Is Hero too preditable?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

That would suggest that there aren't other valid flavors of heroic roleplay rntended for multiple genra' date=' which doesn't really make sense.[/quote']

Oh, hardly. I just can't help but see how incredibly far D&D went toward the basic Hero mechanics. They kept levels and classes in there, sure, but still made small changes to move away from the class/level system (Cross-Class Skills, Character Level, etc.). I see D&D 3+ as pretty much half-way between AD&D and Hero, with very little change that went orthogonal to the line between them.

 

EDIT: Some people say, "Nah. D&D just went the way all RPGs are tending to evolve," but I don't buy that. The direct corollaries are just too close and too many.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

I'm an old grognard who can remember the truly 'orrible "brown books" and still owns a copy ofChainmail - and even I like it.

 

I would not, however, describe it as even remotely balanced. Hero system, while not perfectly balanced, does give you reasonable guidelines. d20, OTOH, seems to actively encourage munchkinism: a player who plays a standard fighter or a standard sorceror for example, is going to be totally overshadowed by any one of the variety of combo characters.

 

I don't think this is entirely by accident - the cynic in me says the system is deliberately designed to be unbalanced, to encourage players to buy the splatbooks like Defenders of the Faith and so on. Why play a boring old cleric when you can have a Cleric/Hospitallar, who's stronger, faster, more hygenic? Of course to include one, you have to buy the add-on book. Good for sales, but not good for balance, especially when you combine add-ons from different books which can unexpected synergies.

 

In last week's game, my wife (having seen the party saved, once again by my character creatively using power combos) gave me a withering look and said "You're such a munchkin" - and I was thinking "Just wait. Two more levels and I'll not only have the butt-kickingest stealth fighter with great saves - but I'll also take no damage from any attack that I can save against!"

 

And to get this killer combo, I had to give up.... well almost nothing, really.

 

It's a fun game, but D20 is really a "D&D simulation" game. Taken in that light, munchkinism is simply part of the deal, just like a group of peculiar folk going undeground to kill wierd creatures and get loot their bodies.

LOL. Yeah. Some of the supplements even have Prestige Classes that essentially let you advance in two normal Classes at once, giving you the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither.

 

It is also so bloody easy to pick combinations of Classes, equipment, Feats, etc., that are going to be soooo much less effective than others. Make a character and show it to someone who has lived and breathed the system for a few years and they will invariably shake their head and say, "Don't take that combination of Feats...oh, and you should have one level of Rogue because...." A character concept you want to play is almost certain to be so dramatically less powerful than the standard muchkin builds as to be almost pointless.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

I wouldn't say D&D 3+ is a munchkin machine so much as it forces players to assume specific roles with specific expected abilities for such roles. If any set of rules is a munchkin machine, it's the Hero System. Where else is there a system that lets you min-max EVERYTHING and take only what you need to do what you do well (as it, it doesn't for you to take all those package deals that come with classes, if you want a fighter that specialized in a single weapon, you just take that WF and a bunch of levels with it; you aren't forced to take all WFs and buy levels with everything to advance).

[zornwil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

Oh, hardly. I just can't help but see how incredibly far D&D went toward the basic Hero mechanics. They kept levels and classes in there, sure, but still made small changes to move away from the class/level system (Cross-Class Skills, Character Level, etc.). I see D&D 3+ as pretty much half-way between AD&D and Hero, with very little change that went orthogonal to the line between them.

 

EDIT: Some people say, "Nah. D&D just went the way all RPGs are tending to evolve," but I don't buy that. The direct corollaries are just too close and too many.

But retaining what it does makes for a play experience different from HERO and I don't see that one embracing the changes of 3.5 is necessarily desiring HERO, which is the direction of your comment about (basically) "why not go all the way." The reason not to is in fact to retain classes and levels as "balancing" or otherwise desired mechanisms, along with the probability curve and inter-play of Feats and so on.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

...and one of the best and easiest XP earners is assassinating party members. Truly bizarre. Also quite fun to play in short bursts: well they have to be short:

 

DM: The party meets in a roadside tavern.

 

Rogue: I'll use stealth to get around behind the wizard....

 

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

 

My Wife: "But we could all die!"

Me: "Well, all except me . Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

 

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

 

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset. At one point she berated my character for walking into an (obvious) ambush - and my reaction (in character) was "Of course, it was an ambush. That's WHY I went there. So much more convenient than having to hunt them down one by one! Now - stop whining and heal me."

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

A character concept you want to play is almost certain to be so dramatically less powerful than the standard muchkin builds as to be almost pointless.

 

And that's kind of the point, I think. There are so many dramatically unbalanced prestige classes, that at this point, I think it has to be intentional. At first, I was inclined to think it was simply due to the lack of metasystem, but there are increasing numbers which do exactly what you said - allow you to advance in the original class AND add mad-kool l33t skillz. In a few cases, there is literally no attempt to balance them at all. I put that down to the idea of luring people to purchase the books.

 

And as I say, if you start from the precept that an adventuring party is not a bunch of people in armour with weapons, but something that looks like it escaped from a wild anime series, then that's fine. I really look forward to our d20 games. Sure it's kinda dumb, but it's kinda dumb fun!

 

cheers, Mark

[BlackSword]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

LOL. Yeah. Some of the supplements even have Prestige Classes that essentially let you advance in two normal Classes at once, giving you the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither.

That's not a supplement, that's the DMG.

 

Eldritch Knight: Lose a single (technically two as you have to take a level of fighter) arcane caster level, advance with Fighter BAB and all of your arcane spells.

 

Mystic thuerge: +1 level of Arcane Spellcaster, +1 level of Diving Spellcaster, every level.

[BlackSword]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

And that's kind of the point, I think. There are so many dramatically unbalanced prestige classes, that at this point, I think it has to be intentional. At first, I was inclined to think it was simply due to the lack of metasystem, but there are increasing numbers which do exactly what you said - allow you to advance in the original class AND add mad-kool l33t skillz. In a few cases, there is literally no attempt to balance them at all. I put that down to the idea of luring people to purchase the books.

As most of my money goes into non-d20 products, I don't have much comparison. But it seems to me that most of the munchkined Prestige Classes come from third parties who are looking at ways to draw players away from the WotC books. Sure you could buy that book, but our books are %100 guarenteed to make the GM cry when they see this prestige class. The GM in my d20 group did a good job at the start of the campaign laying out what prestige classes would be allowed, and which would not. In addition he and another player know the system fairly well, so they help us non-d20ers with builds to keep us from being too hosed when compared to the munchkin builds.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

LOL. Yeah. Some of the supplements even have Prestige Classes that essentially let you advance in two normal Classes at once, giving you the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither.

 

It is also so bloody easy to pick combinations of Classes, equipment, Feats, etc., that are going to be soooo much less effective than others. Make a character and show it to someone who has lived and breathed the system for a few years and they will invariably shake their head and say, "Don't take that combination of Feats...oh, and you should have one level of Rogue because...." A character concept you want to play is almost certain to be so dramatically less powerful than the standard muchkin builds as to be almost pointless.

 

 

Word for word... the above is my recent experience. One of my friends wants to run the Worlds Largest Dungeon. The idea of a mindless hack & slash with minis and maps and monsters is somewhat appealing. I came up with a character idea... he and his friend, both D&D gurus, spent the next three hours telling me how my character wouldn't be effective and were having a blast looking through all the books to plot out the different character classes I should be and which to take in order to maximize stacking bonuses, etc. (Every PC is a gestalt class and to munchkin you have every level and advancement plotted out in advance so you get all the good ones and none of the bad and you don't "waste a level" getting a prerequisite you could have taken early on.)

 

I was mindboggled at the ENJOYMENT they got from doing that, and while the "kewlness" factor of my eventual character was good, it wasn't the original concept at all

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

 

My Wife: "But we could all die!"

Me: "Well, all except me . Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

 

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

 

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset. At one point she berated my character for walking into an (obvious) ambush - and my reaction (in character) was "Of course, it was an ambush. That's WHY I went there. So much more convenient than having to hunt them down one by one! Now - stop whining and heal me."

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

And while hilarious... that mindset is simply NOT something I can stomach as a role player. The fact that the game encourages such actions makes it so much more a "game" than a "story telling vehicle" and I really fall on the Nar side of things. The idea that character story means nothing... it is all about making sure you have some kind of Fighter class in order to maximize the increased chaance to hit every level (which is the stated purpose of character creation, as far as I can tell) just leaves me cold.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

And while hilarious... that mindset is simply NOT something I can stomach as a role player. The fact that the game encourages such actions makes it so much more a "game" than a "story telling vehicle" and I really fall on the Nar side of things. The idea that character story means nothing... it is all about making sure you have some kind of Fighter class in order to maximize the increased chaance to hit every level (which is the stated purpose of character creation' date=' as far as I can tell) just leaves me cold.[/quote']

 

 

Oh, to some extent, I'd agree. I simply could not run D20 as a GM anymore. It'd drive me nuts. However, I have HERO so I don't have to.

 

But that's what I meant about mindset - I look at d20 as a pen and paper video game. Yes, to function well often means doing bizarre and unexplainable things - but that's how it's set up. It's like those games where you have to fire a grenade through a little window to hit a switch to open a door. Why build your door-opening system like that? Well, it's more of a challenge than just building a switch into the wall beside the door. And besides, it just is.

 

cheers, Mark

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

Oh, to some extent, I'd agree. I simply could not run D20 as a GM anymore. It'd drive me nuts. However, I have HERO so I don't have to.

 

But that's what I meant about mindset - I look at d20 as a pen and paper video game. Yes, to function well often means doing bizarre and unexplainable things - but that's how it's set up. It's like those games where you have to fire a grenade through a little window to hit a switch to open a door. Why build your door-opening system like that? Well, it's more of a challenge than just building a switch into the wall beside the door. And besides, it just is.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

On this I agree. When I played Baldur's Gate some years ago I was pleasantly surprised to find that "D&D makes a great video game!" (This became my rallying cry for while.) Just not what I want in an RPG.

[Lucius]

What's the Topic Again?

 

Word for word... the above is my recent experience. One of my friends wants to run the Worlds Largest Dungeon.

 

One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to someday create a 60 level dungeon.

 

The idea of a mindless hack & slash with minis and maps and monsters is somewhat appealing. I came up with a character idea... he and his friend, both D&D gurus, spent the next three hours telling me how my character wouldn't be effective and were having a blast looking through all the books to plot out the different character classes I should be and which to take in order to maximize stacking bonuses, etc. (Every PC is a gestalt class and to munchkin you have every level and advancement plotted out in advance so you get all the good ones and none of the bad and you don't "waste a level" getting a prerequisite you could have taken early on.)

 

I was mindboggled at the ENJOYMENT they got from doing that, and while the "kewlness" factor of my eventual character was good, it wasn't the original concept at all

 

Now, it seems to me that it would be fun to take that basic, videogamelike premise, but give it the freedom of Hero to make whatever concept you have work. In other words, run it in Hero.

 

Of course, I don't want to claim that Hero is completely free of that phenomenon you describe - I think we've all seen threads here revolving around "This power/ character isn't amazingly powerful, why can't I find a book-legal and affordable way to get what I want?"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Somebody DID write up a D&D palindromedary. I ought to go sue for royalties.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

 

My Wife: "But we could all die!"

Me: "Well, all except me . Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

 

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

 

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset. At one point she berated my character for walking into an (obvious) ambush - and my reaction (in character) was "Of course, it was an ambush. That's WHY I went there. So much more convenient than having to hunt them down one by one! Now - stop whining and heal me."

 

We've done that in games where killing doesn't generate XP, that aren't d20 at all. There's a certain mindset that goes with a certain type of character, that says "Yes, I know it's a trap, but we'll beat them anyway." or in other words, "They've got us right where we want them."

[RDU Neil]

Re: What's the Topic Again?

 

One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to someday create a 60 level dungeon.

 

 

 

Now, it seems to me that it would be fun to take that basic, videogamelike premise, but give it the freedom of Hero to make whatever concept you have work. In other words, run it in Hero.

 

Of course, I don't want to claim that Hero is completely free of that phenomenon you describe - I think we've all seen threads here revolving around "This power/ character isn't amazingly powerful, why can't I find a book-legal and affordable way to get what I want?"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Somebody DID write up a D&D palindromedary. I ought to go sue for royalties.

 

 

I think the big issue is that Hero encourages asking the quesetion "Why doesn't this concept work like I want it to... and can we figure something that will work."

 

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"

 

I read something from the creators of D&D that specificall stated that the point of the game was for players to develop "mastery" of the system... by that meaning that they were supposed to develop the in depth knowledge (read "buy the books") in order to build the most effective/effecient/munchkined charcter. Doing so is "winning" and that is what D&D is designed to promote. The play experience rewards the min-maxed character... and the game intends that to be the case.

 

In Hero... while it certainly can appeal to that mind set of player (find the most broken stacked advantages for powers that make you invulnerable and others unable to defend)... but I would argue that the Hero PLAY EXPERIENCE does NOT support this kind of character.

 

The game does not give more experience points to the invisible, desol, AVLD attack character than it does the straight up energy blaster. You don't "lose" in Hero games the same way you can "lose" in D&D. GM guidelines are all about DC limits and Stop Signs, etc. Cooperative "genre play" is rewarded, etc.

 

Munchkin games have built in reward systems that support munchkinism in play. D&D is the perfect example of this. Hero could be seen as rewarding munchkinism in the character construction part of the game... but I've never seen an example of actual PLAY explicitly rewarding the munchkin.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

But retaining what it does makes for a play experience different from HERO and I don't see that one embracing the changes of 3.5 is necessarily desiring HERO' date=' which is the direction of your comment about (basically) "why not go all the way." The reason not to is in fact to retain classes and levels as "balancing" or otherwise desired mechanisms, along with the probability curve and inter-play of Feats and so on.[/quote']

Eh. Look at where I am posting this.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

Actually, reminds me of another quotable quote from last week's game:

 

My Wife: "But we could all die!"

Me: "Well, all except me . Hmmm. If you *did* all die then I wouldn't have to split the experience with anyone...."

 

And I can remember back in the day working out how much we were all worth in XP.

Heh. Yeah. I've always had a bit of problem with XP splitting. Does D&D 3+ still do that? I forget. I know it calculates XP based upon the whole challenge of the encounter, which already takes party size into account to some degree, so splitting would seem like double punishment.

 

It's funny, but my wife will never make a good D&D player (although she's a good roleplayer) because she simply can't grok the game's mindset.

Yeah. And I think I will no longer make a good D&D player because I don't want to conform to the D&D mindset, nor take the time, energy, and money to fully immerse myself in it to begin with. (I'll still play if that is all that is being offered, but I can't really be bothered to care how effective I am.)

[prestidigitator]

Re: What's the Topic Again?

 

I think the big issue is that Hero encourages asking the quesetion "Why doesn't this concept work like I want it to... and can we figure something that will work."

 

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"

Well said. Sounds about right to me.

 

I read something from the creators of D&D that specificall stated that the point of the game was for players to develop "mastery" of the system... by that meaning that they were supposed to develop the in depth knowledge (read "buy the books") in order to build the most effective/effecient/munchkined charcter. Doing so is "winning" and that is what D&D is designed to promote. The play experience rewards the min-maxed character... and the game intends that to be the case.

 

In Hero... while it certainly can appeal to that mind set of player (find the most broken stacked advantages for powers that make you invulnerable and others unable to defend)... but I would argue that the Hero PLAY EXPERIENCE does NOT support this kind of character.

 

The game does not give more experience points to the invisible, desol, AVLD attack character than it does the straight up energy blaster. You don't "lose" in Hero games the same way you can "lose" in D&D. GM guidelines are all about DC limits and Stop Signs, etc. Cooperative "genre play" is rewarded, etc.

 

Munchkin games have built in reward systems that support munchkinism in play. D&D is the perfect example of this. Hero could be seen as rewarding munchkinism in the character construction part of the game... but I've never seen an example of actual PLAY explicitly rewarding the munchkin.

Yeah. This feels like the same mentality that led my friends to run regular, "player dueling," sessions at the local gaming store TO INTRODUCE PEOPLE TO THE, "ROLEPLAYING," SYSTEM! Pure tournament-style, player vs. player, hack-and-slash, wargamming using the D&D system. Most of them would rather do that than roleplay, and I hate to imagine the kind of gamers they were birthing. I just really couldn't stomach the whole thing.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

(snip)

 

And as I say, if you start from the precept that an adventuring party is not a bunch of people in armour with weapons, but something that looks like it escaped from a wild anime series, then that's fine. I really look forward to our d20 games. Sure it's kinda dumb, but it's kinda dumb fun!

 

cheers, Mark

 

I think one of the great things about RPGs includes games which don't reflect any particular source material and are instead self-derived/unique playsets. Whether it's as you say that weird sort of world or Deadlands (which in some fashion approximates what one reads of weird west but which employs a bizarre "game physics" that violates many of the precepts of such source material), I think such things are neat. Personally, I increasingly prefer RPGs which aren't attempting to emulate anything than their own designer's vision.

[zornwil]

Re: What's the Topic Again?

 

I think the big issue is that Hero encourages asking the quesetion "Why doesn't this concept work like I want it to... and can we figure something that will work."

 

D&D, by design, says, "You aren't supposed to figure out how to make a Druid work well, you are supposed to figure out that you aren't supposed to play a druid and instead play paladin/monk gestalt class who moves on to Nightsong Enforcer at 6th level... because then you are playing the game right!"

 

I read something from the creators of D&D that specificall stated that the point of the game was for players to develop "mastery" of the system... by that meaning that they were supposed to develop the in depth knowledge (read "buy the books") in order to build the most effective/effecient/munchkined charcter. Doing so is "winning" and that is what D&D is designed to promote. The play experience rewards the min-maxed character... and the game intends that to be the case.

 

In Hero... while it certainly can appeal to that mind set of player (find the most broken stacked advantages for powers that make you invulnerable and others unable to defend)... but I would argue that the Hero PLAY EXPERIENCE does NOT support this kind of character.

 

The game does not give more experience points to the invisible, desol, AVLD attack character than it does the straight up energy blaster. You don't "lose" in Hero games the same way you can "lose" in D&D. GM guidelines are all about DC limits and Stop Signs, etc. Cooperative "genre play" is rewarded, etc.

 

Munchkin games have built in reward systems that support munchkinism in play. D&D is the perfect example of this. Hero could be seen as rewarding munchkinism in the character construction part of the game... but I've never seen an example of actual PLAY explicitly rewarding the munchkin.

I read an interesting comment by D. Vincent Baker, the Dogs designer, who said basically that if one is min-maxing Dogs in the Vineyard, then one is playing correctly! It was a very interesting comment from a game commonly taken as strongly narrative and oriented towards a particular play-experience to the point of snobbery and hob-nobbish attitude. But it's not at all incorrect - the game has a very strong gamist element, and I think min-maxing is not the same as munchkinery. I tend to think we tend to unfairly disparage min-maxing in HERO, that the game has a strong intent to encourage such a thing (as a point in fact, the 2nd edition advice to end char.s in 3s or 8s, with a couple exceptions, points towards that).

 

My point...none really, except that min-maxing in gaming is: a) just an interesting topic; and unfairly dissed as if it were somehow betraying a nobler purpose. It is a "roleplaying game" and most games have their aspect of efficiency.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

On this I agree. When I played Baldur's Gate some years ago I was pleasantly surprised to find that "D&D makes a great video game!" (This became my rallying cry for while.) Just not what I want in an RPG.

Conversely, it's fun to introduce roleplaying into games in which it's counter-productive. When we played the Monsters game (I'm spacing on the name, the one by Bruce Harlick and Patrick Sweeney), which is basically a "monsters kill each other"/tactical game, at DunDraCon, some of us ended up roleplaying some fo the monsters which led to of course an unbalanced game which doomed our own monsters but was terribly fun.

 

PS - and the game has a rule introduced by a moment of Darren Watt's RPing a monster simply because he had lost touch with what was going on so RPd what he thought was appropriate, and that in turn actually influenced the game design (basically, your monster spends a turn celebrating after victory (killing another monster), losing an entire turn)

[RDU Neil]

Re: What's the Topic Again?

 

 

My point...none really, except that min-maxing in gaming is: a) just an interesting topic; and unfairly dissed as if it were somehow betraying a nobler purpose. It is a "roleplaying game" and most games have their aspect of efficiency.

 

It's not that min-maxing is the issue... as much as being railroaded into a ceratin format of play is not comfortable to me in RPGs. If I approach D&D as a minis game... then it can become fun, because it really is about just rolling dice and seeing what you can kill... and if you reach 20th level before being killed, you win! It is like playing Talisman or some continuing game of Magic or some such. Fun as a game, but not what I consider role playing... no matter what the GNS model says.

 

And yes, I do find games like DitV or Polaris to be quite similar to gamist cousins in their heavy mechanistic methods. I'm not sure that their emphasis on mechanics and min-maxing to drive the effect you want really tells a "story" in the way they insist.

 

That's really off topic... but maybe what I'm getting at in my sleep deprived ravings is that a heavily mechanistic approach to actual play where the reward system drives increasing mechanistic efficiency as the "way to win" seems to diminish any need for a real "role" to be played... making the game closer to Monopoly than "cooperative story telling." You don't normally say, "I'll play the part of the Shoe!" when you play Monopoly... you just choose your piece and follow the rules. When D&D reinforces, "Choose the piece that is most efficient at "killing" in order to gain more resources, so you can "kill" more efficiently... I just don't see much "role" in that playing.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

We've done that in games where killing doesn't generate XP' date=' that aren't d20 at all. There's a certain mindset that goes with a certain type of character, that says "Yes, I know it's a trap, but we'll beat them anyway." or in other words, "They've got us right where we want them."[/quote']

 

True enough, but in my case the motivation was "The only path to self-improvement is killing. Yo more blood yo better."

 

In one of my games, players could have gotten equivalent experience for avoiding the ambush, or tricking or cowing the ambushers. Now I admit I did that when I ran D&D too, but I also admit that when I ran D&D, I was making up 40-60% of the rules on the spot and disregarding a good 30% of what was left, so calling it D&D is actually a bit misleading.

 

cheers, Mark

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

Conversely, it's fun to introduce roleplaying into games in which it's counter-productive. When we played the Monsters game (I'm spacing on the name, the one by Bruce Harlick and Patrick Sweeney), which is basically a "monsters kill each other"/tactical game, at DunDraCon, some of us ended up roleplaying some fo the monsters which led to of course an unbalanced game which doomed our own monsters but was terribly fun.

 

PS - and the game has a rule introduced by a moment of Darren Watt's RPing a monster simply because he had lost touch with what was going on so RPd what he thought was appropriate, and that in turn actually influenced the game design (basically, your monster spends a turn celebrating after victory (killing another monster), losing an entire turn)

 

Oh... absolutely. Giving character and motivation and personality and "story" to an otherwise mechanistic game is a hoot... but it is often "free form role playing" and very difficult to sustain outside of one shots and Con-games.

 

I have other things to say about the "role" in role playing... but I need to think them through a bit more.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is Hero too preditable?

 

I usually sum up the difference as "Roleplaying" vs "Roll-playing".