Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102396The Multipower. What I consider the biggest cheat in the entire Hero System's history. Which also became the foundation in which another Power Framework called the Variable Power Pool was based upon.

....
The Multipower is doesn't limit powers significantly at all. It's literally giving some huge discounts without really doing anything but adding extra complexity to the character build.

Baloney

Multipower is a way to reserve a portion of your points and switch them between different powers. Instead of paying 50 point for a 10d6 energy black. You can now switch that out for other similarly priced  or lesser cost powers. However in any given phase that block of point only represents a single power that you spend 50 or less points on.

And there is a cost for the flexibility in that you have to pay for slots.

In contrast variable advantage which you advocates in its place doesn't chance the base power. It just changes the advantages that apply to the base power. So does a poor job of representing Green Lantern's Ring or Batman's utility belt.

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.

ICONS is a "GM May I?" system with vague mechanics (the full description of the leaping power is "You can jump across great distances. Leaping 7 can take you out to visual range in a single bound, and levels beyond that can cover miles in a single leap!" That is the full extent of the power and guidance for it) and entirely pre-built powers where any sort of multi-power is pre-built into the effect (akin to Heroes Unlimited's major powers).

Anything beyond the most basic uses of an ability is entirely GM fiat (basically its D&D Fighter: The RPG).

It's also a system where the default for chargen is "random rolls for everything, even origin and powers" where actually getting to build your character to concept requires GM permission. Its pushing of "Aspects, Tags and Compels" (basically story-game meta-currency crap) is also a turn off.

Hard pass on ICONS.

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: 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.

It's good advice.

Part of why I post threads like these is to work through some unresolved frustration.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102510That 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.

This is an issue with every point based system I've tried. Point based systems are great to allow people to make PCs they want to play, but are also very easily corrupted by "maximum efficiency" players. Not a unique situation, you see the same kind of complaints with feats in the various forms of D&D / d20. There are some players who don't care about making an interesting character, they just want the best mix of abilities. You even saw them in AD&D, often playing a high elf archer (not that all elf players or even elf archer players fall into this category).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;11025106th 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.

What is this 6th edition you speak of?  That sounds silly, like saying there were sequels to Highlander:p

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102510Human 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!

From personal experience actually using one of the other frequent "unnecessary" rules, Endurance is a great way to mitigate Speed inflation. Making high speed players track endurance often found them no faster than slower PCs because they had to use many of their extra moves recovering END. If they were smart they put a lot of points into buying Reduced END or No END on their powers, or they seriously bulked up their END and REC stats, which get expensive fast, and when added to the high cost of SPD, seriously ate into the points they could use on other powers / stats.

At lower Speeds END is pretty much a doesn't matter stat (unless bought down), but we found strict enforcement quickly reined in speedsters. Even in high powered Supers games we rarely saw SPD above 6, and in Heroic games SPD 3 and 4 were the max. Only one player I can recall tried building a thief PC with a SPD 5 and he was so ineffective he soon begged to be allowed to reallocate the points and reduced to a SPD of 4.  

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.

Again massive difference of opinion. I see MP as encouraging more broad based heroic characters, not encouraging super powered bullies. The most efficient way to created a combat monster is with straight powers. I've found MP tends to help one create flexible heroes with more than just brute force powers. For raw power a straight attack will always be more efficient. It is nearly impossible to build a jack of all trades Batman utility belt type character without the use of MP. VPP or EC will not work for that kind of character.  

Quote from: estar;1102562Baloney

Multipower is a way to reserve a portion of your points and switch them between different powers. Instead of paying 50 point for a 10d6 energy black. You can now switch that out for other similarly priced  or lesser cost powers. However in any given phase that block of point only represents a single power that you spend 50 or less points on.

And there is a cost for the flexibility in that you have to pay for slots.

In contrast variable advantage which you advocates in its place doesn't chance the base power. It just changes the advantages that apply to the base power. So does a poor job of representing Green Lantern's Ring or Batman's utility belt.

Exactly, without MP it is not possible to have characters like that on somewhat equal footing to focused characters like the Hulk or Cyclops if they are all built on the same number of points. Granting some players more points to work with that other based around character concept seems like a recipe for a disaster of a game.

Quote from: Chris24601;1102525If 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.

Will check out the SRD and see if it floats my boat. If so then the book goes to my wish list for when I have the money/permission from the wife to buy yet another book!

The thread so far is interesting...

Summary:

Let me say something I know is not going to be popular.
Say something that most people find is not true.
Refuse to engage in the examples that people provide showing how it is not true.
Get angry at everyone for disagreeing with something that was known to be unpopular.
Realize that it isn't a system issue and that it has something to do with people being jerks, refuse to retract original claim.


I'm very curious - I think Captain Flexible is a good example of Multi-Power.  Is that character more powerful than someone who didn't use Multi-Power?  I don't think so.

Quote from: Chris24601;1102568ICONS is a "GM May I?" system with vague mechanics (the full description of the leaping power is "You can jump across great distances. Leaping 7 can take you out to visual range in a single bound, and levels beyond that can cover miles in a single leap!" That is the full extent of the power and guidance for it) and entirely pre-built powers where any sort of multi-power is pre-built into the effect (akin to Heroes Unlimited's major powers).

Anything beyond the most basic uses of an ability is entirely GM fiat (basically its D&D Fighter: The RPG).

It's also a system where the default for chargen is "random rolls for everything, even origin and powers" where actually getting to build your character to concept requires GM permission. Its pushing of "Aspects, Tags and Compels" (basically story-game meta-currency crap) is also a turn off.

Hard pass on ICONS.

The point-based character generation was expanded in ICONS Origins. Which makes it a truly viable option.

And all RPG systems are "GM May I?" The GM is the final arbiter of the rules. The rulebook isn't.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102581The point-based character generation was expanded in ICONS Origins. Which makes it a truly viable option.

And all RPG systems are "GM May I?" The GM is the final arbiter of the rules. The rulebook isn't.

Right, but there's a notable difference between...

A) The GM is in charge of a system where players may make reasonable inferences as to the outcome of their actions because of codified mechanics (i.e. if something doesn't go as expected there's an in-game reason for it.

B) The GM is in charge of a system where the players have to guess based on the GM's mood and what he ate before coming to game whether a given action will even be allowed because the mechanics are so vague.

M&M is the former (Players can have a reasonable expectation of what their powers can actually do; how far they can leap, how fast they can move, the size of the shell that will just bounce off their nigh impervious skin, what the power of their effects are in relation to real world phenomena, etc. and what the effectiveness of their alternate power effects will be; I know my super strong lungs can push 25 tons up to 30' with a single breath.

ICONS is the latter ("I know I blew out a house fire using my super strong lungs last session, but the the GM ate a bad taco earlier so he might not even let me use a super breath to disperse the gas cloud this time.").

Frankly with the use of Aspects, Tags and Compels as narrative prompts and means of gaining narrative meta-currency it makes me think if you're into ICONS you should probably just use FATE with a Superhero setting and be done with it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1102582Frankly with the use of Aspects, Tags and Compels as narrative prompts and means of gaining narrative meta-currency it makes me think if you're into ICONS you should probably just use FATE with a Superhero setting and be done with it.

That's because ICONS is FATE. Just a slightly different implementation of it. Just with a few different terms tacked to it. It's really effectively the same game engine.

You don't like FATE? That's fine. You should use the game system that makes you most comfortable.

As for Mutants & Masterminds. I have all versions of that game system. I like it better than the Hero System overall. But I also feel that for most applications it's just too heavy of a game system for my purposes. Too exhausting to use.

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.

Darrin, I think your main issue is with something other than the mechanics of Multipower. Regarding my example: obviously, it's just a simplified example of power costs - not personalities. It is representative of the most common use of Multipower in published characters, as far as I've seen.

My main period of Hero System play was in college and grad school, and I had pretty great groups of players during that time. However, I sympathize that you've had players engaging in bad behavior. I've definitely seen such players, such as at cons or hearing from friends. It sucks if you're swamped in such players.

I think the best deterrent for such behavior isn't changing the rules. Eliminating Multipower just means they'll optimize differently. Instead, I'd suggest a mix of both rules and GM discretion to design characters who are equal. As a Hero System GM, I tended to do this by giving advice and leeway to non-optimized characters. i.e. A player who optimized the hell out of their character found that the newbie player's PC was just as good because I helped them and gave them breaks. Focusing too much on fixing up the rules is counter-productive as far as reigning in rules lawyers, in my experience.

Quote from: jhkim;1102587Darrin, I think your main issue is with something other than the mechanics of Multipower. Regarding my example: obviously, it's just a simplified example of power costs - not personalities. It is representative of the most common use of Multipower in published characters, as far as I've seen.

My main period of Hero System play was in college and grad school, and I had pretty great groups of players during that time. However, I sympathize that you've had players engaging in bad behavior. I've definitely seen such players, such as at cons or hearing from friends. It sucks if you're swamped in such players.

I think the best deterrent for such behavior isn't changing the rules. Eliminating Multipower just means they'll optimize differently. Instead, I'd suggest a mix of both rules and GM discretion to design characters who are equal. As a Hero System GM, I tended to do this by giving advice and leeway to non-optimized characters. i.e. A player who optimized the hell out of their character found that the newbie player's PC was just as good because I helped them and gave them breaks. Focusing too much on fixing up the rules is counter-productive as far as reigning in rules lawyers, in my experience.

The only way to stamp out the min-maxing and rules-lawyering in Hero is for the GM to build all of the characters themselves. That's really the only solution that I find truly eliminates the issue.

But doing that makes the min-maxers whine endlessly. And it puts an additional workload on the GM. When the GM's time is limited, to begin with. And with a heavy system like Hero, any additional workload can be crushing for the GM.

One of the last bad players I had with Hero, was a total mix-maxer and exploiter. His antics forced the GMs to deal with him and make him the center of attention. And resulted in vital time being taken away from the development of the story elements and actual adventures for the game. In the end, the situation became absolutely crushing and unable to be resolved. And the game was shut down.

After that. I went looking for game systems that had far less of a workload being put on the GM. Enough was enough.

I also expanded a personal limit in gaming period. I don't play with players that I can't trust. At all. Ever.

As you can imagine. That sort of kills most online gaming options.

Hero System is a lot of work on the GM.  That's true.  But that's because it comes with a lot of flexibility and power.  If the flexibility and power isn't worth the work, then of course you should avoid it.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with bad players or good players.  There's no amount of work you can put into any system that will fix bad players.  If they can be reasoned with, you might be able to guide them into being less bad players, but that's outside the system.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102585That's because ICONS is FATE. Just a slightly different implementation of it. Just with a few different terms tacked to it. It's really effectively the same game engine.

You don't like FATE? That's fine. You should use the game system that makes you most comfortable.

I'd honestly never even looked at FATE because I loathe vague storygame stuff. If ICONS is FATE then I see I'd made the right call because I found nothing appealing in its mechanics as presented in its SRD.

M&M 3e* is about the right level of crunch/character building detail for me in a superhero game (less than HERO/GURPS, but way crunchier than ICONS). Once you have an actual concept and if you know where in the book to look for things you can build a PC in 15-20 minutes. If you have the rank measures table (I made a printout) you can pretty much design opponents on the fly (being d20-based helps a LOT for this).

The PL caps/trade-offs also mean that even pretty unoptimized PCs aren't completely outclassed (you'll hit the defense caps after only 1/3 of your budget and can get a capped close damage attack for just 10% of your budget... even if you spent twice as much as needed to hit the caps you'd still have 20 points left over from a 150 PP build for other stuff).

Likewise, the places you're most likely to fall short accidentally can be fixed pretty quickly with session rewards (1 PP per point in a short defense/save, 1 PP per 2 points if your attack bonus is too low, and there's a couple of 1 PP advantages that can patch over damage being too low by trading accuracy or defense for damage until you can buy it up properly).

About the only house rule we use is one that swaps out Toughness saves for a hp/DR system and actually makes it a little closer to HERO and combat a bit less swingy overall.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1102599Hero System is a lot of work on the GM.  That's true.  But that's because it comes with a lot of flexibility and power.  If the flexibility and power isn't worth the work, then of course you should avoid it.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with bad players or good players.  There's no amount of work you can put into any system that will fix bad players.  If they can be reasoned with, you might be able to guide them into being less bad players, but that's outside the system.

I chose ICONS because of its relative simplicity in character generation. And lack of areas open for exploitation. I feel that it lets me concentrate on making a really fun game. Instead of having my time devoured by character generation minutia. It's a flexible system. But doesn't go to the depth of detail Hero does.

As for the Aspects, Compels, and other aspects of FATE? I like emphasizing story elements more than I was capable of with Hero. I like the fact that those things cause players to be more interactive and invested with the campaign's environment.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102595The only way to stamp out the min-maxing and rules-lawyering in Hero is for the GM to build all of the characters themselves. That's really the only solution that I find truly eliminates the issue.

That's a cure worse than the disease.