was pointless in practice. More fun!

- Give munchkins something more to think about. More fun!

- Gives everyone the ability to "fix" a messed up character. More fun!

Disadvantage? Well, you might argue "why does my character forget x?". Well, two sides to this: Either I don't give a damn, because it's a problem in game, like a broken construct. Or it might just be the +1 damage becomes +2 damage. Only in the last case (+1 damage becomes +3 heal) it's a bit weird. And even then: You probably already got something which would qualify as an upgrade to what you replace.

 

And by the way: If a player comes to me and says: "Hey, look, my character is constructed like this but I totally don't have fun with it because of xyz.... Can we change that?" My answer will be: "Sure, go ahead!" Now of course, they should not do that for every encounter, but I'm not playing with sensible people. If you don't allow this, then you are preventing people from having fun. Or for the slow: You are a bad GM.

So for people who are not experienced enough to realize this, it's put into the rules. Why not. It does not hurt.

 

 

Rules: Striker, Tank, Whatever. These are there. Have you seen many references to them in the PHP? I don't think so. Because it's a GM-help. Instead of having to spend horrible amonuts of prep-time for battles (D3.5 is worse than Hero in that regard) because you need to write down 40 spells from three books and a selection of 800 spells, and then write down the class combinations and saves and items and whatdoIknow, you can look at the monster manual, and choose according to the roles. Takes me like 5 minutes to set up a "fair" encounter for any party. Even if I know my players have strong characters, I can just up the ante by 20%, or if they all have non-combat chars, -20%. I adore this idea. Once again, I only ask: Why didn't anyone else come up with this?! GM prep time is one of the big P&P problems. Anything that can help reduce it is a great idea. By the way, HERO is a big sinner in that regard. I hope we learn something from it, but then I'm not sure how to do this, since character write ups are just complex in this game. No way around that I'm afraid.

 

The only thing that really strikes me as videogameish: Presentation. Lots of colour, every ability with it's own box of text, you could even print them on small playing cards and so on. The strong naming of everything (Stunned, Dazed, Shove, Shift, etc etc) is also something like that. And you know what? It also helps the game. Because where you had to have 20 books ready in case someone wanted to use a power (I play my D2.5 mage with a PHP on my knees, because every spell is an exception to everything), now you can figure out what they do eeeaaasily. You know, like HERO. If it says "EB", then you will roll some D6. And if it says "Double Knockback", then you double Knockback. You don't have to look up the spell which states: "The afflicted target will also be knocked back twice as much as usual." somewhere in a long paragraph of text. D4 became a lot like HERO. They took the good stuff mostly. The bastards

 

So for 6th: Lets drop our crap (we have collected enough of it) and focus on our strengths. And don't be afraid of changes.

 

DnD definitely pulled off a good version (much better than 3.0/3.5). You may disagree with that, but at least give it a fair chance. I have seen exactly ONE post which stated: "I've played it and did not like it." and about a thousand of "I have not played it and only skimmed the book, but it totally sucks!"

 

First off, what's the PHP? I think I've seen you use it before, and still can't figure it out (Player's Hand...?). What is it?

 

Now I'm curious to see who else has played it and is not really thrilled with it, but that can wait. For me, the Roles are something that, from reading the forum, seem to have taken precedence over the actual character. I've brought that up elsewhere, so I won't go into that here.

 

I liked the flexibility that 3e gave - it was almost Hero-like. I have a huge number of books for the game system (100+, ok), and for the most part they were for me - my players used (at most) 3 books. It wasn't too hard to keep up with their spells, especially once I bought a character program. Our group has never had the idiocy that many people complain about, mainly thanks to "Rule No". Anyway...

 

4e doesn't really feel like D&D for me. It's too "out there". I will admit that it can feel like the USPD (giving set powers), but instead of giving you a lot of choices, it narrows it down to 3 or 4. The fact that characters can routinely perform superhuman feats is too wuxia for me. When I make such things for my FH game, anything "super" comes at a bigger price than the 1/day limit. And, yeah, I've done some conversions of abilities, but it is rapidly losing it's appeal. It's just too much a tactical miniature game.

 

Our group of 6 players and I ran the KOTS module, and from around 8 pm to 2 am, we may have had 6 encounters, only one of which didn't involve combat. The group started to use their powers more, trying to place their attacks where they would do the most. But that's about it. Instead of, well, adventuring, we spent time positioning miniatures and trying for tactical superiority. Maybe it'll be different, since most of my players like it, but as the DM, I'm just not thrilled. Instead of reading up on it, or running the adventure in my head, or anything else I might normally do (like read the manuals), I find I'm here more, playing around with Traveller Hero and Star Wars Hero conversions. That says something.

 

On it's own, as it's own game, it is not too bad. A bit simple and limited for my taste, but it's workable. As D&D, what I grew up with (using the white box and the Players Handbook since the DMG was not out, then the blue basic set)...it's just doesn't have that feel. Others have said the same, the feel of the book is just not what we are comfortable with. It's not my D&D anymore. It's a new kids game, and it's not a good feeling. I feel old.

 

And the covers are real cheap. Did I say that?

 

Anyway, hopefully Hero 6 will not be that way. I don't mind playing with out -of-date games (you should see my gamebooks), but it would be nice to not have so massive changes that it is not recognizable as the Hero we know and love, warts and all.

 

That's my opinion. YMMV.

 

Edit - I forgot to say that I haven't played any MMORPG - never cared for them, nor would I fork over money every month for that. I do play games on my PS3, and 4e has that kind of feel. Most of the new games have a health bar (or whatever) that regenerates with time, allowing you to continue on after rest. This is what the healing surges feel like. The abilities that recover with rest feel like the ones that recover after time (or when my mana/whatever refills). It's true we have used charges and all, but it is the feel of it, the presentation, that makes it seem more like I am reading one of my Bradygames manuals. Also, the MM is also really just a collection of combat stats and tactics, and just about nothing else. Doesn't give me any real idea of what some of these things are, and does just seem to emphasize that they exist just to be beaten. Well, technically, they do, but I like more meat to them, give me more to work with and less to do myself. And, the whole attempt to keep everything balanced seems to me to have gone overboard. As I looked at the fighter powers as I was converting them, I found out that most of the higher ones were just variations of the lower ones, so you can have (96 someone said) powers, but if all they are are variations of 5 or 6 (with utility powers as well) - I just find it limiting. I'll see what later books bring, but I'm wary and unconvinced for now.

 

Again YMMV.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I hope not. I've read the disclaimers and hope it's true.

Me too, but one man's "video gamization of my favorite RPG rawks" may be another man's "my favorite RPG was destroyed by video gamization."

 

It's a topic of purely academic interest for me anyway. Our group has already decided to stick with 5ER because based on the 6E forum discussions we don't see that any actual improvements are likely coming out of 6E. Changes for the sake of change are not improvements. Hopefully there will be a few new items worth backporting into our 5ER campaigns from 6E, but I'm not optimistic.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Your HERO GM doesn't let you change out powers and such as you gain XP and alter the direction of your character?

 

Not without a damn good reason or reasonable in-story explanation he doesn't, at least if he's any good at the task.

 

Edit; never mind. Badger beat me to the punch, and with a more eloquent answer.

[Kdansky]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

First off' date=' what's the PHP? I think I've seen you use it before, and still can't figure it out (Player's Hand...?). What is it?[/quote']

Of course, I am talking about the Player's Handpage. Or it might be a stupid mistake on my part

 

Now I'm curious to see who else has played it and is not really thrilled with it, but that can wait. For me, the Roles are something that, from reading the forum, seem to have taken precedence over the actual character. I've brought that up elsewhere, so I won't go into that here.

That is a interesting point. I have not followed the forum and only read the two books. They really rarely even mention the roles. I have no gripe into having supergroups of classes. That's like talking about Bricks and then going into Martial Bricks vs Speedbricks.

 

I liked the flexibility that 3e gave - it was almost Hero-like. I have a huge number of books for the game system (100+, ok), and for the most part they were for me - my players used (at most) 3 books. It wasn't too hard to keep up with their spells, especially once I bought a character program. Our group has never had the idiocy that many people complain about, mainly thanks to "Rule No". Anyway...

4e doesn't really feel like D&D for me. It's too "out there". I will admit that it can feel like the USPD (giving set powers), but instead of giving you a lot of choices, it narrows it down to 3 or 4.

The flexibility is based on the 100+ books. You are comparing a 400 pages core book to a full shelf. That can only go one way.

 

The fact that characters can routinely perform superhuman feats is too wuxia for me.

I agree. I don't like Champions either.

And D3.5 Hide In Plain Sight is not superhuman then?

Choice of setting. D20 was always superhuman. I'm glad they finally make this clear instead of doing it wishy-washy.

 

Our group of 6 players and I ran the KOTS module, and from around 8 pm to 2 am, we may have had 6 encounters, only one of which didn't involve combat.

I wouldn't blame the rules for that. Since your players have not been bored out of their mind by this and you can run 5 combats in one evening, that is both very impressive and a solid win for D4.

 

As D&D, what I grew up with (using the white box and the Players Handbook since the DMG was not out, then the blue basic set)...it's just doesn't have that feel. Others have said the same, the feel of the book is just not what we are comfortable with. It's not my D&D anymore. It's a new kids game, and it's not a good feeling. I feel old.

You might be My temporary group here plays ADnD, the really old stuff. It's horrid. They like it, because they got old with it. It's still plain horrid. As an outsider, that's easier to see.

 

And the covers are real cheap. Did I say that?

Can't argue with that

 

Anyway, hopefully Hero 6 will not be that way. I don't mind playing with out -of-date games (you should see my gamebooks), but it would be nice to not have so massive changes that it is not recognizable as the Hero we know and love, warts and all.

If you prefer the old game to the new game, even if you know the old game has many warts, then you should just play the old game and not even bother about the new one. The new game is meant for me

 

I forgot to say that I haven't played any MMORPG - never cared for them, nor would I fork over money every month for that.

Considering how many hours I got out of WoW, that was still cheaper than any other game. Mass Effect: 15 (13 mediocre) hours for 80$. WoW: ~3000 hours for 500$. WoW was cheaper, even assuming I spent 90% of my time idling or being bored.

 

Most of the new games have a health bar (or whatever) that regenerates with time, allowing you to continue on after rest. This is what the healing surges feel like. The abilities that recover with rest feel like the ones that recover after time (or when my mana/whatever refills).

That's an interesting take. Not quite wrong, either. It makes the Cleric-Problem go away though. I would love to discuss the pro/cons on this one though.

Also, have you ever taken a Recovery in combat? As I said: It's might or might not be video-game-like. But it's clearly HERO-like.

 

And, the whole attempt to keep everything balanced seems to me to have gone overboard. As I looked at the fighter powers as I was converting them, I found out that most of the higher ones were just variations of the lower ones, so you can have (96 someone said) powers, but if all they are are variations of 5 or 6 (with utility powers as well) - I just find it limiting. I'll see what later books bring, but I'm wary and unconvinced for now.

I agree. Currently, it looks really bland. But they want to sell another 100 books. They left blanks intentionally.

 

Oh yeah: I'm not a D4 fanatic. I have not even played it yet, nor will I in the near future. But I think the nay-sayers just bash it because that's what the cool kids do right now. And I cannot stand that.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Of course' date=' I am talking about the Player's Handpage. Or it might be a stupid mistake on my part [/quote']

 

Well, if rules get simpler, we may end up with it, or a Player's HandBill.

 

That is a interesting point. I have not followed the forum and only read the two books. They really rarely even mention the roles. I have no gripe into having supergroups of classes. That's like talking about Bricks and then going into Martial Bricks vs Speedbricks.

 

I'd be wary of going to the forum. It's the first time anywhere where I put people on ignore. The 3e/4e "Avenger" bs and the fanaticism in some responses (the "if you don't agree with me and play it my way, you're an idiot") is stupid. Discussions on strengths and weaknesses tend to go into flamewars as trolls of one form or another appear, and people love to feed them trolls! The books are not bad in regard to Roles, but I just see it as a mental shift from classes to combat roles as the primary focus. We can talk about Bricks here, since there aren't classes - but in a game where there are such defined (how do you say classes without classes?) - groupings of abilities and skills, it's a step backwards from game to metagame.

 

The flexibility is based on the 100+ books. You are comparing a 400 pages core book to a full shelf. That can only go one way.

 

True, but when they supposedly spent long hours playtesting and writing, it's a bit pathetic that the equipment list is tiny (not even the staple 10' pole! ), or that the ritual listing is small - I have a cleric player with two rituals at 1st level. She gets one automatically, and picks another. She hasn't - there's nothing she's interested in taking. Considering there is really 1 cleric ritual at 1st level, that says "They just didn't care" to me - or "we'll make them buy our subscription to DDI and a lot of other books to fill in what we intentionally leave out. That may make sense as a business model, but to me that says "we don't care about our customers".

 

I would have liked to see more than the Basic set. Especially for $100-odd.

 

I agree. I don't like Champions either.

And D3.5 Hide In Plain Sight is not superhuman then?

Choice of setting. D20 was always superhuman. I'm glad they finally make this clear instead of doing it wishy-washy.

 

I like Champions - it's a different setting. My Fantasy settings were fantastic, but not like that. We never used "Hide in Plain Site", and if it came up, they would need a better reason than "my feat says I can" (or whatever it was). IIRC didn't that just mean a player could make a roll to hide if certain conditions were met (such as a ranger in the woods) while being in visual site? I have a SF buddy who can do that. I watched him disappear while he was an observer for an FTX. Definitely freaky, but entirely natural.

 

That's just the (not-so-common) common sense we often hear about. I never had much problem making the setting what we wanted. It's pretty easy saying, "No, that feat isn't right for this setting" or "That can help your character" (or what have you). All rules need adjudication, and picking what works for your campaigns is DM 101. The more situations a rule system can cover, the more the DM will need to set the standards.

 

I wouldn't blame the rules for that. Since your players have not been bored out of their mind by this and you can run 5 combats in one evening, that is both very impressive and a solid win for D4.

 

Five encounters in 6 hours is a win? Given the simplicity, I expected a lot more than that, and the only game that worked out that slow was Rolemaster (average 1 combat in that same time frame). Maybe once people stop having to read the books to see what their abilities can do then we can actually get serious about it. My experience in the past puts encounters around 15-20 minutes. We put more time in exploration and other stuff. Of course, each system is different.

 

You might be My temporary group here plays ADnD, the really old stuff. It's horrid. They like it, because they got old with it. It's still plain horrid. As an outsider, that's easier to see.

 

 

Can't argue with that

 

 

If you prefer the old game to the new game, even if you know the old game has many warts, then you should just play the old game and not even bother about the new one. The new game is meant for me

 

 

Considering how many hours I got out of WoW, that was still cheaper than any other game. Mass Effect: 15 (13 mediocre) hours for 80$. WoW: ~3000 hours for 500$. WoW was cheaper, even assuming I spent 90% of my time idling or being bored.

 

 

That's an interesting take. Not quite wrong, either. It makes the Cleric-Problem go away though. I would love to discuss the pro/cons on this one though.

Also, have you ever taken a Recovery in combat? As I said: It's might or might not be video-game-like. But it's clearly HERO-like.

 

The main difference with Hero is that we have split damage into Stun and Body. Like the Star Wars (d20) vitality and wound points. A Recovery just gets Stun and End. To more accurately reflect a healing surge, we'd need to use simplified healing and recover both stats at the same time. I've heard all the different explanations for what hp abstracts into, and some are better then others, but the surges push the boundaries for me - to be fair, I'm not a big HP fan - I prefer more granularity)

 

I agree. Currently, it looks really bland. But they want to sell another 100 books. They left blanks intentionally.

 

Oh yeah: I'm not a D4 fanatic. I have not even played it yet, nor will I in the near future. But I think the nay-sayers just bash it because that's what the cool kids do right now. And I cannot stand that.

 

I just see at as people expressing their opinions and (in many cases) frustration or disgust at what some people have done with what used to be "their system". A lot of us grew up with it (to varying degrees). For me, WOTC gutted the dragon and stuffed a bunch of midgets in, and the Dungeon is now a mini-mart. They've made it safe for tourists, but took off the edges and turned it from a game I could recognize (even with all the modifications) to something that uses some of the same names but means completely different things. It's like opening "green eggs and ham" and finding out that "green eggs" is a TV show, and "Ham" is a tofu-based liquid.

 

It requires a system shock roll, or save vs paralysis.

 

Now, to be fair, I think those who really want to see it should borrow a book and look at it for themselves, although I wouldn't recommend buying it ($35 for a reading?) - the Keep module has simple entry-level rules (somewhat), and there is free stuff out there. You don't need to play to know you don't like it - does anyone have to play "Spawn of Fashan" to know you don't like it?

[pinecone]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

So, I got a copy of the 4th edition PHB for DnD.

 

Wow.

 

Bold.

 

The damn thing reads like a video game. I mean I'm all for change and evolution but this is not recognisably DnD. It does not seem like a bad game, but it isn't the game that first attracted me to role playing, and all the other editions were an evlution. This is more of an extra terrestrial invasion. I have no idea how popular the new edition is. It is glossy and new, so it probably sold well to teh existing fan base.

 

I want to encourage bold thinking in 6th ed HERO and I want there to be some risks taken (everything is a risk anyway), and I expect there to be some things that I don't like (it would almost remove my raison d'etre if not), but I hope and pray we don't go quite this far down new and 'interesting' routes.

 

I'm not trying to diss DnD, perish the thought. I am hoping, however, we do not folllow this extreme example. HERO is extremely robust. There is a lot I would change, but far, far more that I wouldn't.

 

Not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I felt I needed to comment. I'd appreciate your views.

 

Dude....I checked it out at the local library...it's Not "D&D" for sure....and the DMG is awfull..

 

For me it was the classic Glitz vs sense war...and Glitz won 9 gold medals....

 

A lot is change for it's own sake, and the rest? I'd guess some egotistical ex computer executives knowing better than anyone else.

[Kdansky]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'd be wary of going to the forum. It's the first time anywhere where I put people on ignore. The 3e/4e "Avenger" bs and the fanaticism in some responses (the "if you don't agree with me and play it my way' date=' you're an idiot") is stupid. Discussions on strengths and weaknesses tend to go into flamewars as trolls of one form or another appear, and people love to feed them trolls! The books are not bad in regard to Roles, but I just see it as a mental shift from classes to combat roles as the primary focus. We can talk about Bricks here, since there aren't classes - but in a game where there are such defined (how do you say classes without classes?) - groupings of abilities and skills, it's a step backwards from game to metagame.[/quote']

I thought as much of the forums. That is why I don't visit them. The Hero forums are one of the most civilized places on the interwebs. Props to all you guys, btw

 

Now on the topic of roles: I really don't see the problem. Sure, there is some metagame involved, but that was always the case. You never wanted a Party without a cleric (well, we have one, and it's suicidal all the time). But since now it's written down, everyone complains.

 

 

True, but when they supposedly spent long hours playtesting and writing, it's a bit pathetic that the equipment list is tiny (not even the staple 10' pole! ), or that the ritual listing is small - I have a cleric player with two rituals at 1st level. She gets one automatically, and picks another. She hasn't - there's nothing she's interested in taking. Considering there is really 1 cleric ritual at 1st level, that says "They just didn't care" to me - or "we'll make them buy our subscription to DDI and a lot of other books to fill in what we intentionally leave out. That may make sense as a business model, but to me that says "we don't care about our customers".

Ok, I have to agree here. The rituals chapter is ridiculously short. Not having a generic equipment list doesn't bother me much, since that is very campaign dependant.

 

I would have liked to see more than the Basic set. Especially for $100-odd.

I've only borrowed the books, are they really that expensive? Sheesh.

 

 

My Fantasy settings were fantastic, but not like that. We never used "Hide in Plain Site", and if it came up, they would need a better reason than "my feat says I can" (or whatever it was). IIRC didn't that just mean a player could make a roll to hide if certain conditions were met (such as a ranger in the woods) while being in visual site? I have a SF buddy who can do that. I watched him disappear while he was an observer for an FTX. Definitely freaky, but entirely natural. That's just the (not-so-common) common sense we often hear about. I never had much problem making the setting what we wanted. It's pretty easy saying, "No, that feat isn't right for this setting" or "That can help your character" (or what have you). All rules need adjudication, and picking what works for your campaigns is DM 101. The more situations a rule system can cover, the more the DM will need to set the standards.

But I mean the name already implies that is is nearly as good as invisibility. If you play low-magic-DnD, then you're the exception.

 

 

Five encounters in 6 hours is a win? Given the simplicity, I expected a lot more than that, and the only game that worked out that slow was Rolemaster (average 1 combat in that same time frame). Maybe once people stop having to read the books to see what their abilities can do then we can actually get serious about it. My experience in the past puts encounters around 15-20 minutes. We put more time in exploration and other stuff. Of course, each system is different.

3.5 battles in 20 minutes? How did you manage that?! SafeOrDie spam? Which is by the way a huuuge D3.5 problem: Battles after about level 8 degrade into SOD-spamming, because nearly any decent spell will just destroy the opposition if they don't safe. Why should I Fireball if I can Powerword Stun?

 

 

The main difference with Hero is that we have split damage into Stun and Body. Like the Star Wars (d20) vitality and wound points. A Recovery just gets Stun and End. To more accurately reflect a healing surge, we'd need to use simplified healing and recover both stats at the same time. I've heard all the different explanations for what hp abstracts into, and some are better then others, but the surges push the boundaries for me - to be fair, I'm not a big HP fan - I prefer more granularity)

HP are a very old concept. It's kept out of two reasons:

A: It's old and established. Not good.

B: It's simple. Good.

I also like the body/stun concept a lot. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why I like and play HERO.

 

Now D20 HP just cannot be BODY. Because if you got 80 HP (that isn't even a high level), and an arrow dows 1d6, then you can take 20 arrows (about 70 damage) and look like a porcupine. But you are still running. That is just plain ridiculous. Therefore, I assume HP are a mix between stun and body. And that means that Second Wind is the same as a recovery.

 

Now, to be fair, I think those who really want to see it should borrow a book and look at it for themselves, although I wouldn't recommend buying it ($35 for a reading?) - the Keep module has simple entry-level rules (somewhat), and there is free stuff out there. You don't need to play to know you don't like it - does anyone have to play "Spawn of Fashan" to know you don't like it?

I am not sure if borrowing works so well, the rules can be a bit annoying to read since there are so many lists and tables. But then, you don't really need 6 books for 6 players, 1 book should easily be enough. That's about 5$ per person.

 

And pinecones commentary is in the wrong forums. I recommend 4chan for that kind of bashing.

[casualplayer]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Could you emulate Dragonlance, Lord of the Rings or Conan with D&D4th? Probably not. Could you emulate Everquest, Diablo, WoW or Final Fantasy? Yep.

 

It's painfully obvious what market and consumer they are targeting with this, and it's not roleplayers. It's not a crime, just disappointing. Most of us grew up with D&D and now she's turned her back on us.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I thought as much of the forums. That is why I don't visit them. The Hero forums are one of the most civilized places on the interwebs. Props to all you guys' date=' btw [/quote']

 

We can get testy, but definitely nothing like what I've seen there. Add in that the forums go down at least once a week...erk.

Now on the topic of roles: I really don't see the problem. Sure, there is some metagame involved, but that was always the case. You never wanted a Party without a cleric (well, we have one, and it's suicidal all the time). But since now it's written down, everyone complains.

 

I suspect we won't get anywhere with this - I think we'd be talking past each other. I've never worried about any kind of role, as someone had something that could do whatever needed being done. It didn't matter if it was the thief, the cleric, or the sorcerer. My group, and my games, are not set into rigid roles, especially rigid tactical combat roles, as 4e makes them. I wrote somewhere - here or there - expressing surprise that someone had fighters who actually hung back and protected the mages. My players are aggressive, and believe in taking the fight to the enemy. Even the sorcerer we had was well armed and had a decent AC. Nobody wanted a wimp. What can I say, everyone is either military, ex-military, or married to military.

 

Ok, I have to agree here. The rituals chapter is ridiculously short. Not having a generic equipment list doesn't bother me much, since that is very campaign dependant.

 

I think they could have put more into standard rituals. How can they design adventures if they expect rituals that are limited (only found in) one particular campaign supplement. I'd think that they'd want to give their designers the maximum flexibility they could. Of course, they could also want people to pay for every book...

I've only borrowed the books, are they really that expensive? Sheesh.

 

You can find them cheaper some places (Amazon, I think), but the normal price is (IIRC) $34.95 per book. They spent about $.02 on the covers.

 

Did I say the covers are cheap?

 

But I mean the name already implies that is is nearly as good as invisibility. If you play low-magic-DnD, then you're the exception.

 

I wouldn't say low magic, but I'll answer that next. I think you're mistaking the name or flavor text for what it actually does. Unless there is more, the ability is a 17th level Ranger one, and it just allows the ranger to use the hide skill (in natural terrain) while being observed. Normal hide rules apply. Considering I've seen this happen, I don't think it unusual at all. We never got that high, so it never came into effect. I think some other class (or prestige class) may have had it as well.

 

3.5 battles in 20 minutes? How did you manage that?! SafeOrDie spam? Which is by the way a huuuge D3.5 problem: Battles after about level 8 degrade into SOD-spamming, because nearly any decent spell will just destroy the opposition if they don't safe. Why should I Fireball if I can Powerword Stun?

 

Well, it may have been 30 minutes . I remember being able to get through more of the adventures in less time, I know we've had 5-6 encounters in around 4 hours before, and I think we've done more. Part of it is that we know the rules. Everybody did what they did, and there was not a lot of "no, center the spell here" or "don't move there, I can shift you two spaces". Really, magic items were middling, no Wal-Magic stores, but they were there. There was a cleric, but the player didn't do too much, as she was a cleric/sorcerer/geomancer - not a lot of magic, but she did have some. The combination that worked was the fighter, who had spell resistance, and the warmage, who could cast into the group with him there. Even if the fighter failed his roll, he had the hp to take most.

 

Sorcerers and Wizards were up there with clerics as the least favorite classes. Ok, bard too. Most popular - Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue. So, the party was not too magic heavy, and their foes were appropriate (and the magic resistant fighter played havoc enemy casters too). Maybe as the group learns more of the game, combats will go faster. I hope so. We stopped the 3.5 game when they were around 9th level, and the highest the last one got to was 13th.

 

HP are a very old concept. It's kept out of two reasons:

A: It's old and established. Not good.

B: It's simple. Good.

I also like the body/stun concept a lot. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why I like and play HERO.

Agreed

Now D20 HP just cannot be BODY. Because if you got 80 HP (that isn't even a high level), and an arrow dows 1d6, then you can take 20 arrows (about 70 damage) and look like a porcupine. But you are still running. That is just plain ridiculous. Therefore, I assume HP are a mix between stun and body. And that means that Second Wind is the same as a recovery.

 

Only if we use the Healing (simplified healing) as Recovery. FH combat tends to do a lot of Body, which Recoveries do not heal (not standard, yours may be different).

I am not sure if borrowing works so well, the rules can be a bit annoying to read since there are so many lists and tables. But then, you don't really need 6 books for 6 players, 1 book should easily be enough. That's about 5$ per person.

 

Or get the pdf and print out what is needed. We did that so each player has their race and class pages so they can see what the powers they have do. I thought I saw it at DriveThruRPG, but it's all around.

And pinecones commentary is in the wrong forums. I recommend 4chan for that kind of bashing.

 

Sorry, ya' lost me on that one. Are you referring to the post by pinecone?

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Could you emulate Dragonlance, Lord of the Rings or Conan with D&D4th? Probably not. Could you emulate Everquest, Diablo, WoW or Final Fantasy? Yep.

 

It's painfully obvious what market and consumer they are targeting with this, and it's not roleplayers. It's not a crime, just disappointing. Most of us grew up with D&D and now she's turned her back on us.

 

"She's dead, Jim"?

 

...

 

So, when's the Irish Wake?

 

...

 

and what proof?

[Markdoc]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The Monster states quite perfectly what I feel too. I am pretty sure that someone somewhere on the internet came up with "D4 is liek MMOPRG!" and from then on' date=' everyone copied it. I have even seen people write that in the D4 thread in the fantasy hero forums. And they admitted they didn't even bother to read through the books. DnD is so important to the geeks that fans and haters stop thinking and just defend/attack the system [i']because[/i].

 

There's a problem with this hypothesis. I don't read RPG.net, or indeed any gaming board except this one. I was unaware of the flames about 4E's new direction and was curious about how 4E would look/play.

 

And on buying the books and reading them my reaction was "OMG! 1z teh MMORPG!"

 

Basically, everything from design choices to language choices points in that direction - and I have read the books: all three core books, from cover to cover, at least a couple of times each.

 

So here's an alternate hypothesis: people speak of 4E as being a pen and paper MMORPG .... because that's what it looks like. If you want evidence, look at the rules, language and design philosophy, as noted earlier in the thread. And note, I'm not hating. I've actually bought as many 4E books now as I've bought 3.5E and would happily play it. I'm already on record with my review of the rules. But it reads as though it was designed to give an MMORPG-like experince - I cannot deny the evidence of my own eyes.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The Monster states quite perfectly what I feel too. I am pretty sure that someone somewhere on the internet came up with "D4 is liek MMOPRG!" and from then on' date=' everyone copied it. I have even seen people write that in the D4 thread in the fantasy hero forums. And they admitted they didn't even bother to read through the books. DnD is so important to the geeks that fans and haters stop thinking and just defend/attack the system [i']because[/i].

.............

 

When I posted this thread I'd not read anywhere that DnD4 was MMPORG-like, in fact I'd not read anything about it other than the PHB itself, which I bought, and have read, so that was my unadulterated opinion. I daresay some prople are copying but I strongly suspect it is a widely held belief becasue a lot of people believe it.

 

It doesn't feel like a bad game at all: if it was not DnD I'd probably think it was astonishing - and there's my problem right there (and it is my problem) - I've got a view of DnD, and this does not ding my DnD pleasure bells. I did not have the same sense of excitement reading it that I got from 3rd edition DnD which was fuelled by the feeling that this was a distilate of allt eh good stuff that I'd liked previously, with new stuff I liked too.

 

I'm (slightly) worried that a similar approach could be taken with HERO, givent he online game that is coming out, and it would be wrong to do so - in my opinion.

 

I'm not just spouting though, I can justify that. As has already been pointed out, D4 is essentially (or could essentially) be a re-imagining of the game by working out a consistent set of game mechanics then burying them under a rule set, so all you can see is the surface (OK, I'm paraphrasing).

 

HERO is there already. I tell you what, I recokon we could build practically any system we liked already, including D4 with Hero. there is nothing wrong with a Champions Online game coming out that DOES read like a MMPORG - all the better, if it is a tie in - and we calready have the mechanics (even more highly polished in 6th, hopefully) - but what we don't have at present, again, in my opinion, is the range of use we could already employ.

 

Let me explain.

 

Every Hero game is recognisably a Hero game. We provide builds for stuff, standard character sheets, the whole nine yards. That is a good thing, but then I like Hero. not everyone does.

 

What if we build an entire new game, underpinned by Hero by with the normal mechanics submerged, hidden?

 

You could come up with a level based system, and base the abilities and powers you can gain on Hero mechanics but - here's the cunning bit - only show the end product. You don't need to show the points, or event eh build, so long as you describe what it can do and limit the choices of the players so that the points - invisibly - balance.

 

Now that would be an evolution: Hero the Toolkit and Hero the Finished Product, with teh former being for those of us who like to tinker and the latter for those of us who like to pick up a game and run.

 

The great thing is that Hero is already ideally placed to do this. I may have to esconce myself away somewhere this weekend and prove it...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

There's a problem with this hypothesis. I don't read RPG.net, or indeed any gaming board except this one. I was unaware of the flames about 4E's new direction and was curious about how 4E would look/play.

 

And on buying the books and reading them my reaction was "OMG! 1z teh MMORPG!"

 

Basically, everything from design choices to language choices points in that direction - and I have read the books: all three core books, from cover to cover, at least a couple of times each.

 

So here's an alternate hypothesis: people speak of 4E as being a pen and paper MMORPG .... because that's what it looks like. If you want evidence, look at the rules, language and design philosophy, as noted earlier in the thread. And note, I'm not hating. I've actually bought as many 4E books now as I've bought 3.5E and would happily play it. I'm already on record with my review of the rules. But it reads as though it was designed to give an MMORPG-like experince - I cannot deny the evidence of my own eyes.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Y'see, I should probably have read right through to the end of the thread before posting, and saved my first paragraph an ignominious fate:)

[nexus]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The Monster states quite perfectly what I feel too. I am pretty sure that someone somewhere on the internet came up with "D4 is liek MMOPRG!" and from then on' date=' everyone copied it. I have even seen people write that in the D4 thread in the fantasy hero forums. And they admitted they didn't even bother to read through the books. DnD is so important to the geeks that fans and haters stop thinking and just defend/attack the system [i']because[/i].

 

Of course I can't speak for everyone but I got the impression of "MMORPG like" from reading the books. I saw them very shortly after they were released and picked up the distinct vibe from reading them. I don't think the game "sucks" it's simply not something I'm interested in. Dismissing everyone who doesn't share your opinion as misguided, ill informed or worse, willfully ignorant while their own opinion is purely objective and absolute is pretty insulting and pretty knee jerk in and of itself. Have I played DnD4? No, but I have read it and it doesn't appeal to me due in part to the 'videogamish" feel of it.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Every Hero game is recognisably a Hero game. We provide builds for stuff, standard character sheets, the whole nine yards. That is a good thing, but then I like Hero. not everyone does.

 

What if we build an entire new game, underpinned by Hero by with the normal mechanics submerged, hidden?

 

You could come up with a level based system, and base the abilities and powers you can gain on Hero mechanics but - here's the cunning bit - only show the end product. You don't need to show the points, or event eh build, so long as you describe what it can do and limit the choices of the players so that the points - invisibly - balance.

 

Now that would be an evolution: Hero the Toolkit and Hero the Finished Product, with teh former being for those of us who like to tinker and the latter for those of us who like to pick up a game and run.

 

The great thing is that Hero is already ideally placed to do this. I may have to esconce myself away somewhere this weekend and prove it...

 

In a way, that is what TA, the USPD and others do, in part. They give the "fluff" bit and the meat - the Hero stats, lims, advs, etc. I can see that it might be interesting to take it that step further, and make a supplement that is based off the Hero Rules, but keeps them hidden. It might work to get people into the system (d6 rolls, hit locations, Stun & Body, etc), without all the internal parts...until they want to go there. Call it Hero and Hero Lite. Make it so that someone could just pick up a book, grab some options, put points in (or even pick up premade character sets of stats) and play, then gradually work them into the underbelly which is the Real Hero System.

 

Reading that, it sounds odd, but I think I said it all.

 

To restate - something like that would be an option. The regular Hero rules will be there for the rest of us to tinker with.

[casualplayer]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Take a look at D&D4's Players Handbook then go take a look at a videogame strategy guide. Then tell me who this iteration was designed for.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I can say I certainly don't want a table-top RPG that feels like a MMOG (I refuse to put the "RP" in there). I can say that without having read ANY of the new D&D books, and I can say it with limited MMOG experience as well; I don't play MMOGs BECAUSE of what they are and how they feel (not to mention the suction line stuck to your wallet).

 

Now I don't know whether D&D 4e IS actually like a MMOG or not, but I can easily believe it. It matters little because, while I loved playing old D&D and AD&D, I've been done with that product line for some time. I'll play in a game here and there, but I'll never GM one again and even playing in another long-standing campaign doesn't sound all that exciting. I was frankly disappointed to the point of tears when the new World of Darkness editions came out and looked 95% like another D&D/D20 clone (especially Mage; ouch). I do NOT want Hero going that way.

 

I also DEFINITELY don't want Hero growing toward a MMOG feel. It's the most table-top of the table-top RPGs left in my opinion, and as far as my tastes go it can stay that way or lean even more in that direction. One slightly hopeful thing is that, while that online game is using the Champions Universe, I believe they stated it will have nothing to do with the actual Hero game system. So I don't know how much opportunity or temptation there will be to make the system grow toward MMOG mechanics and feel anyway.

 

Not sure if there was really a point there, but I guess I'm just saying, "Yeah! Boy, do I agree with the original sentiment!"

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I also DEFINITELY don't want Hero growing toward a MMOG feel.

 

But, can it go with a POG feel?

 

"It's Alf, but in Pog form"

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

... "my favorite RPG was destroyed by video gamization."

 

All together now!

 

"Video killed the Radio Star.

Video killed the Radio Star.

In my mind and in my car,

we can't rewind we've gone to far."

 

 

[Markdoc]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

What if we build an entire new game, underpinned by Hero by with the normal mechanics submerged, hidden?

 

You could come up with a level based system, and base the abilities and powers you can gain on Hero mechanics but - here's the cunning bit - only show the end product. You don't need to show the points, or event eh build, so long as you describe what it can do and limit the choices of the players so that the points - invisibly - balance.

 

Now that would be an evolution: Hero the Toolkit and Hero the Finished Product, with teh former being for those of us who like to tinker and the latter for those of us who like to pick up a game and run.

 

This is essentially what I have been doing for years. I've moved to a new city and/or country 6 times since I started GM'ing Hero and I've set up new groups every time. Only rarely have I been lucky enough to find actual Hero players. So I start new groups - often with people who have never roleplayed before, or have only played MMORPGs or D&D. I don't give 'em the rule book unless they are actively interested (and some of them are - we have two copies of 5ER in our gaming group now, apart from mine ). Instead I find a hook - a game archetype, or character from a book or film that they'd like to play and then say "OK, lets jot down the abilities and then I'll tell you how much it costs to do these. If you can't buy them as a starting character, you can always save up XP". That removes the complexity and hero-phobia from the beginning.

 

You could almost cut most Hero books into two - one for players, one for the GM, with flavour text and powers/maneuvers/skills in one and mechanics in the other.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Just in case it wasn't obvious from the COTU title on the thread - Sean was as good as his word and went away and did exactly what he was speaking about here.

 

Worth going to look and see what can be done, even by Sean, in just three days.

 

Thread is here.

 

 

Doc

[Karmakaze]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I am still wholly against the "DnD is now a videogame"-rumor. Frankly' date=' I call male-cow-dung on that! If you think it is a videogame, then cough up some solid evidence, or else Miles Edgeworth will have a word with you.[/quote']

 

Well, what people are actually saying is that "D&D4 has incorporated a lot of conceptual and stylistic components that are more typical of a MMORPG than a tabletop RPG" and you backed that up with evidence yourself in your own post. Also note how much more important battle maps have become (which is both an MMORPG trait and a throwback to the game's wargaming roots) and the extreme paring down of skills.)

 

And yes, before someone decides to play the "you're just listening to rumors" card, I did so check out and read the rulebooks myself. I'm getting a little tired of all of the "All the h4terz are just spreading rumors and couldn't be bothered to form their own opinions" trope that's been thrown around.

 

Honestly, my primary objection to D&D4 is the same thing that annoyed me about D&D3.x, so I'm completely comfortable with not being the target audience anyway. But I certainly do see D&D4 being revamped with an eye towards emphasizing combat roles over other character aspects, which is more or less the opposite direction from the D&D->AD&D->AD&D2 trend. That's not inherently bad - you could easily argue it's just taking D&D back to it's "roots".

 

The only thing that reminded me of a MMORPG: Terminology. And that is a good thing. Everyone and their mom has played a PC-RPG by now. Everyone knows these words. Why not explain it to them in a language they speak? Also' date=' having a solid name for every effect is not a videogame thing. In fact, MTG probably came up with that (Flanking, Banding, Trample, Regeneration, and all of these).[/quote']

 

I haven't played PC-RPGs. Well, unless you count Rogue and nethack. Not my thing. I'm vaguely aware of the terminology from hearing people talk about it, but it's not natural language to me.

 

I think I may just be too old. MtG and MMORPGs both came about long after I started gaming, so it's hard for me to see their influence as classic gaming.

 

I think video-game-as-RPG is exactly the direction Hero intends to take with 6E; close integration with Champions Online seems almost inevitable.

 

Really? Where did you get that impression? Everything I've read has been pretty clear that all Champions Online bought was the setting IP. Remember, HERO is not just Champions.

[casualplayer]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You could almost cut most Hero books into two - one for players, one for the GM, with flavour text and powers/maneuvers/skills in one and mechanics in the other.

 

cheers, Mark

 

And then a third one, with NPCs and monsters in it! ;)