Quote from: sureshot;1070531To be honest though it's on the consumer not on either organization. I do not enjoy Critical role yet if I go to one bakery providing smoke meat baked into a loaf of bread. Then stupidly assume all bakeries provide that service the error is on me not the bakery. People need more common sense imo. It's like at my job where people get offended that I tell them they are responsible providing their apt number. Where some insist vehemently they need to be asked. As apparently being asked for their address mean giving their apt number is optional.

As for Hero and Gurps it's less the math I think and more the presentation. Hero Games did not do themselves any favors with releasing not one but two core books that look like they would not be out of place in a physics course. Gurps and Hero also suffer from having Savage Worlds and Fate being able to do the same with less complexity. I'm a fan of both yet realize they would be a tough sell. It's not for the player to bend over backwards to learn an rpg. It's a hobby for me not a damn job.

I disagree with the notion that either Savage Worlds or Fate can do the same thing. But, be that as it may, if you add up all the sourcebooks you need for most systems to accomplish what Hero can with those 2 books (I think Gurps has a bloat problem with supplements as well) then actually Hero will come in with a similar or smaller page count than the others. It is all about perception, and taste. As a GM, I love Hero for the ability to craft anything and everything, but not everyone likes that. The player is tasked with creating one character and the complexity is front loaded. I don't even need books to run a session. I mention the math because that is the complaint I have heard most often. As a player, I don't care what system it is, I leave that to the GM, but money wise Hero is the least expensive (of the major competitors) in terms of outlay of cash...but perhaps the highest expenditure of GM effort.

Quote from: shuddemell;1070532I disagree with the notion that either Savage Worlds or Fate can do the same thing. But, be that as it may, if you add up all the sourcebooks you need for most systems to accomplish what Hero can with those 2 books (I think Gurps has a bloat problem with supplements as well) then actually Hero will come in with a similar or smaller page count than the others. It is all about perception, and taste. As a GM, I love Hero for the ability to craft anything and everything, but not everyone likes that. The player is tasked with creating one character and the complexity is front loaded. I don't even need books to run a session. I mention the math because that is the complaint I have heard most often. As a player, I don't care what system it is, I leave that to the GM, but money wise Hero is the least expensive (of the major competitors) in terms of outlay of cash...but perhaps the highest expenditure of GM effort.

I'm a fan of GURPS 4e and Savage Worlds, Savage Worlds does action with less complexity and actually has vehicle rules that are easy to use. In some ways Savage Worlds is a GURPS build with a different die mechanic and 6 second combat rounds, but that build is action focused. While I like non-combat sessions in Savage Worlds, you wouldn't run a non-combat campaign in Savage Worlds. It would be like an action movie with no fight scenes. Even though GURPS has more combat crunch than it doesn't, but it has plenty of crunch for non-combat. Which is where I'd use it over Savage Worlds. People would use GURPS over Savage Worlds if they don't want pulpy action or do want Hit Points.

Idk nothing about HERO, but I suspect Savage Worlds Superpowers Companion is probably pulling from both Hero and M&M. PEG devs have this weird habit of regularly playing other games than their own and learning from them.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1070537I'm a fan of GURPS 4e and Savage Worlds, Savage Worlds does action with less complexity and actually has vehicle rules that are easy to use. In some ways Savage Worlds is a GURPS build with a different die mechanic and 6 second combat rounds, but that build is action focused. While I like non-combat sessions in Savage Worlds, you wouldn't run a non-combat campaign in Savage Worlds. It would be like an action movie with no fight scenes. Even though GURPS has more combat crunch than it doesn't, but it has plenty of crunch for non-combat. Which is where I'd use it over Savage Worlds. People would use GURPS over Savage Worlds if they don't want pulpy action or do want Hit Points.

Idk nothing about HERO, but I suspect Savage Worlds Superpowers Companion is probably pulling from both Hero and M&M. PEG devs have this weird habit of regularly playing other games than their own and learning from them.

Personally, I find SW overly abstract and lacking in certain tactical options (admittedly I last played it long ago, and it was 1st Ed). I overwhelmingly prefer Hero to any of those mentioned, and it is what I will GM.

I don't have any problem with Critical Role for what it is.  It's the pro-wrestling of rpgs -- performers engaging in a mostly-arranged exhibition.

Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.

What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.

Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.

Kudos for him. Not my cup of tea but I will give props to him for figuring it out and making it work enough to earn money from it.

And I agree with S'mon, Critical Role has been a benefit to the hobby. There is more than enough room on the ship to accommodate what he is doing.  

If turns out in the long run to be something different enough to be own thing. Then the tabletop RPG hobby will continue chug along like when CRPGs turned out to be their own thing and one that grew to a far larger audience than the hobby that spawned them.

I have to agree with Rob on this. It has been a net benefit to the hobby. If there is an effect, what I have seen is fairly mild (I have encountered some folks who want to emulate some of the ways things go on Critical Role, but not really that different from people who want their games to play like Dragonlance Saga or who come to the table with a very specific gaming ideology). My first exposure to D&D as a kid was the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. When I did end up playing D&D I overcame any unrealistic expectations that show set for me. I do think it is helpful for people to be aware this is a show, with a production team, and actors. That is useful for people to point out to players whose only exposure comes from CR. But it isn't like Mercer and co are doing anything nefarious here. They've found a way to make D&D entertaining to each and helping stimulate its popularity in the process. If they've managed to make a good living in the process, more power to them.

In terms of how much the fact that it is a show shapes the result. Probably, but running a game at a public convention shapes the performance. Anytime you are aware people are watching and judging your session, it will have some influence. And a show that big, probably has to consider audience reaction to the things that arise. I don't think any of that is necessarily bad though. There are people putting up more typical sessions online. Having put up such session recordings myself, I can say it is a handy way to keep a campaign log, but doesn't make for the most interesting listening material.

I don't  hate Hero. They did not do themselves any favors with how they presented the rules for 5E and 6E imo. They changes from 5E to 6E also were not significant enough to warrant switching over to 6E. Gurps the designers instead of releasing say Gurps Vehicles they focused on  Mars Attacks and Discworld.

Both rules light and rules heavy have their place  trying to br onjective the community serms more interested in the first and sales seem to reflect that. Hero is on life support. SJGames is putting Gurps production on hold. I'm not sure if the trend will reverse itself.

Quote from: sureshot;1070546I don't  hate Hero. They did not do themselves any favors with how they presented the rules for 5E and 6E imo. They changes from 5E to 6E also were not significant enough to warrant switching over to 6E. Gurps the designers instead of releasing say Gurps Vehicles they focused on  Mars Attacks and Discworld.

Both rules light and rules heavy have their place  trying to br onjective the community serms more interested in the first and sales seem to reflect that. Hero is on life support. SJGames is putting Gurps production on hold. I'm not sure if the trend will reverse itself.

I like 6E, and I agree with the few salient changes made. FRED is overall, probably the most loved version of Hero, so I wouldn't go so far as to say they did themselves harm by releasing it. It is indeed on life support, and that probably will not change. It does have a core of adherents, myself included, but it certainly isn't greatly popular as a whole. That said, I don't choose my system based on overall popularity, but doing so does increase the number (if not the quality) of the people you have available to game with. If I were forced to run another system, it wouldn't be the most popular either. I would probably run AD&D 1E or Runequest, so I am not a good gauge of current trends in roleplaying, but I am a fan of utility and consistency more so than what is popular or trendy.

I am a fan of utility and consistency as well as popular and trendy. 5E to me at least is a good example of all four.

What I meant by Hero is the size of 5E core book as well as 6E core. Gurps 4E is to me a good format to present the rules. Hero is too intimating for many.

Yeah, that's why they released Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete, to get away from the "textbook" perception. Not that it made much of a difference to most people.

I've liked playing 5E, and it does approach most of those pretty well. Still have no desire to run it, but will happily play.

I'm a too enjoy Hero 5E Revised. 6E was what Pathfinder is to 3.5 D&D. Without the larger fanbase. I aldo think the company overestimated how much the fans were willing to buy the same books for 5E in 6E. I was not expecting the wheel. Neither did I want a Pathfinder version. I could not find any reason to switch over.

Actually, I think the decoupling of the stats was useful as it allowed more flexibility in character builds... and I did buy all of them, even when I didn't really need them, but I will still run in either FRED or 6E, they are so similar that conversion isn't really necessary. So yeah, I get that there would be little reason to change. Personally, I think they would have been better served by getting adventures and settings out there, but it's not really Steve Long's forte, in my opinion.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1070472Change is not always for the better.

No, but it's always the intention to BE better.  Doesn't always succeed, but the INTENT is there.

But, hey, tell me again that gamers don't hate change?

Quote from: sureshot;1070453I agree with most of the video except with it not bringing in new players to the hobby. Yes some will want it to be like critical role. Some just want to play D&D and anything and everything that makes more people want to come into our hobby is a good thing. Stop being the old man shaking his fist at a cloud in the sky.

Your becoming the stereotype of the grognard afraid of change at this point. With a word of advice do not go too much on a mega rant in your videos it kills any interest to want to watch the whole thing.

In the video I explicitly state that Critical Role does bring some new players into the hobby.

Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.

What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.

Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.

Except he didn't. He figured out how to make a fashionable and feasible SIMULACRUM of hobbyists playing a sessions. They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session. And this causes the problem of the Mercer Effect. People think the Simulacrum is real and the actors are really feeling things they're acting.

Quote from: Haffrung;1070466I hope you're not suggesting Pundit has taken such an intense disliking to Mercer because the latter's success and online popularity dwarfs his own efforts at becoming an RPG social media star.

If you dislike the Kardashians or the Long Island Medium is the only possible reason that you're jealous?