Mr. Negative

Not the HERO system, but... I played a man with two powers. The first was the ability to project a single exact duplicate of himself anywhere he could see or clearly remember, and remain in mental contact with that projection. The second was to store objects small enough to be lifted in one hand into an extradimensional space "behind" his back, where they stayed unchanged until pulled out (so a cup of hot coffee wouldn't spill or get cold). This space was also available to the duplicate. Unbeknownst to him, he wasn't actually doing either. He was breaking things down like a Star Trek Teleporter, saving their patterns and energy and recreating them elsewhere or elsewhen. Had he realized this, he could reproduce the same object multiple times (using the energy from other objects), or even "project" himself mulitple times. He didn't even think of the duplicate as "real" but instead as a projection of himself (so he wasn't worried if it might die--though that never came up). Basically, he stayed at home and telecommuted to work, and viewed "superheroing" as a simultaneous vacation. He packed all sorts of stuff into the "space" behind his back and would use the telepathy to get new supplies. If we needed a blowtorch, he would run out and buy one, put it "behind his back" and the duplicate would then grab it. Also conveniently, since the duplicate was "recreated" each time it was projected, he could get a tattoo, shave his head, whatever, and revert to his original appearance when needed. My favorite part of this character was his refusal to consider any part of this heroic, or to behave like a "superhero". His duplicate (since he wasn't aware that they were both fully real people) was simply something to play around with whenever he didn't need both bodies to do work with. He was always sort of neat and slightly unprepared, since he stored virtually everything he would ever need behind his back.

Here was one that was interesting, especially for a Low Fantasy setting, but never saw too much use: Steal Breath: This spell prevents the victim from taking a deep breath, and from breathing deeply during exertion. The victim simply becomes more and more exhausted if exerting himself. Supress REC (7d6 Standard Effect) Extra Time (Delayed Phase), Incantations, Gestures (throughout--the attacker must continue to clench his fist while paying END to keep the victim's REC suppressed) 17 Active Points. This suppresses completely 21 Character Points of Rec--covering the maximum REC for characters with NCM. It's a neat spell in some ways, in that the mage can use it to weaken an opponent for his allies, and even better, use it against an already tired opponent to shorten a combat, but it just never got used compared to a 7d6 EB. Bah.

Well, I haven't been able to try this yet, as Real Life has intruded too much, but I've been toying with the idea of a system where neither the players or the GM know precisely how much damage they've taken (without doing a lot of work in their heads). This really only works for small combats, but: Each opponent in the fight has 4 little containers (think Tic-Tac dispensers--although I bought them from a crafts store). Small (very small) beads are used to represent Body (red), Stun (blue) and Endurance (yellow). The beads are removed from their respective containers and placed in the fourth one when damage is taken or END is used (this is to keep an opponent from Recovering more END, say, than was used). In this way, the players can look at the opponents and tell roughly who is really tough, and who is really weak. They can see who is badly injured or tired (both on their own side and the other). However, it makes it hard for them to know precisely how much STUN, for example, they have (ban paper record keeping of the same). This is, I'll admit, a bit slower than paper recordkeeping, and it doesn't work well in High Fantasy games where the PCs face multiple opponents each, but for games like mine where PCs are rarely outnumbered 2 to 1, it looks like it will work well. It also doesn't work too well with any setting where opponents can be freakishly tough for their size (Superheroes, transformed dragons, etc), but again, this isn't an issue with my Low Fantasy world.

One final thing I'd like to weigh in on here, which I normally harp about in regards to Variable Power Pools, is that the mere existence of a power doesn't dictate how that power is allowed to be used in your game. To be specific to Telepathy, allowing Telepathy to be chosen as a power doesn't mean that you have to allow 12d6 Telepathy, usable as a half Phase attack action. Envision how you see telepathy being used in your games, and let the PCs know that. Maybe minds simply CAN'T be read in a phase or two. Maybe reading someone's mind required time, concentration, and focus. If the PC knows that Telepathy requires Extra Time (Full Turn) and Concentration, not only as part of their conception, but as the "game world" conception of Telepathy, then they can make a fair choice. Perhaps Telepathy is "touch-only" like Jean Grey in "X-Men". Perhaps time, concentration, and touch are required for all but the most skilled Telepaths (who would then perhaps be required to have spent not only a lot of points on Telepathy, but points on being a well-rounded mentalist (Mental Defense, KS, other mental powers, perhaps a VPP of mental powers, etc). I think that the "problem" with Telepathy and a lot of powers arises when the PCs want to have a power that the villains have (which is usually quite a reasonable idea). That 1/2 phase Telepathy didn't seem too problematic when your mentalist villain unleashed it, but now, when it is in the control of a player who isn't bound by the storyline, it's ugly. Avoiding this problem requires a good bit of foresight. As a general rule, I don't like to bar any PC from having abilities that a NPC could possess. However, it's fair (to me) if the PC can't afford those abilities (as he can save up for them), or if he isn't willing to make the tradeoff those abilities require (anyone can cast black magic, if they're willing to sell their soul...). However, many players will dislike being banned from taking abilities just because they are problematic, especially if those abilites are used against them. As a GM, I feel "fair" only in banning powers only in three circumstances: The ability simply doesn't exist in this game universe. The ability exists, but not in the manner in which the player wishes to use it. The ability is written up in a way that makes it time-consuming or confusing to use in play (here's where most VPPs get the axe). Just my two cents.

EXACTLY RIGHT!!!! This is made quite explicit in the UMA book with maneuvers such as the "Chin Block" where the PC doesn't actually "block" the attack, but takes it right on the chin in such a way that it doesn't do damage. To further amplify this point, there are abilities in the Martial Arts that are not currently duplicated in any other section of the HERO system, such as the Shove, Bind, and Takeaway Maneuvers, as well as the Maneuver Element "Target Falls". If you wanted, for example, to make a character who could trip people with her lashing tail, you could either write up some involved Power (Energy Blast, no Body or Stun, only to cause Knockdown), or simply learn a maneuver like Legsweep. Why insist that a player do the first, especially when the second is so much simpler? Martial Arts is a "title", just like Desolidification, or Flight. It shouldn't necessitate representing actual training in an actual martial arts style any more than Flight has to represent flapping wings. If the speedster can run up walls with "Flight", then the Brick can learn Martial Maneuvers. Now, it may still be that the Brick is using Maneuvers to circumvent game restrictions on DCs, or OCV, or whatever. That is a separate issue, and applies to every character, whether they are using Martial Arts, Limited Skill Levels, Attributes as Powers, or whatever. Good character conception is also a valid concern (especially within the group), as the Brick martial artist may be "invading the turf" of the regular martial artist. Stepping on other people's specialties can spoil the fun, but this problem is not unique to Martial Arts, either.

I have to second some of the suggestions here. First, see if you can come to a compromise with the PC's about killing attacks. Perhaps you are adamant about the genre and cannot, but perhaps you can come up with some villains who they can kill with impunity (perhaps zombies/reanimated ninjas/robots). If they can occasionally let loose, perhaps they can restrain their tendencies. Secondly, perhaps you might consider running (or allowing one of them to run) a "filler" campaign (one with little continuity--like a series of "one-shots" where killing attacks are more common, and more accepted). Ninja Hero can be good for this, as quite a load of goons get mowed down in the average martial arts flick. Alternate this with the main campaign, so that you get your "silver age" feel and they get to kill somebody. Third, and I've said this before, but not on this thread, PCs often use killing attacks BECAUSE they know the GM won't violate the genre, and isn't going to run "boring" arrest/trial/lawsuit/weepy family members adventures. I still firmly feel that many PCs "know" that the GM isn't going to unload the same type of killing attacks on them that they unload on their enemies. Thus, the PCs use the genre as a shield, violating it for their own purposes, but anticipating that the GM won't respond in kind (I don't think that many do this consciously, but I still think it happens). Shatter that little illusion. If the PCs use overpowered killing attacks on their opponents, use overpowered killing attacks on them. Unload a 11d6 Autofire, Fully Invisible, NND, Does Body, Area of Effect, Line of Sight Killing Attack on them, and then let the survivor discover that Dr. Murder has invented a Gamma Ray laser. That's an extreme (and not entirely serious) example, but you can very effectively demonstrate to the PCs (and ON the PCs, which is often more effective) that PC restraint is met with GM restraint, and PC overkill is met with GM overkill. There's nothing inherently unrealistic or unfair about a villian using a land mine/shaped charge explosive/poison gas/radioactive dust attack on a PC. It's just part of the "genre" that such realistic and effective ambush attacks are not usually made by villains. They violate the genre; you violate the genre. Or, to paraphrase "The Untouchables": They send one of yours to the morgue. You send one of theirs into an open volcano. This is an extreme solution; but falls short of actually quitting the group. In some groups, it may actually be functionally equivalent to quitting the group. However, if you can't come to a negotiated settlement with the group, don't just quit; quit with style. On the other hand, some groups can accept the short, sharp shock and realize what you were getting at. This is a SHARED reality. If one member isn't having his gaming needs met, even if that member is the GM, then the consensus isn't working. On the other hand, consider the same thing from the Players' perspective (not the PCs). There's nothing INHERENTLY wrong with wanting to play a game where your PC can use killing attacks. This is no more or less mature than wanting to play a game where your PC is of a different gender, or a different species, or a vampire. Seriously look at whether you can accomodate a group which wants to play in a "killing-OK" genre. Speaking from my own experience, I spent a lot of time developing a world/magic system/characters to create a particular series of adventures in a particular way. Specifically, I was using GURPS to recreate the Against the Giants series of modules from D&D (gasp). However, I used the system to create detailed, highly experienced heroes with realistic personalities and fully detailed personal histories. I really wanted the PCs to experience a "classic" adventure from a new perspective. The PCs seemed excited about this, and seemed to understand that the genre was far more "realistic" and less "heroic" than D&D. I made it perfectly clear that their goal wasn't to kill the giants, or even to kill the "Big Boss" giants, but to learn the motivations and players involved in the recent giant attacks, and to scout out the Giants' holdings so that sufficient military might could be brought to bear upon them. However, after numerous sessions of play, it really became evident that the PCs wanted to fight bad guys. Specifically, they wanted "stand-up" fights against opponents they could realistic defeat in a pitched battle. They were quite unhappy "running and gunning" against huge brutes that could easily outnumber and overpower them, and I was increasily having to "contrive" events so that they could escape to fight again. Despite having to throw quite a few weeks of preparation (and my original ideas) out the window, we decided instead to run a Ninja Hero campaign. I didn't abandon my goals. I just abandoned some specific particular goals. I'm still running a game that I'm excited about, and with people that I want to play with. I'm just not running the game that I originally envisioned. Wow....that was long and pointless.

When superteams "go big", comic writers do one of two things, only one of which has been dealt with by previous posters: Adventure Writ Large: Everyone has covered this. Pick major multinational threats, or go even larger. Don't overlook "cosmic" threats too. The JLA is great for these. Perhaps someone is breaking the link between cause and effect, or affecting emotions on a global scale, or tinkering with the time line, or some other causality violations. Go very, very small: This is unusual for Superheroes, but with the right group, it can be a lot of fun. Explore the character's relationships with each other/their powers/their parents....Starman was good for this, and some of the JLA too. The Tower of Babel storyline, where Ra's Al Ghul hijacked Batman's files on how to defeat each member of the JLA and used them, is a good example of both. First, you had a MAJOR threat. Direct attacks against each member of the League tailored in highly intelligent ways to target their vulnerabilites. Then, a SMALL story. Each member of the League had to deal with the fact that Batman kept secret files on each of them, just in case he had to defeat them himself, and the level of mistrust that engendered. I like the Small stories. Superpowers don't help much when your sister is having a marriage crisis, or your dog dies, or your annoying neighbor wins the lottery. However, these stories are not for every group/every campaign. However, you said you wanted ideas....

Re: VPP without AP limit I would consider possibly putting a different rule on the Pool itself, rather than modifying it with an advantage. You might try limiting powers in the pool by their BASE points, instead of their active points. That is, limit them by their points before applying advantages or disadvantages. This may be too permissive, in that a 2d6 RKA against one person is a LOT less effective than an Area of Effect RKA (acid arrow vs. fireball). However, since that Advantaged RKA is still going to have to fit within the Real Points window, and suffer a higher Skill Roll Penalty, you may still be OK. The other rule of thumb I would use is that "No Skill Roll required" is +1, and "No time required for Change" is +1, so perhaps "No Active Point Limit" is +1 too. Provided you are vigilant with allowing write-ups for the VPP, that shouldn't be unbalancing. However, remember that VPP limitations are, by their nature, sometimes less limiting than normal. If a character can choose from many different attack powers, each limited in some way, he is still, as a whole, much less limited than a character who has 1 such limited power. If you do allow an Unlimited Active Point VPP, I would also restrict the amount of limitations the PC can take on any one power. This both serves to limit the potential scope of any power, and the number of potential powers running at any given time.

Well, if you play in a 'realistic' campaign, you might consider talking with the player and making him into a villain. Consider the following scenario: Captain Decapitate (CD) does regret the death of this boy, but cannot bring himself to truly regret his actions, as he doesn't feel that he could have known that killing the demon would have resulted in the death of an innocent. CD believes that his own remorse and guilt are punishment enough and he cannot go to jail for this crime, especially as he would be unable to prevent other crime/evil if he himself were incarcerated. Since the boy is already dead, and no further harm can come to him, CD rationalizes that it is alright to "defame" the character of the boy by insinuating/falsifying evidence that the boy had invited such demonic possession (quite plausible to many religious groups). Most of his group has no idea that CD is doing this, but perhaps one of them happens upon this data? What do they do with it? CD can continue to "fight the good fight" as everyone believes that he killed not an innocent boy, but a satanist in training. What happens when the truth finally comes out? I wouldn't look at this incident as necessarily a situation where you have to "punish" the PC, or the player, but as an opportunity for some nuanced, mature roleplaying, that can resonate for quite some time. You might be able to completely convince the group that "CD" was acting correctly, and then wait for the "big reveal" several session, or even months, later, after numerous other adventures.

Re: Superheroes Who Kill? Well, there's always the simple rule of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Let the players know that the GM will be playing by the same rules that they are. If they don't want to kill, and try not to kill, then so will the GM. If they want to kill characters, then the GM will also try to kill characters. Note that I'm not saying that the villains will try/not try to kill. A vicious, murdering villain WILL try to kill the PCs, but a "no killing" GM will make sure that he runs scenarios where the PCs COULD be killed, but are not. A killing GM is operating under no such restrictions. For example: "Killing discouraged" campaign: Assassination Man begins a lengthy campaign of terror against innocent people, forcing the PCs to scramble for clues to stop his murderous spree. "Killing is OK" campaign: Assassination Man's campaign of terror begins by putting a bullet in the head of one of the PCs, and the others have to try to avenge his death. Much like the power writers have over comics, the GM can determine the tone of a campaign. Ever notice how Batman is never suprised and attacked by people who could kill him instantly, but is instead only taken by suprise by people who either want to capture him, or who can't kill him without a good fight? The same applies to RPGs. There is nothing inherently unrealistic or unfair about the hapless victim being a PC. However, in a "killing discouraged" campaign, the GM doesn't target the PCs quite like he does "innocent bystanders", even though the PC may be just as unsuspecting. However, if the PCs want to run in a "killing is OK" campaign, then they might expect that same rule to apply to them. None of this should be taken to suggest that I am against PC killing of NPCs. I'm currently getting a low-level superhero/martial arts campaign started, and one of my own campaign "genre bits" is that Hong Kong action violence is not only OK, but expected. The PCs are expected to plow through mooks and minions, and can expect those minions to fight them "fairly" and not use sniper rifles/car bombs/limpet mines. Many PCs who want to/aren't afraid of killing NPCs are guilty of trying to exploit the GM's genre conventions to their own benefit. I know that some are thinking: "Cool. I can just kill this guy, but the GM won't kill me, because I'm a PC! I won't get arrested, because that would be boring role-playing, which no one wants. That means I can let loose!" There is no requirement that you abide by this player's (mis)apprehensions. However, I would advise that you let people know about your genre expectations (and any changes to them you might make) beforehand. Don't let a miscommunication, rather than a deliberate disruption, spoil your group.

On the topic of END/STUN/BODY, one of the big things that seems to confuse players is writing down and altering these totals during the game. Since you have a relatively small group, you might try this suggestion: Use counters and cups for each of the totals. Use counters of different colors for END, STUN, and BODY. Label each cup, for each player. The players, of course, start with all three at their normal maximums. As they declare actions, have them "pay out" the END, and pay it back in during Recoveries. Similarly, they "pay out" STUN and BODY as they get hit. This also has some fun uses in normal games. No one seems to keep exact track of what their current totals are, so they just have to "eyeball" it during play. If you use semi-clear cups, so that others can see "roughly" how exhausted/hurt someone is, it can even be fun to use for the villains. Lay down a big cup of stun for a beefy bruiser, and everyone already knows that trouble is brewing. Plus, they can have an idea of what they are doing to the opposition, without having to keep notes. "I know that's the injured one---he has hardly any BODY counters left!"

Most feared villain was the one that is all too common in real life and almost never seen in the comics....the plotter. The villain who has no intention of fighting you, or confronting you, or even taunting you, but only in accomplishing his own goals (and eliminating you if you are a hindrance). When we played Villians and Vigilantes we KNEW that all of the bad guys we fought were somehow (either obviously or secretly) controlled or manipulated by one man, but we had no idea who he was, or what he wanted, or why we were in the way. A group of us fought his minions and defeated them for four years before finally finding out who the mastermind was. Man, that was a scary villian. Who could you trust with your secret identity? When would he strike? How could you stop him if you didn't know who he was? Uncertainty drives players nuts*. Fortunately, we got a lot of satisfaction out of laying out his minions each week, so that was OK. *This is why I'm a big fan of ONLY writing up the minions and not the mastermind. Let his capabilities be determined by your desires (and your players' desires) during play.

I also use Red Pen more for things that ACTUALLY have reduced penetration than to simulate two attacks. Given the wide variety of other ways to get two attacks (autofire, rapid fire, sweep, links), I generally discourage RedPen as a "two attack" mechanism, particularly since you keep the stun together. For most attacks, there is no reason why two particular shots should cause more stun than two other shots, which also hit the target. Also, RedPen attacks always hit together or miss together, and always hit at the same time, which is not particularly accurate for dual-paw attacks (or dual-gun attacks). The only time I encourage it is for coordinated attacks from a single character (such as hitting both sides of someone's neck at the same time). In this way, the stun is totalled vs. defenses, much like two allies coordinating attacks. Thinking of this, it would also make an interesting limitation for a "crab-monster" pincer attack, in that the damage would be dealt by both parts of the claw, one on either side of the victim. Thus, the crushing pressure would be painful (hence the stun), but the actual penetration might be less. I particularly like RedPen for attacks that are vicious and painful, but not terribly deadly, such as whips with glass and spikes, barbed wire, quills, and the like. These attacks are dangerous against unarmored foes, but relatively innocuous against protected areas. Same for "wind-based" attacks that do damage via abrasive particles. RedPen is also good for weird weapons, like tridents and the like, or double-pointed swords, which have more than one location that delivers the blow.

Re: Disad help needed! Well, IF the mystery villian is monitoring the PC through his own senses: Hunted (Watched, Easy to Find) This gives a base of 0 point, assuming the mystery villian is less powerful than the PC and only watches on an 8-. It will be worth more if the villain is more powerful, or more vigilant. Assuming that the hero always becomes an assassin when he goes to sleep: Accidental Change (from Hero to Assassin, Uncommon Circumstances, Always Occurs). 20 points You need to rewrite the character (in his "killer" form only) so that his other psychological/behavioral limitations are changed so that he CAN be a killer (drop Code against Killing, etc.) and has new limitations that get him to commit crimes (say, Psychological Limitation: Slavishly Loyal to Mystery Villian (very common, total). You may also want to add a mind link to the mystery villian who gives him instructions. This would also be an ideal opportunity for the character to have additional, assassin type skills in his "killer" persona. And, so that he has no memory of these events (or of the gaps in his past): Physical Limitation: Cannot remember parts of his past, nor actions committed while under the control of the mystery villian (infrequent, greatly impairing) 10 points. Note that this is a physical limitation and not a psychological one, as the character cannot make an ego roll to overcome his impairment. I used infrequent as I assumed that these holes in his memory were not too common. I used Greatly impairing over Fully Impairing in an assumption that the memory holes were not critical, frequently used pieces of his memory, and that he could reconstruct what his "alter-ego" had done from physical clues (his clothing, his phsyical condition, credit card records, etc.) Also, you would probably want a Social Limitation as it would be really bad if people found out that the hero was a killer (even though he doesn't know about it). Thus, he might "blow his cover" the first time it came up, as he doesn't know to keep his "cover" (this is part of the Physical Limitation above): Social Limitation: Secret Identity as Killer (occasionally 8-, major risks of imprisonment). 10 points I am assuming only a minor risk of this coming out, as I assume the "killer" identity is a steathly assassin rather than a psychotic killer. So, that's 40 points, plus any extra from a more powerful villain, or one who watches the hero more often. This is worth considerably more than other people have suggested, but really, how disadvantageous WOULD it be to become a killer during your sleep, have no memory of it (or your past) AND have someone monitoring your every move? Nicely enough, they all come from different disadvantage categories, so the Hero can still have other psych lims, or hunteds, or whatever. For example, if the police are looking for the "killer", then the hero might also be hunted by the police (although I myself would wait until his "secret identity" was uncovered, and then change it to a Hunted by the Police disadvantage. Another advantage of the piecemeal approach is that you can resolve each disadvantage separately: First the character is "fingered" as the killer (losing his secret identity, and becoming Hunted by the police, perhaps, or gaining a bad Reputation). Then, perhaps he could uncover his memories, both of his past, and of his actions as the killer (without being able to stop the killer from killing). Much pathos ensues. Then, perhaps he could learn to control the "killer", getting an activation roll on his Accidental Change, or buying it off entirely. All the while, unbeknownst to him, his mystery villian is monitoring his progress....

Ohhh, I loooooove mystery disadvantages. I used to run GURPS and one player took me up on the "mystery disad" offer. One of his first opponents chopped off his left hand in a fight. I don't think Ward thought that One Hand could be a mystery disadvantage. (But it was kind of nice to have the situation of a character with points in archery and only one hand. After all, no one who learns to shoot expects to have their hand chopped off, do they?)

Let me argue another way for the -1 limitation (not on the Multipower) Instead of a Killing Attack (45 Active Points) and a Transform (45 Active Points) alternating with no control from the character, suppose instead that each effect is a 3d6 Killing Attack. 50% of the time, the attack generates Killing Attack A, doing 3d6K. The other 50% of the time, it generates Killing Attack B, doing 3d6K. By your reasoning, this should cost more than a single Killing Attack that does 3d6K. Now, if the attacker could CHOOSE between the two types of attack, then I would certainly see the advantage. As he cannot, I don't see why he should pay more for it. While, on occasion, it may be to his advantage to hit someone with attack A instead of B, it may also, on occasion, be to his disadvantage to have hit them with A instead of B. I see a point that could be made in that having two different Attack Powers, even if they are not selectable, is an advantage over having only one attack power, as it requires the target to have 2 different types of defenses to be protected. However, if the attacker had two types of attack powers (A and again, which he could freely select between, he would also possess that advantage, but we wouldn't charge him any more points for it (than paying for the base powers). Maybe instead it could be "justified" as -1/2 Cannot Use Power when Other Power is being used and -1/2 No conscious control over which power is used? Now, if it is written up as a multipower, where the character isn't paying points for each Attack Power individually, but paying for a reserve, and two Ultra slots which both use the full reserve, THEN I can see a limitation on the Reserve (only) that there is No Conscious Control over which Power is used (for -1/2, or possibly even less, as both powers are probably quite effective in combat, so either would be a decent choice). The other "disadvantage" of not being able to use both powers, would be subsumed into the points discount for a multipower.

Re: Shaking up the Speed Chart I like this idea, but there is a different permuation I thought of (some of which is stolen from multiplayer games of WFB & WH40K). Separate the deck into each suit (so that you have 4 sets of Ace-King, Queen, etc. Instead of dealing each player cards, let them note which Segments they get their actions on. Shuffle one suit of cards, and deal them one at a time. The number that comes up is the phase that goes then. Resolve all actions on that phase in normal order, then deal the next card. Everyone gets a free "post-12" recover on the Ace. This prevents you from having to have more than one deck of cards, doesn't require cards to be dealt for the opposition, and randomizes the post-12 period as well. You can handle held actions by allowing them to hold an action, once their number has been drawn, until their number comes up again. You allow them to abort, but they can't do it again until their number has been drawn (and they don't get that action). This system also easily allows you to handle changes in SPD, in that the character simply has a different set of phases to act on when drawn (admittedly, this may well result in a net gain or loss of phases, but most of these systems don't have a good way to handle speed changes anyway). There is a lot more uncertainty in this method, but it does still allow the player to predict (somewhat) the action sequence, as they will know when a slow character has used all of their actions, and, from the cards already dealt, they will have a good idea of when their remaining actions might fall. On the other hand, it is certainly much more unpredictable than standard HERO (and if you sort and shuffle each suit in advance, you can go for 48 game phases without needing a shuffle). Let the players draw the cards for added effect. Despite the randomizing effects of the shuffle, most gamers will blame the poor slob who pulls a bad number from the deck, and cheer the genius who pulls a good number, for much hilarity.

I don't want to play in your campaign. Seriously though, I appreciate all of the input here. Several of the ideas have been very useful/appropriate to my conception (particularly the emphasis on individual wounds, and the idea of herbal/alchemical "Healing". It's also nice to know so many people are enjoying "low healing" campaigns, as it always seems like "Fight-Heal-Fight-Heal" games are the norm.

Re: Superheroic fantasy? I know I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but I was out of town then and missed it, so.... Well, one of the things that you could do in this is "rethink" the Normal Characteristic Maxima system and raise the bar on it. One of the many complaints about HERO has been that individual scores don't mean much, since they are divided by 3 or 5 for most actual uses. Accepting that (for this argument) as a criticism, let's try to emulate GURPS in this manner, and make it so that your Attribute Roll, rather than your attribute, is the limiting factor in characteristic maxima. Thus, you are limited to a characteristic roll of 20, instead of a characteristic of 20. This means that your characteristics can range up to 55 and still be considered "human". Of course, I would "re-key" STR so that lifting capacity increases directly, rather than doubling every 5. Your maxima for figured characteristics could simply increase to the maximums attainable with maximum primary characteristics (so PD/ED are limited to 11, END to 110, etc) or you could work them otherwise. It's important to "re-conceptualize" your FH game if you do this. A 20 STR isn't hugely strong anymore, it's a 13- roll instead of a 11- roll. It's 2 more dice punching damage (which anyone could get with martial arts anyway). Doing this allows your characters to replicate the feats seen in action movies and the like more easily (a strong barbarian can easily knock someone unconscious with a single blow, and can shrug off even phenomenal punches and kicks). It also allows characters to have more of a niche, as it takes a lot more points to be at the top of the game. Instead of most characters having a DEX near the high end of the scale, it would be a rare and impressive fighter/thief/acrobat/whatever who actually shelled out 135 points for a 55 Dex (and their resulting 18 CV would allow them to do the sort of ridiculous stunts that DEX oriented supers like Bullseye/Spiderman/Daredevil are so fond of). I haven't actually tried this myself, but (other than the Strength lifting charts), there is nothing in HERO that overtly commands you to limit attributes to the 10-20 range, or even the 10-30 range. It might be an interesting experiment. Conceptualize the deadly assassin with a 55 DEX, or the barbarian fighter with a 55 Str, 55 Con, and 55 Body (either clocks in at 135 points). That fighter has 11PD, 11 ED, a 22 REC, and 110 Stun. He CAN take on hordes of lesser opponents and win. He can attack a huge dragon with a sword and stand some chance against it. I'm not sure it would be interesting in the long run, but it could be fun change of pace. As another idea, I'd look at the "non-powered" powers in the Ultimate Martial Artist and Ninja Hero. A lot of those replicate, very well, the cool abilities of heroic fantasy.

As someone mentioned GURPS (which seems to be the paragon of simplified attribute systems), I'd like to point out one thing about GURPS attributes that gets overlooked. Most "extra" attributes get moved into Advantages and Disadvantages, thus, not actually simplifying the system at all, but simply moving the complexity from one chapter to another. Fatigue is based on STR (or HT), but you can buy extra fatigue (thus, you have a END score) Hit Points are based on HT (or ST), but you can buy increased or decreased HP (thus, you have a body score). Will Rolls are based on INT, but you have Strong and Weak Will (so you have an EGO score). Reaction rolls are based off a random roll, or a INT based skill, but you have Charisma and the like (so you have a PRE score) Sexual/Physical attraction is also a random roll, or a HT based skill, but you have Appearance modifiers (so you have a COM score). Everyone gets one action per second, but you can buy Extra Actions (so you have a Speed score). You can also buy advantages and skills that help you recover fatigue more quickly (or disads that make it slower) (so you have a REC score). You also have DR (which can be bought up separately for different types of attacks) (so you basically have PD and ED). GURPS, while a "simple, four stat" system, fundamentally offers you the same complexity of Attributes as HERO. While you don't have to use that complexity, there's nothing making you buy stats over 10 in HERO either. The only thing they don't offer, except as an optional rule, is a Stun score, but instead do this more like Stunning in HERO. While I am a big fan of GURPS, too, I wouldn't offer it up as an exemplar of a simple Attribute system.

Also being located in North Carolina, I have to admit that, given all the sports teams around here, I'd be tempted to do a team based on those: Tarheel: A brick with HUGE knockback resistance and a damage shield when it (he stops the blow and hurts your hand) The Carolina Panther: similar to Tigra, a cat-man martial artist The Charlotte Hornet: Shrinking, flying super who attacks with an energy blast or a sword (a sting) Wolfpack: multiform character with duplication, who can become a wolf, then duplicate into an entire pack of them Hurricane: either a weather control guy, or another brick with flight. Demon Deacon: a religious figure possessed by a powerful demon (kind of like Etrigan) who uses the demon's power for good, but struggles to control it. Blue Devil: for some reason, a speedster with a slightly demonic visage. While these sound silly, you have to admit that, considering the powers, you have a fairly good roster. I'm really fond of Wolfpack as I don't think I've ever seen duplication and animal multiforms combined in one hero before.

This is an old one, rather than a current one, but still one of my favorites. I'm playing in a friend's superheroic game, but my character has two decidedly unsuperheroic powers. He can "duplicate" himself, projecting the duplicate somewhere else, and then recombine. He can also store objects behind his back (in a timeless zone), so he can project himself home, pick up a tire iron, store it behind his back, and then recombine, and pull the tire iron out. So far, he has used his powers to be on vacation while being at work, and clean up his apartment. We are fighting an tremendously powerful superhuman, apparently from the future, who is trying to travel backwards into time to prevent humans from ever evolving, and thus preventing us from ruining the ecosphere. The other PCs, who are much more combat oriented than I, down the guy. I insist on binding his wounds and transporting him to the mainland to receive care at a hospital. He returns days later to thank me for saving his life, and then reveals that he still intends to travel into the past to prevent humanity's existence. My character loses it. I yell at him, "So I saved your life just for you to wipe humanity off the face of the earth. You are such a jerk!" I proceed to completely lose it at him for being such a selfish, arrogant bastard. The entire party nervously cracks up, as this guy nearly wiped the floor with us before, and now the non-combatant geek is mouthing off to him. The greatest thing was that the GM actually took it in stride, and the villian actually broke down and got all emotional. My little tirade punctured his egotism and made him realize how selfish his goals were. Preston, one of the other players, ends this with something like: "Wait a minute. I can't believe you just defeated him with a lecture!"

HERO isn't confusing to me, it's INTIMIDATING to new players. HERO has, for the most part, well laid out rules, that fit into just a few types of resolution, and also, the book has a REAL INDEX!!!!!! Take that, writers of other games! However, because it is so open, many people are left to "founder around" in the system. Other game systems, particularly ones with classes, give you simple, easy choices to make about your initial character, and then present you with additional choices in small stages along the way (particularly if that system uses levels for character advancement. Compare this with Champions generation system, which largely consists of "What do you want to be?" and its advancement system, "What do you want to get better at?" This open creation system is what attracts many experienced gamers to the system, but it can be overwhelming to new players (and GMs). If you are concerned about this, you may want to consider writing up some basic Superhero Package Deals or sample powers, to allow the PCs to "plug and play" with them. Alternatively, you may want to run a few adventures with pregenerated characters, so that PCs can get the feel of the system before committing to a character conception. Be prepared to help players "flesh out" a character conception with specific powers and skills ("If you want to play a Speedster, then in addition to a high SPD, you might want to consider....."). This is the area where I have had the most problem as a GM, in that all my players have a long history of playing class/level systems and aren't used to defining their characters right away. Three first level dwarf fighters look largely the same, and become more different as they gain levels, skills, (and other character classes in D&D 3.5). Three 150 pt. Dwarf Fighters in HERO may look entirely different. Plus, if your players don't feel constricted by the class/level system, they may not feel that the added complexity of the HERO system is worth having. Within combat itself, HERO does track a lot more detail than many popular game systems (it's a lot "crunchier" or "granular" in some parlance). In many d20 systems, you largely track Hit Points in combat, or even track down a sliding scale of OK, Bruised, Stunned, Unconscious, Dead (or whatever). In HERO, you, and the PCs, will usually be tracking both your Stun and Body, as well as your END. In addition, with every PC having multiple actions in the "Round" (which I use to mean smallest combat cycle before everyone gets to go again), there is a lot more going on than in one D&D round. Again, these rules aren't "confusing" as they are well thought out, and explained, and easy to reference. However, there is a lot more to track, which means that individual "Rounds" of combat take longer to resolve than in D&D. As a benefit, combat is generally more descriptive and detailed than in most d20 systems, so you have concrete game effects for a lot of cool maneuvers, tactics, and options. Again, if your players don't mind the "low detail" of, say, D&D, where, in general, you move around and hit the opponent until they are dead (or someone turns someone into a newt), they may again, not appreciate the added flexibility of the HERO system and view it as additional chores. This problem also arose in my FH game, where the players, all used to D&D, consistently put all their levels in OCV (because a good to hit roll is best) and used their most damaging weapon and maneuver (because a good damage roll is best) and didn't see any real benefit to the added stats of the HERO system (as the goal of the fight was to drop the opponent to zero BODY). I LOVE the HERO system, and it is always the system that I compare other systems against (I was looking at D&D 3.5 and all I kept coming back to was "This is a cool idea, but it is so much easier to implement in HERO", "This rule is really complex and would be totally straightforward in HERO", "This mechanism is necessary to maintain a class/level structure and you wouldn't need it in HERO". I had the same experience with Mutants and Masterminds and Silver Age Sentinels, in that I felt that one (M&M) restricted your character conceptions to fairly limited archetypes, and the other (SAS) resorted to GM handwaving over detailed, tested, balanced rules. In both cases, I saw better ways to handle the rules in the HERO system. On the other hand, the best system is one that you and your players all have fun playing. Look at what your gaming style is, and what you and your players would like to have in a game, that you don't have now. Champions may match up with that pretty well, or it may not.

I'm not sure if you want to recreate D&D Magic Resistance or some other sort, and, if D&D, whether you want to create 2nd edition or 3rd edition magic resistance. For "old school" magic resistance, I would purchase (as suggested above) Desolidification (only to protect against limited type of attack), O END, Persistent, Inherent linked to: Mental Defense and Flash Defense (also only to protect against limited type of attack) and then apply an Activation Roll to the whole thing (as in D&D, Magic Resistance was rated as a percentage roll). Personally, I don't like this type of Magic Resistance, because it's waaaay too "Rules Oriented" to me, and not nearly "Story Oriented" enough. I like my supernatural beasties to have specific vulnerabilities/invulnerabilities based on their own nature, which PCs can logic out. Thus, a Hellhound might have a great deal of resistance to flame, but no resistance to other spells, while other creatures might be very mentally protected, or whatever. Giving them a blanket "magic resistance" seems to discourage the players of wizards and the like, and encourage a bit more hacking and slashing than I want (and that's saying something, as someone with fond memories of AD&D).

Many skills require training and prior knowledge to use them. I assume that for rolls using such skills, part of the penalty for "complexity and situation" would be the character's lack of training in that skill. If not, then characters with good stats and a few overall skill levels could have a good chance with virtually every skill. This undermines the "Skilled Normal" conception in many games, where a PC has little or no superpowers/high attributes, but his knowledge and resourcefulness make him useful to the group. If so, then the character has to buy skill levels to represent the training that offsets the penalty for untrained use. For instance, if using Computer Programming with no skill levels is at a -8 to your roll, then, wouldn't the Programming PC need to buy 8 skill levels with programming to offset this penalty? Perhaps you apply a penalty for untrained situations, but remove it when the PC has spent character points on skill bonuses to represent training. If that is the case, what about skill levels with groups, such as +1 with all Int based skills. Does this represent training, and allow them to offset any "untrained" penalties, or not? I'm not really critical of this system, but I don't feel that I understand it fully. All of this really boils down to: How do you represent being untrained in a skill? (Which HERO represents with no roll allowed, or an Everyman roll) and How do you represent being trained in a wide variety of related skills? (Which HERO represents with skill levels with a group of skills, adding to the basic skills purchased in that group).