# Hero System Vs. Mutants & Masterminds. Which is the better super-hero game?



## Green Knight (Jan 24, 2010)

Hello, all. Thought I'd stop by and ask this question to see what the general consensus was. My gaming group has decided to start a superhero campaign using Hero System, although Mutants & Masterminds is potentially on the table, which would be my preference. Not because I know for a fact that the rules are better, but because 1) It'll be easier to pick up, as the rules are based off of D20, and 2) I bought the book years ago and it'd be nice to get some use out of it at long last. :b 

But all around, I have zero experience with either one. I've always been interested in trying out Hero System, though (and in fact once owned Hero System 5th Edition, but it was another game system I bought and never got to play, and ended up selling it), so there's that. Although I'm not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect of having to buy the rulebooks, again. Especially since I now hear that that base rules are split into two $40 books! So I'm wondering what folks who've played both systems think of them? Which one do you think makes for the better and more fun game? Did you have a better experience in a superhero campaign with Hero System or Mutants & Masterminds? I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 24, 2010)

I GMed Hero in 5th ed days. I concentrated on Fantasy Hero. How much do you appreciate versatility? How much do you enjoy maths? You can do pretty much anything in Hero, but you'll need to put in some serious time. A custom beginning Hero character takes about as much time as a high-level multiclassed D&D3 character. If you do choose Hero, give your players pre-generated character sheets.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 24, 2010)

M&M will be way more popular here because of its roots.


----------



## JorrJorr (Jan 24, 2010)

As a GM of both MnM and HERO, I would have to say MnM is probably better out of the box for supers as much as I love HERO. Both games can do supers well and comes down to Player and GM preference. I know a number of ex-HERO players who left the crunchy world of HERO for MnM and not looked back. At times I do have issues with HERO but have been playing or running it since '82 (in the form of Champions) that I'll overlook it's issues and I'm blinded by her beauty 

The problem with comparing the two is the premise behind the books are different. MnM is fundamentally a core book of rules centered around the supers genre (like Champions started out back in ~1980). HERO on the other hand are a set of rules to let you build the game that you want to run (toolkitting). Now MnM is starting to look like HERO did back in the late 80's early 90's where a number of people were starting to use MnM for other genres and styles of campaigns as can be seen in the supplements Warlocks and Warriors and Manga and Mecha. When 4th edition of Champions/HERO came out, that was the split between using the rules as a toolkit to build campaigns (HERO System) and  different books to support genre (e.g. Champions Genre book). Although to be fair both rules and genre were put together as one book called the "Big Blue Book" Champions book and other genres had their own book like FantasyHERO and StarHERO. By 5th edition the split was total. The core books only had a small chapter on different genres and there was no assumption in the rules that a specific genre was being used.

Ultimately I voted for MnM assuming you wanted supers right out of the box. HERO can do that but you have to put more of the work into it if you don't want to spend money for supplements. There is a significant amount of conversion material on the web though that can give you an idea of how to build various comic and other media characters as evidenced by Surbrook's website full of HERO writeups. Also you can visit the HERO forums which is very active and helpful. You can read over how everyone tries to come up with how to implement a particular power or get help if you are having problems coming up with a power build. You can also find additional resources there as well.

Considering that you had the 5e HERO book and didn't spend the time to try to use it, you may be better off using MnM. If you want to try HERO 6e though without the large by in, I would highly recommend getting the HERO System Basic Rulebook. The Basic book has most of the powers and rules you'll need to do good job of running a supers game. It's only $20 and you can do ~90% of what the two base books do (Book 1: character creation and Book 2: Combat and Adventuring).

From a mechanical side MnM uses a d20 rollover. The difference rolled over determines the degree of effect and the same mechanic is used for skills.

HERO uses d6's. Skill/Attack resolution in HERO is 3d6 roll under some target number with power effects rolling a number of d6's usually. For example a typical energy blast (Human Torch doing a Fire Blas) may do 10d6. The total is added to determine the STUN done. Using the same dice BODY is determined by adding +0 for 1's, +1 for 2-5, and +2 for 6's. This is the problem that a number of the ex-HERO players have is the dual damage calculation. Yes it takes extra time, but once you get used to it I don't find that it's that much and there's ways to batch it so it's counted faster (e.g. for a 10d6 you know you start with 10 and -1 for zero's and +1 for sixes).

I've good and bad experiences with both games. Like any RPG it utimately comes down to GM and Players having fun and both games are rewarding in there own fashion. Currently I'm running HERO (Champions) and DnD 3.5 (Legacy of Fire AP) campaigns.

Whatever game you choose I hope you and your players have fun.


----------



## Elric (Jan 24, 2010)

I haven't played HERO to compare the two, but here's a thread on M&M's official forums on this topic: The Atomic Think Tank • View topic - Champions or M&M.  Obviously, it's not a random sample of the people who have played both systems; you should expect it to lean towards M&M.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 24, 2010)

The correct answer to your poll is... both! 




Green Knight said:


> So I'm wondering what folks who've played both systems think of them?




HERO offers more versatility and flexibility. It is unsurpassed in its ability to create _anything_.

M&M is close, but not quite as flexible. It might be a bit easier to learn, though, especially when you are not quite as number-crunchy as HERO requires in some areas, or have extensive d20 experience already.

But HERO isn't really hard to learn, either.



> Which one do you think makes for the better and more fun game?




As I said. Both. They both work very well.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2010)

It depends. What do you like?

Hero System is, overall, a better system with more options, clearer resolution, and capable of scaling a lot better in various ways. OTOH, M&M is a lot quicker to prep a game for, and its luck point system is second to none. So I prefer Hero in theory, but in practice, I'm just as likely to say, "Let's dish out some M&M."


----------



## Greg K (Jan 26, 2010)

Both are really good.  I do prefer M&M.  90%+ of the flexability and less work. Plus, for some reason, I don't like roll under systems or that Hero 6e removed elemental controls  rather than just stress the GM to enforce their original intention/purpose and not allow player to abuse it w/ kryptonian powers, werewolf powers, etc.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 26, 2010)

I've yet to try HERO, but I know for sure M&M is an excellent game. I would say it's infinitely flexible, actually, so that could be hard to top.  However, I might be surprised by the other contender, when the time comes.

GURPS is also extremely flexible, IME. Hm, same goes for EABA. But anyway. . .

edit --- If you do decide to play M&M, I would strongly suggest using the second edition rules. With HERO, it might not matter so much (?)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 26, 2010)

Thanee said:


> HERO offers more versatility and flexibility. It is unsurpassed in its ability to create _anything_.
> 
> M&M is close, but not quite as flexible. It might be a bit easier to learn, though, especially when you are not quite as number-crunchy as HERO requires in some areas, or have extensive d20 experience already.
> 
> But HERO isn't really hard to learn, either.



QFT.

In the interests of full disclosure, I've been a Champions/HERO player since it came out (the 3rd system I learned, after D&D and Traveller), and it remains my favorite system, bar none.  I just bought 6Ed Sunday, but haven't had a chance to take a close look at it.  (Sorry to see the ECs are gone, though.)

I've run both HERO and M&M, and I have to say that it is a simpler game and  MUCH easier for the D20 set to learn...but also easy for them to pick apart.

My most recent M&M campaign  fell apart in part due to the fact that M&M doesn't have a straightforward and intuitive way of having a speedster do an Autofire punch or series of move-by attacks over a wide area- classic speedster schtick.

There are ways to do it, yes, but they all look like extreme workarounds for the fact that M&M eschews iterative attacks in general.  The suggestions floated here and at Atomic Think tank were not only dissatisfying to me as a GM who had run HERO, but also to the player designing the speedster.

HERO, though.. the Autofire modifier looks exactly like what you'd expect- "Iterative attacks, Mr. Rico!  Zillions of them!"

As if that weren't bad enough, 1 other player in the group managed to find other aspects of the game's mechanics that were not handled as well as in HERO: what, exactly, does it mean when you hit a character with an attack that reduces their mental stats radically and rapidly?  (And that's not hard or expensive to do in M&M.)

Don't get me wrong, though...M&M is my 3rd favorite system of all time, behind only HERO (#1) and 3.XEd D&D (#2).  If/when it hits its 3rd edition, you can be sure I'll be getting my copy.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 26, 2010)

It's been many years since I ran Hero (Champions), and I'm only getting started running M&M.  My Champions game was a fairly long-running affair, and we really enjoyed the game, but ... honestly, the combats took _forever_.

I mean, in terms of time, running a Champions combat was about the same time commitment as running a Star Fleet Battles combat.  On the other hand, M&M combats I've played in have been fast and elegant.

That may have been ameliorated in subsequent editions, I dunno.  If so, of course, the basis of my choosing M&M is invalid.  (It's also worth noting that way-back-when, we loved all-night combats.  Now, not so much.)

BTW, I'm not making any claim that M&M is any lighter on the rules.  I don't think it is.  It's just much less fiddly in combat.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My most recent M&M campaign fell apart in part due to the fact that M&M doesn't have a straightforward and intuitive way of having a speedster do an Autofire punch or series of move-by attacks over a wide area- classic speedster schtick.



Sure it does.

First, you can apply the Autofire extra to Strike.  This allows super-speed punching of a single opponent.

Second, right in the Super-Speed power entry, it lists "Rapid Attack: You can make a melee attack against any opponents in a radius of (power rank x5 feet) around you, provided you can physically reach them."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 26, 2010)

If you read the M&M version of Autofire, it isn't true iterative attacks, its bonuses.  The HERO version is true iteration.  That mechanical difference has a strong flavor difference.

And to make multiple move-by attacks in HERO, you don't need to add any effects- you simply have the option of attacking those you pass adjacent to.  The faster you move, the more move-by attacks you can perform, all along the path you travel, not just in a "radius."


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jan 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you read the M&M version of Autofire, it isn't true iterative attacks, its bonuses.  The HERO version is true iteration.  That mechanical difference has a strong flavor difference.



It also has a huge connotative difference when discussing it with people.  Especially people that didn't participate in the other discussion.  
And to be fair, M&M has those features, you and yours simply didn't like the way they worked and desired a different model.  Which isn't a bad thing on either side, simply a clash of tastes.


I've never played HERO system, simply looked at it.  It's robust enough to do just about anything (and probably _anything_ with a couple of supplements and creative rules use) but I've said the same about M&M before.
My issue with HERO is that it is mechanically complicated and loaded with acronyms (I was in the military; RPG has two wildly different associations in my mind and that's just one example).  It's not more complicated than a number of other games, but it is notably complicated.
M&M can be very complicated, but it can also be very simple, depending upon how finicky one chooses to get when designing things.  HERO may have the same feature, but my perusal of OCV/DCV/Stun/etc leaves me with the impression that there is a certain level of (mildly intimidating) complexity that is completely unavoidable.

(Since I'm not part of the desired sample-group, I'm choosing to abstain from the poll.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 26, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> It also has a huge connotative difference when discussing it with people.  Especially people that didn't participate in the other discussion.
> And to be fair, M&M has those features, you and yours simply didn't like the way they worked and desired a different model.  Which isn't a bad thing on either side, simply a clash of tastes.




Well, I said as much in my first post about Autofire.  To us, the absence of true iteration was NOT a feature, but a bug.

No question: when it comes to terminology and the math of PC design, HERO is probably one of the most "intimidating" RPGs out there.  Equally obvious is that M&M is a truly flexible system, and is extremely easy to pick up for anyone familiar with D20 RPGs in general.

Still, my experiences running both games have surprised me.

I had no problems teaching HERO to experienced gamers back when D&D was in its 2Ed form.  And once past the tedium (that existed for some) of PC design, everything _ran_ smoothly.  There was almost no touching of the book for the players- everything they had to know for combat was in front of them on their character sheets.

But when I resurrected that Supers 1900 campaign for my current group- all experienced gamers who had extensive play in 3Ed/3.5, but who were mostly family men with time constraints, I opted to run it in M&M.  The thought was that they'd pick it up more quickly and like the system because of its D20 derived design.

I found they picked it up just fine, and generally liked the flexibility, but was surprised when they didn't like some of M&M's design decisions, like the lack of iterative attacks.

Its entirely possible that they might have enjoyed HERO more- despite the learning curve- since they wouldn't have had to combat preconceived notions about D20 gaming.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Second, right in the Super-Speed power entry, it lists "Rapid Attack: You can make a melee attack against any opponents in a radius of (power rank x5 feet) around you, provided you can physically reach them."



I was thinking: Blast, range - personal, area-of-effect - explosion (or the one you can shape). I forgot it's handled directly under Super-Speed. 

Also, while I have great respect for the HERO system, make mine Mutants and Masterminds!


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 26, 2010)

I voted for HERO. Despite my general disdain for the system as being overly fiddly, I think it mechanically models supers better than M&M. That said, I think that the learning curve for M&M is much less steep.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 27, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> I've yet to try HERO, but I know for sure M&M is an excellent game. I would say it's infinitely flexible, actually, so that could be hard to top.




Heh. I'd say you don't know infinity unless you know HERO. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Jan 27, 2010)

The design decision regarding iterative attacks was, I think, that they were worried it would get out of hand: there would be more than one or two dice rolled per attack, and extra attacks would probably dominate since they give an extra chance to try and an extra chance to damage.

There _are_ options with the M&M system to do iterative attacks: there is a power one can buy, in the Mastermind's Manual, called Extra Attack.  It's horribly expensive, and a general consensus on the M&M official boards is that it unbalances the system.  But the option _does_ exist.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 27, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> The design decision regarding iterative attacks was, I think, that they were worried it would get out of hand



I also think there's an issue of streamlining (faster combat resolution) and mobility (if multiple attacks mean standing in one place, as in 3.5).  For superheroic combats, I appreciate these reasons very much.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 27, 2010)

FWIW, I picked M&M -- shock! Champions was my game of choice for most of a decade, but I eventually got tired of some of its conventions, and moved on to GURPS as the go-to system (not for the same sort of superhero games as I ran in Champions, though! The GURPS supers stuff I did was much grittier, and not nearly as long-lasting as the Champions campaigns). Nowadays, M&M is definitely my superhero game of choice.

I think I'm paraphrasing someone (Bill Stoddard?), but I think Hero/Champions does an excellent job of simulating superpowers, but not such a great job of emulating comic books. Champions fights don't really _feel_ like comic book fights to me; M&M gets much closer, for me.

One not yet mentioned reason that multiple attacks on one target in M&M is bad is essentially because of the way the damage mechanics work -- the target makes a save on a single d20, which can be wildly swingy. Hero points (or GM fiat to mimic said) offset that swinginess; if you get multiple attacks per round, the extra attacks bypass hero points (you can only spend one HP to reroll, remember). Once an attack stuns the opponent, all the rest are much more likely to succeed, and force even more Toughness saves.

Having multiple attacks becomes _the_ ticket to combat effectiveness, and combat risks degenerating into an initiative check (whoever goes first will tend to win, thanks to multiple attacks). (See also: Shadowrun, 1e & 2e.  )

You could maybe deal with that by accounting for the extra attacks in PL calculations -- i.e., the more attacks you have, the lower damage they have to be. But that would be hard to do right. Combined with the fact that multiple attacks slow down play, and it seems cleaner to do things the way M&M does them now.

BTW, you can use autofire to attack multiple people in M&M -- IIRC, it works like Autofire used to work in Hero (it's been a long time since I looked at Hero Autofire, though), and I would certainly let a speedster combine Move-by Action and an Autofire Strike to strafe a bunch of people. A Targeted Area Strike would be more effective, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 27, 2010)

Again- as I've said- its not that iterative attack options are entirely absent in M&M, its just that they're a lot more elegant and intuitive in HERO.  As common a schtick as multiple attacks for speedsters is in the source material, it shouldn't be expensive and unbalancing to the system.  In HERO, its neither.

It also shouldn't involve workarounds.

And, FWIW, there are probably a dozen or so ways of doing iterative attacks- or anything else, for that matter- in HERO, as compared to just a few in M&M.

Which, in all honesty, is almost as much a bug as a feature.  Its great to have many options on how to model a superheroic effect...you're almost always guaranteed to be able to find a way to exactly model the effect the peculiar way in which you think it should work for that PC.

But with so many ways of doing the same thing, adjudication can occasionally be a bear.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again- as I've said- its not that iterative attack options are entirely absent in M&M, its just that they're a lot more elegant and intuitive in HERO.




<shrug> Not in my opinion; but my HERO experience is largely a couple of editions old, now, so maybe it got more elegant and intuitive.


----------



## Sketchpad (Jan 28, 2010)

Thanee said:


> The correct answer to your poll is... both!




Best answer for you is right there 

I've played both ... and enjoy both.  Really, the games aren't that different and are more like different flavors of ice cream rather than anything else.  Both are still ice cream ... and both taste great   It really depends on what flavor you enjoy in the long run


----------



## SteveC (Jan 28, 2010)

To me it's a difficult question, because they're both good at different things.

For creating a character, Mutants and Masterminds has no equal in the world of roleplaying games when you bring in Ultimate Powers. Flexible, open-ended it's really able to do just about anything I've thrown at it.

On the other hand, and this is just my experience, when you get into a combat, Hero is just head and shoulders better. The combat runs slower, but it flows in ways the Mutants and Masterminds just doesn't. The problem for me is the whole attack/damage/toughness save system in M&M that just doesn't excite me. Toughness saves just don't encapsulate the flow of a good supers battle, and require meta resources (hero points) to avoid characters getting stun locked and just having no fun at all in a fight.

So for me, designing a character in M&M and porting it over to Hero for combat, well, that would be heaven in gaming.

--Steve


----------



## epochrpg (Jan 28, 2010)

Given a choice of only those two systems, I have to say M&M as it is far faster to run and play (and I've played both).


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2010)

I just want to add one thing that I left out in my previous post.  Despite, choosing M&M, two of the things that I like better about Hero System
1. Grappling Rules (which I adapted to M&M)
2. Martial Arts maneuvers vs. M&M's fiddly feats (accurate attack, power attack, etc.).


----------



## Sen Udo-Mal (Jan 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My most recent M&M campaign  fell apart in part due to the fact that M&M doesn't have a straightforward and intuitive way of having a speedster do an Autofire punch or series of move-by attacks over a wide area- classic speedster schtick.




Hmm I found this very easy IMO... *Super-Speed* with Alternate Effect _Rapid Fire_ and the Extra: Selective to attack all the badguys in an certain Area of Effect, and if you want to do extra damage add *Strike* to describe 'hundred-punches a second'

But then HEROES has lots of ways to do this also. I like both games, with M&M edging out HERO for superhero gaming. (but lately I have been really like BASH Ultimite Edition).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2010)

Sen Udo-Mal said:


> Hmm I found this very easy IMO... *Super-Speed* with Alternate Effect _Rapid Fire_ and the Extra: Selective to attack all the badguys in an certain Area of Effect, and if you want to do extra damage add *Strike* to describe 'hundred-punches a second'
> 
> But then HEROES has lots of ways to do this also. I like both games, with M&M edging out HERO for superhero gaming. (but lately I have been really like BASH Ultimite Edition).




In M&M, that's a power + alt effect* + Extra + power.

In HERO, most people would do it as a Power + Advantage + basic combat rules...possibly with a Multipower* on top to model all the other super-speed stunts (vibratory attacks, phasing through matter, FTL, heat/sonic attacks, etc.), for some, even some martial arts maneuvers to improve the odds of success.  HERO's take is a bit more streamlined.

*To be completely fair, the way M&M handles alt effects is similar to the way HERO does Multipowers.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 3, 2010)

Sen Udo-Mal said:


> Hmm I found this very easy IMO... *Super-Speed* with Alternate Effect _Rapid Fire_ and the Extra: Selective to attack all the badguys in an certain Area of Effect, and if you want to do extra damage add *Strike* to describe 'hundred-punches a second'



You know need Selective.  Rapid Fire allows -- not requires -- you to attack each target within (rank*5) feet.


----------



## Felon (Feb 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again- as I've said- its not that iterative attack options are entirely absent in M&M, its just that they're a lot more elegant and intuitive in HERO.  As common a schtick as multiple attacks for speedsters is in the source material, it shouldn't be expensive and unbalancing to the system.  In HERO, its neither.



Have I just stepped into Bizarro-World for this thread?

HERO may have many fine qualities, but intuitiveness and elegance isn't on the list. If you've been playing it for a decade or so, it's easy to take everything you've learned by rote for granted and retroactively say it's all so very simple, so obvious, so logical. But for someone coming fresh and doing an apples-to-apples comparison, HERO is about as ponderous as it gets. 

M&M has a very simple meta-rule: one attack on a character in each round of combat. They have a way to add autofire onto an attack that works with this meta-rule, and the method for buying it is neither convuluted or expensive. Really, I'd love to hear what's prohibitive here.

In HERO, you'd do basically the same thing, buying an Advantage, except you'd have to also find some way to allow for the heinous END cost (END cost being one of HERO's cumbersome and pointless elements). Then, you're rollling damage every time for every attack that hits, which is not only a nuisance, but the tendency will be that it's either tremendously overpowered or downright ineffectual. If every punch has the same Damage Class as the campaign's average attack, then it's the former*. If it's even a few DC's below the average, it'll be a lot of ding-ding-dings against the campaign's average defenses. Seen it happen plenty of times.

* -- Note that I'm being generous in assuming that the term "average damage class" exists in a given campaign. I've been in a lot of Champions games that are free-for-alls where caps and ranges don't exist. If you can affort that 30d6 HTHA, it's fair game.


----------



## Felon (Feb 4, 2010)

Green Knight said:


> But all around, I have zero experience with either one. I've always been interested in trying out Hero System, though (and in fact once owned Hero System 5th Edition, but it was another game system I bought and never got to play, and ended up selling it), so there's that. Although I'm not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect of having to buy the rulebooks, again. Especially since I now hear that that base rules are split into two $40 books! So I'm wondering what folks who've played both systems think of them? Which one do you think makes for the better and more fun game? Did you have a better experience in a superhero campaign with Hero System or Mutants & Masterminds? I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks.




My experiences with other gamers playing HERO System in 20+ years can be summed up as follows: take the 250 points you're alloted, and see how much you can get away with. 

My experiences with gamers playing M&M over the course of one year is more like: it's so easy to get away with murder, it's obvious that this game relies on GM fiat. 

For instance, let's say a player wants the power to turn enemies into slugs, which they can then pour salt on. In HERO, this is (supposedly) balanced through cost-prohibitiveness. The base power is expensive, and there are advantages to buy for it that are essentially mandatory. The end result is a power that requires about six to eight hits to actually kick in, and there's no detrimental effect on your target until it finally does kick in, so he's probably beating you up in the meantime. 

The player now will go one of two ways: he'll either realize this isn't going to work like he envisioned and he abandons the idea, or he'll mitigate the cost by lathering on Limitations. Let's see, Activation 14< (-1/2), Doesn't work underwater, in vacums, in intense magnetic fields (-1/4 x 3), Only works in Hero ID (-1/4), and then the biggest non-Limitation of all: Obvious Inaccessable Focus (-1/2). 

Now, in M&M, the power is not at all cost prohibitive on your average PL10 budget. Nor is it some cumulative effect that takes place after a half-dozen hits. The enemy has to make a saving throw to avoid becoming a worm, and that's pretty much it. Acknowledging this, the player may quickly come to the realization that there is no pretext of the system policing his efforts to design an over-the-top power, so he either has to police himself or fully expect the GM to put his foot down. Or perhaps the character gets the power and, in all likelyhood, after using it a few times everyone agrees that this ability is a little exploitative.

My problem with Champions/HERO is that it implicitly offers the pretext of playing gatekeeper through elaborate (some say "elegant") point-costing, but what it really does is ween unassuming players over to the dark side of min-maxing. I think the place where this really becomes evident is the 150 points of Disadvantages each player is required to come up with in building their character. It quickly becomes evident that all Disads are not created equally disadvantageous. Some, like Psychological Limitation and Distinctive Feature, just add some color to your character. Others, like Vulnerability and Susceptability, can get you killed. And still others, like Hunted, don't ever seem to amount to anything (most GM's just can't be bothered). 

The part that's problematic is that the system-recommended baseline of 150 points is just TOO FRIGGIN' MUCH. Most characters just aren't going to have that much depth. Now, I realize that and if I'm the GM I lower it, but rest assured that the number of Champions campaigns that reduce that baseline is not large.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2010)

Felon said:


> Have I just stepped into Bizarro-World for this thread?
> 
> HERO may have many fine qualities, but intuitiveness and elegance isn't on the list. If you've been playing it for a decade or so, it's easy to take everything you've learned by rote for granted and retroactively say it's all so very simple, so obvious, so logical. But for someone coming fresh and doing an apples-to-apples comparison, HERO is about as ponderous as it gets.




I've been playing HERO since it came out in the 1980s.  And when it came out, I grasped it instantly.  Since that point, it has been my favorite system, bar none.  (Well, except for that flirtation with the FUZION system, that is...*shudder*...I'm glad they ditched that experiment!)

In that time, I've introduced several people to the game, including a few non-gamers.  Never had a problem with someone trying to figure out how do get their desired result.  The only issues came with doing that _efficiently_...and that issue doesn't matter if 1) everyone is about as equally inefficient or 2) the inexperienced players ask for & receive assistance from more experienced ones.

M&M, though...

I grokked the game fairly easily, as did my players.  However, those players- every last one of them at the very least experienced with 3Ed/3.5Ed from the release date of those games, if not other RPGs as well- were constantly peppering me with build questions.  The multi-shot thing wasn't the only issue (which arose with the Speedster and the "Über-Marksman")- they simply didn't find M&M's design choices to be to their liking.  M&M's take on autofire didn't feel like autofire to them.

Now, while its true that a HERO autofire attack may just bounce off of someone's defense or involve a lot of dice rolling, not everyone will agree that this is a bad thing.

As for Disads?  I do have to agree that some of them are only as good as the GM who is running the campaign.  I, for one, made sure I made those Hunted/Hunter/DNPC rolls or had NPCs grab Foci, but I know that many HERO GMs didn't.

But I also have to agree with your later assessment of M&M as being more dependent on GM fiat.  To me, at least, HERO simply doesn't seem as easy to "break" as M&M has proven itself to be.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 5, 2010)

Felon said:


> Then, you're rollling damage every time for every attack that hits, which is not only a nuisance, but the tendency will be that it's either tremendously overpowered or downright ineffectual.




And that is different in M&M?

The damage save is basically the damage roll, just done by the defender and not by the attacker.

If the attack's damage isn't up to the PL limit, it will be rather ineffective.

What's simpler in M&M is, that you don't have the STUN/BODY bookkeeping.



> END cost being one of HERO's cumbersome and pointless elements




Why pointless? I like it very much. Cumbersome, to a degree, yes, certainly. But pointless? No way. It definitely has a point, and a lot of uses, that without such a system do not exist.

For example, one character I made had a mecha suit that had energy reserves, which could be used in emergency to boost some of its various systems temporarily and to relocate energy between its systems (kinda like what you could do in the old X-Wing/Tie-Fighter games, where you could allocate more energy on the shields, or on the weapons, or on the engine to get a boost where it is needed). Multipower, Increased END Cost as a partial Power Disadvantage (for the boosted part of the Power), and END Reserve was a good way to handle this. Not sure if M&M has anything to simulate this reasonably well. Especially the timed limits that the END sets, so you can use that only for a short time, but can use it again after a short break to recharge.

Also, HERO is a truly generic system, unlike M&M, which is pretty focused on the supers genre (it certainly can be used for other genres with some changes, but isn't really built for it). END is a lot more important in heroic campaigns, for example.



> I think the place where this really becomes evident is the 150 points of Disadvantages each player is required to come up with in building their character. It quickly becomes evident that all Disads are not created equally disadvantageous.




Yep. Disadvantages have always been a bit of a problem in the HERO System.

6E fixes that to some degree (i.e. you need to take a lot less Disads now, so you can focus on the character-defining ones). Finally! 

Of course, generally, both systems allow a lot of minmaxing... none of them is really better or worse than the other in that regard (maybe HERO is a bit worse, because it offers even more flexibility). Both require a pretty mature approach to character design for sure. That's a "flaw" of point-based character creation in general.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanee said:


> Not sure if M&M has anything to simulate this reasonably well.




Alternate powers with the Fade flaw.  For this example, an alternate Boost would do the trick.  Once the Alternate runs out of power, the entire array is out of power.

How this meets the "reasonably well" criteria is a matter of tastes.


Enjoy.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 5, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Alternate powers with the Fade flaw.  For this example, an alternate Boost would do the trick.  Once the Alternate runs out of power, the entire array is out of power.
> 
> How this meets the "reasonably well" criteria is a matter of tastes.




Heh. Yep, that's for sure.

One thing I would consider a "flaw" here is, that the Fade flaw only applies to the power (or array). With END in HERO you have a power source (not to be confused with D&D 4E like power sources ), that fuels (and limits) the character as a whole. It's more of a direct, straightforward way to build such things. Also, of course, Fade makes the power degrade.

Anyways, mostly I am saying, that END isn't just a pointless exercise in bookkeeping, but definitely has its uses. And if you don't like it, there is always the No END advantage. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've been playing HERO since it came out in the 1980s.  And when it came out, I grasped it instantly.  Since that point, it has been my favorite system, bar none.  (Well, except for that flirtation with the FUZION system, that is...*shudder*...I'm glad they ditched that experiment!)
> 
> In that time, I've introduced several people to the game, including a few non-gamers.  Never had a problem with someone trying to figure out how do get their desired result.  The only issues came with doing that _efficiently_...and that issue doesn't matter if 1) everyone is about as equally inefficient or 2) the inexperienced players ask for & receive assistance from more experienced ones.
> 
> ...




I think it's just an individual thing; for example, I understood M&M and HERO both very rapidly (I used to make up Champions villains in high school -- in class, from memory of the books), and I "get" both of them, and can understand or accept the way they do some things they do. I even dig both of them. I prefer M&M nowadays, and would pick it for a regular superhero game (OTOH, if I wanted to run high-powered martial artists, I'd be looking hard at Hero -- Ninja Hero has been a favorite since it came out; M&M would barely be a blip on the radar).

But when I bought Silver Age Sentinels, my brain bounced right off that thing. Could not get it, could not dig it. Never have quite figured out why, but I gave up trying. I know there were people who got SAS & loved it, though. But me, I just steal character names for NPCs from it. 

I hope to try BASH next weekend; we'll see how that goes. I did get a copy in the DTRPG charity drive, but I barely downloaded it the other day, and have barely glanced at it (first impression: the layout is kind of ugly ).


----------



## Quantum (Feb 6, 2010)

I like Mutants And Masterminds better, but I'd much prefer DC Heroes RPG or Marvel RPG. Marvel is the one I started with for superhero RPGS. I also like Palladium Heroes Unlimited.

The thing I don't particular care about Mutants And Masterminds though is that you have to buy your saves and there are feats with ranks. I just don't agree with those concepts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 6, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> I think it's just an individual thing_<snip>_




Clearly- I mean, they understood the game, no question.  They just didn't care for it.  I thought things were going fine then it was universal walkout time.  They didn't like the design.

Bummer for me part 2 & 3 on that front is that I picked up W&W right after the campaign started and I'm still planning to pick up True20.  Given the DNA of those RPGs, they probably won't care for them either.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 6, 2010)

Quantum said:


> The thing I don't particular care about Mutants And Masterminds though is that you have to buy your saves



How else would you put a cost to them?


Quantum said:


> and there are feats with ranks. I just don't agree with those concepts.



If a feat has ranks it's actually a power in disguise.  You can make your own ranked feats that way, or take away ranked feats and just have people buy powers.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They just didn't care for it.  I thought things were going fine then it was universal walkout time.




Yowch!  Those situations always sting the most, and I've seen them hurt friendships.  I'm glad you guys are still on decent terms with each other.

Good luck getting a game you all enjoy.  And good luck finding a second table to try out your (coming) new toys with.  If we end up near each other for any length of time, I'm game.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 6, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> How else would you put a cost to them?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have saves and attacks bought at all. I really like the Monte Cook option in his d20 CoC which allows a player to choose their saves as either an attack option in which the saves are slightly lower but they have more powerful attacks, or a defense option, where the opposite occurs.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 6, 2010)

So you're automatically given your saves in proportion to your attack?  Does that mean there are separate attack values for different save types?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Yowch!  Those situations always sting the most, and I've seen them hurt friendships.  I'm glad you guys are still on decent terms with each other.
> 
> Good luck getting a game you all enjoy.  And good luck finding a second table to try out your (coming) new toys with.  If we end up near each other for any length of time, I'm game.




Fortunately, nothing happened that made me take it personally.  It was almost all about them not liking M&M and/or supers gaming.

It was my first time back behind the screen in almost 2 years after being burned out as a GM- well, specifically as a D&D DM.  And even though I was really stoked about the campaign, I was amazed that I had any kind of positive response at all.  Several in that group is FRPG only, and a few are D&DE only.  But a few years ago, the guys were all playing City of Heroes, so someone commented that it would be cool to run a Supers RPG campaign, and I offered to run one.

_*cue sound of crickets chirping*_

After that, I thought I'd never get these guys to play a non-D&D game at all.  So when I offered to run that M&M campaign, I was stunned to find that 2 of the first volunteers to play were the D&D only guys.  But eventually, frustration with the system and the yearning for a return to sword-slinging won out.

Which I'm perfectly fine with- as I've said elsewhere, I've got hundreds of PC concepts waiting to be played...


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Feb 8, 2010)

I vote Hero System, for the reason that the game system clicks with me where M&M just.... doesn't.  There's just something about the game that I just don't like, and I have no idea why or what that is.  I've played in a couple of M&M games and one was really a blast, and yet it was like playing AD&D 2e for me, there were just some things about the game that I did not grasp, and if I don't grasp a game after a few sessions, I just give it up.

Hero System, I understood that game when I first cracked the book, first with the BBB edition, then Fred, and will be getting 6e soon, hopefully, if only to have it.  It's an easy game for me to understand, but I guess I can say I understand the internal logic of the game, and for M&M its just beyond me.  

And I do like rolling a scatter explosion of dice and counting numbers


----------



## Erpegis (Feb 8, 2010)

Personally, I think that HERO is counter-intuitive, slow, and there is too much point-juggling. I think that M&M is too derivative, some d20 solution are transferred without any consideration, and there is too much point-juggling.

If I had my choice in superhero RPG, I'd lean towards Savage Worlds.

M&M is, when you include the wonderful Freedom City setting, and the great, really useful sourcebooks, the best superhero RPG I've seen. Sadly, it's too math-heavy to simulate the comicbook feel.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2010)

Felon said:


> Have I just stepped into Bizarro-World for this thread?
> 
> HERO may have many fine qualities, but intuitiveness and elegance isn't on the list. If you've been playing it for a decade or so, it's easy to take everything you've learned by rote for granted and retroactively say it's all so very simple, so obvious, so logical. But for someone coming fresh and doing an apples-to-apples comparison, HERO is about as ponderous as it gets.




I remember the first time I saw Hero. I thumbed through a copy of the Champions books in a mall bookstore. I said to myself, "My god, that's so simple? Why hasn't anyone done this before?" Of course, what I did not realize was that someone had; Champions had been around for quite some time. Compared to DC Heroes, it was the height of intuitive and elegant. Now, once the honeymoon was over, I discovered a few twists and complications, and discovered Hero involved some maths from time to time. Still, it is a very easy to understand game. Hero System is incredibly elegant and intuitive. The fact that it uses fractions does not change that. We are talking middle school math. Hero is probably my number one system for teaching someone the system, making a character, and running a game all in one sitting with few hitches. Character creation is usually longer than in M&M, but it doesn't have to be. Character creation in M&M does not have to be fast; there are things to fiddle with, if you choose to. Sure, Hero involves a more work than some games, including M&M, but not much more. Probably the hardest thing in the game is the Speed Chart, and if you don't like that, you can declare that everyone has SPD 3.

As for END, it's a great part of the system. Endurance allows characters to push their limits, and it allows a wide variety of power constructs, everything from "extra pushing" to tiring explosive attacks. It also stops people from doing stupid, repetitive things. If you don't want that much detail, stripping END is an official optional rule and requires essentially no modification to the system whatsoever; you just don't use it, or anything that refers to it. Alternatively, if you, personally, don't want to deal with it, you just buy down the END costs of your powers.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 9, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> So you're automatically given your saves in proportion to your attack?  Does that mean there are separate attack values for different save types?




I have no clue what that means.


----------



## Thondor (Feb 9, 2010)

Personaly I like the simple superhero's game that I have designed. (And ran an alphs playtest of a couple times at cons). 'Course it rely's on a certain amount of player confidence in the DM's judgement, and a kind of freeform/brainstorming approach to character creation. But I don't think my Ottawa Group has ever had more fun, and havn't had a problem making every kind of character imaginable*.

*Some have had to be powered down.

If someone's interested I'd be willing to share for some feedback.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 9, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I have no clue what that means.



You said that in CoC you can alter your saves based on something to do with attack and defense.  I was confused on that part.  I assumed it meant that you could lower your attack to increase your save values.  But in d20 you normally only have one attack value.  This would mean that when you decrease or increase your saves they all change by the same amount.  I was wondering if CoC had different attack values for each kind of saving-throw-inducing attack so that you could modify the level of each save individually.

Perhaps you could just explain the entire process you were talking about in greater detail?


----------



## Quantum (Feb 10, 2010)

> Perhaps you could just explain the entire process you were talking about in greater detail?




In Monte Cook's d20 CoC on page ten he has Table 1-8 and Table 1-9 which are Base Save options. Table 1-8 is Base Save And Base Attack Bonus: Defense Option. Table 1-9 is Offense Option. The three saving throw progression tables are assigned in any order to Reflex, Willpower, and Fortitude. Offense option has lower saves but higher base attack bonuses. Defense Option has higher saves and lower base attack bonuses.  You could put Prossion Save Table into Fortitude, Bases Save Progression Table 3 into Willpower, and Base Save Progression Table 2 into Reflex, as an example.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 10, 2010)

Quantum said:


> In Monte Cook's d20 CoC on page ten he has Table 1-8 and Table 1-9 which are Base Save options. Table 1-8 is Base Save And Base Attack Bonus: Defense Option. Table 1-9 is Offense Option. The three saving throw progression tables are assigned in any order to Reflex, Willpower, and Fortitude. Offense option has lower saves but higher base attack bonuses. Defense Option has higher saves and lower base attack bonuses.  You could put Prossion Save Table into Fortitude, Bases Save Progression Table 3 into Willpower, and Base Save Progression Table 2 into Reflex, as an example.



Um, yeah. Except, why do that for a point-build system. Kind of misses the point, really.

You can, with startling ease, assign your attack, defence and saves to mirror any configuration you'd find in basically any d20 game anyway. Just spend some Power Points, and make it so. You could even match PL to level, if that appeals for some reason (even though the concepts are different, and M&M doesn't in fact _have_ levels.)

Which, come to think of it, seems to be something at least a couple of people are not aware of: _it's not a levels-based game_. Srsly.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 10, 2010)

It is a level-based game, there are just classes you could play that have worse than low BAB and poor saves.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> It is a level-based game



Wrong.

PL != Level.


----------



## fuindordm (Feb 10, 2010)

Felon said:


> The player now will go one of two ways: he'll either realize this isn't going to work like he envisioned and he abandons the idea, or he'll mitigate the cost by lathering on Limitations. Let's see, Activation 14< (-1/2), Doesn't work underwater, in vacums, in intense magnetic fields (-1/4 x 3), Only works in Hero ID (-1/4), and then the biggest non-Limitation of all: Obvious Inaccessable Focus (-1/2).




But all this doesn't reduce the active cost of the power, only the number of build points the character needs to spend to acquire it.  It's not a cheat--the campaign will have an uppoer limit on the active cost of all powers.



> My problem with Champions/HERO is that it implicitly offers the pretext of playing gatekeeper through elaborate (some say "elegant") point-costing, but what it really does is ween unassuming players over to the dark side of min-maxing. I think the place where this really becomes evident is the 150 points of Disadvantages each player is required to come up with in building their character. It quickly becomes evident that all Disads are not created equally disadvantageous. Some, like Psychological Limitation and Distinctive Feature, just add some color to your character. Others, like Vulnerability and Susceptability, can get you killed. And still others, like Hunted, don't ever seem to amount to anything (most GM's just can't be bothered).




The disadvantages don't bother me much--yes, there are some easy ones that everyone can take without gimping their character, but that's intentional--it encourages people to add flavor to their characters, but the players that don't take them aren't weaker than those that do. Again, because the game is structured to place an upper limit on the active cost of powers, the difference between a 250-pt superhero with disads and a 200-pt superhero without is one of versatility, not raw power. The first might have all sorts of tricks (like an ice hero that can craft objects, walls, prisons, and slides in addition to blasting away), while the second just flies and shoots lasers, but they'll  be equally effective in combat and likely equally interesting out of combat (skills being dirt cheap).

The campaign guidelines are an easy aspect of HERO to miss, but very important.  In a superheroes game, the GM _must _sit down and say that
attack powers should be no more than 60 active points, and resistant PD/ED
no higher than 15/15. This prevents anyone from waving a wand and turning their enemy into a slug in one round, and prevents players from building the invulnerable super-brick or glass cannon.

If the upper limits don't change, players will grow broader, not deeper. They learn new tricks for their powers, might pick up defenses they were lacking, and so on.

Once in a while the GM can "level up" the group and increase the upper limit by 10 Points or so, changing the tone of the campaign a little.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 10, 2010)

> Um, yeah. Except, why do that for a point-build system. Kind of misses the point, really.




Because I don't believe that _absolutely everything_ should be bought with points, In M&M every single save must be bought. I just don't like that option. I prefer to spend my points on powers, skills, feats, and attributes. And even feats is iffy for me personally, but still doable.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> It is a level-based game, there are just classes you could play that have worse than low BAB and poor saves.



d20 Call of Cthulhu is a level-based game.  It has level progression tables for character advancement.
Mutants & Masterminds is not a level-based game.

If you wish to challenge either of these, I will require evidence.  (Note that you cannot prove a negative, therefore no proof has been provided.  You can prove a positive, therefore proof is required.)


Quantum said:


> Because I don't believe that _absolutely everything_ should be bought with points, In M&M every single save must be bought. I just don't like that option. I prefer to spend my points on powers, skills, feats, and attributes. And even feats is iffy for me personally, but still doable.




M&M agrees with you.  Only things that will have game-mechanic effect require points.  
A place to live (not a super-base, just a home with a bed) does not require points, for example.  Having a cool costume doesn't require points.  Having a particular appearance, accent, mannerism, and so forth, don't require points unless they are supposed to also have a game mechanic effect.
Your character's ability to affect foes and resist their effects does require power points, since it is purely controlled by game mechanics.

You, *Quantum*, apparently don't like purchasing saving throws.  The implication is that you want them to be assigned to you by the game, using a "table" and a declared choice of "defensive" or "offensive".  How they would scale is in no way covered (M&M doesn't have levels, so the CoC method won't work), so there's a big whole in your proposal.
The reasons for your feelings are unclear and obscure to those of us following the thread.
Still, take a look at the Mastermind's Manual, chapter 1, pages 18 and 19.  That might work for you.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Feb 10, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> I think it's just an individual thing; for example, I understood M&M and HERO both very rapidl... and I "get" both of them, and can understand or accept the way they do some things they do.




Yeah.

That is where I stand. I play HERO, and have done some M&M, but I just prefer the style and approach of HERO (5th). Part of it is that I really dislike the damage save as a mechanic, so I can never really get into the whole of M&M.

I think that the M&M stuff has a better setting. I really dig Freedom City.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 10, 2010)

> The reasons for your feelings are unclear and obscure to those of us following the thread.




I haven't played M&M so I don't know how this would actually work out in play. But when I try to learn the system I create a few characters and test the rules out a bit. During my creation I found that when using points to buy everything (and just so you're clear what I mean by everything is ability scores, skills, feats, saves, attack bonuses and powers because the example you used was a bit extreme) is that usually you'll have lower saves and attack bonuses if you want more powers, and less powers if you want more saves and attack bonuses. I suppose it could be evened out but you will not have it evened out for your level. In that both saves, attack bonuses, and powers will not necessarily be even with your level. I feel that character abilities should be even with the character level and using points to buy those will skewer the balance in favor of one or the other.

But then again, and I absolutely stress this point, is that_ it all depends on what the player wants for their character concept_. If they're happy with it then that's fine. But as for myself as a player and not a GM I like having these things evened out with my character level and prefer the automatic level advancement at least for saves and base attack bonuses. 

Basically, I prefer the Occam Razor approach to rpgs, in that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Or tp put it another way, don't unnecessarily complicate things. That's one of the reasons why I can't stand the Hero game system is that they make things really complicated, at least for me.

Also, I don't have the Mastermind's Manual and have never read it. But it sounds like you're insinuating they created a level based save and attack bonus progression for the character's power level.


----------



## Psion (Feb 10, 2010)

IMO, Hero is better for character design. M&M is better in play.

If that makes any sense. And that is not necessarily saying that makes M&M better. It really does matter what you are after.

Though, FWIW, Ultimate Power does give M&M some HERO mojo.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 12, 2010)

Quantum said:


> ... I found that when using points to buy everything ... is that usually you'll have lower saves and attack bonuses if you want more powers, and less powers if you want more saves and attack bonuses.



Okay.  I'm curious, where you trying to get everything to be equal to your PL or at your PL caps?  It doesn't matter, but I am curious.

And for the record, the cheapest way to do what you described is to use the Enhanced Ability power (with the Permanent flaw).  For 30 power points you can get a 30 Dex, 30 Con, and 30 Wis; this gives you +10 in all four of your saving throws.  Spend another 40 points to get your attack and defense to +10, and you have 80 points for feats, skills, and powers, while having most of your combat stuff at PL 10.


Quantum said:


> powers will not necessarily be even with your level.



Most powers don't need to be near your PL.
Flight, for example, should almost never be near your PL for a PL 10 hero.


Quantum said:


> But then again, and I absolutely stress this point, is that_ it all depends on what the player wants for their character concept_.



Absolutely true, and I couldn't agree with you more.


Quantum said:


> But as for myself as a player and not a GM I like having these things evened out with my character level and prefer the automatic level advancement at least for saves and base attack bonuses.



Two points.  
First, M&M is not a level-based game.  Advancement is by power points, with hard limits set by the GM (yes, the limits are known as power levels; that ain't the same as character levels in D&D).  
[sblock=Explanation of Power Level]PL is used to set the tone and general character power of the campaign.
PL 0 - average person on the street. Some professional training (a skill or two at rank 1 to 5), but no combat ability and average overall ability scores. Your basic Innocent Bystander.

PL 3 - World renowned experts.  Most Nobel prize winners end up here due to high skill ranks (up to rank 8) and high intelligence scores (~16, but up to 26).

PL 4 - "Hollywood Cops", or cinematic police officers that you tend to see in action movies and in action-heavy police dramas.

PL 5 - average professional infantry soldier. Well trained and equipped, with a broad group of skills focused on combat, survival, and movement.

PL 6 to 8 - most military special forces. U.S. Navy SEALs, Green Berets, CSOR, SAS, Mossad and other elite units would fall into this range. With the right equipment and a good plan, they can take down almost any target, though they're still very human (and extremely vulnerable if caught by surprise).
Also, most Luthor-like villains (brilliant, evil billionaires) would fit into this range due to their skill ranks (and _possibly_ personalized martial arts training).

PL 7 to 9 - Most starting super heroes. Enough power to shake a city, but without the experience and skill to really change it. However, the potential is all there.

PL 10 - Veteran super heroes that have a couple years of experience and have a city of their own that they protect.  If you mess with that city, you'll have to deal with this hero.  By this point they should have a nemesis, a fan base (even if a small one), or a growing urban legend "known" to be true by the residents of their favored neighborhoods. 
Some rookies start here, but they tend to be incredibly powerful, able to melt tanks (and buildings, let alone bank robbers) with no effort and possibly by accident.
Low-rank gods are generally at this level.  Fairly minor deities, like Pan, are in this range.  Extremely powerful, but limited.

PL 12 - this is probably the level I'd cap the veterans of the Avengers at. Most heroes won't go past this PL and very few of them ever should. At this point, a single character should be a viable threat to an entire *country*, assuming that his power set allows him to be threatening.
Normals shouldn't go past this point, as training and experience can only do so much.
Moderate-power gods will largely be here.  They have abilities that no normal mortal can resist but that powerful and lucky individuals can withstand (at least temporarily).
Powerful demi-gods, such as Heracles, would stop right about here.

PL 15 - The gods of superdom, this level is generally reserved for those few individuals (hero or villain) that change the world just by existing. At this point, a hero can be so talented that their ability is measured on a universe scale. Superman, Shazam, Thanos, occasionally Thor, and others of a power that rivals gods.
Major gods like the Greek deity Hades fit right here.

PL 16+ - that handful of characters that alter all of reality. A creature that can _personally_ kill an entire city in an hour or so (by individually gutting the citizens with it's hands), before sweeping across the rest of the planet. An inter-stellar conqueror, leader of a warband composed of half a galaxy, and personal champion of his own nigh-endless hordes. The interdimensional ruler-invader that could decide to unmake the universe the heroes are in, if they annoy him enough. That kind of guy.[/sblock]
Second, you're free to have whatever tastes you want, and I certainly won't berate you for them.  No one around here should, either.  What I will do is point out where your tastes are based upon false impressions or bad information; as long as you're well informed, what you choose to like doesn't much matter to me.  It's your life, enjoy it.


Quantum said:


> Basically, I prefer the Occam Razor approach to rpgs, in that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Or tp put it another way, don't unnecessarily complicate things.



Heh.  Maybe you should stay away from super-hero games, then.  Every one I've come across has been complicated.  


Quantum said:


> Also, I don't have the Mastermind's Manual and have never read it. But it sounds like you're insinuating they created a level based save and attack bonus progression for the character's power level.



Well, now I'm stating it.  
It's one of the (many) advancement options presented in the Mastermind's Manual.  The idea is to provide minimum base-line abilities that all heroes have to have.  It requires +1 attack / defense at each PL (4pp per PL), 2 + 1/2 PL to one save (2pp at PL 1, plus 0.5pp per PL), 1/3 PL to two saves (0.66pp per PL), and 9 power points to spend freely on feats, powers, ability scores, and further saving throw or combat bonuses at most PLs. 
I really dislike how it makes the game feel like a level-based one, but that's just my tastes.


Quantum said:


> (the example you used was a bit extreme)



Possibly, but not irrelevant.  I've seen some stupid character creations before, where family, name, and basic appearance were bought with character points.  And often didn't matter at all for the game mechanics.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> Wrong.
> 
> PL != Level.




PL = level. PL sets the maximum value for advancement. In 3e terms, every level, you multiclass in a class of your own design, which may have any level of progression from none to "fast" on any bonus, within your total budget. M&M is a level-based game with secondary advancement within a points scheme. You wouldn't say an AD&D 2e thief isn't level-based, just because he can allocate his thief skills, right?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> d20 Call of Cthulhu is a level-based game.  It has level progression tables for character advancement.
> Mutants & Masterminds is not a level-based game.




Progression tables are not a requirement for a level-based game, only progression.



> If you wish to challenge either of these, I will require evidence.  (Note that you cannot prove a negative, therefore no proof has been provided.  You can prove a positive, therefore proof is required.)




1. People who misuse "proving a negative" do not have a firm grasp of logic.
2. You are misuing "proving a negative."
3. Therefore, you do not have a firm grasp of logic.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Progression tables are not a requirement for a level-based game, only progression.



The only progression M&M has is in points.

Power Level is either a limit on broad capabilities or an indication of ability (or both) ... but it's not a progression.  A campaign can stay at PL 10 forever, if the DM wants, and the characters will still continue to develop.  (They'll develop in versatility, not in raw power, but they'll develop.)

I don't have anything against level-based games, but M&M isn't one.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Progression tables are not a requirement for a level-based game, only progression.



...
So, GURPS, HERO, Traveller, and the original Deadlands systems are level-based.  Because they have progression.
...
Something is extremely wrong with that logic.


Apparently we need to agree on what "level-based" means before we can discuss which systems are and are not level-based.
[sblock]







> 1. People who misuse "proving a negative" do not have a firm grasp of logic.
> 2. You are misuing "proving a negative."
> 3. Therefore, you do not have a firm grasp of logic.



You're confusing the "negative proof" fallacy with "proving a negative".  Therefore premise 2 is invalid.[/sblock]


----------



## Thanee (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> PL = level. PL sets the maximum value for advancement. In 3e terms, every level, you multiclass in a class of your own design, which may have any level of progression from none to "fast" on any bonus, within your total budget.




This sounds a bit like you do not really know what the PL in M&M actually is.

The PL is a campaign variable. You normally do not progress in PL at all.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Feb 12, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Apparently we need to agree on what "level-based" means before we can discuss which systems are and are not level-based.




Well, to me "level-based" means you advance in ordered steps (called "levels" or whatever), where each step tells you what abilities you gain (which could, partially, be points to buy abilities).

I know of two systems, where this works the other way around, but that do have levels. You learn what you want, and once you learned a certain "value" of abilities, you advance a level (which has no real effect, other than maybe allowing you to learn more advanced abilities). In that case, level is mostly an indicator of your experience. While somewhat based on the concept of levels, I wouldn't even call these "level-based", but it could be argued either way, I guess.

Point buy systems, which allow you to learn whatever you want up to a predetermined maximum (usually set by campaign limits), are not "level-based" in any way. They are more like the opposite of "level-based".

Bye
Thanee


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> ...
> So, GURPS, HERO, Traveller, and the original Deadlands systems are level-based.  Because they have progression.
> ...
> Something is extremely wrong with that logic.




You are correct, something is wrong with that logic. I only said level-based meant a level-based progression, rather than specifically having a chart. I did not say any game that has progression is level-based.



> Apparently we need to agree on what "level-based" means before we can discuss which systems are and are not level-based.
> [sblock]
> You're confusing the "negative proof" fallacy with "proving a negative".  Therefore premise 2 is invalid.[/sblock]




You seem to be confused. Proving a negative is not only possible, but trivially easy. I gave one example, but if you don't like my premises, how about this?

1. An apple is a fruit.
2. Fruits are not metamorphic rocks.
3. Therefore, apples are not metamorphic rocks.

See? Works great.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanee said:


> This sounds a bit like you do not really know what the PL in M&M actually is.




Would it be reassuring if I told you I own the book and am quite familiar with it?



> The PL is a campaign variable. You normally do not progress in PL at all.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




It is suggested that it be advanced very so often. That said, level advancement is not a necessity for a level-based game. AD&D would still be level-based even if you froze the characters at 10th level. E6 is level-based, even if you stop gaining levels after 6. If you run a Pathfinder and you use the "gain a level when I say so" method, you are running a level-based game, and rather similar to the default M&M level advancement system, at that.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> The only progression M&M has is in points.
> 
> Power Level is either a limit on broad capabilities or an indication of ability (or both) ... but it's not a progression.  A campaign can stay at PL 10 forever, if the DM wants, and the characters will still continue to develop.  (They'll develop in versatility, not in raw power, but they'll develop.)
> 
> I don't have anything against level-based games, but M&M isn't one.




In a level-based game, characters are on a limited, mathematically specific tier of ability, which is supposed to make them roughly equivalent. M&M is that. You can't get above X attack, X skill ranks, and so forth in D&D 3e, for each specific level, and you can't in M&M either.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> In a level-based game, characters are on a limited, mathematically specific tier of ability, which is supposed to make them roughly equivalent. M&M is that. You can't get above X attack, X skill ranks, and so forth in D&D 3e, for each specific level, and you can't in M&M either.




...

So, when a Game Master of HERO system sets the DCVs, HERO becomes level-based.
If a GURPS GM set a cap on skills, GURPS is now level-based.
Because character's have a mathematically maximum ability to make them roughly equal.

Am I understanding you correctly?  I really would like to understand what you're saying.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2010)

Even if you set a DCV limit for Hero, there aren't discrete levels. You could make Hero into a level-based game by expanding the "suggested DC and DCV" type charts into a a series of dicrete levels. The result would be very similar to the BESM d20 format.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Even if you set a DCV limit for Hero, there aren't discrete levels. You could make Hero into a level-based game by expanding the "suggested DC and DCV" type charts into a a series of dicrete levels. The result would be very similar to the BESM d20 format.



Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

Seriously, I'm starting to get really confused by your posts.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Would it be reassuring if I told you I own the book and am quite familiar with it?




I'm not sure... 



> It is suggested that it be advanced very so often. That said, level advancement is not a necessity for a level-based game. AD&D would still be level-based even if you froze the characters at 10th level. E6 is level-based, even if you stop gaining levels after 6. If you run a Pathfinder and you use the "gain a level when I say so" method, you are running a level-based game, and rather similar to the default M&M level advancement system, at that.




A character gaining a level is the same as changing the campaign framework?



> In a level-based game, characters are on a limited, mathematically specific tier of ability, which is supposed to make them roughly equivalent.




Ok, so every roleplaying game is level-based then in your opinion?

In HERO, for example, the level is set by the number of character points you get (standard heroic, powerful heroic, standard superheroic, etc - that's roughly the same as the PL of M&M, especially if you also use the recommended caps for OCV/DCs/skill checks and so on).



> M&M is that. You can't get above X attack, X skill ranks, and so forth in D&D 3e, for each specific level, and you can't in M&M either.




Well, I can understand why you think M&M is level-based at least.

I do not agree with it, because I really don't think what you consider level-based, really is (or should be) level-based.

Basically, you see any limit/cap to a character's ability as a level-based limit.

However, there are two fundamentally different things at work...

1) the level of the character
2) the level of the campaign

You say, both of these make a game level-based. I think only the first one does.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> In a *point*-based game, characters are on a limited, mathematically specific tier of ability, which is supposed to make them roughly equivalent. M&M is that.



Helped you out there.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
> 
> Seriously, I'm starting to get really confused by your posts.




That was a "No, but..."


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2010)

Thanee said:


> A character gaining a level is the same as changing the campaign framework?




If the campaign framework specifies a specific level, obviously.



> Ok, so every roleplaying game is level-based then in your opinion?




No, not at all.



> In HERO, for example, the level is set by the number of character points you get (standard heroic, powerful heroic, standard superheroic, etc - that's roughly the same as the PL of M&M,




Actually, they are quite different. In Hero, your starting points have no relation to the trait limits, whereas M&M defaults to PL x 10 cp, making M&M levels discrete.



> especially if you also use the recommended caps for OCV/DCs/skill checks and so on).




Even then, the categories aren't graduated, so they don't count as levels. You can't say, "Let's increase the caps in Hero by one level." There is no set progression. On the other hand, you can do exactly that when running M&M. If I tweak the DCV guidelines for Hero, that tells me nothing about damage, or even OCV.



> Well, I can understand why you think M&M is level-based at least.
> 
> I do not agree with it, because I really don't think what you consider level-based, really is (or should be) level-based.
> 
> ...




That's not my criterion. In my view, PL is a character limit, it's just, by default, set the same for all characters in a M&M campaign. You could, if you wanted, specify a different PL for each PC (for whatever purpose), and PL would still remain meaningful. And in fact, if you use attack/damage tradeoff, you are essentially adjusting the character's PL in a limited way. To accomplish the same thing in HERO, you would have to specify some kind of relationship between OCV and damage. 

Note also that NPCs have their own PL (M&M, p.25). Power level is a character trait; the overall PL for PCs is a _campaign_ trait.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 13, 2010)

> Okay. I'm curious, where you trying to get everything to be equal to your PL or at your PL caps? It doesn't matter, but I am curious



.

I'm a min/maxer. I try to get the best advantage possible. When it comes to M&M I try to max out my saves. There are four saves, Toughness, Reflex, Fortitude, and Willpower. The maximum save for Toughness is equal to PL, and the maximum saves for the other three are PL plus 5. So, at PL 10 that's 10 + 15 + 15 +15 for a total of 55 points which leaves 95 points to buy everything else. That's a lot of points. I'd rather spend these points on powers or skills.

I don't necessarily use this method when it comes to my stats, but in my most important stat I like to have at least a 20. That's another 20 points right there. I like to have a minimum score of 10 in all other stats because I have a pet peeve about stats with a penalty to them. I don't mind low or average stats but I  personally just can't stand stats with a penalty to them and avoid them like the plague. But with the rest of the stats at  least a score of 10 that's a total of 70 points right there. With the saves that's a total of 125 points.

So, there lies what I was trying to describe.

But for me it's important to have my saves maxed out. 

And also, you do get to advance in PL as well. If the GM allows it, a character may achieve a new PL when they've earned 15 points.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 13, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Would it be reassuring if I told you I own the book and am quite familiar with it?



No.

You've well and truly proven you don't understand what PL is (or, alternatively, what level-based games are.) Time and time again. Not 'reassuring' at all!


----------



## Elric (Feb 13, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I'm a min/maxer. I try to get the best advantage possible. When it comes to M&M I try to max out my saves. There are four saves, Toughness, Reflex, Fortitude, and Willpower. The maximum save for Toughness is equal to PL, and the maximum saves for the other three are PL plus 5. So, at PL 10 that's 10 + 15 + 15 +15 for a total of 55 points which leaves 95 points to buy everything else. That's a lot of points. I'd rather spend these points on powers or skills.




That a PL 10 character can have Fort/Ref/Will all at +15 is something of a problem with M&M's design.  A character should be able to have one of these saves at +15, but a good rule of thumb is that if your average F/R/W save is over +10, they're too high.  It's simply too hard to hurt a character with maxed FRW saves, even though individual characters can justify one particularly high saves (e.g., Speedster's Reflex or Psionic's Will).  Average among the core book archetypes is ~+23 between FRW combined, which is a good benchmark to shoot for.



> I don't necessarily use this method when it comes to my stats, but in my most important stat I like to have at least a 20. That's another 20 points right there. I like to have a minimum score of 10 in all other stats because I have a pet peeve about stats with a penalty to them. I don't mind low or average stats but I personally just can't stand stats with a penalty to them and avoid them like the plague. But with the rest of the stats at  least a score of 10 that's a total of 70 points right there. With the saves that's a total of 125 points.




You buy stats starting from 10 (which costs 0 points).  See the first page of Chapter 1, "Hero Creation"


----------



## Thanee (Feb 13, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> No, not at all.




Can you give an example?



> Actually, they are quite different. In Hero, your starting points have no relation to the trait limits, ...




Of course, they do. You can put no more than all your points into one trait. 

Besides, HERO has discreet limits depening on the power level. There are ranges given for charactersitics, CVs, DCs, skill rolls, active points, etc.

6E1p35



> Even then, the categories aren't graduated, so they don't count as levels. You can't say, "Let's increase the caps in Hero by one level." There is no set progression.




Yes, there is.

"standard heroic", "powerful heroic", "standard superheroic", etc.

If a character starts out as "standard heroic" and gains 50 Experience, the character is no longer "standard heroic" but "powerful heroic" and has "advanced a level".


BUT... that won't allow the character to go beyond the limits of a "standard heroic" character, unless the GM advances the campaign to "powerful heroic" eventually.

And that's the same with the PLs in M&M. The PL is fixed, unless the campaign variables change. The character advancement has no influence there. It's an arbitrary decision not directly related to the characters.



> Note also that NPCs have their own PL (M&M, p.25). Power level is a character trait; the overall PL for PCs is a _campaign_ trait.




The difference to me is, that PL is not a trait of the character, but it is a layer above the character. Of course, you can say the character is of Power Level X, because the character is in that category. But that's the whole point, PL categorizes characters, it's not something the character has. One important aspect here is, that the character has no choice about the power level. Pretty much anything else can be chosen during character creation, but PL is set before the character is even created.

It's not a level, it's a category. So to say. 

And HERO has exactly the same thing (a bit more loosely organized) with the heroic and superheroic categories.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Feb 13, 2010)

One more thing...



pawsplay said:


> If the campaign framework specifies a specific level, obviously.




Another difference between these two is...

If the character advances a level, the character becomes more powerful.

If the campaign level is increased (i.e. the PL in M&M), the character can now potentially become more powerful, but doesn't immediately gain power.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Quantum (Feb 13, 2010)

Elric said:


> That a PL 10 character can have Fort/Ref/Will all at +15 is something of a problem with M&M's design.  A character should be able to have one of these saves at +15, but a good rule of thumb is that if your average F/R/W save is over +10, they're too high.  It's simply too hard to hurt a character with maxed FRW saves, even though individual characters can justify one particularly high saves (e.g., Speedster's Reflex or Psionic's Will).  Average among the core book archetypes is ~+23 between FRW combined, which is a good benchmark to shoot for.
> 
> 
> Well, except for exceptions like Superman, the archetypes in the book seem to bear this out.
> ...





Yeah, I must have missed that, thanks.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2010)

The saves situation is a mess in M&M. It is basically inevitible that saves will trail behind attack DCs. If you look at the sample characters, any of them with a lower Will save will fail versus mind control from another PL 10 character nearly three times in four (+5 or +6 Will versus DC 20 attack). In theory, more powerful abilities should be lower since they are more points per level, but in practice, characters usually max out their main attack and then build the rest as alternate powers or at lower levels. You can protest, "Well, that's PC design" but not much guidance is given on how to build NPCs, and the example NPCs do typically have maxed out abilities. Further, it is suggested that heroic archetypes can be be used as NPCs, and they definitely have maxed out attacks in almost all cases. In my experience, M&M combat is more about using hero points as a sort of currency than about the modifiers or advanced tactics.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2010)

Thanee said:


> If a character starts out as "standard heroic" and gains 50 Experience, the character is no longer "standard heroic" but "powerful heroic" and has "advanced a level".
> 
> BUT... that won't allow the character to go beyond the limits of a "standard heroic" character, unless the GM advances the campaign to "powerful heroic" eventually.




I suppose broadly you could consider Hero to be a leveled game in which there are three levels. However, because each level has a "suggested range" rather than a specific cap, the levels aren't discrete. Thus, I would not consider it a leveled game (apart from the questionable utility of defining a game with three huge levels - what are you comparing to what, again?). 

That's different from M&M, where each level has a defined cap. That levels work differently in M&M than in D&D is noteworthy, but it doesn't make M&M not level-based. Levels work differently in Rolemaster, too. 

Not level-based games would be:
DC Heroes: Traits completely independent.
Hero System: Traits mostly independent, graduated caps not defined for different levels.
Runequest/BRP: Skills are percentiles, attributes are independent.
GURPS: Traits are mostly independent, graduated caps not defined, traits not interchangeable for comparison.

Semi-level based games:
Most Fudge games give each character one or more traits at a specific cap, although other traits are likely independent.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 13, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> That's different from M&M, where each level has a defined cap. That levels work differently in M&M than in D&D is noteworthy, but it doesn't make M&M not level-based. Levels work differently in Rolemaster, too.




Levels in Rolemaster and DND both share something in common- character improvement occurs in broad chunks at very discrete intervals determined by the accumulation of XP the character has earned to reach a new level.  The only difference is that RM  provides you a handful of points each level to spend  improving the various aspects of your character (excluding saves) whereas in D&D all or some of those aspects are improved for you by the system depending upon the version of D&D.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2010)

Greg K said:


> Levels in Rolemaster and DND both share something in common- character improvement occurs in broad chunks at very discrete intervals determined by the accumulation of XP the character has earned to reach a new level.  The only difference is that RM  provides you a handful of points each level to spend  improving the various aspects of your character (excluding saves) whereas in D&D all or some of those aspects are improved for you by the system depending upon the version of D&D.




The only difference between the RM approach and the M&M approach is that in M&M, you get the points first, whereas in RM you get the level first and then the points, and that level advancement is not automatic, it requires GM permission in M&M.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 13, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The only difference between the RM approach and the M&M approach is that in M&M, you get the points first, whereas in RM you get the level first and then the points, and that level advancement is not automatic, it requires GM permission in M&M.




No, its not.  

The default  assumption of Rolemaster is that your character starts off as a zero and will automatically grow in power as you level albeit slowly.  

In M&M,  the assumption is that you set the power level based upon the type of campaign you want to run (e.g., street (6), New Mutants (6-8), X-men (10-12), Avenger (12), Cosmic).  Despite min-maxers that ignore it and try to max everything at the PL, the power level of the M&M campaign, is  still designed to allow you to have a diversity of power levels among the individual characters from the start.   Furthermore, the starting points per power level in M&M are suggestions.  The GM is given permission to provide more or less starting points than the recommended depending upon how experienced the starting characters are for their power level.  Newbie heroes in a PL 10 campaign may have the starting points recommended for PL 6 or 8 while experienced heroes in a PL 6 campaign might have the starting points recommended for PL 8.


----------



## Elric (Feb 13, 2010)

Quantum said:


> Well, except for exceptions like Superman, the archetypes in the book seem to bear this out.




The Paragon archetype has +26 combined FRW saves.  The average is +23.  Some archetypes are above the average and some are below it.  Note that the highest combined FRW saves is +27 on the Martial Artist and the lowest is +17 on the Battlesuit.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 13, 2010)

Except the pattern for the Paragon saves are:

Toughness & Fortitude: +12
Reflex: +6
Willpower: +8


Which bears out his basic point that generally you have a higher save than all the rest. Willpower is pretty high, but still much lower than his highest saves. So I don't get your point. When looking at the archetypes in the M&M rulebook, you can see this pattern as well.

The exception to this is the Mimic with her three saves at 7 each and Toughness at +1.

ADDED:

I just found out that there's a mistake with the Paragon's Heavy Load for the power of Super Strength.

The Paragon has Super Strength at 6. For every rank in Super Strength you get to add +5 to your Strength score for purposes of lifting on the Carrying Capacity table. It says his Heavy load is 100 tons, which is at 65 on the table.

His initial Strength was 14. He has Enhanced Strength at 20.  That makes his normal Strength 34.

6 times 5 is 30. 30 plus 34 is 64. 

I believe you round down so that would make the lifting score a 60. With which the Heavy Load is 50 tons.

Unless you round up.

That Carrying Capacity table begins on page 36 of the main rule book.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2010)

Greg K said:


> No, its not.
> 
> The default  assumption of Rolemaster is that your character starts off as a zero and will automatically grow in power as you level albeit slowly.
> 
> In M&M,  the assumption is that you set the power level based upon the type of campaign you want to run (e.g., street (6), New Mutants (6-8), X-men (10-12), Avenger (12), Cosmic).  Despite min-maxers that ignore it and try to max everything at the PL, the power level of the M&M campaign, is  still designed to allow you to have a diversity of power levels among the individual characters from the start.   Furthermore, the starting points per power level in M&M are suggestions.  The GM is given permission to provide more or less starting points than the recommended depending upon how experienced the starting characters are for their power level.  Newbie heroes in a PL 10 campaign may have the starting points recommended for PL 6 or 8 while experienced heroes in a PL 6 campaign might have the starting points recommended for PL 8.




I would just like to point out that you said, "No, it is not," then said a number of things I know and don't disagree with. It is one thing to disagree with my interpretation, another to actually disprove it. I wonder if it might not have been more productive to say, "This is how I see things," and then provided some points to support your point of view. As it is, you have simply restated that in M&M and RM both, you receive a number of points per level to spend, which is my point. RM does not have optional rules to increase or decrease those points, of course.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> M&M defaults to PL x 10 cp, making M&M levels discrete.



... Where the hell did you find that?  Because it's not in the base book.
The PL is whatever the GM sets it at.  It changes when the GM says it changes, no earlier and no later.  A character's PL _could_ change every time the relevant player said the word "cool".  That's as valid a method of PL advancement as the 10 power point method you've proposed.


Quantum said:


> .I'm a min/maxer. I try to get the best advantage possible. When it comes to M&M I try to max out my saves. There are four saves, Toughness, Reflex, Fortitude, and Willpower. The maximum save for Toughness is equal to PL, and the maximum saves for the other three are PL plus 5. So, at PL 10 that's 10 + 15 + 15 +15 for a total of 55 points which leaves 95 points to buy everything else. That's a lot of points. I'd rather spend these points on powers or skills.



Dude, you so very badly need to reread the character build rules.  All of them.  Because you do not understand them.  You have missed key information and need to read the book again in great detail.
Once you do that, I'll be happy to discuss your issues further.

Oh, and to min/max M&M don't aim for your PL cap.  Aim for saves equal to your PL.  Ability scores are the single cheapest way to get there.  
Using a Container to get Enhanced Abilities is the cheapest way I've found to get awesome ability scores.  I've got a PC I'm playing that gets a 2:10 return on his ability scores; every 2 actual power points I invest gets him a +10 to a single ability score.  
For 24 power points, a similar build could have 30 in all six ability scores.  +10 to all saves, skills, and recovery checks.  For 24 power points.  If you want to, you could then spend 15 power points to get all your saves to your PL 10 caps and spend 40 points to get your Combat to your caps.  79 power points and you've capped most of your character, leaving 71 power points for feats and skills.


pawsplay said:


> The saves situation is a mess in M&M. It is basically inevitible that saves will trail behind attack DCs.



You say that like it was a bad thing.  Like it somehow ruined the fun of the game.  


Quantum said:


> I believe you round down so that would make the lifting score a 60. With which the Heavy Load is 50 tons.



No rounding.  Do the math for a strength 64 character and you'll have the correct loads.
Heavy Load: 89.6 tons.  Call it 90 for game play.
If you're lazy (and many folks are) simply round to the nearest "five" increment.  64 is closer to 65 than it is to 60, so they rounded to 65.  


			
				Quantum said:
			
		

> Well, except for exceptions like Superman, the archetypes in the book seem to bear this out.



Superman is not a PL 10 character.  He hasn't been one since the early golden age, back before he could fly.
At his weakest powered depiction, Superman is a bad ass PL 12.  At the level most people think of him as, he's PL 15 to 18 (varies with depiction).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Superman is not a PL 10 character.  He hasn't been one since the early golden age, back before he could fly.
> At his weakest powered depiction, Superman is a bad ass PL 12.  At the level most people think of him as, he's PL 15 to 18 (varies with depiction).




Or more- don't forget, he has been known to move planets and dive into stars in some incarnations.

And some of the heroes modeled after him have been similarly powerful...at least for short times.

Besides that, there are other characters that are just as powerful, if not moreso- Green Lantern springs immediately to mind in DC, and Marvel is full of them.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 14, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or more- don't forget, he has been known to move planets and dive into stars in some incarnations.



I can build a (very high point) PL 0 that can move planets around and dive into stars.  Immunities are cheap for what they do, and super-strength is not capped by your PL.  


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Besides that, there are other characters that are just as powerful, if not moreso- Green Lantern springs immediately to mind in DC, and Marvel is full of them.



GL is impressive as all get out, but none of them are as absolutely powerful as Superman (barring those crazy avatar-spirit things like Ion).  What they have going for them is an extremely flexible power set and creativity; which is 99% of what you need to be an amazing hero.  90% of the lantern corps is PL 9-10, with a couple of the most powerful members reaching towards PL 11 or 12.  The Guardians are probably PL 15-16, when they aren't PL X characters (which they were for a very long time).

Other than the Plot characters (who are villains of one sort or another), the only Marvel guys I can think of to rival Supes are Thor, Sentry, and Hulk (whose strength is a plot device, though a carefully regulated one).  All the others that come close are some kind of plot-device villain when they could rival the Man of Steel (Silver Surfer, Galactus, Thanos, etc.).


----------



## Quantum (Feb 14, 2010)

> GL is impressive as all get out, but none of them are as absolutely powerful as Superman (barring those crazy avatar-spirit things like Ion).



Except that in First Flight, he moves two moons to smash the ultimate weapon that is destroying OA. This is the Hal Jordan GL. But he did so only after merging with the core energy in the main power battery somehow.


> Dude, you so very badly need to reread the character build rules.  All of them.  Because you do not understand them.  You have missed key information and need to read the book again in great detail.
> Once you do that, I'll be happy to discuss your issues further.




If you ever want to have a non hostile discussion in a non combative way, don't ever ing tell me what I do and not not understand. Keep it friendly, and telling me I do not understand something only sets me in a combative mood and I am not open to new information when in a combative mood. Telling someone this is just not friendly, it sets a hostile tone.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Feb 14, 2010)

For me, and this is how I interpret M&M, it is level based to me.  I can see why some people would say its not, and that's fine, but to me, it is.  I crack that book and see a standard, d20, leveling progression chart with the benchmarks and level maximums allowed, the only difference between M&M and other d20 games is that the character gets points each level instead of preset and predefined abilities.  

That's it...so it is both.  But, to me, M&M is most definately a Level Based game.  Everything in that entire game is defined by the Power LEVEL in which the game is set.  It uses Levels as a benchmark for everything.  In a way, M&M is more defined by its Level than other d20 games.  

It's a level based game disguised as a point based game.  This is my opinion, I am not wrong, and don't say I am wrong for my interpretation of the game.  If it is not level based to any of you, then you are not wrong, its just how you interpret the game.

For me, PL = Level.
For some of you, PL != Level.

We are both right, in our own worlds.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 14, 2010)

(sigh) No. Just no.

But never mind an explanation. It's self-evident, when the book is read and taken as is. So I really can't be bothered.

Cool, it's a 'level-based' game to, what, two (maybe three!) people on the interwebs. Fine by me. Aaaand, I'll be leaving this topic right there. For good.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 14, 2010)

*Hey, everyone! Time to take a step back. Please discuss, don't bicker - and don't tell other people what they do or do not know.*


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 15, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> ... Where the hell did you find that?  Because it's not in the base book.
> The PL is whatever the GM sets it at.  It changes when the GM says it changes, no earlier and no later.  A character's PL _could_ change every time the relevant player said the word "cool".  That's as valid a method of PL advancement as the 10 power point method you've proposed.




Sorry, I meant 15.

p. 14


> 3. Power Level
> Your GM sets the starting power level for the series. Generally this is 10th level, but it may range anywhere from around 5th level to 20th level or more. All characters begin play at the same power level, *which determines their starting power points and where you can spend them*.




p.24


> The campaign's power level provides a guideline for how many power points you get to create your character (15 points per power level), as shown on the Starting Power Poitns table. The Gamemaster can vary the starting power poitns as desired to suit the campaign.
> 
> ... Power level is an overall measure of effectiveness and power, primarily combat ability, but also generally what sorts of tasks a character can be expected to accomplish on a regular basis...




So as you can see, Power Level corresponds to a number of power points (at least initially) and exactly corresponds to trait limits. It is a scalable, graduated trait with explicit capabilities for each level. Do I need to point out that it's called Power _Level_? Saying that a Power Level-based game is not a level-based system sounds like quite a contradiction to me.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 15, 2010)

Well, it certainly is "level-based" in a broad sense of the term, much like HERO is also "level-based" in a broad sense (as explained above).

The problem here is simply a different perception of the term "level-based". 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Elric (Feb 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So as you can see, Power Level corresponds to a number of power points (at least initially)




Actually, it corresponds to a _suggested number_ of initial power points, as that quote demonstrates.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 15, 2010)

Elric said:


> Actually, it corresponds to a _suggested number_ of initial power points, as that quote demonstrates.




Sure, if you like. I guess a "guideline" is a suggestion, but then, so is a rule.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 15, 2010)

Quantum said:


> Except that in First Flight, he moves two moons to smash the ultimate weapon that is destroying OA. This is the Hal Jordan GL. But he did so only after merging with the core energy in the main power battery somehow.



Like I was saying with Superman, moving moons around is possible at any and every PL (with enough power points).  Doing it temporarily is possible with a combination of many hero points and lots of extra effort, if you've got the right power set.
The lanterns have one of the most versatile and useful power sets ever given to a fictional character.  That's a kind of power, and an extremely impressive one, but it's not raw power.


Stacie GmrGrl said:


> For me, and this is how I interpret M&M, it is level based to me.



Like I said earlier, before we can finish that discussion we all need to agree on what "level-based" means.
Oh, and nice try with the "friendly disagreement" phrasing.



Quantum said:


> If you ever want to have a non hostile discussion in a non combative way, don't ever ing tell me what I do and not not understand. Keep it friendly, and telling me I do not understand something only sets me in a combative mood and I am not open to new information when in a combative mood. Telling someone this is just not friendly, it sets a hostile tone.



... Good point.  Sorry, I'm often an inconsiderate jerk, largely because I don't realize I'm doing it at the time.
It was clear from your post that there had been a serious misunderstanding of some rules, and that this had heavily influenced your appraisal of the system.  I meant to point that out.  Apparently I did so in one of the most counter-productive and insulting manners available.
I apologize for that.  It was unintentional and I will strive mightily to not do it again.


----------



## Elric (Feb 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Sure, if you like. I guess a "guideline" is a suggestion, but then, so is a rule.




Right!  If you purchase the book but don't like M&M's Toughness save mechanic, for example, you don't have to use that either!


----------



## Quantum (Feb 15, 2010)

> I apologize for that.  It was unintentional and I will strive mightily to not do it again.




Thank you, I appreciate your apology.


----------



## Victim (Feb 15, 2010)

I'd hesitate to call MnM level based because it's not really designed to support advancement through a broad range of levels.  Even a long running campaign still probably ends up within two levels of the initial PL.  The levels aren't really operating as the quanta of advancement.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 15, 2010)

Victim said:


> I'd hesitate to call MnM level based because it's not really designed to support advancement through a broad range of levels.  Even a long running campaign still probably ends up within two levels of the initial PL.  The levels aren't really operating as the quanta of advancement.




At 1 point per session, a weekly game would go through more than three levels in just a year.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> At 1 point per session, a weekly game would go through more than three levels in just a year.



Only if power points translate into power levels.
They don't.
The "Power Level and Character Growth" section (page 25) makes it extremely clear that any increase in PL, and the frequency of that increase, is entirely at the GM's discretion.  (It does provide a rule of thumb for those that want to use this option, which is where the 15 pp = +1 PL idea is found.  Nowhere does the book suggest that this is anything more than a loose guideline; vastly different from how it treats the Toughness Save, skills, feats, or other rules of the game.)


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 16, 2010)

Yes, my calculation only holds if you play the game as suggested.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> At 1 point per session, a weekly game would go through more than three levels in just a year.



Only if that's what the GM chooses to do.

I'm just starting an M&M campaign.  I've told the players to make 135pp PCs at PL 9.  I've further told them that I intend to advance the campaign to PL 10 fairly quickly, but then remain at PL 10 indefinitely.  (Right now I have in mind to stay at PL until they have about 190 to 200pp, but that's subject to change, especially given that I'm a new M&M GM.)

Power Level is not "level," as you seem to want to insist it is.  PL could just as easily have been called "Power Tier."  SK probably _should_ have used another name, if the confusion and misinformation in this thread is any indication.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 16, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Only if that's what the GM chooses to do.




Sure, sure. Obviously, any game system is subject to a lot of variation between campaigns.



> I'm just starting an M&M campaign.  I've told the players to make 135pp PCs at PL 9.  I've further told them that I intend to advance the campaign to PL 10 fairly quickly, but then remain at PL 10 indefinitely.  (Right now I have in mind to stay at PL until they have about 190 to 200pp, but that's subject to change, especially given that I'm a new M&M GM.)
> 
> Power Level is not "level," as you seem to want to insist it is.  PL could just as easily have been called "Power Tier."  SK probably _should_ have used another name, if the confusion and misinformation in this thread is any indication.




I think your post demonstrates how M&M's PL system allows you to graduate characters to a higher _level_, hence Level makes sense to me. Tier means literally the same thing as level, anyway. A three-tier cake has three layers, or levels.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think your post demonstrates how M&M's PL system allows you to graduate characters to a higher _level_



A "yes or no" question for you.  Are you aware that if I have a PC with 190pp, in a PL 10 campaign, if the GM says, "I'm upping the PL of the campaign to 11," absolutely nothing changes on my current character sheet?

If you answer correctly, then we just very clearly have different definitions of "level-based."  (And while I applaud individuality, when it comes to denotational aspects of communication, you'd do better to adjust to the majority, rather than expecting the majority to adjust to you.)


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The saves situation is a mess in M&M. It is basically inevitible that saves will trail behind attack DCs.




I think that's fairly intentional. But I also think the save PL caps should be looked at & revised if/when they ever do another edition.



pawsplay said:


> not much guidance is given on how to build NPCs, and the example NPCs do typically have maxed out abilities.




IIRC, only the ones written by a couple of authors do that. The ones Kenson & other authors write tend to not have maxed-out F/R/W saves. Not every person -- including authors -- design characters the same way.



pawsplay said:


> Further, it is suggested that heroic archetypes can be be used as NPCs, and they definitely have maxed out attacks in almost all cases. In my experience, M&M combat is more about using hero points as a sort of currency than about the modifiers or advanced tactics.




Attack/Damage and Defense/Toughness are the primary combat stats; if those aren't PL-capped, the character isn't actually as capable as their PL would seem to indicate, which makes PL a less useful measurement. Therefore, IMO, it's a good idea for most characters to be pretty close to capped.

(Having just played a game at a con where I ran a nominally-PL8 character with a +7 attack, +6 damage, +7 defense, +6 Toughness, I have to say, it wasn't all that fun, taking something like 6 or 7 hours of play before my character managed to contribute much to a fight. Given that it was a PC with nearly zero non-combat utility . . . fortunately, the characters themselves were pretty neat, the plot was intriguing, and the players were entertaining.)



pawsplay said:


> Yes, my calculation only holds if you play the game as suggested.




How do you play it?

For whatever it's worth, ISTR that Kenson has made it clear that it's merely a suggestion; IIRC, he's said he doesn't follow it (I may be remembering one of the other authors, though). Steve generally intended M&M to be run and used very flexibly, with lots of GM input on stuff.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 16, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> A "yes or no" question for you.  Are you aware that if I have a PC with 190pp, in a PL 10 campaign, if the GM says, "I'm upping the PL of the campaign to 11," absolutely nothing changes on my current character sheet?




That's not actually 100% true. You may be able to benefit from modifiers which would normally exceed the lower PL, such as Boost. As far as permanent traits go, then, yes.



> If you answer correctly, then we just very clearly have different definitions of "level-based."  (And while I applaud individuality, when it comes to denotational aspects of communication, you'd do better to adjust to the majority, rather than expecting the majority to adjust to you.)




All I expect is for people to listen. I will happily adjust my thinking if you can give me a convincing argument why the levels in M&M aren't levels, advancement in M&M by levels isn't level-based advancment, and level-based limits on traits aren't level-based limits on traits.


----------



## Elric (Feb 16, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> (Having just played a game at a con where I ran a nominally-PL8 character with a +7 attack, +6 damage, +7 defense, +6 Toughness, I have to say, it wasn't all that fun, taking something like 6 or 7 hours of play before my character managed to contribute much to a fight. Given that it was a PC with nearly zero non-combat utility . . . fortunately, the characters themselves were pretty neat, the plot was intriguing, and the players were entertaining.)




You're quite underpowered here, but you still should be able to contribute.

Against a +8 defense/+8 toughness defender, you take 13.87 average attacks to KO them, compared to 9.35 if you had +8 attack/+8 damage.

By comparison, it takes a +8 attack/8 damage attacker 6.24 attacks to KO you, compared to 9.35 if you had +8 defense/+8 Toughness.

Calculation method and assumptions the same as The Atomic Think Tank- Elric's Builds


----------



## cattoy (Feb 16, 2010)

I prefer HERO.

If you don't want to gamble big bux on a system you may not end up liking why don't you grab a old copy of Champions for 5 dollars and see if you like it. I find 3rd edition and earlier in bargain bins all the time.

It's gotten much more comprehensive since then, but the core mechanics still drive the game system.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2010)

For that matter, HERO 4th was a step forward and had a lot of nifty sourcebooks, like their "Ultimate" series- and should be just about as cheap!


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> give me a convincing argument why the levels in M&M aren't levels, advancement in M&M by levels isn't level-based advancment



Nice circle!


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yes, my calculation only holds if you play the game as suggested.



Nope.
If you use one of the optional sidebars (a popular option, but an option) and if you play that option as suggested, then you're spot on.
Too many ifs to say "this is how the game is."

Side note: D&D and other level-based games don't _limit_ you with your level. The give you a base to build off of, encouraging you to jam together as many bonuses as you can to get as large a total as possible.
M&M is the exact opposite with its point-based progression.  No matter where all your bonuses come from, they can't exceed X, either in total or in effect (no over-buying a stat to make it resistant to Drain, for example; you can buy it but it doesn't exist unless your PL somehow increases).  Very different design and philosophy.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 16, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Nice circle!
> 
> Nope.
> If you use one of the optional sidebars (a popular option, but an option) and if you play that option as suggested, then you're spot on.
> Too many ifs to say "this is how the game is."




I'm not quoting sidebars. p .178, under Increasing Power Level:



> ... However, sooner or later, you're going to want to raise the campaign's power level, giving the heroes a bit more room for advancement and spend their earned power points.
> A good guideline is to follow the starting power point totals when it comes to power level: when the heroes accumumulate an additional 15 power points from the start of the campaign or the last time the power level was raised.




That's not "optional weapon classes versus armor types" optional, or "why not try hit points with M&M?" optional, that's what the game has to say about Increasing Power Level, subheading of Awarding Power Points. It's optional only in the sense that Green Ronin is not dictating how anyone plays M&M. It's as optional as the suggested limits on buying Luck.



> Side note: D&D and other level-based games don't _limit_ you with your level. The give you a base to build off of, encouraging you to jam together as many bonuses as you can to get as large a total as possible.
> M&M is the exact opposite with its point-based progression.  No matter where all your bonuses come from, they can't exceed X, either in total or in effect (no over-buying a stat to make it resistant to Drain, for example; you can buy it but it doesn't exist unless your PL somehow increases).  Very different design and philosophy.




I agree that D&D and M&M handle levels somewhat differently and they represent a different design and philosophy. They both, however, have levels, with a very similar structure, meaning, and purpose. M&M is point-based, D&D is not; D&D advancement is motly open-ended, M&M is not; but both have level systems that place almost completely equivalent restrictions on the PCs in each game.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> They both, however, have levels, with a very similar structure, meaning, and purpose.




We disagree.  Apparently neither of us is able to convince the other of our position.  Therefore, I propose that we drop this line of discussion.  Continuing further is a pointless waste of time and energy, and presumably increases the frustration level for both of us and anyone who's _still_ reading this thread.  (Bless their diligent souls.)


----------



## Qualidar (Feb 16, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> We disagree.  Apparently neither of us is able to convince the other of our position.  Therefore, I propose that we drop this line of discussion.  Continuing further is a pointless waste of time and energy, and presumably increases the frustration level for both of us and anyone who's _still_ reading this thread.  (Bless their diligent souls.)




I'm really sort of surprised people put so much effort into it in the first place. Let him think what he wants.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 16, 2010)

Qualidar said:


> I'm really sort of surprised people put so much effort into it in the first place. Let him think what he wants.



If it were a matter of opinion, it would have been dropped a long time ago.  As it is, because he's factually incorrect (as the large majority of people use the word "level-based" in RPGs), folks are scratching their heads and trying to figure out the disconnect.

Now that it's clear he simply has an odd definition of "level-based" and isn't open to conforming that definition to the majority, folks will let it go.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 16, 2010)

I think what's confusing people here is that D&D is a level progressing system, which M&M is not. They both use levels to describe how powerful a character is, but remember, a 10th level Sorcerer is going to be very different than a PL 10 MAge in M&M.

Also in regards to the differences, in M&M you can have someone be strong enough to lift a 25,000 ton ship on PL 10.

In D&D you are not. Unless you have a Strength score over a thousand. And the sailing vessels are not likely to surpass a few hundred tons.

The largest sailing vessel ever built was the _Thomas W. Lawson _and she weighed 5,218 GRT / 4,914 NRT.

(Which is Gross RegistryTonange that is  based on the total internal volume of a vessel and and *Net Register Tonnage *is the volume of cargo the vessel can carry). There is no way any character made with the system can lift something that heavy.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> If it were a matter of opinion, it would have been dropped a long time ago.  As it is, because he's factually incorrect (as the large majority of people use the word "level-based" in RPGs), folks are scratching their heads and trying to figure out the disconnect.




As the saying goes: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The only factually incorrect thing I have stated was when I typed 10 instead of 15. In defending myself against charges of misinformation or distortion, I have resorted to quoting the rulebook at length. If quoting the rules is "factually incorrect," then I guess I'm factually incorrect.



> Now that it's clear he simply has an odd definition of "level-based" and isn't open to conforming that definition to the majority, folks will let it go.




Who knows what the conversation would have been like? But since several people decided to prove the unprovable, and behave in an aggressive and insulting fashion, the discussion pretty much got dug into the dirt. Maybe defending myself against untrue accusations was not the most productive response, but I didn't feel ready to just stand back and watch people claim things that actually aren't true (i.e. that's a sidebar, that's an optional rule, that's not how most people play the game, power points are not based on PL, and so forth). 

Most likely, anyone else who felt like injecting some balance into this discussion saw the treatment they could expect and just bowed out. The majority of people following this this roiling discussion is probably not the same as the majority of people who had interest in the original subject.

Maybe my interpretation is senseless... but I did not resort to distorting the rulebook text, at least. 

To segue back to the OP, Power Level does allow games to be easily scaled up or down, whereas Hero System requires a more comprehensive approach to balance, although the suggestions in the core books are good and easy enough to implement.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 17, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I think what's confusing people here is that D&D is a level progressing system, which M&M is not. They both use levels to describe how powerful a character is, but remember, a 10th level Sorcerer is going to be very different than a PL 10 MAge in M&M.
> 
> Also in regards to the differences, in M&M you can have someone be strong enough to lift a 25,000 ton ship on PL 10.
> 
> ...




Actually, I'm pretty you can carry 25,000 tons as a heavy load with a Strength under 110.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 17, 2010)

Thanks, but I'm not really thinking heavy load. I believe they are different things in the two games as well.

But the point still stands.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Feb 17, 2010)

I propose that we all play and enjoy the games we like and however we interpret these games, as we all see it, is the correct view for each individual person.  So, two people may not agree, but that doesn't mean that one or the other is wrong.  Just two sides to the coin, but both are right.

Now we can all get along, sing kum-ba-yah, make some smores over a campfire, and play a game of BASH: UE, which is better than both M&M and HERO system so there


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 17, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I believe they are different things in the two games as well.



Then you're incorrect.

The carrying capacity tables for 3.0 D&D and Mutants and Masterminds are exactly the same.  The load progression formulas are exactly the same.  M&M was courteous enough to throw up a second table that contains common values possible via the Super-Strength power, and that's all the difference.

Whatever strength you need to do something in M&M is the same as the strength required in 3.x D&D.  So, a Strength 390 D&D fighter (with flight boots) could push around an Earth-sized planet.  He'd do so at 5 ft per round, but he can do it.  At Strength 405 he can pull an Atlas and lift an Earth-sized planet over his head.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 17, 2010)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I propose that we all play and enjoy the games we like and however we interpret these games, as we all see it, is the correct view for each individual person.  So, two people may not agree, but that doesn't mean that one or the other is wrong.  Just two sides to the coin, but both are right.
> 
> Now we can all get along, sing kum-ba-yah, make some smores over a campfire, and play a game of BASH: UE, which is better than both M&M and HERO system so there




No, being right is serious business. And as for me, I'm not really interested in learning new rpg systems anymore. I've been playing since 1980 and am just frustrated that once you learn the official rules it all has to change again because some people aren't satisfied with them and have to make a big stink. 

After all, being right shows that I care more about rules than anybody else, and that's what it's all about.



And VHG is right, the carrying capacity tables are the same for both books.

But I still can't find this alleged formula for how they determined what the carrying capacity is.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Feb 17, 2010)

Quantum said:


> But I still can't find this alleged formula for how they determined what the carrying capacity is.




I didn't mean to imply that the _entire_ table was formulaic.  But once the base values (i.e. Strength 10 and all values within 4 points of it) were established, the increases are extremely formulaic.

Every +5 strength is x2 capacity.  +10 is x4, and +40 is x256.  You just need the base capacities listed for Strength's 1 to 14 and you're good.  And no, I don't know why the designers don't follow the formula for strength scores between 1 and 14.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 19, 2010)

I just wanted to say that I find it more than a little odd that the focus of the discussion has become "is M&M a level based game?" Is there something wrong with that (either way) that I've somehow missed? Does it make any difference in how M&M deals with the super hero genre?

The only way I can see this level discussion as having any real relevance is based on the Power Level Limits. M&M has a hard cap on attacks/saves/defenses based on the games power level, while Hero does not (it has a range of active points/damage class caps). 

As someone who's played both games quite a bit, these caps do have an important meaning in M&M, and it's not always one I've liked. If an attack does greater than average damage, it's going to be less likely to hit. If a character is harder to hit, he's going to be correspondingly easier to hurt. That symmetry based on Power Level is something that's a strong feature of M&M, and also something I'd wish was less locked into the game.

On the other hand, I wish Hero had _more_ of it built in, so you'd have a better balance between a brick character doing more damage, but perhaps being less likely to hit. I guess I'm doomed to never be perfectly satisfied, but such is life.

Still...is M&M a level based game? Uh, who cares?


----------



## Elric (Feb 19, 2010)

SteveC said:


> As someone who's played both games quite a bit, these caps do have an important meaning in M&M, and it's not always one I've liked. If an attack does greater than average damage, it's going to be less likely to hit. If a character is harder to hit, he's going to be correspondingly easier to hurt. That symmetry based on Power Level is something that's a strong feature of M&M, and also something I'd wish was less locked into the game.




Allowing PCs to have +1 offensive/defensive PL and -1 in the other would help differentiate characters a little more.  All-Out Attack and Defensive Attack do this to an extent, but a character like Cyclops isn't purposefully leaving himself open all the time; he just has stronger offense than defense.  At +-1, this certainly wouldn't be unbalancing if you don't let the character pair it with All-Out Attack/Defensive Attack to accentuate the character's strengths.  

This way Cyclops might have +10 Attack, 12 damage (PL 11 offensive abilities), and +11 Defense/+7 Toughness (PL 9 defensive abilities).  If you went to +2 PLs on offense and -2 on defense he could get to, say, +12 Attack, 12 damage, +10 Defense, +6 Toughness- but that's as far as I'd consider allowing (since any further and you're accomplishing more than you could with AOA or DA).  

Note that there's no requirement that an NPC be the same PL on offense and defense, so this issue never arises.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2010)

SteveC said:


> On the other hand, I wish Hero had _more_ of it built in, so you'd have a better balance between a brick character doing more damage, but perhaps being less likely to hit.




I think that depends upon the way people design their PCs.  Most starting PC bricks, IME, have low to average OCVs (and DCVs)...sometimes half of what true combat masters/martial artists have.

I was running a martial arts HERO campaign (w/normal human stat limits) that featured an interesting illustration of this.  In the great tournament, we had a Kogo, a big, superhumanly strong (25 Str) thug square off against an old, blind martial arts master, Wing.

Master Wing's high OCV and DCV enabled him to land blows virtually at will while evading Kogo's powerful but clumsy strikes.  His saffron robes and long white hair were untouched by the stumbling brute.  His staff kept Kogo's broken glass & tape wrapped knuckles at bay.






Well, until the one hit that ended the fight, that is.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 19, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> His staff kept Kogo's broken glass & tape wrapped knuckles at bay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But isn't that how it is like in most systems? The same thing routinely happened in a Heroes Unlimited game I once GMed .  The non bricks could hit the badguy but not do damage and the Brick couldn't hit the badguy but was able to insane damage when if he hit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2010)

Yes & no.

Depending on your system mastery, your PC design and goals, and the campaign constraints, its perfectly possible- even EASY- to design a brick PC who has high OCVs and DCVs.

Just for giggles, he could have learned martial arts himself- some of those maneuvers will boost OCV or DCV.  Or perhaps his "brick"-ness or his bonuses to OCV/DCV are situational- powers, chemicals, spells, surges, charges, etc.

I mean, in HERO, its possible to build a facsimile of _Superman_ on 250 points if you're willing to have a PC who is über for just a couple of seconds, 1 time per day.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 19, 2010)

> I just wanted to say that I find it more than a little odd that the focus of the discussion has become "is M&M a level based game?" Is there something wrong with that (either way) that I've somehow missed? Does it make any difference in how M&M deals with the super hero genre?




Being right is serious business.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 19, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I just wanted to say that I find it more than a little odd that the focus of the discussion has become "is M&M a level based game?" Is there something wrong with that (either way) that I've somehow missed? Does it make any difference in how M&M deals with the super hero genre?



It could -- probably will, in fact -- make a difference (either way) to someone reading this thread, looking for a superhero game to play.

When (most) people think level-based, they think about games like D&D, in which you progress upward in level, gaining specific capabilities (many dependent upon class).  Some people like level-based games (I do), and some people don't.

Calling M&M a level-based game, when so many people share the definition of level-based above, is giving people bad information.  M&M is a point-based game, one that happens to use the term "Power Level" to describe the overall, uh, power level of the campaign, and that's information that is likely to be useful to people looking for a new game to play.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 19, 2010)

I think it is a useful and important distinction. On a scale of 1 to 5:

1 Aberrant d20, Heroes Unlimited, some kind of d20 plug-in like Four Colors to Fantasy
2 M&M (point-based, but hard limits), BESM d20 (hard level-based, but with fewer caps)
3 DC Universe (basically point-based, no discrete levels, but with caps and significant soft limits)
4 Hero (no discrete levels, somewhat scaled with significant soft limits), GURPS (no discrete limits, not scaled, but with suggested soft limits)
5 Marvel Super Heroes (no levels of any kind, no scaling, no limits)


----------



## Wrathamon (Feb 20, 2010)

you heard about this one?

ICv2 - New Superhero RPG


----------



## Fallstorm (Aug 14, 2010)

Having tried both MnM and HERO I would definately go with MnM.  I started with the Hero 5 and Have played Hero 6e and I have found the complications and number crunching in the system to not be worth the final pay-off.  This isn't so much of a problem as I am a power gamer who likes rules.  Secondly, and my major grip with Hero is the powers in the system are too expensive therefore if the intent of the game is to replicate what is seen in comics then the system on its face fails.  I mean, from some of the builds I've seen on the HERO boards even supers like Spider-Man and Batman are fall into the Cosmic level power category, and this simply should not be the case.  Basically, I would say the HERO system is best for replicating street level heroes....if you play the game at the standard superhero level of 200 pts plus disads.  If you actually play HERO as the various power levels indicated it seems your HERO is always running behind what the power level is supposed to represent.  

I have not found this problem in MnM.  In fact, MnM seems to be built with the philosophy of allowing the characters at PL10 (the starting PL) to do almost anything seen in comics, even things that are blatantly broken, but with caveat that the GM can deal with it in game via GM fiats or house rules vs making so expensive that it is impossible to do.  Also, the power feats and stunts in MnM is good for handling those abilities that Supers have but very rarely use.  In addition, it is a system that has a lot of crunch to it (for those of us who enjoy such things) just not as much Crunch as HERO, but the combat remains relatively fast and elegent....just like in the comic books.

I never played the actual CHAMPIONS game before it became HERO so some of the systems problems may stem from the fact that it was a supers game that morphed into being a multigenre game and the mechanics of the multigenre don't work as well for a supers game and vice versa.  MnM is still young so it doesn't have this problem as of it, but as it continues and I see supplements like Warriors and Warlocks coming out they may at some point have the MnM engine be a multignere system with MnM specificallly being the supers system and then they will have the same problem HERO has, but hopefully, they will never get to that point and remain true to the superhero genre, which Steve Kenson has evidently studied greatly and designed MnM to duplicate almost flawlessly.

Peace,
Fallstorm


----------



## scorpionx1 (Jul 28, 2012)

Fallstorm. Thanks for getting back on topic. 

I have only played HERO and love it, however I am finding it hard to get a hold of their books as they are out of stock at the brick and mortar stores. M&M no problem to find though. HERO is soon coming out with a new rule book called Champions Complete.  We will see what that is like!

I just grabbed a copy of M&M 3rd and am reading through it now. I can say it is only loosely d20 so far which is a good thing. Powers list and descriptions look similar to HERO but haven't gone through it much. I believe it is less flexible on my first scan through. 

HERO combat is not all that bad, maybe a bit long but can be a lot of fun. And comical too(as in funny). I remember a speedster constantly knocking himself out. Knockback is a particularly fun mechanic so much so that I built a character that had double knockback for a few attacks. 

Haven't played M&M yet so probably not the best opinion.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 31, 2012)

pawsplay said:


> I think it is a useful and important distinction. On a scale of 1 to 5:
> 
> 1 Aberrant d20, Heroes Unlimited, some kind of d20 plug-in like Four Colors to Fantasy
> 2 M&M (point-based, but hard limits), BESM d20 (hard level-based, but with fewer caps)
> ...



*
Can you explain the difference between "hard" and "soft" limits?* Also ignoring limits is much easier than to add them to a system 

I also thing it doesn't belong in the same line as BESM d20.

Having a power limit cap is a feature, not a flaw IMHO. It removes "one power wonders" that concentrate building points in one attack and ignore the rest. HERO had (in some incarnations) something like this, if I'm not badly mistaken, too. (At least the FUZION hybrid had them.)

---

BTW 
Marvel Super Heroes (no levels of any kind, no scaling, no limits, *no point buy character generation*)
I feel very much limited by playing existing characters with no possibility of customization or a randomly rolled one.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jul 31, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> *
> Can you explain the difference between "hard" and "soft" limits?* Also ignoring limits is much easier than to add them to a system
> 
> ---
> ...




I'd like an answer to this Hard and Soft Limits thing also.

Now... if I was Hulk I'd Hulk Smash you to Planet Hulk for these here fighting words about MHR. 

This game gives you the ultimate customization of your character. And there is a random roll character generation on the Margaret Weis website.

I don't know any other game that can let me have as much freedom to make my own character and have it be workable alongside the entire cast of the Marvel Universe.


----------



## Corathon (Jul 31, 2012)

Which system is better is just a matter of taste. I have played both and prefer HERO.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 31, 2012)

Let's discuss MHR in another thread 
But note that I have the random option already in my post.
And for the second question: FASARIP 

But to make things short, I just like more classic systems for my superhero RPG. But I like Leverage that uses the Cortex Plus system (Smallville not so much).

---

On a different note, BESM d20 has a classless variant included with the revised edition, and as a free download (p 14f):
BESM d20 Revised Optional Rules


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 31, 2012)

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 31, 2012)

I have to point out that the PL cap on attack and damage is pretty flexible when feats are taken into account. If I were to do Cyclops in M&M, I'd probably give him Power Attack and All-Out Attack, and dump his defense and Attack for damage. At PL 10 I could easily be tossing out 15 dc energy bursts...at a cost of having a defense of 5.

One thing I like  and dislike about M&M is that compared to Hero utility  and movement powers are really cheap. For example, if I wanted the flight capability of an F-16 in Hero, it would be damn expensive (around 76 points); the same capability in M&M is maybe 10 points. The disadvantage is it makes low level movement of the "I run a little faster than the average" type hard to do, when twice normal apparel oid only 1 point. Of course M&M is much less oriented towards needing a hex grid, so exaggerated movement rates are less of a problem than in Hero.


----------

