Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

[BarretWallace]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I've really only played 3 systems.

 

Champions/Hero System. STUN vs BODY. Now every conflict didn't have to be to the death. Why had no one thought about that before?

 

Yes, Hero has other advantages, but that is the one that made me never look back.

 

Amen, bro! In fact, one time during character design I didn't pay enough attention to character defenses. My guy could take blows that would fell less-resistant party members, but totally had a glass jaw. In any other system he might have died. In Hero, he was just embarrassed frequently, at least until I used XP to compensate for those deficiencies (mostly a too-low PD).

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

To expand on a point some others have made' date=' one reason I prefer the [i']HERO System[/i] for Fantasy gaming is that it lets me tailor the magic system and spells to the campaign setting better than any other RPG I know.

 

That too

 

I'll share an experience here - I'm into game theory - GNS, Play experiences from system, immersion or not - all that stuff. And I tend to analyze my playstyle every few years. It helps me logicially and with Critical Thinking look at RPG rule systems to see if I like them. That isn't my only input either - there is always the "This is Cool!" factors...

 

So play and GM fantasy Hero. My wife runs my character solo; using the rules I've made. I modeled my magic system on Rolemaster's fairly strongly. 3 realms, and an old style of magic that was all at once. Differing abilities to case which kind of magic (using Perks), Mana point system. Also converted a whole lot of spells.

 

And with the magic system I really liked and Hero, I didn't need any other Fantasy system right?

 

But I kept going back to D&D (3rd, then 4th) And I really looked at that - thinking "What am I getting from D&D that I don't get from Hero?" I felt fairly constrained in 3rd ed D&D, but kept playing it. What I realized -

1) I love having a huge list of abilities and choosing from them (Feats, or spell selection)

2) I loved the gonzo feel you could have with a lot of 3rd party supplements with races in. You could have a D&D tavern that looked like the Cantina is Star Wars (which is how we ran our D&D)

3) I loved the preponderance of classes and prestige classes.

 

So I basically converted over 200 feats to FH talents. I made Hero writeups for all the races I wanted (I ended up with about 30 beyond what was in the various FH books. I built a whole punch of professional packages - some with certain abilities only purchasable in you bought the package (I ran paladin stuff like that already).

 

Now I don't look to D&D - I found every element I liked about other fantasy gamed (Spell systems, feats, etc) and adapted them. Yeah it was a lot of work (still going I'll likely not stop until I have 1000 pages of spell write ups.. sometime 20 years from now). But I got the exact thing I liked from a number of different RPGs to work in my Fantasy Hero game - no other game lets you do that.

[Ndreare]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I would love to see this done in suplaments or something. Just pick the power like a talent. We already know the mechnics of it, but with this cool list now we can just jot down pfficial power names and everyone knows what it is. If someone wats to build there own they can, but no one has to. This is like the fantasy hero aproach. Universal System - Genre Specifc flavor.

[Old Man]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I would love to see this done in suplaments or something. Just pick the power like a talent. We already know the mechnics of it' date=' but with this cool list now we can just jot down pfficial power names and everyone knows what it is. If someone wats to build there own they can, but no one has to. This is like the fantasy hero aproach. Universal System - Genre Specifc flavor.[/quote']

 

This, IMO, is something that needed to be done in FH a long time ago. I wish we had written down all the standard definitions we had for AD&D module conversions, because that was halfway to what FH needed in terms of standardization. It's much easier to see that the bad guy wizard can cast 'fireball', which we had pretty much defined as a 2d6 RKA explosion inc/gest/conc half/OAF expendable/full phase, as opposed to having to read an entire FH spell description mid-combat. If pregenerated FH modules existed, which they do not, which deeply irritates me, then they could have referred to the 'standard' spells in the FH Companions by title in a similar fashion.

 

Speaking of which, has anyone gone through the Companions to bring them up to 5th or 6th spec?

[Ndreare]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Fantasy Hero Grimoires where almost there but they included all the tool kit options (just like powers) this made it were there was no standard assumption.

I suppose we could just set the bar as use fantasy hero grimoir, but with the assumption of no options. Then they would have most of the elements we need (description, mechanics and variaty). And if you played Turakian age they even have a background.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

This, IMO, is something that needed to be done in FH a long time ago. I wish we had written down all the standard definitions we had for AD&D module conversions, because that was halfway to what FH needed in terms of standardization. It's much easier to see that the bad guy wizard can cast 'fireball', which we had pretty much defined as a 2d6 RKA explosion inc/gest/conc half/OAF expendable/full phase, as opposed to having to read an entire FH spell description mid-combat. If pregenerated FH modules existed, which they do not, which deeply irritates me, then they could have referred to the 'standard' spells in the FH Companions by title in a similar fashion.

 

Speaking of which, has anyone gone through the Companions to bring them up to 5th or 6th spec?

 

I had done some work for my last campaign, though it was really only with the colleges that I used regularly. Most of the work to convert to 5th was to remove the "Character must have xx points in college" limitations. It would take a bit more work to make them 6th compatible, as many colleges have at least one spell based on powers that have been substantially modified or removed (the ones based on Force Field come to mind).

 

I'd be interested in a full update of these, as I think that the power levels represented are more appropriate than the high power levels represented in the FH Grimoires. Checking my copies of both, it looks like a typical attack spell in the FH/FHC/FHC2 books was around 6 DC, compared to around 12 DC for a typical writeup in the Grimoire. Even the weak versions in the Grimoire are around 10 DC or so.

 

JoeG

[Glupii]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Not sure if anyone will read this or not but I feel like our group, having been meeting with the same core members, weekly for about 25+ years (sorry about letting the age out of the bag, there Tancred!) and having played around with many systems (All flavors of D&D, Champions, then Hero, Traveler, Modern D20, and so many more from the early days I can't remember them all) I felt I might have some insite someone, somewhere might have interest in.

 

Like many groups, most of our games base around D20 now. We play 3.5 and while I would love to move my group into Pathfinder, convincing them to purchase all new books is just not going to happen. The current version gives us a fun game and there is just no compelling reason for them to want something different. (Coincidentally, that is the same argument we have had for moving to Hero 6) The factors that keep us playing D20 for our fantasy games, from what I can tell are all based around simplicity and comfort level. We know the system pretty well now, it is easy to run, it is easy to scale to the character levels (Something that none of us have ever managed as easily in Hero) and there are plenty of resources from 3rd party for new ideas to keep things fresh.

 

Also sometimes I like the ability to not have to define everything within the rules and just say "It's Magic".

 

However we also run Hero games. One of our chief GM's (Again looking at Tancred) is exclusively a Hero guy when it comes to running and we love the system. I have tried my hand at running a Fantasy Hero game and while I found the flexibility fun, the amount of work on my part became daunting. And my original attempt at letting the game balance itself, I did find that there were times when we needed to make rules for limiting certain powers as they really became overpowering.

 

Interestingly enough, I had just as many issues when trying to modify D20 to genre's other than fantasy (aka Modern D20, and Gamma world for a PA Game). And what it came down to in my mind was that for fantasy games, the simplicity and familiar feel held sway. But for any other genre (We have been playing one PA game and loving it and I am jonesing to run another with a different feel to it more along the lines of Fallout) it seems the flexibility of the Hero system fits very well.

 

One other thing I would note is that we have introduced new players to the RPG world over our time and getting them up and running in D20 is FAR easier than getting them to understand Hero. I do not think the obstacles to Hero are insurmountable, but it is a lot more daunting looking at them from a new person's viewpoint than from our more experienced viewpoints. I am not saying D20 is easier than Hero, I am saying that our experience is that it was easier getting them to understand D20 than Hero. It may be due to our own comfort level with D20, it maybe that D20 was geared at beginning players more, it may just be the wider exposure the D&D systems have had over the years.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I have tried my hand at running a Fantasy Hero game and while I found the flexibility fun' date=' the amount of work on my part became daunting.[/quote']

 

I've heard this from other GMs as well. If you (or anyone else reading this) don't mind elaborating, I'm curious what you mean. I've never found running Fantasy Hero to be any more work than running xD&D, so I'd like to learn how others' experiences are different. Is it because you make more use of published material for xD&D? Or do you find xD&D less work than FH in some way even when making up original material? Or something else?

 

One other thing I would note is that we have introduced new players to the RPG world over our time and getting them up and running in D20 is FAR easier than getting them to understand Hero.

 

Do you think they have trouble understanding game play in the HERO System, or just character creation? I'm curious because my own experience has been that new players to Hero (even if they're new to RPGs altogether) have no particular trouble grasping how the game plays (or at least, no more trouble grasping it than most other RPGs). It's the points and Advantages and Limitations and Adders and Active Points and Real Points and Enhancers and all that stuff that crosses their eyes. For example, when I've run Hero games at conventions (even for brand new players) and I present them with a character, they do fine with it. It's creating one that overwhelms some folks. Has your experience been different?

[Glupii]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Not sure if anyone will read this or not but I feel like our group, having been meeting with the same core members, weekly for about 25+ years (sorry about letting the age out of the bag, there Tancred!) and having played around with many systems (All flavors of D&D, Champions, then Hero, Traveler, Modern D20, and so many more from the early days I can't remember them all) I felt I might have some insite someone, somewhere might have interest in.

 

Like many groups, most of our games base around D20 now. We play 3.5 and while I would love to move my group into Pathfinder, convincing them to purchase all new books is just not going to happen. The current version gives us a fun game and there is just no compelling reason for them to want something different. (Coincidentally, that is the same argument we have had for moving to Hero 6) The factors that keep us playing D20 for our fantasy games, from what I can tell are all based around simplicity and comfort level. We know the system pretty well now, it is easy to run, it is easy to scale to the character levels (Something that none of us have ever managed as easily in Hero) and there are plenty of resources from 3rd party for new ideas to keep things fresh.

 

Also sometimes I like the ability to not have to define everything within the rules and just say "It's Magic".

 

However we also run Hero games. One of our chief GM's (Again looking at Tancred) is exclusively a Hero guy when it comes to running and we love the system. I have tried my hand at running a Fantasy Hero game and while I found the flexibility fun, the amount of work on my part became daunting. And my original attempt at letting the game balance itself, I did find that there were times when we needed to make rules for limiting certain powers as they really became overpowering.

 

Interestingly enough, I had just as many issues when trying to modify D20 to genre's other than fantasy (aka Modern D20, and Gamma world for a PA Game). And what it came down to in my mind was that for fantasy games, the simplicity and familiar feel held sway. But for any other genre (We have been playing one PA game and loving it and I am jonesing to run another with a different feel to it more along the lines of Fallout) it seems the flexibility of the Hero system fits very well.

 

One other thing I would note is that we have introduced new players to the RPG world over our time and getting them up and running in D20 is FAR easier than getting them to understand Hero. I do not think the obstacles to Hero are insurmountable, but it is a lot more daunting looking at them from a new person's viewpoint than from our more experienced viewpoints. I am not saying D20 is easier than Hero, I am saying that our experience is that it was easier getting them to understand D20 than Hero. It may be due to our own comfort level with D20, it maybe that D20 was geared at beginning players more, it may just be the wider exposure the D&D systems have had over the years.

[Vondy]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I've heard this from other GMs as well. If you (or anyone else reading this) don't mind elaborating' date=' I'm curious what you mean.[/quote']

 

A fantasy world must have magic and or monsters. The fact that I can create anything I want in that regard is great. But that doesn't mean I want to invest that kind of time. I may not find the xD&D magic system fits a game other than D&D well, but I sure as heck don't have to write 100's of spells just to begin play. The same is true of the underlying structure. I may not find D&D magic all that great as a functioning system (depending on the style of game I want), but I can crack the book and begin without having to decide on frameworks, advantages and limitation, cost breaks (do I divide by 3, hm?) or what not. The same goes for monsters. D&D has books upon books of monsters I can grab and use pretty much out of the box.

 

The Grimoire goes a long way to fixing this, but I still have to review and or tweak every spell for the game I'm going to run. And the same goes for the bestiary. The bestiary entries have to be reviewed and edited before use because they are generic and not setting or campaign specific. Its also limited in terms of the numbers of monsters available. I'm simply not that impressed with it. Much of this stems from the fact that these books, while filled with goodness, aren't for a setting I can use them with. They're just boxes of raw materials I have to finish before I can use. Its like buying an unpainted miniature that you also have to do a little carving on - in addition to the painting. Unless carving and/or painting is your hobby, you won't be satisfied with the product.

 

Hero doesn't support its settings (at all in some cases, or well in others) and doesn't tie its other "books of stuff" into them. A lot of it is generic brand. That means I'm spending time designing worlds and structures rather than planning and running adventures. I'm dealing in the meta rather than the fun bits. You know, stories, plots, arcs... drama.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I've heard this from other GMs as well. If you (or anyone else reading this) don't mind elaborating' date=' I'm curious what you mean. I've never found running Fantasy Hero to be any more work than running xD&D, so I'd like to learn how others' experiences are different. Is it because you make more use of published material for xD&D? Or do you find xD&D less work than FH in some way even when making up original material? Or something else?[/quote']

 

For most iterations of D&D, it's a lot easier to sit down with the corebooks and a few blank sheets of paper and be playing within an hour. This is what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread (and have been harping on for years!), but this can't be done with modern era Fantasy Hero. The GM has to have done the homework: create a world, create magic system(s), create a bunch of templates that fit with the world and magic system(s), potentially create some number of spells that fit with the magic system(s). Once you have all of that done, and everyone has a character, then everyone can play.

 

D&D and its single set of world assumptions that inform class-race-magic system may be "limited", but in terms of pick-up-and-go, it's got us all beat.

 

Do you think they have trouble understanding game play in the HERO System, or just character creation? I'm curious because my own experience has been that new players to Hero (even if they're new to RPGs altogether) have no particular trouble grasping how the game plays (or at least, no more trouble grasping it than most other RPGs). It's the points and Advantages and Limitations and Adders and Active Points and Real Points and Enhancers and all that stuff that crosses their eyes. For example, when I've run Hero games at conventions (even for brand new players) and I present them with a character, they do fine with it. It's creating one that overwhelms some folks. Has your experience been different?

 

Creating HERO System characters can be overwhelming, but the GM has to do -- I'd call it ten times that much work, at a minimum -- to come up with something playable.

 

I'm going to completely leave character creation out of the equation because D&D 3.x character creation is roughly as much work as Fantasy Hero character creation by power level. This was driven home to me in one of the past threads (2002-2003 timeframe), where we were discussing character creation between the two. I was comparing more or less by era, and someone (might have even been you, Derek ) challenged me on it. I decided to write up a moderately difficult character (dwarf with one level in fighter and three in wizard) and it was about as time consuming and challenging as a Hero character.

 

(Crossposted with Glupii and Vondy.)

[Vondy]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Creating HERO System characters can be overwhelming' date=' but the GM has to do -- I'd call it ten times that much work, at a minimum -- to come up with something playable.[/quote']

 

This. For players I see little difference in the "work investment." But I am perpetually cast in the role of GM. And I simply do not have the time I did when I was 20. I have a wife, kids, a job, social obligations. It all mounts up. The time investment AS A GM is the key issue.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

This. For players I see little difference in the "work investment." But I am perpetually cast in the role of GM. And I simply do not have the time I did when I was 20. I have a wife' date=' kids, a job, social obligations. It all mounts up. The time investment [u']AS A GM[/u] is the key issue.

This is exactly what we are trying to do for both players and GM's with our settings. In particular Kamarathin and the upcoming Irshaanic Confluence.

[nitril]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Threads like these makes me want to give Hero another try. I bought 5th edition on a whim a couple of years back when I was on a Exalted burn-out. I like the flexibility but like so many others the amount of work needed put me off it a bit. I keep coming back to it though as I really want to get cracking with writing up a fantasy world, but now I lack the time instead. I have found however that Hero works really well for scifi and the supplements available are great fun to read and to expand. System-vise Hero is quite a challenge with all the options available. It takes time to understand the system and make it work for you. This is something I still need to get my head around, but maybe this time around I'll have enough time to fully grasp the system. What drew me to Hero was the flexibility and the potential to create something that can capture whatever inspires me when I read a book or watch a movie. I have dabbled with FATE but it still leaves something to be desired.

 

One day I'll sit down and start writing down the fantasy campaign I have been planning for years.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

I may not find the xD&D magic system fits a game other than D&D well, but I sure as heck don't have to write 100's of spells just to begin play. The same is true of the underlying structure. I may not find D&D magic all that great as a functioning system (depending on the style of game I want), but I can crack the book and begin without having to decide on frameworks, advantages and limitation, cost breaks (do I divide by 3, hm?) or what not. The same goes for monsters. D&D has books upon books of monsters I can grab and use pretty much out of the box.

(snip)

The Grimoire goes a long way to fixing this, but I still have to review and or tweak every spell for the game I'm going to run. And the same goes for the bestiary. The bestiary entries have to be reviewed and edited before use because they are generic and not setting or campaign specific.

 

This sounds sort of like you're giving xD&D a pass on the same things you're criticizing Hero for. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you don't necessarily like everything about the pre-provided xD&D material (at least the magic; you don't say one way or the other for the monsters), but you use it anyway because it's faster. But with Hero, you say you "have" to tweak the spells or the monsters before use because they're generic and "not setting or campaign specific."

 

Does this mean you use the standard xD&D campaign setting? I can see how playing within a pre-provided setting could make GMing much easier, but I'd think the same would be true for Hero. (Though perhaps not to the same extent, since Hero settings generally can't match the volumes of material available for them that xD&D settings have.)

 

Hero doesn't support its settings (at all in some cases' date=' or well in others) and doesn't tie its other "books of stuff" into them. A lot of it is generic brand.[/quote']

 

Just to quibble slightly, I think it's fairer to say that the number of Hero customers doesn't justify supporting the settings (by being numerous enough to buy enough of the setting core book to justify further books for the setting.) I'm sure Hero would be more than happy to make whatever books will sell.

 

At risk of derailing my own subthread here (and just observing in general, not aiming these thoughts at Vondy specifically, or attributing the opposing position to him), I think a lot of folks overlook how far separated the apple and orange are when they talk about how TSR/WotC "supports" their published fantasy settings, and Hero doesn't. It's because what's practical for xD&D is just utterly different from what's practical for Hero.

 

For virtually every game system, the core rules sell the most, and every "branch" further out the product tree a given book is, the less it will sell (because many customers who bought the "parent" book will not buy the "child" book, but almost no one is going to buy the child book without the parent book). So the core book sells N copies. The world book sells .5N copies. The kingdom book sells .25N copies. The city book sells .125N copies. The adventure-in-that-city sells .0625N copies.

 

Whether that approach is feasible or not depends entirely upon how many players you're starting with at N. xD&D can get down to much smaller percentages of N than Hero can before the raw numbers of sales get so low that the product can't be profitable.

 

That means I'm spending time designing worlds and structures rather than planning and running adventures. I'm dealing in the meta rather than the fun bits. You know' date=' stories, plots, arcs... drama.[/quote']

 

Okay, gotcha. Thanks!

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

For most iterations of D&D, it's a lot easier to sit down with the corebooks and a few blank sheets of paper and be playing within an hour. This is what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread (and have been harping on for years!), but this can't be done with modern era Fantasy Hero. The GM has to have done the homework: create a world, create magic system(s), create a bunch of templates that fit with the world and magic system(s), potentially create some number of spells that fit with the magic system(s). Once you have all of that done, and everyone has a character, then everyone can play.

 

D&D and its single set of world assumptions that inform class-race-magic system may be "limited", but in terms of pick-up-and-go, it's got us all beat.

 

Is pick-up-and-go how you run a campaign? I'm genuinely asking... I'm trying to see why my experiences seem to be different than most. Because yes, when setting up a Fantasy Hero campaign, you have to do a fair amount of legwork in choosing/defining magic system, templates (if you want to use those), etc. if you're not using a pre-made setting. But I did a lot of the same things when I ran xD&D, and it seemed like just as much work.

 

I'm guessing that maybe I was very unusual in using homemade settings for xD&D? I'm starting to wonder if that's my disconnect... if the "xD&D is less work" or "xD&D is easier for newbies" viewpoints, are assuming that playing xD&D automatically means playing in a standard xD&D setting. If so, I'd say it's the using of the pre-made setting that's making it faster/easier, not using xD&D per se. (Though I realize xD&D builds a default setting into the rules, so I totally understand why others might not separate the two in their thoughts.)

 

I'm going to completely leave character creation out of the equation because D&D 3.x character creation is roughly as much work as Fantasy Hero character creation by power level. This was driven home to me in one of the past threads (2002-2003 timeframe)' date=' where we were discussing character creation between the two. I was comparing more or less by era, and someone (might have even been you, Derek ) challenged me on it. I decided to write up a moderately difficult character (dwarf with one level in fighter and three in wizard) and it was about as time consuming and challenging as a Hero character.[/quote']

 

Yeah, that sounds like it could have been me. I could see the argument that it might be easier to make a xD&D character, because you're mostly choosing from lists of options at various stages of character construction. (I'm not convinced it's easier, since you're essentially still choosing from lists of options with Hero too, just not so much with particular special effects attached to them.) But faster? Nah, not really... especially not under 3.x, where so much optimizing and planning out of the character's ultimate growth path seems to go on. Sure, making a 1st level character with no eye to the future might be fairly quick, but then, making a 50-point Fantasy Hero character doesn't take that long either...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

If pregenerated FH modules existed' date=' which they do not, which deeply irritates me[/quote']

 

See my point above about increasingly small fractions of "N," and remember that modules will always sell less than other books, because only GMs buy them. Modules are only viable for xD&D because their starting customer base is many many times larger than Hero's...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Creating HERO System characters can be overwhelming' date=' but the GM has to do -- I'd call it ten times that much work, at a minimum -- to come up with something playable.[/quote']

 

This. For players I see little difference in the "work investment." But I am perpetually cast in the role of GM. And I simply do not have the time I did when I was 20. I have a wife' date=' kids, a job, social obligations. It all mounts up. The time investment [u']AS A GM[/u] is the key issue.

 

Are you guys still talking here about the time you have to invest in creating the campaign, or are you now talking about the session-to-session time involved for prepping for adventures? Because (again, unless you're using pre-prepared material) I haven't experienced a big difference in the latter at all. If that's what you mean, can you elaborate? What makes creating a FH adventure take longer than creating a xD&D adventure?

[casualplayer]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

When Cameo Mo first tried Hero, I gave him Drudaryon (FH, 5ER version) as a character and set him up against half a dozen orcs. He immediately set about trying to break the system with unusual actions.

 

"I want to charge them and bash into one of them."

 

"No problem - that's a Move Through... and, yeah, solid hit with your shoulder, low and hard. He's down and winded."

 

"I want to pick one up and throw him at the others."

 

"No problem... give me a moment ... Yeah, you throw him into one of the others, they're both down in a tangled heap."

 

"I roar 'Who's next?'" (Mo getting into it there).

 

"OK, that's a presence attack. Violent, in combat... Roll 6d6."

 

"What's a presence attack?"

 

"You might scare them."

 

"I was just, you know, roleplaying. There's a rule for this?"

 

"Yup. Roll the bones. Ok, the one on the left, he hesitates for a moment. The two in front of you drop their swords and run. The other one sees that and flees as well. You have the field."

 

"I didn't even use a weapon."

 

"Yes, you did. You used your wits, bravado, your presence and ferocity, and your body."

 

"I LOVE THIS GAME!"

 

This. Because HERO can do this. So few other game systems can come close and none so well.

 

I like a rules system where I can make a game where being covered by a crossbow is a serious threat and also make a game where the players can change the face of continents. I've ran high, low and middle earth and HERO nailed them all.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Is pick-up-and-go how you run a campaign? I'm genuinely asking... I'm trying to see why my experiences seem to be different than most. Because yes' date=' when setting up a Fantasy Hero campaign, you have to do a fair amount of legwork in choosing/defining magic system, templates (if you want to use those), etc. if you're not using a pre-made setting. But I did a lot of the same things when I ran xD&D, and it seemed like just as much work.[/quote']

 

I used to make my own settings, back in the day, for D&D and Hero both. Right now I don't run, because I don't have time to work up a setting. If I had a pick-up-and-go setting for Fantasy Hero, I would very likely pick it up and run it; I will admit to not knowing how pick-up-and-go-ey Turakian, Valdorian, or Tuala are.

 

I'm guessing that maybe I was very unusual in using homemade settings for xD&D? I'm starting to wonder if that's my disconnect... if the "xD&D is less work" or "xD&D is easier for newbies" viewpoints, are assuming that playing xD&D automatically means playing in a standard xD&D setting. If so, I'd say it's the using of the pre-made setting that's making it faster/easier, not using xD&D per se. (Though I realize xD&D builds a default setting into the rules, so I totally understand why others might not separate the two in their thoughts.)

 

With D&D it's not so much a default setting, as a default set of assumptions. The default set of assumptions in D&D is this set of races, that set of classes, that particular magic system, this other cosmology. That's all done for you in D&D, but we don't quite quite have something like that for Fantasy Hero. We do have a few settings (5e, at least) with varying sets of assumptions. (This might be the key. I can certainly write up for myself a default set of assumptions and go from there. In fact, I'm going to set myself an exercise -- see how small in terms of work and writing I can make one up that would still be fun and playable.)

 

Are you guys still talking here about the time you have to invest in creating the campaign' date=' or are you now talking about the session-to-session time involved for prepping for adventures? Because (again, unless you're using pre-prepared material) I haven't experienced a big difference in the latter at all. If that's what you mean, can you elaborate? What makes creating a FH adventure take longer than creating a xD&D adventure?[/quote']

 

I'm talking entirely about creating the campaign. Given the right tools, an adventure for one takes about the same amount of time to create as the other. (In fact, I'll lean toward Hero here, because we get Complications to play with, and those can write adventures by themselves!)

[Old Man]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

See my point above about increasingly small fractions of "N' date='" and remember that modules will always sell less than other books, because only GMs buy them. Modules are only viable for xD&D because their starting customer base is many [b']many[/b] times larger than Hero's...

 

Oh, I understand that there is no money to be made in printing modules. But my point, which I have been repeating for the past couple of decades or so, is that you still need them to create and support a customer base. Look at how many people just in this thread are posting "I love FH but it is too much work." A majority of my best FH experiences came out of converted D&D modules. Isn't that sad?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Oh' date=' I understand that there is no money to be made in printing modules. But my point, which I have been repeating for the past couple of decades or so, is that you still need them to create and support a customer base. Look at how many people just in this thread are posting "I love FH but it is too much work." A majority of my best FH experiences came out of converted D&D modules. Isn't that sad?[/quote']

 

Maybe we'll see more of this kind of support now, with the generous 3rd party license terms. It may be that books not worth doing for Hero Games, would be worth doing for someone else (particularly as PDFs). There's some excellent Fantasy Hero stuff out there already in that market. Maybe more will be forthcoming (and adventures in particular).

[Ndreare]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

That would be awesome.

[Barwickian]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Maybe we'll see more of this kind of support now' date=' with the generous 3rd party license terms. It may be that books not worth doing for Hero Games, would be worth doing for someone else (particularly as PDFs). There's some excellent Fantasy Hero stuff out there already in that market. Maybe more will be forthcoming (and adventures in particular).[/quote']

 

That would be cool. It makes me wonder about setting, though.

 

Hero's fantasy settings (Turakian, Valdorian and Atlantean Ages and Tuala Morn) are part of Hero's IP.

 

If Jason's OK with third-party modules in these settings, it would be great. If not, I wonder if these board members might not come up with a setting we could all use for third-party modules.

[Vondy]

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy

 

Are you guys still talking here about the time you have to invest in creating the campaign' date=' or are you now talking about the session-to-session time involved for prepping for adventures? Because (again, unless you're using pre-prepared material) I haven't experienced a big difference in the latter at all. If that's what you mean, can you elaborate? What makes creating a FH adventure take longer than creating a xD&D adventure?[/quote']

 

The time it takes to create a setting or campaign.