Evaluating The Hero System (Or Any Game System)

[schir1964]

Several threads prompted me to think about how people evaluate the Hero System, or any game system for that matter. Therefore, I created this thread to gather information and to explore how I and others evaluate a game system.

 

When I asked myself why I liked the Hero System, several things came to mind and I prioritized them.

 

1) Genre

2) Flexibility

3) Consistency

 

First: For me to evaluate a game system, I personally have to have some interest in a Genre that the game system is capable of handling or was designed for.

 

Second: I personally like being able to create characters as I envision them, thus the game system must be very flexible to handle most of what I can imagine creating.

 

Third: I personally like consistency in a game system. I'll overlook complexity of a game system, if I can see a consist method within the complexity of the system.

 

The question then becomes, does this game system score high in each of these areas that are a priority to me?

 

For the Hero System, it has the best score in all these areas.

The RMSS system comes in second, only because the Genre is not one I'm that attracted to.

 

How does everyone else rate game systems?

What are your priorities?

How does this affect what you like/dislike about different game systems?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[TheEmerged]

Speaking for myself?

 

#1> Internal Consistency. Nothing torques me off worse than having to do X in circumstance Y but A in circumstance Z. One of my strongest criticisms of d20 for example is the exception-heavy attack-of-opportunity rules.

 

#2> Random but overcomable chance. Both randomness and the ability to overcome that randomness are equally important to me. I got bored with chess, for example, because it lacks any randomness. On the other hand the wide spread of the chance curve relative to skill scores in d20 is on the list of things I feel is wrong with it.

 

#3> Accessibility to house ruling & variants. Some systems are just easier to tweak than others. One reason I prefer Robo Rally over Settlers is that Settlers (while a perfectly fun game) is quite limited compared to the way Robo Rally encourages you to create mini-games and full variants.

 

#4> Handles genre conventions without twisting into pretzels. It's not enough that the system can handle the genre -- the system needs to handle the genre's conventions without heavy modifications. One of the failures of psionics under 3rd Edition D&D (still present but mostly fixed under d20 Modern) and Alternity was that a standard psionic genre convention -- the psion who's powers are in direction opposition to his/her capabilities -- was almost impossible to build without ignoring core functions in the rules.

 

#5> Fun > Work. Subjunctive I'll admit, but I've run into game systems that simply weren't fun enough for the amount of work that went into a turn.

[Toadmaster]

Hmmm, I don't really actively evaluate a game system "I just know what I like when I see it" there are a few things that come to mind.

 

 

Genre - If it is not something I'm interested in I probably won't even look, I never look at Supers games because I don't really like the genre and Champions is my choice for those rare times I'm in a spandex mood.

 

Players - The average player or my stereotype of the players, I will probably never look at anything with LARP or White Wolf on the cover just because of my imagined stereotypical player. (I don't like professional sports or organized religions for the same reasons).

 

Consistancy - Don't tell me that this is how something is done and then make exceptions left and right.

 

Does it fit with the setting - Judge Dredd (the original version) or Paranoia are good examples, the rules were pretty lame by most standards but they were perfect for those games.

 

Do the rules make sense - If I constantly think "why are they doing this" I'm probably not going to be happy.

 

Can I play it - are the rules too complex for the pay off or are they overly simplistic. Also are they well written, there are many games that the rules are ok if you can figure out what the author means. Complexity or simplicity just for the sake of being super detailed or simple usually don't work for me and are often complaints I have. Examples are games with multiple rolls for nearly every action or on the other extreme games where the ammunition in guns have been compressed (every shot is three bullets) because it really doesn't add anything to the game (like it is really that much harder to mark of 3 boxes instead of just 1).

 

Is the game world interesting - I may buy a game I'm not interested in if the world sounds interesting.

 

What mood am I in - This can have a huge effect on my opinion, there are some games I won't touch with a 10 foot pole on most days but when the stars are right thats all I want to play.

 

Like I said mostly its just one of those things I "feel" right about not an actual thought process.

[Jhamin]

For me...

 

 

1) Do the rules not only enforce the Genre but encourage it's typical bits?

I love games that have metasystems whose logical outcome are adventues typical of the genre they emulate. A staff weilding wizard in long robes is one example. If the wizard has no real need of either one in game, but keeps them because they are cool I won't like your game nearly as much as I would if the magic rules encouraged 6 foot long wooden dowels.

 

2) Does character creation allow for a diversity of characters beyond the examples.

I feel that true character creation has to result in character who are different from each other through the blending of various character options in interesting ways. I am always a little turned off by games that have meaningless character choices that boil down to picking the premade that most closely fits your concept the then hoping for good stats.

 

3) Do I have a clear idea what the characters are supposed to be doing in your game?

This seems like an easy one, but I find a suprising number of games fail in this basic regard. I'm all about not straitjacketing the GM & his players, but give me some coherent place to start. Genre books that talk about a culture without giving me a reason to ever play there are pretty but don't help me. Likewise a world so heavily metaplotted that there aren't any quiet corners for me to set my game in are annoying. Games that provide a rich world or a solid genre simulation then get out of the way and let us game are the ones I want.

[Lord Mhoram]

1) Flexibility - the system has to be able to handle whatever kind of character I want to make. There must be no randomness in character creation.

 

2) Cross genre ability. Many have mentioned the ability to handle genres - that is something I don't look for as much. I play cross genre games SF/Western/Kaiju, Crossworld Fantasy, or sky's the limit superpowers. I could care less if a system can handle one genre, if it cannot do multiple genres at the same time. Crossworld fantasy is probably my mostplayed (and GMed) kind of game. So the system has to be able to handle Cyberpunk, High Fantasy, Jedi, Modern Action adventure, and pulp - all at the same time, and with consistent rules across them. After that you have to be able to do supers... in such a way that Superman and Batman can work in game together and both have something to do (or if you prefer the other company, Thor and Captain America).

 

Those are my big two criteria. I've not found a system that does that to my satisfaction but HERO.

[Rene]

For RPGs that try to simulate a genre, obviously I look at how closely it manages to do it. Any superhero RPG that claims to simulate comic book reality, but fail my "Justice League" test is instantly considered trash.

 

For "generic" RPGs, obviously what matters here most is how generic they really are, after all. GURPS fails this badly for trying to be at the same time generic and "realistic", overlooking the fact that 90% of heroic fiction isn't realistic to the extent that GURPS tries to be.

 

For games that contain descriptions of a world/setting, it's very important that the book manages to get across the mood and make it come alive for me. You can say what you will of White Wolf products, but at least in this I think they do fine. I still remember the first time I've read "Vampire", it was a very powerful experience (I'm less fond of most supplements, though).

 

Now that the broad bases are covered, here is my list of pet peeves. There is a big chance I'll like a game more if it avoids them:

 

- Random character generation.

- Attack disconnected from defense.

- Too much predictability in damage, when you just know you can easily kill someone with a single punch or you don't stand a chance to scratch them.

- Very deadly systems, I think they encourage tactical thinking instead of Roleplaying.

- Games where the PCs are very weak and unimportant.

- Settings that values the NPCs too much. They may be cool to read about, but I like it more when the spotlight is on the PCs, both when I GM and when I play

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Rene

- Very deadly systems, I think they encourage tactical thinking instead of Roleplaying.

 

Sorry to get off topic and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but why is tactical thinking disassociated from role playing, I'd think it would encourage roleplaying by reinforcing the fact that you don't stand still in the open during a firefight for example. Personally I've found more deadly systems encourage players to talk before going for a gun (or sword, monofilament carrot etc), in otherwords less hack and slash and more finding alternate means of resolution (unless the other guys really deserve it )

[Rene]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Sorry to get off topic and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but why is tactical thinking disassociated from role playing, I'd think it would encourage roleplaying by reinforcing the fact that you don't stand still in the open during a firefight for example. Personally I've found more deadly systems encourage players to talk before going for a gun (or sword, monofilament carrot etc), in otherwords less hack and slash and more finding alternate means of resolution (unless the other guys really deserve it )

 

Well, some players are better than others. Some people can handle both intense roleplay and intense tactical thinking simultaneously and do everything in character. Some (most) can't do this very well. My impression is that when the game system is too deadly, most players will, obviously, put survival first. The intense fear of losing their characters at any moment will override any other considerations.

 

That means they spend most of their time munchkining their characters during character creation. During the game proper, they will all act like machine-cold master tacticians and chess players, no matter if that is in character or not. You will not see traits like impulsiveness, arrogance, bravery, paralyzing cowardice, or anything that is contrary to survival in game (except if the player is a loose cannon that don't value his character, but loose cannons mostly are disruptive and don't care really for the game).

 

I saw characters in AD&D that NEVER took their armor off, for instance. NEVER. Not even when they were in their own houses. They never bathed, never got laid, etc. Because they were too afraid to die "I have only 6 hit points, you know, I can be attacked by surprise if I take my armor off". It's a kind of meta-game "roleplaying" that I don't really care for.

 

I prefer systems that insulate characters from death a little more, allowing the player to relax a little bit and play it up. Of course, systems where death or defeat is too rare can be equally bad, because players then become complacent.

[Pattern Ghost]

That's just bad players. I don't think the system can help them either way.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

That's just bad players. I don't think the system can help them either way.

 

Some are salvageable.

 

I "inherited" a group from a GM that used to terrorize us. It was the kind of game where multiple PC deaths in a game session are the rule, not the exception. The system (it was AD&D) was very deadly and the GM was a "simulationist" who didn't cared if everyone died in the first encounter.

 

To make things worse, most players there were used to this kind of game. The mood in that group wasn't good. There was some excitement, but it was closer to the excitement you feel when you're about to do a really hard and important math exam. That and a bit of how soldiers in bloody wars must feel. There wasn't much real fun, and no one roleplayed. Everybody was too afraid and nervous.

 

That experience soured me big time for deadly systems.

 

Anyway, when I started to GM I chose to change things completely. Make it more like a movie and less like a war experience. Let the players relax a little. Give them the center stage instead of the grave and back to character building yet again.

 

Took me a while to cure them of their paranoia ("check every single stone in the road for traps!"), but eventually I suceeded and they started to roleplay.

[mightybruce]

I saw characters in AD&D that NEVER took their armor off, for instance. NEVER. Not even when they were in their own houses. They never bathed, never got laid, etc. Because they were too afraid to die "I have only 6 hit points, you know, I can be attacked by surprise if I take my armor off". It's a kind of meta-game "roleplaying" that I don't really care for

 

What kind of twisted DM makes there players that paranoid?

 

Anyway, back to the topic. When I was younger, my criteria for a good system centered around realism. But I'm older, and what I want nowadays is for the game to be fun.

Example, simple percentile systems are not fun. You roll a d100 and your done. Boring! On the other hand D&D 3rd is fun. Roll d20 to hit AC, roll damage OR cast spell, roll lots of damage, OR cast spell, give pluses to your buddies, OR perform Feat to trip foe, OR etc. Simple? Not really. Realistic? Are you kidding!? Fun? Oh yeah!

[Badger]

I have to agree pretty much with Lord Mhoram. The thing that got me so interested in HERO was the possibility of cross-genre action.

 

I do have to say my pet peeve is when systems have the random character generation. No fun. I'm a guy who has a certain idea of what character should be. I usually like playing characters with high DEX and SPD (cant hit what you cant catch). With the randoms I would always seem to get the high STR who moved about as fast as a tree. Very hard for a guy like me to play a character like that. Actually I usually got unlucky and would have low stats across the board. And my only use would be as a shield if I got killed.

 

 

But I saw an idea a couple years ago somewhere on the internet that really caught my eye. Basically the idea was a dimension where people from all other dimensions and time periods could get sent into to interact with each other. The ultimate in cross-genre if you will. Kind of an endless possibilities. You could have wizards living side by side with someone from an advanced civilization. And what would happen if said wizard say got assimilated by the Borg? Just some thoughts.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Badger

I do have to say my pet peeve is when systems have the random character generation. No fun. I'm a guy who has a certain idea of what character should be. I usually like playing characters with high DEX and SPD (cant hit what you cant catch). With the randoms I would always seem to get the high STR who moved about as fast as a tree. Very hard for a guy like me to play a character like that. Actually I usually got unlucky and would have low stats across the board. And my only use would be as a shield if I got killed.

 

Tell me about it! There is nothing worse than random generation. It seems like everybody rolls the kinds of characters they most hate. Murphy's Law.

 

Fortunately, in 3rd Edition D&D you can chose where to put every roll. Still bad when only one guy in each group has several 17s and 18s, while the rest is always mediocre. There is always one lucky guy in every group, and it usually is the guy that is least interested in the game, ironically.

 

I HATE random character generation.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Speaking for myself?

One reason I prefer Robo Rally over Settlers is that Settlers (while a perfectly fun game) is quite limited compared to the way Robo Rally encourages you to create mini-games and full variants.

Robo Rally Rulz -- its just about the only board game I can stand to play. Ive had a full set for many years now, and it was worth every penny.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Rene

I HATE random character generation.

I prefer point systems, but sometimes random generation can be fun.

[tesuji]

My systems use the following...

 

1. Genre: How well will the mechanics make the results and PC decisions mesh with the feel of the genre i intend to run? This is number one. Over the years, this has led me to move from GENERIC systems to GENREic ones.

 

2. Introducability: How easy is it and how much time will it take to go from "they envision a character they want to play" to " they have a character on paper they like and understand" FOR A NEWCOMER. In every campaign i run, i try and get one new roleplayer, or at least one new roleplayer to me. So, i do not prefer games with a long learning curve or where the mechanics of chargen get too complex or too abstract.

 

3. Consistency: The mechanics have to be consistent so that a reasonable grasp of the common elements means you dont need to know how everything works to be able to guestimate your odds and make sound decisions in play. Additionally, the values for "points" need to be consistent too. If a system produces multiple ways to "build X" then the costs should be the same. Cost for benefit needs to be consistent, not a buffet table of different costs for the same item.

 

HERO, IMO, comes in as follows.

 

1. Poor except for supers.

2. poor.

3. Mid-to-high depending on whether the design precept is mostly" i built it right" or "what do the results say". Far too often in HERO games, I see the argument that "if its built right" then the final costs must be right... even when a second or two of looking and comparison will show thats simply not true. Like most systems, HERO math will work IF and ONLY IF the GM scripts the sceanarios to make sure the amounts paid pan out as woth it. There is just a whole lot more math involved in getting there. The math doesn't proof the result in HERO.

[Vondy]

Does it allow for an elegant simulation of the genre in question while leaving me free to engage in unencumbered creative exercise in terms of tailoring the setting and developing the story?

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Badger

But I saw an idea a couple years ago somewhere on the internet that really caught my eye. Basically the idea was a dimension where people from all other dimensions and time periods could get sent into to interact with each other. The ultimate in cross-genre if you will. Kind of an endless possibilities. You could have wizards living side by side with someone from an advanced civilization. And what would happen if said wizard say got assimilated by the Borg? Just some thoughts.

 

I ran a game like this in the HERO System for a while oh -- about 7 years ago now I guess.

 

It featured "Legion", a complicated Multiform character and the basis for the whole campaign. The original character was Doc Brown, the same Doc Brown as in Back to the Future, but from a different dimention. Instead of inventing the Flux Capacitor he instead invented the Weft Condenser which allowed one to break Dimensional, Spatial, and Time barriers! Slight problem: Not Mobile. Bigger problem: while he was working in the Weft Booth his cat Oppenheimer jumped on the control panel outside the booth, sending Doc Brown across the dimensions and times in rapid succession in the blink of an eye. Great Scott! Doc zapped in and out over a hundred thousand times over the course of a minute and thirty six seconds (give or take a few picoseconds).

 

His entrance and exit in most locales was so brief as to have almost no impact, but in a few places he overlapped other entities and they got sucked into his anomaly field -- thereafter, only one instance of Doc or the trapped entites could be in existance at a time (the Multiform), and none of them could control it -- the Multiform was NCC, and each form had at least one Accidental Change which would trigger a random roll on a list of forms.

 

As a further complication, the diplacement field extended slightly around Doc, and a few people were caught in the field, though not trapped in the Doc anamoly. I.e., the other PCs.

 

Oppenheimer finally jumped off the control panel, leaving Doc stranded on a space ship from the Star Wars galaxy, which in turn got pulled into another dimension along w/ Doc and promptly crash landed on a primitive primordial planet.

 

The randomness doesnt stop there however. Doc Brown (in all his many permutations) was a magnet for dimensional, temporal, and spatial anomalies and would randomly get sucked into one along with everyone nearby whenever I felt like switching genres.

 

Off the top of my head, Doc Browns known forms (those that came out during play) were:

 

Doc Brown-- the root character; massive science geek, model builder, and planner. Though his models werent always "to scale", he could figure a way out of almost any situation given enough time and modelling supplies.

 

Mark Shner -- modeled after Chris Elliot in that stupid Paper Boy sitcom, but dumber. He had a subconscious Unluck field that affected those around him, a small cumulative Transform "Thing into broken version of Thing" always on, which affected anything he handled (so eventually he would "oops!" break just about anything). And he could throw a rolled up paper with uncanny accuracy (an EB vs PD, Range based on STR).

 

Joe Smith-- had every professional skill in the book, practically. He had worked just about every job imaginable, particularly blue collar. Got along with everybody, could make himself understood via pantomime and pidgin in just about any language, and had several All Skill Levels.

 

Lance Dashing-- a genetically engineered wrestler/entertainer from another dimension. Super-strong (around 40 or 50 STR IIRC), somewhat durable, somewhat skilled at wrestling (though mostly it was for show), and incredibly self centered and vain.

 

Tak Gora-- a power suited bounty hunter from a Star Wars-esque universe. He was actually about to collect a bounty on one of the PCs, a Jedi fleeing the New Republic when Doc Brown warped in and trapped Tak Gora in his anomaly field, and sucked the Jedi along w/ him to the next dimension.

 

Pierre-- a French Cat Burglar from a variant Earth dimesion. Completely normal, but really skilled at 2nd story work.

 

Lucky the Cat-- a black cat with gobs o Luck and a Drain vs Dex AoE Selective.

 

Cornelius-- a 17th century Alchemist, built around a massive Transform with various Alchemy-oriented limitations.

 

Warp-- a Mutant Teleporter from a Supers dimension

 

more later

[NuSoardGraphite]

Mark me down as one of the I Hate Random Character Generation! crowd. I don't just hate them, I despise them.

 

I began to be disallusioned by them when during my AD&D phase, I managed to roll a character who had all 18's (woo-hoo!) and yet, another player in the group had a character who had no stat above 12 (most were lower than 11) and couldn't reach the minimums to be the class he wanted. Even though I was on the winning end of that bargin, it didn't sit well with me. Seemed completely unfair.

 

Now that I have experienced point-based game systems, I absolutely refuse to play anything with randomly generated characteristics (or any other major aspect of the character...random background generation is okay though)

 

Now on to my system evaluation procedure;

 

First, I evaluate a games Flexibility. In this I include such things as the ability to handle various power levels (Low to Super) the abililty to simulte any power or skill I can think of. The ability to handle any genre and the ability to handle any type of combat situation.

 

Second, I evaluate a games Mechanics, or what others have referred to as its Internal Consistancy. Internal consistancy is very important, as the more consistant a game is, the quicker it is to learn. When most of the die rolls are based on the same (or very similar) mechanics, you only have to explain them once (or twice for the dim-witted players). This makes the game flow faster and more naturally if the players aren't all constantly checking the books for a particular mechanic.

 

Third, I evaluate a games Setting. This is the least important to me, as I generaly come up with my own settings (or set my games in fictional settings that I and my players enjoy) but a game with a very well defined setting is a big plus. A good example of this is the World of Darkness setting and the original Rifts book. Grade A+ on the setting for both products (Rifts needed major work on the mechanics though!)

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

One reason I prefer Robo Rally over Settlers is that Settlers (while a perfectly fun game) is quite limited compared to the way Robo Rally encourages you to create mini-games and full variants.

.

 

Color me confused but what are these games? I don't know of them, and I consider myself fairly well versed in the RPG world.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

Color me confused but what are these games? I don't know of them, and I consider myself fairly well versed in the RPG world.

They are board games. Robo Rally is a really cool game designed by Richard Garfield, the guy that designed Magic The Gathering and the Jyhad/VTES card games. You program your robot in 5 phase turns w/ randomly drawn cards like Move [1-3], Turn [Right or Left], U-Turn, and Backup. The playing board is a death trap type environment with spinners, crusher, lasers, conveyor belts, walls, pits, teleporters, oil slicks, radiation, water traps, ramps, and other effects. Also, each robot has a forward firing laser, and you can get all sorts of cool option cards for your robot like The Big Gun, Ablative Coat, Crab-legs, and what have you. The goal is to drive around and touch a series of numbered flags in order without getting killed 3 times (a not inconsequential undertaking -- some people have managed to get killed all 3 times within 15 minutes). The game is also very friendly to making up little variants, making it very replayable. The board tiles are also interchangeable and modular. All around a very very cool game.

 

Settlers of Cataan is a resource management game, with random crops of various resources like Sheep and Clay (in fact our in-house name for the game is "Sheeps and Clay"). I find Settler rather boring myself.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

They are board games.

 

My mistake, I used non-RPG products to explain something I feel about all games, RPG's included.

 

Settlers of Cataan is a resource management game, with random crops of various resources like Sheep and Clay (in fact our in-house name for the game is "Sheeps and Clay"). I find Settler rather boring myself.

 

Depends on how heavily your fellow gamers get into meta-games. I find it less fun that Robo Rally but I wouldn't go so far as to say boring...

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

They are board games.

 

Ah that would explain it. The last board game I looked at was Trivial Pursuit back in '87.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Depends on how heavily your fellow gamers get into meta-games. I find it less fun that Robo Rally but I wouldn't go so far as to say boring...

Im not a big board game afficianado to begin with. I just cant get too into trying to wheedle my fellow players into giving me a 1 wood for 3 wheat so I can make that last road which will cinch the game for me once I get the Longest Road card, or similar. Not that exciting for me. My wife loves the game however. Favorite quote from her while playing Cataan: "You dont understand; these sheep are from Montana"; while trying to force a trade.

[PhilFleischmann]

(also a big RoboRally fan, but I'll try to stay on topic)

 

I see good or bad points about RPGs that don't even directly deal with the rules. In any RPG system's books there is almost always a detectable "attitude" towards the players. 1st Ed. AD&D was very condescending and seemed almost actively hostile to the players. The original players handbook didn't even tell you what your saving throws and attack rolls were! That was privileged information for the DM only. The books were peppered with words that most of my young friends and I had never heard of, and just assumed that we all knew them. It was like Gygax was more interested in impressing us with his vocabulary than explaining how to play his game. And make no mistake about it - it was HIS game, not yours. Sure it was easy to make house rules, but EGG made it clear that he did not approve. I remember a quote in those books somewhere like, "Only official D&D products should be used. Material from other sources will unbalance the game at best and completely ruin it at worst." I appreciate the opportunity to learn new words (how many of you had ever used the word "charisma" in a sentence prior to playing deendee?), but I definitely felt "talked down to." The rules were full of "can't"s. The 3rd ed. is a lot better, but there is still this attitude of generosity whenever they release a new book from on high: "Here are some new spells, feats, and prestige classes that you are now allowed to use. Aren't we magnanimous?" The books were written in ways that make players paranoid as mentioned in previous posts. If you do X then bad things can happen, but if you do Y to prevent those bad things, then other bad things can happen. The message was "Hey, DM's! Here's some more evil things to do to your players!" IMHO, the underlying attitude of a system shapes the whole game.