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

[francisca]

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.

Best set of analogies, EVAR.

 

[hong]

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.")

You have a different framework to work within. That doesn't mean you aren't still, ultimately, picking up the abilities you want and discarding the abilities you don't want. If you're going for a "battlemage" (fighter/wiz) build, for instance, chances are you're not going to consider levels in cleric.

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.

I fail to see how this is any different to a GM having final say on whether a character can gain a given power in HERO. I might want to give my low-magic Fantasy HERO fighter an energy blast, but it might not be appropriate for the campaign, even if I can technically afford the point cost. Again, you seem to be thinking that it's always open slather when it comes to point based systems when I see no evidence this is the case, any more than it's always open slather when it comes to allowing feats, spells and PrCs in 3E.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

Champions is to HERO as D&D is to d20. Champions is a subset of HERO.

 

[Psion]

I fail to see how this is any different to a GM having final say on whether a character can gain a given power in HERO.

I thought that was fairly obvious in the claim to fame of hero. To wit (those magical words) effects based. The construction of characters in HERO depends upon you assembling effects to realize a concept. Which is nice for those who are true to the spirit of the approach. Some players aren't after concept at all, but after the perception that their character is some lean-mean-point-machine, or combo-abuser and any concept they have may be secondary.

In D&D, the concepts are generally married to the building blocks. Which means if a player is fishing for a power by selecting a building block like a class or a template, they either have to sell the GM on allowing the concept that goes with it, or sell the GM on changing the concept.

Whether or not you see this difference as a good thing, it does present a significant difference in the player/GM "permission" dynamics.

I might want to give my low-magic Fantasy HERO fighter an energy blast, but it might not be appropriate for the campaign, even if I can technically afford the point cost.

Why, based on concept, would you ever rule out "energy blast" as a power in HERO? Since HERO is effects-based, and energy blast is a very generic effect that can represent a multitude of things from a rush of battering spirits to a wave of lethargy, if you allow magic at all, it seems like you could find some concept to fit it.

Again, you seem to be thinking that it's always open slather when it comes to point based systems when I see no evidence this is the case, any more than it's always open slather when it comes to allowing feats, spells and PrCs in 3E.

I think the primary argument against this stance here is that most effects you would ever use in HERO are in the core book. There are many feats and skills and classes that you might use that aren't in the core book.

And again, effects are more open because if the GM runs a campaign that requires players to fit their characters to the campaign concept, the effects don't come with many specific concepts attached to them so you can generally justify most anything you want, short of specific models of magic that you must adhere to (or the like.)

 

[hong]

I thought that was fairly obvious in the claim to fame of hero. To wit (those magical words) effects based. The construction of characters in HERO depends upon you assembling effects to realize a concept. Which is nice for those who are true to the spirit of the approach. Some players aren't after concept at all, but after the perception that their character is some lean-mean-point-machine, or combo-abuser and any concept they have may be secondary.

Did I, or did I not, mention that the point buy bashing thread was ----> that way?

Whether or not you see this difference as a good thing, it does present a significant difference in the player/GM "permission" dynamics.

Nonsense.

Why, based on concept, would you ever rule out "energy blast" as a power in HERO? Since HERO is effects-based, and energy blast is a very generic effect that can represent a multitude of things from a rush of battering spirits to a wave of lethargy, if you allow magic at all, it seems like you could find some concept to fit it.

Because the character might not have had a suitable in-game experience to justify taking such a power at this point in time. Because they may not have had sufficient training time to use it. Because, if you absolutely want to be a tyrant, it might not be appropriate to your vision of the character. Make it up.

By comparison, why would you not allow a character to take a particular prestige class in D&D? Because they might not have had a suitable in-game experience to justify taking the class. Because they may not have had sufficient training. Because, if you absolutely want to be a tyrant, it might not be appropriate to your vision of the character.

The GM is the final arbiter in HERO, just as in D&D. You Are Allowed to ban stuff.

 

[hong]

To get this thread moving in a more productive direction.

One of the key features of the D&D zeitgeist is that everything is one. Every D&D game (except mine, BWA HA HA) has elves, dwarves and halflings. Every D&D game (again except mine, BWA HA HA) has drow, even though they were pretty specific to Greyhawk at first. Eberron has lately introduced the shifter and the warforged, but now they've shown up in the MM3, with text on how to fit/shoehorn them into the FR; I'd also say the chances are high that in the future, a putative 4E will give them a prominent place in all official settings. The classes, feats and spells in the PHB, and the monsters in the MM, are a powerful unifying force that encourages most D&D games to be fairly similar, at least in the broad aspects at a given level.

One of the key features of HERO, on the other hand, is that it's a toolkit. It's not assumed that you'll use every power in the book in a campaign. Instead, the assumption is that you'll select a particular genre, tone, and power level, and tailor the available options to suit that. A lot of space in the HERO books is devoted to how you might do this, what effects are suitable for what genres, etc. Even if you go to a particular genre, Fantasy HERO devotes tons of space to different sub-genres of fantasy, how to create a particular feel, and so on. There's nothing to say that one Fantasy HERO game will be anything like another Fantasy HERO game (unless you start using the prepackaged stuff, but that just comes back to the creeping D&Dization of HERO).

Perhaps D&D could use something like this. You could have a book (or a series of books) that discusses different sub-genres of fantasy, and what rules elements are suitable for each sub-genre. So if you wanted a l*w m*gic game, the book might talk about things like what l*w m*gic actually means (many things to many people), dropping some classes, making magic harder to use, what sorts of challenges are appropriate, etc. Ditto for a h*gh m*gic game, although there the focus might be on things like how to power up the "mundane" classes, the tradeoff between flashiness and verisimilitude, the different types of h*gh m*gic, or whatever. Sorta like OA, but with a broader scope.

 

[diaglo]

You Are Allowed to ban stuff.

you know i have your DVD. He bans... He bans...

diaglo "a will hong fanboy" ...

 

[JoeGKushner]

To get this thread moving in a more productive direction.

Perhaps D&D could use something like this. You could have a book (or a series of books) that discusses different sub-genres of fantasy, and what rules elements are suitable for each sub-genre. So if you wanted a l*w m*gic game, the book might talk about things like what l*w m*gic actually means (many things to many people), dropping some classes, making magic harder to use, what sorts of challenges are appropriate, etc. Ditto for a h*gh m*gic game, although there the focus might be on things like how to power up the "mundane" classes, the tradeoff between flashiness and verisimilitude, the different types of h*gh m*gic, or whatever. Sorta like OA, but with a broader scope.

I guess I'm not getting the point as we have several options like this ranging from Grim Tales and Unearthed Arcana and BESM d20, to various OGL books on different cultures and timelines. Grim Tales and BESM d20, especially, allow you to tweak the engine.

 

[hong]

I guess I'm not getting the point as we have several options like this ranging from Grim Tales and Unearthed Arcana and BESM d20, to various OGL books on different cultures and timelines. Grim Tales and BESM d20, especially, allow you to tweak the engine.

Indeed, d20 : D&D :: HERO : Fantasy HERO.

What I meant was stuff from WotC. They still have the biggest mindshare by far of the D&D market. But indeed, if you include third party d20 publishers, then the creeping HEROization of d20 in general is much further ahead than the creeping HEROization of D&D.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Indeed, d20 : D&D :: HERO : Fantasy HERO.

What I meant was stuff from WotC. They still have the biggest mindshare by far of the D&D market. But indeed, if you include third party d20 publishers, then the creeping HEROization of d20 in general is much further ahead than the creeping HEROization of D&D.

Well, for what you're talking about, we'd have to have one engine by WoTC, which we do not. Not counting things like Wheel of Time and Call of Cthulhu, or heck, even Star Wars, D&D and d20 Modern are slightly different beasts and I highly doubt we'll see such an engine from WoTC proper as many swore that they'd don their Wisconsin hunting gear and head towards the WoTC buildings should a new edition pop out between now and say... 2008.