zornwil

Re: Triforce of Roleplaying Wisdom Something like 44% Sim, 33% Drama, 23% Gaming. (just because 40-30-20 doesn't quite add up and I couldn't bear to bring any one up to the next 5% step). PS - to explain a bit, I enjoy the sensation of contextual realism the most and tend to concentrate on that and also moreso letting people explore the environment just to "see what happens" even if nothing, I do like characters to have air time and specifically some "acting", and finally I like to see some challenge every session for each player, ideally, but it ranks down there a bit. I'd rather give each character dramatic than challenging air time if it coems down to it.

Re: Normal Senses with Discriminatory and Analyze Oh, sure, make me look up the specifics of Discriminatory and Analyze...I wiould say first to go look at the discussion extending from page 161 of 5ER as it indicates what the normal crude Discriminatory abilities with Sight group, Hearing group, Smell/Taste group, and Touch group are. Once you read that, you'll see I lifted some examples directly from there for Discriminatory! Normal Sight with Discriminatory: Determine ethnicity or religion through subtle visual cues. Tell apart identical siblings. See where someone has been by looking at them. Normal Sight with Analyze: Determine how much they care about religious symboilsm from the way it is placed on garment. Identify the probable cause of minute cosmetic changes (e.g., cancer versus severe sunburn or acne) See what someone was doing by looking at them (not just where been). Normal Hearing with Discriminatory: Tell two different kinds of songbirds' apart. Identify a voice on the phone immediately Determine direction and rough distance from sound. Normal Hearing with Analyze: Distinguish two types of songs from one bird (enough to know something such as time of day, for example, if you were a blind-folded hostage). Identify not only voice on phone but the caller's emotional state. Determine precise direction and distance. Normal Touch with Discriminatory: Tell a $1 bill from a $5 bill. Figure out a key in your pocket or purse among many similar keys. Realize an unfamiliar bump or such on a lover. Normal Touch with Analyze: Tell apart any kind of international currency Figure out a key in anyone's pocket or purse among many unfamiliar but similar keyes. Specify the nature of an unfamiliar bump on someone. Normal Taste with Discriminatory: Distinguish the elements of a dish by taste. Tell almond from the similar-tasting poison. Tell all the colas apart. Normal Taste with Analyze: Distinguish not only the elements of a dish but their individual source and freshness Determine amount and strength of a poison, even if similar to other items, just from a minor taste Know which unflavored water you're tasting or the tap from which city's water with one taste. Normal Smell with Discriminatory: Most of the same as taste apply...to put in some smell-only: Tell the difference between various foul odors. Tell the components creating one's body odor. Name a brand of perfume Normal Smell with Analyze: Tell the difference between the odor of beer brewing according to which manufacturer, which recipe Determine where the components of one's body odor came from Name the year and recency of application of the brand of perfume But really this all gets a bit wonky because of the overlap between Discr/Analysis (particularly the latter) and Knowledge Skills; I'd say you'd frequently still need some specialized knowledge, even if the Sense of course is vital to perceiving to then analyze. Just my take on it, haven't really thought much about it before. Sounds like one could do a lot of (too much?) detective work based on just senses (which is why I'd want to have some Knowledges as appropriate). Really, I'd argue that the basic sense are discriminatory (and I would not differentiate as the book does from the "crude" discriminatory) and just make people pay for Analyze.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER An outright denial! That proves it! Cover blown!

Re: Lets cut the crap... Total tangent - why couldn't you reuse the Morrow Project stuff from before? Or was it not HERO/Champions before, or have things changed enough to force the update? Just wondering. On a note related to this discussion, one big reason HERO suits me fine is I put in the same amount of work in any game system - I make a bunch of tweaks, I create a setting, all that. I simply have yet to meet a system I'd run it as it stands from "off the shelf", HERO included, or at least that I would do so for long with (though Savage Worlds looks pretty good, though circumscribed to do only what it does, with less flexibility but less granularity and excellent fluidity in play). An advantage to HERO is the system is in fact reasonably universal so on the whole it's less work when I reuse this system for different purposes, and it responds better to customization than many other systems. And even as much as I might customize it, players have no trouble coming in and playing a game, despite a few heavy changes.

Re: Lets cut the crap... But 99% of the FAQ and 5ER new text are just clarifications... Actually one thing this ends up saying is that there's actually something to be said for developers/designers who only rarely make judgement calls on questions, and then only for truly "frequent" ones. One objection I do have to the FAQ is that the "F" is not accurate - OTOH, don't get me wrong, as I've stated before, I like the minutiae, I would just like to see it as less official and put into a compendium or whatever, or even remaining in a FAQ, as opposed to the core rules. I'm sympathetic to Steve's plight. I know if I had a game system as rich and popular as HERO I'd want to treat it the same way in terms of detail. But there is a clear trade-off in so doing that. I applaud his answering of questions quite heartily and I think the frequency and thoroughness is and remains a competitive advantage for HERO (sure, other companies do it, not many at all do it in this complete a manner). I think collecting that info into whatever one wants to call the current FAQ is also great. I just draw the line at the core book, it's a matter of opinion on where to place that line. And to be fair, Steve did react in designing 5ER to fans. We pushed in that direction, and I think we all share blame in not really having considered just where that logical direction would end up. Sure, DOJ bears the "real" blame and credit (after all, it's not at all all bad stuff, and I could still see a construction of the book just as big and thick, just to my way of thinking differently structured) as they have the fiscal responsibility, but I think we goaded it and helped make it happen.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER I think OldMan and Shadowpup are federal agents assigned to watch RPGs and their audience and development.

Re: Meta SFX I think the point of this thread could well improve on how things are without embedding SFX into the system any more than they are informally already are. I think we're a little blind to the extent they've been pushed into the system - casualplayers' point on LS makes this loud and clear, I wasn't really thinking so much of the positive consequenes of streamlining how SFX play with the system, and I think this effort speaks to that.

Re: Lets cut the crap... I hated the changes from 3rd to 4th. Ended up appreciating most of them and adopting the better portion of them. I hated the changes from 4th to 5th. Appear to have ended up apprecating most of them and adapting the better portion of them. Actually IIRC I wasn't too fond when I discovered what changed in some respects in 3rd - wasn't 3rd where END was "fixed"? (I still disagree with that, but I recognize it's not to be rolled back for a variety of reasons, most of them good ones) I sense a personal trend... PS - this was not at all a reflection on Fox1's own opinions, just a musing triggered by them, that's all.

Re: Meta SFX That's very well stated and a good reason to consider it even more deeply, "casual"player.

Re: Lets cut the crap... Okay, I should point out, Mitchell, that I have no quarrel with the grading. it's with your comments which sure don't sound like a C versus a B and B-. So perhaps nearly all my commentary is therefore irrelevant, since the grading itself is apart from how I view subsequent rhetoric. Regardless, I would use Sidekick, HD, and 5ER all together when weighing the learning curve issue. (PS - well, I do have a quarrel with the grading, but it's in a reasonable enough range that any quarrel devolves to merely preference and too-subjective a level of opinion)

Re: Lets cut the crap... My point is, no system requires the entire book to play, or, more accurately, relatively few do. You seem to be grading the system based solely on 5ER's presentation and how easy it is to learn from that, which doesn't seem fair. I contend that the system is taught in Sidekick already and 5ER is just a lot of other stuff, aside from the annoyance that a few powers were left out. As to M&M and SAS, my point is that I simply disagree as to what you say the ease of learning is to the magnitude you state it. I've watched people fumble around with M&M. And SAS' book, unlike M&M's, didn't come across as at all simpler. (I still think SAS d20 was harder than either system) But that's because I think you're judging the ease of learning HERO based on learning everything in 5ER, and I think that's a patently false evaluation from the get-go and does not in fact speak to "learning the system". To learn "a system", one doesn't learn everything there is in the rulebook. I know how to play d20...based on a couple d20 books. Do I know D&D as it is today, the d20 version? Actually, not at all, but I bet I could now sit down and fake it through a game with some trouble. I don't know GURPS, but I bet I don't have to read the GURPS book cover to cover to GM a game, let alone play one, effectively. At least I surely hope not. My point is, further, that you are judging based on all the nuances you know exist in HERO. Well, what good are those, again, to "learning the system"? Not much at all, actually. Which comes back to my point precisely as to why the book doesn't have to be the length or depth 5ER is now. In the end, 5ER could be rewritten to 256 or 128 or whatever pages and it would be the same system and "the system" would be no easier and no harder to learn relative to the others. But anyway, my more specific point is I just don't see at all this major convenience of not flipping around pages and all that of M&M relative to HERO. I see M&M as somewhat simpler, yes, but not even remotely simple as its promise and its boosters have said, and I think that while the learning curve is less steep, it's a matter of 4 hours, let's say, to learn M&M whereas it's 12 for HERO. But it's not 15 minutes (not that you said it was, either, just that it only took 15 minutes to make a character, and all I can say to that is my hearty congratulations to you, I have zero clue how you did that unless you just reused an archetype) for M&M and 80 hours for HERO, which seems to be the recurring theme. Regardless, I understand you don't agree and you apparently wouldn't even if you considered Sidekick the rulebook (which I think it is, to "learn the system"), and I should rephrase my "grass is greener" comment to say that I cannot fathom how you reached your conclusions, to the magnitude/extent that is, in light of my own observations of having read and tried to play M&M and having read SAS d20. (Again, to be clear, I can't state re Tri-Stat). And because I can't fathom it, to the extent stated, I can only ascribe it to thinking too much about HERO and glossing over too much with the other systems, which I ascribe to "grass is greener". Or you simply learn radically different than I do, I suppose, which I should say is entirely a valid other explanation. Perhaps the ways in which M&M and other games are internally consistent appeals to you whereas HERO's way of being internally consistent does not.

Re: Meta SFX Well, the system already discusses SFX extensively and has in fact changed its fundamental premise by (understandably and necessarily) beginning the inclusion directly into the rules with Adjustment Powers. There's already an SFX chart in the system. So I think exploring whether/how we'd want to deal with SFX more directly is a necessary subsequent conversation, even if I agree as to trying to keep that at arms length. Anyway, point is, it's a far cry in determining SFX approach in the system (which requires discussing and classifying SFX) to becoming Magic: The Gathering!

Re: Lets cut the crap... It really sounds a lot, though, like "grass is greener" mentality. Certainly M&M has its own numbers of "gotchas" that have been documented on its own boards (of which, btw, I never got a single response after 2 notes about my login no longer working there, not exactly great customer service); I think saying it has nothing like stun lotto, while true in and of itself, is not so true when you look at the spread of powers and the adaptation has to do to prevent being one-punched if one comes from other systems. Personally I had to rework a lot of values in M&M to make the whole system less one-punchy, and it's not at all clear to me how balanced those adaptations will work out to be. But I'm not saying that against M&M, nor am I saying that such a "discovery" would apply to you or others...,many quite like how M&M functions in that way even if I find it wholly annoying, though, as far as I can tell, fairly reasonably fixable. I really disagree M&M is so simple...there are tons of exceptions, and character creation has its own pitfalls, such as checking requirements for a given skill or talent being one of them - the interdependence of items in M&M is a bit vexing and certainly one "flips around" at least as much as with HERO because there isn't the same level of design consistency in many respects. Our group didn't find it simpler in combat, even though we do think it might be a more streamlined system once we get it down, if we do (the "if" merely being dependent on playing a few sessions). Now, I agree that 5ER makes HERO harder to learn, as did 5th, when studying it in opposition to 4th edition or certainly simpler editions. But I think if a player/GM just gets Sidekick, I think it's pretty darn easy. Is it easier than SAS or M&M? M&M I'm not so sure. SAS, well, personally, I definitely think so, if you're talking d20, though I can't speak to Tri-Stat, which I hear is simpler. I'm really trying not to be a HERO fan-boy. I think M&M has a lot going for it, particularly in its lack of granularity and its power build system. I think the power build system has its own elegance in M&M, even if other aspects of the system lack elegance - in fact its sort of an inversion from HERO, where I think HERO's lack is much more in some powers areas than elsewhere. I wasn't impressed with SAS d20 much at all; I felt it was in-between M&M and HERO in a number of ways, and ended up failing to measure up to either's strengths while lacking clear strengths of its own in comparison. But I didn't try to play it. I think the whole "advantages adds" thing is a bit of a red herring when we talk about "learning the system" though. Now, I agree that it's a red herring in the system itself because of the way the book presents the info, yes. But nonetheless, a red herring it is. It is a real level of nuance, a level of real granular detail, that is largely unnecessary to play and can easily be hand-waved. It should have been shuffled further into the back and relegated to an "oh by the way" clause. Maybe not "strictly" optional, but virtually so. My larger point here, to be clear, is that there's all sorts of specific and granular rules in HERO. There ought to be. But we shouldn't confusing learning or playing the system with getting into evey niche rule. Now, I think the book mistakenly encourages this, and that's why I'd prefer a mid-sized book between Sidekick and HERO 5ER or I'd prefer simply a HERO book as it is now but with more shuffled to the back as "Further Rules for Specific Situations and/or GM Inspiration" or whatever. I don't dismiss the general issue here. But I think the issue is mistakenly being made into a mountain if we think the level of nuance is in and of itself the problem and not the presentation of nuance. The "ultimate toolkit" should ultimately be thousands and thousands of pages across compendiums, magazine articles, genre books, setting books, and so on. I, for one, see not only nothing wrong with that, but the inevitable and desirable direction of a system that proclaims to be what HERO does. It caters to a particular audience. We can't turn HERO into Fudge. We can do some great interim things - like make an all-in-one HERO game or make Sidekick or such. But the larger HERO system is a thing of complexity by absolute design. The ultimate toolkit for all RP situations. It's gotta be massive. So presentation is the control issue, and confusing learning the system with learning every rule are entirely different things.

Re: Lets cut the crap... BTW, I think, given the criteria, you ought to factor in the role of the SW tool, Hero Designer, if you have not already. No need for additional comment, I am just noting that I think it's a part of the experience even if "only" to those with computers and interested in using them. There's no need to elaborate on how positively or negatively HD impacted this, if at all, but just saying I think it's a factor.

Re: An Open Call to Action I've sent a letter to all those who I believe expressed interest and sent me their email addresses, aside from a couple people who only wished to lurk, in which case as indicated to them I wanted to discuss that notion with the group first. If you did not receive a letter, that means I did not receive your email address or I simply screwed up. So be sure to PM me or email me via the boards in that case. I sent the note yesterday (Sunday) afternoon.

Re: Lets cut the crap... I certainly agree it's important to a lot of people, and have advocated as have you for ways to streamline and promote such for HERO. Thing is, though, I could care less for myself. Not just because I know the system, but because I never let not understanding a system get much in the way of playing it. If I don't understand something, initially, I just make it so that I do, reworking it because I didn't see why it should be a certain way, or I just try to work around it. Then learn more in play either from feedback or "oh, THAT is why that didn't work!" I think some of that learning issue is a real problem as gamers mature and, frankly, as our ability to learn lessens while our understanding of how, in life, it's important not to come into things half-assed - both negative and positive influences. Thing is, for games, this approach doesn't work so well as in our naive youth when we'd grab a game, had time, inclination, and still relatively better learning ability, and just "go for it". I've heard LOTS of people talk about how they misinterpreted Champions rules early on, especially in the absence of a networked larger community. I surely did misinterpret a lot or ran things a simple way for a long time before learning "the right way". Thing is, this is the right way to learn. Too many people, way too many, moan and worry about whether they're playing "right" and feel they have to learn a whole system. But I acknowledge of course this is the reality, especially in a maturing consumer base, and so I think it's important. I just think it's more important than it should be, even while I grant it's reality. And I think we as a consumer base are measuring HERO and all other games in a very different way than we did early on.

Re: Lets cut the crap... Except for d20... Anyway, I call that mostly a rulebook issue, not a system issue. You can easily arrange the tables and charts you need (I find most are on the GM screen but I forget to have that handy). The Lims and all that, I dunno, I don't find myself "flipping around" a lot unless it's something more esoteric, and that's really at character construction. Obviously, mileage varies.

Re: Lets cut the crap... I think people are grading all sorts of different stuff and not stopping to indicate it's not the same grading system (though of course some are being more specific). Are we talking about the rule system or the rules book? I wouldn't argue a whole lot with MitchellS' low grade (would still disagree but not so much is all) if he's grading the rules book. But if grading the system, that's a very different story. I haven't played other games enough to grade them so I won't be comparative. But to me the HERO system is highly consistent, which is important, because THAT is what really makes for portability among games. Players have had no or at least little trouble adapting to any of my house rules because mostly they're consistent enough and they're consistent because they build off a core that is already understood - for example, picking the easiest one, Supernatural Defense is INT/5 and the Supernatural Attacks work against it, so while it's "all new" it's completely wedded to the core mechanics for distinct attacks and defenses and so has been very easy for people to pick up if they knew HERO at all. But the system does still have lots of inconsistencies - uncertainty around handling absolute powers (and no guidelines for doing so) ranks up there, but so do the (too many) exceptions that have popped up as the system has grown and designers or managers of the company have been either intellectually lazy or simply acknowledged the difficulty of changes when addressing a legacy audience in addressing issues. On the whole, if we call "A" the highest class and one which we would give special recommendations for, "B" a solid class of acceptability which also leads to recommendations if less enthusiastic, "C" reasonable and useful but nothing special, "D" marginal at best and not recommended, and "F" an outright failure, something we'd recommend against, I'd give HERO an A- or B+ here, hard to say, I'll stick with A-. Aside from that, it becomes a matter of just how solid the system is in terms of being functional out of the box, i.e., playability and how well it promotes an interesting and fun Play Experience. HERO is pretty solid. There are some rough edges, but that's due to an extremely broad scope, which I'll talk about later. There are also some ways in which HERO is very easy to MAKE functional and playable, but those, I think, fall more into adaptibility and consistency. The system, though, really is bedevilled by a lot of nuance, making it easy to stop in play if GMs are not attentive to keeping flow going, and there is a bit required to effectively start up and run a HERO game. Being a toolkit, it just doesn't flow "out of the box". But it is nonetheless very functional for what it is. Tough call, and this is often the most contentious part of HERO discussion. I tend to go for a B or B- here, I'll go with B. Scope isn't something to grade on, but how well the scope is addressed is something that can be graded. The scope of HERO is extremely broad, it's intended as a universal system now. Built-in, then, is some difficulty in achieving it. Setting aside a grade for effort or simply having a "desirable" scope, HERO really does struggle, as do other universal systems, with delivering for all circumstances. I'd give it a B if not a B-. It sacrifices genre accuracy in many cases for consistency or complexity. I'll go with B-. Ease of learning is important, of course. I think the consistency promotes that and it's not so hard as people make it. But I fully agree it's not as easy as other systems, and probably never will be. I think the method by which the systems are presented comes in here, inevitably, so we end up having to talk about the rulebook, but setting aside the rulebook minutiae and presentation and all that, I think we can limit this scope to simply the "rulebook approach" and consider that there's an intro book and a "full" book, and we can speak to the depth of those works. I think the approach is still a little muddled, I think the "simple book" could be something between these two, something complete and easy to learn. I'm giving it a C here. Then there's pure adaptibility, how easy is it to adapt the system to one's needs. I'd say this is an A-, many inconsistencies and such detract a bit, but on the whole the game is highly adaptable. This really rescues the genre-specific and playability issues the game may have. So how important are these? That is highly individual. Attempting an "objective" valuation, trying to say "what probably matters more to most", I guess I'd go with: Consistency - 15% Functionality/Playability Out of the Box - 25% Addressing Scope - 25% Ease of Learning - 20% Adaptability - 15% So if we go with A+=4.3, A=4.0, A-=3.7, B+=3.3, B=3.0, B-=2.7, C+=2.3, C=2.0, C-=1.7, D+=1.3, D=1.0, D-=0.7, F+=0.3, F=0.0, F-=-0.3: Consistency - 3.7 Functionality - 3.0 Scope - 2.7 Learning - 2.0 Adaptability - 3.7 SUMMARY (with above %s) - 2.935, a B. That's pretty good. However, my percentage in grading is different for what I need, it's more like: Consistency - 25% Functionality/Playability Out of the Box - 20% Addressing Scope - 25% Ease of Learning - 10% Adaptability - 20% So it would be a blended grade of 3.14, well, surprisingly not all that different, just above a B but still not a B+. Still, these grades don't really tell the tale. The importance of a game is how well it also "fits" individually, and nothing objective can get to that, it involves not just the criteria above applied according to one's values but also, importantly, the innate system prejudices/approaches that match one's own. And different games are good for different things. HERO's toolkit fits my mentality, it works well for me. The scope is a scope I like, not just a scope it reasonably well addresses. The approach is one I like a lot, not just that it works reasonably well on its own. Whereas there might be a far superior game system, but it might not match my interests.

Re: Lets cut the crap... I think ease of learning is way too limited a basis for evaluation, too singular. By that method, as others have said MSH would be a superb system. I'd argue d20 "sucks" because I don't think that's easy to learn, either, anymore. Both Champions and AD&D (at least early AD&D) were reasonable to learn, though neither scored high marks for overall ease in my book, with Champions having a major edge due to its high consistency.

Re: Lets cut the crap... I see M&M as substantively a different system, meaning it addresses different though intersecting needs of the game consumer. HERO will never be M&M and so true is the vice-versa. However, I don't disagree there's an intersecting audience that the systems can and will compete for. But I fully expect players to move from one system to the other as their changes need. I could also imagine running both systems.

Re: Lets cut the crap... I think 5 years is way too long, BUT I also think that rules editions should only infrequently incorporate large change, so frugal consumers should (at least in my vision as opposed to reality) feel pressured to buy every other edition or every third edition. I also think that it's a non-issue, anyway, in that (and I give D20 the same credit) it's not as if anybody is required to buy this stuff and upgrade their games. I'd also be good with an approach of infrequent rules editions but some sort of annual product for new ideas and "rules to come" or such.

Re: New Bleeding Rules A bump simply refers to posting in a thread so that the thread is "bumped" back to the top of the forum list. It's often done to reinitiate discussions or simply to express admiration for a particular thread. When the thread hasn't been posted to in a long time (whatever that means, but certainly once months have gone by) bumping is often called thread necromancy instead.

Re: Where else do you roll down? Yes, I would see that as consistency for consistency's sake, myself, though obviously some disagree.

Re: Where else do you roll down? Not sure I know what you are asking...I'm not going to claim in this case this holds true as an example of one and not the other. But something like (and not picking on it) using 3d6 to determine damage as well as to-hit is consistency only for the sake of it, it is rather jarring to Play Experience. And it's important to pay attention to where the line is not so obvious so we err on the side of Play Experience.

Re: Musings on Random Musings I can't help but say, aside from a more individual basis, as a community I think they did no real ill. I don't think that, while the clique thing is possible, it was so successful or well-crafted as it sounds from above and I don't think it came to anything more than a reinforcing at best and other times actually I think "they" worked against some of the cliqueishness.