Disclaimer: This is not a dig on Hero Lab. Many people get great usage from it, and that's awesome. This thread is a hypothesis about an effect that results from that usage.
Something I've notice from those that use HL is that they will often petition for things like racial restrictions be lowered if they even ask at all. I know a particular guy who will assume everything is fair game unless he's told otherwise. I suspect this is so they can make greater utilization of the abilities they see in the HL indexes. Any mention of reinforcing the restrictions or challenging why they want them lowered is met with something that essentially says "because I think it's dumb." Be that as it may, people rarely do anything without a benefit to themselves and HL certainly facilitates that benefit. Of course, they could ask the same anyway without HL, but seeing an ability right next to another and being restricted from one but not the other certainly will raise the question faster than if all you had were the disparate source books and had to mentally collate the options yourself.
So, you end up with humans with tengu spells and orc gear as being potentially common builds as if they're regular spells and gear with no particular significance to their source race or other restriction. Another common thing is the spread of the dervish feats among those without any kind of story connection to where they come from. Nothing says they have to, sure. It's just part of this phenomenon.
You could argue that any index resource (such as the paizo prd or d20pfsrd sites) would lead to the same result. I would say that some would ask most assuredly, yes. However, I would counter that there is a psychologically fundamental difference when you pay for something and are told you can't use it regardless of the reason. It triggers a "why not" defense mechanism as you feel entitled to it. I would make the same claim over any other paid reference tool. HL simply happens to be a prevalent (the most?) one.
This view naturally springs from a desire to see some scarcity among the options available to a character that I have. I think player choice should matter, and that those choices should inherently limit or allow options as appropriate. I don't like that anyone can use resources described as "well guarded secrets."
What do you think?
It's an argument as old as the splatbooks, mate, and the only real way to combat it is use rule 0 and throw some Vorthos reasoning in there to make it stick. If the options are there, people will try to use them.
Hero Lab makes it easy for them to see it, but it also makes it easy for you to see it. While this does mean you will be seeing more gitfacery at the table, it also means you can defuse it quicker. I'm not sure of the math, but that may equate to net time savings anyway.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
better title for this thread:
"Should I make clear to my players what is and isn't allowed in the games I run?"
Except my personal observations have taken place in other situations than just games I run.
Note: I dont use herolab, too expensive. I do however make extensive use of other databases. I also greatly resent GMs who present restrictions in character creation after accepting you into a game without informing you beforehand.
Yeah, if the choice exists, we are going to use it. If you want to limit your choices, then more power to ya. But I love pathfinder because if it's diversity; there are much more coherent game systems out there that have less diversity.
Also: while you do seem to believe there should be "fluff restrictions" (IE your note about dervish dance) I respond with "you can re-fluff anything". I'm currently running an all dwarf campaign (one limit) but otherwise I'm leaving everything open. You want to play a samurai? Great, well re-fluff it. Wanna fight with dwarven battle-bread? Ok, we'll re-fluff hammers. One man's well-guarded secret is another's bread & butter. As long as the game stays fun for all, I've got no problems.
As for racial restrictions: hit or miss. Some of them could be generalized without problem (like the spell damnation stride) others should not (like the spell paragon surge).
Edit: if I do give restrictions, they are strict. If I run an all-dwarf campaign YOU WILL BE A DWARF OR YOU WILL LEAVE! No, a dwarf-blooded oread isnt a dwarf. No, a duergar isnt a dwarf.
|
Honestly, in my opinion there is no universally correct answer. Every table is different, every group is different, every player is different. It's why games have GMs. Pathfinder has an expansive and growing ruleset, with an also expansive realm of 3PP stuff. And not all flavor is equal in and of itself.
As an example, what's an assassin? It's a prestige class in pathfinder. I believe I saw a 3pp base class or archetype named that. It's a profession in the real world. Heck, an otherwise normal person could be an assassin at one point if talked or forced into it.
So for one group a person can only be an assassin if they have ranks in the assassin prestige class. In another, the assassin sent to kill the king could be an enchantment specialist wizard forcing the king's royal guard to pour poison into his drink after the taste tester tastes it.
This extends to many other items/feats/classes/spells in game. Sure that spell might be listed as a spell belonging only to Sylphs on the floating island of floatingislandestonia (hey, I suck at names, okay!). But a player thinks it's a good spell and wants it for his character. Can he take it anyway and work into backstory? Can he reflavor it to something else? Or can he just take it because he wants it? It's up to the GM to decide. (another point I personally believe is that the group should also help to decide, it's a cooperative game, but that's really each group's choice as well).
Now let's talk Hero Lab. At it's core, it is indeed an index that helps to make characters. But in the end, the GM has final say on what is and isn't allowed, including based on flavor. Does it help to bring player entitlement to the forefront? I only have three people experiences to add to this (me being one of them), and normally I'd say no. But that's only my limited experience, and a lot of that comes from how our group interacts with each other. Most of us have played over a decade and we generally do a good job of policing ourselves. We have our own rule about "Don't be a Jerk" (we call it something different, but it's vulgar so not forum appropriate). In our groups case, Hero Lab doesn't have that effect because we have our ground rules.
That does call on the other side though, and the question of this post. Does it bring about Blandness. I wanted to save a direct discussion of the topic for last because I felt the answer to the is slightly different from the tone of the post. I think that yes, it does encourage blandness. A lot of Golarion flavor, for example, has to be removed in something like Hero Lab. Look at religious traits on the D20pfsrd as another example. Once that flavor gets ripped out, there is a bit of blandness to it at that point. This is another area where the group needs to decide how to handle it. Does each option need to be looked up to see it's flavor? Can it be reskinned somehow? Is there a list of stuff not to use? Once again, I think the end result though is the GM needs to step in and decide these things.
|
I use Hero Lab for my group and our general character creation rule is anything from core goes, but be prepared to be asked to change something if the GM doesn't like it. I've yet to have to enforce that rule, and my players are smart enough not to push it.
I like that fact that with Hero Lab I can create house rules that when enabled can hide certain items (races for example) or add my own items (3PP classes) and all works well. It's easy to create a default portfolio with certain books disabled and share that for players to make characters based on.
The thing I don't like with reflavoring something is that it hints at a setting where nothing is concrete. Personally, I love getting into the minutia of a place. If at all possible, I like knowing the layouts of the alleys, any sewer coverings, whether or not the mayor's bedroom has an external window, and so on. During play, as a player, the ability to explore these things is limited since it's shared time, and I could really get lost in it. So, I take mental notes, read some of the novels, look for any other campaign settings books, etc.
If you're working with a custom setting then that's obviously entirely up to you. For Golarion though, some things are sacred. Or, at least, they're semisacred. You could work in that your uncle was from Brevoy, and he happened to train you as a kid in some sword fighting techniques. Those kinds of things are fine, imo. It's when you have a build and concept that have absolutely nothing to do with any of that yet the character still gains the mechanical benefits.
It's also hard to work with monastic settings or cults in those situations as the purpose of those groups are often to keep rich histories and to guard secrets for their future generations. It's odd to play an adventure path, adventure to this super remote, "hasn't been visited in thousands of years" kind of place, find a scroll of a spell you desperately need, and only to find you already have it on your sheet because an indexing resource listed it as an option that, upon second glance, lists that very adventure path as the source. It's deflating and doesn't lend well to good storytelling.
I realize this is all very well GMs laying down what is and isn't acceptable but as was illustrated that is often a cat and mouse game. Also, with the books you at least have the flavor available. Nothing stops a GM from doing custom things. With these indexes flavor is often removed completely. It's "just" another feat, spell, etc.
Look Buri, I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore; herolabs & databases exist not to uphold the flavor, but the system. Regardless of the setting. You want to play in golarion, great, a lot of people do not. Herolabs exists to cater to ALL players, regardless of setting.
If you DONT want herolab to be used, then set your limits and say what cant be used (both in books as well). Considering that the GM can ban anything, why arent you using that power? I dont have most books, but I am generally careful when using stuff that's exotic/from the pfsrd.
In the end, as much flavor as you put in something, if it has mechanical benefits, people will use it as such. Traits are supposed to be for flavor, but the moment they are more than such, well, they stop being flavor. Everything is "just" another feat/spell/trait/etc, unless YOU (the GM or player) give special weight to it.
|
I don't own Hero Lab and have no experience using it other than staring over the shoulder of one of my players as he has made changes to his character.
That being said, I know that Hero Lab is a great little program. It IS a huge time saver for creating characters and monsters and printing them out in a fairly easy-to-read format.
However, that ease of use causes three problems:
1) I don't allow all content, so I have to define what is or isn't allowed. Before the game started, I had already created an Obsidian Portal page for the game that includes the details on what is and is not allowed. The players just have to reference the site when building characters. The process is a little tedious for them, but it is still easier than using the site and rulebooks.
2) Only one player in my group owns Herb Lab and he has offered to let the others use it to build their characters. The problem with this is that when one or more characters level, they cannot do it on their own time. They have to wait until game day when we meet at that player's house and it take up actual play time
3) It causes players to get Mushbrain when it comes to the rules. The ease of use that comes from using Hero Lab means that they are very weak in understanding how the intricacies of the rules work. When they attack, they just see 'longsword +6', but they struggle to know how Hero Lab came up with +6. It really is obvious when they have to make adjustments to their character on the fly, such as when a stat is damaged or they pick up a weapon that is not on their sheet.
Hero Labs really needs to figure out a way to allow a limited group license so that a game group can collectively absorb the cost. Yes, you can have up to 4 licenses but to give those licenses to others violates policy.
As for the OP's suggestion that users of Hero Labs have a "why not" mentality. I have not seen it at all. Not in the slightest.
Characters made have been no more or less bland than they were prior to Hero Labs. Just made a lot faster.
-MD
I think it opens up more then less
I enjoy customizing my monsters for each encounter
And What ever you allow players to use hopefully they will take full advantage of it (but you can too)
HeroLab is a life saver! Having an easy to sort out list of options makes me actually look at those options!
It'd be far more difficult and to create varied characters if I had to comb through numerous books. HL makes it a lot easier to create cool and unique character?
Doubt me? Look at my profile. I have a quick link to numerous builds, all of them at 4 different levels. All of them made for the specific purpose of being functional and interesting. None of that would be possible without HL.
HL promotes character variety by showing all options in a clear and organized manner.
I bought HeroLab packs a couple years ago and it's still one of the best RPG investments I've done.
Big HL fan here, but since it came into our gaming group I have seen more players show up with PC's whose mechanics they don't understand as well as PC's with race and class I've never even heard of and don't know how to challenge, adjudicate for, or have the world react to appropriately.
We had a whole year of failed campaigns and just about gave up on pathfinder because it wasn't any fun for anyone anymore. Then we went back to CRB to recreate the great times we had in our first PF campaign, but that didn't work either, everyone felt limited knowing what else was out there.
I finally found a happy medium, and the trick is, like Lamontius said, GM has to decide what material is being used and make it clear right from the gate.
Yeah, I don't think bland is the right word, but reading the whole OP post there are some things mentioned that I can say I have experienced.
I only see Hero Lab's extra content as an issue if the character portfolio is not configured correctly. Since the user can choose which books are available and which ones are not, GMs can tailor the character configuration for each campaign. If the book is turned off in the Configure Hero dialog, the content does not appear in the character at all. (There are also places to toggle different rules options and community add-ins you can use for different house rules.)
The other issue is that the user can override Hero Lab's "this is not available" flag, but it takes them two steps to do it (so it's not really an "accident", usually). For the example of the human with tengu spells, assuming the user has the Advanced Race Guide turned on in the configuration, to select that the user must A) set the traits view to Show Everything instead of Only Valid Items, and B) select the clearly invalid trait and ignore the big red text at the top that says "This trait is only available for Tengu." Then, the user has to ignore the fact that the trait shows up in bright red text on the character itself and ignore the Validation Error flag that appears in at least three places in the user interface.
This kind of situation is at best user error and at worst, player shenanigans. There's not much more Hero Lab can do to prevent users from breaking the rules, especially since Hero Lab has to allow for the GM to override any and every rule.