HS 6e is mechanically the best version of the rules; dissenting views welcome

[massey]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

END - an END reserve has an advantage over normal END - it is not lost if you are KOd.  I would prefer to see Charges cost END by default, which would raise the limitation value (but if you want 0 END as well, pay for it).  The limitation is not high enough for a power that cost 0 END to begin with.  That is not a 6e change, though.  6e is the first iteration I have seen where buying REC and END is actually considered a viable option over Reduced END.

 

 

Keeping your END when you wake up is incredibly situational.  You're basically only talking about people who are knocked to negative single digits, who manage to wake up while still in combat.  Yes, it happens, but it's rare.

 

But what you haven't taken into account is that with an END Reserve, you give something else up as well.  You can't take a recovery to get more END back.  It only comes back at the per-turn rate.  And I take recoveries far more often than I get knocked out and then wake back up still in the same fight.

[massey]

On Endurance Reserves, Charges, and Increased Endurance

 

These game mechanics, up until 6th edition, were related to one another.  This is what I mean when I said that there was a certain game design philosophy that 6th edition wandered away from.  I don't think anybody understood that these mechanics were connected before they went to change them, and that's bad.  So let's take a look at how this relationship worked in 4th and 5th edition.

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast is 50 points.  It uses 5 Endurance, which you get back when you take a recovery or on post-12.  The game presumes that you generally have enough Endurance to use your powers in a normal fashion.  This is the default state of being assumed by the game.  From there, we can make modifications.

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast with 4 charges is only 25 points.  You can only use the power 4 times, so it's more limited than what you have above.  There's no juggling Endurance costs and recoveries, but you only get 4 shots.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with 1 charge is only 17 points.  It's even cheaper, but it's far more limited.

 

So hey, maybe you think "I want to save points, but I don't want to be limited as much.  I'll take increased endurance, but I'll use an End Reserve to cancel it out!"  Good thinking.  It's exactly what I thought when I first started playing.  So let's look at what you get.

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast with x3 Endurance is only 25 points.  Using that on your normal Endurance is a real limitation.  It throws your whole End balancing act out of whack.  The only way to really get ahead with it is to funnel it through an End Reserve.  But to even get "4 charges" worth, you need an End Reserve with 60 End.  That's a minimum of 6 points, and that's with no Recovery.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with x5 Endurance is 17 points, but to get 4 charges worth, you need an End Reserve with 100 End.  That's a minimum of 10 points.  We still aren't getting ahead of the Charges limitation.

 

If you take a x10 Endurance limitation (a whopping -4), you're at 10 points real cost for your Energy Blast.  But now you need 50 Endurance in your End Reserve to even use it once.  That's 5 points without buying any Recovery.  So with a minimum of 1 Recovery, you've saved a massive 1 point over just buying it with Charges (though theoretically, 50 Turns from now you can use it again).  In practice, it's not a point saver.

 

In every case, Charges give you a similar level of point discount than Increased End + End Reserve.  Charges almost always comes out slightly ahead.  It's supposed to work that way -- these two cost structures are tied to one another.  End Reserve lets you very slowly recharge but costs slightly more points.  Or at least, these two were connected until 6th edition.

[Killer Shrike]

11 hours ago, massey said:

Continuing my Champions Complete stream of consciousness review:

 

Powers

 

--Pg 51, Aid going to 6 points per D6 gets a shoulder shrug.  Aid only really gets broken when you start layering lots of Advantages on it.  I don't think this is a bad change, it's just something I noticed.  Almost going back to 4th ed's 5 pts per D6.

 

I shrug as well. {shrug} There, I did it again. Let's all shrug together; it might be fun. 

 

Quote

--Pg 51, Barrier is absurdly cheap.  You can trap people with cheap Body very easily.

 

I covered Barrier in an earlier post. 

 

Quote

--Pg 57, I miss Desolid vs mental powers.

 

I don't. I also dislike the convention of using Desolid for ghetto immunity.

 

Quote

--Pg 59, Suppress should have remained separate from Drain, for Active Point purposes.

 

More elaboration please?

 

Quote

--Pg 61, the interaction between Endurance Reserve, END, Charges, and Increased END cost needs its own essay.  Suffice it to say, it isn't priced right here.

 

Other than the house rule I earlier noted for Endurance Reserve, I haven't experienced issues in this area.

 

Quote

--Pg 70, Healing's 24 hour period is a D&Dism that shouldn't have been brought over to Hero.

 

Agreed. Healing is borked, and has been pre-6e. 

 

Quote

--Pg 82, Regeneration is made more expensive with no purpose.  It's not like every character was taking the power before, it wasn't undercosted.  With cheaper Body, the cost problem is even more pronounced.

 

It depends. There are options available for Regen in the APG that make it quite strong. 

 

Quote

--Pg 85, Stretching has some non-game terminology applied to its rules.  Proportionately altering your dimensions, becoming twice as thin?  This doesn't actually do anything, and is a case of hardwiring in a special effect into the rules.

 

The game allows changes to size and mass and BMI and has done so since at least 4e; those are not really formally stat'd either. It does do something; the character may fit through spaces a person of standard physical shape cannot, might be harder or easier to perceive, and other situational things.

 

This is no different than a GM deciding that a normal sized and shaped character can or cannot fit through a narrow opening. 

 

GM: "Ok, you've managed to work a few bricks loose in the back of the cell, its about a foot across. The halfling can squeeze through, but the rest of you are too big."

 

Player: "Wait! I call bs! You're using non-game terminology with all this mumbo jumbo about how big the hole is, and our character's physical dimensions and relative thickness or thinness doesn't do anything!"

 

Also, it doesn't assume sfx, it only describes an additional possible effect, which is optional. Characters can upgrade their Stretching to behave in that way if it is appropriate to the character. If it were hardwired, it would be bundled into the base effect and assumed. For instance, the "reach" component of Stretching is "hardwired" and assumes the sfx of physically deforming ones body; if you wanted to use the base power to simulate a different sfx...say "tactile telekinesis"...then bad news, even though the base power has the mechanical effect you might want it assumes a specific physical body based sfx and you'd have to apply a bunch of modifiers to abstract away from that towards the sfx you actually want. 

 

However, it is in the "Body-Alteration Powers" category, so some assumption that one is altering ones body when using it is permissible I suppose. 

 

Quote

--Pg 92, Mind/Body/Spirit distinctions in Transform is still stupid, particularly since there are no rules for what "Spirit" even means.

 

 

Agreed. A little too existential for my taste.

[massey]

In 6th edition, End Reserve is actually more expensive than regular Endurance.  No doubt somebody made the "you don't lose it when you go unconscious" argument.  And the Recovery you buy for the End Reserve is a bit cheaper, but it's far more limited (you can't take a recovery with it, and it doesn't give you back any Stun).  End Reserve is basically a terrible power now.  You pay more to get something worse.  Because remember, you're going to want a good Recovery anyway, to get back Stun.  You're buying the same powers twice, one of them a more limited, more expensive version.  And it completely loses its cost relationship with Charges and Increased Endurance.

[Killer Shrike]

39 minutes ago, massey said:

In 6th edition, End Reserve is actually more expensive than regular Endurance.  No doubt somebody made the "you don't lose it when you go unconscious" argument.  And the Recovery you buy for the End Reserve is a bit cheaper, but it's far more limited (you can't take a recovery with it, and it doesn't give you back any Stun).  End Reserve is basically a terrible power now.  You pay more to get something worse.  Because remember, you're going to want a good Recovery anyway, to get back Stun.  You're buying the same powers twice, one of them a more limited, more expensive version.  And it completely loses its cost relationship with Charges and Increased Endurance.

 

I responded to you re: Endurance Reserve on Monday, in this post: 

 

 

But I'll repeat it here for convenience:

___

 

I agree that there was a ripple effect of recosting END. Interestingly enough, we house ruled Endurance Reserves in 6e to make them more viable as they do seem to be subpar in 6e; Panpiper first brought it to my attention early on and we worked out some tweaks that brought its utility up without recosting it. A write up of it is here for the interested: http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm_HouseRules.aspx#EnduranceReserve6e

 

However, I suspect we have a different way of looking at things in general. To my eye, the increased ease of getting enough END to fuel a character's abilities means that fewer characters should feel the need to want to take Reduced Endurance (a pretty commonly used modifier in the supers campaigns I participated in over the years) or an Endurance Reserve, or seek to build powers using Charges for purely meta reasons where perhaps the concept doesn't quite match up with the mechanics used to model it.

 

As far as characters buying up cheap END and then applying Increased Endurance to the their powers...the long standing precept that limitations that don't limit characters are not valid applies here. A GM can and should veto players trying to milk points from limitations that don't really limit their characters; this is HS GM 101 level stuff.

[Killer Shrike]

1 hour ago, massey said:

On Endurance Reserves, Charges, and Increased Endurance

 

These game mechanics, up until 6th edition, were related to one another.  This is what I mean when I said that there was a certain game design philosophy that 6th edition wandered away from.  I don't think anybody understood that these mechanics were connected before they went to change them, and that's bad. 

 

So...your position is that Steve L did not understand the relationship between END, END Reserves, Charges, and Increased END?

 

Quote

So let's take a look at how this relationship worked in 4th and 5th edition.

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast is 50 points.  It uses 5 Endurance, which you get back when you take a recovery or on post-12.  The game presumes that you generally have enough Endurance to use your powers in a normal fashion.  This is the default state of being assumed by the game.  From there, we can make modifications.

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast with 4 charges is only 25 points.  You can only use the power 4 times, so it's more limited than what you have above.  There's no juggling Endurance costs and recoveries, but you only get 4 shots.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with 1 charge is only 17 points.  It's even cheaper, but it's far more limited.

 

So hey, maybe you think "I want to save points, but I don't want to be limited as much.  I'll take increased endurance, but I'll use an End Reserve to cancel it out!"  Good thinking.  It's exactly what I thought when I first started playing.  So let's look at what you get.

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast with x3 Endurance is only 25 points.  Using that on your normal Endurance is a real limitation.  It throws your whole End balancing act out of whack.  The only way to really get ahead with it is to funnel it through an End Reserve.  But to even get "4 charges" worth, you need an End Reserve with 60 End.  That's a minimum of 6 points, and that's with no Recovery.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with x5 Endurance is 17 points, but to get 4 charges worth, you need an End Reserve with 100 End.  That's a minimum of 10 points.  We still aren't getting ahead of the Charges limitation.

 

If you take a x10 Endurance limitation (a whopping -4), you're at 10 points real cost for your Energy Blast.  But now you need 50 Endurance in your End Reserve to even use it once.  That's 5 points without buying any Recovery.  So with a minimum of 1 Recovery, you've saved a massive 1 point over just buying it with Charges (though theoretically, 50 Turns from now you can use it again).  In practice, it's not a point saver.

 

In every case, Charges give you a similar level of point discount than Increased End + End Reserve.  Charges almost always comes out slightly ahead.  It's supposed to work that way -- these two cost structures are tied to one another.  End Reserve lets you very slowly recharge but costs slightly more points.  Or at least, these two were connected until 6th edition.

 

So, for starters, applying increased END to get a large cost discount, and then buying an END Reserve to make that limitation not matter, veers into "not really limiting" territory. The rules are very clear that this sort of min maxing is not kosher..."a limitation that is not limiting is not worth any points", etc.

 

Next, what is the character concept that this is meant to model? Why are the character's abilities so taxing? What does the END Reserve power represent? What are the SFX?

 

If I'm the GM being handed this characters sheet, my "twinky munchkin" radar is already warming up. I'd want a rationale.

 

Let's say the player actually does have a concept that seems interesting and I'm convinced they really are trying to make an interesting character and not just trying to min max. Ok, then lets see if the mechanics that fit the desired effect line up.

 

In 5e, buying the 50 END Reserve costs 9 points less than in 6e, if I've done the math correctly (or, more precisely, HD has).

 

 

On the other hand, buying the characters END Characteristic up to 50 costs 7 points less in 6e than in 5e (8 cp vs 15 cp), and you also get to use your full Recovery.

 

So, either one could persist in attempting the old school approach of exploiting the undercosted END Reserve and be aggravated that it is now overcosted, or one could take a step back and realize that in 6e it is now more practical to just buy END directly for most characters most of the time.

 

END Reserve in 6e is not kidding around when it says right off the bat: "A character with Endurance Reserve has an independent source of Endurance that provides END to run Powers. Endurance Reserve can simulate the generator and batteries of a suit of powered armor, the “mana” in a  magical wand, the fuel in a jetpack, or any other ability where...". 

 

Mechanically it has been rendered more appropriate to modeling specific concepts rather than serving as an easily flogged way to skirt general Endurance issues.

 

I agree, personally, that the nerf was a bit heavy handed, but I don't believe it was accidental or a product of a lack of understanding on the part of Steve whose system knowledge and understanding is deep and whose decision making is usually thorough and deliberated. Apparently you have less regard for him than I do, and that's your prerogative, of course.

[Killer Shrike]

I started to get a bit snarky about limitation milking, so decided to delete the post. 

[SpaceknightFenix]

14 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Massey I disagree with Harnded being separated has no advantage now. In my mind it does. First of all for cheap it use to provide two different defenses for one price but then in certain situations iirc you had to describe which attack Hardened protected against. It had to do if the attack bought multiples of both Advantages. Now you can clearly define which Defense counters which Attack. You want Bricks to be tough? Now you can set Campaign say Max x2 Hardened but no Penetrating so when He is attacked by Questionite Claws (which now only need one level) it makes them special. 

Those are not advantages you see come up very often in most iterations of most settings. Even IRL AP weapons probably only have semi armor-piercing. The only times it's really that common, is when you're playing Dark Champions or if you're playing in the Wild Storm setting, and that's debatable. Because it doesn't apply to every time you have to worry about your defense, it's not worth a -1, I'd go so far as to argue a -1/2 is a bit...generous, so the previous -1/4 cost seems perfectly fine. Questionite is one of the rare examples of something that comes up all that often, but seriously: how often are enemies wielding questionite weaponry? Destroyer's forces have a lot of AP weapons, but if you're squaring off against DESTROYER you better bring some hardened defense. Most of the guys who have AP attacks, don't hit that hard, usually 1d6 or 2d6, which by all rights won't punch through your average brick made for this stuff anyways, heck, it may have a hard time doing it to blasters.

 

I would argue that Questionite Claws should use multiple iterations of armor piercing. Questionite is supposed to be tough, more points means higher defenses, means they won't be broken so easily, which is what you want in your questionite, it's questionite, not steel.

 

Edit: also, combat luck's price is utterly unchanged.  My friends seem to think I'm way worse about using combat luck than I am, but I generally only give it to people who I want to have a bit of defense, who can't get it through other means, without involving breakable foci.

[Ninja-Bear]

17 hours ago, massey said:

This goes back to my earlier argument that the points system doesn't do a good job of balancing heroic characters, because the game designer won't know what sort of equipment your players will be getting for free.  Yeah, Deadly Blow can be great, but why pay points for it if somebody else can dig through a weapons chart and find a bigger gun, or some special ammo?  Years of gaming with firearms enthusiasts have led to me dreading those conversations.

Ok I’ll say the same thing as I did to Chris Goodwin. This isn’t the fault of the mechanics. 

 

First ive never seen a weapons list that didn’t have AP and real point listed. So I fail to see how using that info is good for Supers but then fails at Heroic level.

 

Second you said scour the lists. So you just let any published thing get used without looking at it?Would you allow that with any Power bought in Supers? You thinking Flying Dodge is bad how about I take the Aay of Two Brothers! 

 

Third if you players yer s are scouring (and it sounds like Power gaming) that’s a player issue not a game issue.

 

And Fourth yeah so they do find a ridiculous gun/ammo, does that mean that it’s available to the players?

 

Not trying to be snarky. I’ve found that the guidelines that a GM uses to help keep Supers balanced apply the same to Heroics level.

 

 

[SpaceknightFenix]

One should always be prepared for power gaming, to do otherwise is naive. If you want to play a game, you don't always get to dictate the rules that are in play. That said, using the tools that are available to you, and you cannot say that special guns and ammo are not available to you, isn't really power gaming per say. Especially if you find yourself in a campaign where the GM has no sense of scale. This isn't to say they don't understand the rules, it's that they set up encounters that aren't remotely fair.

 

Not every weapon has it's AP and cost listed, especially when it comes to mundane gear, sometimes things fall out of books, I distinctly remember a character not having a set strength, despite being a brick. This is because people make mistakes and sometimes mistakes make it to print.

 

Finally: due to the way the modern world is, much less a super world, there's only a handful of weapons you can't get through legal means and those that you can't, you can get through black markets, which are way more ubiquitous in super worlds than they are in the real one.

[Doc Democracy]

I'm reckoning that Massey is quite aware of power-gaming and I have seen him (just realised I am presuming male, apologies if misapplied!) round these parts long enough to think that he knows the tricks of the trade.  Players scouring books, for me, is a great sign of engagement with the system never mind the game at hand - there are some of mine that would not really be able to spot a good weapon among the dross.  

 

I also think that amid all of the little bits and pieces of change that might cause Massey pain, he has spent enough time thinking about the version that works for him.  He was not looking to game the system when comparing END with charges and END Battery just looking to find the pinch points and where the balance lay between them.  

 

I am pleased that he has put this effort in, it makes me think about aspects of the game that I tend to gloss over without thinking about too much, relying on HERO to have done a lot of the philosophising and balancing on my behalf.  While I am lazy and unlikely to change too much for my group, it is good to have those balances in my head.

 

Now, I disagree with the inability to have a good game based on HERO at heroic levels but there is obviously more work involved in getting there and applying the constraints necessary to get the game that you want as GM.  The strapline of "you can build anything" can be a nightmare for the GM who often has to say "not in my game!".  Even in supers there is the need to look hard - one of my players has just spent time learning the system and built his first character.  It is a nightmare of efficiency tweaks and trying to cover every base, feeling the need to hit every campaign limit and push past several of them. 

 

I do not want him to feel like I am punishing him but it does mean I am going to have to get all of the characters and publicly go through the balancing process I would usually do individually so that they can see the working parts.  I will be looking to strip away some of the cover all the bases and show how to explore the special role he will play in the group - extending his core talents to do the things only he will be able to do.

 

My feel for what Massey is telling us is that the 3rd edition patchwork of games did a lot of the work upfront of restricting player choice without it feeling like a restriction - the choices offered opened things up in the places they needed to be.  I think when you have the big books then there needs to be some real guidance for the players and gm on how to get the players and GM on the same page, working through one or two options of how to set up a game within HERO.  There is nothing that I remember seeing in the rules that would, over  couple of pages, lead the GM in setting up a game to get a very specific type of game, you know, actually using the toolkit to create a game that people could drop in and play.

 

Personally I love the direction that HERO has taken and am probably more extreme.  I think that I would have deconstructed even more of the black boxes until we had a real toolkit where every aspect was there to be used.  That would have been volume 2 for me.  Volume 1 would have been split into two parts - Champions (for the players) and How to create Champions (for the GM).  That first section of volume 1 would have presented the players with all they needed to build a superhero, with colour powers like Force Field and Force Wall and stuff, it might even have a range of characteristics (along with figured characteristics).  The second section would have shown the GM how those things were put together, from volume 2, to make the game.  It would have shown how to make STR (you buy lifting/throwing, add an element of damage, give some bonus PD and STUN) and cost it so that it works for that particular style of Champions.  I would then have a few online tools to help build (and print) rules for a game.  One or two templates would be fantastic but there would be a place for HERO to sell more game templates for all kinds of different games, possibly extended templates that could be printed as game rules (except that the GM would know how to dial up or down the various options to make it exactly the kind of game he wanted to play with his group).

 

That is my fantasy version of HERO....but how I got there from defending Massey I will never know.

 

Doc 

[IndianaJoe3]

12 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Consider that Extra DC is functionally equivalent to STR, 0 END, Only for martial maneuvers. What is the last bit worth? If one thinks it's -1/4 or -1/2, than charging 6 points for a DC is reasonable. If it's more than that, than the current 4-point cost is correct.

 

 

11 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

Not quite. Buying up STR will not improve the damage of NND maneuvers like Nerve Strike.

 

Fair point. "Only for certain martial maneuvers," then. 

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Martial DC's are also under priced. They should be somewhere between 6 and 8 points.

 

12 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

6 points is arguable, but (IMHO) incorrect. 8 points is ridiculous unless you think that STR should cost 2, which is ridiculous for different reasons.

 

Consider that Extra DC is functionally equivalent to STR, 0 END, Only for martial maneuvers. What is the last bit worth? If one thinks it's -1/4 or -1/2, than charging 6 points for a DC is reasonable. If it's more than that, than the current 4-point cost is correct.

 

 

11 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

Not quite. Buying up STR will not improve the damage of NND maneuvers like Nerve Strike.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Buying a tagline only for palindromedary maneuvers

 

Much like Deadly Blow, this comes back , at least in part, to having no cost for a floating damage class.  +10 STR, 0 END costs 15 points.  +2 DCs to all Martial Maneuvers costs 8.  You get no added damage for non-martial maneuvers (or some parts of martial maneuvers - Grab, for example, only holds on tighter and does not do more damage on a squeeze).  You cannot lift any more weight, or throw objects further, or for more damage.  Casual STR is not enhanced.

 

Another way to buy +2 DC with all martial maneuvers would be Combat Skill Levels.  I need 4 (20 points) to add +2 DCs.  That would also allow me to enhance OCV or DCV.  "Only for DCs"  removes a lot of the value of CSLs.  If that is a -1 1/2 limitation, we are back to 8 points for +2 DCs to all martial maneuvers.  That is before considering the suggestion some above have made that CSLs are overpriced out of the gate.

 

One might also suggest that, as 2 CSLs are the functional equivalent of a Multipower of +2 OCV, +2 DCV and +1 DC, +1 floating DC that costs 0 END should cost 10 points, twice the cost of +1 OCV or +1 DCV.  This is independent of the pricing of CSLs, assuming the ratio between CV and DC will not be changed.  With +1 DC on any attack costing 10 CP, one might assert that "only HTH" costs 5 points (a -1 limitation) and "Only Martial Arts" costs 4 points (a -1 1/2 limitation).

 

I may be misrecalling, but I think the move in 6e to relax the doubling rule lead to a lot of constructs involving increased DC being revisited to assume they were skill levels.  Deadly Blow is +6 skill levels with HKAs.  Sounds like we're starting with 6 skill levels, probably "All HTH" or "all range".  That's 40 points off the bat.  It's only with killing attacks, only to enhance damage, and either "very limited" (12 points), "limited" (16 points) or "broad" (19 points).  Too bad we don't have "all attacks".

 

16 points is clearly -1 1/2.  Assuming -1 for "only DCs", that's -1/2 for a Conditional Power like "only in darkness" or "does not work in darkness" (using the RAW examples).  12 points moves us up to total limitations of 3.25 to 3.5, and 19 moves us down to between -1 and -1.25.

 

Much of 6e deconstructed abilities.  Deconstructing floating DCs might better enable us to price these abilities.  With that in mind, I suggest deconstruction contributes to better nechanical costing, so 6e's move to deconstruction also moves to mechanical superiority, consistent with KS's initial premise that 6e is the best mechanical iteration of the rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

It's more that D&D spells are highly standardized.  Most spells have Gestures, most have Incantations, most have Focus OIF (material component pouch), all have some [Continuing] Charges mechanism they share with other spells of the same level.  Once you get those out of the way, D&D spells look a lot simpler. 

Likewise, if you make your Magic Power as a Multipower with Gestures, Incantations, Focus all on the Multipower and don't repeat that verbage in the spell descriptions, it looks much cleaner. 

 

True.  And an easy fix if your FH Magic System also imposes standard limitations.  You can now present a single "Spell" limitation which encompasses all of the standard limitations.

 

I find it fairly common in D&D that players and GMs overlook some spells having no V, S and/or M component, and others requiring a full round action, or even a full round (spell goes off next turn, not this turn) rather than a standard, action because they rely on the norms.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, massey said:

In 6th edition, End Reserve is actually more expensive than regular Endurance.  No doubt somebody made the "you don't lose it when you go unconscious" argument.  And the Recovery you buy for the End Reserve is a bit cheaper, but it's far more limited (you can't take a recovery with it, and it doesn't give you back any Stun).  End Reserve is basically a terrible power now.  You pay more to get something worse.  Because remember, you're going to want a good Recovery anyway, to get back Stun.  You're buying the same powers twice, one of them a more limited, more expensive version.  And it completely loses its cost relationship with Charges and Increased Endurance.

 

9 hours ago, massey said:

 

Keeping your END when you wake up is incredibly situational.  You're basically only talking about people who are knocked to negative single digits, who manage to wake up while still in combat.  Yes, it happens, but it's rare.

 

But what you haven't taken into account is that with an END Reserve, you give something else up as well.  You can't take a recovery to get more END back.  It only comes back at the per-turn rate.  And I take recoveries far more often than I get knocked out and then wake back up still in the same fight.

 

Reverse engineering END Reserve is an exercise itself.  In our Supers game, my experience was that negative STUN was not that uncommon.  Most fights extend over more than a turn, so -10 to -19 still allowed characters to recover, and I saw some instances of characters assisting other characters to accelerate their recoveries.  Waking up with full END is then advantageous, but situational.  With END priced at 4 END per 1 CP, END in a reserve effectively has been priced with a +1/4 advantage, which seems appropriate to a situational benefit which only crops up every few sessions.  Note that it also keeps powers running while the character is KOd, granting a measure of the Persistent advantage.

 

I will also note that, in our games, being KOd and recovering was a lot more common than taking a recovery during combat (especially if I do not count "pretending to still be KOd so I can get enough END back to do something useful").

 

REC, on the other hand, is limited.  It does not recover STUN, but it does keep recovering that END reserve even if the character would not otherwise get recoveries.  It has a combined -1/2 effective limitation for that reason.  In some games, the fact that the Reserve is not subject to long-term END rules may also be beneficial.

 

Finally, most characters I see with an END reserve run some abilities from the reserve and some from personal END, so they get the benefits of both recoveries to their staying power.  They did not "buy REC twice".

 

I'll clip a lot of KS's excellent analysis.

 

7 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

END Reserve in 6e is not kidding around when it says right off the bat: "A character with Endurance Reserve has an independent source of Endurance that provides END to run Powers. Endurance Reserve can simulate the generator and batteries of a suit of powered armor, the “mana” in a  magical wand, the fuel in a jetpack, or any other ability where...". 

 

Mechanically it has been rendered more appropriate to modeling specific concepts rather than serving as an easily flogged way to skirt general Endurance issues.

 

I agree, personally, that the nerf was a bit heavy handed, but I don't believe it was accidental or a product of a lack of understanding on the part of Steve whose system knowledge and understanding is deep and whose decision making is usually thorough and deliberated. Apparently you have less regard for him than I do, and that's your prerogative, of course.

 

I like using pro rated REC, and will allow it either per segment or (more often) per phase, depending on how well the REC parses out.

 

I like "cannot be dispelled", as it is more consistent with the "power" really being a characteristic.  However, I note that the default is that, when "restarted" (a zero phase action), the END reserve has lost no END.  It's no more effective than dispelling a Constant power which the Reserve was powering.

 

I like "you drain one or the other, not both", as it reinforced END Reserve as a separate battery.  I'm not sure why you would make Reserve END drain slower than actual END, though. 

 

I also would not allow "pick which pool to pay from" as an automatic advantage, as I think that makes the reserve less able to duplicate the "separate battery" concept it is aimed at, although depending on the game, it may make sense if the Reserve is being repurposed (e.g. Mana on which magic users may draw instead of using personal resources, rather than a battery powering my powered armor).

 

Overall, this is a mechanic which has steadily evolved over the years.  In 1e - 3e, it was a limitation rather than an ability purchased separately.

 

On the topic of Charges, I argued that they should have a higher limitation and cost END by default.  Bullets costing no END is reasonable - so pay for 0 END.  Powers that cost 0 END by default are ripped off when Charges are applied.  That would make 1 Charge a -3 limitation (BLASPHEMY!  No limitations exceed -2 is a sacred cow that can be removed, thanks.) 4 charges becomes -2.  16 charges becomes -1/2.  Up to 125 becomes -1/4, with a caution that the GM must assess whether there is any meaningful chance they will run out.

 

Let's add "how they recover" should be defined.  Default is once a day OR some easy means like picking up another clip or quiver at HQ.

 

But retaining a flaw which has existed throughout all editions does not reflect any relative flaw in 6e.

[Lucius]

1 hour ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

 

Fair point. "Only for certain martial maneuvers," then. 

 

MISSED point.

 

Additional Martial DCs WILL add to the damage of an NND martial maneuver, which is why it is not the case that they are equivalent to "STR, Limited only for Martial Maneuvers."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary, only for taglines

 

[Doc Democracy]

Just now, Lucius said:

 

 

 

Speechless??  ?

[Lucius]

3 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Speechless??  ?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

My palindromedary ate my post, which is why it's now restricted to the tagline

[Grailknight]

37 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

MISSED point.

 

Additional Martial DCs WILL add to the damage of an NND martial maneuver, which is why it is not the case that they are equivalent to "STR, Limited only for Martial Maneuvers."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary, only for taglines

 

 

Very missed point. That Martial DC adds to all martial maneuvers except Block and Dodge. How much would you pay for an Aid to STR, NND, Flash and KB(for  target falls)?

 

Conversely, that +5 STR is not what it used to be. It no longer gives REC, Stun or Leaping. 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

Much like Deadly Blow, this comes back , at least in part, to having no cost for a floating damage class.  +10 STR, 0 END costs 15 points.  +2 DCs to all Martial Maneuvers costs 8.  You get no added damage for non-martial maneuvers (or some parts of martial maneuvers - Grab, for example, only holds on tighter and does not do more damage on a squeeze).  You cannot lift any more weight, or throw objects further, or for more damage.  Casual STR is not enhanced.

 

Another way to buy +2 DC with all martial maneuvers would be Combat Skill Levels.  I need 4 (20 points) to add +2 DCs.  That would also allow me to enhance OCV or DCV.  "Only for DCs"  removes a lot of the value of CSLs.  If that is a -1 1/2 limitation, we are back to 8 points for +2 DCs to all martial maneuvers.  That is before considering the suggestion some above have made that CSLs are overpriced out of the gate.

 

One might also suggest that, as 2 CSLs are the functional equivalent of a Multipower of +2 OCV, +2 DCV and +1 DC, +1 floating DC that costs 0 END should cost 10 points, twice the cost of +1 OCV or +1 DCV.  This is independent of the pricing of CSLs, assuming the ratio between CV and DC will not be changed.  With +1 DC on any attack costing 10 CP, one might assert that "only HTH" costs 5 points (a -1 limitation) and "Only Martial Arts" costs 4 points (a -1 1/2 limitation).

 

I may be misrecalling, but I think the move in 6e to relax the doubling rule lead to a lot of constructs involving increased DC being revisited to assume they were skill levels.  Deadly Blow is +6 skill levels with HKAs.  Sounds like we're starting with 6 skill levels, probably "All HTH" or "all range".  That's 40 points off the bat.  It's only with killing attacks, only to enhance damage, and either "very limited" (12 points), "limited" (16 points) or "broad" (19 points).  Too bad we don't have "all attacks".

 

16 points is clearly -1 1/2.  Assuming -1 for "only DCs", that's -1/2 for a Conditional Power like "only in darkness" or "does not work in darkness" (using the RAW examples).  12 points moves us up to total limitations of 3.25 to 3.5, and 19 moves us down to between -1 and -1.25.

 

Much of 6e deconstructed abilities.  Deconstructing floating DCs might better enable us to price these abilities.  With that in mind, I suggest deconstruction contributes to better nechanical costing, so 6e's move to deconstruction also moves to mechanical superiority, consistent with KS's initial premise that 6e is the best mechanical iteration of the rules.

 

I agree with you reasoning but not with your limitation values. You are pricing in a vacuum.  Characters who have these constructs are using them as their main powers with no disadvantage to them that is not shared by constructs that lack them.

[Hugh Neilson]

19 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

I agree with you reasoning but not with your limitation values. You are pricing in a vacuum.  Characters who have these constructs are using them as their main powers with no disadvantage to them that is not shared by constructs that lack them.

 

I'm not suggesting those are the appropriate limitation values.  I am trying to extrapolate the limitation values which were applied, in the case of Deadly Blow.

 

Characters who have Martial Arts tend to use them as their main powers, and may buy Combat Skill Levels for Martial Arts as 5 point levels, rather than 8 point "all HTH" levels or 10 point "all combat" levels.  Is it your suggestion that skill levels not be priced on a sliding scale?

 

Regardless, I think the pricing of Deadly Blow is inconsistent with the pricing of Martial Arts DCs.  +3DCs to all martial maneuvers for 12 points seems a lot more useful than +3 DCs to all HTH killing attacks against dragons.  However, 12 points does seem very comparable to Weapon Master, which adds +3DCs of killing damage to all daggers, or all handguns.  Comparing only the three (MA, Deadly Blow and Weapon Master), I am coming to agree that it is Deadly Blow which is overpriced. 

 

Deadly Blow is the one I have the least control over - I can choose which attacks to make. I am more easily denied a dagger than my Martial Arts, but that is just as much an issue for skill levels as these constructs.

 

6 skill levels with daggers (3 points) would give me a choice of OCV, DCV or damage, and cost 18 points.  Saving only 6 points seems poor compensation for losing both the OCV and DCV options. 

 

If I bought an RKA, I could add 3 DCs for 15 points.  Those can be Spread to make 1 DC into +1 OCV, with no possible conversion to DCV.  Instead, I could buy +6 Levels with RKA, for 18 points.  Those 3 extra points allow me to get DCV, get more OCV, or use the same extra 3 DCs, and remove the END cost.  Pretty sweet deal! 

 

Rationalizing the costs seems like a very challenging exercise! 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

On 2/9/2019 at 5:57 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

Oh and Chris Goodwin I (friendly) challange you to write up Slicks slick fields in 3rd ed without using Entangle (cause it really doesn’t make sense) and by RAW.  To me that is an objective test to see which edition is better. ?

 

Easy peasy.  Neutralize DEX and Running, Area of Effect, target may make DEX roll to avoid. 

 

Your turn.  Instant Change under 5th or 6th editions, without resorting to Transform.  ?

[Spence]

hmmmm......

This thread has definitely exploded.

Interesting reading, but I no longer know what I was talking about

[Doc Democracy]

After 13 pages I reckon it has been good value.  A good thread spawns others...and there are definitely multiple things being talked about here.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Easy peasy.  Neutralize DEX and Running, Area of Effect, target may make DEX roll to avoid. 

 

Your turn.  Instant Change under 5th or 6th editions, without resorting to Transform.  ?

 

If I an remembering correctly, Neutralize eventually became Suppress.  So the faster I run, the more likely an oil slick can be ignored or mitigated.  Is that a logical result?  I buy into higher DEX helping me avoid or mitigate the impact of the slick.  In fairness, it's not an easy power in any case, and CE reqiures considerable judgement to apply.

 

I question why we need Instant Change at all.  When has it ever been an in-game issue?  We accept a lot of other changes in physical appearance with no added mechanic.  Picking between creating an oil, or ice, slick (or just an intense magnetic field) and altering clothes, I'll choose the former every time.

 

Entangle did  not work for Slick's power because an STR breakout roll made no sense.  Why is Transform inappropriate for the ability to transform your clothes into some other form of attire?  I'd toss it under Talents in a Supers game in which it would actually be relevant, costed as set out in the sidebar in 6e Vol 1.  I suppose one could just as easily make it Shape Shift, but that does not seem worth the effort.

 

Of course, in 3e, if I want to make a minor Transform effect, I believe it was still 15 points per 1d6.  Colour Kid is a lot more realistically priced in 6e (or some earlier editions).

[Killer Shrike]

10 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I'm reckoning that Massey is quite aware of power-gaming and I have seen him (just realized I am presuming male, apologies if misapplied!) round these parts long enough to think that he knows the tricks of the trade.  Players scouring books, for me, is a great sign of engagement with the system never mind the game at hand - there are some of mine that would not really be able to spot a good weapon among the dross.  

 

I also think that amid all of the little bits and pieces of change that might cause Massey pain, he has spent enough time thinking about the version that works for him.  He was not looking to game the system when comparing END with charges and END Battery just looking to find the pinch points and where the balance lay between them.  

 

Sure, but citing a rules exploit such as buying powers with high levels of Increased Endurance to then turn around and buy an END Reserve to offset the impact to the character as the proof of a supposed imbalance undermines the strength of the argument. 

 

The rules in 4e, 5e, and 6e have been of one voice on that subject; I don't know if 3e or earlier versions were as well or not, but the versions of the game I've used for the last ~30 years all clearly state the following right up front in their "Limitations" chapter:

 

4e (100): 

All Limitations are governed by a very easy rule:
 

A Limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

 

This rule is universal. For example, a character can't get
a Limitation for a Power that doesn't work against magic if
there is no magic in the campaign - a Limitation must be
limiting if the character wants to receive any points. GMs
should also examine Powers that can compensate for Limitations
put on other Powers.

 

5e and 6e use nearly identical wording.

 

At least partially because of the prevalence of END Reserve in earlier editions being exploited to offset END costs in the way that massey cites rather than for conceptual reasons flew in the face of that precept, in 6e steps were taken to discourage that exploit.

 

At the same time other changes were made to address the inefficiency of END as a characteristic that made people sometimes turn to END Reserve not as an exploit but for lack of a more legitimate option.

 

So, as I've indicated several times on the subject of END Reserve, I agree in spirit that as a power taken unto itself in a vacuum, it was nerfed too hard to the point of not really being viable even for most of it's legitimate use cases. But rather than assume the game designer did not understand the nature of END and the various modifiers and workarounds to it, I assumed that they did understand it and that if they made a change to one part of an interconnected tangle, they may have made adjustments to other parts of the tangle in an attempt to tune the system. Which turned out to be true. 

 

I also took pause to consider why the changes were made; were they made for no reason on a whim or were they made deliberately? In this case, as is usually the case with Steve, it is clear that it was done deliberately for reasons that are not known to me directly but which I can infer and reason about myself.

 

Now, in some cases I agree with Steve's possible reasons for change and agree with the changes he made, in other cases I agree with the possible reasons and do not agree with the corresponding changes, and in other cases I don't agree with the reasons but can live with the changes, and finally the cases where I don't agree with the reasons or the outcome. (++, +-, -+, --). But, even when I strongly disagree with both the possible reasons and the outcomes, I don't presume that his position is one of ignorance or incompetence.

 

I am able to disagree with someone on something and still respect them. For instance, I disagree with massey's position on this specific thing, but I still respect him / her. I can challenge their position on one point, agree with them on another, and regardless of either hang out and pal around and focus on the things we do share and agree on, such as rpgs.

 

Quote

I am pleased that he has put this effort in, it makes me think about aspects of the game that I tend to gloss over without thinking about too much, relying on HERO to have done a lot of the philosophising and balancing on my behalf.  While I am lazy and unlikely to change too much for my group, it is good to have those balances in my head.

 

Me too. I really appreciate massey going thru and raising concrete talking points. I respect his position and his prerogative to like or dislike things in the rules.

 

The thing that set me on a more aggressive footing was the opening jab that the game designer did not understand a very basic fundamental of the game that same game designer has worked on and with for literally decades. It's like suggesting that Leo Fender did not understand the relationship between bass and treble or that von Braun did not understand the relationship between thrust and gravity or that Kubrick did not understand the relationship between the perspective of a camera and the perspective of a viewer. Ad hominem positions irritate me. We should be able to talk about the pros and cons of editions of game systems (or any work of art) without coloring them by disrespecting the people behind them.

 

Quote

Now, I disagree with the inability to have a good game based on HERO at heroic levels but there is obviously more work involved in getting there and applying the constraints necessary to get the game that you want as GM. 

 

Agreed. That's true of all universal toolkits. Some take more effort than others, but all of them rely on some amount of craftsmanship on the part of the GM or the GM and player collaboration to make a playable campaign with.

 

Quote

The strapline of "you can build anything" can be a nightmare for the GM who often has to say "not in my game!". 

 

I've never experienced a problem with this in any game, but I've always been willing to say "No" and then follow it up with "because..." and then give my reasons. If a player disagrees, they are free to not play or start their own campaign where what they want is allowed, or maybe I'll start another campaign that incorporates their idea if it is cool (several of the campaign settings I put together were exactly that...responding to things the players wanted to do that weren't appropriate to whatever system we happened to be playing when they decided they wanted to do it). Sometimes I'll run an "anything goes" thing and let people get it out of their system.

 

In the Hero System or other universal system, there is a clear separation between the theoretical capabilities of the system vs the concrete subset of those capabilities that are available in a given campaign setting. Most players understand this very basic idea, and the ones that don't either learn or I suggest they might be better off in a different group of players.

 

It's never been a problem for me. 

 

Quote

Even in supers there is the need to look hard - one of my players has just spent time learning the system and built his first character.  It is a nightmare of efficiency tweaks and trying to cover every base, feeling the need to hit every campaign limit and push past several of them. 

 

Yes, and that was my counterpoint to massey and others earlier in this thread; supers or high point level play is no different from heroic or low point level play in this regard. An individual GM may be more familiar with the tropes and exploits typical for a particular style of play and thus makes those decisions tacitly while it requires effort from them to do so in for a style of play they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with or unfond of.

 

For instance, I have little interest in romance style games or games that focus on touchy-feely relationships between characters. That's not what I'm into rpg games for, have zero feel for what it takes to run a game like that, and would be uncomfortable doing so. I don't disrespect the people who do like that sort of play, it just isn't for me. I don't assume that just because I personally don't have any experience with tuning a system to support that type of play and no insight into how it might be done, that it can't or shouldn't be done, or that people who claim to do it are somehow incorrect in their approach. 

 

Put simply, my lack of experience in a given area does not make me assume that I know more than the people who profess experience with it. Instead I reflect on the Dunning–Kruger effect and recognize it as an opportunity to listen and consider possibilities.

 

Quote

I do not want him to feel like I am punishing him but it does mean I am going to have to get all of the characters and publicly go through the balancing process I would usually do individually so that they can see the working parts.  I will be looking to strip away some of the cover all the bases and show how to explore the special role he will play in the group - extending his core talents to do the things only he will be able to do.

 

I would not do that sort of public dressing down. You know your group and their tolerance for things, but one thing I learned from leadership training is you either privately address individuals on their mistakes or shortcomings, or you get the other members of the group to apply peer pressure to normalize the problem individual. 

 

If you try to split the middle and reproach or obviously single out an individual in front of their peers, it has a tendency to backfire or not work out as intended.

 

In the case of a particularly notable power gamer, if I've decided to keep them on and try to curb their tendencies, then out of the blue I'll let them make their twink character for the next campaign. I tell them flat out "my job is to challenge your character; so if you build a character like this you understand that I will ramp up the obstacles and opposition your character faces, right?" If they persist, I'll then do that, scaling a villain or antagonistic group or series of challenges accordingly to deal with that specific character.

 

The group as a whole, the non-twink players, will be taken aback and alarmed at this development, and recognize due to how things play out, that the ramping up is a response to the problem character. The problem player, rather quickly, usually comes to realize that everything is relative. Level of effect X vs level of effect Y. It doesn't matter if X is low if Y is low, and it doesn't matter if X is high if Y is high. The other players then do the work of exerting pressure on the problem player to curb their excesses. Group vs problem player tends to work out better than creating a me vs problem player or a me vs group dynamic. 

 

It also helps to just sometimes say, this next campaign will be short, but you can play whatever you want. Or do a fight club for the more min max prone players...make your bad ass and bring it to the arena. No roleplaying, just go player v player and see who can make the most ridiculous beater on 500 points, or 750 points, or whatever (or epic level, or whatever scale the game system being used measures power in). Let people get it out of their system. It's fun at first, but quickly gets old and people tend to settle back down into more characterful characters.

 

Quote

My feel for what Massey is telling us is that the 3rd edition patchwork of games did a lot of the work upfront of restricting player choice without it feeling like a restriction - the choices offered opened things up in the places they needed to be.  I think when you have the big books then there needs to be some real guidance for the players and gm on how to get the players and GM on the same page, working through one or two options of how to set up a game within HERO.  There is nothing that I remember seeing in the rules that would, over  couple of pages, lead the GM in setting up a game to get a very specific type of game, you know, actually using the toolkit to create a game that people could drop in and play.

 

Well, the genre by genre summary in the core rules does make some suggestions, and the genre books themselves are obviously all about that, and the setting books take that further and offer a selected set of options arranged in a way the game designer(s) of that setting think are appropriate for it.

 

This is pretty typical of universal systems. 

 

Part of it is probably perspective based; I was not the player of Champions the Superheroic Role Playing Game and then had Hero System the universal toolkit forced upon me. I came to the Hero System BECAUSE it was a universal toolkit. I was tired of having to teach players a new rules system every time I wanted to run something. I was tired of having to use a published setting or try to pull the game system out of a setting to use in a setting of my own. I was tired of having to try to reverse engineer game elements from existing abilities in a given game system to extend that game system with new abilities. In short, I had developed a desire for a toolkit over several years, and the Hero System Rulebook was published and fell into my lap. I had already checked out a friends copy of GURPS and it didn't quite do it for me...I liked the idea of it but the mechanics felt wrong to me. The Hero System on the other hand was "love at first read". It had some flaws, but I found them charming at the time or could overlook them. The sexy outweighed the crazy, so to speak. 

 

I have used the Hero System to run superheroes on many occasions, including a few long running campaigns, but from the beginning I was using it to run other kinds of settings, to do things that weren't commercially available to us, or just to do my own spin on things. I also very early on started using the Hero System to run games for published settings that I just didn't like the rules for. Shadowrun was the first, if I recall correctly, because I loved the setting but hated the mechanics. It may have been RIFTS though, for the same reasons. It all happened in a tight time frame so I can't remember anymore which one was technically my first attempt at using HS as a "system replacement", but the RIFTS attempt crashed and burned after a couple of sessions while the Shadowrun attempt was more successful and we played one off games using it off and on for a year or so. This was all highschool era, for me.

 

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is perhaps there is some truth to the axiom "systems attract systems-people". I am a systems-person and thus place a high value on mechanics and options and tools. And I understand that some people are consumers and prefer finished products. I don't understand people who think something less functional is intrinsically better than something that is more functional. It might be subjectively better for them and their limited application of it. But the less functional thing is objectively worse in the larger scheme than the more functional upgraded version of that thing. 

 

If someone were to say "Champions III was a better roleplaying game for people who want to play in a 4-color superhero universe", I would not agree or disagree because I have no experience using it. They might be right. They might not. I would not and have not argued that 6e is better for that purpose (it may or may not be, but I lack the experience to form an opinion). 

 

Quote

Personally I love the direction that HERO has taken and am probably more extreme. 

 

Same

 

Quote

I think that I would have deconstructed even more of the black boxes until we had a real toolkit where every aspect was there to be used. 

 

Me too.

 

Quote

That would have been volume 2 for me.  Volume 1 would have been split into two parts - Champions (for the players) and How to create Champions (for the GM).  That first section of volume 1 would have presented the players with all they needed to build a superhero, with colour powers like Force Field and Force Wall and stuff, it might even have a range of characteristics (along with figured characteristics). 

 

Champions is not the Hero System. The Hero System is not Champions. They are not synonymous terms, though many seem determined to use them synonymously.

 

Superheroes is a genre.

 

Champions Universe is a setting in the superhero genre.

 

There is a conception of "Champions!" as a brand of superhero game comprising a superhero setting (The Champions Universe) and game rules bundled together as a playable integrated game with a line of supporting products.

 

Historically, the rules were surfaced in Champions 4th edition (BBB), but still integrated into one book of setting and rules. The rules were then spun off as a separate genre-neutral settingless product called the Hero System Rulebook. Genre and settings books other than superheroes were then printed without rules and referred to the Hero System Rulebook for their rules. 

 

Champions had no special relationship or ownership over the rules in an objective sense. In a financial sense however, it was the most popular and monetarily successful line of products. In a popularity / market share sense, it was clearly dominant compared to other Hero Games related products, including the Hero System as a thing unto itself. 

 

In 5th edition, we see the core rules published first, and Champions as primarily a genre book (which should have been called Super HERO to follow the genre book naming convention), and the Champions Universe product line offered as setting. This is logical and organized. 6th edition followed this trend.

 

The problem is, the Champions player base in general was not into this formalized approach. For the most part they wanted an integrated product offering the Champions Universe setting with setting specific rules. They did not care, in general, about the other things you could use the game system for, and did not want to sift through options not  relevant for the one setting they wanted to play in. Some of them were vocal about it, others voted with their dollars. Why DoJ didn't release such a simplified integrated product, I don't know.

 

But going the other way and making the core rulebook a Champions product again is not the way to go, in my opinion. Something like Champions Complete should have been published much earlier than it was, in the 5e era, and the 6e version of it should have launched with or slightly ahead of the generic settingless 6e core that we did get. Again, IMO.

 

Quote

...but how I got there from defending Massey I will never know.

 

Doc 

 

Hopefully you (and massey themselves) don't feel like massey needs defending from me. The essence of debate is the cycle of statement and rebuttal. As long as we don't get to the level of "uh huh!" and "nuh uh!", one of us making a statement that supports our position, which is then constructively dissected by those of opposing viewpoints is productive.

 

If a point stands or is found to be true, the opposing side cedes the point. If a point turns out to be unsupported, then the side who presented it cedes the point. In the end hopefully we are all willing to modify our positions based upon the valid points raised by the opposing position.

 

Some of course, won't be swayed in the slightest.

 

But I think some of us are reasonable enough to adjust our thinking based upon valid points counter to what we initially thought. Otherwise we're just doing this: