Kintara

Let me just add in some hearty agreement with Gary. That said, I think Hugh's thinking is really interesting, and I think it would certainly be an improvement. Edit: Gary, would you keep the starting levels of the "Figureds" where they are (PD/ED at 2, etc.)?

Shouldn't that be Jugs-'R'-Hot? What's the fun if your stripper ain't blatant about it?

One is hiding, and one is sneaking. It seems to make sense to me. Hiding is more cerebral, being largely a form of trickery (you pick the spot where the seeker doesn't think to look, even if you are the thing concealed); Stealth is more physical and active, training your body and instincts to avoid detection when doing something. Of course, as with many skills, it's not entirely true. There's a cerebral element to stealth, just as there's a physical element to Concealment. But I think the division works as is. Edit: In fact, I think it makes an interesting choice of mode when trying to evade detection. Do you find a hiding spot for a while, then sneak out when it's cooled down? Or do you minimize detection by getting out as quickly as you can manage?

No, I think I get you. But you're saying that since Strength is common in the genre, regardless of the broadness of it, it should be cheaper. But I don't think "commoness" should correlate to cost. Cost should simply correlate to the game benefit usefulness. I think I see the reason why you think commmoness should correlate to cost, because it's like currency. But I don't think I agree. At least, I don't immediately buy the assertion.

Of course there's fuzziness. Of course GMs need to take a role. And, of course there needs to be a baseline for one to work under. I simply disagree that the baseline should have a bias in pricing from the perspective of method. Effectiveness is what I think matters. "Flava" can be supplied by the GM, and doesn't need point incentives. The baseline is just an estimate on the type of challenge one might see. I think the players can handle how they want to tackle the situation. So Strength should be priced according to how effective it is at overcoming situations on the baseline. You're implying that it's good that strength is better at its job than other things. If it's better, it's unbalanced. The fuzziness and the GM adjudication are actually moot points to me. Edit: If you're saying that it isn't really better because the GM can make it worse for the character, that's different. But I don't think you're saying that. You're saying that strength should be used because its in genre to use strength, and if you make strength cheap, then people will buy it more often.

Be careful of using the fuzziness factor. It tends to breed a limited form of nihilism. What's the point then?

Yes, not necessarily soemthing that MUST change for the game to work. But would having a 375 point character in a 350 point game "break the game"? No. But it isn't good either. And your analogy would probably work for that 375 point character. Of course there are plenty of ways to overcome a specific character or ability. It's common sense.

Well, I don't think they speak loudly on the matter. MPs don't strike me as anything but a way to make it worthwile to have a variety of attacks that you don't need active all the time, or in varying degrees. ECs are basically "power stunts" of the same overarcing ability. The special effect is important for it because it's supposed to be the same ability. Neither power framework is limited to any one method. There was a post earlier on the nature of an EC, and I agree that this whole thing about rewarding "in genre" concepts is not what it's about. Edit: Read this thread.

Well, usefulness is, by definition, a product of how you use something. So, of course the system is going to be priced according to usefulness. A hammer's usefulness is dependent on the situation it's placed in. But I don't think it should be priced according to the method by which attain the same amount of usefulness. So, a small machine that molecularly alters things with equal effectiveness to a hammer should cost the same as a hammer. The game should keep in mind how common combat might be, for example. The situations the PCs will be in should be taken into consideration. But the methods by which they overcome said situations should be balanced against eachother. The result is what matters, not the method. Certainly you want to encourage in-genre methods, but people will do that with out point breaks. The point costs are a measure of effectiveness, not appropriate form. Edit: I'm wondering if I made myself clear....

FRREd, I like that one. At least it doesn't make it too much more complicated than it already is. I would prefer to call it what it is, the HERO 5th Revised. Or HERO5, Revised. Or something that isn't confusing.

I guess I get it, but if I would imagine that if it looked like it was damaged, it would be damaged. The special effect is simply that it looks organic when it is. That makes more sense to me. I guess I just distinguish between false "possum" damage, and "organic looking" real damage.

I'm unconvinced concerning this talk of "concealment." In fact, I'm not sure I get it. At any rate, it doesn't seem worth putting into rules.

Ah, but is the game or the show that determines the canon? I never played the game, nor watched the show for any longer than a couple minutes, but I'm pretty sure that Pokemon are pretty safe from eachother in the video game. Edit: Ah, as for things that damage the environment in the game, it sounds to me like they are the exception, and so should be built as exceptions.

No, didn't you just hear? It's advantages after adders.

Well, it could easily be a matter of special effects. But why does the character wear it, and what does it look like? The fact alone that it seems organic doesn't seem to need a rules effect, not that one couldn't think of things.

Yes, definitely Exalted. The perfect effects are a good example where it just wouldn't be the same in HERO, at least not with out a lot of work and fudging. In fact, try converting some of the charms from The Sidereals. . . . Nobilis just came over and started knocking. Converting that system to HERO would be missing the point.

Alas, the only one I could find was one with a flounder. Edit: Anyway, I suppose Golden Codfish could be a local Massachusetts superhero. They are big fans of the Codfish down there.

And the Golden Codfish. You know what codfish have going for them? They are tasty and numerous. I have found absolutely nothing else mythological or particularly interesting about them.

"Settingless" sounds like a lack. "The book has no particular setting" would be more like a condition. That said, a review can and should have negative language. Some people do think it's a lack. And I don't think it's misleading, if one knows anything about RPGs.

You forgot the "Humanity in an alternate dimension" group, like most of the aliens of the week in Star Trek. Edit: Hmm, maybe this group is too broad. Klingons could basically be described as: "What if the Mongols succeeded in taking control of the world?" But they do act weird enough to escape what I meant. The group I'm talking about is those aliens that seem almost entirely human, except for having some technological, cultural, or situational twist. Also known as, "Spotted humans," "Slightly Bumpy Humans," and "Funny-looking Earred Humans" (or sometimes "Exactly-the-Same-Looking Humans"). -- Also there's the Psions, like Betazoids or some other aliens who are mostly different because they have psychic powers. Often, they are also Mystics, or Decadents, or Ancients.

Oh no! So we're out of spam!? Oh, wait, that's a good thing.

As long as there's no spam in it.

I don't like spam! Nooooo, I can't help myself!

No, I think that a good, clean kill takes pure artistry.

If only I could....