Because 2e and 3e look, visually, like total ass next to first edition.

Anyone care to give me a rundown on what 2e and 3e changed and if you want tell me why I would one of them uglying up my house (I suppose I could keep it in a bag)?

I always got on better with 1st edition. Found character creation easier and I liked the templates for picking and playing. With 2nd edition there came more options and characters take longer to make, but it's the most popular (as far as I can tell) version and probably easier to find players for. 3rd edition (I'm not an expert - have played 1st and 2nd, but it's been a while and though I own 3e and DCA, not played them yet) differs with the stat as bonus and each stat is worth roughly twice the previous point thing presumably borrowed from Ray Winninger who worked on the book (and DC heroes MEGs).

The book output for 2e seemed prolific but I don't know if it's quite the same for 3e. As far as I know DCA (same game but with DC license) has 1 more book (Universe?) to go then that's done. I picked up the 3 existing books on the cheap/as new so I'll definitely play it some day.

I like the look and production values of the game (any edition) but character creation turned me off, which is strange cause I love (and am just about to run) a DC Heroes MEGs play by post which does all the same stuff more or less. I think with M&M maybe you have too many options and tweaks. A skilled player can easily min/max to overshadow a less skilled player but I guess that's true of all point buy games.

I'd give 3e a chance if I were you - I like the stat as bonus and the GM's kit  is said to be a must buy for the random character generation tables. That said, I have yet to buy it. Must get round to it

Let me put it this way. 1E was elegant, simple and playable. Your Power Level and various "powers" levels were easy to eyeball for a GM and a player to know where they wanted something to sit.

2E screwed that up by worrying about points rather than power levels and you couldn't eyeball the character and know what they could do anymore, you had to carefully read every power and examine how every point was spent.

2E improved a few things (Hero Points), dropping the D&D like movement/range elements. Other than that it was "too many Hero fans on the playtest list getting their way" version of M&M, basically.

3E, I can't say much on. It looks a lot like the old DC game mixed with Marvel by way of Mutants & Mastermind. I hear its lighter and less system intensive than 2E, but there was a lot of range between 2E and 1E, and it looks a bit closer to 2E than I am comfortable with.

Heck, I seem to recall somewhere Steve Kenson saying he mostly eyeballs stuff and ignores point values a lot. He's a much bigger fan of lighter games it seems (See Marvel Saga and Icons.)

I think they all kinda suck, but the source material for 2e is great for other supers games.

Quote from: Silverlion;595667Let me put it this way. 1E was elegant, simple and playable. Your Power Level and various "powers" levels were easy to eyeball for a GM and a player to know where they wanted something to sit.

2E screwed that up by worrying about points rather than power levels and you couldn't eyeball the character and know what they could do anymore, you had to carefully read every power and examine how every point was spent.

2E improved a few things (Hero Points), dropping the D&D like movement/range elements. Other than that it was "too many Hero fans on the playtest list getting their way" version of M&M, basically.

3E, I can't say much on. It looks a lot like the old DC game mixed with Marvel by way of Mutants & Mastermind. I hear its lighter and less system intensive than 2E, but there was a lot of range between 2E and 1E, and it looks a bit closer to 2E than I am comfortable with.

Heck, I seem to recall somewhere Steve Kenson saying he mostly eyeballs stuff and ignores point values a lot. He's a much bigger fan of lighter games it seems (See Marvel Saga and Icons.)

When I reviewed the DC version, it seemed to be 95% "rename stuff so it no longer sounds like D&Disms and tell everyone we dropped D&Disms".

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;595708I think they all kinda suck, but the source material for 2e is great for other supers games.

So what superhero game doesn't suck?

Quote from: Piestrio;595710So what superhero game doesn't suck?

My top choices would be Marvel SAGA (out of print and horribly overpriced) or BASH: Ultimate Edition.

I'd take Kenson's ICONS before I would M&M, but I like games where I don't feel like I need a spreadsheet in order to make a character (and M&M is way more math than I want to screw with).

1e seems to be for those who like the M&M chassis but prefer simplicity (or better art).

2e seems to be for those who like to tinker and are not turned off by complexity, or like having detailed support.

3e seems to be for those who are somewhere in between. Though its a more streamlined system than 2e, I found the effects based power system was so disassociated from the flavour/fluff/narrative that it was hard to understand what anything meant unless you became familiar with the system.

As for what Super RPGs don't suck, ICONS, BASH and Supers! are similar to M&M in terms of style and get good praise, so they may be would be worth looking at.

I personally have found that Marvel Heroic RP hits my Supers buttons perfectly by making conflict a more tense and transparent affair and allowing players to look a little further (though not a lot further) than their PC. It may work for you.

Quote from: Piestrio;595710So what superhero game doesn't suck?

FASERIP

Easily one of the best RPG systems ever created. So much so that almost every supers game since has basically just ripped off pieces of it (or in the case of Icons, simply added some Fate elements to it), but they are all pale reflections of the original advanced game, whose design , like Victory Game's 007, was years ahead of its time. Or at least, it was a "gamechanger" for RPGs.

Quote from: Piestrio;595710So what superhero game doesn't suck?

There are tons of them. Really

Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP)
Marvel Saga
Truth & Justice (although it could use a nice 2E)
Hearts & Souls (Notably it is getting a 2E)
BASH: Ultimate Edition
Icons
Supercrew (a bit light even for me, but very cool. )

The truth is any game that wants to do supers may have to play fast and loose with reality/rules a bit--because that is what comic books are about. Potientiality, things to be mad, silly, awesome, fun. Rather than restrictive, balanced, mechanical.

3e is easily the best M&M edition put out, and the first one that doesn't just feel like a bad D&D hack.  This is largely because they just gleefully ripped off MEGS and HERO for their ideas though, paired to a damage system that isn't a damage system that isn't well explained and is even easily missed because it's buried in a power description.

Personally though, I think effects-based supers systems are a failure at modelling actual comics.  Superheroes don't have effects, they have powers, and sources of that power, the effects of which often depend on who's writing them that week.  Effects-based systems don't allow for the kind of improvisational power use that comics have been loaded with since the original Superman books.

DC Heroes 2e/3e is probably still my favorite, ultimately.  It's a little weird by modern standards but it covers all the bases in a way that I think fits how comics work better.

FASRIP and Icons are both really nice and, like 90% compatible to boot.

I have to say the 1e artwork was great. 2e was a big letdown art-wise.

Quote from: J Arcane;595739Personally though, I think effects-based supers systems are a failure at modelling actual comics.  Superheroes don't have effects, they have powers, and sources of that power, the effects of which often depend on who's writing them that week.  Effects-based systems don't allow for the kind of improvisational power use that comics have been loaded with since the original Superman books.

Interesting point and one I didn't think of before.

How do you feel about Wild Talents' extraordinarily vague (Attacks, Defends, Useful) effect-based power creation system?

Quote from: J Arcane;595739Personally though, I think effects-based supers systems are a failure at modelling actual comics.  Superheroes don't have effects, they have powers, and sources of that power, the effects of which often depend on who's writing them that week.  Effects-based systems don't allow for the kind of improvisational power use that comics have been loaded with since the original Superman books.

Yeah, I agree with you. This is a problem I have with lots of Supers RPGs.