Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheBard" data-source="post: 146520" data-attributes="member: 2821">Amen, brother. While FReD will scare the dice out of system-phobes due to its size, these are excellent points.Most of the complaints come down to the bane of many good RPGs - bad calls by GMs and bad behavior by players. These HERO fanatics are often over zealous, such as attempting to figure out the stats for mosquitoes, or other nonsense in HERO.Good HERO GMs and players have to know when to close the damn book. But, IMHO, HERO attract folks who love systems that are internally logical, and put a lot of power in the hands of the players. People that like game systems that can interpret a lot of the "physics" of the RPG worlds (not necessarily our own). Hero, well, works.[flamebait]You know, the same folks who gave up on _2nd ed._ D&D.[/flamebait] --> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> <---The new rule book is unapologetically that -- RULES. But Steve Long did a great job of putting a lot of good GM coaching in there as well. While the example of using "dragon blood to aid a spell is not explicity deat with, Steve repeatedly states that that kind of roleplaying should be rewarded using the system. A good HERO GM would give a player bonuses of some form for being creative, invoking the myths of the setting to further the roleplaying experience. (A good HERO GM would also make the player pay for that "boost" if the player started toting around buckets of the stuff. )There is also a heathy dose of Metagaming commentary in FReD as well, such as the concept that I happen to agree with. Mainly, consistent (good) rules help _the players_ more than the GM. That does not mean that a HERO GM never wings it, changes rules or stops roleplaying. It does mean that a GM really needs to put a lot of effort into knowing the rules so that there is consistency. (Personally, I think that 3e still has a lot more rules than HERO. Hero has a big rulebook, but the design logic is more consistent. YMMV.)I've personally seen as many -- no, actually, more  autocratic GMs using "rules-lite, diceliceless, free-form" systems than "crunchy" games like Hero, or 3e. Game system is an imperfect predictor of this kind of bad GMing behavior.Let me give an example of what I mean. I have a friend, Mark, who is an _excellent_ storyteller. His NPC's are impeccable and his roleplaying top-notch. He hates "crunchy" rulesystems and especially hates using maps and miniatures for combat, preferring a more narrative style -- florid wordplay and the such. This is all good.  Play a game with Mark at a con and you will marvel at his style. Play a campaign and well, the shine begins to tarnish. Why? You are a slave to the "wonderful" story and the NPCs. While I can often keep up with Mark and the loquacious NPCs, others in the group can't. And they can't use the system to determine if their characters do something. It does not matter if you have bizillion in "Conversation" or an attack bonus of a hundred, etc. Everything is up to Mark. Mark decides who hits, Mark decides who sees what, etc. Guess who ends up being the real stars of the show? The NPCs. Instead of being a slave to a system, you are slave to one person's decisions about his world. Taken to extremes, both are bad.</blockquote>

Verification