Just wondering how complex in play it is versus a game like Marvel Superheroes.  Thanks.

At its core, its not complex. But it can be difficult to play as its an effects based systems (much like HERO, which is also complex, and Wild Talents).

So, rather than listing a whole bunch of powers like Flame Strike, Wall of Flame etc and giving mechanics for what they do, which you would see in an exceptions based system like Marvel Superheroes, you get a bunch of effects that you build into your powers like Damage, Ongoing, Component Required.

If you learn the effects (much like learning a language) and can break down powers into those effects quickly, the game would be great. However, that learning curve can be difficult for many people.

Its worth noting that M&M moved to being more effects based through editions. M&M 1e has some exceptions based stuff, where as M&M 3e is almost purely effects based.

To give an example, here's Green Lantern's ring:

Green Lantern Power Ring: 129 points, Removable (-26 points) • 103 points*
AI and Database: Features 2 (see description) • 2 points
Communication: Senses 1 (Communication Link to Central Power Battery) • 1 point
Flight: Flight 14 (32,000 MPH), Movement 4 (Environmental Adaptation: Zero-G, Space Travel 3) • 36 points
Force Field: Impervious Protection 12; Immunity 10 (Life Support) • 34 points
Force Manipulation : Array (40 points)*
Force Blast: Ranged Damage 20, Dynamic • 41 points*
• Force Constructs: Create 20, Dynamic • 2 points
• Lifting: Move Object 20, Dynamic • 2 points
Scanning Beam: Senses 6 (Analytical Auditory, Chemical, and Visual) • 6 points
Universal Translator: Comprehend Languages 4 • 8 points

All the stuff I have bolded aren't mechanical terms, but descriptions given by the player. The un-bolded stuff is how those things are mechanically described.

In fact, the prime purpose of the Powers Sourcebook is to translate powers as most would describe them into their mechanical language.

Bear in mind that it's been a while since I read it, and then only briefly at a friend's place, and we've never actually played it.

But at a glance, the effects-based power system in and of itself isn't so bad. It struck me as simpler than HERO and about as complex (maybe less so) than Wild Talents.

What I really disliked about M&M (3e even more so than the others) is Feats. I remember they seemed confusing and often redundant; many of them, I feel, should've just been handled as (a) something anyone might do; or (b) more ranks in the relevant attribute, skill or power; or, rarely (c) by a straighgtforward, ful-fledged, point-balanced Advantages and Disadvantages system.

Quote from: RunningLaser;802210Just wondering how complex in play it is versus a game like Marvel Superheroes.  Thanks.

I'd say it's more complicated than FASERIP, but just how much depends a lot on your players.

The default system is based on a "point-buy" and, although there's a cafeteria-style list of common powers, most players will want to build their own from scratch. That can get pretty complicated, depending on just how much they try to min/max.

Also, many powers have a "variable" aspect, that lets characters move around attribute numbers and powers, so that things like object creation, shapeshifting, summoning and so forth, can be used for a wide variety of effects. That's actually one of the great attractions of the system, and if you have players who are prepared ahead of time, that's not so bad, but recalculating that stuff on the fly, including the impact it has on basic game stats, can be a major problem at the table.

So if you have highly organized players who stay away from some of the more interesting powers, it's not too bad. But if you've got anyone showing up with a widely variable selection of powers, who hasn't put a nickel's worth of prep into it (and there's always one of these in every gaming group), then it can be a drag.

Wasnt M&M a rip off of an older superhero RPG?

Or was that Silver Age Sentinels?

Thanks for the replies so far.   This input is what I'm looking for.

It's a nice point buy system with a fairly fine-grain resolution, and a lot of attention to details. It's also not afraid to be abstract when that would be useful.

Now, personally, I found that level of detail a bit much, but it does what it does well.

OK- so chargen is a bit involved, but combat runs smoothly, but maybe not as fast as FASERIP?

Keep in mind it's been years since I looked at the system (so experts feel free to correct me and please be kind!):

The system has a very simple idea that is fucking brilliant -- every power/attack/defense has a cap, a maximum value tied to level. If you don't want characters to 'level up,' you are free to just set level to some campaign value.

What's brilliant about that?

A lot of games try to get extremely cute about emergent limits. So, for example, do I spend 15 points for 5 dots in Celery, or do I spend 3 points for 2 dots in Presents?

The problem is that trying to finagle all of these limits makes balance and design exponentially harder, and games often fail. Particularly once the devs throw their hands up and make initial chargen linear (5 dots of Celery = 5 initial points, 2 dots of Protein = 2 initial points, etc)

M&M rather astutely just says 'fuck it. Don't go over X, whatever bullshit you pull otherwise.' And yeah, you can still abuse the system, but it easily and quickly eliminates one of the most common hinky system things.
That is, you buy stuff linearly. Blast 10 costs twice as much as Blast 5, though costs might adjust depending on how broad or narrow the power is. And the cap means you can't buy more than a certain level of whatever power.

Ok, other stuff:
By 3e, M&M has separated out a lot of story vs. power limitations. They used to try to be cute and combine them into one thing, but soon realized that 'I can't eat celery' should be handled a lot differently than 'my power shoots in a celery-like corridor.'
What's nice about this is that if story-based limitations annoy you, hey, just drop them. The power-shaping stuff still works.

Alternate Powers. Astutely, the devs noted that being able to shoot a celery-blast, dealing X damage to a single enemy, or bury your enemy in heavy presents, dealing X damage to a single enemy, then it's kind of bullshit to charge you full cost for each -- you are being charged a huge amount for a modest difference, compared to the guy who has Celery blast and ALSO has Hardees Protein armor.

So, basically, you just pay a single point for 'I can choose to switch and do this other similar thing with the same rough effect.'


Descriptors. I don't know exactly how 3e handles it now, but generally you can tag your powers with, essentially, a keyword. This keyword can be interpreted by the GM to have various story effects or interact with other powers in established or new ways.
So, for example, I have Celery Blasts. My enemy, Boundless BMI, has a Deep Fry cannon, and is going to try to intercept my attack with his own.
The GM decides the two 'types' of blasts negate one another, and BBMI succeeds in blocking the attack (though has to use an action to do so).

Later, I try to healthify the luncheon of poor orphans. I decide to try to do some sort of trick with Celery Blast (I think there are rules for tweaking powers on the fly like this using power points), and the GM rules this is at least possible.
(Which wouldn't be the case if I was, say, shooting Ennui Rays)



((I should note that my examples are all extremely silly and probably unlike 99.99% of actual M&M games, but hey))

Quote from: RunningLaser;802265OK- so chargen is a bit involved, but combat runs smoothly, but maybe not as fast as FASERIP?

This is correct. I've ran both. MM takes a little getting used to in my experience. Where as FASERIP is easy to pickup and run with from the git.

we ran a 2e campaign recently and the chargen was complex. The combat was bogged down with many status effects.
I was impressed by the flexibility of chargen but combat did get bogged down a little.

I understand 3e is pared down and cleaned up but I think you need to try it or at least read some play examples on the atomic think tank (awesome online resource for all things m&m)

More complex than I was prepared to tackle with a group of people who weren't going to buy or read the rules themselves. If I had the system internalized myself it'd be one thing, but with only a passing familiarity there'd be no way I could coach five people through chargen, and the days where I could sit around and play with the ruleset solo until I mastered it are two decades in the past.

Not knocking the game by any means. I think Steve Kenson is a very smart and talented designer and I love the idea of M&M (I like most of the art, setting and npc's too - The Atomic Brain and Cerberus Rex are fucking cool as hell), I just wish it would have been available in 1993 when I could have put it to good use.

Fortunately I have found that Bash UE does 9/10ths of what M&M does at a fraction of the workload.

If anything I think it's not complex enough.  To me, M&M 2nd Edition struck the happy medium between an increasingly over-complex HERO and other rules systems (namely other D20 systems) that tried to do superheroes without understanding the necessity of the effects approach to simulating the smorgasbord of backgrounds that a comics universe has.  Now, with M&M defining effects like "Affliction" in three threshold steps, then making most of the system work on that basis, the result is that much more generic than HERO.

JG

I'm a die hard fan of MSH, and I'll say that M&M3E is more complex. I'm not saying its "bad" or "terrible," just that from 1E to 2E there was a push for more complexity in order to allegedly make things more clear. 3E seems to have maintained a lot of 2E's complexity in many ways.


Primarily this complexity lies in trying to create the artificial idea of balance (which is not to be confused with fairness, and/or spotlight time.) In some ways that's a good thing--to try and make all characters equal under the rules, but it leave the game prone to abuse, and makes building character more complicated. For some people that's a "good" thing.  For me it was a tiresome thing.

In 1E M&M, I could do much the same thing I do with MSH, that is "eyeball" villains and know how much impact they'd have on the players. As M&M moved from "Power Level of character is max" to "points determine overall effectiveness and max is based on point total" it became more difficult to just throw a villain together and go play for my players. This made if far less playable for me.

Now MSH, really has no balance, and it has give and take mechanics elements (the flow of karma) that matter a lot in how easy a conflict will be in the game, but it is far easier to learn where that falls into effectiveness for me and my players than M&M.