Grailknight

Verstappen didn't rise up to challenge Hamilton. Red Bull rose up to challenge and surpass Mercedes. As structured, F1 racing is prone to these streaks of dominance. While the drivers are the public face of the sport, the constructors and their engineering teams are its true stars. It's 90% the cars provided and 10% on the drivers and race day crew. Red Bull currently has the best car and the only ones in shouting distance of them are Ferrari, McLaren and Merecedes. The situation is volatile because the construction regulations and parameters in F1 are much looser than NASCAR or Indy car racing so their cars have greater variation from the norm. But they place strict limits on how much money can be spent within any given racing season. If one team makes a better adjustment to the offseason changes, they can count on being at the top for that year unless their advantage is very slim. I'd love to see the F1 drivers do something like the old International Race of Champions series. The top 8-12 drivers and their crews would compete in a series of races with identical cars from one manufacturer and would have to rotate cars and crews from race to race so they never drove the same one twice. That way we could have a points system for both drivers and crews and a fairer gague of each's skills.

Isn't this a game where we're playing as Batman or Hank Pym or Tony Stark or John Henry Irons? We play the real world 1% exceptions not the 99% rule. And in the real world there are athletes who are Rhodes scholars. Granted they're not as common as in genre, but they do exist.

That's probably even closer.

Well, more like variations of Iron Man.

Yes, he does and he's just as broken. It's just harder to see until you add in all the Weapon Master.

I'll sum up my feelings and bow out also. There is merit in Doc and Hugh's ideas. More system balance is a good thing. But I feel they are diving too deep into the mechanics and losing the passion. They're writing for The Advanced GM Guide while I'm working on the Player Handbook.

This isn't about gameplay so much as it is about marketing. HERO is a Supers game at heart and has always been linked most strongly to Champions in the gaming world. So, when we look at first impressions, newbies will want their PC to "Be as strong as the Hulk", or "As nimble as Spider-Man", or "An engineer as good as Tony Stark". And what will your system show them? Not a tangible value but a bonus to a roll. It takes 6th edition and makes it dryer and wordier and you'll still have to use Characteristics to describe the roll type. All you're really doing is eliminating high base skills because you'll have to buy the bonuses for each or at a higher rate for a group so no Figured Skills. Your system does make system costs more balanced, but it lacks emotion in character creation. The RPG industry has been going for 40+ years and I've never seen a product with no Characteristics. And all of those games use those Characteristics to (Wait for it...) give modifiers to rolls. They just make it easier to visualize a character concept and certainly to individualize one. HERO's problem isn't in how fun the gameplay is, it's how complicated character creation is perceived to be. As a halfway measure you could just change the costs of Skills. Make them cost 2 points for a base 11 or less and 4 points for a base of 9+Char/5. You can only add All Combat/Noncombat and Overall levels to the 2 point Skills but can buy up the 4 point Skills at +1 per 2 points.

They should just accept it, and merge with the MWC. They may not get Power 5 deal, but they should be able to get 10-15 million/school because of the loss of other West coast games. But the longer they put it off, the harder it'll be to act in unison.

How are Grabs handled in this system? Describe it to me. The abstraction is workable for those familiar with the system but would be terrible for newbies. Characteristics, even with their pricing issues, give some basis for understanding an ability with just one word. Without them you'll have a wordier and harder read than 5th-6th and that won't fly for attracting new players.

That's not removing STR, it's just renaming it and repricing its components. That's not remotely worth the disconnect of having the other Characteristics representing physical abilities but the not the one most commonly used across all RPGs. You even used the word strength in your list of things provided. You might as well keep the name.

The two campaigns that I allowed NCM as a Disadvantage had house rules that made it a true liability even if you stayed within the Characteristics. They were low level Supers campaigns which featured some distrust of Vigilantes, mild Anti-Super Prejudice and shadowy government organizations of which some but not all were corrupt. 1- Characteristics as Powers were not allowed as exceptions. You could be stronger than 20 STR with Density Increase or Growth but any other method paid double. 2- Taking full NCM stopped you from buying Martial Arts DC's. It gave those without NCM, an effective level of Damage Negation (This was pre-6th so we gave +4 DEF.) against you and you did normal damage to objects designated as real world. Not taking NCM had a 10 point "Detects as a Super" distinctive feature built in to balance the negation which didn't count towards your total and couldn't be bought off normally. Lacking NCM also gave 1.5x damage vs real world objects which was the root of the prejudice problem. So, it depends on the campaign assumptions, I kept some of these principals even after 6th came about. They help Supers be superior to Normals without going too far beyond 12 DC as base. YMMV.

Normal Characteristic Maxima works fine for those 7-10 DC street level games. The fast 5 SPD people don't take it but was pretty common on the 4 SPD characters. That said, I found it more useful as a delineator for several house rules around the interaction between supers and NPC's.

Will this be for personal items only or any item you come across? What are the largest and smallest items you can change? Can you lengthen one wall of a building to block off pursuit down an alley or shorten a bridge and cause a collapse?

Simpler explanation is good option, boring story.

Having the giant eagles fly them to Mount Doom was always my favorite.

It wasn't the dropship, it was the braindead crewman on the door that caused the problem.

Lebron has 4 rings, 2 in Miami, 1 in Cleveland and 1 in Los Angeles.

Chucky gets the boot in a landslide. My suspension of disbelief is tested too strongly.

The Big 12 should go after the two Arizona schools and Utah to get to sixteen teams. That would make sense from a travel standpoint and keep or improve some rivalries. Plus it would more than offset what they lose in basketball just to get Arizona.

Luckily, I have sports and anime to carry me through. And I honestly don't think the writing could get much worse if they just grabbed up fanfic writers. They'd have been truer to the source than the hacks that handled the Tolkien and Jordan adaptations.

I've never seen it used by a player, but I used it for villains all the time. I think it went away because of a change in designer philosophy. Steve Long just spent the points directly. It would be simple to brig it back for your campaign though.

You could also go with Extra Limbs and Stretching with IPE on both and Does Not Cross Intervening Space on the latter. This gets into OCV issues rather quickly though. You'll need levels.

Because weapons of opportunity were brought into the discussion, and expanded the scope of the original question.

I would skip the time stop aspect of this entirely. Make it Selective AOE Telekinesis (Define the SFX as you need) and require a Telekinesis Skill roll to pull off the differing effects.

It's covered in the movie. Apparently, Barry was a temp intern when he got his powers and got a full-time job after JL.