Evaluating The Hero System (Or Any Game System)

[Badger]

Never thought about that way but you have apoint about D&D they did seem to believe in their own system's perfection. And wanted you to know it. Probably why I always felt it was too limiting.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

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.

 

AD&D taught me (i.e) and several interesting colors (ochre and mauve come to mind).

 

At the risk of restarting "the thread that shall not be named"

One of the recent trends I've noticed with many d20 products is the use of the female pronoun in place of the male. I have no problem (and in fact encourage) alternating examples between male and female but it is improper english to use the female pronoun genericly and the hobby is male dominated. To me it just comes across as horny teenage males hoping "to get some".

[Rene]

Originally posted by lemming

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

 

The only situation that I feel random generation can be cool is for one-time-only games (when no one can afford the time to custom-design characters) or short campaigns at best.

 

BTW, I just got a used copy of Heroes Unlimites out of curiosity. Very, very weird game. I had never read a Palladium Book before. I found chargen to be fascinating in the way a car accident can be fascinating. Seems to me like you roll for everything and the rules are shock-full of special cases. And classes/levels for superheroes is a mind-boggling concept.

 

And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

[zornwil]

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 )

 

Interesting point, and I can vouch for it actually. Someone ran a Deadlands game, which is a deadly setting, and I played a gambler/con artist, a rather extreme one who really didn't know the difference between his own truths and lies. So I always had him try to talk his way out of any conflict. Not that he wouldn't take risk - if money was involved, he would. But basically this character was one of a few circumstances that geared the game away from being so violent and also wreaked havoc with some of the GM's plans.

 

However, I do think that most violent systems are made thay way FOR hack-n-slash reasons. Just my feeling, I can't point to a survey of systems that would indicate it.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

(snip)And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

 

I've been thinking of collecting Super RPGs; this helps reinforce that thought, at least this sounds amusing. BTW, I know of some people (some HEROites) who did really like that system, but can't remember who.

 

I just really liked your last sentence. I could see that as a weird marketing effort - "It's just like I'm in the room - SHOUTING AT YOU!"

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Badger

Never thought about that way but you have apoint about D&D they did seem to believe in their own system's perfection. And wanted you to know it. Probably why I always felt it was too limiting.

 

There's a few hEROites who act that way, as well, and personally I think that the HERO rulebook has a certain ring of "this is THE system" to it. But I also think that's inevitable; you create a "serious" RPG system with the intent to make it as good as possible, and it's easy to get sucked into believing it's the best.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I just really liked your last sentence. I could see that as a weird marketing effort - "It's just like I'm in the room - SHOUTING AT YOU!"

 

 

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive.

 

Some of the best paragraphs had stuff like this:

 

"You have noticed that there is no 'Mega-Hero' option in this game. No Superman, no gods. It's because this is a thinking man game. Too powerful characters are skull-bashers, get lost."

 

"There is no Neutral alignment in this game and there will never be. It's impossible for a human being to have something like true neutrality, he wouldn't be able to fight, adventure, eat, sleep, etc. etc."

 

"The first issue of this game had no magic-using characters, that is why I don't like magic in superhero games. But now I've been forced to include it, because too many players wished for it. I still don't like magic in supers, but what can I do."

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Rene

BTW, I just got a used copy of Heroes Unlimites out of curiosity. Very, very weird game. I had never read a Palladium Book before. I found chargen to be fascinating in the way a car accident can be fascinating. Seems to me like you roll for everything and the rules are shock-full of special cases. And classes/levels for superheroes is a mind-boggling concept.

 

All palladium games are weird. All of them.

 

Originally posted by Rene

And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

 

Its not just heroes unlimited.

[zornwil]

I haven't given it much thought, but here's how I think has been the underlying factors in the past:

 

1 - Genre

 

2 - Genre

 

3 - Genre - I like systems that work well for a genre, the better they work, the better I like them. Deadlands I really enjoyed because of its genre feel, and Boot Hill, even if a little broken, I also really liked for traditional Western stuff (though I kno many didn't, it seemed to work well to me). I really don't care if it's generic, and I personally tend to find that generic games tend to lose some flavor compared to genre-sensitive games. HERO is a bit of an exception with super-hero roleplaying but not really if you consider that was its birthplace. I'm all for using HERO to run non-super genres though, I just think as good as it is, there's subtle differences that matter a little. AD&D's convoluted magic system to me expressed the arcane feel of magic better than HERO ever will.

 

4 - Richness/Variety - I don't get into short, simple systems like FUDGE (though one could argue that FUDGE is rich in its simplicity, please take it as an example only at face value). I like to look at them, but for longer-term interest I tend to enjoy systems that have some variety in mechanics and a mix of constructs.

 

5 - Integrity and "Entry Ability" - I didn't want to use the term "consistency", as many others have, because I don't really care about that much, except where it relates to the ability of the system to play well without using all the rules: i.e., the core of the system, such as movement, chargen, action, once understood, are enough, once understood, to run/play a session. If the system is constructed in such a way that just to make a few movements you have to learn 50 pages of rules, that's no good. I want something that even if I corrupt it and don't understand all the rules, I can still play it without it feeling broken. Consistency, of course, serves as the rational basis for this, but isn't the be-all/end-all by itself. The effect of being able to use a reasonable subset of the system and have no serious gaming problems is what I'm really focused on. Also, systems like this are usually well built enough that I can customize it (which I always do) without corrupting it completely.

 

6 - Uniqueness - I like to feel the system has something unique to offer. HERO is less this way now, but primarily because of its influence on other systems. IIRC, Top Secret really didn't have too much in the way of innovation, and I think that's part of the reason I never got into it. OTOH, I really loved Traveler's chargen system as it was unique at the time (or at least it was unique to me).

 

I think that summarizes the major factors that influence my adoption of a game system. I don't at all have a problem with chargen being random; that's usually easy to house-rule into effectiveness. Even way back in D&D/AD&D days, it was easy to just let people roll 2x or 1.5x the number of characteristics and pick the best rolls. In fact one could argue - and I would - that randomization serves the simulation function better as of course people don't have the abilities they necessarily want, they get an assortment based on biology and environment. However, one could also argue - and again I would - that such a simulation is not a priority to a typical RPG, and is more often a deterrent to enjoyment. But basically, I think random chargen is easy to tame and can be its own great experience if so handled.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by Rene

 

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive.

 

It's not just in print. Kevin Sembieda talked that way in real life.

 

Got trapped talking to him at Gen Con one year. Not sure how long, probably 45 minutes, but it darn well felt like forever.

 

Of cource, that was a few years ago, maybe he's changed.

 

D

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

 

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive.

 

Some of the best paragraphs had stuff like this:

 

"You have noticed that there is no 'Mega-Hero' option in this game. No Superman, no gods. It's because this is a thinking man game. Too powerful characters are skull-bashers, get lost."

 

"There is no Neutral alignment in this game and there will never be. It's impossible for a human being to have something like true neutrality, he wouldn't be able to fight, adventure, eat, sleep, etc. etc."

 

"The first issue of this game had no magic-using characters, that is why I don't like magic in superhero games. But now I've been forced to include it, because too many players wished for it. I still don't like magic in supers, but what can I do."

 

Those are funny, thanks for the examples. I wasn't going to respond publicly on this one as I've got too much in this thread already BUT...it reminded me of another funny example...

 

I had this sequencer, a device to control electronic keyboards/drum machines (basically), playing them as preprogrammed. In the manual, which was translated from Japanese to English, it said, (I don't have it in front of me so I'm paraphrasing a bit but this is VERY close to the quote) "If you get this error message, it is due to idiotic operation, such as turning the machine off during playback or recording"

 

I tried not to engage in "idiotic operation", thanks to the manual.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

AD&D taught me (i.e) and several interesting colors (ochre and mauve come to mind).

Other vocabulary words I learned from D&D (and will be eternally grateful):

mileu

melee

charisma (previously mentioned)

continuum

constitution (the definition meaning "health")

dweomer

cantrip

There were probably lots of others that I can't remember now.

 

At the risk of restarting "the thread that shall not be named"

One of the recent trends I've noticed with many d20 products is the use of the female pronoun in place of the male. I have no problem (and in fact encourage) alternating examples between male and female but it is improper english to use the female pronoun genericly and the hobby is male dominated. To me it just comes across as horny teenage males hoping "to get some".

Amen! If the use of the word "he" as a generic pronoun offends you, that's your problem. (Oh. Was there already a thread covering this? I must have missed it.)

 

As for arrogance in RPG books, I don't have a problem with the attitude "This is the best RPG system around." I expect that. I don't begrudge them their opinion. The thing I have a problem with is when they say, "This is the best system, but you can't do X, Y, or Z with it, therefore those things are forbidden." HERO says, "This is the best system, and you can impliment any concept you can think of. You are allowed to do what you want." Even if there's something "missing" from the system, or some concept that you can't figure out how to impliment, they have the correct attitude toward satisfying the customer.

 

It's like a restaurant that will happily make substitutions vs. one that won't.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm all for using HERO to run non-super genres though, I just think as good as it is, there's subtle differences that matter a little. AD&D's convoluted magic system to me expressed the arcane feel of magic better than HERO ever will.

 

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I'd disagree with this last statement.

 

Apart from some Jack Vance stories and novels published by TSR and set specifically in the D&D worlds, D&D-like spell systems are pratically unheard of in fiction.

 

D&D spell system has some of the same trappings of fantasy fiction (dusty books, some of the spell names and effects), but works in a completelly different way that don't look much archaic or fantasy-like to my mind.

 

Fantasy magic don't work in the memorize-fire-forget way, it don't has the "scientific" predictability and reliability, it don't comes from a neat list compiled by the mage, and don't has a times-per-day limit.

 

All of that gives D&D magic a kind of "science fantasy" aspect that is quite unlike how magic is depicted in traditional fantasy and even most science fantasy stories.

 

I understand why they did it this way though. Mostly for easy of play and simplicity. It also underscores D&D's origins as a tabletop/combat game. It's telling that D&D-style of magic is much more common in videogame fantasy. In fact, to my mind, it conjures the same "feel" of videogame fantasy, and very little of the mistery and wonder of literature fantasy.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I'd disagree with this last statement.

 

Apart from some Jack Vance stories and novels published by TSR and set specifically in the D&D worlds, D&D-like spell systems are pratically unheard of in fiction.

 

D&D spell system has some of the same trappings of fantasy fiction (dusty books, some of the spell names and effects), but works in a completelly different way that don't look much archaic or fantasy-like to my mind.

 

Fantasy magic don't work in the memorize-fire-forget way, it don't has the "scientific" predictability and reliability, it don't comes from a neat list compiled by the mage, and don't has a times-per-day limit.

 

All of that gives D&D magic a kind of "science fantasy" aspect that is quite unlike how magic is depicted in traditional fantasy and even most science fantasy stories.

 

I understand why they did it this way though. Mostly for easy of play and simplicity. It also underscores D&D's origins as a tabletop/combat game. It's telling that D&D-style of magic is much more common in videogame fantasy. In fact, to my mind, it conjures the same "feel" of videogame fantasy, and very little of the mistery and wonder of literature fantasy.

 

Given videogame stuff came after and much of the videogame fantasy genre was influenced by D&D, makes sense.

 

I'm not a big fantasy fan and never got into Tolkien so fair enough. I think I could just say it this way - AD&D magic feels like magic in a general sense, whereas HERO magic doesn't really have a feel, to me. My only comparison back in the late 70s/early 80s would be folk tales, horror stories (mostly EC or Poe), stray odds and ends from popular fiction from Bewitched to Shakespeare, and comic-book magic. With those reference points, AD&D magic felt like magic for me.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm not a big fantasy fan and never got into Tolkien so fair enough. I think I could just say it this way - AD&D magic feels like magic in a general sense, whereas HERO magic doesn't really have a feel, to me. My only comparison back in the late 70s/early 80s would be folk tales, horror stories (mostly EC or Poe), stray odds and ends from popular fiction from Bewitched to Shakespeare, and comic-book magic. With those reference points, AD&D magic felt like magic for me.

 

Horror and folklore magic is even further distant from D&D magic than fantasy (Tolkien, say, is closer to D&D), IMO. Horror magic uses to be unpredictable, risky, moody, somewhat "chaotic". Whereas D&D magic is "science-like" and clean.

 

I can even agree with you that HERO magic don't have a "feel". I think it's hard to give it a feel, it depends a lot on how the GM designs the world and presents it to the players. That D&D magic has "more" of a feel of magic than HERO is like saying a elephant is closer to a human being than a fish. It's true, but none of them really looks like a human.

 

I think D&D is a fun and successful game in several ways. But I also think it's the most spectacular failure in genre simulation in the RPG industry. It's only to be expected that a RPG will have a hard time influencing the field that originated it. But D&D has become a kind of negative touchstone for many fantasy writers. It's not unusual to see comments like "the further a fantasy story is from D&D, usually the better it is".

 

BTW, I hate Tolkien.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

Horror and folklore magic is even further distant from D&D magic than fantasy (Tolkien, say, is closer to D&D), IMO. Horror magic uses to be unpredictable, risky, moody, somewhat "chaotic". Whereas D&D magic is "science-like" and clean.

 

I can even agree with you that HERO magic don't have a "feel". I think it's hard to give it a feel, it depends a lot on how the GM designs the world and presents it to the players. That D&D magic has "more" of a feel of magic than HERO is like saying a elephant is closer to a human being than a fish. It's true, but none of them really looks like a human.

 

I think D&D is a fun and successful game in several ways. But I also think it's the most spectacular failure in genre simulation in the RPG industry. It's only to be expected that a RPG will have a hard time influencing the field that originated it. But D&D has become a kind of negative touchstone for many fantasy writers. It's not unusual to see comments like "the further a fantasy story is from D&D, usually the better it is".

 

BTW, I hate Tolkien.

 

Heh, I didn't mean to imply you liked Tolkein, just picking the obvious one.

 

I tihnk any generic system is cursed to not imbue a lot of flavor into its mechanics. HERO has some superhero flavor as a holdover of their legacy.

 

I think it's unfair to characterize D&D as such a failure considering its success. I understand your feeling and I think a lot of HERO people feel that way, but please take into account the D&D fan base. And don't get me wrong, I'm not part of that fan base as I never really enjoyed D&D and only ran it heavily, heavily bastardized the 3 or 10 times I ran it (it's been a very long time, High School, so I am not sure where in the range that number is). But I know a lot of people who were really into it and found it worked really well for them, and, of course, there's an awful lot still feeling that way.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I think it's unfair to characterize D&D as such a failure considering its success. I understand your feeling and I think a lot of HERO people feel that way, but please take into account the D&D fan base. But I know a lot of people who were really into it and found it worked really well for them, and, of course, there's an awful lot still feeling that way.

 

I don' think D&D is a failure. It's very successful as a game. I only said D&D was a spectacular failure as genre simulation. It does a extraordinarly poor job of simulating literature fantasy.

 

I'm not a snob. I think everything that sells a lot has to have something right about it. D&D works very well as a game. But it's so different from fantasy novels that we could say that "D&D fantasy" (such as the fantasy of some videogames and novels published by TSR) is a altogether different genre than literature fantasy.

 

I just had a interesting thought. If there is something that is closer to D&D it's some anime/manga fantasy.

 

 

Originally posted by zornwil

I think any generic system is cursed to not imbue a lot of flavor into its mechanics. HERO has some superhero flavor as a holdover of their legacy.

 

That is true. The GM has to do all the work if he wants to create flavor. And even if he does his job right, it can be hard. I've heard some players saying that generic systems are like seeing how the magician does the trick, it kills the mystery. I don't agree, but I can understand why some people feel this way.

 

Still, with HERO one can hope to recreate the magic system from a particular fantasy novel, and that is impossible with D&D. Of course, the best possible solution would be to have a entire system designed from the ground-up based on the novel. But since most novels don't spawn RPGs, HERO is still the best bet.

 

 

[Killer Shrike]

Personally, I cant stand the actual system of 1e or 2e AD&D, and think (from personal experience) that 3e falls apart after 15th Level or so. Also, I really dont like level based systems -- I dont mind some loose "class" concepts so long as they are just "suggestions" or rough archetypes (like the HERO System's Brick, Blaster, Mentalist, Gadgeteer, etc archetypes -- not binding or restrictive, but useful conceptually as shorthand to describe a characters general focus), but I really do not like level structures.

 

I dont like Forgotten Realms, never liked Dragonlance, dont like pre-Carl Sargeant Greyhawk, thought Darksun could have been very very cool if done with a different system, found some amusing/interesting bits in Al Quadim, disliked Birthright, overlooked Red Steel and Mystara (or were they the same thing....never looked at them), and think that Planescape was horribly flawed with an attempt at WW-esque clans/sects/tribes/traditions/etc but was otherwise rife with possibilities and generally kind of cool.

 

However, the one thing I like about xD&D is the gamist philosophy of PCs who are skilled adventurers, able to actually do something other than just die. Granted, you have to waste several weeks of play killing Orcs and such to get there if you start at 1st, but after a while experienced groups often skip all that nonsense and start off at a middling level so that the game can just get started without all the Kobold and Goblin (insert low-level foe of preference here) slaying.

 

The actual system of xD&D, particularly 1e and 2e, often got in the way, but once you got going w/ a good DM, you could actually have a really good time w/ xD&D. The sad part was that this was the exception other than the rule. The dumbed-down no-thought-required aspects of xD&D also seems to attract gamers with "low user-head-space". So, while there are intelligent people doing fun things with the game, IME there is a larger number of not-so-bright troglodytes clogging the demographic.

 

The one redeeming feature of xD&D to me is that there is an absurdly vast amount of adventures, concepts, and content written and published over the last 28 years or so for it in some permutation or other. This vast pile of content is of mixed quality of course, but nevertheless -- its a stupendous source for material convertable into a much better (IMO) game system like, of course, the HERO System. The implementation of much of it may suck, but ideas are priceless -- even just kernels of an idea are not to be discounted. Plus maps, illos, figurines, etc exist to support xD&D -- but are of course greppable into system-of-choice; I know Im pointing out the obvious on this one, but people often forget that these things wouldnt exist if not for xD&D. One can be dismissive of the game, or one can recognize that its existance is good for the hobby and can serve as a useful cornucopia of material to be harvested from.

 

 

Also, as a minor benefit, because of its sheer presense as the juggernaught of FRPGs some concepts from xD&D are so widespread they serve as a useful gamers shorthand. If I say "The group needs a Thief-type character" to a prospective player, if they have any knowledge of D&D at all they get the general idea with one sentence -- even if what that means mechanically in some other system (like the HERO System ) bears no resemblance to an xD&D Thief/Rogue/Whatever, the idea was still communicated quickly and succintly.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

I don' think D&D is a failure. It's very successful as a game. I only said D&D was a spectacular failure as genre simulation. It does a extraordinarly poor job of simulating literature fantasy. (snip)

 

Fair enough, but even there I think you may be wrong in terms of popular perception and therefore IF so it isn't a failure so much as "wrong" by your tkae. The people I know back in the day who were so big on AD&D were Tolkein fans, and that is a staple of the genre even though I understand in many ways he was one of the more superficial of the fantasy writers compared to Dunsany et al.

 

Please don't take it as me having any passion or opinion of my own though, I'm just playing devil's advocate out of perceived fairness/observation.

 

That is true. The GM has to do all the work if he wants to create flavor. And even if he does his job right, it can be hard. I've heard some players saying that generic systems are like seeing how the magician does the trick, it kills the mystery. I don't agree, but I can understand why some people feel this way.

 

Still, with HERO one can hope to recreate the magic system from a particular fantasy novel, and that is impossible with D&D. Of course, the best possible solution would be to have a entire system designed from the ground-up based on the novel. But since most novels don't spawn RPGs, HERO is still the best bet.

 

Agreed. I do like systems that work well for a specific purpose, as stated earlier in this thread, but that does mean they are very limited. The only thing I'd say is that I wouldn't HEROize, for example, Deadlands or some similarly distinctive system.

 

Re magic in HERO, I should add an important caveat that I really haven't made my way through that section of Fantasy HERO, I glanced at it but haven't seriously reviewed it. I was going to bring it on this trip but it's BIG which means HEAVY which means more weight in my already-heavy laptop bag, plus I have 2 other HERO books ahead of it I really want to finish (Ninja HERO and TUV).

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

(all but this snipped) Also, I really dont like level based systems -- I dont mind some loose "class" concepts so long as they are just "suggestions" or rough archetypes (like the HERO System's Brick, Blaster, Mentalist, Gadgeteer, etc archetypes -- not binding or restrictive, but useful conceptually as shorthand to describe a characters general focus), but I really do not like level structures.

 

As a rule, I'm with you, I should add. I don't generally like something in any system that so totally controls character growth and stereotypes as such. D&D/d20 (particularly reviewing even SAS' admirable attempt at adapting d20) is NOT the exception to my rule.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

Fair enough, but even there I think you may be wrong in terms of popular perception and therefore IF so it isn't a failure so much as "wrong" by your tkae. The people I know back in the day who were so big on AD&D were Tolkein fans, and that is a staple of the genre even though I understand in many ways he was one of the more superficial of the fantasy writers compared to Dunsany et al.

 

I'd say D&D is closer to Tolkien and Howard than to most other fantasy writers. It's just that I don't think it's particularly close even to these writers. And D&D is closer to genre simulation IF we ignore the magic system.

 

It's in the magic system that D&D is the most different from fantasy literature. In Tolkien, magic is low-key, subtle, mostly off-stage. In Howard, magic is dangerous to cast, sinister, unpredictable.

 

Even with fantasy writers that portray magic as colorful and powerful, it's very different from D&D magic. In most fantasy literature, magic differs from D&D magic in the following ways:

 

- Magic almost never is a times-per-day thing. Wizards can cast spells as many times as they wish, but usually it's a tiring process and/or requires time-consuming preparations. Magic is more of a END Cost thing than a Charges thing, to put it in HERO terms.

 

- The memorize-cast-forget thing also is very rare in fiction. Magic most times involves study, but once learned, a mage don't need to memorize a spell every time he casts it. Some spells may require reading from a book, but this works more like D&D scrolls than spells per se. I. e. the mage needs to have the book to cast the spell, he can't just memorize it for later (it's more or less a Independent Focus).

 

- Magic almost never has a set result. Circunstances affect it heavily and how "well" a mage casts a spell in a given moment should affect it heavily too. In system terms, the best way to simulate magic is as action that depends on a roll, with higher rolls giving better results. Likewise, magic that backfires or has some side effect is very common.

 

- Most magic in fantasy is, to an extent, "free form". Even when mages use to restrict themselves to some known tried-and-true effects, they also can "stretch" their muscles and improvise in times of dire need.

 

All of this is very counter to the way D&D magic works.

 

 

Originally posted by zornwil

Please don't take it as me having any passion or opinion of my own though, I'm just playing devil's advocate out of perceived fairness/observation.

 

Don't worry. You've always been very polite. If anything, it's I that should apologize.

 

 

Originally posted by zornwil

Re magic in HERO, I should add an important caveat that I really haven't made my way through that section of Fantasy HERO, I glanced at it but haven't seriously reviewed it. I was going to bring it on this trip but it's BIG which means HEAVY which means more weight in my already-heavy laptop bag, plus I have 2 other HERO books ahead of it I really want to finish (Ninja HERO and TUV).

 

I think games like 'Ars Magica" and "Mage: the Ascension" generally manage to portray magic in a way much more fitting to fantasy literature than D&D. Even if these games have too-powerful magic for most fantasy novels, the basic mechanics are very fitting.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Personally, I cant stand the actual system of 1e or 2e AD&D, and think (from personal experience) that 3e falls apart after 15th Level or so. Also, I really dont like level based systems...

 

First, let me suggest from my moderately extensive playing of 3D&D (3rd Edition D&D) that it breaks down *WAY* before level 15. It's broken in one way until about level 4 or 5, and starts breaking down in a different way around level 11 -- and 3.5 didn't really address either problem set. But that's a rant for a different time

 

What I wanted to address was the final system I quoted above. There's a flaw almost inherent to level-based systems that you won't notice playing pencil-and-paper -- but becomes a critical problem affecting almost all MMORPG's.

 

Level-based killability. Anybody that played EQ during "the bad old days" when The Vision ruled has run into the bad end of this -- monsters that were designed to merely challenge higher leveled characters that could and would KOS ("Kill On Sight" in the truest sense -- one blow) lower levels. These days there are enough high levels running around these aren't an issue -- I actually grouped with someone the other night that didn't even know giants could spawn in West Commmons. But before you reached that point your evening would periodically be ruined by something way over your head suddenly killing you because you happened to be sitting where it spawned or someone "trained" it to you.

[Rene]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Level-based killability.

 

That can be a problem in pencil-and-paper too, when you get a hardcore simulationist GM. Low-levels are too easy to kill and high-levels are too hard. It takes a careful GM to avoid the problem (and it must be said that 3rd edition alleviated the problem somewhat, making the mage class less wimpy, for instance).

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by zornwil

I think I could just say it this way - AD&D magic feels like magic in a general sense, whereas HERO magic doesn't really have a feel, to me.

 

I can see where your coming from and it is a common belief but I feel this is more a limitation of imagination regarding the use of the rules rather than a real failure of the rules. I think the reason HERO magic seems to "feel" like super powers is not so much because the rules were made for supers but because most people build their spells like super powers. It would take alot of work I'm pretty sure it would be possible to make a really close approximation of D&D magic in HERO.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Rene

That can be a problem in pencil-and-paper too, when you get a hardcore simulationist GM. Low-levels are too easy to kill and high-levels are too hard. It takes a careful GM to avoid the problem (and it must be said that 3rd edition alleviated the problem somewhat, making the mage class less wimpy, for instance).

 

Most DM's however aren't going to have a hostile Storm Giant with 6 levels of Monk walking where 1st and 2nd level characters are going to be, either.