Learning from the mistakes of others

[Istaran]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

My experience with playing 4e for a few months now and 3.5 for a few years before that is that the roleplaying in 4e is pretty much the same as it was in 3.5. Except that the skill system doesn't actively tax me for my character concepts so much anymore. Yay.

I'm sorry some of you have run into some serious munchkin players in your areas. Believe me, they can get far more annoying in Hero than they can in D&D (and for that matter much worse in 3.5 than in 4e, at least so far). At least in Hero it is expected that the GM will review character sheets and approve/disapprove every obnoxious attempt at cheesing obscene bonuses out of every last corner of the rulebook(s).

 

D&D4e characters aren't balanced to do anything close to the same damage as each other. They're balanced to be equally important as a combat team which needs to work together as a team to succeed. That means some of them focus on massive damage to single targets, some focus on modest damage to many targets, others do only modest damage but aid and heal their teammates as well, and yet others are designed to keep threats away from their allies while being able to stand up to threats well themselves. Most characters straddle the line between two of those descriptions.

 

And D&D4e does have a mostly combat-oriented ruleset, but it's designed to mostly stay out of your way for non-combat roleplaying. How about Hero? What's that, you're a librarian? Did you spend your 3 points in PS:Librarian? No? You know you ought to spend a good 50 pts in KS: skills as well.. okay, now that you've finished re-writing your character.. huh, why do you always get clobbered in combat?

 

I've seen a Hero system character with so much non-combat points spent that she basically hid whenever combat came and felt useless. At other times she was the only one who could participate in certain non-combat scenes and the rest of us got to wait around for a few hours while she has her screen time. That's not the kind of 'balance' that actually works out well for the group in practice. Ideally everyone should be useful in and out of combat on a regular basis so that everyone can be involved in playing.

 

I've also done some of the kinds of PVP type stuff some people have complained about here done in Hero system. In a certain sense it's more natural in Hero system; after all NPCs are built with the exact same rules set as PCs, aside from a few extra options like Automatons. That isn't anything about the system, and everything about the players involved and what they want to do with their time. (In our case it was playing around with the system after hours when we had two players and no GM around, and just wanted to practice making characters and seeing what works and how well. We learned a lot about the system from that, which helped us know what we were doing when making our real characters for the real game.)

 

Anyways, the point I really want to get across is that if you have a bunch of people that want to roleplay with some solid tactical combat, 4e works great. 4e can also work well for pure dungeon crawls. Hero does well on the roleplay (if you put up with the rampant concept taxes) but I'm less sold on the tactical combat aspects.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I feel I should point out that there are people on the Fantasy HERO forum posting HERO builds for D&D 4E powers. So all the tactical elements from 4E can be incorporated into HEROS if the GM and players want to take the time to do it.

 

As I've said before, the HERO System can do anything!

[Istaran]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Might be worth looking at. Though I think a couple of the major shortfalls of tactics in Hero in my limited experience comes from the lack of positioning effects; you don't block space from your opponent's use (and if you did, flight and teleport are darn cheap ways to bypass that anyways), the lack of flank (there are other things which serve the purpose, but they're generally not very position dependant), no opportunity attacks (so you have no real 'zone of control' type effect in general) and the fact that out-of-turn actions burn up your turn (so no immediate interrupts/reactions without using up your standard turns.. except maybe complex constructs with triggered and such?)

 

Could be a function of who I game with (but then again, most of them also play D&D. *shrug*) but my Hero games seem much less tactically oriented, as there's often little practical difference between being in one hex over another other than who you are in range to/how many range increments to your target. In D&D I find positioning a much more engaging element, as well as a lot more dynamic interractions between the PCs and such ("I marked him, so go ahead and provoke; if he dares take the swing, I get a free swing on him!"). I get other things out of my Hero games that keep me coming back week after week, but this part feels like it could be improved.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Might be worth looking at. Though I think a couple of the major shortfalls of tactics in Hero in my limited experience comes from the lack of positioning effects; you don't block space from your opponent's use (and if you did' date=' flight and teleport are darn cheap ways to bypass that anyways), the lack of flank (there are other things which serve the purpose, but they're generally not very position dependant), no opportunity attacks (so you have no real 'zone of control' type effect in general) and the fact that out-of-turn actions burn up your turn (so no immediate interrupts/reactions without using up your standard turns.. except maybe complex constructs with triggered and such?) [/quote']

 

You can give flanking bonuses (actually, "attacked from behind in combat" gives the defender 1/2 DCV, so flanking is an option), but D&D (specifically 4e) also lacks such tactics as: bouncing an attack, coordinated attacks, multiple attacker modifiers, spreading an attack, surprise move (more or less, this one can be DM option), targeting a hex, blocking, bracing, disarming (pretty much), dodge, grab bys, haymakers, move bys, move throughs, setting, diving for cover, hipshots, hurried attacks, pulling a punch, rolling with a punch, snap shots, suppression fire, and probably more - and thats just the basics and optional that I read into. There may be more). The Hero combat system is different enough that "zone of control" type attacks do not normally matter, but they can be built (look for the two threads I started on conversions. It's not hard to do, even if the 4e powers get repititious - they are basically the same thing just bumped up in power).

 

Could be a function of who I game with (but then again, most of them also play D&D. *shrug*) but my Hero games seem much less tactically oriented, as there's often little practical difference between being in one hex over another other than who you are in range to/how many range increments to your target. In D&D I find positioning a much more engaging element, as well as a lot more dynamic interractions between the PCs and such ("I marked him, so go ahead and provoke; if he dares take the swing, I get a free swing on him!"). I get other things out of my Hero games that keep me coming back week after week, but this part feels like it could be improved.

 

I would definitely not agree that adding this type of codswallop would not improve Hero, except as an option, of course. I grew up with real wargames, and don't want to make my RPG a tabletop war game. Real life isn't like that. There's a difference between a tactical game, and a tactical wargame. 4e has really gone more to being a tactical wargame, where such arbitrary things as position on a board matters more than actual (let's say "realistic" tactics - such as "move around that ridge and flank them"). It encourages more of "let's move to this square, where they will have to provoke an AoO if they try to move here" - to me, that is more artificial and less about real tactics. I grew up on real wargames before I got into RPGs, and I prefer to keep them separate (for fun, why not look up advanced Squad Leader for real wargame fun).

 

D&D's combat system is meant to reflect that the one strike you roll for represents the one that may hit out of the many swung in that time increment, yet you still can get in that one extra strike when your opponent could potentially be up to 10' away? This is because each square is 5' across, and both characters could be at opposite sides of their respective squares, giving a large distance between them. But, if you cross into that magical space, you can get attacked (unless you have a Controller who yells at you, then you can shift without getting attacked). Yeah. No thanks. Hero lets me have more options that are not limited by arbitrary lines on the table.

 

Edit - my 4e Ranger thread has my take on the Attack of Opportunity mechanic.

[CaptD]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I like both games. I run a champs game every other Weds and a D&D 4th every other Sat. I have never run 3.5 I have only played in it. My problem with 3.5 was there were hundreds of supplements out there. My pocket book and brain couldn't keep up with them all.

 

The more I roleplay I tend to think...Give the players what they want. In champs they have pretty powerful heros. And the new D&D makes low levels more competant. If i'm going to spens 4-6 hours of my life playing a game I want to play something that packs a punch when its needed. I don't want a guy who shoots his one spell and is done for the day.

 

That being said, If I run a Sci-fi game it will probably be Star Hero, If I run a SuperHero gamme it will be Hero. I have never played fantasy hero but I can see where it has merits over D&D. But I run a group and I wanted to see how the new mechanics worked. They do work for a fantasy setting. My biggest complaint is sometimes the rules get vague. Sometimes they write a sentence where they need a paragraph.

 

Both are fun.

[tesuji]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

 

To make a game a RPG it needs to provide an infrastructure that encourages and supports roleplaying. And, I'm sorry to say, from what I've seen and heard of 4e, it just doesn't give me any warm fuzzies that way.

 

Well, what game components would in your mind be necessary and sufficient for this purpose that dnd 4e lacks?

 

in my experience system has almost if not totally nothing to do with how much role playing you get from your players. i have seen the same players using "role playing friendly" systems (ones with built-in personality rules) and in non-roleplaying rpgs (ones which leave personality off the sheet and off the mechanics altogether) and if any trend has shown itself, ever so slightly, i actually saw more roleplaying in the "personility is off the sheet" games.

 

Why?

 

Well, in games where character role playing traits are on the sheet, part of the mechanics, and part of the calculations - the traits tended to stay stagnant because making a change required reworking and refiguring some traits, some calculations were needed.

 

For example, a character rarely if ever would overcome his fear of spiders, because to have his character work thru it (deciding that after beating up several retrievers the typical daddy long legs did not hold the same fear potential) he would have to spend xp on that instead of new powers and growth or he had to develop a new phobia etc. So that fear of spiders tended to stay just as bad and as serious an issue as it was when the pc was the young farmboy. Luke the pc skywalker tended to stay the "naive farmboy" persona not evolving into the more wordly jedi even though he got the training and jedi powers.

 

On the other hand, in the games where personality is off the sheet, the players character's did a lot more persona evolving and changed as their experiences grew. When the "bigot against half breeds" guy finally had his bigotry fade due to experiences, it was just a player decision, the evolution from barbarian to princess was almost all personality... no cp involved.

 

So, to me it seemed - slight trend - putting personality into system mechanics fostered keeping the personality as it was from the beginning and stifled routine and normal character evolution - while leaving these things off the system and left to the players resulted in more evolution of personality based on the events.

 

One other note - another issue i have with building "role playing into system" and "personality into system" is that it tends to encourage SOME players to take personality traits that they dont really want but feel they NEED for the mechanical gains. (Example - a player wants to have his full 350 so he has to find 150 in disads even though after 100 he really has all he wants, so he tacks on some additional hunteds).

 

If personality traits and role playing traits are "off the books", no one ever in my experience takes traits they dont want. The things they write down off the books are things they want to play. Since there is no gain in adding a phbia you dont want to play, no one is tempted to do it. (Of course, no one ever is a slight exaggeration as sometimes people err - i had one player deliberately add "fear of snakes" but when it played out in scene it was disasterous - as the PLAYER had the fear and almost literally shut down (PLAYER!!!) when the "snakes on a firefly" session was played.)

 

So i remain firmely in the camp of "let system handle actions" and "let players handle roleplaying" and by handle i mean completely - dont try and have the system "encourage" or "foster" roleplaying.

 

but your experiences may vary.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I've had just the opposite experience. Our group saw psychological disadvantages 20 plus years ago and ran with them. They use them and other disadvantages to define their personality in a way that no game system that doesn't address it could. After 2 decades plus one of the reasons we love HERO is because it encourages all, player and GM, to really flesh out their characters.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Well, what game components would in your mind be necessary and sufficient for this purpose that dnd 4e lacks?

 

in my experience system has almost if not totally nothing to do with how much role playing you get from your players. i have seen the same players using "role playing friendly" systems (ones with built-in personality rules) and in non-roleplaying rpgs (ones which leave personality off the sheet and off the mechanics altogether) and if any trend has shown itself, ever so slightly, i actually saw more roleplaying in the "personility is off the sheet" games.

 

Why?

 

Well, in games where character role playing traits are on the sheet, part of the mechanics, and part of the calculations - the traits tended to stay stagnant because making a change required reworking and refiguring some traits, some calculations were needed.

 

For example, a character rarely if ever would overcome his fear of spiders, because to have his character work thru it (deciding that after beating up several retrievers the typical daddy long legs did not hold the same fear potential) he would have to spend xp on that instead of new powers and growth or he had to develop a new phobia etc. So that fear of spiders tended to stay just as bad and as serious an issue as it was when the pc was the young farmboy. Luke the pc skywalker tended to stay the "naive farmboy" persona not evolving into the more wordly jedi even though he got the training and jedi powers.

 

On the other hand, in the games where personality is off the sheet, the players character's did a lot more persona evolving and changed as their experiences grew. When the "bigot against half breeds" guy finally had his bigotry fade due to experiences, it was just a player decision, the evolution from barbarian to princess was almost all personality... no cp involved.

 

So, to me it seemed - slight trend - putting personality into system mechanics fostered keeping the personality as it was from the beginning and stifled routine and normal character evolution - while leaving these things off the system and left to the players resulted in more evolution of personality based on the events.

 

One other note - another issue i have with building "role playing into system" and "personality into system" is that it tends to encourage SOME players to take personality traits that they dont really want but feel they NEED for the mechanical gains. (Example - a player wants to have his full 350 so he has to find 150 in disads even though after 100 he really has all he wants, so he tacks on some additional hunteds).

 

If personality traits and role playing traits are "off the books", no one ever in my experience takes traits they dont want. The things they write down off the books are things they want to play. Since there is no gain in adding a phbia you dont want to play, no one is tempted to do it. (Of course, no one ever is a slight exaggeration as sometimes people err - i had one player deliberately add "fear of snakes" but when it played out in scene it was disasterous - as the PLAYER had the fear and almost literally shut down (PLAYER!!!) when the "snakes on a firefly" session was played.)

 

So i remain firmely in the camp of "let system handle actions" and "let players handle roleplaying" and by handle i mean completely - dont try and have the system "encourage" or "foster" roleplaying.

 

but your experiences may vary.

 

I think your last statement there is right on target.

 

My experience with games that don't include personality aspects in the system is that they tend to be ignored. Players concentrate on what the system provides, which is usually combat and loot. Any roleplaying that occurs is a secondary thing that rarely comes into play unless the GM and players put in the effort to include it.

 

Your example of personalities becoming stagnant assumes the players will concentrate only in developing their character's combat abilities. If that's their focus, then it kind of makes roleplaying moot, no?

 

I do agree that tying elements like Disadvantages to Character points can create situations like you describe. But the existence of those elements will at least direct the players towards thinking about roleplaying, as opposed to simply dismissing it and concentrating on kewl loot and phat XP.

 

Like so many things, the concept of roleplaying support in RPGs is something that's more easily described than defined. An example I like to use is from a RPG I've come to enjoy: Hollow Earth Expedition from Exile Games Group.

 

In the game, players can select a Flaw for their character. This Flaw (more or less equivalent to Disadvantages in Hero) does not provide the player with more points to build their character. What it does is provide opportunities for the player to get Style points when roleplaying the Flaw in the game. These Style points can then be used to increase dice rolls, reduce damage, or otherwise benefit the character.

 

So the use of Flaws and Style points in the game provide an instant reward for good roleplaying that help enhance the story and increase the fun.

 

I'll say it once again; my point is NOT that you can't roleplay in games like 4e. But being able to add roleplaying to a game does not automatically make it a roleplaying game.

[tesuji]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

My experience with games that don't include personality aspects in the system is that they tend to be ignored. Players concentrate on what the system provides, which is usually combat and loot. Any roleplaying that occurs is a secondary thing that rarely comes into play unless the GM and players put in the effort to include it.

and if my players tended to be like that< i would likely share your views, though i doubt it, as i rarely see players who dont roleplay for the fun of it take up roleplay in game because of potential bennies.

 

fortunately, whether it was DND 1e, classic traveller, dnd 3e, hero3, hero4, hero5, vampire 1 or NWOD, or several homebrew systems... my players tend to roleplay without system carrots, or with system carrots.

 

 

Your example of personalities becoming stagnant assumes the players will concentrate only in developing their character's combat abilities. If that's their focus, then it kind of makes roleplaying moot, no?

Actually it did not make any presuppositions about what they spent on other than "advancement" and it included combat stuff, investigate stuff, social skill stuff and even just flavor stuff.

 

I do agree that tying elements like Disadvantages to Character points can create situations like you describe. But the existence of those elements will at least direct the players towards thinking about roleplaying, as opposed to simply dismissing it and concentrating on kewl loot and phat XP.

I dont need the system to get the players thinking about roleplaying, as thats what we were thinking about from the start. The best elements to get them thinking is me, the gm, and their own enjoyment, and the other players, not the system.

 

I note the dnd alignment system from 1e is just such a "get you thinking about the personailty thingy, but i know of few roleplayers who thought it helpful in roleplaying their character.

Like so many things, the concept of roleplaying support in RPGs is something that's more easily described than defined. An example I like to use is from a RPG I've come to enjoy: Hollow Earth Expedition from Exile Games Group.

I have that. it looked cool!

In the game, players can select a Flaw for their character. This Flaw (more or less equivalent to Disadvantages in Hero) does not provide the player with more points to build their character. What it does is provide opportunities for the player to get Style points when roleplaying the Flaw in the game. These Style points can then be used to increase dice rolls, reduce damage, or otherwise benefit the character.

Well, i can definitely see this feeding my second issue - someone taking a fklaw because they feel the need for those die roll benefits in play, even though its not a flaw they "want" but rather one they can "stand".

 

that said, i do prefer pay when you suffer flaw style setups to the traditional points up front loan shark methodology.

 

 

So the use of Flaws and Style points in the game provide an instant reward for good roleplaying that help enhance the story and increase the fun.

I haven't seen the need sufficient or the actual impact you describe.

 

Put simply, my players tend to play the same way whether there is an instant mechanics reward for the most part. I dont see the "hardly ever puts a lot into roleplaying" guy turn around and roleplay heavily due to the instant reward. Nor do i see the "roleplays the heck out of his guy" lady stop roleplaying and just be blase combat machine because the system fails to grant her a tasy fish mechanic morsel every time she acts like her character.

 

but over time, in long campaigns where it can be seen as opposed to some of my shorter (one year) games, the pcs tended to evolve more in the "personality off the sheet" games than the ones which made personailty part of the mechanics and accounting.

 

 

 

I'll say it once again; my point is NOT that you can't roleplay in games like 4e. But being able to add roleplaying to a game does not automatically make it a roleplaying game.

 

to me a game does not need to have role playing as a part of the mechnical task resolution system in order to be a role playing game.

 

So in that we seem to differ, which is fine.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

in my experience system has almost if not totally nothing to do with how much role playing you get from your players. i have seen the same players using "role playing friendly" systems (ones with built-in personality rules) and in non-roleplaying rpgs (ones which leave personality off the sheet and off the mechanics altogether) and if any trend has shown itself, ever so slightly, i actually saw more roleplaying in the "personility is off the sheet" games.

 

Why?

 

Well, in games where character role playing traits are on the sheet, part of the mechanics, and part of the calculations - the traits tended to stay stagnant because making a change required reworking and refiguring some traits, some calculations were needed.

 

For example, a character rarely if ever would overcome his fear of spiders, because to have his character work thru it (deciding that after beating up several retrievers the typical daddy long legs did not hold the same fear potential) he would have to spend xp on that instead of new powers and growth or he had to develop a new phobia etc. So that fear of spiders tended to stay just as bad and as serious an issue as it was when the pc was the young farmboy. Luke the pc skywalker tended to stay the "naive farmboy" persona not evolving into the more wordly jedi even though he got the training and jedi powers.

 

On the other hand, in the games where personality is off the sheet, the players character's did a lot more persona evolving and changed as their experiences grew. When the "bigot against half breeds" guy finally had his bigotry fade due to experiences, it was just a player decision, the evolution from barbarian to princess was almost all personality... no cp involved.

 

One of the most frustrating micro-experiences from my game history. I had a roguish thief-illusionist (back in the Glory Days when the class was THIEVES), N'raac. Another character in the game, Morgan, was a highly Lawful cleric who detested thieves. N'raac delighted in getting that vein in Morgan's forehead throbbing.

 

Many levels later, at some point, we were having discussions with some group of NPC's, or maybe a new PC, or something, and Morgan "introduced" N'raac as "a no-good thief". Now, you would think after months or years of game time, and saving his life more than once at N'raac's own risk, he might have earned a little tolerance. But "Morgan hated thieves", so that was the end of it.

 

So, to me it seemed - slight trend - putting personality into system mechanics fostered keeping the personality as it was from the beginning and stifled routine and normal character evolution - while leaving these things off the system and left to the players resulted in more evolution of personality based on the events.

 

One other note - another issue i have with building "role playing into system" and "personality into system" is that it tends to encourage SOME players to take personality traits that they dont really want but feel they NEED for the mechanical gains. (Example - a player wants to have his full 350 so he has to find 150 in disads even though after 100 he really has all he wants, so he tacks on some additional hunteds).

 

If personality traits and role playing traits are "off the books", no one ever in my experience takes traits they dont want. The things they write down off the books are things they want to play. Since there is no gain in adding a phbia you dont want to play, no one is tempted to do it. (Of course, no one ever is a slight exaggeration as sometimes people err - i had one player deliberately add "fear of snakes" but when it played out in scene it was disasterous - as the PLAYER had the fear and almost literally shut down (PLAYER!!!) when the "snakes on a firefly" session was played.)

 

I find this in novice hero players, coupled with taking those traits exclusively from existing published examples. Most good role players, I find, are translating the personality and flaws they've already selected into disadvantage mechanics more than they are looking for disadvantages they might take - and often have more disad's than they need.

 

So i remain firmely in the camp of "let system handle actions" and "let players handle roleplaying" and by handle i mean completely - dont try and have the system "encourage" or "foster" roleplaying.

 

but your experiences may vary.

 

I think it can be beneficial for the system to include some notes on what "role playing" is, and encourage both player and GM to see the game as more than a tactical exercise - players to play their characters as something other than game pawns looking for the greatest tactical advantage, and GM's to foster such behaviour by not structuring their game to "reward" in-character play with execution by tactically superior foes. But, while I do like the Hero disad's system, I don't see it as necessarily fostering role playing. The group brings role playing - the system cannot.

 

I've had just the opposite experience. Our group saw psychological disadvantages 20 plus years ago and ran with them. They use them and other disadvantages to define their personality in a way that no game system that doesn't address it could. After 2 decades plus one of the reasons we love HERO is because it encourages all' date=' player and GM, to really flesh out their characters.[/quote']

 

I think a lot of role players frustrated with roll players might like the Disad's system. But it's equally possible for roll players to view these as obstacles to be overcome ("well, maybe I can make that Ego roll to avoid my fear") rather than role playing hooks ("snakes...why did it have to be snakes").

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

 

I think a lot of role players frustrated with roll players might like the Disad's system. But it's equally possible for roll players to view these as obstacles to be overcome ("well, maybe I can make that Ego roll to avoid my fear") rather than role playing hooks ("snakes...why did it have to be snakes").

 

 

True but they're not going to Be acting "in character" anything other than their players character anyway maybe it'll rub off a little. I just know its really the bomb with our group. Psychologicals are pretty much always taken to the max allowed and sometimes my group takes more even if they don't get points!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

True but they're not going to Be acting "in character" anything other than their players character anyway maybe it'll rub off a little. I just know its really the bomb with our group. Psychologicals are pretty much always taken to the max allowed and sometimes my group takes more even if they don't get points!

 

That strikes me as role players - they don't need to benefit from the drawbacks to play them. How is taking 75 points of Psych's when you get only 50 points different from having psych's when you don't get rewarded for them at all? The quantum is different, but not the philosophy.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I've played RPGs for a long time. Longer than I care to admit.

 

In all the years of playing RPGs, I've never seen a D&D character who had some physical fault that wasn't caused in play. (2nd ed AD&D and earlier had magic weapons that could sever limbs)

 

Since 3rd ed was published, I've never seen a D&D character who was missing a limb, had a limp, bad vision, etc. etc. etc.

 

Plenty of character faults, though. No end to those.

 

 

What does that have to do with roleplaying and game systems?

 

Well, someone missing a hand, an arm or with some less than perfect limb or organ might eventually suffer for it. A game system that does not offer any sort of bennie for having some malfunction or deformity is pretty much encouraging everyone to play paragons of function.

 

Now, on to psychological faults. Why would you play a character with a crippling fear or spiders in a game where you might be fighting for your life against spiders and where you got nothing in return for it? Maybe the player is projecting their fear of spiders - I could see that, but I've never seen a D&D character who had such a disad. Seen it in Fantasy Hero games, though.

 

So why is it that D&D players aren't as interested in fully fleshed out characters with flaws and shortcomings? Well, players tend to gravitate to games that reward their preferred style of play, the same way tall athletic girls are rewarded for choosing to play basketball and rather less so if they're interested in gymnastics. Very few weaklings take up the shot put and very few bodybuilders try out as jockeys.

 

If you wanted to play characters that had significant flaws, either physical or psychological, then you're better off playing in a game that not only compensated you for it, but attracted other people who saw these flaws as not mere shortcomings, but opportunities for unusual or interesting conflicts or challenges.

[Istaran]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You have some interesting points, BNakagawa. The self-selection issue especially seems like it's right on. You only get a proper appreciation of how the system effects the players when you see the same players in two different systems.

 

As for Physical Disads: I think in Hero they have a tendancy to not be really disads, or at least not to the degree they would be in something like D&D. Hero really doesn't hinge much of its mechanics on the fact that you all of your limbs are in tact and function normally. Try building a D&D character with no arms. In 3.5 they better be a spellcaster or a monk, and if they're a spell caster they have a very short list of spell choices and none of them do damage. Or they take Still Spell and lose a spell level on everything they cast. In 4e it's not quite as severe, but you pretty much want to be a Wisdom based cleric. Or maybe a warforged. You can't use weapons, shields, or most implements (holy symbol is about it).

Now try building a Hero character with no arms. You can still do anything a baseline character can do except certain uses of STR (can you Grab someone? With your legs, why not?) and using other people's Foci in some cases. Your own Foci are of course going to be designed for the armless. All of your powers will be built to not require arms. If you take 10 STR worth of TK you barely notice the missing arms. In fact, my current campaign has a GM-PC who is a parapalegic and gets no points for that because he uses TK to move himself (it's just a different SFK on STR effectively). There's a big difference between playing "Guy who can't do the things normally expected of him in the system" and "Guy who can't do a few odd side plot things but is fully functional as a PC."

 

As for psych lims.. I play them all the time in D&D (both 3.5 and 4e). They're not written anywhere, nor do I spell them out the way I would a psych lim in Hero. I think for a while before I first start playing a character about what is this character's point of view (usually one quite off from both my own and any other characters or people I've met) and then play it out as it makes sense. So when I go around with Sin the Librarian, who at one time believed his Race, Gender, and Occupation were all "Librarian", I just have to think What Would the Librarian DO? And ta-da! Instant Psych-lim. And off I go, doing things that make perfect sense only from the POV of the Librarian. (It's amasing how many guards can be pushed past with the line "Out of my way, I'm on Official Library business!")

 

In my local experience, D&D has a mix of 'roleplayers and rollplayers' based on what people actually want to do. Both have fun, and have fun together. Hero has a little more pure roleplayers, but that seems to be more self-selection (and GM selection. The D&D games are open to all, the Hero games tend to be more invitational.) But then we also have the silent player in the corner who is too shy to take the spotlight and just quitely rolls along with the game. He has some psych lims or something, some of which aren't even on his sheet, but the only time we really see it is when he grabs some dice, rolls an unexplained 3d6, and then sometimes decides that obviously that roll means his character is going to do something he (the player) knows is likely to get him killed. He does the same thing in D&D, but then it's a d20.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

That strikes me as role players - they don't need to benefit from the drawbacks to play them. How is taking 75 points of Psych's when you get only 50 points different from having psych's when you don't get rewarded for them at all? The quantum is different' date=' but not the philosophy.[/quote']

 

 

But the idea never occurred to us to write down and develop the personality background before HERO got us thinking about it. Pre HERO characters were still personalities but after was a quantum leap for us.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

One of the most frustrating micro-experiences from my game history. I had a roguish thief-illusionist (back in the Glory Days when the class was THIEVES), N'raac. Another character in the game, Morgan, was a highly Lawful cleric who detested thieves. N'raac delighted in getting that vein in Morgan's forehead throbbing.

 

Many levels later, at some point, we were having discussions with some group of NPC's, or maybe a new PC, or something, and Morgan "introduced" N'raac as "a no-good thief". Now, you would think after months or years of game time, and saving his life more than once at N'raac's own risk, he might have earned a little tolerance. But "Morgan hated thieves", so that was the end of it.

 

That sucks, to be frank. But it also reflects reality - I've seen racists work side by side with a guy, even seem to be good friends, but then they turn around and say "he's an XXXXXX". It's sad, but that's the way some people think. In a way, the player could have been playing that type of person. But it still sucks and to me runs counter to the goal of bringing the players together and having fun.

 

That's the same thing that I used to see with the "dwarves hate elves" bit, and the old "racial preferences" table. Between that and the alignment system, I saw people who thought they had to play that way. I even saw this (for a moment) in my group when we looked at 4e and one player started reading her race's description and thought that was how she had to be. I took care of that quickly.

 

My experience with Hero was different, maybe in part because the traits were both chosen by the player and better defined (EGO roll to resist, etc). While it can work the same way and straitjacket the player (if they feel that way), they can also work to make the character think creatively. We had a barbarian who hated dwarves, and when the dwarf player saved his life in a spectacular fashion, he had to work a way around it. Instead of the typical "I hate all dwarves but this one", he took the "He is an honored member of my tribe and honorary human, and my blood brother". Other dwarves were still regarded with suspicion and hatred, but it was a start. I think he was planning to buy that off or trade it in for another one eventually, but our group broke up, so I don't know what happened to him.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

That sucks' date=' to be frank. But it also reflects reality - I've seen racists work side by side with a guy, even seem to be good friends, but then they turn around and say "he's an XXXXXX". It's sad, but that's the way some people think. In a way, the player could have been playing that type of person. But it still sucks and to me runs counter to the goal of bringing the players together and having fun.[/quote']

 

It was a very minor issue from a good player and a good campaign, but it nagged. Probably in part because I viewed my character as having come to grudgingly accept that the cleric wasn't a complete twit after all, and viewed any friction between the two by that time as a game more than any serious dislike.

 

We had a barbarian who hated dwarves' date=' and when the dwarf player saved his life in a spectacular fashion, he had to work a way around it. Instead of the typical "I hate all dwarves but this one", he took the "He is an honored member of my tribe and honorary human, and my blood brother". Other dwarves were still regarded with suspicion and hatred, but it was a start. I think he was planning to buy that off or trade it in for another one eventually, but our group broke up, so I don't know what happened to him.[/quote']

 

Similar story. I got tired of a few players who liked insulting every other character, and preferred to run foolish characters themselves. So I created a Scottish Highlander berserker. We were the typical "tossed together by chance" group of characters, so he had no reason to particularly like, or dislike, anyone else in the group. But he DID expect everyone to pull their weight, he did not have a lot of respect for anyone who couldn't physically defend themselves and he lived by the creed that "The kilt is the Clan, and the Clan is all." Disrespect for the kilt was a personal affront, and a reference to "skirt" could set him into violence.

 

Over time, I tracked his views of the various characters, and he made decisions based on them. Initially, he had little but contempt for the "wild mage" wizard. He can't fight. He needs to "go back tae Spell Scuil". He was a liability. Then we hit the tower full of bugbear guards. As the group was discussing what to do, someone looked around and noticed the mage was missing. He came tearing back into our hideout shack a few seconds later, a couple of bugbears hot on his heels. After they were dispatched, we discovered he'd gone, alone, to the tower and webbed up the first two floors, trapping the creatures at a serious disadvantage. Complete 180 for the highlander - he may get a spell wrong once in a while, but he put his life on the line for the group, and I'll have his back whenever he needs it.

 

Meanwhile, a couple of the other characters gradually reached the point where he subconsciously perceived them as "enemy" rather than "teammate", and would behave accordingly while in berserker rage. After one of them, at personal risk, saved a downed party member's life, he mellowed a bit. Then the character would do something else that he viewed as stupid, and back down the chain.

 

I prefer characters whose attitudes change over time based on actual events - real people, not cardboard cutouts. The game system doesn't make that happen. It can encourage it, or it can discourage it. And it can have different effects on different players, with some fleshing out more complete characters due to the mechanic of psychological limitations and others stuck in the psychological limitations the characters were designed with, and an abject refusal to consider any possibility of personal growth.

 

I'd like to see changing disad's, and for that matter changing abilities, occupy a much more prominent place in the next edition - you've faced the spiders, and you've conquered, or at least reduced, your fear. But you've also practically adopted that orphan you rescued from the webs. So the points reduced on Fear of Spiders move over to a DNPC, and the character grows in a different direction.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

to me a game does not need to have role playing as a part of the mechnical task resolution system in order to be a role playing game.

 

So in that we seem to differ, which is fine.

 

And to me a game that markets itself as a roleplaying game needs to offer more than "oh, and you can do some roleplaying while you're playing this game" to qualify for the status.

 

We can agree to disagree. No worries there.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

A HEROS character's disadvantages are not neccessarily 'static throughout a campaign.' There are two ways to change them.

 

The first, as has been mentioned, is buying off the disad. But it does cost the character something in 'advancement' (so to speak).

 

The second is to change the disad when the circumstances are appropriate.

 

Quote 5E, p212 under 'Changing or buying Off Disadvantages':

 

"With the GM's permission, characters can also alter their Disadvantages during the coruse of the campaign. This can reflect the way the character is being played and helps promote character development. Perhaps a character begins the campaign with the Psychological Limitation Greedy. As the campaign progresses, this could be changed to Generous, or even Idealistic. Similarly a character with the Social Limitation Secret Identity could be discovered and have to trade in the Disadvantage points into a Hunted, or even a Public Identity. A character who manages to kill or capture his Hunted may acquire another one - the former Hunted's ally, for example. So long as the points remain constant and the GM gives his permission, the character's Disadvantages can evolve to suit the character."

 

So character change and evolution is actually written into the HEROS rules after all...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The second is to change the disad when the circumstances are appropriate.

 

Quote 5E, p212 under 'Changing or buying Off Disadvantages':

 

"With the GM's permission, characters can also alter their Disadvantages during the coruse of the campaign. This can reflect the way the character is being played and helps promote character development. Perhaps a character begins the campaign with the Psychological Limitation Greedy. As the campaign progresses, this could be changed to Generous, or even Idealistic. Similarly a character with the Social Limitation Secret Identity could be discovered and have to trade in the Disadvantage points into a Hunted, or even a Public Identity. A character who manages to kill or capture his Hunted may acquire another one - the former Hunted's ally, for example. So long as the points remain constant and the GM gives his permission, the character's Disadvantages can evolve to suit the character."

 

So character change and evolution is actually written into the HEROS rules after all...

 

Emphasis added. Loosely translated, that term means "This is against the rules, but if the GM wishes to override the rules, who are we to prohibit him?"

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Emphasis added. Loosely translated' date=' that term means "This is against the rules, but if the GM wishes to override the rules, who are we to prohibit him?"[/quote']

 

hum. I kinda translated it as this could be abused so requires special GM oversight but I apparently think the rules cover more than many others do so what do i know.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Emphasis added. Loosely translated' date=' that term means "This is against the rules, but if the GM wishes to override the rules, who are we to prohibit him?"[/quote']

 

How is that any different from a stop sign?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

How is that any different from a stop sign?

 

A stop sign is still book legal. Realistically, I typically interpret terms like "Gamemasters should carefully evaluate", "some GM's may not consider this balanced and non-abusive and so forbid it" and "the GM may want to require special justification" as the verbal equivalent of a yield sign/stop sign.

 

"With GM permission" to me implies going one step further - the GM is at least bending the rules to allow this.

[Acme]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

"With GM permission" to me implies going one step further - the GM is at least bending the rules to allow this.

 

You could also read it the other way. In our games we always treated it as "Don't do it without the GM's permission." (which is a little more awkward to read)

 

This prevents situations like, "Oh, didn't I tell you? My DNPC: Sgt. Davis is now a Psych Lim: Distrusts Police." Keeps the GM in the loop.

[Istaran]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You could also read it the other way. In our games we always treated it as "Don't do it without the GM's permission." (which is a little more awkward to read)

 

This prevents situations like, "Oh, didn't I tell you? My DNPC: Sgt. Davis is now a Psych Lim: Distrusts Police." Keeps the GM in the loop.

 

Sounds about right for this one. If the PC was perfectly legal and fine before, and you changed the disads to make a PC that is also perfectly legal and fine then there is no balance reason why the change cannot be allowed. The GM will have to evaluate the appropriateness of the change within the story.