Lee

"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance."
--- John Wheeler

I do not agree that the lack of figureds makes chargen more difficult; quite the opposite...I think it makes it simpler and easier. Figureds require knowledge of the relationships between the characteristics, and application of sub calculations, which cascade each time a primary with figureds is tweaked. None of that happens in 6e with a la carte figureds. 
 
You personally may be more familiar w/ pre-6e and thus find that style easier due to familiarity, but having sat thru the process of players making pre-6e and 6e characters, my perception has been that the 6e approach is easier for players in general. And having made very many characters myself, I find making 6e characters to be much less fiddly than 5e particularly in the area of primary-secondary twiddling. 

To do that you have to reduce the standard amount of movement allocated to a starting character.  Obviously this is possible but if the argument for figureds is it is more intuitive, reducing your movement because you increased your speed is NOT intuitive. 🙂

Then how much DEX does a gold medal gymnast have, and why should they be as combat-skilled as Daredevil or Robin? I don't believe the benchmarks changed in 6e.  Looking at p48, we have Skilled (11-13), Competent (14-20 - I would think "skilled" is better than "competent", but OK), Legendary (21-30) and Superhuman (31+).  That table also puts CV 11+ as superhuman, but it's where I see most "highly trained normals" when I see character builds.
 
Examples of DEX - a soldier, cop or pickpocket has 11-13.  So EVERY super is way more agile than a cop or soldier.  Sleight of hand artists and elite soldiers have 14-20 - so EVERY super is better than the most elite of soldiers?  Legendary is "Elite martlal artist" - wow, virtually every Super is at least in that class, which encompasses DEX 23.  Now, Batman and Daredevil are elite martial artists, right?>  So, they have the same DEX as every other super?  That is not the right benchmark in my view.
 
 
I'm not sure every Olympic gymnast is "legendary".  How many can you name?  Bruce Lee is legendary for his martial arts prowess. 
 
 
Agreed - one reason starting points went up.  +1 OCV and DCV cost 6 points in pre-6e.  Not 9 - 3 came back from the Speed Rebate.
 
 
It's not often relevant how often they accidentally drop things.  We don't see them play baseball or football much either.  They must all have Life Support, too as I hardly ever see them eat, drink or sleep.
 
 
Sounds like they are "elite soldiers" with a DEX of 14-20.  I don't see many builds with a 17 DEX for a Green Lantern type.
 
 
MM flies fast.  Where is he shown being unusually agile or dextrous?  Aquaman swims fast.  Ditto.  EM is shot by normal thugs all the time - how is that a CV of 8 to 10?  Red Tornado flies fast, but he blocks attacks with walls of wind - he doesn't evade them.  Bullets bounce off Cyborg's shiny armor - he doesn't dodge those 4-5 CV thugs.  Or does everyone with a handgun have a DEX in the legendary range in your view?
 
"Exceptional" meaning "skilled or competent" - in the 13 - 18 range?  Sure.  But "exceptional" in the "all of them are legendary level agile"?  No.  But that is what the stats say.
 
 
Most of those are experienced Supers.  In Marvel, we hear that a lot were "trained by Captain America", which sounds like they spent XP on martial arts even though they rarely fight HTH.  I see few 13 STR Blasters invest 20 or 30 points in Martial Arts, but nothing stops them.  I also don't see Tony Stark use those moves in his armor, so apparently they don't transition well.
 
The speed of mercury seems to manifest in flight speed (velocity), not feats of agility.  He does fly remarkably well, though.  No, I do not consider every Super Olympic calibre.  The modern age Mr. Terrific was an Olympic medallist, as I recall. When I see him in the comics, he is far more agile than most of his JSA teammates, not just on par with their averages.
 
 
And we circle back again to why everyone competent in combat should also be an olympic level gymnast.  Since every PC is stronger, tougher and more agile than a normal person. why don't we just have one stat - it gives you everything.  We'll call it "Heroic". A normal person has 10, and derives their lift, HTH damage, OCV, DCV, SPD, agility skills, STUN, REC, BOD, END, PD, and ED from it.  Hey, heroes are impressive and string-willed, and pretty swift on the uptake - may as well toss mCV, ego rolls, resistance to mental attacks, PER rolls, INT rolls, interaction skills, PRE attacks and PRE defense in there too.
 
How much should it cost?
 

A superhero who was at gold medal gymnast level (Daredevil? Robin?) would have much more than 23 Dex.
 
Well given that anything over 20 is extreme human outside range, 23 is a pretty good "nobody gets better than this" human level.  That's where I'd peg an Olympic level gymnast -- based on STR, of course, the only quantified stat we have to work with. I mean I guess you could multiply INT x10 for IQ, but intelligence in Hero is less about how smart you are than how perceptive you are, how quick your mind is, and how good a memory you have.  You can have a low INT and be smart as a whip, just slow or imperceptive, or have a gigantic INT but be basically stupid but highly perceptive with a great memory.

The other thing about needing a high DEX to be combat effective means that, for example, Thing only needs three points to have 14 or 15 or less in Acrobatics.  I just think that there is so many things tied together pre-6th that I am pleased to see the teased apart in the current rules.
 
I like high DEX to mean that the character is dexterous, not that they are good at hitting things.
 
Doc

The intro of Rey movie was a big-budget rip off of the first movie, but was panned for it where the third movie: a rip off of the first movie, wasn't. 
 
You're mostly right but the first Rey movie was a total knockoff of A New Hope, down to the death star, a desert planet, a sith with black robes, and somehow on earth getting Luke's lightsaber.  Abrams mixed things up a little but he just made an updated his version of the same film.  It could have worked okay but while Abrams is a very fine visual artist and director he's awful at storywriting and characterization.  Rey was a strange mix of forgettable and bizarrely overcompetent.  Everyone else was just a face in the crowd, and the big scary villain is a pathetic loser.

They were _alll_ movies for kids! 
 
Seriously, I'm always confused by the amount of contempt for everything that followed the first three, because they weren't good, either. 
 
The first one was fun, but it was Shark Boy and Lava Girl fun: you were pretty sure you weren't going to tell your friends you watched it. 
 
The second one wasnt better: it started in the middle of something, and ended with nothing resolved, with some "Hey, let's throw a twist or two in here and just sort of....  Oh, and play on the mud, because that periscope gag is golden. 
 
The third one was terible:
 
Hey, I don't have any ideas at all.  Let's lift the plot from the first one, include the expanded cast, and ruin the best evil villain anyone has written in a long time by making him suddenly human and repentant.  Break his character comoletely: you know, the exact same thing people will complain about when we do it to Luke thirty fears from now, but somehow it won't bother them _now_. Oh, and teddy bears save the universe, because kids like teddy bears, and kids are the target audience. 
 
 
The prequels were crap.
 
The intro of Rey movie was a big-budget rip off of the first movie, but was panned for it where the third movie: a rip off of the first movie, wasn't. 
 
The best movie in the entire franchise was Rogue One, if only because it was a sequel that wasn't asinine and boring, had nothing to do with Skywalker and mitochondria-- I mean, the other thing--and actually fit into the story as if it were meant to from the beginning: the thing Lucas himself couldn't pull off. 
 
I suspect the reason for the bulk of the hate is that the fans aren't kids anymore, and aren't entertained by what the same things as when they were kids, because these movies have gotten no better nor any worse than they were from the very beginning. 
 
"casual fans" are the correct type of fans for these movies.  Something to remember the fun you had as a kid, and nothing more. 
 
Maybe it's because I wasn't a kid when I saw them, but I have yet to find a "good" Star Wars movie, period. 
 
 
 
Phew. 
 
 
Okay, bring on the hate. 

Because The Force Awakens had been so excruciatingly bad, I wouldn't have gone to see The Last Jedi at all if my wife hadn't dragged me to the theater. And I say this as someone who will play the prequel movies as background noise rather than listening to music.
 
I thought it was noteworthy that, after seeing The Last Jedi, my wife had no interest in dragging me to go see the Solo movie.
 
I know that most people will watch any old crap if Disney puts a "Star Wars" label on it. Honestly, I would have thought I was desperate enough to see new Star Wars material that I'd put up with any garbage that a filmmaker put out there because they couldn't bury the Star Wars goodness under a deep enough layer of crap to make the movie a flat out bad experience. 
 
But it turns out that Disney proved conclusively I was completely wrong about that.

The teaser may not be designed to help us learn what the movie is really all about, but its job is to get us excited to see the movie. That appears to have worked on kids and casual fans (not exactly the most discerning lot), but it barely moves the needle for the hardcore fans who have been wounded too deeply by the profound disappointment that was The Last Jedi and the rehash of episode IV that was The Force Awakens.

Yeah the problem is ultimately that while the PCs are few and specific, the NPCs are effectively infinite.  And while a crit on an NPC can be devastating, another steps in to take its place.  But a crit on a PC can be incredibly deadly because that's the only PC like that in the universe.
 
Its like in a computer game, when the NPCs ignore all sense of self preservation, logic, or tactics because once the player loses, the game is over.  They can lose any number of their kind, since they're infinite, but there's only one player and when he or she loses, its all over.

There is a GUMSHOE SRD that is a free download. It has (at least most of) the guidelines to which you are referring. Google GUMSHOE SRD. It was the first result for me.
 
Lee

So, paint a mural at the edge of the solar system showing nothing here.

Mostly what Duke just said, but also consider what advantage the extra two legs provides. 
Can they still walk if they lose a leg?  No. 
Can they still kick if they lose a leg?  No. 
Are they able to grab more people at once?  No. 
Can they hold more objects?  No. 
Do they need to buy more shoes?  Yes. 
 
They're not paying for Extra Limbs because they're not getting any benefits you'd expect to come from Extra Limbs. 

I find I use "next" a lot to fire through.  When looking for a specific power, limitation, etc., try "HHAutofire".  The system picks up the icon in front of the heading at each title in the skills, powers, advantages, etc. sections as HH.

Hugh:
 
With all sincerity and all respect, you know I _love_ discussing just about anything with you. 
 
But we are not going to be able too discuss this.  Our experiences with the game have been too different.  You can't accept, for whatever reason; presumably your own experience with the game, that there are a shocking number of us who play this game and don't give a rat's runny crap about "what the math says" in terms of X better than Y because two steps from now, and when you factor in-- and on and on.  If I got my joy from that--  well, I got my first RPG (Traveller) at a book store.  They had calculus text books, too.  I didn't leave with one of those, though. 
 
I am not math ignorant.  I don't even find math particularly difficult.  But fun?  As far as fun, I'd put it somewhere around having a colonoscopy done with a golf umbrella that had to be opened before extraction.  I spend, like a lot of other people, the best part of my working day juggling numbers, running math, etc.  And the reason I get _paid_ to do it is because it is not fun, which makes it hard to find volunteers. 
 
When I have a bit of time to relax, you can damned well bet "doing math" isn't on my list of things I might do. 
 
And I'm not alone in that.  I'm not even a minority in that.  According to stories you stumble across now and again on the news and on the net, I live in a country _dominated_ by a general dislike of recreational math (why do you think the most common complaint against HERO is "it's so....  Mathy..."?) 
 
Do I ignore the math?  No.  It has to be tracked so you can get your totals or what-have-you.  It has to be figured so when a proposed Limitation or Advantage pops up you can get a good idea just how much discount or additional charge is being suggested; all that "let's get our concepts down on paper and start the game" stuff. 
 
Am I going to diddle around with it so I can see which power has the best chance of inflicting an extra pip of BODY every four uses?  Frack no; I ain't. 
 
 
And there are those of you to whom that is part of the fun, or in some sense of "more fair" becomes important, and is broached with introductions that suggest your lack of understanding of how a large number of us play concept-first: things like "but you'll be hobbled against the other players" or "voluntarily being the least powerful at the table" or "outclassed by your teammates..." 
 
You don't seem to really appreciate that this is not happening because _none_ of us are interested in points effectiveness, splitting and round overs, squeezing out another pip every seventh shot, making sure we spend every single character point we are allotted, spiking up dead to the campaign limits, or any of that other "but the math is the best part!" stuff.  None of us.  Not one single player. 
 
You can't get your heads around that any more than we can understand why the hell you _would_ waste all your play time trying to figure it all out. 
 
In short: it's not you.  It's not us, either.  It's the simple fact that we are so far away from each other (semi-formal plural, of course, meaning the two "camps" of play style) that we can't understand each other enough to discuss what the rules "need" or the "proper use" of a mechanic or the "perfection" of a system or even the validity of a character construct in any meaningful way. 
 

You can lead a player to the plot.... and hit them over the head with. Repeatedly. But you can't make them pick it up.
 
All you can do in this situation is say "Well, that's what I prepped for this session. See you next session."

I actually have no preference on either unless you are writing the whole thing out on the character sheet, THEN my preference is for the simple version...

This topic highlights the differences between what makes a good superhero story and what makes a good superhero role-playing game.
 
Superhero stories usually delay the fight scene for as long as possible because once the fight is over, the story is over. The drama and interesting bits of a superhero story are the chase, discovering what's going on, and identifying who's responsible for it. In fact, there are superhero stories such as Batman where the super villain specifically does not target or want to directly fight their superhero nemesis. In the Dark Knight movies, the Joker doesn't attack Batman, he attacks normal people and institutions. The Joker creates situations where Batman must respond to his schemes rather than confront him. Losing a fight is usually part of the Joker's plan. "While you've been wasting your time fighting me, my minions have been busy strapping Harvey Dent and Rachel to explosives."
 
Superhero games tend to devote most of their rules to combat resolution and HERO System is no different. Players expect to use their powers to fight. I don't know what your games are like, but in the Champions games I've played most fights are completed in one turn or less. That's true even when a team of superheroes fights a more powerful opponent who also has minion support. Having weaker super villains might change that dynamic to fights lasting one to two phases, and there's nothing wrong with short fights as long as everyone enjoys it. Such games become less "Superhero fight club" and more like the source material where heroes spend their time and effort chasing and overcoming obstacles between them and their super villain targets.

This is a general response to a 6e complaint. No one person cited this exactly, verbatim, but several people made comments that I've generalized into the following:
 
The Hero System is more of a generalized system for making games with than a playable game itself.
 
To which I say, yes, of course. This is not a hidden realization, rather it is the expressed purpose of it. This has been clearly stated in 4e, 5e, and 6e via designer's notes and 'how to use' sections as well as from the extra-diegetic comments of the creators themselves. It's even on the back (and sometimes the front) cover of the books.
 
4e:

 
5e:


 
6e:

 
This is not some kind of secret or bait and switch, it is the expressed purpose of the game itself. The Hero System is also not unique in this regard, rather it is the purpose of the category of games referred to as "universal game systems". Other examples are of course GURPS (the classic "other game" from the perspective of HS) as well as more modern examples such as Fate Core or Genesys or the upcoming Cortex Prime, etc. 
 
So, basically, I can understand someone saying "I don't want a universal game system, I want a specific setting such as Champions Universe with specific non-generalized rules and therefore I prefer Champions III". But I can't understand someone saying "I don't like 6e because it changed things in an ongoing attempt to be even more of a universal game system than 5e or 4e". When something pursues its own stated purpose for existence, it is hardly notable or surprising.
 
___
 
The central  self-described premise of the Hero System is to be a universal game system offering a toolkit meant to be applied towards making campaigns and settings with, as it takes great pains to inform the reader in the form of its marketing and branding and trade dress, various "Philosophy Of..." and "Using the Hero System" sections, in all the "Toolkitting:" call outs throughout the book, in the form of dozens of examples deliberately covering a variety of genres and situations.
 
And yet, repeatedly, people seem to want to cite this as if it is some sort of a problem that "its not really a game, its a game to make other games!" or words to that effect. Yeah. No kidding. That's what it says on the tin.
 
I don't buy a box of hot chocolate mix and then complain when I open it up and find I can't actually drink it unless I assemble it with some hot water and optionally marshmallows and milk. 
 
I don't buy a guitar and complain when it doesn't play itself, requiring me to learn musical theory and songs and what not, and maybe buy an amp and a pedal board.
 
I don't buy a lego set and complain when it requires me to actually make stuff with it myself.
 
And I don't buy a universal toolkit game and then complain when it expects me to make stuff with it myself. The desire to do that and to have a system that caters to that activity is kind of the reason why I bought it in the first place.
 
So, basically, I can understand the position "I'm not really a Hero System gamer, I'm a Champions (or Danger International or Justice Incorporated or whatever) gamer and I'm just here on the Hero System boards to hang out due to lack of options" or the position "I don't find value in universal game systems in general or the Hero System specifically", but I don't understand the position of "I'm going to criticize a universal game system for having rules for the purpose of being a universal game system". It just seems like an exercise in missing the point to me. 
 
Standard disclaimers of "YMMV", smiley faces, etc. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just don't understand the mindset of hating on something for being what it professes to be.

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/alignmentConsiderationNotes.aspx

Knowing the truth is the best way to tell a lie if the liar is telling lies in regards to a particular subject; so, in some instances, background skills like Professional Skills, Science Skills or Knowledge Skills could be substituted.  As someone who would have PS: Computer Technician in real life, I can often tell if someone claiming to be a technician is really a technician or just reading scripts and tossing out technical terms just to sound smart.

Indeed, why have point costs at all?  Just describe what each character can do, and how he is limited (whether by power limitations, complications, etc.) and rely entirely on the GM to ensure each character is both challenged and useful.
 
Why even have mechanics?  The players and GM can simply describe what happens.
 
Ultimately, RPG rules are merely an adjudication model for a game of "Let's Pretend".

Cross posted
 
Sung to the tune of Monster Mash
 
 
I was playing at the game store, late one night
When my eyes beheld an eerie sight
For the dungeon master met all our eyes
And suddenly to my surprise
 
He did the mash, he did the genre mash
The genre mash, it was a gaming smash
He did the mash, it caught on in a flash
He did the mash, he did the genre mash
 
We used martial arts from the far flung east
From Lovecraft came an eldritch beast
gunslingers, swordswingers, spellsingers, all
Got together and had a ball
 
They did the mash, they did the genre mash
The genre mash, it was a gaming smash
They did the mash, it caught on in a flash
They did the mash, they did the genre mash
 
The zombies were having fun
The party had just begun
The guests included Batman,
Fu Manchu, and his son
 
The scene was rockin', all were digging the game,
Our campaigns will never be the same
We want police procedurals in ancient Rome
And Indiana Jones re-imagined as a Gnome
 
They played the mash, they played the genre mash
The genre mash, it was a gaming smash
They played the mash, it caught on in a flash
They played the mash, they played the genre mash
 
There was one old grognard who voiced complaint
Seems he was a genre purist who didn't like to taint
His old school dungeon crawling hack and slash time.
'Til we asked about gelatinous cubes, monks, and green slime.
 
It's now the mash, it's now the genre mash
The genre mash, it was gaming smash
It's now the mash, it caught on in a flash
It's now the mash, it's now the genre mash
 
Now everything's cool, the grognard's a part of the band
And our genre Mash is the hit of the land
For you, all gamers, this mash was meant too
When you get to my door, tell them Lucius sent you
 
Then you can mash, then you can genre mash
The genre mash, and do my gaming smash
Then you can mash, you'll catch on in a flash
Then you can mash, then you can genre mash
 
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary does the mash

NCC-1031, so I'm guessing pre-TOS. Still an incomprehensibly ugly ship though. It's even uglier than the Ent-D, and that's saying something.