zornwil

All fair enough, and where my M does V is that this is a game, not a comic book and not a story; elements are intended to be competitive situations (not against each other or the GM but against situations) and not completely scripted. The players can lose, they may not make it in time, they may not cut the mustard. As a GM, I feel they are to be presented with a challenge which will typically not be lethal (for my super-hero games anyway) and typically has a very good chance for success, but that's the limit. If they can't make it in time, then oh well, there's plenty of other situations and threads to follow up on. Re the lower powered games, of course, I agree.

True. I found the easiest way to fix this was to allow "Total Life Support" as the old 30 points but still allow for all the little subsets individually. So basically if you have 30 points' worth, the rest are "free" assuming they fit your concept.

"...or the comics you read..." is part of it, and moreover, this is not about just 4-color traditional comics. Even this being the "Champions" thread, this is about super-hero roleplay gaming, and that is much broader than 4-color. Your post is about 4-color comics, as far as I can tell. I don't play those, at least not "straight", I don't care for them, and don't want/expect a system to veer too closely towards those. By the same token, I don't run a particularly realistic game, either, so my objection isn't about realism per se. It's moreso about the dramatic tension of timing and speed. This is probably more akin to action movies and some of the grittier comics than 4-color comics. Every minute the team misses the mark by can make a difference. Even in a relatively "normal" 4-color-ish setting in my games it can matter though - for example, in a very recent game, the team had someone dispatched to concoct some techno-magical solution to getting into the Kingpin's heavily protected fortress. It took the character a couple hours round-trip to do it all, including importantly travel time. This allowed a villain they just defeated enough time to revive and for the Kingpin to complete his preparations, but not enough to get further reinforcements. Had the players assaulted directly, they would have faced one less major villain, although I don't htink they practically could have done so and succeeded. Hard to say. But anyway, it was all about the timing of their actions, including long-distance movement (they had to go from Oklahoma countryside to Detroit and back). That's just "for instance", and I fully recognize, Tesuji, that this doesn't reflect yours or necessarily even many others' games. But I wil lay claim that it isn't so outside of heroic fiction and even super-hero gaming that it is irrelevant.

LIke others, it's the lack of personal interaction as to why I don't play online. But also, I think it's harder to get quality play if people have to type as so many people can't type quickly and/or well. One of the best roleplayers I know was really ineffective online because he was such a slow typist.

To split hairs, isn't that really like 50 points? 10 minimum for moving 10 meters in a phase. If you go just at SPD 2, and +5 points doubles NCM, then isn't that 2,560 meters in your phase at 50 points (15 pts = 20 meters, 20 pts = 40 meters, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280, 2560), and 2x2,560 =5,120m in 12 seconds, speed of sound is roughly 340 meters/second, so sound moves at 4,080 meters in 12 seconds. To the earlier point that Tesuji made (and this came up over at the M&M board as well) I think it matters a lot if characters can get somewhere in 30 minutes versus 1 minute. THat's often the difference between "they got away, you guys were too slow" and "they're surprised, they didn't think you'd be there so fast." Or any number of other things, such as the trail growing cold. I think megascale is "in genre" but only for some high end power stuff or certain niche effects. To me, movement was costed fine in 4th. The 2x NCM is also fine to me instead of megascale. My feeling is that megascale is only warranted when something really isn't as useful as the power with extended area or range or movement.

Well, my point is, what is "official" in terms of rule - just 5th and the errata? Does the FAQ count? Anyway....so now that you made your last statement, do you mean you moved on from using it (and to what?) or just moved on from that issue? Inquiring minds and all...

But your issue with HD is rooted in the issue that the core rules are changing - but Dan wants to stick with the book and generally its errata as much as possible. This is the philosophical underpinning, what changes are canonical and which are more ephemeral. And how those are identified. So identifying and "fixing" that problem (I'm not convinced it needs to be fixed yet but Agent X raised a valid issue, as evidenced by your many replies Monolith) is paramount to understanding how HD fits into it. Right now I don't blame Dan at all - it is not yet entirely in the FAQ or the errata. So by a "strict constructionist" method it is not a rule yet. I have no issue with "change" in the sense that I would like lots of new rules and even lots of rules change in the supplements. And personally I'd like HD to embrace all those. My point is that all these things are "optional" though, essentially "house rules". I have tons of house rules, some of which are holdovers from previous editions of HERO, others which are just changes. And they do continue to change incrementally. But that's nothing to do with what an orthodox HERO game should be. I realize you nor anyone else cares about the 5 points - it's the principle underlying we disagree on. I feel strongly that the construction presented in USPD is okay, but should be OPTIONAL and not a requirement as it is not in the books AND (now it comes into play) for the trivial effect it has, it should not be considered canonical until such a time as it does make it into the regular rulesbook - like years from now. If it were fixing some great wrong then it would be an understandable errata, but it's not.

This is one chorus we seem to be singing the same tune on, I definitely agree the rules shifts or omissions should be in a single errata doc and not something you have to go through the FAQ (and btw, these are not always "Frequently" asked) to find.

Please cite those changes and WHICH 99.9% were the positive ones - I don't buy that it's over 60%. (just figured I should balance my last couple replies, Monolith, with something more light-hearted) Oh but I can't stop! Changes....hmmm.....I'm not sure. I think the majority of incremental changes have been good in that more than not have been towards the direction of consistency. Otherwise though too much detail and too much "legalese" has been introduced with each succesive rulebook, and too many things which seemed to work well have been tinkered unduly with. More importantly to most though, I'd have to say that on the whole the core rules could and should be much shorter with more open-endedness and interpretation required but with the greatest possible consistency and the clearest underlying design philosophy laid bare so that any issues can be worked out among consenting adults based on that. Something like the 5th edition as we know it now could then be a tremendous supplementary material, with expansion and with "one man's notions" of how the more "bare" core rules should be implemented. We don't need as part of official rules so much information on Transform or Shape Shift, we just need the bases for how powers interact and the essential costing and characteristics for these powers. The positive thing is that then a book like the 5th edition wouldn't have to explain much on the basics and could spend more time on the interpretive aspects and how a particular cost was changed or tweaked, what some of the conflicts regarding how to craft a power/effect have been, etc.. As to the companion software, it should just be that one more step modular so that if you want to adopt any of the various extra add-ons you can do so with ease, getting an update for each tidbit (literally 100s or 1000s of extra rules, lims, etc.) you want to use much in the way plug-ins work for audio programs and such. On the positive side, with Sidekick and the hierarchal templates for HD, things are looking sort of like this anyway.

What if they are printed by another company under license? Are those official? Like your outrage that Hero Designer won't put the Adders from USPD/the FAQ into its product, even though it would take you 5 minutes to do so yourself? You see, I think this is the root of the other issue you are concerned about, and philosophically I think the bigger issue IS this issue of things being added throughout the lifecycle. Especially those that don't seem of any great consequence - Damage Shield, whichever way it changes, clearly has a more obvious points and balance impact, given the outcry, where was the concern on CE driving this? Someone's character was really unbalanced by 5 or 10 points?

I haven't read through the thread entirely yet but I have to pause and say I VEHEMENTLY disagree. It does not matter if the "majority of HERO System gamers" do or do not buy a book published post-5th edition. The 5th edition is the rule book, the only rule book until the 6th or "5.5" or whatever HERO puts out that IS specifically a rulebook. You and I ought to be able to sit and play a game based upon that and nothing else (save common sense, yes, I grant), otherwise we're back to the same house rule situation you previously claimed to dislike. I think it's folly to assume every HERO gamer will buy every HERO supplement and wade through those and the FAQ and the errata to arrive at the "correct" rules. Supplements are really like house rules and settings, they should not be mistaken as "required" to the degree that any rules are required. Now, I grant you that the errata and FAQ are specific and deliberate and clear changes to the rules. I have a problem though with a FAQ that continues to grow and get so detailed. HERO is very much becoming a "bible study" game with the FAQ and supplements. Now nearly every game gets to some point of this, of course, but a sprawling FAQ and oddball conflicts spread througout the "gospel" is creating an increasingly interpretive situation. And to the FAQ, I say that "should generally not allow" is an important difference from "should not allow". I think it's clear in the former case, the actual "should generally not" case, that there is no rule even implying that an adder is necessary, simply that this is something to be done with caution, for which no specific game balancer exists. Then you have the confusion that Hero Designer will not support these many incremental changes yet purports to "enforce the rules". Monolith, I give you credit for consistency so this is not directed at you - I realize you want HD to support these incremental changes per each product. And you're right in one respect - HERO can't have it both ways. They can't be a living breathing "evolving" ruleset and claim a software that maintains all the complex rules. So to me the obvious thing is for HERO to simplify, first of all, and second of all for the considered standard practice for cons, etc., to be the 5th edition book and anything outside of that to be considered a house rule. Of course you can say "House Rule: Adopting Adder as published for CE". But it has to be STATED and cannot be assumed.

Not intended as a counter to your point but just for clarification, those "do I smell like a rock" rulings to me are what help flavor a campaign and imprint it with its own personality. I think the less that is canonical but more suggested, the better guided the GM/players are.

I think the "detailing" of Shapeshift in 5th is one of those cases where they went too far. Its simplicity in 4th lay in the GM-territory as well as the flexibility of not defining it too narrowly.

I read that Judge Dredd, I'm sure that's where I got the idea ultimately even if not consciously. I'll see what I can dig up, the stats will be shakey because I don't worry much about points-balancing or any efficiency whatsoever, they're written just so I can glance at the files and run them during the game. I have considerable notes on the Game Show Host's background from my game - I'll try to dig up more and put it together, but you can see the "meat" of his and the Announcer's story in their own words if you browse through http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/x-champions/x-champions_issues/10_5_by_5_by_5_supplement_notes.htm. Also, you can see how they played out in action at http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/x-champions/x-champions_issues/02_you_bet_your_life.htm and http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/x-champions/x-champions_issues/02_you_bet_your_life_supplement_notes.htm.

Well, that's a good point, if all his stats reflect his state then I suppose it would be fair to say. I guess it just depends on how he "acts" outside the context of his bed. So maybe it would be double-dipping. And now you raise a favorite peeve of mine in HERO - because of the many points for disads encouraged, I see way too many characters with waht I consider dup disads such as Psych Lim "Afraid of fire" and Vulnerability "to fire". That's stupid - if he's vulnerable of COURSE he's afraid! Someone pointed out to me and I agree that if his fear goes way beyond his vulnerability, i.e., he goes shrieking when someone lights a cigarette, then fair enough. But I see a lot of that. Also things like Psych Lim "Devotion to Duty" and "Follows Orders" - again MAYBE it could be justified but only in extreme circumstances. But when you force players to produce 100+ points in disads (which I do not and never have) that's often what you get. So yes, there are redundant disads.

This isn't about how many points he gets, it's about whether the character is disadvantaged significantly compared to a normal person when deprived of his bed. As I understand it, he is. Last I looked, physical limitations didn't require so dramatic a requirement as "no legs" to be applied, although by all means legless would be worth a lot greater disad than bedless and infirm.

I'm starting to see more of what it is I don't care for in the characters - just plain specificity. I think LESS detail would be better - just little interesting details. If they didn't say much about Lady Hex other than "In the basement she has a pet monster who used to be human. They're friendly, but he tends to go on rampages so he has to be caged." or better yet just a picture of such a thing with just a few words, I'd be more attracted to them. As is, I just get this overwhelming "comic book" sense that seems 2-dimensional. I've SORT of said this in another thread or two but only now am getting a clearer picture of what my issue is. I definitely could see it in SAS, where the theme is overbearingly 4-color and it reverberates through the hackneyed characters.

Interesting to see the interpretations of CAK. I always felt a "moderate" CAK meant that the person would only kill in indisputable self-defense and even then, being a super-person, generally only by accident, by just applying too much force. A "moderate" might also kill if they felt it would really save lots of lives RIGHT THERE AND THEN, absolutely NOT as in "this would prevent killings". Not at all - only if the person is in the Spiderman situation where on one hand he's holding a villain versus on the other hand holding a subway-load of people. THEN he could let the villain die, but would be devastated for life by it. Also, in the presence of a teammate killing, someone with moderate would have some problem with it but not so great that it's an issue (assuming the teamamte isn't a casual killer of course). To me in a super-hero game that's a moderate code vs. killing. "Strong" would be more like you wouldn't do it at all even in the circumstances above. And they would give a teammate a hard time and have a hard time dealing with that person. "Total" means they would take their teammate in and have them arrested or otherwise restrained (suspended animation,e tc.).

FWIW I think a mutants sourcebook by HERO would be a great idea. I bought another game company's (it's not with me, I can't remember who, sorry) mutant sourcebook just recently and it was filled with decent ideas, and I think HERO could do it even better.

Oh and I don't know if this really counts but in a villainous team composed of tool/hardware-oriented villains Home Despot and Office Despot, a husband-and-wife team (respectively) used the tools of their trades to make money the illegal way - in their case working for the Kingpin. The Home Despot was killed in combat, a rarity, while Office Despot has been put in jail. I have a feeling she'll make an extra effort to break out.

I've had a couple that come to mind. There was the Game Show Host with his Models and the invisible Announcer with his booming voice. Then there's Bud Girl who of course is fashioned after the Budweiser ladies. Later on I thought she probably should have raelly been "bud" as in "pot" but it was too late then. So instead she spent her criminal career walking around with a keg on a rolling cart when a little baggie would have been so much easier! Bud Girl appears to have reformed, though her mutant pheremone powers run roughshod still over mortal men, while the Game Show Host and his crew are in prison.

BLASPHEMY! Not even the well-done Jokers such as Morrison's/McKean's in Arkham Asylum and in my opinion the best Joker by far, Miller's? There's been lots of poor Joker portrayals of course (in fact the vast majority, but I'd say that's true of any character that lasted over 10 years in comics).

Emerged, great writeup on changes. Maybe I missed it, but I would have thought it would have bugged you enough to mention it that Damage Reduction no longer applies to Penetrating Attacks.

I don't see why not make the vehicle a sort of dependence or physical limitation for the character. When he's out, he's very weak. Personally I'd go for Phys Lim as I think about it. He's not like a normal vehicle super who relies on his vehicle for powers but at the end of the day can get around pretty well and be reasonably self-sufficient without it.

As others have said it's a genre thing from when HERO was a super-hero game. It probably can be viewed as "broken" for pulp or even most fantasy games where you really don't want people flying but I don't think groups have had problems enforcing genre conventions by making flight have additional requirements (cost, concentration, technology with skill roll, etc.) in those other genres. I've seen the "take a lim for flying ONLY on surfaces" thing discussed before, I think that argument dies out quickly because of the HERO rule that you can't buy something already provided for at a greater cost-break, so this form of movement must be different from running/walking, and the limitation isn't so much that it's only on surfaces but moreso that you have to keep moving at a minimum speed of some sensible sort to keep it up. Granted, that probably doesn't come into play enough in some people's minds to justify the lim, but it works for me.