dsatow

Another solution to the problem is to simply give normal NPCs the physical complication "Affected by Normal Human physics" for 30 points (always, greatly).  What this means is, when taking damage, apply all the heroic level damage options which includes crits, impair/disable, bleeding, shock, and hit locations.
 
So lets look at an example of the hostage falling 5 stories or 20 meters in 2 segments.
 
A superheroic normal will take about 10d6 normal.  2 PD will mean they take about 8 Body from 10.  They hurt but they'll survive.
 
A normal human physics normal, rolls a hit location.  If its a head shot (3-5) or vitals (13), they take 2x body.  That 8 Body take is now 16 Body.  Since the body done exceeds the normal body of the character, that location is disabled.  A disabled head or vitals usually means death to an NPC (6e2p111) but lets just say they are just disabled.  Per 6e2p112, this can mean permanent/long term scarring or characteristic loss assuming a failed Con roll.  (a disabled vitals area has a 1 in 6 chance of lowering the Body stat beyond normal damage)  Next since they took 16 Body of blunt trauma, they are bleeding.  Luckily, normal blunt damage is one lower on the bleeding chart so they only take 3d6 damage.  If any of those dice of the 3d6 is a six, they take another Body worth of damage.  Next they are in negative body so they are dying and lose the standard 1 body per turn also.  So while the chance is small, its possible they will die by the second post twelve.  
 
If the villain is holding the hostage up higher than 20m, per 6e2p141, the damage could be killing and or penetrating.  

Its just so much "hot air".  Get it? Get it?  "hot air"  Steam.  Okay... Why is my wife coming over to my computer with a mallet.  Wai.... >>>disconnected<<<

Another solution to the problem is to simply give normal NPCs the physical complication "Affected by Normal Human physics" for 30 points (always, greatly).  What this means is, when taking damage, apply all the heroic level damage options which includes crits, impair/disable, bleeding, shock, and hit locations.
 
So lets look at an example of the hostage falling 5 stories or 20 meters in 2 segments.
 
A superheroic normal will take about 10d6 normal.  2 PD will mean they take about 8 Body from 10.  They hurt but they'll survive.
 
A normal human physics normal, rolls a hit location.  If its a head shot (3-5) or vitals (13), they take 2x body.  That 8 Body take is now 16 Body.  Since the body done exceeds the normal body of the character, that location is disabled.  A disabled head or vitals usually means death to an NPC (6e2p111) but lets just say they are just disabled.  Per 6e2p112, this can mean permanent/long term scarring or characteristic loss assuming a failed Con roll.  (a disabled vitals area has a 1 in 6 chance of lowering the Body stat beyond normal damage)  Next since they took 16 Body of blunt trauma, they are bleeding.  Luckily, normal blunt damage is one lower on the bleeding chart so they only take 3d6 damage.  If any of those dice of the 3d6 is a six, they take another Body worth of damage.  Next they are in negative body so they are dying and lose the standard 1 body per turn also.  So while the chance is small, its possible they will die by the second post twelve.  
 
If the villain is holding the hostage up higher than 20m, per 6e2p141, the damage could be killing and or penetrating.  

But a sword cane when used, is obviously a sword.  Per 6e1p376, the obviousness is related to the use of the power.  If when using the power, the power obviously comes from the focus, the focus is obvious.
 

Here's just some ideas that slipped in through my head at your scenario.  Sorry if some of these have been mentioned.  I was reading the thread really fast before leaving from work.
 
1) Croc, the mentalist died.  Having died at the hands of a superhero, he becomes a vengeful ghost.  Most supers in comics when they die but the death isn't plot driven get new powers or are somehow revived.  As a ghost, he's nearly unstoppable as he can be both intangible and invisible. Worse, he can't be killed or taken in unless the issue which binds him to this mortal plane is sundered (i.e. the murderous hero faces justice for his overly lethal use of force or MI is taken down).  Maybe croc is brought back as a cyborg ala robocop.  now he has bionics as well as mental powers.  Maybe the mutation he has kicks into overdrive to make him survive but it goes out of control and his body begins to absorb any local biological mass ala the Blob.
2) The Aquans may have been bad for MI but they have not really killed blue collar workers in the company, letting them go.  One of them who was protected by Croc and was told their justification in their action sees the hero ruthlessly kill stab Croc through the chest.  He begins to see the heroes as villains and creates an assassination group to take out heroes like him.  When he corners the hero, he'll gloat about why he's doing what he is doing.  If the hero kills him, any of the other members of his team will get others or the government to do the same.
3) MI likes the way the hero does business.  Soon they are asking him to take out other "villains" and his reputation grows with other civil mastermind villains.  Batman-esque heroes will soon be hunting him.
4) One of the villains is actually an undercover cop/super working for the U.S. Justice department to gather evidence to take down the supervillain team when he clashes with them.

Just a minor correction there. 6e1p380 the difference between OAF and IAF is a half lim.
 
OAF = -1
OIF = -1/2
IAF = -1/2
IIF = -1/4

Perhaps if it's actualy going to be used by others. If no others are going to use it, then no.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Usable by palindromedary

My suggestion would be, buy the CC book and get the PDFs for 6E1&2.  They are much more usable as a searchable document than as an extra 5 pounds of books in your backpack.

I will try to solve your questions. Of course I have the benefit of unlimtied time instead of the streess of GMing in paralell.
The setting will solve this.
In Heroic, a 6DC attack sounds like a likely value. WHile +6 DC sounds excessive.
In Superheroic, a 6DC attacks sounds uselessly small. Unless it has some advantages that affect the DC calculation (so iti s actually a 9 or 12 DC attack), 30 STR is way to little damage. While normal STR + 6 DC should be about in line Characters < 30 STR.
 
Turning a power off/on usually requires a 0-Phase action. And you can not do that specific "flip switching" action twice per phase. So no turning Desolid "off and on again" in the same phase. You also no longer can take 0-phase actions after an attack. Otherwise Affects real world would be unessesary.
If he was desolid when starting the move: Turn off desolid before the move or after a half-move. Then Passign strike.
If he wasa solid before: He could turn it on before/after his half move, but would then jsut pass through his enemy. And turning it on after an attack does not work.
 
I usually find Multiple Attack to be overly limiting. Way to many penalties in Superheroics to use it.
 
NND is a form of AVAD.
In a way NND is both the final step and a lessening of the "Defenses Ladder".
The rules regarding no body damage are AVAD side:
"AVAD attacks only do STUN damage (even ifin their ordinary form they do BODY), and the specifed defense reduces their effect as usual. However, characters can purchase the Does BODY (+1) Advantage for them (see 6E1 333). If a character buys an AVAD attack with the Advantage Autofre, he must apply an additional +1 Advantage to Autofre."
This includes the exceptions for Drains.
 
By RAW "Draw weapon" is a 1/2 Phase action, with no "can be combiend with 1/2 Move" allowance.
Of coruse Quick Draw is still an option.
 
By default Shape Shift is "constant" and "costs end each turn".
"A character may freely shif his shape as ofen
as desired; switching shapes takes a Half Phase
Action. Shape Shif costs END to use, both to shif
shapes and to stay in a shifed shape. If the character is Knocked Out or Stunned while in shifed
shape, his Shape Shif immediately “turns off ”
unless it’s Persistent"
 
 

Just reminded me of the Holiday Inn Express commercial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno
 

https://imperiya.by/video/s--3AMKZZgu/Londo-uses-his-tentacles-to-cheat-at-cards.html

Things that an Extra Limb is good for:
Grabbing and Holding multiple opponents Using 2-handed weapons and a shield Manipulating more than 2 objects at a time Surprise HtH combat maneuvers Cheating at cards Also, in 6e (and perhaps as early as 4e), the cost is 5 points. 

I ended up despising those "Low mechanics" systems like  Fudge, Fate, and the rest.  Even with a GM I liked running them, I was supremely unsatisfied.   When Killer Shrike popped up with GNS Theory, My ears perked as I was on rec.arts.frp.advocacy and watched and participated in the philosophical brawl in those old USENET days. As i said before, I came out of war gaming into RPG's, and  haven't left it entirely behind (WW2 Re-enacting leads to Postscriptum, and dabbling in Arma). I came to love role playing, and making up the characters personalities. However, I did not leave my love of tactics and mechanics behind.
For me Hero was/is the perfect system for what I want, because the tactics make sense, within the mechanics, and Role play gave context for the fights.
 
My disagreement above is the Role play snobbery, in that enforcing  personalities to be equal to the players. I do not know about you, but I did not game with theater majors.  Games like FATE prioritize that thinking, often at the expense of plausibility, and the Theater Majors tend to dominate the session. (Now I like role playing with theater majors and actors, but in the circles I gamed it, they were not common, except at conventions, also high crunch systems tended to curb their excesses.) Also those games did not have tactical problems to solve. Solutions tended to be what is seen in movies and TV, rather than reflecting the situation on the ground.
 
The other problem, is that you have to play with the people that brung ya.  The hobby, I will say, does attract it's share of the socially inept. In a number of cases also the handicapped. What I want to see if the game, is not so much great acting, but engagement. If that engagement is because someone who is not  a good fit for a hard Boiled detective, has that as one of his fantasies, then YES I will let him roll what is on the sheet,  even if it's  "I roll my intimidation". Now there may not be any bonuses unless they elaborate, but I am willing to allow a roll to determine the  outcome. But engagement, and not reading, or checking their phone, is what I am after for good players at the table.  Role play can be learned, tactics can be learned, but to learn takes basic engagement. Enforcing a table house rule of only allowing characters who's personality matches the players, sounds limiting, and , well kinda mean. 

No wonder he's so angry.  He's never alone.  I mean just think of how frustrated he must be when trying to use the bathroom... ?
 

Agreed. I'm a tech guy from way back, hardware, software, network. I'm constantly cringing at bad-wrong tech in fiction. Sometimes its just too much and I can't enjoy the fiction, but usually I can set it aside and enjoy the material on its own merits. 
 
And nobody, I mean nobody, wants to sit at a gaming table while I hold forth on specifics of a technical nature. Or set theory. Don't get me talking about set theory; it would be traumatic for both of us.
 
However sometimes there is an issue. For instance, a GM running a modern game offered up a plot element that was stuff written down in a foreign language. What he wanted was for the group to go find a scholar to translate it which would be the bridge to the next bit of the story. Of course someone said "I whip out my phone and google translate it". The GM, who is somewhat behind on modern tech, was like...no way that's impossible. Hi-jinks ensued.

This also makes me think of another issue that comes up sometimes.  Occasionally there's a situation where the player is legitimately an expert on a subject, and the GM doesn't know anything about it.  One of the guys who used to play in our group was in the Navy and actually ran nuclear reactors.  He knew more about that subject than everyone else at the table put together.  The GM didn't even know enough about nuclear physics to set up a plausible scenario.  He could say something like "the reactor is going critical, it's going to explode!"  And the player would say "American reactors are incapable of exploding.  They are designed differently.  It literally can't happen."
 
In the end we just had to treat each other with respect, both for our respective areas of expertise, and for our roles at the table.  The GM has to be able to say "this is just fiction, for purposes of the game it works this way".  We all know that Rob knows nuclear science better than us, but we also respect that the GM has taken the time to try and tell an interesting story.  
 
In real life, I'm a criminal defense attorney, but nobody wants to set aside what their characters are doing in the game to listen to me talk about how things "really" work.  Years and years of inaccurate TV legal dramas have convinced me to just shrug my shoulders and say "the law works differently in that world".

I haven't read through a lot of this thread, but I'd thought I'd toss in a few cents worth of thoughts. (i'm on break so I'll have to make this quick)
 
Back in the day, I was trying to get players to more actively role play out their character's conversations and actions (it was the in thing).  I had read a lot of the GM aid style books (I always like to try and improve my GMing) and was following its advice.  This was when one of the players pulled me aside and gave me a bit of advice which summarized to "Some players will never act out a conversation or skill or feel too uncomfortable to do this.  Game play shouldn't make the player feel uncomfortable but rather have fun."  Now these aren't the exact words but their meaning.  A player wanted to be a con man but his own personal abilities just wouldn't let him do this in any conceivable way.  And even though I never penalized him or the other players, he wasn't having fun.  Another player caught on to this more than I did and told me.  I went back to the 3d6 roll and summarized the results.  For him,  blue booking, etc. just wouldn't work.  He wanted to role play out a fantasy in the game but didn't have the personality or skill to pull it off.  Worse, it made him feel uncomfortable to play in that way.
 

There seems to be a underlying current that skill usage xp and normal xp are exclusionary to each other.  I don't think that is necessarily so.  
 
Say in a normal game people would normal receive 3 xp per session.  In a skill usage based system, the 3 XP could be dropped to one or two XP per session with an additional 1 or 2 xp based on rolls the player has made.  In this type of scenario, the player can suddenly still know "Japanese" a la Wolverine by spending their normal XP, while they can also slowly get better by skill use such as training in the danger room.
 
One last comment to interject, just because a player bought off a disadvantage doesn't mean they can't get new ones for more points.  Maybe they bought off the hunted.  A few game sessions later, they acquire a dnpc.  The new DNPC should give them back the points used when they bought off the hunted.
 

I haven't read through a lot of this thread, but I'd thought I'd toss in a few cents worth of thoughts. (i'm on break so I'll have to make this quick)
 
Back in the day, I was trying to get players to more actively role play out their character's conversations and actions (it was the in thing).  I had read a lot of the GM aid style books (I always like to try and improve my GMing) and was following its advice.  This was when one of the players pulled me aside and gave me a bit of advice which summarized to "Some players will never act out a conversation or skill or feel too uncomfortable to do this.  Game play shouldn't make the player feel uncomfortable but rather have fun."  Now these aren't the exact words but their meaning.  A player wanted to be a con man but his own personal abilities just wouldn't let him do this in any conceivable way.  And even though I never penalized him or the other players, he wasn't having fun.  Another player caught on to this more than I did and told me.  I went back to the 3d6 roll and summarized the results.  For him,  blue booking, etc. just wouldn't work.  He wanted to role play out a fantasy in the game but didn't have the personality or skill to pull it off.  Worse, it made him feel uncomfortable to play in that way.
 

I haven't read through a lot of this thread, but I'd thought I'd toss in a few cents worth of thoughts. (i'm on break so I'll have to make this quick)
 
Back in the day, I was trying to get players to more actively role play out their character's conversations and actions (it was the in thing).  I had read a lot of the GM aid style books (I always like to try and improve my GMing) and was following its advice.  This was when one of the players pulled me aside and gave me a bit of advice which summarized to "Some players will never act out a conversation or skill or feel too uncomfortable to do this.  Game play shouldn't make the player feel uncomfortable but rather have fun."  Now these aren't the exact words but their meaning.  A player wanted to be a con man but his own personal abilities just wouldn't let him do this in any conceivable way.  And even though I never penalized him or the other players, he wasn't having fun.  Another player caught on to this more than I did and told me.  I went back to the 3d6 roll and summarized the results.  For him,  blue booking, etc. just wouldn't work.  He wanted to role play out a fantasy in the game but didn't have the personality or skill to pull it off.  Worse, it made him feel uncomfortable to play in that way.
 

Hows this for a stop.
 
 

I haven't read through a lot of this thread, but I'd thought I'd toss in a few cents worth of thoughts. (i'm on break so I'll have to make this quick)
 
Back in the day, I was trying to get players to more actively role play out their character's conversations and actions (it was the in thing).  I had read a lot of the GM aid style books (I always like to try and improve my GMing) and was following its advice.  This was when one of the players pulled me aside and gave me a bit of advice which summarized to "Some players will never act out a conversation or skill or feel too uncomfortable to do this.  Game play shouldn't make the player feel uncomfortable but rather have fun."  Now these aren't the exact words but their meaning.  A player wanted to be a con man but his own personal abilities just wouldn't let him do this in any conceivable way.  And even though I never penalized him or the other players, he wasn't having fun.  Another player caught on to this more than I did and told me.  I went back to the 3d6 roll and summarized the results.  For him,  blue booking, etc. just wouldn't work.  He wanted to role play out a fantasy in the game but didn't have the personality or skill to pull it off.  Worse, it made him feel uncomfortable to play in that way.
 

Swimmingly.  He walks with a porpoise in mind.

Oh, it’s totally optional. The Herosystem, especially the earlier editions made a great tactical war game system, and was used as such on occasion. To me, that’s the mark of a great system. I am cold on minimalist, theater of the mind, systems. I think it boils down to group expectations and desires. 
 
 
Unfortunately it’s not instinctive, and requires some maturity.  Most people can be taught to do it by others, but some people aren’t comfortable opening up, or are emotionally limited. It’s the old “I roll my persuasion skill vs. trying in character to persuade an NPC”, problem. Again, it is group preference. I know it took me a short while to get comfortable, and clearly separate IC and OOC knowledge, but I got there by playing with good role players, and extended from my wargaming roots. 

I've watched that show.  It doesn't exactly qualify as a refutation.