RDU Neil

This is what I'm alluding to above, that it felt like a move too far to the "over-engineering of characters builds" side of thing, while ignoring "actual play" and the results of using the rules in play.

I've said before that Hero became "two games"... the "build your character game" and the "actual play at the table" game. The mechanics, even all the massive supplements, became stylistically and functionally removed from implementing actual play. A tendency to deconstruct everything to the Nth degree, without a focus on whether you SHOULD bother deconstructing, and does it actually help you play the game better with actual people and dice rolling and plots and dialogue going on, etc.
 

In games where there are mechanics for social/political interactions (that I have played) it goes a bit deeper. It really is about designing rules for player agency, so even if the character "loses" the player is still engaged and the story moves forward and "losing" can be as interesting and satisfying as "winning."  (There is also a certain mindset of de-protagonism required for players about their characters, which is not always easy, even for people like me who like that kind of thing.)
 
I have played many PBtA (Powered by the Apocalypse) games, and the basic core mechanic is 2d6 and you get one of three results; full success (things happen the way you wanted them to), success with a challenge (you did what you wanted, but there is a complication), failure (things did not work out and GM can act against you). The GM rolls NO dice, ever. They merely respond to what the players initiate, and it can be with a failure, that even the player gets to suggest what bad thing happens. 
 
Dogs in the Vineyard (only played a little) there is a very cool dice pool mechanic that enables any kind of conflict resolution, but there are player choices... you can back down at any time which is sometimes best, because you can see your pool just won't beat their pool, so there is a mechanical reason to not do the typical "I just keep fighting even in the face of insurmountable odds, 'cause I'm a PC darn it!" attitude. Also, the player invokes  aspects of their characters to increase the dice pool at a cost later, or takes a hit now, for a bonus later, etc. (I'm vastly simplifying here.) The point is that the mechanic actually forces the player to think "What is the best way to move this current scene along" rather than "What would my character do?"... which I've always found to be a sham argument. Also, you can benefit from taking a smaller loss earlier, saving resources for later, or just not risking everything... making a judgment call on when (in the story, scene, plot) you need to go all in, vs. when you can back off. The game's mechanics support this kind of thinking.
 
To me it is about player attitude in a social/political style game (and a traditional action adventure game as well to a lesser extent)... in that the players need to go in being not just "ok with" but actively interested in the give and take, back and forth, success and failure of social and political interactions... not just "winning"... and the rules and mechanics should help support the players having fun even when the conflicts go against them. 
 
While this mentality is important in traditional "fight and kill what the GM throws at me" game, it is WAY more important in social/political type games for reasons stated above. If the player is engaged, win or lose, then there is no loss of agency... they are just as much driving the "here is the tragic downfall of my character" as they are "here is my character kicking ass". 

Great stuff! Thanks everyone!
 
Follow up: All these "doing political stuff as concrete combat maneuvers with real mechanics" ideas.  Have any of you actually done this in Hero?

I see Pendragon mentioned. Are there any other systems where things work this way that folks have actual experience with?
 
How about actual games where a IRL person without the (social) skills their character has been played in the way suggested?
I think some of the Fate or whatever systems have ways for characters to take disadvantages based on their build to earn "Fate Points" that they can spend later.
 
So per RDU Neil and some other suggestions the way to get around the sting of removing player agency is to get them onboard with it by giving them a bennie later one.
The (I think) Fate system however isn't quite the same as what's being talked about here.
 
Like in a fight maybe I die, but most likely other interesting stuff happens. If I get "killed" in social combat do I now have to betray my friends (or whatever the thing is, work for somebody we hate, do stuff neither the player or character want to do) forever? Or can I recover from being socially dead?
Seems like if "social" is going to be emulated with combat systems then recovery and such should also work the same?
 
 
Just wondering if folks have actually played games like this, using Hero, or if it's mostly theorycrafting (which is FINE!) and\or other systems which are more designed around those ideas.
 

This is what I'm alluding to above, that it felt like a move too far to the "over-engineering of characters builds" side of thing, while ignoring "actual play" and the results of using the rules in play.

I've said before that Hero became "two games"... the "build your character game" and the "actual play at the table" game. The mechanics, even all the massive supplements, became stylistically and functionally removed from implementing actual play. A tendency to deconstruct everything to the Nth degree, without a focus on whether you SHOULD bother deconstructing, and does it actually help you play the game better with actual people and dice rolling and plots and dialogue going on, etc.
 

I have no more likes today, otherwise I would offer you some.
 
It is really interesting how there is a tendency, myself included, for players to resist loss of autonomy of character way more than destruction of character.  i.e. I've had many a character shot, stabbed, imprisoned, mutilated, paralyzed, poisoned, tortured and killed... and that is just "eh... whatever..." and I role play appropriately...  BUT... if a character is somehow "convinced to work with the bad guy" or "trust someone the player knows they shouldn't" or whatever... then it becomes "This sucks..." and every moment by the player is spent trying to loophole their way out.
 
I believe this is because role playing a character who is making a bad choice/acting against their own interests... is not just about the character losing autonomy... but the PLAYER losing autonomy. Psychologically, you've removed my agency as a player. More importantly, the player is now actively complicit in doing further harm to their character/party. This is "feels bad man" 100%. Role playing combat where you lose is attacking the "Character"... role playing social/politics where you lose is attacking the PLAYER.
 
The reason I bring this up, is that it comes back to mechanics. When you are involved in social/political type conflicts where the negative result is not "I lose a few abstracted points from my HP/Stun/Body total" and becomes "I'm now forced to act against my characters interest (notice "I" in this case is the player)... you need to have mechanics that actively reward the player for doing so. The game should be as fun and interesting when the social combat goes against you, as when it goes in your favor. This is fundamentally what good Nar mechanics are about, and why Hero, at its base, is not designed to do this. Can you hack the system to approximate something... maybe... can you "bolt-on" an external mechanic, possibly. I've done it with Luck Chits and such, but this is a mechanic that can work WITH Hero, but it isn't a Hero mechanic.
 
Hero is a brilliant task resolution system. "Did I pick the lock? Did I hit? How much damage did I take?" etc. Social/Political conflict resolution should be something very different, because you are not just resolving a quantifiable effect to a character sheet, you are often resolving an unquantifiable change to HOW THE PLAYER MUST PLAY THEIR CHARACTER. This is a fundamentally different thing.

That connects back to what IMO killed Hero as the visible go to Supers (or any genre RPG) game.  Starting with 5th, it became more about trying to achieve mathematical perfection than roleplaying.  When I build a beginner a starter PC, I really care less about efficiency or optimized builds. The keywords are simple and easy.
 

I am all up for respectful disagreement.  ?  When my character tries to respectfully disagree but has no etiquette skills, is it possible he might offend the wrong person?  Does the GM get to decide that?  Does the player?  Or should there be a role for the system to adjudicate??
 
I am playing in a game and I want to go and talk to a range of petty officials to persuade the Minister to propose abolishing a policy of taxing adventurers (as I happen to know the Minister is not minded to do this).  How do I know I have spoken to the right people?  How do I know I have persuaded them to take up my cause?  How do I do this at the table??
 
I am a pretty loquacious guy.  I love to play face type characters but sometimes I dont.  I do inevitably play all my characters as if they had more charisma or conversation skills than they actually do.  I roleplay interactions with the GM and get in game benefits that some of my friends, whose characters have more skills than mine fail to achieve.  That is not right...
 
 
Doc

May I? I believe Doc is talking about something I brought up a while back and was roundly criticized, that social interaction would be dominated by a tyranny of theater majors. I see this happen all the time, which is why I will allow, and encourage non acting based, mechanical, solutions.  Now everyone loves role play, but not everyone is good at it personally. A mechanical solution must have an action plus counter. Someone above mentioned verbal martial arts. So a good system should allow for verbal strike, dodge, parry riposte, with the player never required to actually make an in game quote. General intent is fine. Sure s good quote is fine and entertaining, but the system should allow the socially challenged, the profoundly introverted, or even the mute play the character they want, especially if it’s a character skilled in Verbal repartee. Everyone should get to be the hero, regardless of the players personal disadvantages compared to others. 

Once Intel For politics and intrigue I only have to show you Danger international . Most of the work for that had modules nestled snugly in the Cold War,
With visits to Eastern Europe, Fictional Central American Countries, and had rules for any sort of James Bond spy action to more realistic Black Ops,
amd Mercenary Action. The author of said book, L. Douglas Garrett, would run an occasional campaign of his, called Costa Diego, centering around a small and mountainous fictional Central American country and its struggles against a Soviet backed, marxist insurrection, the FRLN.  The politics of that tiny nation were often influenced by the PC actions or not depending on the secrecy, or lack there of during the operation. However many of the games were held at conventions, and ended with spectacular body counts and collateral damage. 
 
But I ran a highly political Fantasy Hero campaign once I thought I handle on the rules.  I can answer examples of using this campaign and how I came up with Systems on the fly.
 
First you have to determine What sort of sociology political development level they had  Fantasy Games default to a High Medieval , feudal system with a few empires scattered around. Governments in the Gunpowder age tended to be constitutional monarchies, Reublics, and dictatorships. In most space games, you get Star Empires roughly based on the Persian Satrap system, Space Communism, or a Federation system with each planet a semi independent state, with ties and responsibilities to the other member systems to provide for common defense, and the promotion and regulation of trade. 
 
Probably the best ( and most properly cynical analysis of politics is the following video, Rules for Rulers:
 
you can see by this analysis  that the system adjudications suggest themselves.   
 
One of the systems I used was for a parliamentary democracy and each district was represented by D6 the King had a number of D6s equal to the parliament.  Now each of those districts had pluses or minuses about an issue to modify the body of the die to each district. Each district can only deliver a maximum of two body points or votes. Each district has a member of parliament who delivers said votes. Self interest, manipulation by fear or blackmail, or persuasion and deal making can make a swing of plus or minus three in favor of or opposed to an issue. This then opens up multiple avenues of approach in bending the Parliment to the player character desires. 
 
1.) PC petitions to address Parliment to persuade them to his issue. This is is the Hail Mary approach with the biggest chance of success but he has to roll a presence attack or Oratory with complimentary skills  of persuasion, logic, or lying to succeed. A success modified the members of Parliment not actively oppposed to your issue gives you  plus one modifier on all eligible MPs. A critical success delivers +2 Negative modifiers may arise from opposed MPs whoes grasp of the facts, oratorical skill, or vicious mockery (Even outright lies and calumny) can be made against the proposal and will also be added, or subtracted to each MPs modifier. After the debate, which can be rolled or Roleplayed, depending on group temperment, the votes are taken:
 
”It is time to commit to the vote, All those in favor say ‘aye’”.
 
All the Dice are rolled but one at a time and the body of the die written down after the additive or subtractive modifiers are upplied to their name. 2 body means that name is not rolled again. A one body is noted against the name and can be rolled again. A zero Body die is noted and rolled again. 
 
“All those opposed say nay!...”
 
those Dice that are rollable, former Zero Body and One body dice are rolled one at a time, with modifiers applied to the result. Two body dice are noted, but not rolled again, That member being a solid Nay and listed as such. Those who have1 bodypoint in the Aye column already cannot be rolled again, both their votes are cast.  
 
“...Abstentions? Show of hands please”
 
any remaining dice are rolled. Two body dice are noted down as solid Abstentions. Any memberNot Parliment who has generated no body points, at this point is considered to have been asleep through the vote, probably from the party the night before. If there are more than two, they were probably wheeling and dealing about the next item on the agenda. 
 
“The Ayes have it. The motion is sent to the king for his signature non the time and of this month. “ 
 
If the Ayes win, the GM has to decide how much power the king has. If he sits with a privy council, his two votes are allocated Ed how he sees fit and all of the subsequent dice get a plus one modifier in the same direction. If he has an independent House of Lords, his dice are rolled with no modifiers, but double Nays become abstentions, as no one wishes to be disloyal to the king. If the body points are equal or greater the the The King’s, he will grudgingly sign it into law. If the king agrees with the motion and it passes, he happily sign it, and the party gains +1 level of political influence and associated social skills. If the King supports it but the lords don’t and it fails. His Royal Highness, getting the bill’s supporters to re-submit on a fresh vote in 6 months. If the King is opposed and the lords and the Lords dice body exceeds the Parliment, the motion is said to be withdrawn. If the King is Very upset he may dissolve The Parliment, and call for Parlimentary elections in 6 month’s time. 
 
But sometimes, the King really is an autocrat, and the Parliment is just a sop to the Merchants, the guilds and petty landholders. While he holds the power all to himself. The GM puts the dice out one at a time with the amount of pips showing to display his wishes subtly or directly. He can even roll some, and place some but next to noted names so independent names can roll freely, as they see fit, the rest, thing Kong’s. Donors put down both body for him. 
 
Now you you have a list of names and a system and a modifiable voting record of all the MPs, and even a few for the House of Lords that because of their position are now important NPCsnfor the campaign. The advantage of this method is there is a nearly non existent chance of combat. The dis advantage is that one character gets the spotlight, and the rest of the party are disarmed spectators. It can be used in conjunction with other methods. 
 
2.) You have no classy orators in your party, all it is not lost!  You can infiltrate, or if rich enough throw one’s own Parliamentary  Ball. Members from all over then country have arrived for the floor voting the next day, bringing their wives and servants, making a very target rich  environment for the social set.  Most GMa have a certain flavor of how they like to run social interplay. Some rely on the dice, others use skill modifiers as aids to sparkling repartee and/or seduction. Any of the socially relative positive skills can be used here, and even a few of the negative ones.  I suggest you make note of succ sees and critical successes. Sucesses mean the The influenced MP will he shifted one body point in your favor.  A critical success means you can influence one MP 2 body in your favor Or if it has thought that particular MP is himself a spectacular orator or conversationalist he can add a plus one body to himself AND to the name above and below them on the list.  Caution :Critical Successes can  lead to ties and obligations as it is assumed votes are a quid pro quo. Critical persuasion means he thinks as your friend, that he may ask a favor of you and your friends, such as finding dirt on a rival, finding and disposing of a black mailer and the evidence, or taking care of a goblin infestation near his country estate. Critical success in Seduction will lead to a wonderful evening, but also the player character may find out they now have a boyfriend or stalker, or a “Reputation” for good or ill.   Failures just mean a step down for the next attempted NPC MP (14 or less becomes 11 or less). Critical  failures mean a two step reduction, and the rumors and giggling asides start to flow. The bguest start to call their carriages to leave and a seduction  critical failure could lead to scandal ( See Item 5).  In Parliment next day, only a critical success from method one can salvage the effort and even then it’s just a success. Otherwise the PCs are seen as. Climbers or worse, an  inept foreign influence.  The advantage of this method is that if favored the socially skilled and the role players. The Combat types or those other bad social skills may be given long sticks to keep the ornamental deer from eating the garden, before they are returned to the rental menagerie. There may be an entertaining duet to first blood.or a musical or dance performance to entertain the guests. But this is on top surface is a party, a social engagement, with influence and intellligencce gathering secondary goals, even if those reasons were for the idea for the party. 
 
“M’Lud, ‘erez twenty punds o’ gol’ an a certificate grantin’ a ten percent share o’ all th’ profits of ur Whiskey, in yer province to anyone you designate. What say he, M’lud?”
 
3.) Sometimes Naked Bribery  works, especially with a party with limited social skills. Illustrated was a two factor bribe where  one element, the gold can be kept or given away, or debts paid with it. The Second item, the profit share, can be kept or negotiated to another because the effect of bribery only gives one body point in your favor, however a critical success would allow the second item to be given to another in Parliment to bump them to a plus one. Failure is a polite refusal, and maybe some advice, “I know you are new here, but that is not how we do things here”.  A critical failure means, “What?!?!You have besmirched my honor! Leave or draw steel!” Even worse they could pick the wrong NPC that is already an anti-corruption crusader and if they escape that encounter, could be labeled as a malign influence or foreign agents and any attempt to further entreat with other members of Parliment will be rebuffed and depending on ifnties with the party become known, could torpedo the whole mission.  Depending on the culture though bribery could be a high risk/ low reward proposition. Some cultures would veil bribery dimly, while others might view it as expected baksheesh. Bribing a police officer yields different results depending on which side of the US/Mexico border.  The tactic has a moderate risk of combat, and a limited reward, it’s not the most effective but it can be a complimentary tactic to....
 
 
4.) Blackmail. “M’lud, We Ken Yahave made Sir Gilliam Hall yer factor and signatory on that share o’ the whiskey trade, wi’ oot report’n tha’ to the exchequer. T’wood be a turrible Shem, iffen  his name became public knowledge? What surt a’ attention do y’ thenk a Parlimentery investigation woul’ Find? But ya need not worreh, laddiebuck iffen ya will be are man in th’ Parliment, we can make shoor yer name ,and Sir Hall’s never see th’ light o’day,  How does tha’ soond, M’lud? We will be contactin’ ya feels yer answer, wethen a couple a daze, fer yer answer and instructions. A pleasure doin’ business w’ ya.”
 
This isa very dangerous tactic but has the absolute best reward, and the highest probably of combat. Extortion has been a leverage tactic since premodern Times, and is still effective to this day (See Black Mirror). Evidence found or fabricated is either filched or forged, or even set up (See Soviet Honey Trap operations). 
operations. As the blackmailer, the key is mitigating your exposure, and vulnerability to the “Evidence” leaving your control. Go-betweens, dead drops, and night letters are the tools to do this. If the part in method 2 also had a Honey Trap operation in an upstairs bedroom, specifically to compromise married members of Parliment, it could be a back up plan if the main effort runs into failures. The tactic is risky, and is therefore the purview of professional criminals and spies, because, believe it when the victim starts to liquidate resources to pay assassins to hunt you down butcher you for the pigs to feast on, and have the evidence returned or destroyed. So  combat risk is high, and.  Continuing. A successful effort delivers you all their votes reliably until his assasins kill you. Or he resigns his post for “health reasons”, or the evidence becomes irrelevant due to age or shoring situations, or be finally refuses to prrform, as he is out of funds or influence, which leads to ....
 
5.). Scandal! It gets out that the whiskey profits were partially untaxed and the Sir Gilliam Hall turns states evidence on “M’lud”. Lady Chabita accuses a married member of parliment or having her way with her in a second floor statue nook, and took an ungentlemanly stern approach with her at the Parlimentary Ball. Witnesses both real and fabricated are produced because he though she was a discrete party favor, and bragged to his friends. Those friend, to cover their own culpability means he resign immediately.  Or even worse, Multiple members are flagged by Lady Chabita and the government falls. The King calls for snap elections to replsce the disgraced former members, who are now barred from public office, or worse dissolves Parliment under the charge of moral turpitude and announces a general election in 6 months. Sometimes an MP will profess  innocence and demand a trial, and then the game becomes a court room drama or a crime procedural but that is beyond the scope of politics. Scandal is mostly a pure role playing exceedise that the GM know orncan invent the temperment of the victim, and few die rolls are needed as the options are fighting it, turning it into a plus (Oh he’s just a saucy rake, but a solid credit to his people”, resign from office and vanish from the public eye, or they kill themselves. 
 
So I believe that whom ever said you could not “do politics in Hero was lackin in imagination. Hero has three different dice rolls on the whole, A.) Killing Damage/Luck, B.) Stun dice, or C.) skill + Dice. Using them as applied to various voting systems and government forms can give a rich background and a sense of the stakes, for a few die rolls. This was the secret of how I ran a decades Fantasy Hero game with only about a half hour of prep, and a half hour of sorting and cataloguing my GM’s notes after the game. From this I had a Parliment, Members views on issues, status and the point of view on the king, plus voting records, and then buckets of scenario seeds gen rated from these and the interactions of the players. It made for a very rich, and deep game 
 
 
I am Scott Ruggels, and I approve of this message!
 
 
P.S this took 4 hours to type from a hospital bed, and I will never do this with an iPhone again. 

The problem with this is that some people in a group are naturally better speakers and schemers than others. If it comes down purely to roleplay they will 'win' every time. The players who are the best at fighting in a group do not win every combat, the system mechanics sorts that out.  
 
If the important conflicts in a game are resolved by combat, the system needs a good combat mechanic. If the important conflicts are resolved by talking and intrigue, the system needs a good social resolution/influence mechanic.
 
It needs to ensure that it is character skills rather than player skills that are important.

Since I'm the one who said that, I'll chime in...
 
It is very possible to have a game using Hero that has a lot of intrigue and politics in it, but IMO that is more the genre/trappings of an otherwise action adventure game, not the "point of the game."  For example, I've been running a Heroic level game called Secret Worlds off and on for years now. The characters are "specials" in that they have a level of skill and ability above average to normals, but no real "powers." They specials are involved in conspiracies and back alley battles between secret organizations vying for power. It is very much steeped in the real world politics and events. (Think Mr. Robot, X-Files and Jason Bourne combined).
 
While building alliances and figuring out the plots and agendas of the competing groups... determining who is the enemy is, etc., ... are all part of the plot, the mechanics around these are tangential. They involve the same basic "make some skill rolls to find out information" that any other game would. Having Perks and Contacts and Resources are all important, but they don't decide the game mechanically. There is no "Perk vs. Perk" resolution system... is my investigation better than your dark conspiracy?... type of mechanical resolution. They are background, color, and occasionally important for a turn in the narrative...
 
... but mechanically, the game is Hero-style action adventures. Gunfights and martial arts battles. Knives in the dark, and car chases, etc. (talk about something else Hero doesn't do well.. vehicle combat... we abstract that a great deal.)
 
To me... a game that is "about" Politics is a game that mechanically supports the characters taking political actions... assembling coalitions, persuading and influencing others, etc. And not just a basic "Roll Persuasion" and then have to just "make up" what that roll means. It would have defined, mechanical impact on the opposing character... they could deflect the argument, verbally riposte... there would be back and forth just like a martial arts fight in Hero, punching and blocking and dodging, but in a verbal/social way... and there would be just as many variants and complex mechanics for resolving these political and social conflicts as there are in Hero for resolving physical and mental combat. (It might be possible to bastardize the mental powers and combat maneuvers to reflect this, but again, it is bending Hero out of shape to do something it wasn't intended to do.)
 
Think of it this way... in Hero you often have hundreds of points in combat skills, abilities and powers, and a few skills that are social. A truly Political or Social game would be the opposite... the majority of a character focused on many and varied nuances of political skills, abilities and powers... and a few skills like "Fight 13-" to resolve the background moments of combat.
 
 

For a political intrigue game there has to be a way to measure who is winning and of determining what winning means.
 
I think that intrigue points as per Shelley's scheme is a good start but you need a whole raft of other stuff and a way of bringing some of the components already out there into a coherent system.
 
We have reputation, we have contacts and favours.  We have DNPCs and Hunteds.  All of that would come into play in a much more fluid framework as these things ebbed and flowed based on the actions of the characters.  

Gotcha... so "Bravery" or "Coolness Under Fire" becomes a triggered moment by certain "maneuvers" defined with the game. Certainly one way to do it. Helps the arbitrariness of deciding when "Bravery" needs to be rolled vs. the players just having their characters act. 
 
Maybe this is worth another thread (off topic here) on a "Bravery Roll" or "Coolness" or whatever. 

Since I'm the one who said that, I'll chime in...
 
It is very possible to have a game using Hero that has a lot of intrigue and politics in it, but IMO that is more the genre/trappings of an otherwise action adventure game, not the "point of the game."  For example, I've been running a Heroic level game called Secret Worlds off and on for years now. The characters are "specials" in that they have a level of skill and ability above average to normals, but no real "powers." They specials are involved in conspiracies and back alley battles between secret organizations vying for power. It is very much steeped in the real world politics and events. (Think Mr. Robot, X-Files and Jason Bourne combined).
 
While building alliances and figuring out the plots and agendas of the competing groups... determining who is the enemy is, etc., ... are all part of the plot, the mechanics around these are tangential. They involve the same basic "make some skill rolls to find out information" that any other game would. Having Perks and Contacts and Resources are all important, but they don't decide the game mechanically. There is no "Perk vs. Perk" resolution system... is my investigation better than your dark conspiracy?... type of mechanical resolution. They are background, color, and occasionally important for a turn in the narrative...
 
... but mechanically, the game is Hero-style action adventures. Gunfights and martial arts battles. Knives in the dark, and car chases, etc. (talk about something else Hero doesn't do well.. vehicle combat... we abstract that a great deal.)
 
To me... a game that is "about" Politics is a game that mechanically supports the characters taking political actions... assembling coalitions, persuading and influencing others, etc. And not just a basic "Roll Persuasion" and then have to just "make up" what that roll means. It would have defined, mechanical impact on the opposing character... they could deflect the argument, verbally riposte... there would be back and forth just like a martial arts fight in Hero, punching and blocking and dodging, but in a verbal/social way... and there would be just as many variants and complex mechanics for resolving these political and social conflicts as there are in Hero for resolving physical and mental combat. (It might be possible to bastardize the mental powers and combat maneuvers to reflect this, but again, it is bending Hero out of shape to do something it wasn't intended to do.)
 
Think of it this way... in Hero you often have hundreds of points in combat skills, abilities and powers, and a few skills that are social. A truly Political or Social game would be the opposite... the majority of a character focused on many and varied nuances of political skills, abilities and powers... and a few skills like "Fight 13-" to resolve the background moments of combat.
 
 

I struggled with this for a bit and ended up using a variation of the Guarding rule.
 
In my Fantasy Hero campaign I allow the players to Abort to make this attack though the person provoking does not suffer 1/2 DCV unless the character had Held an action.
I also allow characters with Held actions to move to intercept an opponent trying to bypass them.
 
Melee stickiness is a difficult thing in all turn-based games, but I find the idea that you can walk right pass defenders unopposed feels wrong.  The front line needs some way to actually maintain a front line other than fighting in narrow corridors.

I may be re-iterating my position from another post, but as a math phobic, math-tarded,’sensitive artist type, who has been on the IRS’s shit list for
decades due to my innumeracy, 6e comes across, much as the my IRS troubles did,
with exacting costs, finer granularity of skills with a commensurate  increase one has to cover the skill bases, and every crosses T and dotted eye accounted for.  I realized I only used 4e as a reference while continuing to build from the original Fantasy Hero rules for my huge, map-centric, politics drenched Fantasy Hero Campaign. 
 
I think Spence has the right of it when he said that the show early  editions of Hero were, sloppier, but the writing was more fun, then. Pictures! More pictures are good! What I read of 6e, which admittedly was not much, it came across as intimidating, dry, toast. In the Store Centric  model thread, I went on at length about how important full color printing is for this modern game audience. I know we won’t get that from the current books, but color PDFs are free and some aspiring writing tee could make a fun “Powered by Hero” game with better presentation. 
 
 
 
 

The benchmarks make sense to me.  The "CV based on DEX and EGO" do not.
 
A Super with 6 - 8 CV, 11 DEX, Ego 20, mOCV 3, dMCV 5 also makes sense to me.  He's campaign average for CVs, not unusually agile (just a touch above normal human), strong-willed with no experience in mental combat.
 
But he's completely off the "CV = 1/3 of DEX and mCV = 1/3 of EGO" guideline.  If I built to that, and built to concept, he has a 4 OCV and DCV (so he is ineffective in combat), and spends 12 points on mOCV he will never use.  The mDCV may be useful at some point, but overall the character will not be very useful in the game, primarily because I stuck with my concept of normal human DEX and a strong will, but applied the "1/3" guideline.
 
 
Sounds like that guideline is not helping you much either.  I think one of the opportunities lost in 6e was pricing reverse compatability of writeups over  highlighting the decoupling.  There was no reason for a standard Super to have DEX 23 - 26 just because he had CV 8 - 9.

I first started playing Champions/Hero System with 3rd Edition in the late 1980s and over the years collected earlier edition books followed by 4th, 5th, and 6th Edition. In terms of 6th Edition products, I have Champions Complete, Hero Basic, and Champions. Am not sure if there is an overall reason why 6e is disliked, but here are two observations for your consideration that I gathered from my own experience as a customer and from talking with the dozen or so players/fans I meet in game conventions over the years when I run Champions:
 
1) In terms of style and graphic design, Champions 6th Edition products seem dated compared to other superhero game systems. Champions Complete's cover and interior b&w art was average and the soft-cover binding was okay, but previewing it next to other games like Mutants & Masterminds, Icons, or even Savage Worlds: Supers on the display rack, there was a distinct different in quality in terms of style. While some in this forum liked the textbook design for the 6th Edition rule book covers, the fans I spoke to in person didn't care for it (myself included). People still do judge a book by its cover to see if it's even worth previewing or passing on it outright.
 
2) The amount of rules made it difficult to introduce new players to Hero System. I had Hero Basic, but others had saw how many other rule books there were to get started for 6th Edition and were immediately turned off. A common occurrence was that the players had previously played Champions until <insert edition number here> for one reason or another but then stopped, most commonly due to the excessive rules being piled on in later editions.  The Champions Now kickstarter is drawing upon 3rd Edition or early rules for various reasons, drawing a mix of support and criticism of Hero Games senior staff being out-of-touch as to what their fans want as mentioned in other discussions. Even now, my go-to system of superhero games for brand-new players has been Icons and not Champions, and that's even with simplified versions of characters that I created (4th Edition versions). 
 
People who still play Champions/Hero System are going to choose their favorite edition and pull aspects from others accordingly to round out their campaign. It's unrealistic to convince them which is better than the other (or vice versa) in terms of game mechanics. Some like the simplicity of 3rd Edition and earlier (hence, Champions Now that's under development), some like the completeness of 4th Edition (BBB with George Perez cover art), others like the detailed comprehensiveness of 5th Edition (sourcebooks are extremely well done), and others like the new mechanics of 6th Edition (e.g. no "freebies" from Figured Characteristics).

A bluray Redbox movie is like $2.
 
Interestingly, I don't think I've run into someone disturbing my movie in about 20 years and I go to at least 2-3 a month.
 
That's about the time I started going to matinees exclusively, I think.  Also, the last year or so we tend to go to over 21 theater.

I don't know about sabots, some of those require adaptors, but the Saiga was specifically designed to be able to use slug and other specialized rounds. The main thing to remember is to change the gas plug setting depending on whether you're using full power or low power shells. Which I'm given to understand is not the simplest or easiest of tasks.

Saiga 12 gauge with drum:
 

We watched A-M & W for the second time this weekend (now on Netflix) and enjoyed it just as much the second time around. The fact that it is light-weight... it is a personal story, nothing about the world ending, and not even a real bad guy... I rather liked it. If you are going to have a "universe" of super-wacky adventures, some of them need to be small, only relevant to the people involved, adventures that are just entertaining to watch. IMO, the best Marvel movies have been personal... Winter Soldier was Cap & Bucky at the core... Civil War was about the split in the team... Spider-man: Homecoming was Peter and Stark as well as the incredible personal motivations of Vulture... Black Panther was T'Challa touching on the personal POVs and experiences of that amazing supporting cast as the basis for his own maturity, A-M & W was family... 

Sure, there were big plot lines going on in some of them, but the power of those movies is in the personal motivations of the characters. Perhaps one of the reasons I hated Infinity War so much, it had none of that, except a bad attempt at making Moron Thanos somehow relate-able. 
 

While I don't exactly hate Infinity War, I did think it was lacking. I have found myself far more enjoying the "smaller" shows.  For me the movies are trending to far too much "world saving" and far too little "awesome story".  Kinda like the superhero RPG's trying to make any adventures far too big and then wondering why they don't have the legs they should.  
 
A good solid story will always outdo a lot of glitz and glam.  
 
"If one hero and one villain was awesome, then a dozen heroes and a bizilian villains must be super awesome!"  Not.... 

We watched A-M & W for the second time this weekend (now on Netflix) and enjoyed it just as much the second time around. The fact that it is light-weight... it is a personal story, nothing about the world ending, and not even a real bad guy... I rather liked it. If you are going to have a "universe" of super-wacky adventures, some of them need to be small, only relevant to the people involved, adventures that are just entertaining to watch. IMO, the best Marvel movies have been personal... Winter Soldier was Cap & Bucky at the core... Civil War was about the split in the team... Spider-man: Homecoming was Peter and Stark as well as the incredible personal motivations of Vulture... Black Panther was T'Challa touching on the personal POVs and experiences of that amazing supporting cast as the basis for his own maturity, A-M & W was family... 

Sure, there were big plot lines going on in some of them, but the power of those movies is in the personal motivations of the characters. Perhaps one of the reasons I hated Infinity War so much, it had none of that, except a bad attempt at making Moron Thanos somehow relate-able. 
 

Steve didn't give up. He was just not worthy. Odin gave the criteria in Thor 1. Plus for reasons for plot & storytelling that scene established that none were worthy which is why later on when Vision holds it, the Avengers instantly trust him.