Hugh Neilson

How different would this be from the Mutants and Masterminds approach (emulated a bit, I think, in Champions Complete) of providing template characters. The main difference I perceive would be taking this one step further to package up "upgrades" and "compromises" as pre-fab packages, rather than making the player hunt around for +2d6 Blast or -1 SPD. I think this would be another example of a "game powered by Hero", as it requires setting campaign defaults, maximums and even minimums (assuming each upgrade and compromise can be taken only once, or only X times). Games, not just a game design system, are needed to attract new players and GMs.

Firewing holds a place in our Game Legends for the game where he was expected to distract the hero team. Until the (massively) overconfident Brick called out "Hey Flame-boy. You and me. One on one. Or are ya CHICKEN?" In Phase 12, the player asked for the penalty to his EGO roll to bring himself to Dodge in the hopes of getting a PS 12 recovery. He insisted on an Ego roll. He succeeded, and Firewing missed by 1. The Brick lasted another half a turn. Meanwhile, the rest of team stopped the real opposition while he kept Firewing busy.

To me, this is another area that comes down to more or less granular resolution systems. A game focused on hockey or baseball needs a granular resolution system for the games themselves. But a fight can probably be resolved with opposed skill checks if combat won't be a major factor in the game.

Not to defend Clown specifically, but the possibility of challenges that cannot be resolved by violence seems quite appropriate for most games, especially Supers games.

If a Triggered power won't go off after the character who set the Trigger dies, land mines seem to have an issue...

So...a rhinoceros?

It would not be that unreasonable to expand the destruction to both Windsor and Detroit. You can look north across the river from Windsor and see Detroit. If it were not for the international border, they would likely be one city already. A high-tech city in two countries would make for some interesting politics.

That was the initial build, however a mechanic has to come from somewhere. I started from a different angle, being the ability to hit multiple times without needing a new roll to hit, with an Uncontrolled Constant attack. So how might one buy a single fire and forget action that keeps attacking, but has to roll to hit each time? That's less limited than what the OP wants, so how do we drop that down? Normally if I want to use something that takes Extra Time, I have to wait the Extra time. One example using levels is a rifle scope. Applying the rules in that way, your model provides a considerable advantage in that the attack could hit without suffering from the time delay. You are also applying a limitation to 2-point skill levels, which RAW does not permit. As the linked thread shows, there's no simple Hero mechanic for this. As well, most power-based builds end up on the pricy side when I could just buy extra OCV and be more likely to hit with no delay every time. The added OCV simulation also supports the use of an adder rather than an advantage, as skill levels would be a fixed cost. For +4 points (+2 OCV with one attack), I could have been more likely to hit with every attack, so one extra chance to hit on (say) my next phase should cost less than that, or at least no more than that. Perhaps a 3 point Adder for one followup attempt, +2 for each doubling of the followups would be a reasonable price. One thing the OCV bonus analysis shows is that this should not be an expensive ability, given how cheap it would be to just have a better chance to hit with the initial attack. Still liking that Uncontrolled without Constant +1/2 for an attack that keeps trying no matter how many times it succeeds, though.

For +1, the power could be Uncontrolled and Constant - dump in your END, hit once and it just keeps on hitting. +1/2 would have made it Constant - hit once, and as long as you keep using your phase, you keep hitting again. So let's take the extra +1/2 for Uncontrolled (I don't have to keep spending phases, but I have to commit the END up front) and have a +1/2 advantage that allows me to pay END for multiple attacks. One goes off now, and one goes off each subsequent phase, making a new attack roll each time. If it can only hit once, that makes it less useful. Maybe we call that a +1/4 advantage. That seems like a starting point, at least.

You're too subtle for this crowd, Duke...

The first victim of edition changes not resulting in character rewrites. In 1e, for which he was written, STR added to HKAs without limits. Monster had, IIRC, 60 STR and a 1d6 HKA, for a 5d6 HKA with STR. In 2e, when republished, no changes were made, so he had a 1d6 HKA + 1d6 STR = 2d6 HKA. To Menton, that aspect of his character is no different than the first season of Alias on the Netflix Marvel shows, the same as the Killgrave/Purple Man character evolved in the comics. He can control minds. He abuses that ability. Do you think it would be different if those abilities existed in reality?

True. If the goal was to simplify it, toss a coin. Heads we win, tails we lose Or make it a skill check - "well, you guys are quite a bit tougher, so you win on a 14-". Added granularity slows down combat. 1e D&D (just stand there toe to toe) was a lot simpler, but a lot less fun. We had a player years back who was very math-challenged. We built a grid. 3-18 on one axis (what he rolled), and a spread of possible OCVs based on his character's abilities on the other. The grid set out the maximum DCV he would hit. The 10s trick is so ingrained I don't even think to suggest it any more. Our math-challenged player buddied up for counting. Keeping defenses evenly divisible by 10 makes this a lot easier. Divisible by 5 is an option; a bit tougher. Actually, if you really want to reduce adding dice, focus your game less on defenses and more on damage negation! Typically, the GM will be among the most familiar with the system, so that helps. The GM can also implement tricks that players need not follow, like using averages for most dice in an attack so the villains get less volatile damage, but less GM dice-counting. One easy change, especially for players who struggle with "low roll is good"... Make high rolls to hit superior. The attacker rolls and adds OCV. The defender is hit if that total exceeds DCV+10. Get DCV+10 on the sheets instead of base DCV. This would need a different critical system if you're using "roll half", but the system isn't really designed for criticals, and a need to halve the rolls only adds more math issues.

I recall looking at a Supers game years back where combat seemed really long and realizing that, if I reduced every villain's defenses by about 10 and added 3 DCs to their attacks, combat would go a lot quicker. If your game features 12d6 attacks and 30 - 35 defenses (no one likes being stunned or one-punched), combat will take a long time. Take the villains designed on the same model, bump their attacks to 15d6 (so they average another 10 or so STUN) and drop their defenses to 20-25 (so they also take about 10 or so more stun) and combat will go faster. How many average hits will it take to KO an opponent? That number will drive length of combat.

I personally dislike "different rules for PCs", but my equivalent is that the NPCs are generally far less committed (stubborn?) than PCs. Recovered with 4 STUN after PS12? Glance around; looks bad for our side? Time to slip away, not rejoin the fight. It's hard to say how to speed it up without knowing what is slowing it down. Players struggle with adding up all those dice? Standardize some at 3.5 STUN and 1 BOD (best to knock off even numbers of dice) and only leave a few to roll. Player struggles with changing OCV/DCV? Put a list of common configurations together (max OCV, Max DCV and standard use of each typical power or maneuver.

In my view, the change from 5e to 6e achieved the objective of making killing attacks serve that purpose: KILLING, not knocking out, the opponent. In a four-colour Supers game, this would relegate KAs to a niche power - this is not a genre where killing opponents is a common occurrence. With slightly higher average BOD, the KA may have some utility dealing with automatons, barriers, entangles, etc.

And eventually we get the AVAD (or NND - if someone has the defense, it was acquired for this specific attack) against Hardened Resistant Impenetrable Smell Flash Defense. "Beware My Power - Green Trashcan's Scent!" This is a great way to have an arm's race - "Oh yeah, well Captain Skunk's attack is AVAD against double Hardened Resistant Impenetrable Smell Flash Defense!!" Or we simply rule that exotic defenses are resistant by default and assess AVADs and NNDs with care.

I was more envisioning the situation in your game extending over years, first just being reminded every game that this guy is still out there, charging for Super-Services. Then, when you become aware of his behind-the-scenes activities, you spend many games investigating, but nothing ever sticks. This drags on incessantly - you never get that satisfying win, or even the opportunity to confront Captain Heroic. The Joker is more recurring - Batman wins, but the Joker keeps coming back. Even a long-running game will never approach the number of Bat-Stories published over his long history, though, and reappearances of old enemies should therefore be commensurately fewer. A well-used recurring villain's return will be seen as an "event" by the fans (or the players). A poorly-used recurring villain will get that "them again?" reaction like your comment above of "Anytime we saw these guys, we knew it was gonna be a long night. "

This seems like a positive example of an "annoying villain". The PCs were engaged with an active dislike for the villain, and challenged to find even an excuse to try to take him down. When they did find a reason and win the struggle to take him down, that "incredibly satisfying" result would not have been nearly as strong, I suspect, if he had been less annoying, or more easily/quickly dealt with. I think a lot of "annoying villains" (and other annoyances in RPGs) start out with this kind of expected result, but the GM (or maybe a player whose character may have an annoying trait or two) becomes overly enamoured of the villain, background element, NPC, etc. (or the player becomes overly fond of that annoying trait), so it doesn't get resolved, but just drags on.

325 points + up to 75 in complications is not much different than 400 points and 75 points in matching complications. Either way, you have 400 points and 75 points of complications, or you can have 325 points and no complications.

Starting with limited elements of the game is a good teaching mechanism. You could also design a game (Hero is less a game than a system for building a game) that carves out a lot of elements. I'm not sure that this is any greater variety of concepts than a d20 game, other than the one element of rolling low rather than high to hit/succeed on a skill roll. I'd stick with d6 thanks - much higher average per point spent. Even if you made it 6 per die, it would still be marginally better than a d8 for 8 or a d12 for 12.

Back in the day, the Star Trek RPG (old enough that no one had to ask "which series") stimulated a great article about the tropes needed to get the feel of Star Trek. The Prime Directive - we don't interfere. Integrity - Starfleet Academy is filled with tests of character and opportunities to flunk out, so those who make it through all have high inegrity. "Take me and free my men." - the Captain would trade his life for any crewman. But it also discussed the tropes the GM had to honour. That integrity leads to challenges, but success and not failure. When the Captain walks into a hopeless situation to save that random crew member, it's not really hopeless- there is always a way to turn the tide. "Phasers, Sir? Ye've got 'em - I managed to restore one bank." I'm amazed how often I read GM diatribes of their players who refuse to follow genre tropes, and instead gravitate to murderhobos who don't trust or care about NPCs. Then we dig a little deeper. Heroes show restraint? They lose the combat and the villains win. Heroes don't kill? The villain comes back, this time causing even more damage to anything the PCs/players care about. Trust an NPC? You get betrayed. Those genre tropes the heroes follow cause them challenges, but they also come back to the heroes' benefit, not their detriment. If the GM won't follow that trope, why would the players follow their genre tropes?

I think how one takes that scene (and the joke in general) depends on...well, in case someone does not want the joke spoiled

From 6e v1 p 266 So only the "true form" pays for Multiform. No, they do not. Page 268 is clear and unambiguous. What is the "main form" - you have introduced an undefined term to the discussion. The character must have a true form, which can be any of the forms. Again from 6e v1 p 266 As a result, many find Multiform overpowered. The true form, Willie Weenie, can spend all his points on Multiform, and spend all his time in alternate forms. When the Multiform is unlimited, most GMs will restrict alternates to the campaign normal point totals, so no 1,000 point alternate form in a 400 point game. Even so, having eight alternate forms, each at campaign maximum, plus a true form that sinks all those leftover points into skills and perks, can make the rest of the team feel entirely redundant.

APG definitely includes things that were left out of 6e core for whatever reasons Steve had. We discussed suffocation when 6e was in drafting stages, but I believe it was left for APG due to possible balance concerns, for example. But some stuff in APG was likely "too niche" to merit word count in the main book. I definitely agree with costing things out, even if only roughly, to have a sense of the value of the item.

I think extradimensional space is an easy approach, provided you're comfortable with APG content. Given the space is, by nature, extradimensional, I see no need for Transdimensional. The important thing is that you get the desired results, and this seems to do the trick (even if a bit of judgment is required around the edges to fill in "GM call" aspects). Many of us (myself more so than most) get wrapped up in the build details. Getting the desired effect and feel is what's really important, especially as it looks like this will be a magic item for which character points aren't paid anyway. I can't imagine the choice of mechanics used to get the effect you're looking for having much detrimental impact on a game, although it's handy if you want to replicate the effect later (e.g. a player wants a spell with a similar effect).