Your Thoughts on the Heroization of D&D 3.x

[hong]

I've heard that. But it is rooted in an attempt to model superhero comics. Just as the d20 system has its roots in a fantasy medieval wargame.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. Again (for the 3rd time), I'm not saying D&D == HERO.

 

[Psion]

The point is, you still have building blocks. They may be chunkier and more unwieldy in D&D, but they're still building blocks.

Therein lies the difference. You see "clunky". I see "context appropriate" and "logical." HERO, as much as I love the game, buys into the myth that you can give every individual ability a perfectly applicable objective price, but the tendency of players to engage in specialized buying and combo-seeking makes the approach of adding things as packages more desireable, because it requires some consistency with concept, where in HERO, it is all too often an afterthought.

(Incidentally, this is why I regret that they took point kickbacks out of package deals in HERO 5e. Those were the one tool HERO had left that encouraged players to seek concepts instead of just power-builds.)

 

[diaglo]

Yeah, whatever, diaglo. You're just like those "computer whizzes" who resent that the term "hacker" is typically used by the masses to refer to a computer criminal, and insist people use the term "cracker" instead, but it you did, most people would think you are invoking a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, especially southeast United States. You understand what the accepted lingo is, and it's not going to change because you constantly bring people up on technicalities. If you wish to try to hold the ocean back with a broom, you have fun. But I don't have to watch it.

<Once again>

no mr pot. i'm talking about your "crack" at 2ed.

i'd do you the same curtesy if i could. but since i can't i'm forced to read your drivel

 

[hong]

Therein lies the difference. You see "clunky". I see "context appropriate" and "logical." HERO, as much as I love the game, buys into the myth that you can give everything a perfectly applicable objective price, but the tendency of players to engage in specialized buying and combo-seeking makes the approach of adding things as packages more desireable, because it requires some consistency with concept, where in HERO, it is all too often an afterthought.

1) I keep seeing this line repeated, and I don't buy it. In point-based systems, the books typically place MORE emphasis on the GM being the final arbiter of things compared to 3E D&D. That's because it's recognised that point-based systems aren't perfect, and you need a human to look over the final results.

2) The point buy bashing thread is ---> that way. I never said that templates are "clunky". I said that they're chunky and unwieldy, meaning they come in larger prepackaged formats than individual HERO components. Whether this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing is not the issue, nor is their appropriateness or otherwise to the genre.

 

[Thanee]

I've heard that. But it is rooted in an attempt to model superhero comics.

I think there's a reason why HERO and Champions have different names.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

2) The point buy bashing thread is ---> that way.

Um, yeah, whatever. I think HERO is a great game. With it's strengths and weaknesses. Pointing out its weaknesses is perfectly appropriate in a thread that contrasts their approaches.

I never said that templates are "clunky". I said that they're chunky and unwieldy, meaning they come in larger prepackaged formats than individual HERO components.

That's pretty much my point. That's why I don't see the d20 approach as analogous to HERO.

 

[hong]

Um, yeah, whatever. I think HERO is a great game. With it's strengths and weaknesses. Forgive me for pointing out its weaknesses in a thread that CONTRASTS the approaches of them.

So what? Did anyone say that you couldn't create monstrosities by throwing templates, feats and classes together in 3E? Yes, the builder approach has weaknesses. To the extent that 3E takes this approach, it will share those weaknesses. This has never been in dispute.

That's pretty much my point. That's why I don't see the d20 approach as analogous to HERO.

I think you're quibbling. Whether you have big blocks or little blocks, and whether you're playing in a big sandpit or a constrained one, you're still using blocks to make a character build. Even if 3E/d20 isn't as fine-grained as HERO (and may never be), it's still a helluva different approach to 1E/2E prior to Skills & Powers.

 

[JoeGKushner]

but they are building blocks for D&D. and nothing else.

Well... not really. Even if you didn't have d20 Modern or BESM d20, you could still do a lot with the SRD and it's rules to mime many different games.

As far as the point of this thread... I don't know anymore.

Is it to talk about how D&D isn't like Hero?

To talk about how point buy systems rulez?

To talk about how D&D is evolving into a Hero like system despite being a level based game with many things that will never make it a Hero system? (Magic Missile anyone?)

 

[Mercule]

The point is, you still have building blocks. They may be chunkier and more unwieldy in D&D, but they're still building blocks.

Right. Where people are having a hard time is understanding how Duplo blocks relate to Lego blocks.

D&D 3.x is a large grain system. You can combine stuff freely to create your characters, but you have to take the whole block and not mind a few edges jutting out. Like Duplo.

HERO is a fine grain system. You can combine stuff freely to create your character, and have a lot of customized/customizable bits that let you put in smooth edges and moving parts. Like Legos.

Old-school D&D is filled with pre-molded parts. You can either play option A or option B. Some of the later versions had customizable accessories (NWPs). Like, say, action figures.

It seems painfully, sledgehammer to the forehead, obvious to me that 3.x has moved in the general direction of HERO. In fact, I think it shares almost as many (maybe more) characteristics with HERO as it does with old-school D&D.

 

[Psion]

So what? Did anyone say that you couldn't create monstrosities by throwing templates, feats and classes together in 3E?

You certainly could. But I think it comes at more of a cost because you can't just pick the abilities you want without the associated abilities (which a powergamer might think of as "baggage.") Additionally, the fact that there is context attached to templates, classes, etc., means that the GM needs to approve the concept or just not care. The recent thread on justifying multiple prestige classes shows that some GMs are definitely sensitive to this issue.