RDU Neil

I would honestly find the latter WAY easier than the former. And no... just like any game where OAF -1 has pretty much the same determined level of impact on a game... having two different Laser Pistol -1 is not what I'm talking about. But even if it was, because their character concepts (the truly important thing) are so vastly different that the different Laser Pistols play out differently... well... that is the point of all this. The limitations that are story based should move the story... and if you are saying the latter scenario above is difficult, then how do you keep track of the basics of "What is this player wanting at the table? How is this PC perceived to manifest in the imaginary space? What judgment calls fit the players concepts of fun play, and which don't?" GMs are making (or should be) these kind of constant social dynamic judgment calls all the time. Every decision a GM makes is one... not a mechanical decision... but a judgment call. To have the PCs "play experience" (at least as far as limitations are concerned) encapsulated in a single thing (the overall limitation description and the value of the limitation) is VERY helpful. That really helps me clarify even more. Mechanical limitations are ok as written (for the most part), and those are implemented every time BY THE PLAYER. The Story LImitations, though, are up to the GM, and therefore should reflect "How much can the GM mess with my standard operations?" I think it was Lucius above who also enunciated this as well.

Yes, exactly. One of the motivations for my thinking in this area is not just simplifying, but removing the tendency to stack multiple small limitations because they "make sense" and "are on the approved list" but together provide way more of a point break than they are worth together.

I'd totally be on board with this kind of thing. It would be a very straight forward way to award bennies... you spend them for benefit, and it triggers a disadvantage coming into play in the game, so some such. That is very solid.

From my POV (and YMMV) the point to having cool, regional fighting styles is as much in "who CAN'T use them" as in who can. That is much campaign rules, rather than mechanics... saying a character must have a reason to know a certain fighting style, and likely denying characters from having multiple styles. For a low level fantasy game, this makes sense, because you are involving culture and heritage and how that plays out in subtle differences of fighting style. That being said, it would probably be necessary to have each style have a clear 'advantage' as well as 'disadvantage' based around play elements as much as mechanics. The Vo-than style of the mountain people is about using rocky and sloping terrain to its advantage The Palean fighters of the great plain states are deadly on fast horses, with sabre and bow! etc. Simplest way is to provide plusses to OCV and DCV that only apply in the terrain/distinct situation they are trained for. It could also be a matter of establishing clear, upfront guidelines on use of Environmental Movement... so the Vo-than have it in the rocky mountains, and those that don't are suffering penalties in combat. I personally LOVE the martial maneuvers as ways to show different fighting styles and to provide tactical choices during play... but it really comes down to "How will I represent a skilled advantage in a certain situation over those who don't have it?"

Please don't link to TMZ ever again. I had no idea... my god... Seriously... twenty seconds on that site and I'm even more on the side of David Morse's Dr. Peters than ever before.

Seriously dude. A joke. Dogs get locked in hot cars all the time... a bit of a turn on that, is all.

Yes... this essentially, because if you can never have a comprehensive list of every possible limitation. And even if you did, it would tend toward limitation stacking that quickly breaks, because there is not enough granularity (and I wouldn't want there to be more) to model every slight difference in how a power functions. (And generally leads toward WAY more price break than the total limitation actually plays out in game.) And also, I feel there is a very big difference between limitations that have a clear mechanical effect... and limitations that are more story/sfx/complication based. Treating them as the same kind of stackable point-saving function makes for some seriously hinky builds. Ultimately, the limitations should reflect "How does the player, play group, and GM want the character to manifest in actual play?" And this is more about a liberal use of "what do I ultimately want" vs. "how do I stack a list of limitation to simulate some existing effect."

If I understand you correctly, then yes... Shape-Shift, -1/2 Limitation Master of Disguise... and that limitation involves everything that disguise entails, taking time to put it on before hand, disguise could be damaged, start to fall off if he over exerts, etc. Whatever is 'dramatically appropriate' for a disguise to be hindered at a -1/2 level. Basically, a quarter of the time it starts to slip up, can be discovered, whatever. That kind of thing works for me, because it makes the disguise "power/super skill" a point of dramatic tension.

Yes, and again, I think you were part of these conversations over a decade ago, where I argued that "lift" was never mechanical and purely SFX, and could easily be changed to whatever you wanted for your particular game. That seemed heresy to some, but it is true. Lift is purely subjective imaginary reality. 100 STR mechanically is 20d6 and 29- STR roll (right?). Lift, the very idea that there is stuff to be lifted and characters have an understood capacity to lift (and there is gravity to be lifted, against, etc.) is all SFX of the game world... not a mechanic of the system. I'm totally fine with removing Lift as some kind of "set thing" in Hero... as I've modified the Lift chart already for my game (It stops doubling in lift after 50 STR and becomes linearly 1 ton per pt of STR for lift... so 100 STR lifts 100 tons.) That in NO WAY affects how STR interacts mechanically, but changes the SFX of "how much can you lift" only.

Totally, agree, which is why I asked the question about 'Would it be possible to work Mass/Size/Scale into Hero?" and basically still be a game. If it becomes a matter of mathematical realism simulation... that isn't what I'm after. Right now, Hero basically resolves all interactions between objects into Normal or Killing Damage vs. relevant defenses. Cool... that is a nice simplification without writing Principia: Son of Origins of Principia! Is it possible to have size and mass and scale be variables of the basic "damage vs. defenses?" I don't know. Probably not, and still be playable... but I wonder. Some arbitrary scales set (Factor 0 is standard, man sized, baseline Hero... Factor 1 and up are getting bigger... Factor -1 and down getting smaller. Damage has a Factor... lower Factor attack vs higher factor defenses and targets will quickly be negligible. Higher factor attacks vs. lower factor defenses and targets will quickly become overwhelming. It could work, but costing out having higher Factor powers or being Factor 1 character in a Factor 0 world... eh... I don't know, but I've had this idea rattling around in my head for a long time, but I can't figure out how to make it work. I think it does become a baseline element of the system, and then figure out what downstream effects their are. It would essentially be some kind of arbitrary exponential system, instead of (or layered below) Hero's linear system. (the idea being the Growth/Shrinking/Density Increase are essentially "factor changing" powers).

At the time of posting, the wind and waves are just brutal!

locked there by his dog, maybe?

Even if you granted Ethan Hunt the level of Hawkeye or Black Widow or Falcon (and that is ramping him up significantly), he's at best a sidekick. In his milieu, Hunt is the best of the best... in the MCU he's back-up. Very different concept.

I would. Hands down, it is what I've always wanted. I like the Heroic level of Hero best, but I have enjoyed the level of cohesive and consistent play that Hero has allowed to be applied to supers. If we had some integrated size/mass/scale rules that enhanced that even further... I'd play that to death.

While I can sort of see where you are coming from, I know I wouldn't enjoy playing in that kind of game. Not all character concepts are created equal, nor are equally acceptable for a particular game/campaign. If someone watches the latest Mission Impossible or James Bond and says, "Cool. I want to play a super competent agent type!"... ok... but is that appropriate for the game in question? Ethan Hunt isn't "super" in the MCU, though maybe an NPC role, like Nick Fury or whatever. Having him be 'just as important/playable as Cap' doesn't fit. Now, Ethan Hunt in the Netflix Marvel... he's actually TOO super. Those shows have downplayed super abilities to be even LESS cinematic action than Mission Impossible. Iron Fist has a harder time beating up Triad members than Ethan Hunt does taking down a bunch of terrorists. Again.. his concept could work, but would have to be toned down significantly. If you want to play Ethan Hunt Clone as a clear PC level character, then it should be a cinematic action campaign where that type of character is the definition of "super." In a large supers/universe campaign... multiple types of characters can get played, but they aren't all equal. The PCs could be city-wide protectors, and way better than the "trained agent vigilante team" but not as powerful as the "world beater" high level team. All can exist in the same world, but Gun Guy isn't "just as good" as IconicMan! when it comes to facing threats. In my campaign... Cap and Black Panther and Thor are all viable characters... but concept limitations mean that in many cases Thor's player is just doing a lot more than the other two. This is why Black Panther went from "strong, tough fighter in a cat suit" who came out of fights with the KKK torn up... to "strong tough fighter utilizing sci-fi level tech to be capable of taking on supers and aliens and galactic threats". It is a logical evolution, but Black Panther's concept changed along the way to allow for the evolution. Not all character concepts are as open, or able to change without being fundamentally other.

Yes, yes, yes. I believe you were part of these discussion back in the early 2000's, right? Lots of talk about what Hero is built to do, vs. what it isn't. The core assumption of a "human like game world" at its core, even though it claimed a neutrality, the rules clearly indicated otherwise. It is an interesting proposition for the boards... "Can you do a supers RPG that actually takes size/mass/scale into account in any realistic way? Would that break the general feel of supers? Can Hero be rewritten with size/mass/scale being a fundamental part of the mechanics and still be Hero? It certainly would NOT be "Champions" in any classic sense... but is there a "Cinematic Reality Hero" that could possibly exist with such mechanics?"

What irks me, is that this is what the comics basically do, these days. Once a creative team is done with their stint on a character, the next one comes in and does whatever they want, and to hell with continuity, etc. The MCU has actually had better continuity than the comics for the most part (at least since Marvel's halcyon 61-86 era). Back then, a creative change of writer/artist would have still complied with the overall editorial creative direction of the larger Marvel line... but now, just do the "next cool thing" with the property. Clearly DC/WB thinks of the supers this way... "do something with the character property to make money!"... as opposed to Feige having a coherent ten year plan (and beyond) to maximize the character/actor dynamic as fully as possible.

Further sign of DCEU failing? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/henry-cavill-as-superman-warner-bros-dc-universe-shake-up-1142306

Watched the last two episodes tonight. It was well done, and much better kept to 10 episodes. The Netflix Marvel shows are turning much more into dramas with some super-stuff going on, which is always counter to the action set-ups they imply. The ending of IF Season 2 was intriguing for its implications, using Brubaker's run, which is cool, but I doubt they would ever make an actual pulp style show. That would be fun... all action, spare the character bits! Not perfect, but certainly a huge step up from Season 1.

My feel, and I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, is that in most cases Advantages come with a specific mechanical effect (Autofire, Armor Piercing, Area Effect, etc.) whereas Limitations tend to bleed more into "how it plays" rather than mechanics. Where there are specific mechanical functions of a Limitations (Activation Role, Increased END, No Range) having it spelled out is good, but for the most part, the "how it plays" like Focus, Limited Power, etc. are more descriptive, with a general sense of "just how limiting is this in scenes/story/plot" being what matters the most.

Yeah, this is where differing interpretations of SFX vs. mechanics vs. in-play-limitations (like property damage) really can break Hero. You could say it is simulationist, but you need to agree what you are simulating. If it is "Bronze Age Supers" then 95% of White Dwarf's impact on the game is surface level 'crash boom bang" as he smashes up the place, no worse than any other super. BUT... if what you are trying to simulate is "realistic effects of super powers on a world like ours" then you get serious headaches. Why is White Dwarf having such overt impact on the environment... but Burning Man doesn't? Do I have to now buy all energy blasts and flame based powers with extra limitations "Sets shit on fire randomly" in order to properly simulate such powers? Now it isn't just White Dwarf who is the problem, but every single PC needs to rebuild their characters, detailing out the likely destructive side-effects of their powers. Why should White Dwarf get all the fun? The fact that Density Increase has an "sfx/environmental" effect built into the power is a major part of the issue. +20 Strength 14- is mechanical. +20 Strength and stuff gets broken is a judgment call. Hero has always struggled when it put purely mechanical builds and advantages and limitations on equal footing with sfx/environment/play effects.

I agree that a list of "suggested limitations and values" is probably necessary, because new GMs need a guide... but if you had that... coupled with the idea that "you don't stack multiple limitations, you simply have one that states "how this power manifests in play"... wouldn't the idea basically work? And as for GM error... a simple OAF -1 can screw up a campaign if the GM and players aren't fully on board with exactly what that will mean during play. The player buys it "because it is a sword, so yeah, OAF" and the GM then has that sword "bound, disarmed, lost" at least 50% of the time... and the player is pissed off. Both are valid interpretations, but manifest completely differently in play. If they don't talk about it before hand... there will be problems. I don't think "One Limitation to Rule Them All" is any more problematic.

I'm sure this has come up before, but I couldn't find any threads devoted to it, so I thought I'd just see what people think. Premise/Thesis: There is only one limitation: Limited Power. Every other Limitation is simply a version of this, so instead of all of them, have one Limitation that goes from -1/4 (very slightly limited) to -2 (only usable in rare circumstances) (-1 is "about half the time, the power doesn't work when you want it to). Nice, easy sliding scale. Would it be easier and more balanced to simply have one limitation (a single thing or a combination of things) that shape the way a power manifests in the game? example: Instead of buying "Focus" and "Charges" and "Beam Weapon" and etc., etc. to make a gun-like power... why not simply "Limited Power: Laser-Gun!" and then assign a Limited Power to it that fits the player/GMs feelings on how limited it is. -1/4 and Gun Gal! can use her gun unless completely bound/captured... -1 regularly dropped, disarmed, runs out of charges, whatever... -2 cosmic nullifier gun, only usable against TALLMANINPURPLESHORTS!, whatever. Seems much easier, and fits the goal of a power working in "dramatically appropriate ways" rather than playing the reverse engineering/micro-detail version... where you can deconstruct something ad infinitum and is either a pointless intellectual exercise, or someone trying to max point savings. You could even have most of the list of current Limitations as "Examples" for comparison... but the idea of needing to stack together a bunch of them is not correct. Any 'combination' of limitations is grouped into its own single limitation, with a value that reflects how the player wants it to come about IN PLAY. (This comes out of playtesting Champions Now as well as the Density Increase discussion, etc. Limitations as a guide to play, not as a point saving mechanic.) Thoughts?

Is that who all those cameos were supposed to be? Really? God, I hated that movie and hate it even more, now. Stallone looks nothing like...

I was going to post the same. Only on episode 2, but the show is 10 times better than last season already. Better writing, natural dialogue, tighter scene pacing, solid acting and... yes... much improved fight choreography. The fights are entertaining and meaningful. Well done, Marvel, in actually caring enough to improve what was pretty much a train wreck into something very entertaining.