Rene

Totally agree. Why overcomplicate things when there are easy solutions at hand?

Yes, I'm with you. I'd build Sebastian Shaw with *very* high levels of Armor and also some Absorption to STR. I wouldn't even apply the Limitation: "Only vs. Kinetic Damage" to the Armor, because most "weird" attacks (like Ororo's cold field) would be built with NND anyway. We could also apply some Susceptibility that kicks off whenever Shaw is hit by an attack too big to be deflected by his Armor, simulating "overload" or something. PS: Shaw would need lots of KB Resistance too.

I think this kind of stuff is better simulated with Mind Control with the Limitation Set Command: "Freeze". In the first case, substitute INT Roll for EGO Roll as the Breakout Roll. I guess it would have to be NND too, since Mental Defense wouldn't protect against it.

Ultimate Martial Artist is one of the best HERO books out there! I think it may be my favorite so far, even though I'm not really a Martial Arts fan, it's an extremelly useful book. Yep, it's hard to compare the two games without sparking some controversy. I still hold to the oppinion that each game works best in a certain power (and 'epic-ness') level. It's not like you can't do a High-Power GURPS game or a Low-Level HERO game it's just that you'll have to use more optional rules and probably house rules too. Furthermore, I think it's easier to do a Low-Level HERO game than a High-Level GURPS game.

I don't know, I've never played in low-powered games. I'm just talking about stuff I've heard. But it's true that a lot depends on the players and the GM. Some groups will not max out STR, DEX, and CON just because it's advantageous to do so. Some groups are more creative in coming up with low-power custom-build special abilities to further differentiate characters. Some groups will have lots of background skills, and so forth, and so forth.

Maybe, but one common complaint is that there is no diversity to normal characters in HERO. I'm not sure about that. GURPS characters usually have Attributes ranging from 8 to 16. HERO has 8, 10, 13, 15, 18... I don't see it as so much more limited, but some people disagree. Both HERO and GURPS have large selections of Skills, Perks, and Disadvantages. GURPS allows you to fine-tune skill levels more precisely. As for GURPS Advantages, you can rebuild them in HERO using Powers and Skills (and creativity). Things can get weird in combat, though. Even using all the optional damage rules, HERO combat is still a little too cinematic. Guns are less dangerous in HERO than in GURPS, for instance.

"Counter-factual" and "Idiotic" ideas? Well, intelligent and educated people are humans too. Usually they're oppinionated, argumentative humans. And some of them will have oppinions contrary to yours (or mine). I've learned that sometimes it can be more relaxing to circulate among your intelectual lessers. Less educated people either don't try to argue, or they do it poorly and are easy to dismiss. It's when you get to know people as intelligent as yourself and that don't feel intimidated by your ideas that things can get explosive very fast.

I liked it. From what you described, it resembles the Ars Magica system a little. You could easily model several kinds of magicians by giving bonuses/penalties to cast certain "schools" of spells according to your class, forbidding certain schools to certain classes, or requiring that certain classes make use of specific props or rituals to avoid getting penalties (or gaining bonuses) in spellcasting. The flexibility of this kind of system is infinite, it's very easy to modify too.

Such games are more popular than one might think. There are people who enjoy roleplaying mostly normal people getting involved in adventures. Not me though. I favor the epic. GURPS cover this kind of game very well. There is a lot you can do based in historical fiction, horror fiction, mistery fiction, and stuff like that. GURPS tends to break when you add too much fantastical elements in character creation, though.

Interesting. Could you give more details? Some fans said the magic system from d20 Modern would do the job, but I think it's the same old same old magic system, only powered down. I was thinking, as bad as the wide disparity among levels can be in D&D, at least it's more in genre than the magic system. There are a lot of fantasy stories (specially the fat book trilogies) where the main characters finish the story a lot more powerful than they begun.

Hey, thanks. It's just that I can get heated in discussions. I'd add one more thing in D&D's favor. Genre simulation not always translates to ease of play. D&D's philosophy has always been "if you try to do A, and roll X, then Y happens", it's straighforward and there is very little left to GM's interpretation in the magic system. Accurate simulation of magic in genre would require more from the GM. And I don't think that is D&D's style.

That can be a problem in pencil-and-paper too, when you get a hardcore simulationist GM. Low-levels are too easy to kill and high-levels are too hard. It takes a careful GM to avoid the problem (and it must be said that 3rd edition alleviated the problem somewhat, making the mage class less wimpy, for instance).

I'd say D&D is closer to Tolkien and Howard than to most other fantasy writers. It's just that I don't think it's particularly close even to these writers. And D&D is closer to genre simulation IF we ignore the magic system. It's in the magic system that D&D is the most different from fantasy literature. In Tolkien, magic is low-key, subtle, mostly off-stage. In Howard, magic is dangerous to cast, sinister, unpredictable. Even with fantasy writers that portray magic as colorful and powerful, it's very different from D&D magic. In most fantasy literature, magic differs from D&D magic in the following ways: - Magic almost never is a times-per-day thing. Wizards can cast spells as many times as they wish, but usually it's a tiring process and/or requires time-consuming preparations. Magic is more of a END Cost thing than a Charges thing, to put it in HERO terms. - The memorize-cast-forget thing also is very rare in fiction. Magic most times involves study, but once learned, a mage don't need to memorize a spell every time he casts it. Some spells may require reading from a book, but this works more like D&D scrolls than spells per se. I. e. the mage needs to have the book to cast the spell, he can't just memorize it for later (it's more or less a Independent Focus). - Magic almost never has a set result. Circunstances affect it heavily and how "well" a mage casts a spell in a given moment should affect it heavily too. In system terms, the best way to simulate magic is as action that depends on a roll, with higher rolls giving better results. Likewise, magic that backfires or has some side effect is very common. - Most magic in fantasy is, to an extent, "free form". Even when mages use to restrict themselves to some known tried-and-true effects, they also can "stretch" their muscles and improvise in times of dire need. All of this is very counter to the way D&D magic works. Don't worry. You've always been very polite. If anything, it's I that should apologize. I think games like 'Ars Magica" and "Mage: the Ascension" generally manage to portray magic in a way much more fitting to fantasy literature than D&D. Even if these games have too-powerful magic for most fantasy novels, the basic mechanics are very fitting.

I don' think D&D is a failure. It's very successful as a game. I only said D&D was a spectacular failure as genre simulation. It does a extraordinarly poor job of simulating literature fantasy. I'm not a snob. I think everything that sells a lot has to have something right about it. D&D works very well as a game. But it's so different from fantasy novels that we could say that "D&D fantasy" (such as the fantasy of some videogames and novels published by TSR) is a altogether different genre than literature fantasy. I just had a interesting thought. If there is something that is closer to D&D it's some anime/manga fantasy. That is true. The GM has to do all the work if he wants to create flavor. And even if he does his job right, it can be hard. I've heard some players saying that generic systems are like seeing how the magician does the trick, it kills the mystery. I don't agree, but I can understand why some people feel this way. Still, with HERO one can hope to recreate the magic system from a particular fantasy novel, and that is impossible with D&D. Of course, the best possible solution would be to have a entire system designed from the ground-up based on the novel. But since most novels don't spawn RPGs, HERO is still the best bet.

Horror and folklore magic is even further distant from D&D magic than fantasy (Tolkien, say, is closer to D&D), IMO. Horror magic uses to be unpredictable, risky, moody, somewhat "chaotic". Whereas D&D magic is "science-like" and clean. I can even agree with you that HERO magic don't have a "feel". I think it's hard to give it a feel, it depends a lot on how the GM designs the world and presents it to the players. That D&D magic has "more" of a feel of magic than HERO is like saying a elephant is closer to a human being than a fish. It's true, but none of them really looks like a human. I think D&D is a fun and successful game in several ways. But I also think it's the most spectacular failure in genre simulation in the RPG industry. It's only to be expected that a RPG will have a hard time influencing the field that originated it. But D&D has become a kind of negative touchstone for many fantasy writers. It's not unusual to see comments like "the further a fantasy story is from D&D, usually the better it is". BTW, I hate Tolkien.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I'd disagree with this last statement. Apart from some Jack Vance stories and novels published by TSR and set specifically in the D&D worlds, D&D-like spell systems are pratically unheard of in fiction. D&D spell system has some of the same trappings of fantasy fiction (dusty books, some of the spell names and effects), but works in a completelly different way that don't look much archaic or fantasy-like to my mind. Fantasy magic don't work in the memorize-fire-forget way, it don't has the "scientific" predictability and reliability, it don't comes from a neat list compiled by the mage, and don't has a times-per-day limit. All of that gives D&D magic a kind of "science fantasy" aspect that is quite unlike how magic is depicted in traditional fantasy and even most science fantasy stories. I understand why they did it this way though. Mostly for easy of play and simplicity. It also underscores D&D's origins as a tabletop/combat game. It's telling that D&D-style of magic is much more common in videogame fantasy. In fact, to my mind, it conjures the same "feel" of videogame fantasy, and very little of the mistery and wonder of literature fantasy.

The writer sometimes seemed like he was ranting and venting steam. Even when some of his arguments made sense, it seemed offensive. Some of the best paragraphs had stuff like this: "You have noticed that there is no 'Mega-Hero' option in this game. No Superman, no gods. It's because this is a thinking man game. Too powerful characters are skull-bashers, get lost." "There is no Neutral alignment in this game and there will never be. It's impossible for a human being to have something like true neutrality, he wouldn't be able to fight, adventure, eat, sleep, etc. etc." "The first issue of this game had no magic-using characters, that is why I don't like magic in superhero games. But now I've been forced to include it, because too many players wished for it. I still don't like magic in supers, but what can I do."

I'm a supers fans, and sometimes I feel left out too. 90% of the Champions books is Champions Universe stuff, and I'm not particularly fond of the setting. I'd rather see more diversity.

The only situation that I feel random generation can be cool is for one-time-only games (when no one can afford the time to custom-design characters) or short campaigns at best. BTW, I just got a used copy of Heroes Unlimites out of curiosity. Very, very weird game. I had never read a Palladium Book before. I found chargen to be fascinating in the way a car accident can be fascinating. Seems to me like you roll for everything and the rules are shock-full of special cases. And classes/levels for superheroes is a mind-boggling concept. And the author sometimes uses a... vocal arrogant style to address the reader that I'd never seen before in RPGs (sure, lots of writers are arrogant, but they usually manage to cover up with an "impersonal" style of writing, just like movie or literature critics), but with this guy I felt he was there in the room shouting at me.

Tell me about it! There is nothing worse than random generation. It seems like everybody rolls the kinds of characters they most hate. Murphy's Law. Fortunately, in 3rd Edition D&D you can chose where to put every roll. Still bad when only one guy in each group has several 17s and 18s, while the rest is always mediocre. There is always one lucky guy in every group, and it usually is the guy that is least interested in the game, ironically. I HATE random character generation.

Some are salvageable. I "inherited" a group from a GM that used to terrorize us. It was the kind of game where multiple PC deaths in a game session are the rule, not the exception. The system (it was AD&D) was very deadly and the GM was a "simulationist" who didn't cared if everyone died in the first encounter. To make things worse, most players there were used to this kind of game. The mood in that group wasn't good. There was some excitement, but it was closer to the excitement you feel when you're about to do a really hard and important math exam. That and a bit of how soldiers in bloody wars must feel. There wasn't much real fun, and no one roleplayed. Everybody was too afraid and nervous. That experience soured me big time for deadly systems. Anyway, when I started to GM I chose to change things completely. Make it more like a movie and less like a war experience. Let the players relax a little. Give them the center stage instead of the grave and back to character building yet again. Took me a while to cure them of their paranoia ("check every single stone in the road for traps!"), but eventually I suceeded and they started to roleplay.

Well, some players are better than others. Some people can handle both intense roleplay and intense tactical thinking simultaneously and do everything in character. Some (most) can't do this very well. My impression is that when the game system is too deadly, most players will, obviously, put survival first. The intense fear of losing their characters at any moment will override any other considerations. That means they spend most of their time munchkining their characters during character creation. During the game proper, they will all act like machine-cold master tacticians and chess players, no matter if that is in character or not. You will not see traits like impulsiveness, arrogance, bravery, paralyzing cowardice, or anything that is contrary to survival in game (except if the player is a loose cannon that don't value his character, but loose cannons mostly are disruptive and don't care really for the game). I saw characters in AD&D that NEVER took their armor off, for instance. NEVER. Not even when they were in their own houses. They never bathed, never got laid, etc. Because they were too afraid to die "I have only 6 hit points, you know, I can be attacked by surprise if I take my armor off". It's a kind of meta-game "roleplaying" that I don't really care for. I prefer systems that insulate characters from death a little more, allowing the player to relax a little bit and play it up. Of course, systems where death or defeat is too rare can be equally bad, because players then become complacent.

For RPGs that try to simulate a genre, obviously I look at how closely it manages to do it. Any superhero RPG that claims to simulate comic book reality, but fail my "Justice League" test is instantly considered trash. For "generic" RPGs, obviously what matters here most is how generic they really are, after all. GURPS fails this badly for trying to be at the same time generic and "realistic", overlooking the fact that 90% of heroic fiction isn't realistic to the extent that GURPS tries to be. For games that contain descriptions of a world/setting, it's very important that the book manages to get across the mood and make it come alive for me. You can say what you will of White Wolf products, but at least in this I think they do fine. I still remember the first time I've read "Vampire", it was a very powerful experience (I'm less fond of most supplements, though). Now that the broad bases are covered, here is my list of pet peeves. There is a big chance I'll like a game more if it avoids them: - Random character generation. - Attack disconnected from defense. - Too much predictability in damage, when you just know you can easily kill someone with a single punch or you don't stand a chance to scratch them. - Very deadly systems, I think they encourage tactical thinking instead of Roleplaying. - Games where the PCs are very weak and unimportant. - Settings that values the NPCs too much. They may be cool to read about, but I like it more when the spotlight is on the PCs, both when I GM and when I play

For some groups, NCM is the medicine that can be worse than the disease. All that it does is making sure mostly everyone will have a 20 in all Chars that are useful to them. This problem is very real, Fantasy HERO itself devotes some pages to it. Those pages left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Actually, some Chars are so cheap and effective that even with NCM in place it may be a good bargain to buy them past 20. STR and INT (the last one for mages) are good examples. One solution I've found for this problem is to educate your players carefully to try to stick to concept even when it's disadvantageous to them. It's easier to do it when you get players that are new to HERO and aren't math freaks. Of course, as the GM you've got to do your part and not give 20 STR and 20 DEX to every city guard, create stories that have combat but don't rely only in pure combat (so as not to reward too much the character built for absolute combat efficiency), etc. It can be done. But I'd rather they've changed the Characteristic costs or found another way to change their efficiency.

No one way of playing is inerently better. And I don't even agree with some others that your style of play is what is inflating Fantasy chars. I rather think that is a cost/efficiency issue. But I was not quite getting into the NCM stuff, not directly. I wrote up Batman with 27 DEX once. I think that (at least in the comics) "highly trained" is as good as "superhuman agile" and you can do both by upping Characteristics, if said character's training elevated him all-around in athletic matters, for instance. It's just that I don't happen to think *every* super needs high Chars. For instance, I don't think most pure blasters, mystics, and psionics from comics have many Chars above 20 (though there are exceptions, like Psylocke, who isn't a pure psionic, after all). I also don't think most bricks from comics have high DEX. And, most important of all, thugs and NPCs (and villains!) are designed accordingly. I've found that my style is good for me, for many reasons. It really helps to differentiate characters, the range really becomes 10-30 in Chars and 3-8 in SPD. It also helps to rein in power inflation when you need something explicit in your concept to allow you to buy high Characteristics. It makes combat faster (less STUN to go around), etc. Does it simulates the comics perfectly? I'm not sure. Comics are seldom consistent. Different writers make different asumptions. You have issues where Cyclops looks like Indiana Jones even without his powers. You have other issues where a human-level enemy knocks him out easily with some luck. I can see both styles being "right".