zslane

This makes perfect sense to me. Now, a bullet that "Dispels" powers makes less sense to me, but that's a different matter.

I guess I'm not grokking why a bullet (are we talking about a metal slug here?) would ever be defined as a Dispel. What is this bullet, exactly? Is it a magic bullet that can just anihilate anything it comes into contact with? If that's the case, you might be better off defining it as a Transform (Functioning Thing Into Non-Functioning Thing) and be done with it (the Transform can be reversed by repairing the thing affected). Then you can decide on a case-by-case basis what "Non-functioning" means for any given thing that is tranformed. And as I recall, the mechanics for Transform are pretty straightforward.

That's a nice little cheat sheet, Christopher! Hero's combat system was so intuitive to me when I first encountered it back in 1982 that I am largely unable to imagine how anyone else finds it overwhelming, but I realize that many do. I originally came to RPGs from a wargaming background, and you generally end up with a pretty deep understanding of combat simulation mechanics that way. Compared to the mechanics in many wargames, the Hero combat system is surprisingly simple. When coaching new players, I ususally start by asking them if they'd like to punch, kick, or use one of their powers when their Phase comes up. I reduce their choices to only the most intuitive ones. If they are actually trying to learn the game as they play, as opposed to just sort of passively experiencing the game as a half-interested spectator, then it usually only takes a few Phases before they start wanting to try other things. Then the internal logic of the system does its magic and the vast array of options ceases to be an overwhelming cornucopia, and becomes a treasure trove of possibilities instead. Sadly, I also feel it is necessary these days to advise newbies not to look at published characters for guidance on design. It used to be that I could show newbies the write-up for Mechanon and they would stick around to learn how his powers worked in practice. Since about 5th edition, this just hasn't been possible. The Mechanon write-up is now a great way to drive potential newbies to D&D.

It might be that going backwards is the problem. I detect a bit of a disconnect with cause and effect here. We have a focus that generates a force field. The force field itself can't really be damaged, but the focus that produces it can. By concept, this force field isn't a magical manifestation of supernatural energy where "dispelling" it means bleeding off the energy it is made up of. In this case I presume it is a natural force (like gravity) being generated by technology. You can't really "dispel" the laws of physics, but you can certainly damage the focus responsible for grinding the necessary particles to the point of producing the field. So, what is this bullet doing? It can't be damaging (or "shorting out") the field itself because physics (in a sci-fi setting) doesn't work like that, and I'm assuming you want your campaign setting to make sense (for its genre). Remember, it is up to you to make the rules fit the genre, not the other way around. So it seems to me the bullet hits the force field, produces some sort of feedback wave which damages the focus, which in turns takes down the force field. There is no "going backwards" with this because we are defining a cause (bullet breaks focus) that is responsible for the effect (the force field goes down) instead of the much more difficult and wonky practice of establishing the effect first and then struggling to figure out how to explain and adjudicate the cause.

Good point. How can we be sure, though, that a genderless pronoun is the most accurate translation of the original Asguardian? After all, we only have the translation into our modern English provided by Marvel to go by, and "he" was not genderless in the 20th century. If the original was indeed genderless, I think Marvel's translated inscription would have used "they"... ;-)

A general rule of thumb to consider is that if the power write-up of a single ability fills up a third of an iPad's screen, then it is way over-specified and you're probably not letting sfx do enough of the heavy lifting for you in terms of the minutiae. It's odd. I rarely saw this problem pop up during the game's first four editions...not sure why I see so much of it nowadays. I can't help but look at modern villain/NPC write-ups with an accusatory glare.

I think you need to first define what you mean by "shorting the thing out". Is the "thing" being "shorted out" the force field or the focus? And when you say "shorted out" do you mean broken and non-functioning (but not destroyed)? Or do you mean only partially disabled, as in only some of its abilities are rendered non-functional? If, for example, the concept is that this super feedback wave shorts out the internal circuitry of the focus such that it is no longer functional at all, then (1) I'd use the focus breaking rules to determine the impact of the feedback wave, and if the damage is enough to break the focus, then (2) all powers bought through it are then unusable until the focus is repaired. As for the feedback wave itself, well, that can be rolled as whatever kind of damage roll seems fitting, since I'm assuming you haven't established exactly what that is in your game world, right? Maybe just take the gun's normal bullet DC rating and roll an equivalent KA against the focus or something. Or is this a case of a character with a gun featuring a 22d6 Dispel described as bullet rounds that "knock out technology" in some broad, unspecified manner? Since the means by which that works isn't being explained by its sfx, you'll be struggling to figure out how to make it work a lot. Maybe broad, non-specific effects based on sfx that have no established in-game mechanics should be avoided?

The enchantment on the hammer is surprisingly circular. "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." So what it means, in Thor's case, is that as long as Thor is holding Mjolnir, and isn't being a total douchebag, he possesses the power of...himself. Uh huh. Furthermore, the use of the word "he" would suggest that Freya's stint as Thor right now shouldn't be possible (being a "she" and therefore incapable of qualifying as a "he"). *shrug* We can't even turn to Norse myth for any help here. In the original tales, Thor needed a magic belt and magic gloves in order to have the strength to lift Mjolnir. On the other hand, the giant Þrymr stole it, clearly having enough raw strength to lift it and run off with it on his own. To the Norse skalds of olde, it really was purely a matter of strength. The silly enchantment involving worthiness and all its completely arbitrary magical powers are the inventions of Marvel writers (many of very questionable talent). And even they can't agree on what the dang thing does, or how it works. I love the Thor character. I love that he can go toe to toe with the Hulk. I love his command over thunder and lightning (which the hammer really shouldn't play any role in). But I have never been particularly fond of all the non-sensical "magical" abilities given to that hammer. I can buy that it's really heavy. I can even buy that it is enchanted to return to his hand if he throws it. Beyond that, I'm out.

Agreed that Loki should have been crushed by Mjolnir. Alternatively, if he is sturdy enough to not be crushed then he is sturdy enough to wiggle out from under it. But this sort of thing is just hand-waved away as "magic". It is not meant to be scrutinized, much less modelled with a rational system designed to codify How Super Powers Work. Trying to do so merely makes the effort, to say nothing of the source material, look ridiculous. As a rule, I'm not a fan of putting rarely-seen abilities on a character sheet. Most of those things occurred by writer fiat to accomodate plot advancement, and so should probably occur (if they occur at all) by GM fiat. If you were to point-model every wacky thing Thor ever did with his hammer you'd have a ten-page character sheet not worth the paper its printed on, IMO.

Yes, but the hammer resisted the Hulk's attempt to lift it because he tried to wield it (i.e., attack with it), which was in accordance with the enchantment. The hammer trapped Loki against Bifrost because the writer(s) of Thor mistook flawed logic for being clever.

How then does one explain the apparent success and longevity of the Call of Cthulhu RPG? If played correctly, player characters don't last very long, and players must learn to extract satisfaction from something other than long-term character progression (it is perhaps a good thing that the Chaosium BRP system doesn't have levels for characters to become fixated upon). One would think that fans of horror, understanding and enjoying the genre as they do, would join a horror campaign with appropriate expectations.

I would probably chalk up the whole "trapped under the hammer" shtick as an artifact of bad writing and not allow it. I mean, the magic of the hammer is intended to prevent anyone unworthy from wielding it. Simply rolling out from under it is not wielding it. There are times, I think, when GMs have to be willing to ignore those occasions in the comics where something particularly stupid appears within their pages. For those who love such silly plot elements, they can always just allow it by GM fiat and not even bother modelling it with powers and points.

Ok, but why is that a mental attack and not, say, Indirect TK?

To say nothing of his shockingly low 5 resistent PD/ED...

I think I know where you're coming from. I presume you were offended that the writers so egregiously violated the established characterization and personal histories of those two icons; in effect saying "F*** you" to long-time fans. I felt essentially the same way about the J.J. Abrams Trek films. But this leads to an interesting question: to what extent should the characterizations of fictional people be protected from such egregious mishandling? At what point does a cultural icon become disqualified from reboots, re-envisionings, and wild adaptations? And who gets to decide what is okay and what is not okay for a character? The rights holders? The fans? The fans have a say in the form of their buying choices, but are we perhaps taking the notion of "cultural ownership" too far when we allow ourselves to become personally offended by such things?

Actual war footage has been used in countless Hollywood films, for entertainment purposes, for decades. I don't think such objections will find much traction with filmmakers. Just the same, the reenactment footage is very well done too!

Yeah, a 4DC physical Blast slot would model the throw-hit-return stunt easily enough. The standard rules for throwing things pretty much covers situations where Cap doesn't need or want it to return, like to jam open a closing door, etc. In such cases, the shield is just an object he's throwing, not a power he's activating.

Your version makes more sense to me; the Force Field slot in yours has the Limited Coverage Limitation, which I would probably insist on if I was the GM...

I guess it represents the four-color tendency of every opponent to unwittingly aim for his shield, rather than an exposed part of his body...

Oh, I like that! If they ever release something akin to DC for 6e, I sure hope they change its name to Action Hero!

Well, let's not forget Rule 0. Not everything is going to get expliclt mention in the text; there will always be much that must be logically inferred from what is there. Consequently, one can reasonably declare something to be "legal" so long as it doesn't contradict anything else in the rules. It is by this exercise of common sense that we avoid rulebooks that are 2,000 pages long.

A shield as Force Field? What's the sfx explanation for that?

Yeah, it's pretty brilliant vfx work. I would probably have chosen different music, but the integration with the old WWI footage is very well done. I guess technically, WWI predates the pulp era (which was mostly inter-war), but excluding Wells and Verne is just too hard to do in our hearts. :-)

Ok, I've done some search fu and read a bunch of old threads covering this subject (and more), and here are my general thoughts: 1. I regret not getting back into RPGs sooner, back when all the discussions were still raging and relevent. I am realizing that nobody is interested in talking about many of the issues that are now very much on point for me (I'd be accused to rehashing old debates, beating dead horses, etc.). I guess that's what I get for showing up so late to the party. 2. I really like the idea behind Champions Complete if only because the 4e hardcover is my favorite RPG product of all time (by any publisher) and it combined the system rules with superhero genre material under one cover. However, the 4e era also was the era that first made the clean split between the system rules and genre books. The Hero System Rulesbook was, to my mind, the next best book in the line-up even though hardly anyone bought it (understandable given the undeniable appeal of the BBB). I still think the idea of a system book and separate genre books is my favorite approach, though I understand that today's marketplace has voted otherwise with their wallets. 3. If I could wave a magic wand and wish a new publishing scheme into existance, I would take Champions Complete and give it a BBB-style hardcover treatment. Then I would offer the system rules section and the supers genre section as separate POD softcover options. And I would do the same with Fantasy Hero Complete (offer it as a big, beautiful hardcover and the fantasy genre material as a separate b&w POD softcover). For genres with less marketplace traction (sci-fi, pulp), solo genre books could be published, again, as POD softcovers for those who like that format and already have the core rules in one of the other volumes. I think the marketplace gets the best of both worlds that way. I can't say I have much in the way of thoughts regarding MHI since it's not really my thing, but bringing its system rules text to parity with CC would be a good start (at which point you could also turn the setting material into a separate POD softcover). The idea of offering POD softcovers seems like a no-brainer since they incur no inventory costs. Hero Games gets to offer buying options with essentially zero cost or risk on their end. 4. As for the changes between previous editions and 6e, I can only speak for myself when it comes to resistance to embracing the new rules. One of the reasons people dislike change is because when you take something they've become experts in and change it, they no longer feel like experts. After so many years of experience playing the older editions, I've internalized the vast interconnected web of costs and mechanics. You can't just change things like characteristics costs without doing tremendous violence to that internalization and the intellectual shortcuts they provided. What might seem like a simple change to someone who has played 5e for only a short time, is a source of intense irritation for someone who has spent 20+ years digesting the game and its evolution since 1982. Someone like me has to weigh the benefits of the new, more logical rules against the effort required in undoing decades of calcified and optimized internalized expertise with the older rules, however "flawed" they may have been. Of course, the simplest advice to give someone like me is to just go back to playing 5e or 4e, and I am inclined to agree (I have a very nice PDF version of the old 4e Hero System Rulesbook that I could hand out to new players). It's just a shame that I can't, at this point in time, look upon the current incarnation of my favorite RPG and embrace it without reservation. This has not, however, prevented me from going to great expense to acquire all the 6e books. I may not like the system changes (yet), but sure do love having the books on my shelf...