Hugh Neilson

This. This this this this this. THIS!!! As Brian notes above, I doubt many of us learned Hero at or after 4e. If anyone wants to chime in and tell me they learned it later, please do. Please also tell me whether you learned it from an existing player/group, because I would really like to see anyone tell me they learned Hero from the 4e or later rule books. Is there even ONE of us who did? We learned playing Champions, or Espionage! or Justice Inc. or Danger International or maybe even Fantasy Hero. We learned playing a Game Powered by Hero, not using the Hero system to design our own game. Maybe we picked talents from Justice Inc. or spells from Fantasy Hero, or maybe we built spells or powers from the (much slimmer) Powers rules of the day. But we did not buy a set of game design rules, set out to design our own game and run that. We bought a game to play Superheroes, or Spies, or Pulp Characters or Fantasy Characters. That's the characters we created, and the game we started playing. And maybe, somewhere along the line, we (like the creators of Champions) thought "wait a minute - I could run OTHER games/genres using these rules - it's got a solid system behind it". But it wasn't the system that brought us in - it was a GAME. To me, Action Hero! hearkens back to that. Here's a game. If you decide to buy support material, or other Hero Games, or the whole Hero system, or devote the rest of your gaming life to all things Hero, never again allowing some other system to cast a shadow on your gaming table, great. And if all you do is play Action Hero!, maybe even interspersing it with other games, using other systems, that's great too. Because either of those extremes is using the Hero System. And either one keeps Hero alive, maybe even growing or thriving. Hero System doesn't need to be defended from Action Hero! - Action Hero! as Brian describes it (in any of the various permutations and combinations he's pondered out loud on these Boards) is a game designed, constructed and played using the Hero System - that's the whole point of the Hero System.

Now, when I look at those templates, and I look at the 3e D&D books that provided quick builds for characters (i.e. "just pick 2 skills, +1 per INT bonus, and max out skill points there; here's a starting feat, and a second if you are human; here's some gear...; elves have these abilities), I thought "how I hate being shoehorned into specific character builds". So let's play Hero, where I can build any character I can imagine. Then I looked at the rules and - can you believe it - they don't give me a template for an elf, and a template for a fighter. Now how am I supposed to build my character?

Shouldn't you be using a cricket, rugby, soccer football (the round-ball one without all the padded clothes) or golf analogy?

Let's be clear: There is no "2e Hero System". There was 1e Champions, 2e Champions (and some other games), 3e Champions (and some other games) and then 4e Hero System (which was initially bundled with Champions source and genre material as "Champions 4e") which became Hero System 5e and 6e. Brian's Action Hero proposal is probably the closest thing we could ever have to a proposed revision to play like "2e Hero System", as it proposes a 6e version of the very first, 2e, non-Champions Hero System game. Prior to 4e, Hero published a series of different games using common core mechanics, often modified for the specific game (Danger International had new skills and different Martial Arts, I believe; Justice Inc. presented "weird talents" as pre-built abilities, not a do it yourself powers system to build your own, and Fantasy Hero added some powers and removed others for their Spell system. Prior to 4e, the products were independent games first, system second. Fantasy Hero presented a magic system, not a "choose your own magic system" textbook with half a dozen examples, none with enough detail to play a game with out of the box. The first Fantasy Hero allowed you to build a wizard similar to D&D - choose your school(s) of magic and buy spells. Some were even "higher level" spells in that you needed x points of other spells from that school before you could buy this one. There is precious little difference between "here is a game with all the dials pre-set to emulate 2e" and "toolkitting 6e to play like 2e". The difference between learning 6e and 2e falls largely on the GM. 2e did not say "maybe you have knockback or perhaps knockdown or you could have nothing" and "perhaps you want some or all of hit locations, and impairing/disabling wounds, and bleeding rules, and shock from injuries" and so on. It had Knockback (no other options, although I suppose you could just ignore those rules) and there were no hit locations, critical hits, impairing, disabling, bleeding, shock... With all the dials set, the GM can build Ogre, some thugs and a little old lady, the players can build Starburst and Crusader, we draw the bank on the battlemat and we're ready to play. But Starburst's player did not have to ask "Um...multipower is a Yield Sign - can we have those in this game? Is mine OK?" That dial was already set. There was a ton of support for 5e. Genre books, sub-genre books, sample power books, setting books, what have you. How did that work out? Back in the 1e - 4e days, Hero was a major player in the RPG field. And it produced games powered by a system, not a system you could use to build your own games. Was it just a coincidence that the shift from "games with common mechanics" to "mechanics you can use to build a game" correlated with diminished interest and sales? I think Action Hero may bring some players into the full Hero system. Maybe it will pave the way for other Hero-Powered games (just like Mutants and Masterminds got a boost out of the gate because it was d20, and you already know how to play d20, so here are the tweaks we made - even though its rules differ radically in many respects from d20, it had that starting point of familiarity). And maybe it will get some subset of players - the ones that really want to tinker with the system, or even build their own game ("well, it's kind of an Action Hero homebrew, in a post-apocalypse setting, with mutants and stuff"). To me, Hero would be better served using its IP to produce things people want to buy (or licensing its IP to people who want to produce those things) than fading away, or clinging to a model which the marketplace has not embraced. Oh, and IIRC, 2e had Viper's Nest, so it was most definitely playable out of the box. 1e had a sample of combat in a bank against Ogre, and a few villains, but no specific scenarios. A sample multi-part adventure which tells the GM "here are the rules we're focusing on learning and using in this part" would be ideal. For Action Hero, maybe that includes a brawl, a gunfight, some investigation and interaction...depending on what else goes in, maybe a car chase; a combat scene in an unusual environment. Pick a cool, well-known action movie scene and file off the serial numbers. This - exactly this. Hero can simulate almost anything, but a game focused on specifically simulating one genre can easily have mechanics much more suited to emulating that genre, at the cost of less ability to emulate others.

I don't know. I am too lazy to put in the effort to find out. That is the point you seen to consciously ignore. I Let me disabuse you of that. I have lost count of how many times I have seen "how do I move X from d20 to Hero because I really like it and Hero doesn't do it well". One example is the attack of opportunity. No, you cannot just walk past the two armed guards to attack the King. Not held actions - this is an extra action because you left yourself open. Not "pay a whole pile of points for a triggered action" - you can't just walk past an alert, armed person in the heat of combat. In many of those discussions, I really want to note that no system can ever do D&D better than D&D can, so if you really want to play D&D, play D&D. Can I make an array of more versatile, less constrained characters in Hero than in D&D or Pathfinder? You bet. Can I quicking skim over an Adventure Path intro, make a character in an evening and be ready to play a Hero Fantasy game the next day, with a GM who has invested a week or so of prep into reading the first volume of the AP and skimming the rest? Hell, no. That's why my gaming for the past several years has been mostly Pathfinder, not Hero. I can't speak to GURPS and I never fully grasped the V&V combat system. I fell into Champions before really playing any V&V. Mutants and Masterminds 1e read like a revised version of Hero. The Damage Save was elegant, and removes some of the PITA elements of Hero "grindy combat" for a pretty comic booky feel. The cost is greater impact of random chance, simply because it is a d20. M&M is not as deep as Hero, but we played a few games, and it captures super-heroes pretty well. For all that we played it for a while, I do not think any of us approached system mastery. There are a lot of games out there. I am not prepared to invest my time to really learn a brand-new one in the hopes it will pan out. I am OK with the games I know, and the potential return of a better game is too high risk for me to invest that extra time. That does not mean there are not games out there which, if I did invest the time, would be "better" in some way than what I currently play. At the end of that year, I would not say he has mastered trigonometry. And trigonometry is only one branch of mathematics. If you do not understand the math behind the system, then it is very easy to make errors in even simple character design, much less the structure adopted for a specific game. One simple example, coming from a discussion of a draft character recently - do you understand the impact of having defenses + CON < average damage from a campaign standard attack? That one choice changes the combat dynamic in epic fashion. If you do not already understand the system, you do not know which sections are crucial to basic gameplay and which are not. In order to make that determination, you either need to read that section, and understand how it interacts with the rest of the game, or you need to see it in play. Perhaps you think "oh, this whole Presence Attack thing is just a cutesy roll-play mechanic. I can ignore that - get to the game". Then you get to play with the fellow who invests in a 60 PRE and some bonus dice for specific types of PRE attacks. You cannot design the game without setting the dials. You cannot make informed decisions on how to set the dials unless you understand the options. After the fifth consecutive Called Shot to the Head (love those 8 Penalty Skill Levels) in a Fantasy Hero game, maybe you start to figure out some of the mechanical issues within Hit Locations, for example. So you are a Gaming Creationist who does not stop to think "where did the first Hero Gamers come from?" If we want NEW gamers to play Hero, they need to be able to pick up the books, read them and teach themselves to play. Returning to your High School trigonometry example, they should not need a teacher who spends 5 hours a week in class with them going over how the rules work, reviewing their homework assignments to see how that learning is coming along and filling in the gaps. Because they don't have to repeat Hero to graduate - if they find it too tough to learn for the perceived return, the consequences of dropping out are not really severe. I'm going back to that recent character post, where the poster (who notes he has played since the '90s) described a sample combat. In Phase 12 XXX happens. Then in Phase 10, ... WHAT? You don't count down? Yet apparently his group has read the rules to say that you do. Learning from another gamer means learning their biases and their errors. You could try re-reading your posts. If you succeed in doing so objectively, you might figure out why you are not getting the reactions you may be hoping for. Or maybe they are exactly the reactions you want. Like Duke, I am starting to wonder. Sounds like a great plan. Please implement it and stop deliberately trying to be obtuse. Assuming limited leisure time, a desire to understand the ramifications of the system sufficiently to make informed choices, and starting with some experience in other systems, but learning Hero from the rule books? Absolutely. One only has to look at the many posters over the years who come here and ask questions as they seek to learn and better understand the rules so they can make their own games. The latter is gaining a sufficient understanding of the system to make informed choices on setting the dials, setting standards and limits for character creation, choosing which options are in, and which are out, and articulating those choices for players so that the game delivers the desired game experience. The former is learning just enough to dive in and hope that the game plays like you wanted to. Which it undoubtedly will not, because you did not understand the rules well enough to evaluate the consequences of your choices. In D&D, we have built-in safety rails. We don't have the possibility that a starting character will have +23 to hit, or an armor class of 37, because they invested massive points in those resources. There's no chance they think a +2 DEX bonus and a shield makes them very well defended, or building a character that averages 25 damage per hit. So if we just dive in, and look up unfamiliar rules as we go, it will be slow going as we learn the ropes, but we can still play a pretty balanced game. In Hero, the possibility of a 13 OCV swordsman, a 14 DCV Rogue, or a Barbarian with 23 STR, a Greatsword and a pile of martial maneuvers, DCs and skill levels doing 4d6 KA damage are much easier for a player to build - without realizing how unbalanced that character is. "Well, the book said I could have Martial Arts and Martial DCs and Deadly Blow - I followed all the rules in the 3 Tomes (6e v1 and 2 AND Fantasy Hero). Why is the game not playing right?" You or I would not make that mistake. You and I have each invested what, 30 years (wow I feel old...) in mastering this system. As a result, I don't think we can really appreciate how daunting the current system (not the one we learned from and built on for decades, the current system in all its two-volume, no specific genre, every possible option glory and splendour) can be to a newcomer. And when we are dismissive of that challenge, it's the same as when that new player shows up, doesn't fully understand the rules, gets crapped on by the other players ("how can you not KNOW how the hit you took from a penetrating killing attack works? Dumbass!"), runs a wholly ineffective character, gets no help from anyone else at the table and - to everyone's shock and dismay - does not come back for more next week. Doesn't he realize how much FUN we were having? What an IDIOT! Pretty sure I am wasting mine too. If you don't see the issue, then go back and re-read your posts. If you still do not see the issue, it is either because you have no ability to objectively assess your own posting style, or because you are setting out to belittle anyone who does not share your 30 years of Hero experience, your view that it is the Greatest System Ever Designed, your time available to devote to it and your personal views on how RPGs are supposed to work. Yours seem to indicate an incapability to grasp exactly how the tone of your posts comes across when one reads the words without knowing any further details of the thoughts behind them. It may well be that we "just don't understand", but you clearly do not understand the issue that I think most or all reading your posts perceive. Either that means you are the problem or that half a dozen or more other posters are the problem. I know which one I think is more likely, but I expect you will reach the opposite conclusion. Maybe I will actually possess the self-discipline to not bother responding to these issues after this post, and only reply to anything that is useful or insightful to the actual discussion at hand. It is clear that most of those posting on this thread perceive the clear "barrier to entry" for new GMs and players which is created by the current state of the rules, and are interested in assessing approaches which might mitigate that, and provide a better entry point to learn the Hero System in bite-size chunks (like one trig lesson at a time, wisely structured so each builds on the concepts learned earlier). That's the discussion worth having.

Duke, one aspect of Brian's plan which I really like is that it is not a "modified version" of the rules. It presents only those rules required to run the game, so it does not need a lot of Powers/Advantages/Limitations mechanics, just how the ones used to make things in the game work. A gun can simply be described as a 2d6-1 Killing Attack, with clips of 8 bullets and an optional sight which adds +1 OCV and reduces range penalties by 2. None of the costing is needed. Assuming we don't pay CP for weapons, no point costs are needed at all. Maybe we have an ability like "Double Tap" - the character can fire two shots from any handgun as a single attack action, at a single target. If the attack roll hits, both shots strike the target. X CP. The reader does not need to know that is a Naked Advantage 2 shot Autofire usable on any pistol, 0 END, and +2 OCV only to offset the -2 autofire penalty when firing two shots. They only need to know that the character spending those CP can shoot 2 bullets at once from a handgun. I don't like presenting an abbreviated and renamed version of the Powers section. That will make it more challenging for these gamers to transition to the full Hero system should they wish to do so. To me, these "powered by Hero" games are a lot like the pre-4e "each game is separate", but eliminates the "source code is just a little different for each one" issue which 4e resolved. However, they also remove the source code, so the players just play the game, with no need to design it.

Let's restate that - you have been too lazy to learn a new system, or many new systems, which might be better than Hero. You are, instead, happy with the system you have found. You have not , from your comments, eagerly invested the time and effort into a different system. What qualifies you to say that this investment in a different system may, indeed, have been worth it? Is it a year of devoting, say, eight hours a week (a very long game session at this stage of my life) enough to really learn the system? I don't know that we can measure anything that precisely. Does it take a lot longer to read the 6e Tomes and assemble a game in a specific genre than it took to read Champions 1e or 2e (64 or 80 pages, complete with two sample characters designed from the ground up, a sample combat and several more example characters, all phrased in terms consistent with the Supers genre) than to read the 6e tomes (80 pages in, we reach Language Skills, so we have a bit of character creation, and a long way to go)? Yes Absolutely yes. Is it harder to envision the mechanics and rules presented in 6e in the context of a specific genre or game? Absolutely - it goes out of its way to NOT be specific to any genre. We have no stats, of course, but I would be curious how many gamers learned Hero through the 5e or 6e Tome of Game Design, compared to how many trace that learning back to a 4e or prior game created with a "single game" book - and I will include Champions 4e, as it was still presented as the Hero Supers Game. "Learning with the tomes" means no player in the group had Hero knowledge before from an actual Hero game. I'd bet it is not many. The system has survived because new players learn from old players as much or more than reading the rules. 4e/5e/6e present suggested damage and defense levels. This is one of the few areas where they provide more guidance on "the game you will play" than prior editions' "game-in-a-box". I think that there is a lot of scope between old 1e D&D classes lacking any real customization and the full "design it yourself from the ground up" system design model. I will also note that most threads discussing builds and games encourage the GM to set limits, such that players do not have that "complete freedom" you describe. And I think there are a lot of gamers who may wish to have much or all of the design work done for them, but would still value the ability to pick and choose their characters' abilities, at creation and as they advance, the balance Hero provides and the system under which a Hero game runs. That can be demonstrated by a game Powered by Hero, such as Brian envisions. Some of those gamers might even value, or come to value, the ability to customize abilities to a greater extent with a mechanical basis behind that customization, or even to create their own game from whole cloth. They may find Action Hero their gateway into that broader Hero universe. Other may be quite content to play in Brian's sandbox, and await the next things he adds in an Action Hero supplement.

Brian, I would say we can't duplicate everything they do. As you note, we can take some lessons from their success and apply that to a better approach to selling Hero. Your own comments about presence at Cons are an even easier example than a "one book game". We always crow that "all you need is one set of rules and you have everything", but D&D had built their empire on selling book after book of new rules, the opposite to the Hero approach. I can't build my own spells in D&D (or at least there are no rules for that), but there are lots of pre-fab spells, more every book, and players seem to prefer picking from the list to designing their own. Even the ones that go online looking for a spell (feat; class; race; whatever) that can "do this". Where we see "system mastery" as "I can simulate anything in reasonably game-balanced fashion", a lot of D&D players are seeking that "broken combo" - system mastery lets you pick the good choices and not get tricked into the bad ones. A very different approach, and not the style I think we want to emulate, but it sure sells.

And that is the continuum we examine. Does the GM decide this specific complex and unpredictable outcome, or do we have rules in this specific case. Given the number of "how do I handle this?" questions that all games, not just Hero, tends to attract, it seems like not everyone agrees on the point of the continuum best suited to a great game.

I think D&D remains relevant from the perspective that there are REASONS they have that market share. Some we cannot duplicate - history and huge P/R budgets. But clearly their model of "here are the rules, now go play" has sold far better than Hero's "here are many different rules you can choose to design your own game, then go play" model. They have even recognized that bringing in new blood mandates stripping their detailed rules down even further to provide an "entry level" version of the game. To a large extent, that is what Action Hero would emulate for the Hero System.

I disagree. You are speaking from the perspective of someone who has had almost 40 years to learn the rules. I learned the 1e rules, then the tweaks of the 2e rules. Did I play like everyone else? Probably not. I recall an old Adventurers Club survey that asked about campaign norms. They had games with 12-15 DC attacks and defenses that capped out below 20. Other games had 8-10 DC attacks and defenses in the 25-30 range. These would be very different games, just with the 64-80 page 1-2e rules. I never played 3e - I don't think I even bought it. But I played right through to 4e (one of our players bought it at GenCon, much to our delight). 4e was pretty easy to learn. We already knew the rules, and we already had the dials set, so we could ignore a lot and just learn that subset of changes that affected our games. Ditto 5e and 6e. As we never used impaired or disabled rules, we never bothered to read them. Lots of other examples probably exist. But we still played less and less Hero. It takes more work to set up and run a game. And we were not faced with learning it all from scratch. We knew which parts we actually needed to learn. Yes, I am. Despite having learned those rules, not needing any more work in that regard, I am still too "lazy" to invest my scarce gaming time in designing and customizing a game instead of playing a game I can purchase, plug in and play. How much less inclined is someone who has never read the rules, does not know the basic concepts, and cannot start their game design with many of the dials pre-set in their minds? It seems like everyone replying reads what you wrote as being very different from what you think you are saying. I don''t think what you are writing conveys what you believe you are saying. When you focus on "it is not that hard, you are just being a lazy whiner" and "we need to drag them from their cave into the light by making them know the work is worth it", the phrasing sounds very different to me. Maybe those are not the comments you intend as your primary message, but they are emphatic and repeated, so they are what grabs your reader's attention, and it is what we perceive as your primary message. And, apparently, you have the time to do so. I don't think this is a "maybe".. Sales show that Hero's "build your game" model has not sold, over many years and at least two editions. It was a lot more widely bought and played back in the 1e-3e "separate games" days than in the 5e/6e "monolithic toolkit" days. 4e was initially presented as Supers, so there was a transition in that period. The reality we hear from gamers now is "wow - I opened these books, they were a huge wall of text and I have no idea how to play after investing way more time than (I think) should be needed to learn and start a new game". You can, if you already know where to set the dials to achieve that result. A gamer new to Hero does not know where to set those dials. A Game Powered by Hero does not need to identify the other possible settings for the dials. It only needs the rules needed for THIS game. Want to keep playing this game? You don't need new dials. Maybe later supplements (if this game really flies) offer occasional options to re-set a dial or two. Maybe new games use different dial settings. And, if you really want to move from "playing this game" to "modifying this game" or all the way to "making your own game", then you buy the same system that the designers of that game you've now enjoyed for a few months used to create it. But you don't have to learn the entire design system all at once. You don't even have to see that design system to play Action Hero, or any other Powered by Hero game. Where I would envision not explaining any other optional dial settings. Perhaps a document online that says "Hey, if you play Action Hero and are now looking at the 6e System as a whole, or you already know the 6e System and are looking at Action Hero, here is how we set the dials and why." But that is not "required reading" to play Action Hero. It is actually counterproductive as it makes learning Action Hero more intimidating. Strip it down to "a game". Not "a game" with half a dozen optional rules for every element of the game, ONE game. I think that the "6e/Action Hero Transition Document" would include builds for Action Hero abilities and gear, smoothing the transition. If Action Hero succeeds and people want more, then it's time to consider gear books, enemies books, modules, new character ability books, maybe new settings that change a dial or two, or new optional rules. New to Action Hero players, anyway. But they don't get the "system design" rules unless they want them, and delve into the Hero System Game Design Toolkit (yes, let's rename it to call it what it really is!

Then why do we need rules at all? Just let your players feel really cinematically heroic for a while, then move on to the next player and talk through their next cinematic, heroic move. This is not a binary switch - there is a continuum between "documented rules" and "allow this cinematic/heroic action".

Back in the pre-4e days, the game was 80 pages (2e) focused on Supers gaming (many of those pages were sample characters, for example, and I recall a walkthrough building two Superheroes to spell out the character generation system. Let's look at 6e - 80 pages into V1, I made it to the "Languages" skill. I am one of those "whiny, lazy gamers" who no longer has a full day or two to read and digest a new rule book, and no longer has the time to play a few hours most evenings and all day for one or two days on the weekend. I am no longer very interested in learning new game systems either. Let's rephrase that: do we try to change the way the game is presented (that is, reduce both the actual and perceived work required before the game can actually begin) or do we try to change the perceptions, attitudes and time commitments of all of the potential players? I will suggest that only one of these is remotely practical. But it requires some people who are familiar with Hero to stop whining about how other gamers don't want to put in the work, and get over their laziness to design a game which will present Hero in a good light and draw in those gamers. I play a lot more Pathfinder and D&D over the past 10+ years than Hero. With the same guys I also played Hero with for many years. THEY TAKE LESS WORK TO PREPARE FOR AND PLAY, especially from the GM. No - that is why they choose to play games they can pick up and create/maintain characters for relatively quickly (which, for me at least, still includes Hero - but only because I already know the system), and for which they can get a GM. That GM selects a system for which he can find support (like an Adventure Path) so he can spend a day or two of reading to prepare for several hours of gaming, not a week or two of design work to prepare for the same several hours of gaming. That is our group defined in three lines, so I know I am not making this up. I remain uncertain what the best marketing strategy for Hero might be. I am 100% confident that a strategy of telling gamers "Hey, get off your whiny backsides and learn Hero, you lazy gamers, you" will not see Hero's market share jump. And we have heard a lot of experienced gamers suggest the more likely answers. I will summarize what I hear from this and other threads. Because they require much less investment of scarce and valuable time than Hero. Because they require much less investment of scarce and valuable time than Hero. In other words, their designers cater to the market. HELL YEAH! to both. More to the point, they want to PLAY a game, not BUILD a game. Yes, they are. First, until they learn it and play it, they do not know with confidence that it IS better than their current game. "This game is better" is hardly an objective, verifiable fact. And they do not want to investment of scarce and valuable time (are you starting to hear that message?) in an unknown commodity, much less one they have heard has a poor return on that investment (whether or not what they heard is correct). People have limited time. They would rather spend 100 hours gaming and 20 hours learning/preparing/designing than 20 hours of gaming that is TEN TIMES as fun, but requires they invest 100 hours of learning/preparing/designing. 100 FUN/20 LPD = 5:1 20*10 FUN = 200/100 LPD = 2:1 5:1 ROI is much better than 2:1 ROI. And yet you assume that it will be as easy or even easier, to change the human condition than to change the game to appeal to the human condition.

It is not going to sell because it is Powered by Hero. It is going to sell, if it sells at all, because it is a good game, and players and GMs enjoy it. If they enjoy GURPS, or d20, or Savage Worlds, or playing video games, more, then they will buy those games. It's not labelling it as "elegant and fun", "balanced" or anything else that will make it sell. It will sell if people play it, like it and want more. They are not currently buying the "build your own power" system. They have to want to dig through that design system because they have seen what it can do, they like it and they want to learn to use it to build their own games. Us telling them "hey, it's great - it's elegant, fun and balanced, reverses hair loss and makes your teeth whiter" is not going to sell the system. Playing the system sells the system. Right now, they are daunted by the Wall of Words, and will not play the system, so we need to front load that work so they can play a game without a Doctorate in Hero-ology. And if some of them are happy just playing the game(s) Powered by Hero, not tinkering at all and not wanting to build their own game - well that's fine too.

Maybe I am misreading, but I thought she had 25% damage reduction, and that your most recent revision made it non-resistant. An average hit from a 4d6 KA will do no BOD damage. A maximum hit (assuming no boost for standing on the conductor in the rain) rolls 24 BOD - 10 - 6 - 3 = 5 BOD (assuming Combat Luck works standing in the rain waiting to be hit by lightning, and that she is costumed). 25% reduction would pull 1 BOD off that total if it is resistant. I tend to look more at Stun damage for Supers, not BOD damage. She is still resistant to electrical damage, but a 30 ED character (very high, I grant) would take 12 STUN from that 12d6 Electric Blast, and she takes 13. Assuming 7 END per phase (half move and attack), she can make it through a turn. She may not move every phase but she may also use that 2x END flight (or her 2x END multipower slot - but that limitation would be cheap to buy off). If your game doesn't tend to see long combats, I doubt it will be much of an issue. I'd start with "if it is no range and moves with her, does that require an advantage?" Technically, that +1/2 for Mobile should mean you can move the electric field separate from yourself, which you can't, so a reduced or eliminated advantage cost seems fair. Note also that she could simply shut the power off, move and fire it back up again to get the same basic effect, albeit at the cost of an attack action. 4d6 normal damage strikes me as useless, not situationally useful. But if you fight a lot of ordinary normals with 2 defenses and 10 stats, I suppose it might not be 125% useless. Of course, you could then be spreading your Blast to hit a wide area with 4d6 anyway. I think it makes sense that Drained electric powers includes Flight, but I agree on the electrical resistance.

We don't have to sell Hero to people who have played Hero for years or decades, like those of us on these boards. But it is clear we are not a big enough market to keep a business making Hero product afloat. Hero as a game design tool can allow the construction of a game Powered By Hero, which (hopefully) demonstrates that the system itself is elegant and fun, and that the construction rules are balanced (as they were used to build all components of the game or games). So we end up with three pools of buyers/gamers: - those who like these specific games, and will buy them (either one specific game, or multiple games using the system in different settings, genres, etc.), and support materials for them, into the future; - those who like the game, but want to tinker with it, so they buy the System rules for the sole purpose of tinkering with existing games; and - those who are introduced to Hero System and want the whole system to build their own games (maybe even games that are marketed and attract more gamers to Hero).

Her CVs are definitely more Supers-consistent. I'd plan on using the levels defensively for the most part, as her defenses still feel pretty light (13 PD, 15 ED). An average 10d6 hit vs PD will Stun her, and marginally over average energy will be the same. 12d6 on average (or 6d6 with no defenses, such as an NND or Mental Blast) will stun her as well. Her own 12d6 Electric Blast would roll 42 on average, less 15 = 27 - 10 Electric only = 17 x 75% = 13 damage past defenses (7 for an average 10d6 roll), so I would not consider her "virtually invulnerable" to electricity, although she is better defended than most characters would be. Still not sure how you plan on using the motorcycle - I'd probably match its SPD to yours if you expect to use it in combat, although it won't hold up very well to attacks. Whose name is it registered in, and licensed to? After a turn or so, you will be feeling END issues - your main attacks cost 6, so adding movement (or using one of those higher END powers) will be pretty tiring. I guess you have the 9d6, worst case. A lot depends how long fights tend to last in your games (and if your attack/defense ratios are typical, probably they don't last too long). Is Champ Electrique priced right? It has a lot of limitations. 4 m radius is +1/4, you may not need "Mobile" (see V1 p 127 - At the GM’s option, an area-affecting Constant Power with No Range (i.e., which centers on the character who creates it) may move with the character as he moves for no additional cost.) I assume it is +3/4 for up to 24 meters per phase (actually, why can't you shut it down and restart it, avoiding the cost - maybe it can move away from you?). Constant is +1/2 and Pers Immune is +1/4 (why bother when 4d6 electric can't hurt you anyway?). If you made it armor piercing, NND or AVAD, it could at least accomplish something. 4d6, 4 m radius (+1/4), AVAD (NND, force field or electric powers/resistance; +1), Constant (+1/2) would be 55 AP (or 60 if you toss on 1/2 END). 5d6, 4 m radius (+1/4), AP (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), PI (+1/4) would be 56 AP. You'd get a bit less if it moves on its own, but at least it would have a bit of an impact on those within it.

If I raise the flail over my head and swing it crashing down on the Goblin, it is not going to wrap around his shield if he brings it up to block. I essentially have to "attack" so the ball of the flail passes around the edge of his shield, and the chain brings it curving back inwards to strike the goblin, in order to use the Flail maneuver.

1e was 64 pages, and 2e was 80 pages. You could do a lot with that space. While I would question "you could play" out of the box, add in a Vipers' Nest and you're ready to go once the players make their characters. We remove a lot of combat maneuvers (remember, 1e - 3e had five martial maneuvers). Duplication and Multiform were Champions II and III additions. Certainly, some stuff could be left out. The reality is that Champions did pretty well at the time, although I think there was more willingness to invest some time in character creation. Take the same space used on mechanical powers and replace it with Powers you can select and play with (maybe 8 DC, 10 DC and 12 DC costed attack powers; similar three tier defense powers, etc.), and you could have a lot of options.

As to Rorschach, they were not, I think, expecting someone with an AoE Energy Attack (nor were there a bunch of energy projectors in the Watchmen universe), and that was about 7 guys with nightsticks who beat him down. I think he has a better CV advantage too. We could always move the scenario indoors where the SWAT guys stay behind cover and move up one or two at a time - even without the flash-bangs, I am still liking their odds. And once you spread a blast to hit two or three, I think they would adjust their tactics, including not bunching up close and cozy.

To some extent, it is the KA's that make this really ugly. If all they had were 5d6 Normal rubber bullets, a hit would not often STUN and would average 17.5, 10.5 after defenses. But VIPER agents carry much higher normal damage weapons. She'd have a shot if she could get that first "stuns 3 or 4 of them" shot off. But if they were armed for non-lethal takedown, flashbangs, mace and tasers seem more likely. The practical reality is that "lightly defended" in Hero needs to prevent most or all BOD damage, and the lightly defended character needs a better DCV to avoid taking a lot of hits.

I was going to say 2d6+1 is not a lot more powerful, but it would mean more hits that stun, and an extra 2 BOD per hit against someone taking BOD already will get ugly. The flash would be painful to many characters, but I agree halving Joules' DCV with her defenses would not end well. She stuns 4, one of the remaining 3 FlashBangs, the other two double tap (Multiple Attack)...even the pistols will get very messy.

Sounds similar to 6e. I find it a bit of an issue in that "skilled" sounds better than "competent", but "skilled" is 50 points and "competent" is 100. They are also clearly rising in combat ability, so a "skilled normal" has CV of 4, and "competent" has CV of 5. A "skilled" or "competent" scientist might look very different (but then, do I really need their combat stats?). Normals Unbound was a 4e book, but it's still around. "This is a book of normals. In other words, the Enemies book for your secret ID! Between the covers of Normals Unbound you will find men, women, and children with powers and abilities to affect the life of a hero more profoundly than any destructive energy blast from Mechanon ever could. These are people who cannot be dealt with by simply slugging it out with them or blasting them with a neutron beam. The hero must use his head and his heart in meeting the challenges these normals present." $5 in the Online store, but I'm not sure it has a lot of combatants. I think you could build combatants pretty easily from the Average, Noteworthy, Skilled and Competent templates if you repurposed some skill points into weapon familiarities or even skill levels and gave them gear equal to their point totals - 50 points of gear should cover a handgun (.44 automag 2d6 KA 10 RP), a nightstick (baton; 3d6 HA; 9 RP) and 6 PD/ED Soft Body Armor (10 RP for full coverage OIF Real Armor). That's 26 points - not close to 50. 100 for a Competent Normal would give him SuperAgent weapons and armor.

Yup - you can have magical flame, but it is still magic, is still detected and dispelled as magic, etc.

You mean like one who takes Disadvantage/Complication points for doubling the cost of something they are not going to buy anyway? Since I do not use NCM as a disadvantage, it becomes very hard to abuse. In Fantasy games, though, that Belt of Strength or Aid DEX spell can easily push characters past 20, and NCM does not apply. The NCM rule is "limited characteristics ain't subject to NCM cuz on accounta they'se powers, not characteristics". Given the rules say "NCM does not apply if the characteristics are limited", the spirit of the rule can also be interpreted to be "if you want high characteristics, they should have limitations". I know where I have seen them! Powered Armor characters who have NCM and boost their stats with their powered armor! I am sure at least one Defender version has that. If we toss in a bunch of races with differing NCM rules, I am guessing the ones with lower physical NCMs will not show up as fighters very often. Just like d20 players comb the sourcebooks for just the right race to pair with this one class following that specific feat chain.