Quest for the "perfect" all-in-one game

[Ariosto]

One of the main things that I remember that I didn't like about Hero (I can't remember which edition it was I tried,) was that everything required points.

Well, the points are basically 'the point' of Hero, what really set it apart as a System. There are other nifty touches, and removing points would not make the rules useless -- but it would mean passing up utility that has been central to their appeal.

There is no reason -- unless you choose to join some regulatory body or other -- not to decree that in your campaign skill at driving (or putting), or controlling shares of Microsoft, or any other resource you see fit, does not cost points.

 

[Votan]

Brevity seems a critical distinction. A rule-book that stops bullets is no demonstration of great game design. Neither is tiny type, as in the first editions of Chivalry & Sorcery and Metamorphosis Alpha.

This is a very good point. The idea of a single game book is for it to be both affordable and easy to learn in detail. Making the book 1000 pages might make it less playable than 3 64 page books would be.

There is also a continuum on three axes that should be considered: number of supplements, modularity of supplements, and quality of supplements (and the quality of the supplements is often independent of the main game).

So, for example, GURPS (at least the editions I owned) had a large number of very high quality supplements. You rarely needed all of them: picking the ones that you wanted was one of the pluses of the system. I'd not complain about GURPS supplement creep back in the day as each setting had one (perhaps two) relevant books.

In contrast, there are systems that build on a base (adding options) where the quality swings a lot. There is an advantage to being a completionist but the volume of material can be overwhelming, especially to a new-comer.

 

[Argyle King]

Well, the points are basically 'the point' of Hero, what really set it apart as a System. There are other nifty touches, and removing points would not make the rules useless -- but it would mean passing up utility that has been central to their appeal.

There is no reason -- unless you choose to join some regulatory body or other -- not to decree that in your campaign skill at driving (or putting), or controlling shares of Microsoft, or any other resource you see fit, does not cost points.

I totally understand the idea behind points; the system I ended up choosing instead of Hero was GURPS. I'd be open to trying Hero again; it was fun, but there were times when -from what I can remember- virtually everything required that it be built as an ability. I highly enjoyed the flexibility of the system, but there were times when I wasn't always thrilled with the implementation of that flexibility. It's possible that it was just bad experience which threw me off the system; I don't know because I only had a Hero experience with one group.

To give some background on my view, I remember in the campaign I played that my character picked up a weapon that I was not familiar with. At first I wasn't charged anything, but, once I started to use that weapon regularly, I was told by the GM to buy that as a special ability. I wasn't able to just learn skill with the weapon; I had to learn a special ability for anything I wanted to be able to do with the weapon. Likewise, I mentioned driving previously; I had to (according to the group I played with at the time) buy that as a special ability if it was something I planned to do regularly with my character.

The other thing I noticed was that Hero seemed to lean a bit more toward the cinematic than it does realism. It does awesome for high powered games with super heroes and such, but (at least in the edition I played... it was either 4th or 5th, but I'm not sure which because it was a while ago) it didn't perform as well when running something more mundane like a realistic WWII campaign or Bum Fights. For many people this isn't a problem because many people enjoy high powered games, but, for an "all-in-one" system, that is something I consider.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To give some background on my view, I remember in the campaign I played that my character picked up a weapon that I was not familiar with. At first I wasn't charged anything, but, once I started to use that weapon regularly, I was told by the GM to buy that as a special ability. I wasn't able to just learn skill with the weapon; I had to learn a special ability for anything I wanted to be able to do with the weapon. Likewise, I mentioned driving previously; I had to (according to the group I played with at the time) buy that as a special ability if it was something I planned to do regularly with my character.

That's actually correct. The reason is that unless you pay for it with points, you're getting a new ability for free. Remember, also, that in many superheroic and non-FRPG heroic settings, the heroes generally don't loot. Even Batman who famously keeps a whole bunch of captured gizmos doesn't actually use them.

Now, its perfectly possible to build looting into a campaign...but odds are, you'd be trading off loot like the weapon for advancing in proficiency in your own innate abilities, improving in your "class" (if your campaign has such), and other such things.

The other thing I noticed was that Hero seemed to lean a bit more toward the cinematic than it does realism. It does awesome for high powered games with super heroes and such, but (at least in the edition I played... it was either 4th or 5th, but I'm not sure which because it was a while ago) it didn't perform as well when running something more mundane like a realistic WWII campaign or Bum Fights. For many people this isn't a problem because many people enjoy high powered games, but, for an "all-in-one" system, that is something I consider.

That's true too, due in large part to the game's origins as a pure superhero game (much like I expect M&M to evolve). This is why sourcebooks like Dark HERO, Fantasy HERO and others exist: they contain alternative rules that generally tone down the cinematic stuff, so Knockback rules get toned down.

 

[Argyle King]

@ Danny

That's where the system didn't match up with my interests. Great system; it just didn't match me quite was well as some of the alternatives. For me, in my mind and imagination, the heroes I think of did pick up weapons and things like that. Conan and Kull (as originally written by R. Howard) are two examples which easily come to mind. They are beyond the normal man, and they are larger than life, but they still sometimes needed to scrounge an axe or a sword from the enemy. The typical D&D style character is a good example too; sometimes you open a treasure chest and find something different from what you normally use. Thirdly, my mind falls back upon time spent in the military and needing to improvise solutions.

It just seemed a little odd to me that picking up a new weapon or buying a new car in game meant I had to buy a new ability. I understand why the system works that way. It just didn't -as I've already said- match up with my interests as well as other games. With just the core books and nothing else, it seemed easier to put cinematic elements into my GURPS game than it was for me to take cinematic elements out of my HERO game.

However, I'm sure there are people who feel the opposite way I do. GURPS tends to lean more strongly toward realism; even with a lot of the cinematic options turned on it still tends to hold onto some amount of grit and edge. For me, I found GURPS more able to cover the range of stories I wanted to tell in the way I wanted to tell them, and that made me choose it. For many other people, I'm sure they'll say that HERO is their system of choice; the two systems approach the same idea from two different directions. For me, one matched up better with my interests than the other.

I'd still play HERO if I could find a group around here. I've very heavily considered signing up for Champions Online; it looks awesome. Just not my personal choice for a complete system if I'm looking for something to cover a wide range of games and the styles that I enjoy the most.

 

[Wolf1066]

GURPS tends to lean more strongly toward realism; even with a lot of the cinematic options turned on it still tends to hold onto some amount of grit and edge. For me, I found GURPS more able to cover the range of stories I wanted to tell in the way I wanted to tell them, and that made me choose it.

Sounds like GURPS would suit me, then. I'd love to run a genre-spanning campaign wherein everything is designed to mesh with minimal fuss, be it sword fighting, cybernetics, psionics or star-ship combat - and I do like "realism" - as real as one can get given the imaginative nature of the various genres.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It just seemed a little odd to me that picking up a new weapon or buying a new car in game meant I had to buy a new ability. I understand why the system works that way. It just didn't -as I've already said- match up with my interests as well as other games. With just the core books and nothing else, it seemed easier to put cinematic elements into my GURPS game than it was for me to take cinematic elements out of my HERO game.

One of the ways I've helped players over this is to tell them to build their PCs with a small Variable Power Pool, OAF, Powers switchable only in game, usually with END bought to zero. Sometimes I include this as a standard part of every PC in the party.

This represents any number of bits of gear that one might stumble upon...and you can feel free to hold onto that gear if you so chose.

 

[Ariosto]

If you really do understand how points work in Hero System, then you understand that (as the text points out) they are a tool for the GM and players to use where they are useful.

If you think there's some magical "gotta" that's gonna getcha, something you escape by using a game that does not provide such a tool, then you really do not understand. King Conan with powered armor and a gatling gun is not the equal of thief Conan with a leather jerkin and a machete. That is so whether or not you have a points system to evaluate the advantage.

If you don't want to make characters pay points for this or that, then there's no enforcement mechanism to make you do it. In fact, the designers will suggest not doing it in some kinds of game.

(Perhaps Conan pays only in coin for his typical armament, and wields the Phoenix sword for one episode as a plot device -- whilst Elric pays points for Stormbringer and the Ring of Kings.)

GURPS simply does not (or formerly did not) provide the same "build everything in points" utility as a basic feature. Instead, it provides more "off the shelf" stuff that has rather arbitrary points values or none at all. It is concerned less with game-mechanical effects as building blocks with which to play, and factors to balance one against another in the game currency, more with in some sense modeling things realistically.

To an extent, one can model things realistically in Hero and get game-balance point values. However, that extent is limited mainly by one thing that makes it better suited than GURPS to superhuman characters: the scale of factors. It readily distinguishes artillery from sidearms, but does not offer as many points of difference among anti-tank guns. I am thinking of the bogglingly BIG numbers even man-portable gear was packing in GURPS Ultra-Tech of 2nd or 3rd ed..

I think it's easier to tune Hero for more realistic gore than to tune GURPS for the nuances of comic-book violence. (There's a similar awkwardness with BRP, so perhaps no coincidence that it was a Superworld campaign that inspired the Wild Cards fictional milieu.)

 

[Thanee]

It just seemed a little odd to me that picking up a new weapon or buying a new car in game meant I had to buy a new ability.

This is not the case. HERO covers both, equipment as abilities (usually in superheroic campaigns) and the usual equipment you just pick up and use (usually in heroic campaigns).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Wolf1066]

Still, "perfect" is different things for different people - do you want monsters? Deities? Intelligent vampires? Horses? Cars? Space ships? High tech equipment? Cybernetics? Insanity tables? Advantage/Disadvantage lists? Gritty realism? Hollywood/cinematic action? Fantastic non-human races? Psionics? Magic? Classes and levels? Attribute-based skills? Points system? Alignments? All/none of the above?

What would be perfect for me would in no way be perfect for a person who wants Hollywood-style fights and one man holding off an army at the narrow pass - I'm not saying that that style of game is "wrong", it's just diametrically opposite to what I want out of a game.

Likewise "alignments" don't work for me - they never have and I always disliked them in D&D/AD&D - yet others prefer them.

Sure, I'd like to be able to say "hey, how about the party's jeep blows a rod out the side of the block and the only transportation they can scrounge up is horses" then reach for a book and voila! we have the stats for everything from a Shetland pony to a Percheron - I can't say, "Nah, don't need stats for old-style stuff like horses, swords and shields" because I don't know what random stuff the game might lead to. Horses exist, swords and machetes exist - I want the stats for them, or at least the ability to easily work them out. The ability to have/calculate the stats for things that don't exist but may well exist in a game - Plasma guns, aliens etc - is also important to me.

But other things - levels, classes, the actual combat stats and planar addresses of deities, Balrogs, alignments, grimoires and such - I can happily do without.

Others need such things for their games to function.