Hugh Neilson

I've been saying this for many years. The root of the problem isn't guns, although multiplying guns exacerbates it. The root is a gun culture that glorifies and romanticizes guns, links them with masculinity, and normalizes them as a way to deal with all sorts of social problems. Gun culture needs the same kind of advertising campaign as smoking, drinking and driving, wearing seat belts. Make it so that everyone calls out irresponsible handling of guns and makes that behavior socially unacceptable.

Early D&D was, or at least could be, the antithesis of playing a role. Why give your character any personality? They are short-lived and interchangeable anyway. Would rational people walk up to some machine that, pressing a random button, has about a 60% chance at impairing you, maybe 20% of killing or permanently disabling you, a 19% chance of providing some minor benefit and a 1% chance of granting massive benefits? Players pulled the switches because I can make another 200 characters later, and one of them will eventually beat the odds.
 
To me, the games became real "role playing" when PCs became expected to have personalities, backstories and survival instincts, evolving from the green pawn, red pawn and blue pawn on a game board.

There is a fellow at a local farmer's market who runs a Pokemon cards booth.  Not quite RPGs, but another often-denigrated hobby. He has a sign that notes that the game requires players to apply skills such as math and planning, and interact socially with their peers.

Remember when reading comic books would rot your brain? Now, teachers use them to encourage reading skills. My high school English teacher got a lot of disrespect from his peers for stating that he did not care what students read - whether classic literature, comic books or rank pornography, reading contributed to learning.

Early D&D was, or at least could be, the antithesis of playing a role. Why give your character any personality? They are short-lived and interchangeable anyway. Would rational people walk up to some machine that, pressing a random button, has about a 60% chance at impairing you, maybe 20% of killing or permanently disabling you, a 19% chance of providing some minor benefit and a 1% chance of granting massive benefits? Players pulled the switches because I can make another 200 characters later, and one of them will eventually beat the odds.
 
To me, the games became real "role playing" when PCs became expected to have personalities, backstories and survival instincts, evolving from the green pawn, red pawn and blue pawn on a game board.

There is a fellow at a local farmer's market who runs a Pokemon cards booth.  Not quite RPGs, but another often-denigrated hobby. He has a sign that notes that the game requires players to apply skills such as math and planning, and interact socially with their peers.

Remember when reading comic books would rot your brain? Now, teachers use them to encourage reading skills. My high school English teacher got a lot of disrespect from his peers for stating that he did not care what students read - whether classic literature, comic books or rank pornography, reading contributed to learning.

Early D&D was, or at least could be, the antithesis of playing a role. Why give your character any personality? They are short-lived and interchangeable anyway. Would rational people walk up to some machine that, pressing a random button, has about a 60% chance at impairing you, maybe 20% of killing or permanently disabling you, a 19% chance of providing some minor benefit and a 1% chance of granting massive benefits? Players pulled the switches because I can make another 200 characters later, and one of them will eventually beat the odds.
 
To me, the games became real "role playing" when PCs became expected to have personalities, backstories and survival instincts, evolving from the green pawn, red pawn and blue pawn on a game board.

❤️

What I would probably recommend for the character would be something like
 
60 point  MP
Slot 1 40 STR TK
Slot 2 16 STR TK Fine manipulation, Area of effect 8M selective
12d6 Physical blast
3d6 AP RKA
6d6 DEF 6 entangle
Barrier 12 DEF  0 BODY, 14m long 4m tall ½ thickness
Deflection
 
All the slots are U so cost 6 points (except deflection which costs 2) for a total of 98 points.  Put the flight and resistant defense outside the MP.  The power are straightforward and will be easy to play.  Adding indirect to the powers could be done, but will reduce the damage.   Being able to deal appropriate damage is more important than being able to bypass some defenses. 

Agreed.  If the target were Transformed, then it would leave the footprints of whatever it was transformed into. -6 penalty to Tracking rolls to identify the target tracked, just like the Locking spell penalized Lockpick rolls to unlock a specific lock.
 
Alternatively, Duke had a great discussion of special effects.  Don't you leave tracks as SFX of your existing movement power?  Variable SFX, any tracks/traces of passage left behind (+1/4), as a naked advantage

With the shapeshift you are not altering the tracks, you are altering yourself, so you leave different tracks.  If I have shapeshift vs sight and someone takes a picture of me in a different form the picture shows the altered form not my true form.   In this case there is not picture but the tracks I am leaving are not those of my true form they are the tracks of the altered form.   If I change my feet to that of wolf to both touch and scent the footprints and scent, I leave are those of a wolf not a man.   The shapeshift does not need to include sight looking like a wolf does not affect tracks.  
 
What the OP wanted was something that lets him leave tracks of something else.  Shapeshift seems the best way to build this.  The way I would build this would be shapeshift to touch and smell groups, Any shape for 17 points.  You could reduce it to a limited group if you were only able to leave tracks of a certain type of creature.  I would say if the person tracking you made his roll high enough, they might realize that there is something wrong with the tracks. 

That DW didn't come out that long after the X-Men writeups in issue 27, which featured a creator discussion on changes between 1e and 2e, so I am not sure Shape Shift/Champions III would have been considered in the writeups. But Shape Shift was really intended for characters like The Chameleon, Mystique, etc. whose schtick is to Disguise what Invisibility is to Stealth. Multiform was also in Champs III.
 
Beast Boy first appeared, as a youngster, in Doom Patrol. He was older and ditched the name for Changeling in Teen Titans. Various reboots later, the original name returned.
 
Swapping a Multipower for a VPP would not harm the character concept.
 
 
VPP, Only Multiforms  if the +5 for every doubling of forms became too expensive
 
 
Viewing the base as "a CHAR-based roll related to these purposes" creates a much better baseline. Sure, it's hard to be Acrobatic on ice, but it doesn't mean it's harder to pick locks. 

That DW didn't come out that long after the X-Men writeups in issue 27, which featured a creator discussion on changes between 1e and 2e, so I am not sure Shape Shift/Champions III would have been considered in the writeups. But Shape Shift was really intended for characters like The Chameleon, Mystique, etc. whose schtick is to Disguise what Invisibility is to Stealth. Multiform was also in Champs III.
 
Beast Boy first appeared, as a youngster, in Doom Patrol. He was older and ditched the name for Changeling in Teen Titans. Various reboots later, the original name returned.
 
Swapping a Multipower for a VPP would not harm the character concept.
 
 
VPP, Only Multiforms  if the +5 for every doubling of forms became too expensive
 
 
Viewing the base as "a CHAR-based roll related to these purposes" creates a much better baseline. Sure, it's hard to be Acrobatic on ice, but it doesn't mean it's harder to pick locks. 

Change Environment to put a penalty on tracking would work too, its just going to be really expensive, so of questionable use for the minor value of the effect.
 
 
And it can be done multiple ways.  Its not really a "rule" of Hero officially, but in my opinion the cost should reflect the value of the effect.  So if you just want to light a match and it costs you 45 points, that's not a good build.

The vision, I assume, extends beyond a narrow bridge. I would have no issue ruling that Horatio can't be passed through the hex he occupies while actively defending.
 
A "barrier" of sorts that extends that zone (anyone trying to pass gets rebuffed by a kick, a shield bash or the flat of his blade, doing no damage) seems a perfectly reasonable power.
 
By most accounts, there were three defenders initially - that seems likely enough to block a bridge into Rome in 500 BC. They weren't building 6-lane highways.

I prefer Change Environment because it's a straightforward mechanical build. You want to be harder to track, and penalties to a Tracking roll will accomplish that. Change Environment is the Power that lets you apply penalties to a skill roll.

It would.  But hey, it's nice to have a new player! 
 
Short version:  there is a long history of the bulk of the grognards dismissing change environment as inappropriate for doing something like changing the environment.
 
To be fair, most of this started after the introduction of Transformation Attack and let's face it: with T-form, you _can_ change the environment.
 
Conversely, none of them will suggest using Transformation Attack as an alternative to Energy Blast, even though all Energy Blast is doing is transforming your target from undamaged to damaged, right?  There is a subtle triple standard around Transformation Attack that has been repeated and accepted for so long that it has been given a legitimacy that it never actually deserved.
 
I have a hypothesis that one of the reasons Change Environment is p'shawed so regularly is that it doesn't provide movement or provide defenses or do damage, and is therefore "unworthy."  It's just a hypothesis, never tested (and never should be, lest we risk arguments and hurt feelings that we don't need.  Really, all I have to go on is the general trend of someone recommending it and the recommendation being shot down in favor of something with a combat mechanic.  Really, the last two rules sets have stated outright that Change Environment cannot be used to add light to the environment (and out of all the 5e and 6e rules that I absolutely ignore, I ignore that one far more joyously than all the others combined)).
 
Let's look at what change environment can do:  it can add or remove gravity- it can _reverse_ gravity!  Houses uprooted and falling into the sky!  It can create not just fog, but absolute typhoons and monsoons and roof-removing winds and toad-choking rains.  It can purify radiation zones or increase the background radiation  to deadly levels, turn a jungle to a desert then turn around and create an oasis.
 
The whole "but it has no combat effectiveness and is therefore not the right power" mindset is so deeply-ingrained that the last couple of rules sets added rules to govern just how change environment  can effect combat and skill rolls (because before that the GM had to make a call, and that sort of thing- normal in almost every other RPG- is complete anathema to the typical HERO grognard.)
 
I don't say these things insultingly-  I am an old HERO grognard myself, and set on my own overzealous and equally-poorly-thought-out opinions; I just have a lot of odd-man-out observations (most of which have left me never finding a compelling reason to move beyond 2e.)
 
Hell, the biggest thing I like about this place is the general civility with which differences of opinion are  generally discussed.
 
At any rate-  if CE can reverse gravity and purify radiation and cutse or bless or sanctify entire tracts of the countryside.....  Well, the idea that it _can't_ do something simple like disturb some soil and a branch or two to create a false path is kind of funny.
 
The best part is this:
 
Because the newer rules specifically address how to assign a Skill Roll Penalty specifically to Change Environment, and because CE has a built-in Area of Effect, it is _the_ power for this.  It gets more interesting, though:
 
A "trail" is part of the special effects of your movement power.  If you fly, you don't leave a lot of footprints-- if I am not mistaken, there is a version of Flight built _specifically_ to simulate walking without leaving a trail in some or other ninja book (not giving a rat's roll red rump about martial arts and magic ninjas is one of those overzealous opinionations of mine.  Sorry.       ).
 
But I was saying that CE is ideal for this--
 
HERO divorces SFX from mechanics.  Varting editions do a better or worse job of that with varying individual mechanics and powers in much the same,way that we GMs do better or worse at some aspect of it than do other GMs, and this is cool; we are just as human and fallible as are all the authors that have ever written for this game.  That is the biggest reason that I love the discussions of differing opinions that occur here.  We get a chance to see new ideas, to help someone see something differently, or to be helped ourselves (or even in spite of ourselves).
 
Change Environment has been codified as a power that can be used to pin penalties to skill rolls, and its nature is changing the environment in some way that is either (or both) beneficial to you or disadvantageous to your opponent.  You can assign a penalty to a tracking roll via Change Environment. That is essentially a third mechanic assigned to range and area mechanics.  You have to selecr a special effect for every mechanic ("power" ) that you buy.  In rhis case, that special effect is the appearance of a false trail, and possibly some occlusion of the real trail.
 
Those folks telling you that you cannot have this special effect with your power are telling you that you cannot have this special effect, period, in spite of the fact that you _can_ have this mechanic.  They are not objecting to you using Change Environment to force a tracking penalty on your pursuers; they can't object to that because the rules specifically state that you _can_ do that very thing.
 
That means the only objection they can have is to your special effect (which is ultimately between you and your GM), which in this case suggests that the objection is that you are using Change Environment to make a small change to your environment.
 
And if you just skipped all the way down here hoping for a summation:
 
Ir can.  This is exactly what Change Environment does, and the last two editions have made it more specifically perfect for this sort of thing than it ever has been before.
 
Ultimately though, no matter who thinks what, all we can do is be a sounding board.  A player will take the idea _he_ finds most pleasing, pitch it to his GM, and they will work something out from there without any regard for which of us feels how on the subject.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I was on the Hero mailing list back in the '80s.  Fantasy Hero was a working title - they asked for name suggestions.  No "X & Y" names was the sole request.
 
They didn't get anything they liked, could not think of anything better, and it got released as Fantasy Hero. Or so they said at the time, anyway.

I recall more 18 - 20 DEX, SPD 4 characters early on than we see now, but it was definitely "slow Super". 23 DEX/5 SPD was more the norm. 6 SPD was pretty fast.
 
While I did not perceive it at the time, the example characters (other than Starburst and Crusader) seem intended as the team's "villain of the week", and not a team of villains that would go one on one with PCs.  But, of course, we all designed our characters to the standards of Dragonfly, Pulsar and Green Dragon, not Starburst (possibly the only published character with a Multipower that required tradeoffs between attack, defense and movement) and Crusader.
 
Comparisons to characters in other genres become more relevant when you realize that most genres cross over into Comic Book Supers at some point. Adam Strange and Conan, for example; the Avengers interacting with Marvel's Old West characters, the Black Knight, etc.
 
It was really setting "normal characteristic maxima" that caused the disconnect.  When we could look at Green Dragon and say "OK, a highly trained normal human can have a 30 DEX and 7 SPD as a starting character, maybe a 35 DEX and 9 SPD as an experienced character", that was very different from "whoa, normal humans cap out at 20 DEX and 4 SPD".
 
If we dropped every character in the 1e rulebook by 2 SPD and 9 DEX, how differently would the game have played?  Crusader would still move more often than Starburst, and quite a bit more than Ogre.  Their chances to hit, or be hit, would not change relative to one another, although those bank robber thugs might have been a bit more of a threat.
 
For some reason, early on, character design was set to have all Supers with much higher DEX, SPD, PRE and CON than baseline people, but STR, BOD, INT, EGO and COM could just stay at the same levels as normal folks.  CON was a function of DCs and defenses, unlike the other stats.
 
I do recall an old Adventurers Club discussing campaign averages, I think from a poll, and realizing the wide diversity, with some games where average hits would get a very few STUN past defenses, and others where first strike was likely the combat winner.

I recall more 18 - 20 DEX, SPD 4 characters early on than we see now, but it was definitely "slow Super". 23 DEX/5 SPD was more the norm. 6 SPD was pretty fast.
 
While I did not perceive it at the time, the example characters (other than Starburst and Crusader) seem intended as the team's "villain of the week", and not a team of villains that would go one on one with PCs.  But, of course, we all designed our characters to the standards of Dragonfly, Pulsar and Green Dragon, not Starburst (possibly the only published character with a Multipower that required tradeoffs between attack, defense and movement) and Crusader.
 
Comparisons to characters in other genres become more relevant when you realize that most genres cross over into Comic Book Supers at some point. Adam Strange and Conan, for example; the Avengers interacting with Marvel's Old West characters, the Black Knight, etc.
 
It was really setting "normal characteristic maxima" that caused the disconnect.  When we could look at Green Dragon and say "OK, a highly trained normal human can have a 30 DEX and 7 SPD as a starting character, maybe a 35 DEX and 9 SPD as an experienced character", that was very different from "whoa, normal humans cap out at 20 DEX and 4 SPD".
 
If we dropped every character in the 1e rulebook by 2 SPD and 9 DEX, how differently would the game have played?  Crusader would still move more often than Starburst, and quite a bit more than Ogre.  Their chances to hit, or be hit, would not change relative to one another, although those bank robber thugs might have been a bit more of a threat.
 
For some reason, early on, character design was set to have all Supers with much higher DEX, SPD, PRE and CON than baseline people, but STR, BOD, INT, EGO and COM could just stay at the same levels as normal folks.  CON was a function of DCs and defenses, unlike the other stats.
 
I do recall an old Adventurers Club discussing campaign averages, I think from a poll, and realizing the wide diversity, with some games where average hits would get a very few STUN past defenses, and others where first strike was likely the combat winner.

Or maybe throwing basketballs is not a combat activity.  How well would you or I do?  They are good enough to suck up some penalties for moving up the Time Chart.  I am thinking that skill is less OCV and more "Basketball Skills".

Or maybe throwing basketballs is not a combat activity.  How well would you or I do?  They are good enough to suck up some penalties for moving up the Time Chart.  I am thinking that skill is less OCV and more "Basketball Skills".

Another way to look at this is that the player's choice of limitation values will drive the frequency of situations where the character will likely be operating with a reduced EGO.  Your limitation value said that this was pretty common, so why are you surprised it happens pretty commonly? A discussion on how often the GM envisions this arising, and at what level of severity, can help set expectations and prevent the game becoming un-fun for one or the other.

At some point, I don't recall when but 4e at the latest, I think, the baseline shifted from "Normals have 10s across the board" to "0 point Normals have 8s across the board, 2 SPD, 16 STUN, 16 END and 23 points of skills, perks or even stats higher than 10". I think it crossed over with Everyman Skills; both were aimed at Normals having some skills and abilities, not "straight 10s and nothing else".
 
 
I think it was Golden Heroes that set actions in terms of Panels.  Supers got twice as many panels per game turn as Normals.  Whether you were a slow, lumbering rock monster or the avatar of the God of Speed, every PC got equal panel time, so equal actions.  They were not shy saying that the game emulated comic books (and were quick to note that there were war, science fiction, fantasy, etc. comic books so the system could be used for any genre).
 
 
A certain portion of points becomes a character tax. You can't be too far behind on the SPD and CV curve.  With higher SPD, you need more REC/END or reduced END, and more STUN to get you to higher post-PS12 recovery. If average attacks rise, average defenses, STUN and CON need to rise.
 
This is another issue for the Trained Normal - you're expected to have limited defenses AND limited CON, so look forward to a lot of those "4 SPD maximum - you're a normal human!" phases being spent recovering from being stunned.You nail it, Duke - slow "trained normals" are lousy genre emulation.  In the comics, they avoid attacks so they don't need high defenses, STUN and CON.
 
"But they won't be as Super!"
 
No? 
 
15 Defenses still means a Normal can't really hurt them.  5 CV and 3 SPD is still a decent advantage over 3 CV and 2 SPD. 10d6 will still KO and hospitalize some poor 2 PD Normal (5 PD won't fare a lot better). Agents don't have to all be peak human normals (isn't that what Captain America is supposed to be?) to be remotely relevant, and they still compare to other Supers in the same way they did before. But a 35 Defense Doctor Destroyer with a suite of 15d6 attacks will walk all over them - we don't need 1,500 point master villains if we tone down the standard Supers.
 
A nice thought exercise, but the current norms are far too ingrained.  It didn't take long for those 1e starting characters with 8 - 10d6 attacks, 15 - 20 defenses and 20 - 23 DEX/4 - 5 SPD average to be replaced with 12d6, 25 - 30 defense, 23 - 30 DEX, 5-6 SPD villains.
 
If we apply genre emulation and assume those 1e villains were intended to fight a team of 4 or 5 PCs, then the PCs didn't need to be powerful enough to beat them one on one. Unfortunately, 1e didn't have a supervillain team (with lower abilities but better synergies and strategies) to illustrate what PC teams might look like.
 
There's too much published material, and too little Hero capital for new material, to abandon backwards compatibility now. Imagine if Hero had the resources to change all the ground rules and republish all the old Enemies to a new standard - that's basically what every new edition of most games does today.
 
If we take the published Champions characters and drop every Super by 9 DEX, 3 CV and 2 SPD, they don't change much relative to one another.  We can drop Agents a bit less, and mooks a bit less than that, and non-Supers are more credible threats too.
 
I've toyed with dropping every NPC villain by 10 defenses and adding 3 DCs (tougher to address exotic or unusual defenses and exotic attacks) to speed up combat.  If everyone has 12d6 and 35 defenses, an average hit does 7 STUN and combat takes forever.  Leave the PCs at that level, but give the villains 15d6 and 25 defenses.  The Heros average 42 - 25 = 17 STUN to the villains, and the Villains respond with 52 - 35 = 17 average STUN back. Just as easy to have everyone reduce defenses by 10, but that requires the PCs be revised.
 
12d6 and 25 defenses is comparable damage to 9d6 attacks and 15 defenses, if you want to scale it back further.  10d6 attacks and 15 defenses actually makes being STUNNED with a 23 CON an occasional event.
 
Now, let's assume we did drop those 23 DEX, 8 CV, 5 SPD, 12 DC, 25 defense average characters by 9 DEX, 3 CV, 2 SPD, 2 DC and 10 defenses.  That saves (pre-6e) 66 points (ignoring rDEF and the spinoff effect on STUN, REC and END).  In 4e, we save 78 points.  Those points can go into character-customized cool abilities, or we could just reduce total points to compensate.

At some point, I don't recall when but 4e at the latest, I think, the baseline shifted from "Normals have 10s across the board" to "0 point Normals have 8s across the board, 2 SPD, 16 STUN, 16 END and 23 points of skills, perks or even stats higher than 10". I think it crossed over with Everyman Skills; both were aimed at Normals having some skills and abilities, not "straight 10s and nothing else".
 
 
I think it was Golden Heroes that set actions in terms of Panels.  Supers got twice as many panels per game turn as Normals.  Whether you were a slow, lumbering rock monster or the avatar of the God of Speed, every PC got equal panel time, so equal actions.  They were not shy saying that the game emulated comic books (and were quick to note that there were war, science fiction, fantasy, etc. comic books so the system could be used for any genre).
 
 
A certain portion of points becomes a character tax. You can't be too far behind on the SPD and CV curve.  With higher SPD, you need more REC/END or reduced END, and more STUN to get you to higher post-PS12 recovery. If average attacks rise, average defenses, STUN and CON need to rise.
 
This is another issue for the Trained Normal - you're expected to have limited defenses AND limited CON, so look forward to a lot of those "4 SPD maximum - you're a normal human!" phases being spent recovering from being stunned.You nail it, Duke - slow "trained normals" are lousy genre emulation.  In the comics, they avoid attacks so they don't need high defenses, STUN and CON.
 
"But they won't be as Super!"
 
No? 
 
15 Defenses still means a Normal can't really hurt them.  5 CV and 3 SPD is still a decent advantage over 3 CV and 2 SPD. 10d6 will still KO and hospitalize some poor 2 PD Normal (5 PD won't fare a lot better). Agents don't have to all be peak human normals (isn't that what Captain America is supposed to be?) to be remotely relevant, and they still compare to other Supers in the same way they did before. But a 35 Defense Doctor Destroyer with a suite of 15d6 attacks will walk all over them - we don't need 1,500 point master villains if we tone down the standard Supers.
 
A nice thought exercise, but the current norms are far too ingrained.  It didn't take long for those 1e starting characters with 8 - 10d6 attacks, 15 - 20 defenses and 20 - 23 DEX/4 - 5 SPD average to be replaced with 12d6, 25 - 30 defense, 23 - 30 DEX, 5-6 SPD villains.
 
If we apply genre emulation and assume those 1e villains were intended to fight a team of 4 or 5 PCs, then the PCs didn't need to be powerful enough to beat them one on one. Unfortunately, 1e didn't have a supervillain team (with lower abilities but better synergies and strategies) to illustrate what PC teams might look like.
 
There's too much published material, and too little Hero capital for new material, to abandon backwards compatibility now. Imagine if Hero had the resources to change all the ground rules and republish all the old Enemies to a new standard - that's basically what every new edition of most games does today.
 
If we take the published Champions characters and drop every Super by 9 DEX, 3 CV and 2 SPD, they don't change much relative to one another.  We can drop Agents a bit less, and mooks a bit less than that, and non-Supers are more credible threats too.
 
I've toyed with dropping every NPC villain by 10 defenses and adding 3 DCs (tougher to address exotic or unusual defenses and exotic attacks) to speed up combat.  If everyone has 12d6 and 35 defenses, an average hit does 7 STUN and combat takes forever.  Leave the PCs at that level, but give the villains 15d6 and 25 defenses.  The Heros average 42 - 25 = 17 STUN to the villains, and the Villains respond with 52 - 35 = 17 average STUN back. Just as easy to have everyone reduce defenses by 10, but that requires the PCs be revised.
 
12d6 and 25 defenses is comparable damage to 9d6 attacks and 15 defenses, if you want to scale it back further.  10d6 attacks and 15 defenses actually makes being STUNNED with a 23 CON an occasional event.
 
Now, let's assume we did drop those 23 DEX, 8 CV, 5 SPD, 12 DC, 25 defense average characters by 9 DEX, 3 CV, 2 SPD, 2 DC and 10 defenses.  That saves (pre-6e) 66 points (ignoring rDEF and the spinoff effect on STUN, REC and END).  In 4e, we save 78 points.  Those points can go into character-customized cool abilities, or we could just reduce total points to compensate.

Looking at Duke’s summary, specifically “If the pool was 90 (and I have a strong feeling that the pool will not be more than EGOx3, whatever that works out to be), then there is limitation on 30 of the points; must push or boost EGO to use, that’s not entirely true.  No one power can exceed 60 AP, but the pool can have more than one power at a time.  It could, for example, have a 12d6 Energy Blast and a +15/+15 Force Field in pre-6e terms.


 
Le’s take a step back, and start with a 90 point VPP in pre-6e. The control cost is 45 points, and the character can have one or more powers in the pool, up to 90 AP per power and up to 90 real points in total.


 
Ignoring the whole EGO link for a moment, if no power in the pool can exceed 60 AP, that is a limitation. The character has less flexibility in using the VPP.  The question is the point value of that limitation.


 
Let’s look to 6e.  Since the pool and control cost were de-linked, this is easy.  The character buys a 30 point control cost (up to 60 AP powers) rather than a 45 point control cost and we’re done. That’s equivalent to a -1/2 limitation on the control cost. Reminding oneself that the control cost provides the sole benefit of making points up to a certain AP “reassignable”, that does not seem too unreasonable. 


 
We could port that 6e rule to prior editions, or assign a limitation based on the reduction in AP choices in those prior editions. If we adopt the 6e logic, backporting seems just as easy as assigning a -1/2 limitation.


 
OK, what about the “EGO x 3” part?  If we’re OK with 3x actual EGO, simply setting the maximum AP at 3x the character’s 20 EGO does the trick. But what if we want the maximum AP to move with EGO?


 
Maybe that means buying a full 45 point control cost (could it be even higher? What if the character was Aided to a 40 EGO?) and limiting it based on 3x EGO.  That last 15 points could be heavily limited if enhanced EGO is unlikely to happen often, or even at all.  It may not be limiting at all (consider using the VPP for a slow-fade EGO aid!).


 
The first 30 points may also merit some limitation if EGO reducing situations will appear in-game.  Imagine that this is a standard for some campaign fixture (Green Lanterns; Jedi; Wizards), everyone knows about the link and it’s pretty easy to get an ego-suppressing ability (technology; magic).  Suddenly this is much more limiting.


 
I come back to the need to assess the implications for the campaign and discuss the frequency of EGO modifications, and thus limitation values, with the player.  That crosses all editions.