Hugh Neilson

This falls into the same category as many other limitations - is it limiting in the context of the specific character in the specific campaign? 
 
The pricing question is an issue.  Typically, "resistant" has been a +1/2 advantage.  It doesn't seem like this has been re-evaluated with the evolution of killing attacks.  It was +1/2 when nonresistant defenses did not reduce Stun damage from killing attacks, which made nonresistant defenses considerably less valuable.

If anything, the loss of reducing Drains and STUN damage from KAs suggests that nonresistant is more limiting for DN and DR than for normal defenses (ie moving Resistant Protection to PD and ED). It seems like either nonresistant DN and DR should still reduce STUN from KAs (and perhaps all switches between Resistant and Nonresistant should be repriced at -1/4) or nonresistant DN and DR should be a greater limitation than nonresistant defenses.
 
The -1/2 for "only BOD" or "only STUN" presupposes that reducing each is of equal importance.  Where that supposition is not accurate for the specific campaign or character, I would take issue with the limitation.  In other words, as a GM, if you apply, and I allow, "No BOD" to your Negation or Reduction, then the onus is on me as GM to ensure that the limitation becomes relevant in actual gameplay.  For STUN Only, that means ensuring there are instances where you are at risk of BOD damage not reduced by these defenses. 
 
If I have two players, one who pays full price for Negation (or Reduction) and one who takes a discount for "STUN only", the first player deserves to see some value for the extra points spent.

This falls into the same category as many other limitations - is it limiting in the context of the specific character in the specific campaign? 
 
The pricing question is an issue.  Typically, "resistant" has been a +1/2 advantage.  It doesn't seem like this has been re-evaluated with the evolution of killing attacks.  It was +1/2 when nonresistant defenses did not reduce Stun damage from killing attacks, which made nonresistant defenses considerably less valuable.

If anything, the loss of reducing Drains and STUN damage from KAs suggests that nonresistant is more limiting for DN and DR than for normal defenses (ie moving Resistant Protection to PD and ED). It seems like either nonresistant DN and DR should still reduce STUN from KAs (and perhaps all switches between Resistant and Nonresistant should be repriced at -1/4) or nonresistant DN and DR should be a greater limitation than nonresistant defenses.
 
The -1/2 for "only BOD" or "only STUN" presupposes that reducing each is of equal importance.  Where that supposition is not accurate for the specific campaign or character, I would take issue with the limitation.  In other words, as a GM, if you apply, and I allow, "No BOD" to your Negation or Reduction, then the onus is on me as GM to ensure that the limitation becomes relevant in actual gameplay.  For STUN Only, that means ensuring there are instances where you are at risk of BOD damage not reduced by these defenses. 
 
If I have two players, one who pays full price for Negation (or Reduction) and one who takes a discount for "STUN only", the first player deserves to see some value for the extra points spent.

This falls into the same category as many other limitations - is it limiting in the context of the specific character in the specific campaign? 
 
The pricing question is an issue.  Typically, "resistant" has been a +1/2 advantage.  It doesn't seem like this has been re-evaluated with the evolution of killing attacks.  It was +1/2 when nonresistant defenses did not reduce Stun damage from killing attacks, which made nonresistant defenses considerably less valuable.

If anything, the loss of reducing Drains and STUN damage from KAs suggests that nonresistant is more limiting for DN and DR than for normal defenses (ie moving Resistant Protection to PD and ED). It seems like either nonresistant DN and DR should still reduce STUN from KAs (and perhaps all switches between Resistant and Nonresistant should be repriced at -1/4) or nonresistant DN and DR should be a greater limitation than nonresistant defenses.
 
The -1/2 for "only BOD" or "only STUN" presupposes that reducing each is of equal importance.  Where that supposition is not accurate for the specific campaign or character, I would take issue with the limitation.  In other words, as a GM, if you apply, and I allow, "No BOD" to your Negation or Reduction, then the onus is on me as GM to ensure that the limitation becomes relevant in actual gameplay.  For STUN Only, that means ensuring there are instances where you are at risk of BOD damage not reduced by these defenses. 
 
If I have two players, one who pays full price for Negation (or Reduction) and one who takes a discount for "STUN only", the first player deserves to see some value for the extra points spent.

I would not allow a limitation for Stun Only defenses unless the character's other defenses leave BOD damage a reasonable possibility.  I don't see that very often.
 
As I see complications and limitations as the player's communication of the kind of challenges they want to face, limiting defenses against BOD means that they want BOD damage to come up as a real threat.

I would not allow a limitation for Stun Only defenses unless the character's other defenses leave BOD damage a reasonable possibility.  I don't see that very often.
 
As I see complications and limitations as the player's communication of the kind of challenges they want to face, limiting defenses against BOD means that they want BOD damage to come up as a real threat.

Whenever I see a build like this, I like to remind my players that their choice of limitations and complications are my guides for the types of challenges they want to see in the game.
 
For example, "Susc: Green Argonite" means that you want to see the occasional scenario where that special element shows up and is used to create a significant challenge for the hero. DNPC means that you want to see scenarios where your character must place himself in a disadvantageous position to help out that DNPC.
 
The "someone credentialed" mitigates any limitation considerably. If you make it a Limitation, expect situations where those Credentials stop working at the worst possible time.  Maybe Super is Mind Controlled to attack his DNPC - too bad he cannot activate that item to save himself and the innocent bystanders around him.  Or maybe another Argonian will steal the item - poor Cop can't prevent it as he can't activate the item on his own. Perhaps someone with Shape Change on a cellular level can trick that credentialization - and that cop.  What does it take to turn it back off again?
 
This sounds like players with a very adversarial mindset in Player vs GM mode.
 
I see all the "it makes PERFECT sense in context of my backstory" arguments.  How does it make sense in the context of "these are the interesting scenarios and stories it might lead to in-game"?

When the player defines it, the GM should assess how common that is.  The player may either need to define it more broadly or receive lower points.

It doesn't hurt at all. But the skeleton can probably function a lot better with a shattered foot than a shattered spine.

It doesn't hurt at all. But the skeleton can probably function a lot better with a shattered foot than a shattered spine.

If they're also Desolidified you can affect them.  However, you'd need to either buy Affects Physical World on the Desolidification to make a solid person desolid while you're using it, or deactivate your Desolidification before reactivating it to affect yourself and the target simultaneously.

The defenses are the key, in my view.  If these characters are tossing around, and soaking up, 12 - 18d6 Normal damage routinely, I'd expect that they have defenses in the 30s or higher.  A 15d6 Normal attack averages 52.5 STUN.
 
Normal defenses of 30 will block all BOD from a terminal velocity fall.  BOD from a 20d6 Normal attack is not going to get past those defenses, so there is nothing to double from a head shot.
 
Making the doppelgangers identical and then adding all the advantages of automatons means that they are massively more powerful than the heros, especially defensively.  If they are identical copies (not automatons) and can be knocked out, then the heroes will have to knock them out, then carefully and meticulously bypass their defenses to murder the doppelgangers.
 
Forcing the heroes to demonstrate their heroism by diligently slaughtering their foes seems a little odd.
 
We had a Supers game with an alternate earth scenario some years back, and realized very early on that we would eventually be fighting ourselves.  By the time that happened, it was a bit of a cakewalk as we knew the best tactics as a team to take down an identical team.

As LL says, read the early stories.  He has trouble with enemies including:
 
 - an old man with a flying suit;
 - a pudgy scientist with robotic arms;
 - a cowboy, a bulky thug and a midget who knows martial arts.
 
Just off the top.
 
If you write Spidey more powerful, some enemies can be scaled up, but others don't make as much sense scaled up to match SuperSpidey.

As LL says, read the early stories.  He has trouble with enemies including:
 
 - an old man with a flying suit;
 - a pudgy scientist with robotic arms;
 - a cowboy, a bulky thug and a midget who knows martial arts.
 
Just off the top.
 
If you write Spidey more powerful, some enemies can be scaled up, but others don't make as much sense scaled up to match SuperSpidey.

As LL says, read the early stories.  He has trouble with enemies including:
 
 - an old man with a flying suit;
 - a pudgy scientist with robotic arms;
 - a cowboy, a bulky thug and a midget who knows martial arts.
 
Just off the top.
 
If you write Spidey more powerful, some enemies can be scaled up, but others don't make as much sense scaled up to match SuperSpidey.

The defenses are the key, in my view.  If these characters are tossing around, and soaking up, 12 - 18d6 Normal damage routinely, I'd expect that they have defenses in the 30s or higher.  A 15d6 Normal attack averages 52.5 STUN.
 
Normal defenses of 30 will block all BOD from a terminal velocity fall.  BOD from a 20d6 Normal attack is not going to get past those defenses, so there is nothing to double from a head shot.
 
Making the doppelgangers identical and then adding all the advantages of automatons means that they are massively more powerful than the heros, especially defensively.  If they are identical copies (not automatons) and can be knocked out, then the heroes will have to knock them out, then carefully and meticulously bypass their defenses to murder the doppelgangers.
 
Forcing the heroes to demonstrate their heroism by diligently slaughtering their foes seems a little odd.
 
We had a Supers game with an alternate earth scenario some years back, and realized very early on that we would eventually be fighting ourselves.  By the time that happened, it was a bit of a cakewalk as we knew the best tactics as a team to take down an identical team.

Looking at likely damage taken and likely damage inflicted still makes sense to me.

Almost nothing whatsoever has changed in basics of combat in Hero from the first typewritten pages.

Looking at likely damage taken and likely damage inflicted still makes sense to me.

Looking at likely damage taken and likely damage inflicted still makes sense to me.

The Spellsinger series provides a "not fully controlled and never understood" magic. The main character generally gets a spell effect from the song he chooses, but it's often far from what he expected.
 
The game problems with magic of this nature have already been drawn out above.  Players like to know what their characters can do, and want some narrative control over the results.  The latter can be implemented if the player exercises some (or full) control over the results of the magic, despite the character being unable to do so, but this will also break that "magic is a mystery" vibe.
 
A GM would have to think on their feet to have results that vary every time and are fair to the character (neither overpowered nor underpowered). Part of that challenge is that there will be a LOT more spells in-game than need to be in the books. Imagine having to dream up a different result several times in each encounter in a typical fantasy game.  Magic is typically used more sparingly in the source material.  Duke mentions Conan - the wizards he battles aren't blasting off a Lightning Bolt or Magic Missile in response to each of Conan's sword slashes.

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.

Before I start, I should apologise, this is likely to be long and rambling. I am visiting my wife's mother, so I often lie in bed in the morning, delaying getting up and thinking.
 
Today my thinking is about HERO (recently it has all been about Baldurs Gate!).
 
HERO is a detail game and we build characters to have game effect.  It is seen as a difficult game because there is so much detail and new folk find it difficult to make effective characters.
 
I have been wondering whether that is because we start with everyman stuff and begin adding to it.
 
What if we started with a Hero?
 
If the focus was on game effect, then your standard hero would go, for example, five times a round, hit 60% of the time doing, on average, 15 STUN through defences and moves 20m.
 
You define your schtick, your attacks are because you are Strong, or because you have eye beams etc etc
 
You could then add "upgrades".  The first half dozen are "free", you could hit more people at once, move faster, have more actions, improve your defences, extend your attacks (versus different defences, more effective versus heavy armour, etc). You could add movement, add senses, add various things.
 
If you want more upgrades, you make compromises.  These can either be limiting the effectiveness of existing powers or taking on complications.
 
I wonder, perversely, if this focus on effectiveness would bring more attention to the powers rather than the mechanics. It would mean the players would have a big signpost to a standard that they deviate from rather than a base level they need to build from.
 
It would lend itself to big books of upgrades! 🙂 I can imagine the Ultimate Speedster book having lists of upgrades and compromises.
 
Obviously, those upgrades and compromises would all be coated and built (for the GM) rather than being black boxes like other games.
 
That's it.  An idea for a new way to play the build a character.  No other changes. And focussed on new players not existing experts...
 
Doc

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.