zornwil

Nothing wrong with Social except maybe you'd want to go with Physical if the computer is "hard-wired" to perform that way and has no real ability to make judgement calls on who or for what purpose a human command is made.

Killer Shrike, I like your invulnerability construct as well. It's not too far from how I am doing it, I have Invulnerability with 3 flavors, uncommon/very specific SFX, common/specific SFX, and very common/general SFX, they used to cost (respectively) 20, 40, and 80. A couple years ago I reduced those costs to 10, 15, and 20. Stacking the very common ones does get cost-effective. But it seems to work fairly well. You have to counter that with the "Superman factor" which is that villains learn what invulnerabilities are and to avoid them. Examples of Uncommon or Very Specific Attacks include "Earthquake Attacks", "Gravitic Attacks", "Acid Rain Attacks"; examples of Common or Specific Attacks include "Bazooka Attacks", "Nuclear/Radioactive Attacks", "Water Attacks", "Chemical Attacks", "Laser Attacks", "Sonic Attacks"; examples of Very Common or General Attacks include "Wand-based Attacks", "Common Bullets", "Heat Attacks", "Pointed Attacks".

But that's not mutually exclusive, and one thing I've seen is having a couple people in a group who excel at efficiency while others do not. So it becomes important for others to "keep up" lest their characters end up less useful. Of course the best way to do this is to have a power/collection of powers that are simply unique and interesting, but at a minimum you still don't want to be inefficient. And there's nothing really wrong with effiicency. It's a natural product of a rich points-based system. Of course some of what's been posted in this thread is beyond efficiency, whether by jest or otherwise, but a lot of what's in here really is just good character creation practice.

I'm duplicating, of course, but never sure that all that many people read both boards, so - I might be wrong but I thought that rec.games.frp.super-heroes (which I do lurk on) was pretty much no-holds-barred in regard to topics of discussion (other than Hybrid of course!). I'd like to stay away from systems though the idea of allowing conversion/how to go back and forth material is tempting. Ultimately I'm not a fan though, I'd like to get away from the particularly contentious nature of the boards at times (though both HERO's and Green Ronin's really are almost never too bad) and a particular newsgroup, sticking to story/character/plots/GMing/etc. Please pile on the suggestions though!

Would people be interested in a listserv dedicated to super-heroes without regard to system that covers: - campaign and character ideas - anecdotes - plot-sharing - etc.... - comparisons of SOURCE books/materials but NOT: - rules how-tos - comparisons of systems Of course from time to time flame wars will erupt, but removing systems comparisons will help - I suppose it could be moderated but I don't like moderated lists. I'm willing to "own" such a list if people are interested, but expect a laissez-faire attitude from me. I know there's a newsgroup but the charter for that is a bit broader, and I know a lot of people don't use NGs anyway. I just think that given the variety of "cross-platform" ideas it might be a good neutral ground.

The drawing is from Johnny Nemo but the character is "actually" Jack Hell. Writeup (4th ed.) at http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/deco-champions/Jackhell.htm Bio at http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/deco-champions/jack_hell_biographical_notes.htm A chronology on Jack at http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/deco-champions/Jack_hell_timeline.htm I'd forgotten all this stuff was out there until now, except for the writeup.

I felt compelled to chime in on the "don't fix what's not broken" line, I agree. If the only problem is that the scores are "off the chart", don't worry about it. Is there another underlying issue?

I'd really like to see the same with M&M.

This is pretty much how I do it as well, I use points to get a rough idea if I'm way overbuilding or some-such but for the most part don't worry. When a villain makes a 2nd/etc. appearance, I may have him, if possible, learn and grow from whatever happened inbetween as appropriate. However, as above it's not precise, it's just whatever makes dramatic sense. As one person pointed out, some villains just aren't meant to grow, either, they make good measuring sticks. However, other villains are sort of the opposite; they have immense power but because they are over-confident or have similar psych lims they might pull their punches in the early encounters and start letting loose as the heroes can take it.

Lemming was referring, I'm sure, to the attempt by Two-Face, or at least one, I think Two-Face did this 2 or 3 times but I'm familiar with just the Silver Age attempt. Two-Face flipped it, counting on the weight of Batman and Robin to make it land person-side down. Batman used a magnet if I recall to make the coin flip the "wrong" way, or he did some mojo with string tension, I can't quite recall now. Whatever you do to go after Bats, go for brutal wide indirect (don't allow for pesky cover) area effects and skip the fancy NNDs (he always has life support against whatever-it-is).

Simultaneous actions is one of my favorite subjects and sometimes one of my players' least favorites. Well, not really, they've seen it work both for and against them. Basically I have ALL actions in a segment be simultaneous, exceptions being "I wait for so-and-so" as a reaction thing. But I do call out in DEX order for convenience as everyone can't talk at once. So basically what this really translates to is that in terms of purely offensive maneuvers, all parties get their's off, even if they were hit, ie, they take their attack as if they were still standing because, in my view, they were still standing when the actions started. People have posted the troubling aspects of this. For defensive manuevers, characters just have to make a DEX roll to get their defense up before an attack comes in. For heroic actions I will allow DEX vs DEX rolls or sometimes just DEX rolls, depending a bit on the opponents' intent. In a situation where a villain is intent on destroying a target and someone wants to shoot the villain before the villain can get a round off, I'd generally go DEX-DEX. However, I bend that for dramatic life-saving purposes and if it comes down to that I will usually just let the PC make a DEX roll period to get their action in "on time". I do rule case by case, weighing both "reality" as well as dramatic/gaming purposes. The other issue of course is decision-making. Usually I'll indicate if someone looks like they're pointing and firing if it helps the PCs make their decision in that game-time split second. I try to plan the villains' actions according to what they perceive/see/hear. Bluff could be very useful and I'll admit until recently when reading M&M I hadn't thought about incorporating that but I intend to, with PER or Combat Sense or some-such being ways to counter bluffs.

It just dependson what kind of game you want to run. If you really want lower defenses (ie, more likelihood for stun and such), then discuss it with your players and ratchet down the numbers or do some limit like "15-25 defense but resistance counts DOUBLE", and that should make them think. Now of course be very sure that your villians are built in some vaguely similar or at least non-exploitive fashion. Appealing to fair play just depends on the maturity of the people. If they're not too mature (or you have 1 or 2 that ruin it for others) jsut make a hard ruling and apply it consistently. Also, incent "fair play" by making sure that those who play fair don't get burnt for it. Finally, yeah, it kind of seems like a mountain out of a molehill as resistant defenses are pretty ordinary for real super-type heroes in my experience. But it's your game.

I wouldn't worry about it and play the level you're comfortable with. i did not add a bunch of points just because 5th created a new starting standard, but then again I also have very fast-growth games and an entirely different "goal" in how I like to see XPs play out. Champions/HERO hasn't changed so much that the 4th ed. standards are problematic, in fact they are fine. It seems to me most people wanted more points, though, to spend on skills. If that is something that concerns you, having lots of great super-people with less skills than the average high school student (please, I just mean this as a joke, no responses necessary/invited), and you found that way back when you ran this was a problem, then use the 5th ed. "standard" numbers but require 50 points or whatever go to skills.

Personally I handle all adjustment powers that way (except Transformation which doesn't recover anyway like Drains and such).

I think that much of this memory is influenced by its novelty at the time compared to other RPGs. I think if someone picked up 5th ed back then, it would seem even more alien. I think 5th is harder to follow than the first book, though admittedly it's been a long time since I looked at that. I think 4th was much easier to read overall. I appreciate that 5th makes some powers more consistent as well as being more inclusive of some high-end powers not quite addressed before. Personally I think 3rd is still the best edition, because despite flaws in it in terms of internal consistency and gaps/holes, I think the gaps/holes really encouraged people to extrapolate from the rules in a positive way. Subsequent editions have turned too much into standard rules and have created some cheesier powers (or at least 5th did at the high), undue tweaking, and not enough encouragement of GMs filling in holes and winging it. That sounds pretty negative but I don't mean it quite as it sounds. As stated above, 5th does introduce some good things and it is still one of the better games around in the RPG world. I think 5th would have been better served by a more narrative approach, slightly better organization, and moving many of the powers/advantages into an optional section, along with alternate versions of those so no canonical version exists (megascale in particular comes to mind). Those changes are actually rather minor.

My group and others I've seen have had varying speeds, and it isn't an issue. However, if there were a situation where everyone but one player is at a given speed, including the enemies, I can see that as frustrating, unless you have some distinguishing feature, such as being the real heavyweight hitter. Now that they want to go to 6 SPD for "special" circumstances, I think it's fair if the GM will enforce that only 1 or 2 players have it. Your group history indicates that won't be so. I would just wait and see and simply tell the GM that if you see more than half the group go over to 6 SPD then you'll take it the SPD is no longer "special".

Well, the thing is that VPP's set a precedence with -1/2 can only be changed between aedventures. I'm not sure how you want to play this. If it is really only changing between adventures, then I think that's fair to apply to the MP but, in the spirit of VPP, NOT make it inherited. If you can change it during the adventure "sometimes" then probably -1/4.

I would most likely allow this construction, especially with some interesting disads on the character (won't move in other ways or some-such).

It's an interesting construction. However, I think it exaggerates too much both ways. it's not without merit, because some advantages when combined ARE multiplicative in nature, but to me many others are not. Maybe certain combinations should be done this way - to make it REALLY complex! Just kidding on that account. Anyway, it's food for thought.

I would really like to see a concentration on a "roll your own" flavor with a large section on how to design new capabilities and eliminate existing ones. I'd like to see fewer core rules/constructions with a larger collection of suggested uses in other books. But I am very much in the minority, a lot of people take great exception to scattering "new rules" (their terms) in genre books. I feel on the contrary it lends more specific flavor to those genre books and is not "new rules", rather it is simply specific applications of an underlying structure (if done correctly). For example, Instant Change would really be crucial in a superhero game but less important, to the point of non-consideration, in other genre. That or Instant Change ought to be recosted in superhero games to better represent its commonality and encouragement.

Sleepers are common. I don't think it should be interpreted as a lack of interest, just tiredness. In my former group back east one guy worked insane hours so often had trouble staying awake in games - or other casual social events. We just rolled with it. If he was easily roused, no problem, if he was falling into a real sleep his character took off or we ended that session.

I sort of hesitate to weigh in as this topic is pretty old, but (and by the way the original post in the topic looked okay to me) the other thing to consider is that HERO is supposed to in part simulate high-powered and low-powered level heroic drama; high-powered sometimes includes invulnerabilities. Many people like to simulate that without resorting to buying high defenses because high defenses aren't enough when it comes to penetrating attacks and other "tricks". I don't think it's unreasonable, though of course I respect that many others don't like the idea.

No, that's not not why 5 points per d6 is abusive, that's why unrestricted character design can be abusive. Especially with a "-5" level of limitations.

Thanks, yeah, the broad categories MUST be SFX-based and not as broad as physical or energy, you're absolutely right. Players have constructed enough broad categories out of 5 or 6 to cover an awful lot of areas so still watching it, but there are some significant holes left, so far so good but bears watching. I like your idea of additional areas adding some additional cost, thanks much. I'll think about that. Ultimately the concept needs to be "HERO-ized" really, so some sort of base power (perhaps even DR) with adders and lims/advs but for now I'm taking the simple singular house rules perspective and not thinking broader. Your idea would bear well on that reconstruction.

We had a time traveller/time elemental so we had several of these back in my former campaign. Some of the storylines high level included: - fixing the past when someone else messed it up; in particular, because the past was different the supers had a somewhat different relationship, so I told them that and they roleplayed accordingly, it was fun as a quick 1-shot change - going into the future, changing the future so it affects the past unexpectedly (affects someone else who would time travel from the future to the past) - going into the past and knowing you shouldn't change it but watching something horrible happening - was a good emotional episode - going into the past to solve a current mystery, with partial information