Rene

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

The Thing was the most Iron Age-y of the FF, I remember one story (about FF #30) where he had to be restrained from beating the hell out of a fallen Dr. Doom. He surely had a temper in the early days. Not to mention the Sub-Mariner, perhaps comics's first major "grey" hero, that was revitalized in the FF title.

And Spider-Man. I think that maybe Spider-Man was more important even than the X-Men and the Hulk in paving the way for the new kind of hero. Thugh he was undoubtly moral and heroic, he opened the door for real for the "less than perfect" heroes. He was, in all ways, the opposite of the DC Silver Age hero who always had his act together and lived a perfect life.

Re: High End Cannoical Character in Champions Universe

Me' date=' I'd place Cyclops full END EB at 20d6. Wasp's EB is lower, but its tough to benchmark because of the somewhat wonky vehicle damage rules.[/quote']

 

If Cyclops is 20d6, then Hercules and Thor need a bit more than 100 STR, IMO. I prefer to have Cyclops reaching 20d6 by Haymakering and Pushing his EB. It's hard to tell with him, but I think he would not be in the same league as Havok, the Human Torch, or Thor's lightning.

Re: High End Cannoical Character in Champions Universe

A lot depends on how you benchmark Marvel characters. If you believe that the top Marvel bricks can only lift 100 or so tons, then they all have 65 or less Str. The other characters have to scale their powers down to match, since they do significantly less damage than a Thor or Hercules. So Iron Man would have 55 pt attacks, Wasp 45 pt attacks, etc.

 

Now this would be a rather silly position to take. My take is that Thor, Hercules, etc have 100+ Str, and the rest of the Heroes scale down from there.

I used to believe the former, now I go for the later. Thor, Hercules, calm Hulk, Wonder Man, I'd put around 90-100 STR, and scale down from there.

That don't mean the Roger Stern's era Wasp (the one I'm more familiar with) would have much more than 8-9d6 attacks with a decent Find Weakness roll, IMO. After all, she was a LOT below guys like Cyclops in destructive power, and I'd put Cyclops around 14-15d6 without pushing.

Re: High End Cannoical Character in Champions Universe

re: the Wasp...

 

Janet recently manifested Giant-Man's power suite in addition to her own.

 

She's a vastly experienced team leader and strategist.

 

Her list of Contacts is exceeded pretty much only by Reed Richards' and Captain America's.

 

And that EB of hers can trash APCs.

 

She goes a bit beyond 350.

Well, they seem to have beefed her up from my days as a regular reader. I think I could create Roger Stern's Wasp with 400 points, tops. Maybe 450, if I wanted to go really wild. No way she'd be more than that.

And I usually don't represent other heroes and hero groups as contacts, when I write-up established characters. No more than a PC would take other PC as contacts. I think the Wasp has "business community" and/or "fashion community" as contacts, though.

Re: High End Cannoical Character in Champions Universe

I'm willing to wait. I don't believe it's possible to build Xavier on 350 without tons of meaningless limitations. The VPP alone is going to cost 200-300 pts' date=' if not more.[/quote']

 

I'd prefer to go with a huge Multipower for Xavier instead of a VPP, a lot of the weirder tricks can be done with Mental Transform bought with a Advantage. But he definetely would be into the 800-1000 pts category.

 

Hm... perhaps only Xavier, Thor, Dr. Strange, and the Silver Surfer are thousand pointer heroes in the MU. And it depends on how you build Dr. Strange. Thor can be done in 800-900 too, because bricks are cheaper than they should be, IMO.

 

BTW, I think the average Marvel Hero is 600-700 pts. The FF, Cap, Iron Man, all seem to fall into this category. There are quite a few "PC-level" heroes though... I'd say Beast, Ant-Man, Wasp, Angel...

Re: Gods and Champions

Yes, Astro City's CONFESSION is probably the best attempt so far of mixing superheroes and religion in a positive (but not rosy-colored) light. The Confessor was a devout Christian super-character that was both admirable and complex.

BTW, the Islamic villain in Wild Cards is named "Nur-ah-Allah", the Light of Allah.

Wild Cards also had Reverend Leo Barnett. What was great about Barnett was that when you first hear of him (fundamentalist preacher who hates the Wild Card), you think he will be this archetypical religious wacko-villain, but he is a lot more complex (and even occasionaly sympathetic) than that. He is basically a nice guy who genuinely hates the sin but loves the sinner, even though he is kinda of an antagonist to most of the heroes, who are almost all liberals.

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

Nice summations again, Mutant for Hire! Can't forget the guys like Punisher, Batman, and the Crow.

I would also complement something you said. There is another kind of really common Iron Age villain. If some Iron Age heroes are morally grey and flawed, some Iron Age villains, unlike Magneto or the Kingpin (or even the new Luthor) are the very epithome of depraved twisted sick evil. They make even the most flawed of heroes a square-chinned paragon by comparision.

Usually extremely powerful, immune to injury, and personaly intimidating, this type of villain indulges in "that which should NOT have been done" kind of destructive orgies.

Some perfect examples would be Kid Miracleman, Wild Card's The Astronomer and Blaise, the Joker, Seth from the Authority, and the psycho that is just starting to appear in Supreme Power. Planetary's The Four are kind of a mix between this kind of villain and the "political masterminds" you've mentioned.

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

I thought Midnighter's tactical mastery was due to multiple micro-computers that calculated odds and computed the likely outcome of every possible move' date=' rather than anything psi. Of course, one can just regard that as techno-precognition, and the line between psi and tech to be blurred.[/quote']

 

Oh yes, I kinda forgot. I probably got confused by the scene where Regis used psi to "block" the Midnighter's prowess, that was recently commented upon in these boards.

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

What I consider Iron Age:.

Nice summation, Mutant for Hire.

I'd also note that usually there are fewer true superhumans in Iron Age settings than in Silver Age ones, but that is not always true. And when there are a lot of meta-humans, they usually share the same origin (that is true of Aberrant, Wild Talents, Wild Cards, Marvel's New Universe, Supreme Power, Rising Stars, Miracleman, wow, most of the Iron Age settings, really!)

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

It makes about as much sense as the Wizard using his abilities for crime instead of making a few billion off his antigravity patents;)

Well, that could be explained by his sociopathy and thrill of adventure. The Wizard initially was a bored millionaire who wanted a challenge.

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

Alternately' date=' magic can be based on chaos theory, probability theory and/or quantum dynamics. In that regard, the Scarlet Witch was kind of ahead of her time.[/quote']

 

Yes, quantum stuff is definetely in to explain anything and everything about a character's powers in some Iron Age settings.

 

Making an extra effort to explain and rationalize a character's powers also is a very Iron Age-y thing. Using psionics to explain 95% of a setting's powers is also very Iron Age-y (Miraclaman's superstrength and invulnerability, the Midnighter's tactical mastery, pretty much all the characters in Wild Cards).

 

Character using their powers to their logical and lethal extremes is very Iron Age-y, like Elijah Snow using his ice powers in ways that would give nightmares to Iceman.

Re: Iron Age Philosophies

Science has to be a bit more believable. Not much, but a little. Or at least not to run completely counter to science. Genetical engineering, other dimensions, nose-bleeding psionics, magic based on real world traditions, real strange aliens, are all in. Radiation accidents, Kirby science, Dr. Strange magic, aliens that are psychologicaly and physicaly identical to humans are out.

Re: Foriegn Captain America's

Thanks' date=' good ideas, I'll probably swipe those at some point.[/quote']

 

You're welcome. A Brazilian expression that would be hard to translate but would be adequate for this hero's name could be "the Way". Mostly in the sense that he always would find a way to turn the situation into his advantage, often without resorting to violence.

 

 

Maybe a transsexual even' date=' if we're talking stereotyped views?[/quote']

 

Eh. I wasn't aware that Brazilians carried this particular stereotype in the eyes of the rest of the world. But yes, a shapeshifting character that regularly changed gender and/or race could play well into the amorous Brazilian Trickster stereotype.

 

Interestingly enough, in Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles", his trasvestite hero, Lord Fanny, is a Brazilian.

 

But no, I don't think we have more transexuals than any other country. This stereotype probably originates from Brazilian transexuals going to live in Europe, seeking a more tolerant climate and perhaps giving the impression that there is a lot of TG people here.

Re: Foriegn Captain America's

Hm... if we're talking national stereotypes turned superheroes, I think...

The premiere Brazilian hero would be a trickster hero, perhaps with illusion powers and enhanced dexterity and charisma, something like that. He would be a lazy, amorous, likeable chap. He would probably prefer to outfox and deceive his enemies over beating the crap out of them. He also would work outside the law frequently if need be to stop the bad guys (Brazilians usually don't have that American attitude of "Oh my God, I just broke a law! Oh no! Now I'm going into a slippery slope and I'll become a psycho!") but mostly in a non-violent way.

I don't know what this hero would be called. I'm very bad at creating names.

With a few alterations to the archetype (perhaps playing up the sex thing), this hero could be a heroine. A revealing "sexist" costume would certainly be more appropriate for a Brazilian heroine than for an American one, even though the idea that we live in Carnival 12 months a year is ridiculous.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

For me' date=' the definition of “realism†in rpgs is the following: the game world seems like a real place that could actually exist somewhere. A sci-fi world could be very realistic, even if it is very different than our own world in many ways. In order to achieve the illusion of reality, the world should be consistent with itself. In order to have a world with internal consistency, one needs a consistent set of rules. Therefore I would say the consistency is a necessary prerequisite for realism.[/quote']

 

I don't get you here. What consistency in the rules have to do with internal consistency of the world?

 

Imagine a fantasy/historical world where a clan of warrior people do battle. In this world their shamans use special drugs to enter into a trance and go into a dreamworld where they have mystical encounters. These warrior people also have, say, drinking contests and stuff.

 

Okay, this world I described is "consistent", there is nothing particularly jarring with it. Now, we could have a RULES system completely inconsistent to deal with the situations described. We could have combat rules, mystic dream world rules, and drinking contest rules all using different mechanics, and I don't see how this would make the WORLD any less realistic.

 

So, I still don't see any necessary link between realism and rules consistency.

 

 

The current scale for both STR and firearms is +1DC per each doubling of power.

 

STR can bring to mind a relationship between weight and damage, but this thing about guns isn't anywhere in the book. You mean the .44 has four times the power of the 9mm? You're talking about energy released by the guns or something?

 

 

In my games (and stories)' date=' each character is an individual that I try to make as real as possible. No major character would be a mere label (such as “enemyâ€) or mere “plot device.†When I include an important character in an rpg, I try to carefully define that character’s personality, history, and abilities. Thus my non-comic book games require at least as great a scope of power as most comic book worlds.[/quote']

 

I'm not implying anything here. It's just that you've chosen a bad example and I simply went with your example. Q has a "plot device" power in Star Trek in that he basically can do anything the GM wants him to do. So I doubt the Star Trek RPG has rules systems to deal with Q. I doubt a Call of Cthullu RPG has detailed rules systems to deal with ALL the abilities of the Great Old Ones... These types of characters aren't possible to be met directly by the PCs.

 

 

I have no problem with versatility' date=' but there is more than simple versatility to the super hero genre. A universal system should IMO avoid getting tied to those other elements. In other words, there is a huge difference between seeing the super-hero genre as an example of versatility, and confusing the super-hero genre with versatility itself.[/quote']

 

I merely said that *if* a universal system should tend to a genre, better that it be the superhero genre than another genre, because the superhero genre already is an amalgamation of pretty much all the genres of fantastic fiction. But I did NOT said that it's *ideal* that a universal system be patterned by the superhero genre.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

IMO a realism oriented system needs to be more consistent than one which in not concerned with realism. Unfortunately' date=' trying to get realism by patching on a number of house rules often has the reverse effect.[/quote']

 

No, because realism isn't the same as rules's set consistence.

 

For instance, a realism-oriented system would probably be more interested in properly simulating the details of how specific weapons work, what kinds of effects and wounds they cause in a human body, in trying to delineate how the skills work based on the way they work in the real world, etc. If there are lots of special situations and disparity between the rules systems used to detail different situations, that isn't a problem, as long as it all still maps properly to the real world, the system will be "realistic".

 

Consistence is another whole ball game. Actually, consistence in rules system most often results in abstraction, and abstraction usually detracts from hardcore realism.

 

 

Your suggestion about buying extra-damage to simulate higher damage from STR in a realistic game is a good example of what I'm talking about. I would have a problem with that method' date=' especially in a realistic game, because STR damage would then be based on a different scale than firearm damage. Which in turn would make the game less consistant and thus IMO less believable.[/quote']

 

I don't understand what you're talking about here. What different scale? You mean something like, if we get the energy released by a 44 Magnum shot, it should be able to power a lift of 1600 kg, because it's the same point cost than a 30 STR or something?

 

I wasn't talking about "scientific" realism when I mentioned the extra damage ruling. I don't care about that. I was just talking about simulating what is usually called "realistic" superhero stories. If those stories are actually "realistic" it's not something I'm discussing here.

 

 

I'd agree that comic-books feature a wide variety of power levels. But what about Sci-Fi like Star Trek? Star Trek characters include normal humans but also high-power entities like Q. Q seems to have almost infinite power' date=' so I can't see how comic-books actually feature a larger range of power levels.[/quote']

 

Q is a enemy (actually Q is a plot device). A Star Trek system RPG probably would not worry overmuch about putting Q and other gods in rules terms.The rules would worry more about normal humans and the alien races that the PCs and the enemies they can directly counteract will come from.

 

Power level and versatility aren't all that independent. I wasn't talking only about raw power when I said a universal system would not do badly if it patterned itself on the superhero genre.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

I don't normally play Champions' date=' and I question the idea that the Hero system should be all about the super-hero genre, so I wouldn't mind seeing the system spread out the curve a bit.[/quote']

 

There is one thing about the superhero genre beyond personal preferences, though: it's vast and varied. Superhero stories have vampires, mages, psis, cyborgs, and normal humans. While horror, fantasy, SF, etc. usually aren't so versatile. If there is a doubt, I think a "universal" system should err on the side of supers.

 

GURPS and HERO made me realize one thing: it's far easier to scale down and house rule a cinematic game to make it more realistic than to go the opposite direction and insert supers and cinematic action into a more realism-oriented system.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

As far as specifically being "reflective of comics" goes, I wonder how far a generic system should go to be reflective of a specific style.

 

And comics do cover a very wide range, so what simulates one style of comic may not cover a different style all that well.

The question is, in what direction should you go?

There are other instances of +5 pts = x2 of non-combat measurement in the rules. Noncombat Movement, Density Increase and Growth's extra weight, extra weight for Teleport, ED-Movement, UOO attacks...

You can keep the rule as it is, and buy HA if you want your 30 STR brick dishing out more damage. In extremely realistic games, you could even buy a HKA and/or Armor Piercing to better represent how superstrength is portrayed.

Or you can make the table less steep and make the high-level bricks buy extra STR with the Only to Lift Lim. Either way would be fine with me. Perhaps they should make a official ruling about how much extra Lifting STR would cost.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe uses a scale that is FLATLY CONTRADICTED by the comic books! It was an arbitrary scale they came up with and has little relation to an actual description of what the characters do when it comes to heavy lifting. I have no idea why anybody who has read Marvel Comics would allow a MINI-SERIES dictate the strength of the characters to them.

Well, I tried to say it more tactfully and calmly, but yes, that is basically right. The lifts listed on the Handbook are convenient to compare who is stronger than who, but the absolute values in tons seem to be off, even allowing for different writers picturing the character's powers differently.

I can understand the argument that in some stories, for instance, vampire tales, superstrong characters with a comparatively wimpy lift capability seem to cause great damage, but one can't forget that in such stories the vampires are hitting normal humans who should not have 15 PD, 40 STUN.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

But to be fair' date=' I don't believe that anybody has suggested changing to a linear system. The change to a different exponenital model would still allow Superman to be created relatively easily (compared to a linear system). If you were to double what a character can lift with every 10 points, a character who currently would be built with 125 STR would need 240 STR under the new system. 240 is quite a bit higher than 125 but at least it is still the same number of digits. [/quote']

 

Still, 240 STR would mean to wide the combat effectiveness gap between Superman-level characters and "standard" Bricks (if there is such a thing) in a too extreme way, IMO. I don't think it would be too reflective of comics.

 

But I don't think HERO is a sacred text. I'm okay with a less steep STR table, if there was more official support for a "Lift Only" Strength mechanic, more or less like in M&M and Aberrant. So we could keep Superman's combat strength at 125 and up only his Lift. That is, if we really have to make the table less steep.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, I think that simulating the comics is what Hyperion has in mind.

 

The problem is that, in the "offical listings" for the Marvel Universe (which Hyperion has mentioned), the strongest characters pretty much max out at 100 tons, but Hero allows characters to go far beyond this limit. Therefore, Hero does not work in the way that Hyperion expects. So he has rewritten the chart to place 100 tons lift at 100 STR (which if you are going by a chart, would probably the high end). Note: Since I can't read Hyperion's mind, I may be worng about his motivations, but I'd guess that I'm pretty close in this case.

 

I doubt there are many people left out there who respect the "official" listings they present in the Marvel Handbook. They're handy for a quick-and-dirty conversion, but even Colossus and Sub-Mariner, listed at 75-ton lift have routinely lifted much more. And I mean, routinely, not only on life-or-death situations that would allow for Pushing. Guys like Hulk and Thor can lift MUCH more than 100 tons on a routine basis.

 

Nowadays, I tend more to the side that thinks it's better to get the tonnage given in the Marvel Handbook and translate it directly into Champions STR for lifts greater than 40 tons. So, the Thing would have 85 STR, the calm Hulk would have 90-100 STR, etc.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

Now' date=' all that being said, as I think you may have seen me say elsewhere, I'm not at all dismissing your comments/concerns, I do think that we ought to strive to be able to simulate the genre, ideally doing it "perfectly", but there's simply so many complexities in the media forms themselves, inherently, that I think we have to acknowledge that distortion is not only necessary and inevitable, practically speaking, but even desirable.[/quote']

 

Surely, a bit of distortion is unavoidable, games simply aren't exactly the same as stories. For instance, the way PC groups usually have heroes with the same power point total. But this does not mean we have to cross the line into making the greatest comic book characters of all time unbuildable and unrecognizable under the system.

 

And most comic characters have worked in groups. Even those who have solo titles. There are very few exceptions (Spider-Man, Daredevil?, even they routinely work with partners that could be construed as games with 2-3 PCs).

 

Superman's power has waxed and waned, but I don't think there is any version of him that would be harder to be made to work into a Champions game than it was harder to make it work in the comics. Pre-Crisis Superman was a god, yes, and you can say that a GM would have to be very creative to craft adventures for him. But we have to note that in the Pre-Crisis universe the WRITERS themselves had to be very creative to craft stories for him too (and often failed or were forced to explore again and again stories that depended on Superman's Achilles Heels).

 

So that isn't HERO's fault, it's a flaw of that version of the character, IMO. But when GURPS can't even portray adequately the post-Crisis Superman version or the Smallville version, that works very fine in the comics and TV, then... well, I simply lose my respect for GURPS. Linear strength simply made Superman unplayable in GURPS.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

I don't think Superman is a "once in a blue moon character". Superman is the most important superhero there is and one of the most important characters in Western culture. If a generic universal game system proposing to simulate all varieties of heroic fiction is unable to do Superman and the many heroes patterned after him, then the system is weak.

That is one of my problems with old GURPS (I'm not sure about the new edition yet). The beauty of HERO is that you can give Supes a 125 STR and have him doing the big but not absurd amount of 25 dice of damage. In GURPS you'd have to, what, give him ST 30.000 to represent his lifting amount? And then he could destroy the universe with the damage he does with his little pinky.

Not to mention other problems created by the "x2 non-combat element must be equal x2 combat element" that is well-meaning but ultimately disastrous. Like, making the Flash pretty much impossible to build too.

I believe that the game system must follow the genre. Not that the genre must be distorted to fit in the game system, so we'd have bricks and speedsters that are much weaker than the comics versions because the game don't support them.

Now, okay, Golden Boy is the strongest man on Earth on Wild Cards "low-level realistic gritty" superhero world and he can "only" do 11d6 with his 40-ton strength. 11d6 isn't impressive, you say. I say it is impressive, when you consider that most characters in Wild Cards and other realistic superhero worlds will have PDs on the 3-8 range, and thugs and minions should definetely have very low PDs on realistic games.

And in the Wild Cards stories Golden Boy had to take plenty of time to rip into a tank. In game terms, I think he resorted to haymakers.

Re: What Gold/Silver/Iron Age story or series do you love?

I never read much of the Golden Age comics, and DC's Silver Age, even though I like the crazy ideas, I think the characters are a bit too bland and a bit too interchangeable, and I'm unable to really get involved. I prefer Stan Lee's bombastic melodramatic Marvel comics, but the only one I've read many issues of is "Fantastic Four".

I'm really a scion of the Bronze Age, my favorite Marvel series would be:

- John Byrne's Fantastic Four (IMO, the definitive Marvel comic book)

- Claremont's X-Men (until they "died" in Dallas, it went kinda downhill after that), New Mutants, and Excalibur

- Walt Simonson's Thor

- Louise Simonson's X-Factor issues

- Miller's Daredevil, Ann Nocenti's run I also liked

- Micheline's Iron Man

- JMdeMatteis's Captain America and the first half of Gruenwald's run (the last half is pretty hideous IMO).

- Stern and deFalco's Spider-Man

- Peter David's Hulk (okay, that is very late Bronze Age)

On the DC side, the only series I liked were Wolfman's Teen Titans, Levitz's Legion, and the occasional Batman story I got to read. Most of the other titles seemed like Silver Age-y icons desperately trying to become more modern and failing utterly.

It all changed after Crisis (IMO for the better), and I confess I kinda switched to DC for a while, favorites would be:

- Byrne's Superman

- Perez's Wonder Woman

- Bill Messner-Loebs's Flash

- Stern's Starman (Will Payton)

- Morrison's Animal Man

- Captain Atom

- Hawk & Dove

- Truman's Hawkworld (probably the utmost test to see whether you valued good stories or continuity. The series pretty much wrecked DC's continuity, but was beautifully written with a rare thing: a introspective, sensitive Iron Age character, IMO)

I liked the beginning of Giffen and deMatteis's Justice League, but I got tired of it pretty quickly, and positively started to abhor it when all the "light-hearted" sitcom spin-offs started.

By then I had pretty much given up on Marvel, except for Nicieza's New Warriors. That series was the last survivor of the Bronze Age Marvel. Whenever I looked Marvel had became all-flash no-content.

Iron Age superhero books from the 80s... let me see... Watchmen I loved, but today I think that perhaps I don't loved it as much as everyone else anymore. If we're talking Alan Moore, I think "Miracleman" has aged better. I was never a fan of Miller's Dark Knight and felt kinda vindicated by the atrocious sequel Miller produced recently. Hm... and the Wild Cards series probably is my favorite superhero work from all time, I've read each book ten times, but that isn't comic books...

And so I gave up on comics but got back years later and my favorite modern comics would be a good blend of Retro and Iron:

Alan Moore's Tom Strong

Astro City

Powers

JMS's Rising Stars (went a bit downhill after the first trade, but still kinda good IMO)

JMS's Supreme Power

Warren Ellis's Planetary

The Ultimates

James Robinson's Starman (Jack Knight)

That pretty much sums up my life as a superhero fan.

I occasionaly sampled and liked current "lighter" comics such as Waid's Fantastic Four, New Teen Titans, Outcasts... but I couldn't say I'm really into them. As I got older, it seemed like I started to require a diet of weirder stuff and they seem too straightforward superheroics for me, even though they're damned good straightforward superheroics.

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

Check out his *last* couple of Authority threads, then.

 

Part of our reaction to him is that he's not exactly a first offender.

Well, based on what I've read on this thread alone, I don't think he was especially arrogant. But I can't talk about the earlier threads. And I've seen four colour fans being arrogant and rude in threads that didn't even had Wanderer's presence. Am I to assume that Wanderer has been so offensive that four-color fans are so scarred that they come guns blazing in threads that don't even have Wanderer's presence? Take a look at the "Ultimate Champions" thread, for instance. Evil Toki just suggested something Iron Age(without implaying that other styles were worse) and was almost killed by some posters.

Re: Does Champions encourgage conformity?

Your point is? Steve also has writer credits for WOD:Combat. Doesn't mean that the rest of WOD had any sense of balance.

Yeah, but Aberrant isn't World of Darkness, it's a much smaller line. And I've read that Steve worked specifically on the powers part. I'm not sure if he worked alone at it, though.