Spence

I don't disagree with this, but that wasn't what I meant by "baked in". 
Most RPGs use classes or occupations.  Pick one and immediately you have a set of abilities that give a starting shape or purpose.  Yes they have varying degrees of customization, but Fighters are Fighters, Priests are Priests.  Within the game, the available classes/occupations are generally balanced against each other.  If the game has both Priests and Magi, it will usually have spell lists that differ enough to make each one have a unique capabilities. 
 
Fantasy Hero does have example templates for many of the possible types of characters.  Just as it has many example of spells. 
What is doesn't do is establish a defined set that are balanced among themselves for play in a game as is.   Great for people that understand Hero and just use them for guides as they build their own world and game.
Useless if not an actual obstacle for someone learning the system by themselves and trying to figure out just what is balanced.  
 
 

Okay, and a few quick things I wanted to touch on (if no one objects) that I didn't even want to try to do on a phone on break at work. 
 
 
That's helpful, sure.  But that's not all that happened when the existing Talents were broken down that way.   First, the flavor of "Talents" was removed-- more on that later.
 
Second, --well, obviously the pricing was changed to match the various powers, etc, and just because I hadn't planned on bringing that up, and there is no need to detail that one, let me also lump into Second the valid complaint made by someone else (I couldn't find it again, or I'd have quoted it for proper attribution; I apologize) that it made Talents....  completely unnecessary.  
 
Third: It stopped them from being actual Talents.  Christopher- -and think one other person, but again: I couldn't find it-- mentioned in regard to problematic Power builds that didn't really replicate the Talent that you could "just handwave" the differences.
 
That's what Talents _were_.  They were special cases-- often cases of a single unique ability that _didn't_ quite fit into Power or Skill mechanics, and just as often things that were binary as opposed to graduated:  there weren't a lot of talents that you could by additional damage classes for, or extra effect for.  And now there aren't.  I can build Instant Change as T-form, blah-blah-blah.  But T-form let's me by additional dice.  There's also the "heal back" mechanic.  So now we just handwave that I won't heal back-- eliminate a mechanic from a unique power in spite of having worked some serious contortions to make it fit a power mechanic, then ultimately just gave up, beat it with a hammer until we got it lodged in the hole it doesn't quite pass through, and called it good enough.  So...  we gave up a unique mechanic:  I changed instantly-- and swapped it for the "more precise" build that requires handwaving.  Oh-- my Power Defense should require that I buy additional dice of Instant Change, shouldn't it?  Nah; handwave it.  Much better.
 
The accolades for these changes-- well, there are always going to be folks who like a change and folks who don't, so there's no point in arguing that.     However, the accolades that come specifically from those who have always proclaimed that precise mechanics are the heart and soul of the System...  those are a bit confusing with regard to some of the Talents build from Powers.
 
All that said, you are quite right:  Seeing them built that way?  It can help a new GM when trying to determine what a Talent might be worth or where he thinks it should be costed.  However, it overlooks both utility of the final build and the fact that Talents existed to _solve_ the Handwaving "problem."  There are many here who have voiced a serious disdain for handwaving, after all, yet the system was changed to create...  more of it?   
 
In the past, the general rule of thumb (at least for myself and the very few other GMs I know personally; I have never discussed this beyond that circle because-- well, because I had no intention of doing it that way anyhow, so it didn't matter at all to me) was to first try to find a power build.  If a precise power build couldn't be determined-- say there was some handwaving required-- Boom.  It was a Talent, and the mechanic for that Talent was "it makes X happen."  So you don't have "T-form, self-only, only to change Y (costume, form, shape-- whatever).   Other players start thinking "Hey, I've got T-form!  I should be able to do that, too!"   Well, there's a bit of handwaving that makes that happen--  "well why can't we wave that hand for me, too?!  I've got like nine dice of T-form! I paid way, way more!  I should be able to do it, too!"
 
Before:  "Well, I've got Instant Change, so poof; I'm a waswolf."  Man, I wish _I_ had instant Change.  Maybe I should have bought so much T-form....
 
(Yes; I know: Instant Change is a Power or something and not a Talent, but that just hit me, and I've done too much typing to redo it all.     Insert whatever "it was a Talent and now it's a power but requires some unique leeway to make it work right" build here, okay?   )
 
Showing one or two, an perhaps even "building" those examples from the ground up, noting things like "well, in the end, there's really not a lot of utility to Bump of Direction: just because you know which way is North doesn't mean that you know which corridor will get you there", etc-- let's just say its three points.  That sort of thing.  I think that would have been far more helpful, help control the Points Creep that each edition seems to add, _and_ preserved the idea _and the feel_ that Talents are truly unique things, and not just re-labeled Powers.  I mean, a lot of us already relabel powers anyway:  who has more than four characters whose sheets actually say "Energy Blast: ED" or "Blast: PD"?   Now who has character sheets that say things like "Voltaic Shock" or "Gout of Flames" or "Acid Blast" or "Big Ol' Gun"?  Congratulations.  By the new standards, those are now Talents, every single one of them.  Or there are no such things as Talents.  Take your pick.
 
On the plus side, it has legitimized a _lot_ of handwaving that some of us have been doing over the years for certain Power Builds simply by being a long, long list of Power Builds with handwaving.  So....  break even?  if "feel" isn't at all important to you, I mean?
 
 
 
No arguments here.  In fact, I think you'll find that there are lot of us here who have been saying the same thing.
 
 
 
And that hits the nail on the head, right there:  Very limited utility; how often does it come up?  Certainly not enough to by Detect plus Images: Audio  Hey, if you need frikkin' _Images_ to make light, then you should need _Images_ to make sound, right?  Of course, sound carries in a wide cone-- well, a radius, really, so buy a _lot_ of AoE for that...  So...  fifty points?  Fifty four?  Who cares?!  It's damned near a plot point instead of a build anyway, so _really_, what's it actually _worth_?
 
The other side of the coin is "if the player bought it, the GM is obliged to give him his value for it."  Well, since that schtick will get old in roughly two consecutive adventures or less, I'm wiling to be it's one of those things eventually just gets pushed off the table (making it another part of the system that you don't actually use).  As a point or two for a Talent, I can work it into an adventure a couple of times; sure.  As a Power build?  To get utility for points spent?  Nah.  Not going to build every third session around your singing voice, but thanks for asking.
 
 
 
Man, I don't even want to get started on the Grimoires.  We've got spells and variant spells and cantrips and such we've been using for years-- Crap!  I need to get back on that!  Sorry, Chris--!  Things got busy and it dropped off my radar....
 
Anyway:  Yes.  I like that, at least as of 5e Fantasy HERO, there were guidelines of "here is how a spell is built; have fun with it"  (I have yet to read FH 6e cover-to-cover.  I've skimmed it a few times, but Dude, that's a serious block of time when you're busy adulting....)   The official Grimoires are clearly written for people who are extremely experienced with the system, and an absolute hot mess for beginners wanting to learn.  And because of the layout, they are also a bit difficult to use a reference material.  Rather than special effect, grouping by -- what do we call it?  "Base Power?"  That would have been _much_ more helpful as a reference.  I am putting a lot of hope into Greg's Grimoire, and hope to get the POD soon.  As soon as I can figure out where I need to buy it and how I need to buy it to get the paper dolls, anyway.
 
 
 
 
Well, it does have Normal Characteristic Maxima-- I'm _not_ saying "that's a guideline," mind you: it's the closest thing we have to a guideline regarding Heroic Level _anything_, and we have to extrapolate from that:  if a really good sword roll can one-shot kill a guy, and his normal PD is-- wait!  A normal guy doesn't have rPD, so I have to do 21 Body to straight up murder him-- no; wait-- bleeding rules!  Most one-hit kills in adventure literature are mortal wounds so they can gasp or say something then die a phase or two later....  so...  11 Body...   an HKA is going to average 3.5 per die, so 3.5 or 4dice-- no!  Str Bonus, dammit! I forgot that!  It can only double, though....   how often does a normal strength character get a one-hit kill on an opponent...?  Okay, so 10 STR would add...   half a die?  Okay, so we're at 3 dice for the sword....
 
You see where I'm going, of course.  And you have to do that with _everything_ if you're using the System!  It's maddening!  Well, I suppose you don't.  You could by the system, the genre book, the weapons book (a large bulk of which features not-fantasy weapons, so that's fun if you're looking just to play fantasy).  You'll need to pick up at least one of the setting books, too....    Even then, you're not really going to have a guideline as such for character building.  You may (or may not) get some prebuilt weapons or spell ideas, though.  
 
You can see the problem:  if you want an off-the-shelf fantasy game, you're going to need an entire shelf to store it on.  Oh, crap!  Adventures!  Campaigns!   There are "seeds" through most of the modern stuff, but let's face it:  "Seeds" boil down to "put in that same level of work, add some basic cartography, and point your efforts in this general direction," and as such, for the new-to-HERO GM, are nowhere near as helpful as we try to convince ourselves they are.  I believe there are a few PDF adventures (haven't looked in a long, long time) and some of the HoC stuff may include adventures; I don't know.  As it is, you can't use the seeds unless you are already very experienced _or_ have some guidelines, and are willing to put in the work to build the world (or buy the world) in which the adventure (that you will also have to build and populate) takes place.
 
 
 
 
 
 
You have clearly not been playing UNO with the right people.  It's an absolute tactical assault when we get together, with loads of political intrigue as alliances are forged and dropped repeatedly-- and in some cases, outright purchased with bribes and promises...  There's really nothing like leaving a guy or two with twenty cards in his hand when you slap that last card on the table.... 
 
 
 
This was you, right?
 
Tireless: Reduced Endurance 1⁄2 on Strength, Leaping, and Running
10 Planted: Knockback Resistance 10m
38 Tough: Resistant Protection 15 PD, 10 ED 10 Tough: Power Defense 10
8 Tough: Life Support Extended Breathing (1 END/5min)
 
 
That's from you (truly excellent) 6e revamp of the Island of Doctor Destroyer.
 
Those are renamed powers.
 
 
Renaming the powers though, that's a relative term.  I mentioned that I know two people who started with Fantasy HERO (original edition).  For them, the HERO System is "renamed Spell Components." 
 
It's all about perspective.  It's also the drawback to "accessing the code" for the program you're running.    Either it's hidden, or it isn't.  If you prefer it hidden, you either need to not be a GM or stay away from the HERO System, because the GM is all up in it.  
 
However, the powers alone are not the only place from which the "magical feel" is drawn:  There is the magic system you will build as well.  Most of us, I think, put a lot of work into making sure it's not just "I use a power and mark off the Endurance," but something that feels as though the character is drawing from some external well of energy or truly manipulating the very fabric of reality.  You have to rename _everything_: the Powers, the Advantages, the Adders, the Limitations-- not just rename them, but how do they _look_?  How do they _feel_?  I mentioned just a couple of days ago that rather than "Extra Time," I use things like "Ritual" or "Complex Arrangements" or "Righteous Prayer" or whatever.  It's _all_ Extra Time, ultimately, but _not to the players_.     Knowing that it's Extra Time-- well, that's the GM's curse, and the price you pay to run a HERO-driven game.
 
At least, it is _now_.  Now that it's a generic system with genre books and a have-at-it attitude.  I _wish_ I could tell you that it doesn't _really_ sap some of the feel-- some of the fun-- from the GM, but I can't.  However, Powers or Spells, I will always prefer "Web of Living Stone" to "Entangle."
 
Still, that doesn't mean it has to affect the players the same way.  Honestly, I think this is why so many of us make the use of magic skill-based: just to move that little bit away from "I attack him with my Energy Blast!"  It doesn't necessarily mean that as the GMs we don't know that Brushain the Sorcerer isn't just attacking him with his Energy Blast, but it still makes it easier for us to sell it to the players.  No reason _they_ can't have fun, right?   
 
 
 
 
 

Thor could have spent his days building an Asgardian-style "fortress of solitude" for himself somewhere in Scandanavia. I would have preferred a Thor single-mindedly obsessed with building some giant structure in homage to his lost people and lost realm than a Thor wallowing in pity and serving as the focal point for farce.

Hi Lord Liaden,
 
The specific mention you are looking for was 5e Millennium City book.  Media & Entertainment section / Superworld & Other Magazines... page 39, second paragraph.
 
Hope it helps!

Well to explain I need to fill in some background info.  Now this is with a very broad brush and not intended to cover everything.  We all know original Star Trek ran three seasons in the 60’s and then basically disappeared.  It would run on syndicated TV, but was mostly forgotten.  Gaming was a very very niche hobby, ignored at best, ridiculed at worst.   In 1979 a company came out with a combat game based on Star Trek ship to ship combat.  The details of their license/rights are another story and will not be covered here beyond that at the time they had creative control to expand things.  The game was called Star Fleet Battles and over the years they identified and then expanded pretty much all the factions of the Star Trek universe with particular details for their fleets.  A lot of care was given to the concept of “form follows function” or each races starships structural designs were due to that races technology and science.  Like all aircraft tend to resemble each other if they have similar tech, all jets in the 50’s tend to look alike and so on.  The fleet lists they built up closely followed the logic of real world navies in that they had small ships like patrol vessels and corvettes up through various cruisers to battleships and dreadnoughts.  Science vessels, scouts and cargo ships plus bases and outposts were all covered as applicable to that “race”. 
 
Key point was “as applicable to that race".  In order to answer that, they had to develop a background for each race or faction.  Federation, Klingon Empire, Tholians, Gorn, Kzinti, Hydrians, Romulans, etc were all built out.  And they were all closely based on the original series and the handful of books at the time.  The SFB Universe timeline runs for hundreds of years and multiple wars.  When Paramount revived Star Trek they did not anticipate the existence of SFB.  There was a legal battle, of which I do not know the details, but the company that owns Star Fleet Battles is still there and they cannot use the term Star Trek and except for a handful of Starships in the original show, Paramount wasn’t able to use any of SFB’s ship designs beyond general shapes.  In the original Trek universe (TOS and early books) Klingons were a the descendants of a slave race that were their masters security and slave overseers that revolted and overthrew the “masters”.  They didn’t destroy the empire, but took over and maintenance control over all the other slave races.   That is why all the earlier Klingon ships designs had all those security stations and separate Klingon quarters and control centers from the rest of the ship.  Their technology wasn’t actually theirs, but appropriated from their previous masters and they were expansionist driven because they needed conquest to maintain power and resources.
 
I suspect that because of all the details and “history” established by the SFB Universe, when Paramount kicked off TNG they were not able to use any of it.  So, we saw radical changes to things. Klingons became a honor based warrior culture with cloaking devices as native tech instead of jealously guarded “loans”.  Most of the logical hull progression could not be used so we see ones that are similar in basic shape.  I think this is why FASA’s Star Trek game came up with so many bizarre designs. Don't get me wrong, while I really like the SFB ships concepts and tech, I also really like a lot of Paramount's Trek such as Klingons.
 
All of this digression leads me to the Gorns.
 
In SFB the Gorns are one of the powers.  They are not fast or nimble, but they make up any lack of finesse by being big and very very tough.  No starship wants to get within grips of a hostile Gorn warship.  In SFB, a ship that is tractored cannot launch missiles or small craft, but it can fire weapons with only restriction being they may only fire at the tractoring ship.  SFB is also a game that hinges on power management and you only have so much power to go around.  Since Gorns are slow and ponderous, a common tactic by other races is to make fast passes and wear them down from range.  Enter the “Gorn Anchor”.  As the enemy vessel makes its pass, a Gorn ships will divert all power to facing Shields, the Tractor Beam and Drives.  Lunge out and slap a tractor on the passing ship.  Once locked on, the Gorn then reverses drives and drags the target to a slow crawl while hunkered down behind its usually large reinforced shields.  This of course allows the other Gorn ships to waddle up and pound the former starship into scrap in short order.  Rinse, Repeat.   When a Gorn squadron or flotilla turtles up, it is very expensive proposition to try and engage them. Not to mention if you get too close you suddenly find yourself snared and shortly thereafter a cloud of expanding gas and debris.
 
The SFU has it's own RPG, several wargames and a really interesting history. 

Obviously not familiar with the maneuver "Gorn Anchor"
 

 

Obviously not familiar with the definition of "typically".
 
   
 
One of the Star Trek books, the non-bridge crew heroes were stranded on an over-powered towing ship which technically didn't have any weapons. The bad guys had hijacked the Enterprise and were about to escape.
 
They grabbed one of the warp nacelles of the Enterprise with one tractor beam and grabbed onto the planet with the other. And let the Enterprise twist it's own warp nacelle sideways as it tried to leave.
 
Of course they had to later explain their actions to Captain Kirk, and worse to Scotty. But still better than letting the bad guys get away.
 
I've always thought that was a real RPG maneuver which you rarely see written up in fiction.

He was always a bit outlandish, but I always thought he was fun in a Rocket Racer/Vibe/Dazzler/"way too topical hero" kind of way.  Ninjas were cool, Crocodile Dundee was popular, why not combine them?

Love him or hate him, He is a *ton* more memorable than some of the other 4th edition Champions like Jaguar or Quantum.

One thing I saw recently, I think on JmOz's website, was a hero's motorcycle defined as Running bought through an OAF.
 
Frankly I've disliked dealing with small vehicles like motorcycles using vehicle rules and really like the idea of dealing with them as being a special effect.

I stand corrected...

But what is this book, really?
 
Red Cobra is a 101 page Champions adventure, in nine parts.  It contains six entirely new supervillains, one extremely crooked new superhero (so bad that he might as well be a seventh villain) eight battlemaps and six knock-down, drag-out superbattles.  
 
It also features a plot that your PCs can complete in a number of different ways and a flowchart to keep track of them.
 
Here's the book's cover (see the attached file).

Very few would be my guess. 
 
The only time I looked at the Talent builds given in the book was when I wanted to create a couple for my mystery man Pulp game.  Once I realized they were just pre-packaged powers with names I didn't need to look again.
 
That was what always made me laugh at the crusade to eliminate Instant Change as a power.  If it was so uncomfortable they should have called it a Talent.  Hmmm will Hero v6.5 consist of Hero with all the Talents removed and relegated to being various builds of foundation powers?

This presents a nice intersection of pure setting (ala gazetteers) and plot hooks. It is hard to imagine an interesting setting that doesn't have something epic brewing within it.
 
I like the Savage Worlds structure of the Plot Point Campaign: an over-arching epic plotline engulfing the entire setting. The core campaign setting book provides the major beats of the epic plotline with lots of suggestions for where GM-made adventures could be inserted. For GMs who don't have the time to do that, there are published adventures that have a plug-and-play relationship to the overall storyline. This structure gives you the best of both worlds: broad scale guidance on an epic crisis affecting the entire game world, with space created for GMs to fit their own adventures within it, along with pre-made adventure support for GMs who need that.

Hmmm... I speak three.
English, bad English and an invented language usually spoken under my breath in a not too complimentary fashion....
 

Campaigns don't have to be multi year complete a degree between start and finish.  But the majority of the location books I have picked up in the last 2-3 years have had campaigns, from the short ones completed in a few sessions, to long one taking weeks.
 
Ones from places like WoTC still like to build campaigns with more rigidly built adventures, but there are many that follow a newer more modern approach.  In these each part/chapter contains all of the write ups and Information about all the participants (npc's, villains, creatures, etc.), all the more detailed location data if needed and any handouts and such.  Then they give the GM a brief on what is going on and any current plans the bad types may have plus any time lines or event interdependencies.  These are the best IMO because they have the GM freedom of the homebrew campaign with the low prep time/work of the pre-built.
 
But more to the point, HC is not a spy campaign anything.  It is a modern'ish city that is easy to use for games running from the 60s to 90s.  It can be easily tweaked for 2000s to present.  I have a copy of the fabulous full color Hudson City map that I modified by pulling out all the interstates and modern highways and replaced the interstates with rail lines.  I built it so I could run a 1935 Pulp game. 
 
Hmmmm....I guess I am wandering a bit.
 
Hudson City is a great city book. 
 
It can even be called a great setting. 
 
But there is nothing resembling a Campaign in its pages.
 
 
 

Hmmm... I speak three.
English, bad English and an invented language usually spoken under my breath in a not too complimentary fashion....
 

Still waiting......

The primary issue with Hero and vehicles is they, just like several RPG's out there, chose to use the "vehicles as characters" method. 
Or as I like to call it "cop out method".  
 
The easiest way to avoid the issue is to outline a basic less than minimum vehicle/ship "character sheet" and then say "build them like a character".   Maybe toss in a few charts with vehicle'ish stuff in it.  That is pretty much the approach of the modern RPG.  It kinda works in rules lite games, especially ones that are just this side of coin flipping like Fate.  But in the end you usually fine droves of people in those systems home brewing "ship" rules.  The days of games taking the time to actually design vehicle/ship rules appears to be behind us.  Which is probably the reason we see so many people "borrowing" from games like Traveller.
 
My "new" personal approach is a complete paradigm shift for me. 
 
For smaller personal vehicles (motorcycle, speeder, car, fighter) the vehicle is a direct extension of the player "operating" it than a "character". 
For larger vehicles (ships) the vehicle is more like a location the PC move around in.  Like a Inn, Tavern or Castle.
 
Why try to write them up as characters. 
I have started experimenting with ships as "locations" that the players occupy and can perform functions at different stations.  Ship movement is more of a narrative descriptor than moving around on the map. 
 
An example of what I mean in the Star Wars universe of the OP. 
 
PC's are flying X-Wing's versus a IMP Frigate. 
The X-Wings (being one person small cockpit no room to walk about fighters) are represented just like I would do Ironman's suit as a added unified power on their regular character sheet. 
The Frigate is a ship.  Very large when compared to people and PC's.  It is just a location (with at least a general deckplan so the PC's can board and run around if they wish).  While narrative'wise it will be described and zooming along and maneuvering, the only actual on the table moving it can do is roll or change direction S L O W L Y.  Instead the PC's X-Wings will swoop around the Frigate, because they are FAR faster and maneuverable.  For "stats" I don't really go to far into details and I don't point it out at all.  I just assign values.  Six shields each at X ED.  So many turrets at X EB.  And so on.  For my players I need ot devote far more details to the crew because as soon as the Frigate Drive is disabled they will be boarding. 
 
But the main point is the "ship" is really not much different than a D&D Inn or Dungeon.  It is a location that has defenses that the PC's have to enter and move around in and do stuff.  Try to match up Player movement and action with ship/vehicle action is where most things fall apart.
 
Small vehicles = add-ons to the PC themselves.
Large vehicles (ships) = locations that narratively move
 
Just some thoughts and ideas.

Players make their rolls and the GM makes their rolls.
 
When I GM, if we have new players at the table, either new to roleplaying or new to the game system, then I usually have all rolls made on the table with each person rolling, including myself, explaining the roll and how I, or they, calculated it. 
 
If I am playing with experienced players or players that have gotten the hang of things, then I only ask the players for the results and as GM I do a lot of hidden rolls.  I run a LOT of games that have mystery/investigative themes which means that there are events/rolls that the players cannot know about if those plots are to be preserved and lead on to the big reveals.  A whodunit is not a whodunit if you read the last page first.
 
For the die rolls themselves.
 
If a player is actually cheating as in they are not making a mistake or misunderstood some game mechanic, but are actually rolling one thing and claiming another.   Then why am i bothering to play with them?  I'll be courteous,  but once you have cheated in my game, I'll never invite you back.  And if the rest of the table insists, I will just walk away from the game all together.  I've done it in the past and do not see myself changing in the future.
 
If a player distrusts me enough that they cannot trust me to roll a set of dice or run a game even evenhandedly, then they don't trust me.  Since they don't trust me, why are they in my game?  I am up front in the kind of games I run and what the intended feel and rule restrictions the game will have.  You have a choice, play or sit this one out.   If not enough players like what I have planned, I am more than glad to be a player instead.  If no one else is ready to run I have no problem building a different adventure.  
 
But an RPG game is a game not a forced participation with guards. 
You don't like the way I run, don't play.  It really isn't going to darken my world.
 
I love to create stories that allow the players to solve mysteries, resolve ancient curses and be heroic.  If you know the answer from the beginning it is not a mystery. 
I tend to use die rolls for NPC decisions, will they A or will they B.
I have loose event flow charts that incorporate some random results such as "how long until the Thieves Guild becomes aware of X?" 
These are secret rolls that can directly impact the entire game and no, I am not going to trash an entire plot line because one player had a crappy GM in the past. I have had hundreds of very crappy players in the last 30 years and I don't treat every player at my table as crap because of that. 
RPG's are game and you play or run them as a choice for entertainment. 
 
If you don't like the way I run my games, then don't play them.  I mean seriously why would anyone subject themselves to that?  Playing something they don't like. 
 
I have a friend that is a seriously good GM, but I do not play in his games and vice versa.  Why?  While we can talk for hours about gaming and have a lot of common beliefs, his games have a lot of PvP intrigue and backstabbing.  He and his players love the White Wolf betray everyone games.  I don't.  I love games that actually have good guys.  But I am straying from point.
 
Yes, as GM I frequently make hidden rolls especially if the die roll could reveal something that is hidden.  I never put in a threat of obstacle that is beyond the players abilities.  There is always a way.  I tell new players that at the beginning, there will always be a way.  Just because you cant knock it down by force doesn't mean there isn't a way around.  I also do not make people roll for every skill.   Just asking the question is enough for me to reveal a clue, especially one that the PC would know.  The player may not have that knowledge, but the PC they are playing does.
 
But a player having an issue with me making hidden die rolls in a game that I am running?  That is not my problem, it is theirs. 
If that means that particular game doesn't happen, well that is life.

Oh I understand that.  Especially here amongst the Herodom.
 
But that doesn't change expectations when modern gamers buy product. Most, not all, but most are looking not only for the setting material, but something they can play with little or no prep in the tiny bit of free time they aren't working or adulting.
 
I know, I know. That line of thought is blasphemy here. 

Not a Campaign Setting as the term is used in every other RPG line on the planet.  It is a location for a campaign. 
 
I have Hudson City (all versions including the map) and I routinely use it as a campaign location. 
 
Chapter 7 is actually dedicated to discussing how to create campaigns using the location.
 
I have said many times that Hudson City is one of the, if not the greatest RPG modern city location ever printed.   It is a location or even a setting.  But it is not, and never has been the elusive campaign setting that is wished for.
 
M&M's Emerald City is a Campaign Setting for M&M.
Location information....check
NPC and organizations in the location......check
Maps and diagrams for location.....sorta check
Campaign to run for players.....check
 
 
Hudson City
Location information....check
NPC and organizations in the location......check
Maps and diagrams for location.....check
Campaign to run for players........... tumbleweeds
 
 

So publish a small setting book featuring angsty pouch-riddled gun nuts and call _that_ Dark Champions.
 
Or ditch the name completely.  Given the last couple of decades of both and emo culture and sparkling vampires and the increasing occurrence of actual gun nuts...
 
Dark this and Dark that...
 
The name is more _embarrassing_ than it is enticing at this point.  Anymore, I pull my hat down low and look away from the cashier just to buy "Dark" chocolate....
 
 
 

The primary issue with Hero and vehicles is they, just like several RPG's out there, chose to use the "vehicles as characters" method. 
Or as I like to call it "cop out method".  
 
The easiest way to avoid the issue is to outline a basic less than minimum vehicle/ship "character sheet" and then say "build them like a character".   Maybe toss in a few charts with vehicle'ish stuff in it.  That is pretty much the approach of the modern RPG.  It kinda works in rules lite games, especially ones that are just this side of coin flipping like Fate.  But in the end you usually fine droves of people in those systems home brewing "ship" rules.  The days of games taking the time to actually design vehicle/ship rules appears to be behind us.  Which is probably the reason we see so many people "borrowing" from games like Traveller.
 
My "new" personal approach is a complete paradigm shift for me. 
 
For smaller personal vehicles (motorcycle, speeder, car, fighter) the vehicle is a direct extension of the player "operating" it than a "character". 
For larger vehicles (ships) the vehicle is more like a location the PC move around in.  Like a Inn, Tavern or Castle.
 
Why try to write them up as characters. 
I have started experimenting with ships as "locations" that the players occupy and can perform functions at different stations.  Ship movement is more of a narrative descriptor than moving around on the map. 
 
An example of what I mean in the Star Wars universe of the OP. 
 
PC's are flying X-Wing's versus a IMP Frigate. 
The X-Wings (being one person small cockpit no room to walk about fighters) are represented just like I would do Ironman's suit as a added unified power on their regular character sheet. 
The Frigate is a ship.  Very large when compared to people and PC's.  It is just a location (with at least a general deckplan so the PC's can board and run around if they wish).  While narrative'wise it will be described and zooming along and maneuvering, the only actual on the table moving it can do is roll or change direction S L O W L Y.  Instead the PC's X-Wings will swoop around the Frigate, because they are FAR faster and maneuverable.  For "stats" I don't really go to far into details and I don't point it out at all.  I just assign values.  Six shields each at X ED.  So many turrets at X EB.  And so on.  For my players I need ot devote far more details to the crew because as soon as the Frigate Drive is disabled they will be boarding. 
 
But the main point is the "ship" is really not much different than a D&D Inn or Dungeon.  It is a location that has defenses that the PC's have to enter and move around in and do stuff.  Try to match up Player movement and action with ship/vehicle action is where most things fall apart.
 
Small vehicles = add-ons to the PC themselves.
Large vehicles (ships) = locations that narratively move
 
Just some thoughts and ideas.

Very nice.  I can't wait for them to come out.
 
Another result of listening has been a rekindling of my interest in comics.
 
The downside is current industry and their, say we phrase it, vocal fans immediately stamp any interest out of existence.  Especially for the CASUAL reader.
 
Too bad, but there it is.
 
I do look forward to the podcasts. 
 

I thought I had put a photo I, the first thread I mentioned it, but when (and if!  School corona, cokd weather- we liekly wont meet again till spring)
 
When we meet again, though, i will be sure to snap a picture for you folks.