Regarding the Multipower issue - going back to my example of Captain Powerful vs Captain Flexible. They all spend the same points on their attacks.

Captain Powerful has one powerful attack - a 15d6 force blast.

Captain Flexible A (multipower) has five different moderate attacks: a 10d6 force blast, a 5d6 entangle, etc.

Captain Flexible B (no multipower) has five different very weak attacks: a 3d6 force blast, a 1.5d6 entangle, etc.


You're correct that multipower makes Captain Flexible A much more effective than Captain Flexible B. Your claim, as I understand it, is that this is cheating and makes Captain Flexible A too powerful. But I think that Captain Flexible A is actually reasonable balanced with Captain Powerful. The problem isn't that Captain Flexible A is too powerful. It's that Captain Flexible B is too weak. I do have a bunch of issues with the Hero System - I'm not defending it blindly. But on the issue of Multipower, I think it fills a useful purpose.

Well, I don't mind your opinion Darrin. I think it's good to question things. Also, it can inspire clones and creator's own ideas. :-)

Many games like HERO can be tweaked. There's two advanced players guides for 6e! Again, I believe you could skip MPs and VPs, I believe they are left out of HERO basic...

People can get touchy about their fave system because it feels like maybe that's going to convince someone not to play or whatever. People get passionate about shit they love! You certainly inspired some convo!

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102482For a long time? I was a wall. I was the tough GM that didn't put up with any crap from any player. I had a near invulnerability complex as a GM. I did my best and was proud of it. And I was always open-minded. But kept my eye on what was best for the group collectively. I was a GMing machine. I loved what I was doing and was good at it.

Then I got broken. My confidence went away. I actually got terrified of sitting in the GM's chair for about three years. And was never the same again afterward.

But regardless of that? I did my best to return to GMing. But I never recaptured the magic and confidence I had with it. And I fell flat on my face during trying. A lot.

The only time my fearless GM side ever reappeared was when I was running games of Nightbane and Beyond The Supernatural. I had discovered I have a real talent for portraying an action based horror atmosphere with comedic elements. My horror games felt like the Evil Dead movies before I actually got those movies on home video.

But the latest thing? A couple of bad players finally made me have enough. I went out and started looking for game systems that matched my personal creative style.  Which supported the stories I sought to tell and play. And that didn't feel like a chore to set up.

It's been decades since I had that feeling with the Hero System. Where it brought me joy instead of sorrow. Because. Like others have said. It simply got too much for me.

I own my personal flaws. I don't act ashamed of them or try to hide them.

My comments about your players was not meant to be an attack against you, simply you seem to have had a run of bad players. My experience has been that no amount of rule tweaking can resolve bad players. They are like nuclear war, the only way to win is not to play (with them).

HERO has issues, but most of the alleged fixes tend to be worse than just applying some common sense. The issue with killing attacks tends to be people gaming them to create a power that they were not meant to represent. The issue you seem to have with multi-power seems to be one of abuse rather than using the rule as it was intended.

I also strongly disagree with your assessment that jhkims Captain Flexible with a multipower is OP vs Captain Powerful. Captain Powerful would most likely win a 1-1 fight every time. If that is the case, and based on other comments you seem to agree with that assessment, then I'm having trouble seeing MP as OP?

Quote from: Toadmaster;1102502My comments about your players was not meant to be an attack against you, simply you seem to have had a run of bad players. My experience has been that no amount of rule tweaking can resolve bad players. They are like nuclear war, the only way to win is not to play (with them).

I recently spoke to the GM of one of my first most serious Champions campaigns. From way over 20 years ago. In fact, I sold him a spare copy of the 4th Edition Champions rulebook that got him to start GMing in the first place.

What did he tell me? And I'm never going to forget this. That I created the only true heroic character of the group. The other characters had players who were too busy trying to one-up the other players. Or who were jealous of the characters that actually did things within the group. They weren't playing their characters with the mindset of a hero. It was just sad and bad.

QuoteHERO has issues, but most of the alleged fixes tend to be worse than just applying some common sense. The issue with killing attacks tends to be people gaming them to create a power that they were not meant to represent. The issue you seem to have with multi-power seems to be one of abuse rather than using the rule as it was intended.

6th Edition made a lot of changes. Including the elimination of the Stun Lotto phenomenon for killing attacks. Which was a straight-up reduction of its maximum possible Stun Multiplier.

Oh, Multipower abuse is certainly the primary issue I brought up in this thread. But it is certainly not my only bone of contention with the system.

One of my biggest happens to be SPD inflation. Players jacking up their SPD scores for no good conceptual reason. But instead just to make it so their character goes more often per turn. This throws off the entire balance of the game. And forces the GM into yet another arms race with the builds of the NPCs to compensate for it.

Human maximum SPD since 1st edition of the game has always been 4. This means it is the max human potential. Captain America and Olympic athlete level. Yet how many characters can conceptually justify having that level or more? A lot fewer than you think. And a GM should absolutely rein that in. But it doesn't happen, in more cases than not.

Absolutely infuriating!

QuoteI also strongly disagree with your assessment that jhkims Captain Flexible with a multipower is OP vs Captain Powerful. Captain Powerful would most likely win a 1-1 fight every time. If that is the case, and based on other comments you seem to agree with that assessment, then I'm having trouble seeing MP as OP?

I would contend that it isn't raw might that makes a good hero. It's their heart. And the players who have been seeking exploits within the game like with the Multipower seem to always forget that part of the heroic condition. All they think of is raw might. They think that is the most important thing. When they are not getting in their character's headspace at all.

It's what a character does that makes all the difference. Not how powerful they are.

I think jhkims examples are flawed. Because they only fixate on raw might. And completely ignore the other factors that make a character a hero. Instead of just a superpowered bully.

Getting players into the setting's fictional headspace vs. the demands of the RAW (rules as written) arms race is why I prefer levels vs. point-buy games: one immediately starts with funneling parameters to fight the conceptual battle in players' minds before play. Point-buy, in being broad and flexible, ends up with more GM overhead to curtail the system to fit the fiction AND THEN begins the conceptual battle with player expectations. That and points are meaningless outside its context, so that's just more fine-tuning work hidden under the guise of "publisher RAW balance."

And Publisher RAW Balance is a shibboleth all games suffer from. But it is a flawed assuption I see fans of higher compexity games suffer in greater proportion due to the tighter held delusion that abstractions, if "realistic enough," will one day achieving playable modeling at the table. We have video game physics for that now, and no one wants to do matrices and derivatives by hand for fun. ("The bad news is your falling, the good news, there is no ground." - some Buddhist monk)

In summary, I feel your pain, Darrin.   You are fighting the gameable system AND the players that love that power usurpation from the GM's Setting. Sounds like a steeper uphill battle than reskinning a simpler system and telling the knuckleheads to knock it off.

I say Treasure your well-earned compliments and past memories and move on from frustration. Let the inmates savor their rule of their asylum.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1102514Getting players into the setting's fictional headspace vs. the demands of the RAW (rules as written) arms race is why I prefer levels vs. point-buy games:

Yeah - I love point-buy in theory. But between the added complexity, extreme ceiling/floor distance, and no niche protection, I prefer class/level systems. (Tons seem to scoff at niche protection, but it helps avoid these issues so that you aren't directly competing with the other players at the table.)

I do like customization, but in practice to stay relevant, point-buy systems don't really have all that many viable options. It's like MTG decks. Sure, you could theoretically put any 60 cards together, but not and still be viable. Everyone will have 20-25 land to start, and as you get into it you discover that each expansion only really has a dozen or so truly viable decks, with only minor variation to put your stamp on it. And even that many is only due to the 5 colors (the CCG equivalent of classes).

I tend to prefer the class/point-buy hybrid systems, where the class aims your point-buy. I think that it allows for a greater real variety of builds than pure point-buy, and if the classes are different enough there isn't as much player competition.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1102469Fuck me! How many pages? How many of the text could be shaved of without losing the essence? Yeah, that's so not for me! I'll stay with older Champions versions, the ones with the rules in it.

If you want something newer which also uses point-builds, but is a LOT easier (extras/flaws are +/-X per rank of power instead of x1/4, x1/2, etc.) check out M&M 3e. It has its own online SRD (d20HeroSRD) and the only book you ever truly need as a player or GM (Hero's Handbook) if you want a hard copy or PDF version is just 232 pages including the character sheet.

If anything Multi-power should be kept (perhaps with some of the ultra options trimmed out), and then Variable Power Pools and Elemental Controls should be dropped.  The latter two have their place, but they are so clunky in practice that they really increase the learning curve of the system.

A standard Multi-power isn't any more abusive than a GM that accidentally allows too much Flash in a game with inadequate defenses against it or other such tricks.  At least since 4th ed, it's been standard practice to say that the GM should put limits on Active Points, as well as low and top end attacks, defenses, SPD, etc.  That was something that grew directly out of experience with earlier versions, too.

As for some kind of internal logic of Hero System that is being abused by the multi-powers--that's just Ivory Tower wankery.  Free clue--Hero System constantly violates all kinds of internal logic in order to make a game that kind of works.  If they didn't, it would be unplayable--especially on the lower and upper ends of power levels.  On the list of things needing a fix in Hero System, the multi-power is somewhere outside the first 50.  

I don't expect my post to make any impression in your mind.  It's not really for you.

Yes, Caron's Little Helper, our CCG experience helps us pierce the veil that "number of options" assumes "equivalently viable options." Breadth is not achieved by quantity. And as much as we could expand on that point-buy:CCG metaphoric relationship, perhaps we should let Darrin's topic progress without too much more tangent.

Chris24601, it is very kind to offer an alternative, especially one that is five times smaller. I myself am not a Supers player, but I have heard similar good things about Mutants & Masterminds in general.

And Steve Mitchell, it sounds like Hero has a lot of dials and levers, like a typical toolkit system. But what would you recommend to make Hero manageable and relatable to new players at this point? Is there a cheatsheet for "How to Emulate XYZ Genre Conventions"? It sounds like an apocalypse of (gamist? simulationist?) fans 'chasing the dragon' of "realism," (like Kenny 'chasing the rockin' tits' of Heavy Metal through cat-piss abuse ).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102510I would contend that it isn't raw might that makes a good hero. It's their heart. And the players who have been seeking exploits within the game like with the Multipower seem to always forget that part of the heroic condition. All they think of is raw might. They think that is the most important thing. When they are not getting in their character's headspace at all.

It's what a character does that makes all the difference. Not how powerful they are.

I think jhkims examples are flawed. Because they only fixate on raw might. And completely ignore the other factors that make a character a hero. Instead of just a superpowered bully.

You're shifting goal-posts. It's like you're assuming the only possible reason a person would use Multipower is because they are a power-gamer who doesn't know the true beating heart of real role playing, looking to shit all over any game they get into. Because this discussion was about a rule change, it can't get at ineffable values about "what makes a true hero" and all of this. Removing Multipower also isn't going to magically change power-gamers into the type of players you're looking for. The rules for power construction are about constructing powers, not about eliciting proper, deeply understood heroic play. So, any discussion of a change to those rules is going to be about how they impact the power side of generating characters, whether it makes certain power concepts possible, etc. A character's suite of powers, their might and the hook behind why they are like that and how they work, etc. is all on an independent axis from the kind of heroic play you are talking about. A player could use multipower in support of a solid concept or a raw power fantasy one. A player could not use multipower and still be everything you don't like in a player. When you say jhkim's examples are flawed because they only fixate on raw might... umm, you were discussing a rule that relates to the relative might of various character concepts, so that was just unavoidable. Then... the "just a superpowered bully" thing, I dunno, it just strikes me as like, talking about 401k retirement contributions then when someone considers a scenario going "Retirement isn't all about money, and his example is fixated on money." I mean, that's true, but you're the one who brought up the 401k.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1102533And Steve Mitchell, it sounds like Hero has a lot of dials and levers, like a typical toolkit system. But what would you recommend to make Hero manageable and relatable to new players at this point? Is there a cheatsheet for "How to Emulate XYZ Genre Conventions"? It sounds like an apocalypse of (gamist? simulationist?) fans 'chasing the dragon' of "realism," (like Kenny 'chasing the rockin' tits' of Heavy Metal through cat-piss abuse ).

Well, I don't play Hero anymore because I got tired of fiddling with the dials and levers.  Also, Hero handles a lot of possibilities for emulation that don't happen to interest me that much.  Thus, it is kind of overkill for the usual game I want to run.  But I did run it and tinker with it exhaustively for a decade.  So those caveats out of the way:

Honestly, at this point the best way for a new group to start would be to play with an experienced GM, same as with most games.  I've introduced somewhere over 100 players to Hero, most of them with no prior RPG experience at all, and it went just fine because I knew what I was doing.  It's also one of the few games where I got to play it before I ran it, which helped immensely.  

Barring that, since out of the box it is a toolkit to make a game, not a complete game, I'd say the next best option would be to find someone online who really enjoys the system, and is willing to use it to put together the start of game the new GM and new players say they want.  Some structure, limits, and a few examples that fit the goal of that new group would go a long way to getting started.  And because of the way the abilities are built, the group wouldn't be locked into what this outside person provided, or even missing out on the learning opportunities.  Of course, that's difficult because way too many of the Hero fans can't listen to what someone else wants, and will instead try to do it the way they'd want it.

People have tried to provide canned starter options for Hero, but that misses the point.  The only reason to use it is because you've got some definite goal in mind.  There has to be some back and forth with getting the toolkit to approximate that goal.  Once you do, the system runs easily.  (With a few house rules, it runs even better than many other systems, though the house rules aren't necessary to make it work well.)

The only other option is start with your group and the understanding that the learning curve is unusually front-loaded and steep, but trust that it levels out into something much better once you surmount it.  It's an investment of time and energy that has a payoff--for people that have that odd game they want to run that needs that kind of control.

Finally, since you are such a 2E fan, I should note that I ran a lot of D&D 2E adventures converted to Fantasy Hero, and it was a blast.  Picking a 2E setting that you like, then using that to guide your Hero limits, but not religiously so, produces a very different experience.  (Just having more focused, limited, but still high-powered magic, alongside much more capable and versatile skill characters, makes for a very different 2E Forgotten Realms campaign, for example.)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1102468Just 2 pages into this thread and my brain went...yeah, this is why I don't play Champions anymore. I really can't get excited about this level of complexity anymore. I ran Champions at a convention with pre-made characters 6 years ago and two players left because I didn't min/max to squeeze every point. It was a faux X-men team and I just wanted the PCs to be flavorful, do their thing and be easy to figure out for newbs.

As a Champions GM back in the early editions, I didn't have big problems with Multipower in actual play IF the player worked it into the hero's theme. The far bigger problem I encountered was player dorks who wanked with the system to get scads of 1-2 use items for pennies of cost and theme-be-damned.

However, I've gamed with GMs who banned both MP and EC because of player abuse. One thing I've noted about the Hero system is the complaints various people have depends more on bad behavior within their group than the actual rules.

Ugh. As a regular HERO GM, bad behavior is endemic in the community. Nowadays I push hard against tone sliders and point optimizers.

Anywho, I understand what DK is saying and my experiences have been similar.

MP/VPP abuse? Check.
Only one PC actually heroic? Check.
SPD Inflation? Check.
Math games? Check.

I nowadays put less value on the number of bottoms in seats and I'm more happier for it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1102533Chris24601, it is very kind to offer an alternative, especially one that is five times smaller. I myself am not a Supers player, but I have heard similar good things about Mutants & Masterminds in general.

One other advantage of M&M is that, because it is based on the d20 system, it has a degree of familiarity to it which makes a lot of the portions used in character creation more a list of options where you only need to read the ones you find relevant instead of needing to actually read the entire book.

One thing that is occasionally hard to grok at first if you're coming from a more fluff-integrated system though is that M&M character building is 100% Effect-based. Meaning that character building is all about finding the most effective crunch to match your fluff and that things like ability scores only matter to the extent they are convenient groupings of traits (you can just as easily buy up the individual traits for the same overall cost as buying the ability score).

Which is also why the powers are extremely generic; what in HERO are entangles, mind control, flashes and a host of other powers are instead just "Affliction." Instead of Energy Blast, Ranged Killing Attack, Melee Killing Attack and whatever they called the non-killing melee damage attack... there's just "Damage" (with ranged as an extra for it). Instead of natural armor and force fields as separate powers there's just "Protection" (with having it shut off when you're stunned as a flaw).

You get the idea.

And yeah, the use of Arrays for powers is discussed as something that is most certainly expected. Though it does point out that because of their power stunt rules you don't actually NEED an alternate power for every last variation, just the most common ones (hence my build going from eight to four alternate powers when we changed to M&M from HERO; the latter expected you to precisely build every option; M&M says, burn a hero point in play for an alternate power use of a power you do have. So if I really needed to take out a bunch of evil robots at a distance my super strength hero could burn a hero point and add an alternate power... let's call it "nailed it";  i.e. a ranged area attack (fluff is he's grabbing a bucket of nails from the construction site and hurling handfuls of them with his super strength like a scattergun) to his array during the encounter.

Only if I actually start using a particular trick on a regular basis would I need to look at actually adding it to my strength tricks array (at a cost of 1 PP; which is the typical session reward recommended... so use a new trick in session and, if it's something you think you'll use a lot, spend the PP you gain to add it as a regular trick).

Which is another way that Multi-powers/Arrays are useful in terms of world building while keeping the rewards per session at a level where the typical slow growth you see in comics is also in effect. If I had to pay full price (30 PP) for that scattergun nail trick I'd either need to spend 30 sessions to gain that trick or the session rewards would need to be 10-15 PP per session so you could get the trick in a reasonable timeframe... except that 10 PP is enough to add 20 ranks to your skills or improve an ability score by 5 ranks (or adding +10 to an ability score in D&D).

Instead, alternate effects at 1 PP mean that the typical 1 PP/session award lets you; add +1 to 2 skills, increase a non-capped defense by 1, add an advantage (i.e. a feat) or alternate effect for an existing power (or improve a very inexpensive power by one rank), or bank it for next session to improve an ability score or more expensive power by one rank (or add a new power).

It's sort of the sweet spot in terms of progression feeling meaningful without being either glacial (1 pp without arrays) or exponential (10+ pp per session without arrays).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102443ICONS does it effectively without using any type of structure like that. So does GURPS. And they simulate superhero comics just fine. So yes. I disagree strongly with you.

Hang on now, GURPS has Alternate Abilities/Alternate Attacks which work on some level just like Multipowers.  Pay for the most expensive power then pay 1/5 for any other exclusive abilities.

Plus, as much as I love GURPS it's not a great system for superheros above street-level.  Doing Batman's OK but trying to stat up Superman is a nightmare.