The two games I've been looking at lately when visiting the local gaming store have been the Hero System and Warhammer 40k Fantasy Roleplay. Hero seems to be far more in depth than D&D; that intrigues me because while I like 4E quite a bit, it doesn't always have the depth that I want...not saying it's a bad game; it just satisfies a different area of my gaming tastes. The downside is that Hero might be a bit too complicated for other people I want to play games with. Warhammer seemed very interesting as well; the concept of not having levels in the sense that D&D does was something I found interesting; it seemed to have a far more gritty and grim feeling. The downside to the Warhammer books is that I really know nothing at all about the Warhammer Universe; while I do like fluff and background information, I fear that it may be too hard to divorce the Warhammer info from the established story. I really have no experience with either system though, so if I could get some outside input on these systems (and any other system which you feel warrants merit) I'd appreciate it. Mainly I'm looking to educate myself on systems other than D&D.
Also...and this is key...you only ever need the one book, ever. All of the other books are campaign ideas, suggestions, and ways to use the existing mechanics, NOT new mechanics. Buying the big HERO black hardcover is an awesome roleplaying investment.
HERO System is, hands down, my favorite game system of all time. It can do nearly EVERYTHING, and do so in a manner that is mechanically sound. It looks intimidating, but the character creation process is by far the hardest part, the in-game play is astonishingly easy and intuitive. It blows the other universal system, GURPS, clear out of the water, so badly it hurts.
Also...and this is key...you only ever need the one book, ever. All of the other books are campaign ideas, suggestions, and ways to use the existing mechanics, NOT new mechanics. Buying the big HERO black hardcover is an awesome roleplaying investment.
Thanks for the feedback. Heroes does look like something which would interest me. I didn't have time to sit at the store and sift through the whole book though. One of my mainy curiosities about the system is how it goes about determining how tough that a fight would be (i.e. a CR system like D&D3 or an XP Budget like D&D4.) That might be in the book; as I said, I didn't read through the whole thing. Could you give me some general information about the system? How much work does it take to create monsters; enemies; etc for a DM? Also; as mentioned; what sort of guideline is there to determine how tough a fight is for whatever number of people is in the party? Do they have any sort of website or available resource for someone interested in their product?
Thanks for the feedback.
Sure thing.
Heroes does look like something which would interest me.
Actually, it is hardly just heroes. HERO system is specifically designed to handle and and all genres, from utterly mundane, item-reliant, skill-heavy, zero magic worlds, to the top-end godlike creatures, and everything in between.
I didn't have time to sit at the store and sift through the whole book though. One of my mainy curiosities about the system is how it goes about determining how tough that a fight would be (i.e. a CR system like D&D3 or an XP Budget like D&D4.)
In this case, it works roughly like this: A team of characters should be able to take on an entire team of similarly powerful opponents, a bunch of lower-powered opponents, and one or two higher-powered opponents. Each "tier" of play has what is called an "Active Point Limit" to prevent abusive levels of power discrepancy. Powers are purchased with raw points, and you can buy disadvantages to lower the cost rather significantly. However, the Active Point Limit indicates the maximum a power can cost BEFORE reducing the cost for disadvantages. So, in a campaign with a 100 point Active Point cap, a 100 point power might only cost 25 actual points with disads. However, you CAN'T purchase a 400 point power and have it cost 100 points.
That might be in the book; as I said, I didn't read through the whole thing. Could you give me some general information about the system? How much work does it take to create monsters; enemies; etc for a DM? Also; as mentioned; what sort of guideline is there to determine how tough a fight is for whatever number of people is in the party? Do they have any sort of website or available resource for someone interested in their product?
The website is herogames.com, and they have forums, etc.
Basically, the whole game uses d6s, and you use them to roll attack, damage, skill checks, etc. Like d20, it is roll vs a target number, add bonuses, and determine success. Armor reduces damage, it doesn't decrease to-hit chance. There are multiple defense vectors, so a given character can't possibly have stunning armor vs every damage type, meaning there are always challenges. Each round is divided into 12 segments, and your speed, which is generally from 1-12, determines how many of those segments you act in. However, those actions aren't all front loaded. So, while a character with speed 3 might go on segments 4, 8, and 12, a speed 6 character goes on 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12, and a speed 12 goes on each segment from 1-12. Each segment, you take a full action.
A character has a single pool of points to spend on creating and improving their character. This single pool is used to purchase stats, powers, and skills, and everything else in-game including items. Thus, you could have a horribly weak-in-combat character with absolutely tremendous amounts of and ability in skills, who has a wicked set of defenses, or a melee combat monster, or a potent sniper, or whatever else, and each brings something unique to the table. Thus, the GM does have a little more work to do, or at least understand the system a little better, to determine encounters.
That's a rough rundown, there is more to it than that. However, once you've got the system down, combat goes very, very smoothly, as do non-combat checks and mechanics.
Check out the forums, and see if it's your cup o' tea. :D
In my mind the initiative system reminded me of how combat worked in the old Fallout PC games, but I'm not sure if that's an accurate interpretation.
It's biggest strength is also it's biggest drawback however: As a tool-kit system, it's all-too-easy to fall into the habit of hacking your way into creating super powers or spells. For instance Energy Blast can be anything from lasers to eldritch bolts but I've known guys who've used Ego Attack (a mental power) to explain the same kind of ability (i.e. a hack ;)).
Lots of genre supplements, such as Cyber Hero, Western Hero, Star Hero. Years ago, we played super-hero games (Champions) and also ran a Forgotten Realms campaign using Fantasy Hero supplements. As a tool-kit system, it's expansive and great for homebrew settings ;). I prefer it over GURPS.
4E is a game the wife and I play solo, on the side.
The thing I love about Hero is the whole Effects based approach. You don't get a Fireball or Lightning Bolt or whatnot. You buy dice of damage, and define it how you wish (along with the GM and setting of course).
This means that you are not held hostage by the game designer. If you have a concept for a character (say in fantasy) that gets all of his powers by talking with spirits, and they grant him abilities, you don't have to wait for a later book detailing such a type of character.
You can just buy Clairsentience (special effects of spirits show you distant lands), an increase to physical stats (SFX of spirit of animals enhancing you), an Ego attack - an attack that targets the mind( SFX spirit assualt).
For campaigns I've done Superhereos, Fantasy, Martial Arts, Sci Fi, secret Agent and others.
The speed chart (as mentioned above) is really great - although you probably don't want a speed difference of more than 2 or 3 in characters in the group, and the slower characters shoul likely have more damage or defense, for balance issues.
And that is one thing to consider - D&D is built to be balanced by the system. Hero is built to be balanced by the GM. There is no "You can't do that it isn't in the RAW" - much of the system relies on GM's judgement and the ability to say "no" for it's balance. If you have only played a class based system, that is something you really have to look for - because of it's incredible flexibility it is also very easy to abuse.
The website is herogames.com, and they have forums, etc.
Check out the forums, and see if it's your cup o' tea. :D
Yeah, we are a friendly bunch over there at the Hero forums. I have the same username there (although a different avatar, of course).
Also, Tectuktitlay, do you post over at the hero forums, and if so what is your Username, I'll say hi there.
Or drop me a PM.Yeah, we are a friendly bunch over there at the Hero forums. I have the same username there (although a different avatar, of course).
Also, Tectuktitlay, do you post over at the hero forums, and if so what is your Username, I'll say hi there.
Oddly, no, I don't. Heh. I should go over there and sign up. I'm at a few forums, but a bit are political, and they tend to take up my time. This is really the only roleplaying forum I'm on.
Oddly, no, I don't. Heh. I should go over there and sign up. I'm at a few forums, but a bit are political, and they tend to take up my time. This is really the only roleplaying forum I'm on.
I am primarily at Hero, but drop in at RPGnet, ENworld and here.
I would like to offer a modest dissent from the enthusiasm for Heroes.
Before you switch to another system {any other system} you should use the section in the 4ed DMG for analyzing what your players want players want. It is also a good idea to consider how much time they have. Finally, it is a good idea to spend some time on the RPGNet forums to get a better ifea of the diversity of opinion out there.
The reason I say this is that the Hero Games system is very rules heavy - which is just a way of saying there are a lot of rules to learn. It also offers a lof of room for customization. If you have been playing Hero System since 1985, you know the rules and have a library of additions to them. Once you've paid the learning and customization development cost, it is a great system. Do not only you, but also your players have time and patience for doing this?
BRP {Basic Role playing} by Chaosium is another toolkit type option.
GURPS {Generic Universal Role Playing System} by Steve Jackson Games is a somewhat less abstract offering in the same general category as Hero System, and seems to be more popular.
There are also various "rules-lite" systems intended to be easy to use.
For that matter, I was a co-designer of RQ I&II back in the Dark Ages {1976-8} and have beve been playing RPG's since 1978. I have written a new game, Fire and Sword, which may be what you want. Fire and Sword is available under an open source license as a free download here. I urge you to check it out.
The point is not that the Hero System is a bad system. A lot of people have tried it, some really love it, most end up preferring something else. Learning Hero System will take enough time so that it is worth trying to figure out if it is right for your group based on the available evidence first.
Good luck with your game, whatever system you pick,
Ray,
Hi,
I would like to offer a modest dissent from the enthusiasm for Heroes.
Before you switch to another system {any other system} you should use the section in the 4ed DMG for analyzing what your players want players want. It is also a good idea to consider how much time they have. Finally, it is a good idea to spend some time on the RPGNet forums to get a better ifea of the diversity of opinion out there.
The reason I say this is that the Hero Games system is very rules heavy - which is just a way of saying there are a lot of rules to learn. It also offers a lof of room for customization. If you have been playing Hero System since 1985, you know the rules and have a library of additions to them. Once you've paid the learning and customization development cost, it is a great system. Do not only you, but also your players have time and patience for doing this?
BRP {Basic Role playing} by Chaosium is another toolkit type option.
GURPS {Generic Universal Role Playing System} by Steve Jackson Games is a somewhat less abstract offering in the same general category as Hero System, and seems to be more popular.
There are also various "rules-lite" systems intended to be easy to use.
For that matter, I was a co-designer of RQ I&II back in the Dark Ages {1976-8} and have beve been playing RPG's since 1978. I have written a new game, Fire and Sword, which may be what you want. Fire and Sword is available under an open source license as a free download here. I urge you to check it out.
The point is not that the Hero System is a bad system. A lot of people have tried it, some really love it, most end up preferring something else. Learning Hero System will take enough time so that it is worth trying to figure out if it is right for your group based on the available evidence first.
Good luck with your game, whatever system you pick,
Ray,
Once again, I appreciate the feedback I am getting.
I'm not 100% sold on Heroes. It does look like a great game, but you make a good point with the time issue. For me personally, I have no problem taking the time to learn a rules heavy system, but as you said -and also as I mentioned in my first post- it might be a little too heavy for some of the people I normally play with. I briefly mentioned what I liked and what was a drawback (from what I could see) of the systems I browsed. I would be open to trying systems other than Heroes or WHFRP, but I live in a small town, so the availability of role playing products doesn't extend beyond D&D most of the time.
One of the other systems I had considered was the Conan rpg, and it interests me a great deal, but it mainly seems like D&D 3E just with a slightly different skin. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy 3E just as much as 4E, but I'm looking to try something different.
The reason WH interested me is because it seemed to have a bit more of a gritty feel to it. Heroes interested me because I could create that if I want to. I suppose what I'm looking for isn't so much of a "low-magic" system, but more of a "powerful magic is rare and hard to perform" type system...something similar to the Conan books (and Kull as well) written by R. Howard. I've considered trying to create this with 4E by turning all magic into rituals, and it works to an extent, but it still doesn't quite do what I want. I don't plan to stop playing 4E; I just want to try something different and see if perhaps a different game might suit what I'm trying to do better.
The somewhat ironic thing is that D&D 4E is what made me realize that I might enjoy the Warhammer system. One thing I like about 4E is that there is less of a power curve between the various levels. Monsters and players can still reasonably challenge each other as long as they are within 5 levels of each other. This has made me realize that I would like to try a system with even less of a power curve or possibly one without levels -similar to what I gathered (from browsing the book) WH tries to do.
I will check out your website though. As I said before, part of the reason for this thread is also to educate myself on other rpgs.
The reason I say this is that the Hero Games system is very rules heavy - which is just a way of saying there are a lot of rules to learn. It also offers a lof of room for customization.
This is a good point. Hero has a lot of rules, and can be difficult for someone new to the system to get into.
Two mitigating factors however -
1) Hero system Sidekick - it boils the rules down to the essence of the game (and loses a few powers and bit of flexibility) but is designed for people new to the game to learn the rules. Cheap too (15 bucks for the book, 8 (I think) for PDF).)
2) Unlike games like D&D everything in hero is in character creation - every power, every ability, every skill they are all in the main book, and you really have to know them for character creation. Once your character is made, you don't need to worry about what is in the book, because it's on your character sheet. No future books with new powers and abilities* no new classes. Everything is front loaded.
Think of building a character in Hero as building a 10 level 3.x D&D character. But after that, because it is point based, not level based, spending XP to improve something can take 30 seconds.
Once you get past intitial Chargen, play is as simple as could be.
* There are the Ultimate line that offer a few alternate rules, but they are alternate, and mostly the books are showing you how to use the powers in the main book to build what you like.
And I will echo the Good Luck with what you pick.
I have different needs for my gaming - that is why I play both D&D and Hero - they appeal to different aspects of why I game.
I really have no experience with either system though, so if I could get some outside input on these systems (and any other system which you feel warrants merit) I'd appreciate it. Mainly I'm looking to educate myself on systems other than D&D.
On the topic of "any other systems", I will chime in.
But first, HERO system. Too many rules for what you get, too complex, too bogged down, would rather play GURPS Supers, and I am not really a GURPS fan except in small doses.
Pendragon is awesome.
Ars Magica is awesome, best magic system, EVER. But not for the faint of heart as they say, as after a session I always feel as though I have been beat about the head with an Encyclopedia.
Shadowrun is good.
Vampire tabletop is good, however if you are in the mood for dressing up and getting funky with your role play you can always find a LARP.
ok first off, I have played hero's and I am not a fan, sorry to be the devils advocate but both sides need to be made and might as well be done by someone who has looked upon the dark side of it. It bogs down play to build some basic characters of low point level the first time through it took many hours about 3-4 if I remember correctly and well it didn't go very well after words. the second time around we built better characters but it took just as long, and we still were in a situations that made the game less than fun. we were going up against people of less power than our own, and we were still having trouble, the only things that were useful were the horribly broken tricks we used like my summoned golem that was 500 points took almost all of my points, and a lot of penalties but I built him, and he slaughtered everything. on the other hand he was the only thing that could deal with our foes. (5th)
I have also played Mutants and masterminds (2nd) it was fun but with how are gm went about it, it got out of hand as we ran around the country of baden (germanic country now part of germany) during 1399. it did not go well. On the other hand he runs the pulp fiction game very differently, this game is just as capable as hero's is at running a maliable game the differences is the time to build characters is shorter, and all you need is a d20, on top of that it has power levels to help you figure things out. it seems to function better than the heros games I have run in.
another system I have been looking at is called RuneQuest, it is an old system I have the original books for, and I have the newest books for it. Currently I would say this is also a very interesting system with a lot of grittyness to it. It has a good system of magic, and it has a good feel in combat, and building up your skills.
True 20 is another system but I don't know a whole lot about it so I can't really say much, all I can do is bring up the name.
I also have seen one role playing game by a group that calls themsevles ice I think it seems interesting the books are called character law, arms law, and spell law. they are interesting books you might be interested in checking them out as well.
I would advise trying out any of these games before devoting yourself to buying the books, find groups that play and ask if you can join for a session, this way you can decide on what type of game you would like to play in and what fits your style. Just remember me and these other posters aren't you, and in the long run we can advise but that doesn't make our opinions right for you. If you are having trouble finding a group there is a sight I use to find groups called meetup.com people setup games through it all the time, (currently I am part of a cashflow board game group, and one of my friends found a Gurps group) so if you have trouble go to the internet to find a group have fun and pleasant gaming to all of you.
Dont like Rolemaster though - it has a billion tables for combat depending on the damage type. Sounds realistic till you hit a wolf on its shield arm or a slug in the groin.
Warhammer was the first game I played and it was fun, but we found that once characters got tough it sort of started to break down. Not sure what the 2E's like though.
Ars Magica and Pendragon are both great though very specific (Ars Magica focuses on Magi, while Pendragon on Arthurian knights).
Pendragon's use of Glory instead of XP as the reward system changes the way players think - getting married or gaining entry into the Knights of the Round Table gains more Glory than combat for example. Also it's interesting that by the end of a campaign you may be playing the grandchild of your original character.
Chivalry and Sorcery might be interesting - the first edition was like D&D with way too many extra complications, but I understand that in later editions it has come to be a lot more streamlined. It's a bit more immersive/simulationist than D&D)
Also OD&D and AD&D are both significantly differentgames from the modern game. Here's Mike Mearls's experience playing OD&D:
http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=campaignstories&action=display&thread=543
Examples of things I like about 4E: less of a power curve between levels than 3E; the concept of skill challenges (even though I already did something similar when I DMed 3E;) multiple saves/checks for serious conditions such as disease, petrification, and etc; I like the basic concept behind Rituals.
Examples of things I like about 3E: a much better 'physics engine' (for a lack of better words) than 4E has; the ability to own land, have servants, etc; Grapple; in some cases I feel as though more effort was put into the small details.
Now, I know someone is probably going to look at that and say "well, you can own land and stuff like that in 4E; rules just aren't needed for it." I'm well aware (and more than capable) of handwaving and coming up with a cost for building something or the cost for hiring someone to do mundane jobs; however, there's really no guideline available for me to look at and judge if my decisions are balanced or not. Even in 3E I often strayed from the mechanics they had for such things, but I still at least had something to look at to give me some form of guidance and give me a general idea about how powerful and/or how beneficial having something would be when compared to the rest of the world I had created. I like that 4E puts more power into the hands of the DM, and ultimately I do think that the DM should have the power to handwave or make things up in his/her world, but I'd like to have at least some sort of guidance for things which aren't directly combat related.
I'm sure some people will probably find it crazy that I miss 3E's grapple rules too, but honestly I do. I never found them to be complicated; IMHO, they handle things much better than 4E's Grab rules. Also, like I said, I think a little more effort was put into the small details. If you look at the 3E PHB there's actually a pattern that can be noticed in the names of elves and things like that; however, sometimes a few of the big details such as game balance weren't always done right.
As I mentioned, I like 4E's power curve better than 3E. One or two levels in 3E could be enough to drastically change what sort of creatures would pose a challenge to a character. I think lessening the power curve and allowing a bigger window in which characters and creatures can reasonably challenge each other makes it easier to keep a coherant story together. I think overall 4E does a better job at some of the big details such as game balance, but it often cuts out too many of the small details. I loved the Points of Lights among Darkness concept that was shown during the 4E previews; I just wish more of it would have stayed part of the finished product.
I thought that maybe talking about a few of my likes and dislikes of D&D's editions (the ones that I'm familiar with) might give some insight into what might interest me. I know that ultimately it's my choice what I play, but it's still nice to have some advice and more of an education upon which to base my choices.
It also has lots of funky personality trait rules and passion rules (your character can be inspired by hate or love, you have these opposing traits - ie Chase/Lustful, Honest/Dishonest).
The power curve is subtle - you get an experience check on any skill or trait you roll a critical on and in downtime you roll to see if that trait goes up - so generally one or two skills traits increase after each session. (Very similar to Runequest).
Ars Magica might work for you, lots of details, you create a Covenant, the "physics engine" isn't bad considering combat is not the focus.
I also disagree and think you might like GURPS since it is a very detailed system that is quite logical (though in my opinion overly finicky). It's rather bland as written but there are lots of great sourcebooks and if you like homebrewing than it's pretty good. On downside long character generation means that random casualties are a pain.
-Joni
Oh and on Gurps I meant that it has a lot to go through (almost anything is possible, and in detail) but it is a lot to go through.
ok first off, I have played hero's and I am not a fan, sorry to be the devils advocate but both sides need to be made and might as well be done by someone who has looked upon the dark side of it. It bogs down play to build some basic characters of low point level the first time through it took many hours about 3-4 if I remember correctly and well it didn't go very well after words.
Character creation is indeed the longest aspect of the game, but the in-game mechanics are very fast, and flow very well. Character creation ceases to take long with a minimal amount of system mastery, or if you can purchase or otherwise acquire the HeroDesigner software, which seriously cuts down the character creation time in a big way.
the second time around we built better characters but it took just as long, and we still were in a situations that made the game less than fun. we were going up against people of less power than our own, and we were still having trouble, the only things that were useful were the horribly broken tricks we used like my summoned golem that was 500 points took almost all of my points, and a lot of penalties but I built him, and he slaughtered everything. on the other hand he was the only thing that could deal with our foes. (5th)
There is no way for you to do a 500-pt summon in the manner you did. ;) That is the whole point behind "Active Point" limits I was talking about, that a LOT of newer players completely gloss over and ignore...to their peril. It is a specific safety valve intended to prevent the exact kind of abuse you are talking about. Heh. A 500-pt Summon has 100 active points, yes. However, you have no control over that Summon. You summon a 500-pt free-willed creature that doesn't have to follow your instructions in any way, shape or form. Rather, it is under the GMs control, 100%, AND it costs you 10 endurance to both activate and maintain (which is a LOT). Even if you cut the "real" cost down to ~20 or so points, by requiring a casting time, hand and verbal gestures, a focus like a wand to cast through, etc, you STILL aren't allowed to exceed that active point limit. So, your experience was rather skewed via a lack of system mastery. You might want to give HERO another try with that in mind.
As for going up against people "weaker" than you and still having some problems, that is one of HERO System's strengths, not one of its weaknesses. Unlike MMOs and games like D&D, where each level gives you blanket bonuses to hit, to defenses, and to your hitpoint/wound total, you don't have levels so severely dividing content. That kind of situation is silly, even in a superhero game. 10 thugs with guns are a threat to a Batman-like character, even though most of the time the Batman-clone will defeat them. If a bullet connects, it will HURT 10 months into the campaign almost as much as it hurt on your first session. It's just that you'll be harder to hit (if you chose to up your defenses), and your armor may suck up some more of the damage (if you chose to upgrade your armor). It makes the world content more interactive, as sometimes you are facing one huge threat, sometimes you are facing a dozen or more soldiers, and they are both challenging in different ways, requiring different strategies and tactics. *shrug*
HERO System does have a higher system mastery requirement than a significant portion of other games to really get your bang-for-the-buck. At least, in terms of character creation (but NOT in-game play). Once you know the system, after a few sessions, there is a lot going on, yet actions are very simple to resolve, and all of the info you need is on your character sheet (one of the reasons character creation takes a bit of time is that you are doing most of the tedious bits up-front, not in-game), so you don't need to keep grabbing the book over and over again.
I find HERO System to be vastly superior to GURPS, both mechanically, and financially. GURPS tries to spread out what HERO does in one book, amongst literally dozens of books, doesn't do it as well, and requires at least as much system mastery.
I have also played Mutants and masterminds (2nd) it was fun but with how are gm went about it, it got out of hand as we ran around the country of baden (germanic country now part of germany) during 1399. it did not go well. On the other hand he runs the pulp fiction game very differently, this game is just as capable as hero's is at running a maliable game the differences is the time to build characters is shorter, and all you need is a d20, on top of that it has power levels to help you figure things out. it seems to function better than the heros games I have run in.
MM is pretty solid. I still like HERO better, but MM has a much lower amount of system mastery. It's like taking d20, and mixing it up with HERO System a bit. It's a really great starting point, certainly, and I'd highly recommend it.
I also have seen one role playing game by a group that calls themsevles ice I think it seems interesting the books are called character law, arms law, and spell law. they are interesting books you might be interested in checking them out as well.
Heh, Rolemaster is horrific. Seriously, it's an awful horrible, terrible system. Ok, Rolemaster works effectively like this: Every single type of attack in the game, from each individual weapon, to each individual type of spell (i.e. fire-based single target ranged, fire-based AoE, fire-based melee, ice based melee, acid based, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum) in the game has its own full-page table requiring a %-based roll to hit, which tells you whether you hit, how well you hit, what body part you hit, whether or not you crit, or fumble, etc. Then, each damage type (and there are dozens, from slashing and impact and piercing, to fire and ice and electricity, to vacuum and pressure and vibration, and much, much more) has its own full-page critical hit chart, telling you exactly how hard you crit, and what the crit is for each body part. That is JUST a FRAGMENT of the combat rules. A portion. A tiny bit. It's...it's simply terrible. I played a bunch of it 15+ years ago, and am so glad I dumped it like a bad habit. Ugh. Rolemaster. Just...ugh. If there was any ONE roleplaying system someone asked me to avoid, it would be Rolemaster. No question. At all. I'd answer it in a heartbeat.
I also really like Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu rules set for horror RPG. I want to pick up their basic roleplaying rules set that just came out this fall and see what that is all about. I've heard really good things about it.
MWP has an interesting and simple rules set called the Cortex System. It's based on what they did for the Serenity game, which is by far the most fun SciFi RPG I have ever played/run. They have also done up rules for BSG and Supernatural, and some other genres. it's definitely worth checking out if you like those genre's.
Again, I would recommend you check out both Pendragon and Ars Magica. The Ars Magica 4th edition rulebook is available for free as a PDF online, just google it. I haven't yet picked up 5th edition, but I hear the changes are pretty good, and I know I am about to be invited to a group that is going to start 5th edition soon. I am going to have to go out and pick up the rules.
Never played Pendragon, but Ars Magica's magic system was the prototype for the World Of Darkness: Mage the Ascension magic system, which was pretty darned neat. I'm not sure if 4th Ed. Ars Magica still uses that system, but it was a lot of fun, and mechanically very simple and open-ended.
Player:"that's not how it works, the rules say..."
GM(as computer):"Citizen, where did you acquire this information?"
Player:"Huh? It's in the GM section"
computer:"Citizen, that information is for security clearance ultraviolet(highest possible), you are security clearance red(a small step from the unwashed masses). For a citizen of red clearance to know information that is cleared only for ultraviolet is treason..."
Other players: ZAPZAPZAPKAPOW!!!
actually ten points of endurance really isn't much, as all you have to do to counter that is buy some reserve pool, and up the regeneration of the reserve pool to the point that every time you pay for the summon you regenerate those points, I built a character that all his spells, his golem, and his mystical sword all took up a good deal of points, but with plenty of flaws to up his power points and penalties on those powers to lower their costs according to the charts and info in the book, my character was legal, and also would never have to use his own endurance for any amount of power. While an interesting system, I believe you need a very dedicated group that is willing to memorize all the rules and put hours into their characters, with a GM that is willing to put hours upon hours into figuring out how to build what he wants your group to fight and how difficult he wants that to be. Also for things which were expected to be a breeze to be a significant problem for the most part. i do not see that as a boon for a game. You need to have an idea of what you are capable of and what you create are capable of. Without that understanding you might as well not have a system, as you will be lucky if you ever get the intended result from your hard work.
No, really, you are wrong. I don't want to derail this thread, so this is likely the last post I'll put into it with regards to this matter. However, I really must point this out, because you are (very likely unknowingly, due to a lack of system mastery) providing disinformation about the HERO System.
You didn't build a legal Summon. If it was a 500-pt Summon, that is 100 Active Points, literally bare minimum, before adding a single Advantage. The Active Point limit for a standard superheroic game, which has 350-pt maximum characters (including all Disadvantages) is 80 active points, so you were already exceeding the Active Point limit. A 100 Active Point limit isn't until characters are 600 points or higher. If this was only a heroic, or D&D-style game, you start off as a 150-pt character, and the Active Point limit is 50 points. Limitations do NOT reduce the Active Points of the power, they reduce the Real Cost, which is not the same thing at all. You can add enough Limitations to the Summon to reduce its cost to a mere 1 point, and it STILL has 100 Active Points.
Mind you, that is for a Summon that you have zero...I repeat, absolutely, positively, ZERO control over. None. Nada. Nip. Zilch. To make a suggestion that the Summon is willing to listen to and have it actually obey, you have to make an EGO roll with a -10 the the roll (-1 per 10 Active Points in the Summon used). That is an enormous penalty, to get it to do a number of tasks it is WILLING to do equal to your EGO divided by 5. The maximum EGO for a standard human is 20.
The above power, which, again, you have no real control over, costs 10 END per phase you are active in, not per turn. If you have the typical Speed 3 most standard characters possess, that is 30 END per turn, not 10. Plus, it's another 10 END to activate the power. Even with an Endurance Reserve, that is not inconsiderable, considering that your Endurance Reserve itself is likewise limited by the Active Point limit.
So, no, really, in all seriousness, you weren't following the rules properly. Rules in place to specifically prevent the very kind of situation you describe from occurring.
Pre d20 paranoia is some of the funniest times you can have at the gaming table bar none. I love the healthy, wounded, incapacitated, dead, and vapourised hitpoint system it had (especially the necessity of having a state beyond dead), and it lets the players and the GM blow off some steam and stab each other in the back. It also has the best ever means of dealing with rules lawyers. It goes something like this:
Player:"that's not how it works, the rules say..."
GM(as computer):"Citizen, where did you acquire this information?"
Player:"Huh? It's in the GM section"
computer:"Citizen, that information is for security clearance ultraviolet(highest possible), you are security clearance red(a small step from the unwashed masses). For a citizen of red clearance to know information that is cleared only for ultraviolet is treason..."
Other players: ZAPZAPZAPKAPOW!!!
Yes and the GM's sections first advice is "Kill the bastards" then the section on Ultraviolet (epic level characters) says "Why didn'tya kill the bastards?"
I don't want to necessarily run a game where everyone owns land; most of the time I'm perfectly fine with running a normal D&D game, but I wish there was a system which could handle both things. I wish there were a system in which I could be anything I wanted to be from a member of a lowly adventuring group clear to the general at the head of an army. Unfortunately, that's an unrealistic expectation because I don't think that any system exists which could do what I ask.
I guess I wish there was a way in which to create a world that the PCs were part of instead of the world only existing because the PCs exist.
I've been continuing to do some research on various systems. I think -as some posters have said- that I should probably try playing some of the games before buying anything. I have looked at GURPs a few times, and the fact that the Fallout games were based on the GURPs system is a very very positive thing in my book. Part of the appeal of Heros was the ability to build what I want, but I think it would take me quite a while to learn the system enough to teach other people...still, it does appeal to me. Warhammer 40k seemed very interesting too; I'm just not sure how easy it would be to divorce the mechanics from the established storyline. I mention those three systems specifically because those are the three books I have seen at the local gaming store other than D&D books.
At this time I have a few questions.
1) How do the various systems (mainly the ones I mentioned) handle levels and experience points?
2) What sort of balance is there in encounters? How would a game master known what is a TPK or what is a cakewalk?
3) What makes those systems stand out from D&D?
Second Runequest if you want fantasy with a little more depth.
Dont like Rolemaster though - it has a billion tables for combat depending on the damage type. Sounds realistic till you hit a wolf on its shield arm or a slug in the groin.
Warhammer was the first game I played and it was fun, but we found that once characters got tough it sort of started to break down. Not sure what the 2E's like though.
Ars Magica and Pendragon are both great though very specific (Ars Magica focuses on Magi, while Pendragon on Arthurian knights).
Pendragon's use of Glory instead of XP as the reward system changes the way players think - getting married or gaining entry into the Knights of the Round Table gains more Glory than combat for example. Also it's interesting that by the end of a campaign you may be playing the grandchild of your original character.
Chivalry and Sorcery might be interesting - the first edition was like D&D with way too many extra complications, but I understand that in later editions it has come to be a lot more streamlined. It's a bit more immersive/simulationist than D&D)
Also OD&D and AD&D are both significantly differentgames from the modern game. Here's Mike Mearls's experience playing OD&D:
http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=campaignstories&action=display&thread=543
FYI: I read the OD&D article. It sounds like a game I would highly enjoy trying out. I have no idea how I'd ever find anything for it though.
I think part of my problem in choosing a system is that I have a very two sided personality; I easy fit the Gemini profile. I like the rules and structure that 3E (and by extention 4E) have, but at the same time I'd also like the freedom to do certain things on the fly like what is described in the article. I wish I could find a middle ground between the mindset of the old game and the newer versions.
Hmm, well these guys know where to get all the OD&D stuff: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com
This is the super-grognard site - if it came out after 1979 they probably don't like it (that's maybe a little bit of an exaggeration).
This guy has more old school philosophy:
www.philotomy.com
Lots of legally available pdfs out there (Wizards have allowed other companies to sell D&D pdfs and lots of other out of print games are now available this way). Plus there are retro-rewrites (I linked a couple in a thread a few threads down) -the new OD&D style game is rejigged from the OGL so it is quite streamlined and consistent, probably easier to read than the original too. and the old game does have a structure - basically rules cover only what you can't play out (ie combat, not exploration/puzzle solving)
You could even retrofit D20 - simplify attribute bonuses (+1 high, +0 average, -1 low) roll 3d6 for each stat in order no swopping, only fighter, wizard and cleric, no cleric spheres, no feats, no (or a small number of skills), definitely no Search skill, 1GP=1 XP (I used to hate this idea, but it makes sense in a way - you no-longer need wealth per level and you players are encouraged to not fight everything that moves if they can get the loot without it), CHALLENGE LEVEL by location not character level (so the tough monsters are deeper in the dungeon or further in the wilderness and if 1st levels want to wander there that's their choice). Players choose what they can handle (no set number of encounters per day, if you can't handle it run, negotiate or hide).
Chaosium have now published their universal system (used in Runequest and the original Call of Cthullu RPG)
http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=246
That might be the kind of thing you're looking for: it's quite crunchy and realistic, but also consistent and leaves a lot of space.
But there's no reason to just play one or even one version of each game - Mike Mearls playing OD&D is a case in point. Jumping from game to game is part of the fun. You may find yourself porting elements from one game to another (though try each game out on its own terms first).
The best system there is for ease of play that I've found is HOL by Black Dog Games. The rules are the most relaxed of any game system that I've ever GM'd (no, I won't play this one). Heck there's not even a set of character generation system until the second book in the game line, which if I recall was the only other book in the series.
So why won't you play it?
So why won't you play it?
Because it's a million times more fun to GM.
I also came across a sci-fi system called Traveller which seemed to be pretty good, but it seems to be heavily rooted in previously established storyline material. It still seemed good though.
I think one of my main obstacles to learning a new system is going to be finding people around here who are familiar with systems other than D&D. I'm pretty confident that with time I could learn a more complex system such as Hero or GURPs, but the process would be much faster if I had a chance to gain some hands-on experience.
Don't know much about Traveller, but it's almost as old as D&D and there's probably as much variation between the different editions.
I think you only need 1 book to play 3E GURPS or 2 books to play 4E (one player, one GM). But they have no campaign material - so the downside of a generic game is that there is no starting point (though the 3E book had a couple of starting adventures).
Don't know much about Traveller, but it's almost as old as D&D and there's probably as much variation between the different editions.
The GURPs products I had been looking at was their 4th Edition I believe. I don't mind not having a starting point, but it's something I'm not used to with rpgs yet. The hardest part seems to be deciding what sort of game I want to play! (i.e. Sci-fi, fantasy, etc)
The Traveller material I found is semi-owned by GURPs as far as I could tell. It had been updated, but was still somehow different enough from GURPs Space to be a different game??
The Traveller material I found is semi-owned by GURPs as far as I could tell. It had been updated, but was still somehow different enough from GURPs Space to be a different game??
There are GURPS versions of other games (GURPS Traveller, GURPS Burrows and Bunnies and GURPS Vampire) which just use the setting. Same principle as the D20 versions of games like Star Wars and Call of Cthullu. Definately a different game system wise.
There are GURPS versions of other games (GURPS Traveller, GURPS Burrows and Bunnies and GURPS Vampire) which just use the setting. Same principle as the D20 versions of games like Star Wars and Call of Cthullu. Definately a different game system wise.
Oh ok; I was a little confused by that.
With the info I've gathered about the Hero system via this thread and skimming the books, I think it would be interesting to see how you would go about creating the D&D 4E rules by using the Hero system. Hero seems to have a very "Power -> Effect" construction for a lot of things.
1) Is it possible to have a realistic living breathing world in a system with levels?
Being that there are things such as magic, dragons, and other such things I'm willing to accept that the game can't perfectly model reality; I never expect any game to perfectly model reality. However, there are certain things about playing the rpgs I've had experiences with that I've come to realize I don't care for.
One in particular is the fact that a certain point comes when a character can no longer be challenged by certain problems. A high level character could single-handedly win a war. It's hard for me to explain exactly how I feel about that. Playing an rpg does revolve around heroes, and I think that it should be possible for the PCs/Heroes to do extraordinary things; however, I think that certain things should still challenge heroes. Conan is nearly invincible in the universe that R. Howard due to his strength and skill in battle, and many times he does single handedly take on vast numbers of foes, but there's still a semi-realistic limit to his abilities. He still can't single handedly stand across the battlefield from and army and defeat them all. Likewise, the X-Men -even with all of their incredible powers- still can be threatened and harmed.
2) Would combat in space actually be possible?
This is something I asked myself while reading an article about sci-fi games and whether or not you prefer "hard science" or "soft science." One thing that the article made me question was whether or not it would even be possible to have a battle take place in outer space. If a weapon were to puncture a ship even with the smallest of projectiles, wouldn't everyone inside the ship die due to the oxygen in the ship being sucked out into the vacuum of space? This would seem to make an actual battle in space be extremely fatal. This is mainly a hypothetical question since it deals with science fiction, but it's something that I can't seem to shake from my mind. If I were to play a sci-fi campaign I would be willing to accept that some areas of science will need to be handwaived and ignored, but I'm not curious about the practicality of actually having a RL conflict in space.
A system with levels can be "realistic" insofar as any character could be killed by a dagger or whatever. The limit is more to do with gameplay - players spend a lot of time creating characters and dislike them getting killed. It makes sense for deadlier games to either have faster/simpler character generation since player's will be doing it more often, or to emphasie roleplay over combat.
4E chose to be less realistic for gameplay reasons. But it's a matter of taste - there is no right way. In Chainamil (D&D's precursor) a normal character had one hit die, then there was a 4 HD Hero and an 8 HD superhero - that was the key - an 8 HD character was meant to be a superhero, not a realistic hero at all.
2. Wouldn't it be quite like modern submarines in combat? Presumably they'd have some kind of system for isolating the damage. There might often be horrible choices, like sealing off Section A to stop leakage (thus sealing the doom of those in Section A). ships would either use lots of stealth or have lots of redundant space and crew in vulnerable areas might wear spacesuits or exoskeletons just in case (or they might use purely automated system for the vulnerable areas).
And then of course there's force fields...
1. Chekc out this on fighter power level in D&D. It's in German but the graph is pretty clear!
A system with levels can be "realistic" insofar as any character could be killed by a dagger or whatever. The limit is more to do with gameplay - players spend a lot of time creating characters and dislike them getting killed. It makes sense for deadlier games to either have faster/simpler character generation since player's will be doing it more often, or to emphasie roleplay over combat.
4E chose to be less realistic for gameplay reasons. But it's a matter of taste - there is no right way. In Chainamil (D&D's precursor) a normal character had one hit die, then there was a 4 HD Hero and an 8 HD superhero - that was the key - an 8 HD character was meant to be a superhero, not a realistic hero at all.
2. Wouldn't it be quite like modern submarines in combat? Presumably they'd have some kind of system for isolating the damage. There might often be horrible choices, like sealing off Section A to stop leakage (thus sealing the doom of those in Section A). ships would either use lots of stealth or have lots of redundant space and crew in vulnerable areas might wear spacesuits or exoskeletons just in case (or they might use purely automated system for the vulnerable areas).
And then of course there's force fields...
1) I'm not saying a less realistic game is wrong. I have plenty of fun with D&D. Sometimes it just seems hard to have something such as a war storyline with the way in which the system is built though. Someone of a high enough level could easily level an entire army of lower level troops. I don't mind at all that 4E focused more on the game aspect than the simulation aspect, but I think perhaps certain things that I want to be able to do within the framework of a game and worldbuilding might work better with a different system. That's not to say I plan on never playing D&D again; I just think perhaps something closer to a system without levels might work better for creating a living world. The ironic thing is that 4E has made me realize that I might like a game without levels due to (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) the lower amount of power curve between the levels in 4E. It's still possible to simulate things like I want to in D&D, but it often requires me doing something such as levelling up the town guards every time the PCs gain a certain amount of levels; eventually it leads to the question of "well, if these guards are so tough then why can't they just kill the dragon themselves?"
2. I had actually considered the submarine analogy myself. It really makes you question what an actual spacecraft of the far future would look like. If I were to use Star Trek as an example, it seems as though the way the Borg ships are built would be far closer to what an actual ship would need to be like to survive a battle in space. The main control areas would probably be near the center, and the ship would be divided into several sections which could be cut off from each other when damage is taken....much like sealing off sections of a submarine as you mentioned.
Force Fields or something similar would probably be a very important part of ship building in a universe where conflict in space occured. It's interesting to think about what would happen once those defenses fail or are bypassed though.
I imagine that small fighter crafts would be built in much the same way as the fighter planes of today's military are. The pilot would have some sort of oxygen mask to wear while flying the craft in case the craft were punctured. The interesting thing to consider about this though is that pilots of such a craft may have to worry about running out of air just as much as they need to worry about running out of ammo or fuel.
You know, with systems it's horses for courses.
2) Yeah, the Enterprise with it's fragile linking bits between the core, the engine and the bridge makes little sense (but I like it as a ship design aesthetically).
The idea of space combat being similar to submarine combat has really sparked my mind. I do think that submarines are a good analogy for how spacecrafts would engage each other in combat for many reasons.
Space is a very 3-Dimensional Battlefield much like the ocean is, and it's also a very vast area. I think perhaps a lot of the challenge would be in detecting the enemy and figuring out where they are in relation to where you are, and the other big challenge would be tactical movement. Both of those things remind me a lot of how I understand sub conflicts to operate. I also imagine that a lot of the offensive manuevers would have some similarities to modern day artillery as well. I imagine that early ships -once built before we have computers which could do the work- would have a team of officers going over a bunch of mathmatical charts to figure out distance, direction, and the best trajectory for firing certain weapons.
I actually think that could be a very interesting background for a campaign or even possibly a novel or show. The adventures of a "space submarine" and it's crew during a war. It would basically be like some sort of middle ground between Classic Star Trek and The Hunt for Red October. I'm a little unsure how much different that would be in the long run from Battlestar Gallactica though.
With that being said, I've been looking into GURPs a lot more. The Hero system highly interests me, but I think that since I'm accustomed to being somewhat lead by the hand when it comes to rules -as a result of only being mainly limited to D&D with my gaming experiences- that it might be easier for me to learn GURPs than it would be to go straight from D&D to Hero. I still have a lot of questions about other systems though.
In particular, from what I understand in GURPs, there's no target number to hit an opponent such as AC. I first roll to see if I am successful with my attack and then my target rolls to see if they can dodge my attack. I'm not quite sure that I understand the full concept behind that idea. Why roll to see if I am successful in attacking if my success has no impact on whether or not I hit? I like the concept of the target being able to dodge, parry, etc; I'm just not sure that I fully understand how my attack roll interacts with the target's defensive roll.
In particular, from what I understand in GURPs, there's no target number to hit an opponent such as AC. I first roll to see if I am successful with my attack and then my target rolls to see if they can dodge my attack. I'm not quite sure that I understand the full concept behind that idea. Why roll to see if I am successful in attacking if my success has no impact on whether or not I hit? I like the concept of the target being able to dodge, parry, etc; I'm just not sure that I fully understand how my attack roll interacts with the target's defensive roll.
Yes it's redundant, it's like in D&D why call an attack a "hit" if it doesn't get past DR and does nothing? I think the logic in GURPS is that the attacker rolls their attack and the defender rolls their defence.
I liked the way in Pendragon both combatants roll and the successful roll hits the opponent - so pretty much everytime someone hits. I'd also really recommend the Chaosium BRP games system (Pendragon's system is related but not the same) as it does cover pretty much every situation and is pretty gritty - even though Runequest is still pretty high fantasy, Stormbringer too (based on the Moorcock novels) and Call of Cthullu is just nuts (try playing a librarian versus mad alien gods if you want a REAL challenge).