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

[hong]

I don't see how this argument is all that significant. I mean, yeah, I can see hong's point, but I could just as easily produce the "creeping GUPRPsification of D&D" model and support it with just as much evidence.

Not really.

GURPS may also be a point buy system, but (as of 3rd Ed at least) the point costs aren't consistent in terms of how they're calculated. You have at least three approaches that are used:

1) Rarity: how many people (PC and NPC) in the game world would have a given ad/disad

2) Process: how straightforward/complicated is the underlying in-game mechanism by which an ad/disad works

3) Balance: what effect would an ad/disad have on gameplay

Of these, only the third could really be said to be consistent with the effects-based paradigm that HERO is based on. I believe that in GURPS 4E they've tweaked the point costs so that they're now (more) consistently based on (3), but I haven't looked closely.

In any case, yes, if GURPS was an effects-based system like HERO, then you could talk about the creeping GURPSification of D&D. The basic meaning, that you're using building blocks to create characters, is still the same.

But what's the point? Of either theory?

Licensing rights, d00d.

 

[Malin Genie]

As one of the three lonely supporters of Creeping HEROization , there's one thing I'd like to see brought in that I think would help the game's flexibility immensely and reduce some of the complaints that have been made against 3E--specifically, the emphasis on gear and complaints of 'cookie cutter' builds.

Effects-based balance.

Give us about 6--12 pages on the various roles in a party ... Explain how each class in the game fits into those roles, and what each of them should have for stats and capabilities at a given level, in a general sense. I.e., a 10th level Warrior Type should have a BAB and AC in this range; a full-fledged Arcane Caster should acquire the ability to fly at Level X, but should not be able to use it more than a few times a day until Level Y, etc.

Then let the DM determine how to reach those goals in a given game. The 'default' is through a combination of experience levels and equipment, but DMs may wish to ...

Now, I haven't kept up very well with the d20 market, for a variety of reasons, so maybe someone's already done this. But I think it's one case where an effects-based approach would be a real benefit to the game.

Matthew L. Martin

I also haven't kept up with the 'd20 market' as a whole, so maybe it's been done - but this is a fantastic idea! Count me in on any collaborative effort (and if I make my Will save vs creeping laziness, I may even have a preliminary go myself and post it in House Rules for comment. Damn, failed! Where's slippery mind when you need it?)

 

[Andre]

My two cents' worth:

1. 3.x is definitely more of a "construction kit" than earlier versions. For instance, in 1E we had the gargoyle. Someone wanted a stronger version, so they created the margoyle. Different creature in a different monster book, but basically just a stronger gargoyle. In 3.x, we can slap on a template, increase the HD, make it huge, add class levels, etc. Same effect (stronger gargoyle), but 3.x provides the mechanics for accomplishing it and we don't have to call it a new monster.

Essentially, the blocks still exist, but have gotten much smaller. In earlier editions the blocks were bricks. Now they're elements. Hero uses atoms.

2. Psion's idea that in 3.x most modifications bring along specific "baggage" is often true of characters (if the GM enforces this), but far less so for creatures. As in the example above, the GM modifies a base creature to achieve a specific effect. Whether or not the baggage is included is up to the GM. I can easily create a creature using the fiendish template, but not treat it as fiendish - maybe the abilities are there because it's an aberration, or drank a potion (Dr. Jekyll's Mr. Hyde). My point is that the baggage is optional and can easily be changed to suit a specific campaign, while keeping the same effect.

3. Anyone noticed how difficult it is to publish an "accurate" monster book in 3.x? Just look at the reviews on Libris Mortis and MM3 to see how rigid the system has become. In earlier editions, if a GM created a tiny creature with 12 racial HD, no one cared. To do so now is "wrong". Concept (baggage) is less important than the formulas used. To the extent that such rules are core to the 3.x rules-set, I see a Hero-ization of the rules. Of course, a GM can rule zero anything, but that's true of Hero also.

4. Will D&D ever move to a true Hero-style effects-based system? No. Many of the core elements of D&D are large blocks - classes, all those spells in the PH, weapons and armor, and so on. As Hong pointed out, most D&D campaigns share many common elements. Take away those commonalities and you no longer have D&D.

5. Fantasy Hero was the edition of D&D I played between 1e and 3e.