One thing I REALLY liked about HERO over D&D
- Thread starter Psion
- Start date
Sir Whiskers
First Post
Psion said:
I recommend new players try out Sidekick first. It's a shortened version of the rules designed to introduce newbies to the game in a manageable way. Also, it's cheap ($9.95). If it turns out Hero is not your cup of tea, you won't be out too many dollars. (Looks like Intrope beat me to the post.)
Concerning Psion's point about D&D imposing balance by eliminating options (rather than using warnings), I have to agree. It seems that 3E trusts GM's much less than Hero does.
In Hero, a campaign succeeds or fails in large measure by how well the GM and players cooperate on character design. It's so easy to design unbalanced characters that then ruin the game. Everyone involved has to show a measure of maturity and restraint for the system to work. Hero assumes that will happen.
In D&D this is less true. Unless PrC's are allowed, it's more difficult to break the system within the rules. Not impossible, but much less likely. The system accomplishes this by eliminating options within the core rules. As BG mentioned, this is likely a reaction to the imbalances within 2E, but enough is enough. If 3E is really about "options, not restrictions", then the rules should reflect this and put the burden where it belongs: on the GM and the players.
One way to accomplish this is to have "balanced" core rules, with optional rules for those groups who wish to use them. I personally hope that's the direction 4E goes, but we'll see. In the meantime, I'll keep house-ruling D&D, and enjoying the greater flexibility in Hero.
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
Wow. There's certainly no shortage of confidence at the Hero website:
Anyhow, my biggest problem with Hero has always been that it seem to be too much work. Too many stats, too much math, too much work involved balancing a game, too much ongoing balance issues for the GM. This may be an incorrect assumption, but Hero has always struck me as a 'catch me if you can' system, where the DM has to number-crunch every character and watch for every one of many extensive loopholes.
If the 5th edition actually highlights those problem areas, that's certainly something in it's favor. My limited exposure to Champions, back in the day, showed me that it was interesting system, but I found Villains and Vigilantes and GURPS Supers (with all of the many flaws those systems had) more satisfying (albeit for different reasons).
Now I'm gearing up for a Mutants & Masterminds game. Against it joyous simplicity and clean design, I'm doubting that Hero could really entice me. As for their flexibility versus D&D...well, they require it more, what with their emphasis on Superrheroes. They require a whole different standard for what characters are expected to accomplish, and how they accomplish it. Further, they don't have a big 3rd-party market to develop non-standard stuff....there's no Mongoose for the Hero System, AFAIK, so they have to be more lax in that style.
I see advantages to both approaches...and sometimes some DMs don't want to have to spend a large amount of time playing "Mother, may I?" with some players.
[/font]Heh.Hero Games said:
Anyhow, my biggest problem with Hero has always been that it seem to be too much work. Too many stats, too much math, too much work involved balancing a game, too much ongoing balance issues for the GM. This may be an incorrect assumption, but Hero has always struck me as a 'catch me if you can' system, where the DM has to number-crunch every character and watch for every one of many extensive loopholes.
If the 5th edition actually highlights those problem areas, that's certainly something in it's favor. My limited exposure to Champions, back in the day, showed me that it was interesting system, but I found Villains and Vigilantes and GURPS Supers (with all of the many flaws those systems had) more satisfying (albeit for different reasons).
Now I'm gearing up for a Mutants & Masterminds game. Against it joyous simplicity and clean design, I'm doubting that Hero could really entice me. As for their flexibility versus D&D...well, they require it more, what with their emphasis on Superrheroes. They require a whole different standard for what characters are expected to accomplish, and how they accomplish it. Further, they don't have a big 3rd-party market to develop non-standard stuff....there's no Mongoose for the Hero System, AFAIK, so they have to be more lax in that style.
I see advantages to both approaches...and sometimes some DMs don't want to have to spend a large amount of time playing "Mother, may I?" with some players.
Last edited:
PugioilAudacio
First Post
Intrope said:
Would this happen to come with an adventure and, if not, what is a good one to start off with?
Regarding the above question, if I want my players to like the game and want to keep playing, the adventure will probably have to be something INTERESTING - and not just an intro to the game. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Pugio
MerricB said:The big difference is in how D&D supports tournament play, especially with the RPGA's Living campaigns.
Though HERO's method is superior in many respects, it runs into severe trouble when you look at resolving the matter on a global scale.
To me, that seems like the tail wagging the dog. In the realm of roleplaying games, the tournament should worry about considerations needed to make the game work in a tournament setting. The game shouldn't be concerning itself with being suitable for tournaments.
What's the ratio of tournament play to non-tournament play? Tournaments are great--possibly the highest form--for some games, but are (IMHO) just a novelty for roleplaying games.
But hey, if being a tournament game is important to WotC, more power to them.
Ozmar
First Post
HERO vs. D&D
All,
Apologies for this long post. Feel free to skip it if you wish. I thought it might be interesting to some people who are interested in HERO.
Here is a conversation I was having with a friend of mine. He's a big fan of HERO. I like HERO, but I am not amazed by it, and I think that D&D is better for my current RP tastes.
Ozmar says:
Disclaimer: I don't really care, but I'll be happy to argue about the merits of one game over another. I am not a system zealot, though. I'll happily play any system and run half of them so long as the DM and players are good.
But here are points in favor of D&D/d20 and the counterpoints to your four points in favor of HERO.
1. Support. Every week, WotC or Monte Cook put out one or more free adventures, maps, rules enhancements, spells, monsters, or characters. These are ideas that can be culled for any fantasy game, of course, but when using D&D, the work of conversion to my campaign is minimized. The major companies release additional books every month. I don't feel the need to buy everything, but I love having the product to draw ideas from. Again, I could use these products for any game, with a bit of work, but why work? I'd rather play!
2. Community of Players. There are millions of players in the country, and hundreds of players in my immediate area who all know and play D&D. Finding players becomes that much easier (I have made contact with two to three times as many groups as I actually have time to game with), and finding good games becomes that much more likely because I have a larger pool of people to work with. There are large communities of excellent and experienced players online, and most of them play D&D. As the lingua franca of roleplaying, D&D provides a common tongue for these communities. Even if I wasn't playing it, I'd have to speak it in order to draw upon the larger community for ideas and support.
3. Simplicity. Sure, I can do calculus in my head, but why should I? Even among Rolemaster players in my experience, the ability to add 67 and 32 in one's head seems to be a rare commodity. As a DM, I detest helping players with their math, because its a neverending task. Some people just never learn! So why make the game any more complicated than it needs to be? Maybe D&D doesn't have the bone-crushing detail of Rolemaster's combat system, but its hard to fault the simplicity of hit points.
4. Campaign Support. Dragon magazine, Dungeon magazine, d20 companies are constantly producing supplements and adventures, many of which are high quality. All of these can be mined for ideas, and the less work I have to do to make these ideas workable for my game, the more time I can spend actually gaming. Prepared adventures are the best! I love to go into detail on my adventures, and having a fully-fleshed adventure to start with means I spend all my time modifying and customizing and adding details, and don't have to waste any time writing the outline. Also, consider the huge number of campaign worlds available. Just off the top of my head, there is: Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Kalamar, Midnight, Oathbound, Freeport, Scarred Lands, and Xcrawl. Each of these would provide many campaigns worth of adventure. Once again, you could adapt these to another system, but why bother?
Now on to your points in favor of HERO.
1. No classes, but then HERO offers classes for those who want them? Why? B/c it recognizes the clear value of classes. Classes channel the creative energy. They serve the same function as rules. Without rules or some kind of guidelines, an imaginative game is too open-ended. With rules, your imagination is given limits, so you can begin to shape your ideas for your character. Classes are just another aspect of this, and one that is very useful for most players.
You may find that classes are too restrictive for your tastes. That's fine. In older editions of D&D, I'd agree with you. But even then, most players would not. This is just a matter of taste. For my current tastes, I find that I haven't become bored with all the available class options, and so I am satisfied.
In my current D&D campaign, the players are: a dragon-blooded elven paladin, a fire giant barbarian, a faen rogue, a mojh sorcerer, and a celestial-dwarven totem warrior. I presented 17 classes as options for the game, and I don't think my players felt restricted at all. (In fact, I got the impression from some of them that I was giving them too many options!)
In the current D&D, with the sensible multiclassing, the rules to play monsters as PCs, the enormous number of classes and the huge glut of prestige classes, I don't think there are undue limits on character options.
I bet you could probably create characters in HERO that are not easily replicable in D&D, but I think that 80 to 90 percent of the HERO characters (I'm talking Fantasy HERO - let's keep it in the same genre (obviously D&D is not your best choice for an SF game) ) can be easily created in the d20 system. In fact, I challenge you to list 5 characters in HERO, and I'll see how they could be replicated (or not) in D&D/d20.
And D&D/d20 does a much, much, much better job in providing guidance and ideas for your characters than HERO does. HERO is generic. It doesn't present a world, or give any flavorful contributions to race, culture, society, etc.... With HERO, you have to do all this on your own. With D&D, you don't have to, because there are many, many worlds that are available for mining already.
2. Skill based system. I guess if you don't like levels, then that is enough said. If, however, you are like most RPG players who like being able to look forward to and achieve distinctive points where you measurably increase your character's power and ability, then you probably consider levels a plus, not a minus.
3. Versatility. The versatility is definitely a point in favor of HERO. It is very versatile. However, I find that D&D is more than versitile enough for the games I want to play. In the past, I didn't enjoy the restrictions imposed by D&D, but currently, I don't find them to be too restrictive for my tastes. Also, there are advantages to restrictions: too many options can lead to an inability to make choices when creating characters or designing campaigns.
4. 3d6 vs. d20 Again, that's just a matter of taste. Some people like more randomness in their game, b/c they feel that it gives them more opportunity to be heroic. In your system, a character with a +4 attack bonus vs. a character with a +8 attack bonus (all other things being equal) is at a marked disadvantage, and probably will lose. And this is probably the way you want to have your game: you want the more skilled character to predictably win. With the d20 system, the +4 character will probably lose, but there is a slightly greater chance that he'll get lucky enough to win. D&D is a more heroic system (ironically) than HERO.
That having been said, I'm perfectly happy playing D&D for now. If for some reason I wanted to play some other system tomorrow, I would probably run Alternity, Earthdawn, Continuum, or a modified Rolemaster (in that order). I just don't have the need for "infinite flexibility" in the system, because I have a backlog of cool ideas that would be more than adequately expressed by other systems with greater focus.
Ozmar the Accepting of All RPG Systems
All,
Apologies for this long post. Feel free to skip it if you wish. I thought it might be interesting to some people who are interested in HERO.
Here is a conversation I was having with a friend of mine. He's a big fan of HERO. I like HERO, but I am not amazed by it, and I think that D&D is better for my current RP tastes.
Guy who likes HERO. said:There is hope!! Actually I think you would be playing Hero if you thought you could get away with it with your players. I am pretty sick right now and I have a thousand things to do, so I am going to procrastinate and call it work and teach you the greatness of HERO.
1. No classes. Period. A player is able to customise his character how he chooses. A player can be at a loss as to what to build without someone leading them by the nose. To counteract that the fantasy book does have templates (classes).
2. Skill based system, no levels. Enough said on that
3. All the points are drawn from one pool of points. Thus it allows you more versatility with your character. You can have a highly skilled character with few natural abilities or someone with lots of natural talent but few abilities. So on and So on.
4. 3d6 versus d20. The 3d6 is by far a superior method to use. It allows you to have a bell curve. The benefit that most do not see about this is that it puts more emphasis on skill rather than the die roll. I could go into more math here if you want me to, but I think you can figure that out on your own.
Ok, I am tired now. I think I will leave it at that. Any thoughts?
Ozmar says:
Disclaimer: I don't really care, but I'll be happy to argue about the merits of one game over another. I am not a system zealot, though. I'll happily play any system and run half of them so long as the DM and players are good.
But here are points in favor of D&D/d20 and the counterpoints to your four points in favor of HERO.
1. Support. Every week, WotC or Monte Cook put out one or more free adventures, maps, rules enhancements, spells, monsters, or characters. These are ideas that can be culled for any fantasy game, of course, but when using D&D, the work of conversion to my campaign is minimized. The major companies release additional books every month. I don't feel the need to buy everything, but I love having the product to draw ideas from. Again, I could use these products for any game, with a bit of work, but why work? I'd rather play!
2. Community of Players. There are millions of players in the country, and hundreds of players in my immediate area who all know and play D&D. Finding players becomes that much easier (I have made contact with two to three times as many groups as I actually have time to game with), and finding good games becomes that much more likely because I have a larger pool of people to work with. There are large communities of excellent and experienced players online, and most of them play D&D. As the lingua franca of roleplaying, D&D provides a common tongue for these communities. Even if I wasn't playing it, I'd have to speak it in order to draw upon the larger community for ideas and support.
3. Simplicity. Sure, I can do calculus in my head, but why should I? Even among Rolemaster players in my experience, the ability to add 67 and 32 in one's head seems to be a rare commodity. As a DM, I detest helping players with their math, because its a neverending task. Some people just never learn! So why make the game any more complicated than it needs to be? Maybe D&D doesn't have the bone-crushing detail of Rolemaster's combat system, but its hard to fault the simplicity of hit points.
4. Campaign Support. Dragon magazine, Dungeon magazine, d20 companies are constantly producing supplements and adventures, many of which are high quality. All of these can be mined for ideas, and the less work I have to do to make these ideas workable for my game, the more time I can spend actually gaming. Prepared adventures are the best! I love to go into detail on my adventures, and having a fully-fleshed adventure to start with means I spend all my time modifying and customizing and adding details, and don't have to waste any time writing the outline. Also, consider the huge number of campaign worlds available. Just off the top of my head, there is: Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Kalamar, Midnight, Oathbound, Freeport, Scarred Lands, and Xcrawl. Each of these would provide many campaigns worth of adventure. Once again, you could adapt these to another system, but why bother?
Now on to your points in favor of HERO.
1. No classes, but then HERO offers classes for those who want them? Why? B/c it recognizes the clear value of classes. Classes channel the creative energy. They serve the same function as rules. Without rules or some kind of guidelines, an imaginative game is too open-ended. With rules, your imagination is given limits, so you can begin to shape your ideas for your character. Classes are just another aspect of this, and one that is very useful for most players.
You may find that classes are too restrictive for your tastes. That's fine. In older editions of D&D, I'd agree with you. But even then, most players would not. This is just a matter of taste. For my current tastes, I find that I haven't become bored with all the available class options, and so I am satisfied.
In my current D&D campaign, the players are: a dragon-blooded elven paladin, a fire giant barbarian, a faen rogue, a mojh sorcerer, and a celestial-dwarven totem warrior. I presented 17 classes as options for the game, and I don't think my players felt restricted at all. (In fact, I got the impression from some of them that I was giving them too many options!)
In the current D&D, with the sensible multiclassing, the rules to play monsters as PCs, the enormous number of classes and the huge glut of prestige classes, I don't think there are undue limits on character options.
I bet you could probably create characters in HERO that are not easily replicable in D&D, but I think that 80 to 90 percent of the HERO characters (I'm talking Fantasy HERO - let's keep it in the same genre (obviously D&D is not your best choice for an SF game) ) can be easily created in the d20 system. In fact, I challenge you to list 5 characters in HERO, and I'll see how they could be replicated (or not) in D&D/d20.
And D&D/d20 does a much, much, much better job in providing guidance and ideas for your characters than HERO does. HERO is generic. It doesn't present a world, or give any flavorful contributions to race, culture, society, etc.... With HERO, you have to do all this on your own. With D&D, you don't have to, because there are many, many worlds that are available for mining already.
2. Skill based system. I guess if you don't like levels, then that is enough said. If, however, you are like most RPG players who like being able to look forward to and achieve distinctive points where you measurably increase your character's power and ability, then you probably consider levels a plus, not a minus.
3. Versatility. The versatility is definitely a point in favor of HERO. It is very versatile. However, I find that D&D is more than versitile enough for the games I want to play. In the past, I didn't enjoy the restrictions imposed by D&D, but currently, I don't find them to be too restrictive for my tastes. Also, there are advantages to restrictions: too many options can lead to an inability to make choices when creating characters or designing campaigns.
4. 3d6 vs. d20 Again, that's just a matter of taste. Some people like more randomness in their game, b/c they feel that it gives them more opportunity to be heroic. In your system, a character with a +4 attack bonus vs. a character with a +8 attack bonus (all other things being equal) is at a marked disadvantage, and probably will lose. And this is probably the way you want to have your game: you want the more skilled character to predictably win. With the d20 system, the +4 character will probably lose, but there is a slightly greater chance that he'll get lucky enough to win. D&D is a more heroic system (ironically) than HERO.
That having been said, I'm perfectly happy playing D&D for now. If for some reason I wanted to play some other system tomorrow, I would probably run Alternity, Earthdawn, Continuum, or a modified Rolemaster (in that order). I just don't have the need for "infinite flexibility" in the system, because I have a backlog of cool ideas that would be more than adequately expressed by other systems with greater focus.
Ozmar the Accepting of All RPG Systems
Ozmar
First Post
All,
I re-read that and I realized that it might have the potential to start a system war, so I would like to add a huge disclaimer.
That's my own humble opinion, your mileage may vary, it doesn't matter which game you play as long as you're having fun, no game is intrinsically better than another, each game is better for some players and some types of games than each other game, etc... etc... etc...
So I don't want to start a fight.
I just wanted to provide some of my perspective for anyone who is interested in reading about HERO. HERO really is a fine game and is well worth checking out for anyone who doesn't mind a little extra work in creating characters or DMing, and it is particularly good at providing a system that allows you to create anything, but it needs a strong DM to run the show.
Later!
Ozmar the System Friendly Player
I re-read that and I realized that it might have the potential to start a system war, so I would like to add a huge disclaimer.
That's my own humble opinion, your mileage may vary, it doesn't matter which game you play as long as you're having fun, no game is intrinsically better than another, each game is better for some players and some types of games than each other game, etc... etc... etc...
So I don't want to start a fight.
I just wanted to provide some of my perspective for anyone who is interested in reading about HERO. HERO really is a fine game and is well worth checking out for anyone who doesn't mind a little extra work in creating characters or DMing, and it is particularly good at providing a system that allows you to create anything, but it needs a strong DM to run the show.Later!
Ozmar the System Friendly Player
Thanee
First Post
Psion said:
Yep, that's why it's so important to create HERO characters together with the GM, you just need to have some influence in character creation, since those disadvantages have to make some appearance in the campaign, otherwise they aren't any (as the book actually notes).
Heh. Well you asked about tournaments.
Not much to say about this, but that I like this better, too.
Bye
Thanee
Similar Threads
