Zappo
Explorer
Hm. Could we get some specific examples of "stuff that was cool but that R&D cut because of the fans' whining"? Apart from maybe the long-duration buff spells, I honestly can't think of anything else.
Ozmar: that's pretty interesting. I haven't played HERO. However, I feel I can at least provide my thoughts on Ozmar's "Guy who likes HERO" comments, because what he's talking about is "HERO vs. d20", rather than "what's good in HERO".
1) No classes.
2) No levels.
3) Point-based.
4) Bell curve.
Points 1 to 3 have no value in themselves. Who cares about classes or no classes, I want to have fun. However, they can be summed up in "versatility", which is a pretty good propriety for a system. Still, versatility outside the setting is useless: computer hacking rules in the D&D PHB would certainly make the game more versatile, but they wouldn't improve it one bit. There is a limit to how much greater versatility can improve the game; sacrificing other good proprierties (balance, ease) must be done with caution. The perfect balance is, of course, a matter of opinion and therefore nonexistant. D20's levels of versatility/balance/ease very closely match what I desire. I'm not interested in a system which increases one and decreases the rest.
Point 4 can be basically reduced to skills vs. randomness. It may be proved that 3d6 puts more emphasis on skills (though that's debatable, in D&D it heavily depends on the power level we're talking about). But why bother? Even if you could, that doesn't prove that 3d6 is a superior method. Because, again, skills vs. randomness is a matter of opinion. Few enjoy nonrandom games, and a game without skills can hardly be called a RPG. However, between the extremes, there are lots of interesting options, not only one.
Ozmar: that's pretty interesting. I haven't played HERO. However, I feel I can at least provide my thoughts on Ozmar's "Guy who likes HERO" comments, because what he's talking about is "HERO vs. d20", rather than "what's good in HERO".
1) No classes.
2) No levels.
3) Point-based.
4) Bell curve.
Points 1 to 3 have no value in themselves. Who cares about classes or no classes, I want to have fun. However, they can be summed up in "versatility", which is a pretty good propriety for a system. Still, versatility outside the setting is useless: computer hacking rules in the D&D PHB would certainly make the game more versatile, but they wouldn't improve it one bit. There is a limit to how much greater versatility can improve the game; sacrificing other good proprierties (balance, ease) must be done with caution. The perfect balance is, of course, a matter of opinion and therefore nonexistant. D20's levels of versatility/balance/ease very closely match what I desire. I'm not interested in a system which increases one and decreases the rest.
Point 4 can be basically reduced to skills vs. randomness. It may be proved that 3d6 puts more emphasis on skills (though that's debatable, in D&D it heavily depends on the power level we're talking about). But why bother? Even if you could, that doesn't prove that 3d6 is a superior method. Because, again, skills vs. randomness is a matter of opinion. Few enjoy nonrandom games, and a game without skills can hardly be called a RPG. However, between the extremes, there are lots of interesting options, not only one.
