Surrealone

From my perspective, the only real problem we seem to have had in the thread seems to have been handled some days ago.

Make it out of high carbon steel and give it a susceptibility to salty environments, while at it.

Make the sword an automaton follower, with all of the traits and abilities it should have, and none of the ones it shouldn't. Be very careful with how you handle SPD, by the way -- as it could get tricky to manage (since the sword may have actions while the wielder doesn't).

It's not much of a stun multiplier lottery if you buy the stun multiplier up to +8 or better. And if you keep it at 1d6 KA vs PD with penetrating using standard effect (for good measure to ensure -some- body is done on all but impenetrable defenses), you end up achieving the same sort of results...

And to continue the analogy: They might tumble sideways upon impact (hence the reduced OCV) ... and might also lose energy (i.e. have substantially reduced damage) due to loss of inertia while traveling through the drywall as well as the potential for hitting a stud behind the drywall. ​Mental attacks ... not so much. In fact, diving for cover behind a canvas tarp might just be enough to stop them ... depending on SFX.

Yet another waving away of the fact that only an out-of-print set of books that TODAY'S newcomers can't get their hands on are officially supported with authoritative responses making references to pages within them... and that the Complete books have no official support with authoritative rule clarification responses that refer to THEIR page numbers. No wonder it'll never change -- people are too busy making excuses for the status quo as if it's fine. If 6e I & II were still in print I would agree that the 6e changes were done to make things easier for newcomers. But when you combine those changes with today's reality that the only officially and authoritatively supported copy of the 6e I & II rules are out of print and, thus, difficult to obtain ... 6e changes done to make things easier for newcomers essentially evaporate or are canceled out -- at least when talking about materials that receive authoritative support. As to why newcomers would care about inflated point totals? Well, they probably wouldn't; instead, their GM would, since point total inflation makes re-use of old characters, objects, etc. (or pre-builts from older versions of the rules) a PILE of work due to the need to update them before using them. (If characteristics hadn't changed ... or had changed in such a way as to maintain point total equivalency between versions, then only specific powers would have needed to be updated...) This is worth considering in that the GM is likely to be an old timer ... with new players or people new to Hero System. But we're off topic from MCV sellbacks and I apologize for the digression.

That's not what I would call 'official support' for the 'Complete' texts that are available, today. This plays right into another thread, so this is the last I'll say on the matter, as I think everyone here knows and cannot properly deny the fact that what's sold in the form of the 'Complete' books has no official support using responses rendered with page references to the 'Complete' books. i.e. Referencing out-of print books is non-helpful to newcomers who can't get those books easily. (PDF's are not books, as we know... )

And who is answering rules questions with references to those? Oh, right, no one... (i.e. They're unsupported.)

We always solved that with 10pt skill levels with a [-1] limitation (only for OCV or only for DCV). Not a PITA, at all ... and interestingly it works out to the same cost as the 6th Edition OCV/DCV costs. Likewise, DEX could be purchased with a limitation that it didn't affect figured characteristics or CV (i.e. only for determining initiative [-1]). Was that really so difficult that it warranted adding new characteristics and inflating character costs? I don't think so... but I can see new players getting value out of it since it's more intuitive. Oh, wait, new players can't buy new, hardbound copies of 6th Edition... they have to struggle to find this place and buy a PDF -- and hope it's the right one (god forbid they buy a 'Complete' version that isn't cross-referenced, here, when rules questions are asked). So I guess DEX/OCV/DCV/SPD decoupling changes weren't done with making things easy for new for players... since, you know, getting the 6th Edition 2-volume set of rules that might make things easier for them ... is hard (if not outright impossible in the case of hardcopy) for newcomers.

Some susceptibilities: * Fear-based powers * One of a plethora of illicit and/or prescription drugs * Name the sound-based effect of your choice (dog whistle? radio waves? sonics?) * Name the element of your choice from the periodic table * Name the food (peanuts? shellfish?) or food ingredient/component (red dye no. 5? gluten?) of your choice * Name the chemical compound of your choice (salt? alcohol? caffeine? nicotine? plastic?) * Name the environmental condition of your choice (high heat? high radiation? high pressure? vaccum/low pressure?)

So if trash talking is commonly considered 'insulting or boastful speech intended to demoralize, intimidate, or humiliate someone, especially an opponent in an athletic contest' ... I'd think Stark making condescending male performance failure jokes ... is, by definition, trash talking. And I'd think calling someone 'puny' after he had just claimed his godly status ... is, by definition, trash talking, too. You indicated you didn't like it in your game. Yet you discounted two pat (and funny!) examples of the very behavior you said you didn't like -- and waved it off as if those examples didn't meet the commonly accepted definition. Colour me a little confused on exactly where you stand on the issue. Mixed messages, sir... But I do agree a fiddly construct isn't needed...

On the plus side, there's some real comic relief to be had watching a player dive out of the line of (sight group) sight of a villian they know is a mentalist ... only to be driven around like a remote controlled car by the mentalist anyway. It really gets interesting as to what constitutes LoS if your mentalist happens to have hearing bought as a targetting sense (a la "I can hear you thinking") -- something I learned by playing a mentalist who had exactly that. Tough to dive for cover out of the way of that one ... unless you're in New York City traffic, in which case just walk as usual and make sure he doesn't see you ... because he darn sure won't hear you over that din.

Audience size/interest is what's material in the critical difference. The more passive the entertainment format, the larger the audience size/interest -- primarily due to sheer convenience and the ability to consume the entertainment while multi-tasking. As a counterpoint: the more actively engaged the audience has to be to consume the entertainment, the smaller the audience size/interest tends to be. At least in today's world... This is germane to why RPG's aren't flourishing like they were when AD&D 1st edition was on the rise. Back then there weren't 500 channels of televised stuff, plus movie channels, and the like offering passive entertainment as a form of competition (if you want to include it, which it seems you do). And if you wanted active games-as-entertainment you had to make your way to an arcade or play a board game or 'pong' or 8-bit Atari (if you happened to have it) to find something that competed in the same active engagement space. Today, there are many more passive options (since you insist on including them) that dwarf games-as-entertainment ... and then video games are the 800 pound gorilla of the games-as-entertainment category. Alone, video games relegate RPG's to a really, really tiny niche within people's awareness/interest of/in games-as-entertainment compared to what they had 30 years ago. Throw passive media consumption in the mix and that RPG awareness/interest decreases by at least an order of magnitude.

I agree -- if they somehow know there's a mental power coming their way (i.e. they can perceive it, feel it, danger sense kicks in, whatever), dive for cover to deny line of sight works wonders ... unless the mentalist happens to have N-ray vision, a Mind Scan lock, or some other solution to the line of sight issue.

But television and books are passive forms of entertainment -- whereas games-as-entertainment involve active participation. This is why I was VERY specific about keeping the conversation to games-as-entertainment .... because they entail a different level of human engagement than passive forms such as television, movies, reading, etc. and, as such, the audiences are fairly well differentiated by that engagement level. Put another way (and more simply): when it comes to convenience, games-as-entertainment don't hold a candle to television/movies in terms of consumption. When was the last time you saw a video game on a monitor in an airport for mass consumption/entertainment by people going about their business without stopping what they're doing to engage it? Never. But you've seen Headline News (which is less news and more 'infotainment') there plenty of times ... reaching, entertaining, and informing lots of people without their active engagement. I can safely hang my hat on THAT kind of differentiation when it comes to human engagement levels. Now sub in a RPG for the video game in the above example, and it becomes clear why I consider video games and RPG's as competition in the same space ... and consider television, movies, reading, and the like ... a separate entertainment space.

I'm not suggesting RPG's try to capture the video gamer market; I'm simply saying that video games that are quick/easy/pretty compete with RPGs as a form of entertainment ... and because they're quick/easy/pretty, they'll usually win. i.e. Video games are the 800 pound gorilla in the games-as-entertainment space in which RPGs, card games, board games, etc. all compete.

When a barrel heats up it will cook off rounds long before warping to the point of being unusable. In game terms this entails unintended/unaimed autofire type actions coupled with endurance/charge expenditures. A loss of accuracy should also be incorporated, as a barrel will 'walk' (i.e. warp, but not to the point of being dangerous or unusable) as it heats up ... resulting in changes to the point of impact of projectiles fired through the barrel (relative to the point of aim from the same firearm). It is probably only a -1 OCV mod until you reach 1000 yard distances, as we're talking minutes of angle, here, but still, it's human notice-able in as little as 100 yards depending on barrel profile and skill of the shooter. Extended use of a barrel beyond the heat level at which rounds are cooked off can permanently damage a barrel fairly readily. Jammed mechanics should probably only happen after cooking off rounds occurs -- provided the rate of fire is sustained (and even increased due to round cook-off) beyond the heat level required to cook off rounds. The chance of a Jam should probably increase as the rate of fire is maintained beyond typical heat levels. GM's who are so-inclined may also consider Side Effects, as a critical Jam could certainly cause a catastrophic barrel failure while a round is in the chamber or barrel -- with the net result of an ugly explosion in the hands and/or near the face of the shooter. Interestingly, most barrel failures of this type don't tend to be fatal ... or even life-threatening ... but limb loss (usually digits of the hand, unless gloves were worn), disfigurement (often the face), and/or permanent sensory issues (eyesight loss unless eye protection was worn, hearing loss unless hearing protection was worn, etc.) can and do result. Think of such a failure as a small (1/2d6 to 1d6) RKA that goes off locally at a hit location ... and you have the right idea. Also consider that a contoured barrel, bull barrel, and standard barrel will all heat up MUCH more rapidly (and walk more) than a heavy barrel profile due to less metal being used in the construction of the non-heavy barrel profiles. Most modern fully automatic weapons have standard barrels, not heavy barrels -- something worth considering. Also worthy of note is that contoured and bull barrels are typically used by hunters (and possibly snipers) to shave weight ... knowing that the tradeoff is a substantially reduced rate of fire (one shot per 1-2 min -- usually more than fine for a hunter) unless the shooter is willing to endure point of impact shift (i.e. reduced accuracy) due to barrel walk as noted, above. Last, consider that a hard chrome-lined or a ferritic nitrocarburized barrel has undergone a surface hardening procedure that will substantially reduce the rate of wear a barrel experiences at high heat levels, which is why almost all modern U.S. military rifle barrels are either hard chrome lined or have undergone ferritic nitrocarburizing. Plainly put -- not all barrels are created equally, so the kind of barrel (standard, countoured, bull, or heavy) and any surface hardening it's undergone should play a role if you're going to model barrel heat to the cook-off and/or warping/fatigue states.

Anyone remember that 1979 song by the Buggles titled Video Killed the Radio Star? Well, video games killed the RPG player... Video games are now ubiquitous (on your phone, your tablet, your gaming console at home, your computer, etc.) and are pretty stunning. In addition, unlike the video games of yesteryear that were 1, 2, or at best 4-player, there are now massively multi-player varietals that keep on going while people sleep ... meaning there's a digital world ... full of people ... that one is missing out on when not playing. The younger generation probably wonders: Why use a pencil, paper, dice, a rulebook, and one's imagination when one can use a controller or console, a computing device of some kind, and a screen to augment one's imagination -- with no rules or math, at all? After all, it's on tap ... with no trip to the arcade needed ... and might even be in the palm of one's hand ... playable via a mobile network. This is what RPG's compete with, today. Want to know what they'll compete with tomorrow -- how about games built for Oculus Rift with stereo sound?

A VPP offers the widest possible set of options, but unless the player using it is VERY skilled with the game mechanics AND just as prepared (in terms of pre-built and approved powers) as s/he is skilled, the use of a VPP will most likely slow your game down. (Even with Hero Designer in use...) A multi-power may be a better option from a gameplay perspective specifically for game flow reasons. That said, a common approach for game flow reasons is for a GM to implement an 'all VPP powers must be reviewed and approved before a gaming scenario commences' approach ... which allows the slowdown to occur outside of the group's combined game time ... while preserving the flexibility of a VPP that makes sense for the character. My past GM's have frequently followed such a rule with an in-scenario allowance for the following sorts of adjustments to pre-approved VPP powers: changing SFX on a per-power basis (if applicable); swapping one [+1/4] advantage for another on pre-built powers, since the math is done and the advantage swap is a form of 'tuning' that results in a mathematical wash; changing the type of AoE (from cone to radius to beam to any) while preserving the advantage level of the AoE, etc -- which again results in a form of tuning that is a mathematical wash, etc. YMMV

Someone who is on administrative timeout in this thread brought it up by referencing 4th Edition. It's probably my fault that it went where it did -- specifically because I quoted the Entire 4th Edition section that basically lumped the 'Rules Rapist' (as it was written in 4th Edition) in with other player types whose 'diversity is good for the campaign' (per the exact 4th Edition verbiage). Some folks seem to take issue with that particular lumping/grouping -- hence the left turn. Others seem to have taken offense to the quoted name of that player type -- hence a different left turn. My apologies for both distractions. Everyone has to remember that rules can only be bent/broken with GM approval -- in which case, the GM approved it so it was neither bent nor broken to begin with...

Aye -- good summary.

Acrobatics and breakfall have clear combat applications (surprise maneuver for Acrobatics ... and getting up from prone as zero phase action, halving falling damage, and landing on feet from throws for Breakfall). All that's really been discussed, above, are ways to extend and/or interexchange these applications. The list of other combat skills provided on the first page of this thread probably bears similar scrutiny ... for similar reasons and results, yes?

Because scenes like Loki and the Hulk's 'puny god' trash-talking scene wouldn't be funny at your gaming table, at all? Or how about Loki and Stark's 'performance issue' trash-talking scene?

Really? Nearly two pages of acrobatics/breakfall-specific discussion while ignoring the following: I guess I thought this topic was about lack of skill use in combat "to any extent" ... and not about breakfall, acrobatics, and/or damage avoidance. I'm not complaining -- I just think acrobatics/breakfall has already been beaten to death and, as a result, am much more interested in unfolding discussion around the other combat-related skills (rather than the most commonly-used and obvious ones).

Explosion is 'priced' to reflect that it's a very small total area that suffers full damage; reversing it substantially increases the total area that takes full damage, so you'd have to somehow account for this (e.g. by increasing its cost in a way that makes the 'pricing' proportional to the area that takes full damage). While Grailknight's approach may seem more complex, it accomplishes the goal without any handwaving ... and without having to invent something new (in terms of 'pricing') to address the need. Hence, I think his approach is spot-on.