Doc Democracy

If they killed off the Joker, then the comics would have Joker knock-offs filling the space.  Batman is an archetype and his stories need opposing archetypes for him to work.  If not the Joker then some other character of a similar archetypes who might as well be called the Joker.
 
I don't like comic book continuity, it skews too many things as time goes on and the players neither age, grow or change.  If there was no continuity, then there would not be 1000's of Jokercrelated deaths over decades, just the potential victims in this story.
 
I like superhero stories, always have.  I don't mind them re-using villains in the same way I don't mind them using the same heroes, I know what I am expecting. The same as when the daleks or cybermen turn up in Dr Who.
 
In a superhero game, I only repeat a villain if the players demand it, otherwise I undermine their successes.
 
The problems with Joker and Batman stem mostly from continuity which demand they explain things and connect them to stories from before.  The need for grimdark nonsense drives some of it.
 
As for the neural health thing, there is an argument that anyone who commits a drive is mentally ill.  Folk use crazy and mentally ill epithets too easily (in comics AND real life).  I take the comic-book diagnosis of Joker's mental illness with the same scepticism as when he us declared medically dead, open to question.
 
To me, he represents an archetype of fear and chaos which manifests in a variety of ways.  I enjoy the stories that emerge from putting such an archetype into a place like Gotham and how it's archetype of justice and retribution engages with those results while sticking to a principled refusal to take a life.
 
Doc
 
 

The best kind of correct, Sir! 
writer's 
 
 
This is where we differ.  I don't think he's a great villain.  "Oh look; sociopath mass murdered goes on a killing spree!
 
 
Again."
 
And Again
 
And Again
 
And Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and againandagainandagainandagain....
 
At this point, it seems,mathematically impossible for any citizen in Gotham _not_ to have lost someone to the Joker.  Frankly, I have to feel (and it could be where I live: a place where people _do_ periodically take shots at criminals on the courthouse steps-- to the point that we built an entirely new courthouse specifically to create a tunnel from the jail to the inside of the courthouse.  No; seriously.  Google courthouse, Lyons, GA if you don't believe me) that Rich's idea of someone deciding enough is enough makes _way_ more sense to me than what routinely happens:
 
"I am Batman.  I am better than them.  I don't kill.  I just let the same group of mass murderers kill over and over and over again.  Eventually (and it's been what?  Seventy years?) people are going to start (whether correctly or not) that the problem actually _does_ seem kind of like it might be Batman himself....
 
So what makes the joker an especially good or well-developed character?  A deformity?  A chemically-induced change to his DNA that prevents his skin from healing a to a normal skin tone and keeps his hair green?  The fact that he kills people- even lots of them- for no particular reason makes him zero different from the majority of Batman villains.
 
The fact that he kills Robins?   Well the writers are the only thing stopping anyone else from doing it: I am sure a quick perusal of Batman comics will result in a couple of dozen villains who would _jump_ at the chance to kill a Robin or two (especially that one from LEGO Batman.  That Joker, too).  Only the writers stop them, keeping Robin just out of their murderous reach.
 
So what else might be cool?  The random "deep" commentary that sounds like it was written by a fourteen-year-old Edgelord?  "Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?  Wanna know how I got these scars?"  Dude, no.  I have to pay rent to amd work for him!  I sure as heck ain't gonna dance with him!  And the only thing I have _ever_ wondered about those scars is why the director _gave_ them to you, seeing as how there is, as far as I know, no canonical reference to them _ever_.  (That's important to the Batman guys, right? Canon?)
 
 
Actually, that fourteen-year-old edgelord thing seems to apply to a disproportionately large number of Batman villains: "you merely adopted the darkness.  I was _moulded_ by it...."  Ich.
 
Still, there is the ever-popular, ever-bland Joker.  What is it?  What's the appeal?  Must be the purple suits; it can't be the Anakin-ized version of him from that Pheonix movie, and it certainly wasn't the  nineteen-year-old gangbanger version of him from that God-awful Doom Patrol movie.  Actually, I am pretty sure that was a God-awful version of everyone in that movie except possibly the Will Smith character, who at least got almost  four minutes of character development.
 
The Joker remains, in my own useless opinion (remember that Doc _is_ correct: the tiny bit I know about comics comes from these boards, period), an unoriginal, uninspired generic mass murderer with a Schtick that has worn really, really, thin, but since the absolute inviolable "must" of comics-  the part that keeps the fans comfortable- is absolute adherence to the status quo.  If the status quo goes to far adrift, boom!  Reboot.  While they all _talk_ about how great seeing new directions and new ideas and broad expansions of serrings and characters, but what they _buy_ is the same stories, the same settings, the same characters over and over; it is what they want.  It is their comfort zone.
 
And _this_ is the secret to the Joker's staying power:  they liked him years ago; they are comfortable liking him now.  Plus, he can be exactly what they want him to be: he is so blank-- so absolutely generic mass murderer _and_ generic slasher flick villain that the fans can easily drop whatever motivation, whatever head canon they hold, on top of him and there is nothing to counter it.  It fits because absolutely anything will.  The bumbling comical buffoon played by Ceaser Romero, an Hanibal Lector-esque manipulative psychopath, the self-amused Jack Nicholson version, the "tortured soul" character that Ledger played-  even that Leto take--  they _all_ fit.
 
That is the second-most hateable thing about the Joker: there is _nothing_ there that is uniquely Joker except for his appearance, and if a purple suit was a personality I would have been Prom King instead of helping my date keep her face hidden all night.
 
The most hateable thing?  His _persistence_.  I don't mean that as a personal trait; I mean his constant existing, being in the background and the foreground, and being essentially unstoppable, unreasonable, always one step ahead _forever_.
 
I think it is important to note that it isnt just Batman, and it isn't just me. 
 
My wife, for whatever reason, like pretty much _every_ "and here is MI gimmick" crime show- from Bones to Almost Paradise to the Mentalist--  every stinking one of them.  Fortunately, I don't watch a lot of TV, so I don't have to pay any attention to it.
 
I have noticed a trend in all of them, though.  At some point- if not by Season 3, then during Season 3, there is some uncatchable Mastermind (and a disproportionately large number of them are named "Jack," for.... reasons?).  Sometimes he is invented on the spot and will stay until the show runs itself into the ground; sometimes he is retconned in ("this case is so much like that case we had from years ago" or some such thing).  Either way, references- maybe even actual crimes or other misdeeds-  but they never, ever quite manage to catch him or stop him or in anyway end his reign of terror......
 
And an interesting thing happens-  it _always_ happens; it happens so much that I can't figure out why they still try it!  But What happens is people stop watching.  Some folks like a two-parter; some like a three-parter.  _Some_ like to carry on the adventure for a whole season.  You can actually see it-- or you _could_, back when people still published their ratings.  You could see when the cliffhanger had enough and stopped watching.  You could see when the multi-part and full-season people stopped watching.
 
And within a season or two, the show died.
 
Why?  Because _no one_ likes it.  What is there to like in an infinite evil that our staunch and beloved heroes are always, always powerless to stop.  Of course, it could be that the unstoppable monster is always the same cookie-cutter super-intelligent monster, but absolutely  without a hint of uniqueness or originality.
 
They are all the Joker.  And people _outside_ of comic culture get bored with it and move on, because they want a story, and the status quo prevents that story from ever being resolved.  If it is, then we reboot immediately.
 
And the constant,Batman / Joker dynamic is the absolute epitome of maintaining an endless status quo, the key to witch is a character generic enough to be the perfect villain in the mind of every reader, because they can make him who and how they want him to be, and know that they will always right.
 
Popularity, the comfort of the status quo--  none of these justify a 'perfect villain' who has had zero character development or norable change in what?  Fifty years or so?
 
No, Sir.  With absolute respect and genuine friendship (you know I love you, Dude.    ), I submit that the Joker is one of the worst characters still in use, and only survives specifically because  the fans do not want anything that upsets the all-important status quo of comics.
 
 
 
I took that to heart; hence all that above. 
 
 
 
 
Again, _definitely_ not,a comic book guy, but _even I_ have seen him presented as 'certifiably insane' or given other mental illnesses as 'justification' for his actions and not- you know, locking him up for life or strapping him to the warm uncomfy chair.....
 
 
 
 
 
I won't rule that out, but I will add a rider that the most chaotic thing about him is every writer's refusal to actually develop the character yet use him as every possible type of villain, just to make certain no other writer can create a functioning character out of all this, either.
 
 
 
Yeah.  As an outsider looking in, I one-hundred percent agree with that.  However, that doesn't really do anything to bolster the idea that the Joker should continue to be used, incorrigible; unobtainable. 
 
 
 

Probably a common thing - superhero games are difficult to run and difficult to get players properly bought into because they are different from what people expect.  Cinematic mythic stories where the powers are emblems of the archetypes represented - not sure HERO actually captures this aspect of superheroes. 
 
I think HERO is best in delivering the Indiana Jones and other pulp larger than life adventures where the supernatural mixes with the mundane....

Doc

6e added the option for Suffocation to Change Environment, I believe in APG I.
 
This was an item we had never had in Hero, and one I raised in the SETAC discussions, as it crops up on occasion in the source material.  Personally, I'd also allow it as an adder to a Barrier (englobed targets can't breathe) or Entangle (covering the target's face and suffocating them). For your spell, CE seems like the best base power anyway.

A bit off topic from the original question, but since it fits the thread title I'll parasitize it instead of starting a new one just to toot my own horn a bit. 
 
Today marked the completion of a long-running project over on my SCRPG resource blog.  Since villains are one of the things a new(ish) supers RPG needs most, a couple of years back I started in to do one of every possible pairing of villain "approach" and "archetype" in the core book.  For those who don't play, villains are constructed by pairing those two elements, selecting some options off each one's menu, adding a few other details, and you're done.  It's a faster process than Hero by a bit but not trivial, and of course you need a solid concept for what you're trying to create to start with.  There are (inexplicably) 18 villain approaches and 14 archetypes, which makes for a grand total of 252 possible pairings. 
 
Didn't expect to actually finish all of them when it started, but after some grinding I finished up the last one today, squeaking over the 2023 finish line.  Still doesn't begin to cover every possible villain build (you'll always have menu options you didn't take, which can differentiate one Bully/Indomitable baddy from another) but it's enough for me.  Also quite a few more villains than some supers RPG get in their whole history, and probably twice or thrice as many as the Greater Than Games folks have officially published.
 
So yay, me.  Now I can think about what to move on to next.

@sevrick I think you will note we are now past page 3.  Duke contests, this is the time by which all threads will have devolved to adherents to particular positions arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
 
If you are interested in the minutiae of the rules and associated philosophies of gaming, read on.  If not, you have heard enough to know there is no right answer and to make a decision that suits you, your players and your game.
 
Doc
@sevrick

Nah.  There is no aggro, just a lack of things to talk about, so we grip onto interesting topics and squeeze them to death.
 
If we were too considerate and accommodating, there would be even fewer things to read on the forums.
 
It is very rare there is real antagonism and discord.
 
Doc

It doesn't really have to do with what's more effective or not, but rather that powers are blank templates, basic use of an ability, which we use modifiers to specify.  In this case telepathy/mind control/what have you is the ability to use your mind to connect to or manipulate other minds.  Which other minds you define with modifiers; if you cannot contact all minds, then that's a limitation.  Classes of minds is not just a needless complication added in the most recent addition, but it violates the broad simplicity of powers that Hero has always been defined around.  Powers are designed based on their effect, not their target.

My definition is that the optimiser is looking for things to be more fun for everyone, including the GM.  The power gamer is willing to sacrifice everyone else's fun to maximise their own.
 
Doc

For the specific build I would Link the powers, but it does permit the build itself to focus more on knockback or more on healing. Higher AP (including two linked powers) comes with a higher skill roll penalty, but that is manageable by using -1/4 to reduce the roll by 1 per 20 AP rather than 10.
 
 
 
In my view, Hero is not "a game".  It is a system used to design games. When we require the players to create their abilities using the tome of mechanics, they are being asked to be game designers, not just players or even GMs. It would be quite possible to build spells with the full mechanics but publish a game where those mechanics are largely hidden. We might, for example, see Healing Burst as a spell in such a game described as 2d6 BOD Healing, 4 meter radius centered on caster, does 2  meter knockback (away from the caster) to all undead or demons instead of healing them.  COST X Points; SKILL ROLL: -Y; END: Z.
 
We could even add that +1d6 Healing and +2 meters Knockback costs +A Points; further -B Skill Roll; further END C, and present the skill roll and END in "per xd6".
 
The players need never see the complex build behind the scenes.  They know that the base power will heal 1 BOD per 2 points rolled on their 2d6, and blast any Undead or Demons back 2 meters (unless they are mysteriously resistant - perhaps knockback resistance). That is what they need to play a spellcaster with this spell in-game.
 
This adjusts character design and play to be similar to other games where the design of the characters' abilities is not shared with the players or the GM. While surprising to many Hero fans, lots of players just want to play the game, and do not want to learn the detailed game design mechanics that create their characters' abilities.  It is not wrongbadfun to want to play a game, not design one.

I was talking U2...

Look after yourself Duke.  As Bono said about the US health system, "the rich stay healthy, the sick stay poor". 😞
 
Doc

Nah.  There is no aggro, just a lack of things to talk about, so we grip onto interesting topics and squeeze them to death.
 
If we were too considerate and accommodating, there would be even fewer things to read on the forums.
 
It is very rare there is real antagonism and discord.
 
Doc

The reason we ask whether HERO is too complicated is because we have more detail to argue about.  I would bet @Duke Bushido would be more than happy delivering this power in his 2ns Edition game. 
 
As players we have pushed the game designers to give us more and more "official" rule options.  Those options already existed but we think, if they are written in a rule book, we can use them without too much thought or discussion, just punch the numbers in. We then wanted more guidance on those options, it is no wonder the core rulebook got so big.
 
I don't think HERO is any more complicated, I worry we make it too complicated.  We begin to obsess over the detail and fret more about getting the numbers right than getting the feel right and delivering a decent game.
 
There is something about us that loves the detail and makes us question the minds of other folk that bounce off this beautifully detailed system that "can do anything" but in the process we insist on showing all the detail, ensuring that every micro-point is audited and processed.
 
I love the availability of the derail, I appreciate others who know it far better than me, pointing out when I stumble and permit things that could be exploited in unanticipated ways.
 
What I appreciate most however, is not a complex build but an elegant one, one that achieves a game effect that would awesome to see in play, that HERO can put together from its parts that would be a total black box everywhere else.
 
The detail for me is about helping adjudicate the effect in game, being able to explain to the player how this would work and how it might be changed to deliver different game outcomes.
 
It is not the system, it is us that gets too complicated.
 
Doc

Nah.  There is no aggro, just a lack of things to talk about, so we grip onto interesting topics and squeeze them to death.
 
If we were too considerate and accommodating, there would be even fewer things to read on the forums.
 
It is very rare there is real antagonism and discord.
 
Doc

The reason we ask whether HERO is too complicated is because we have more detail to argue about.  I would bet @Duke Bushido would be more than happy delivering this power in his 2ns Edition game. 
 
As players we have pushed the game designers to give us more and more "official" rule options.  Those options already existed but we think, if they are written in a rule book, we can use them without too much thought or discussion, just punch the numbers in. We then wanted more guidance on those options, it is no wonder the core rulebook got so big.
 
I don't think HERO is any more complicated, I worry we make it too complicated.  We begin to obsess over the detail and fret more about getting the numbers right than getting the feel right and delivering a decent game.
 
There is something about us that loves the detail and makes us question the minds of other folk that bounce off this beautifully detailed system that "can do anything" but in the process we insist on showing all the detail, ensuring that every micro-point is audited and processed.
 
I love the availability of the derail, I appreciate others who know it far better than me, pointing out when I stumble and permit things that could be exploited in unanticipated ways.
 
What I appreciate most however, is not a complex build but an elegant one, one that achieves a game effect that would awesome to see in play, that HERO can put together from its parts that would be a total black box everywhere else.
 
The detail for me is about helping adjudicate the effect in game, being able to explain to the player how this would work and how it might be changed to deliver different game outcomes.
 
It is not the system, it is us that gets too complicated.
 
Doc

The reason we ask whether HERO is too complicated is because we have more detail to argue about.  I would bet @Duke Bushido would be more than happy delivering this power in his 2ns Edition game. 
 
As players we have pushed the game designers to give us more and more "official" rule options.  Those options already existed but we think, if they are written in a rule book, we can use them without too much thought or discussion, just punch the numbers in. We then wanted more guidance on those options, it is no wonder the core rulebook got so big.
 
I don't think HERO is any more complicated, I worry we make it too complicated.  We begin to obsess over the detail and fret more about getting the numbers right than getting the feel right and delivering a decent game.
 
There is something about us that loves the detail and makes us question the minds of other folk that bounce off this beautifully detailed system that "can do anything" but in the process we insist on showing all the detail, ensuring that every micro-point is audited and processed.
 
I love the availability of the derail, I appreciate others who know it far better than me, pointing out when I stumble and permit things that could be exploited in unanticipated ways.
 
What I appreciate most however, is not a complex build but an elegant one, one that achieves a game effect that would awesome to see in play, that HERO can put together from its parts that would be a total black box everywhere else.
 
The detail for me is about helping adjudicate the effect in game, being able to explain to the player how this would work and how it might be changed to deliver different game outcomes.
 
It is not the system, it is us that gets too complicated.
 
Doc

The reason we ask whether HERO is too complicated is because we have more detail to argue about.  I would bet @Duke Bushido would be more than happy delivering this power in his 2ns Edition game. 
 
As players we have pushed the game designers to give us more and more "official" rule options.  Those options already existed but we think, if they are written in a rule book, we can use them without too much thought or discussion, just punch the numbers in. We then wanted more guidance on those options, it is no wonder the core rulebook got so big.
 
I don't think HERO is any more complicated, I worry we make it too complicated.  We begin to obsess over the detail and fret more about getting the numbers right than getting the feel right and delivering a decent game.
 
There is something about us that loves the detail and makes us question the minds of other folk that bounce off this beautifully detailed system that "can do anything" but in the process we insist on showing all the detail, ensuring that every micro-point is audited and processed.
 
I love the availability of the derail, I appreciate others who know it far better than me, pointing out when I stumble and permit things that could be exploited in unanticipated ways.
 
What I appreciate most however, is not a complex build but an elegant one, one that achieves a game effect that would awesome to see in play, that HERO can put together from its parts that would be a total black box everywhere else.
 
The detail for me is about helping adjudicate the effect in game, being able to explain to the player how this would work and how it might be changed to deliver different game outcomes.
 
It is not the system, it is us that gets too complicated.
 
Doc

The question is a combind power or not combind. The reason I say not is because it is too expensive that way for what it does. KB is more of an addendum to the heal power. The KB you are already paying for, so what is the issue. Knockback only effects undead is on it's own a limitation.
If you had a some other attack instead of heal and it had that same modifier it would be an obvious limitation. But now suddenly because you attach it to heal, it becomes an advatage, because the KB you paid for and expect to get benefit from now doesn't slap your friends in the face?
 
To be sure there's a minimal difference in options here the thing to do is keep it +0 and if I think it is a problem through play testing I can up it to +1/4.

I mean, this is stuff you could try in 4th edition Hero with exactly the same discussion.  Is that a sign the game is more complicated?

If I was the GM I would be indicating that undead cannot be healed by positive energy, or a god of that nature.  I would not need it in the spell. 
 
If I wanted to be helpful, I might have all undead affected by heal spells as if they were blast, and then the character might not even need the does knock back advantage.
 
This is almost at the level of SFX effects, the positive energy cannot heal a creature of the negative plane and causes them, instead, to be pushed away from the source.
 
It is a cool effect, not likely to be of much use most of the time (unless it is based in hell or Ravenloft - in which case I might re-evaluate utility), why are you so adamant the player needs to pay for it?

The idea is a wave of positive energy which heals everyone and knocks back undead.  HERO does not gave a positive energy power.  We were looking to the best solution.
 
I would allow it as a +0 advantage, you would ask for +1/4. We seem to agree on everything else...
 
I reckon it is, therefore, a GM dependent call and @sevrick can take that into consideration.
 
Doc

@Christopher R Taylor, if this was going to be a core use of a power rather than a cool addition that makes the character stand out, I might be keener to bottom this out.
 
I think there is often a readiness to build complex rather than fuzzy.  I prefer to go with something close, that hits the right notes than to plumb the complexities of the system.

The idea is a wave of positive energy which heals everyone and knocks back undead.  HERO does not gave a positive energy power.  We were looking to the best solution.
 
I would allow it as a +0 advantage, you would ask for +1/4. We seem to agree on everything else...
 
I reckon it is, therefore, a GM dependent call and @sevrick can take that into consideration.
 
Doc

2d6 Healing will average 7, which is 3(.5) BOD.  The Knockback should likely be based on "count normal BOD".  The BOD healed is comparable to a 4d6 Blast, which would be reasonable (base of 4 DC).  Allowing it on the normal (average 7) roll is a much greater advantage.
 
As to the "+/- 0", I think they are reasonable in this case.  Yes, it prevents the Knockback affecting your teammates.  It also prevents it affecting the guards on the wall of the castle we want to storm, the bandits sniping from the trees and the charging bear.  ("But you'd have to heal them" is a big fat "so what?" at the start of combat.