Bront's Forums

Champions (HERO system) maybe, but M&M 2.0 is by far the best superhero system I've ever played and does a good job feeling non-D&D while using a simplistic D20 system (True20 was later spawned from it).

M&M works because you can set the power limits easily, and that would be good for the way Heroes is set up.  A low PL to start, with developing PL as the game progresses and people learn how to use their powers.

How was it too limiting?

I've had some experience with the system, so I can probably explain it well.

The power levels are simply a number that's set to balance powers accross the board.  You can still play games with the numbers to tweek your defense vs damage taking, your accuracy vs damage, and powers are insanely mutable.

Yeah the powers weren't its weak point.  I don't remember the exact numerology involved, but it worked something like this.  Lets say power level 5 limits you to a max fortitude save of +5.  and a max con of 20.  There would be no point in putting any of your build points into your fort if you gave yourself a 20 con.  Likewise the same went for your attack bonus, in fact, every single derived stat had this same pathetic arbitrary limit placed on it based on your characters level.  And that leads me to its second largest flaw.  A level based superhero system just doesn't capture the feel of too many comics.  Any system that can have a 1st level superman that can get his ass kicked in a fistycuffs with a 20th level Lex Luthor, just isn't doing the genre justice.

You haven't played 2.0, which doesn't have atributes added to attacks (beyond grapple).

Also, it's power level, not level.  You can be a Power level 3 person with 250 power points (Lex Luthor isn't a bad example), or a Power Level 10 character with 100 points.  The result is not just how much power you can have in general, but powers are limited by the power level.

There is not set level advancement either.

It sounds like you haven't realy looked at the system raistlin, as most of your criticisms were either addressed in 2nd ed, or never existed.  You're assuming D20 = level system = D&D, which is not the case in M&M 2.0.

I'll have to look at my character sheet again, but i'm pretty sure its 2nd edition.

Well, let me be among the first to say, that with proper gm involvement, (ie not min/maxing off of the deep end), i really really like the serenity system. Almost as much as the Coda system. Which will be almost as cool as DQ4th edition..when it comes out...

Ok, my sheet doesn't say 2nd ed or 2.0 anywhere but it does say at the bottom "copywrite 2005 Green Ronin Publishing LLC.  So i'm assuming its 2nd ed., or else they've had 1st and 2nd ed out within 2 years of each other.  Now I'm looking at my sheet and i have an attack bonus of +5, a ranged attack of +5, and a melee attack of +5.  Did I have to purchase all three of these seperately?  (I don't remember and I don't have a book)  Otherwise what would be the point of listing three attack types when they are all going to be the same thing anyway?  Even if That is the case, your saves and defense still have a level based cap on its total modifier.  It seems only initiative doesn't have this restriction on it.  As far as the powers go it did seam to have a lot of options, but as far as the rest of the numbers go, its just too limiting and inflexible.  I realize you've had a lot of fun with it, but how much of that was because of the guy running it.  Reid is a VERY capable GM, able to create a fun experience for his players even with the most inferior game systems.  I'd wager I'd have fun even if he ran a 4th ed Shadowrun.  The old marvel system had just as much flexibility with its powers, and didn't have the limited feeling with the rest of it that m&m has.  And the Paladium systems still have the level based flaws inherent in that system as i'm sure Silver-age Sentinel has as well.  (I've never looked at it but if its a d20 level based system, I don't see how they could avoid it)  And then there is Champions, which, its a toss up between which one i'd rather play; Champions or Amber.  (sorry Scott)  Which as far as I know, only leaves the antiquated Marvel Superhero system, which is archaic.  I was hoping there was something newer and better out, by now, perhaps by some small company i've never heard of, but it doesn't appear to be so.  Thanks for everyones input.  And as for DQ 4th ed, I think we have to break into their vault and steal the rights before that happens.  ANYBODY WITH ME??

Hmmm.  I had to think about this one for a while.  I don't mean to be evasive with my thoughts, I just haven't had a lot of practice lately organizing my thoughts in a medium where others need to read and understand me.  (which is very difficult because i sometimes can't even put my finger on exactly what my opinion is)  So I will endeavor to improve my brain to paper ability.

 Let me start by saying i've been gaming for nearly 25 years.  I cut my teeth on d&d and the first couple years i soley played d&d.  When i was 10, I got the red basic boxed set of d&d, which spawned my first jaunt into DM-ing.  I had to corral all my friends into playing with me and at first, (as you can imagine for a 10 year old) my campaigns were very monty haul.  However i'm a fast learner and quickly learned how to maintain balance in a campaign to allow my players to continue to have fun indefinitely, which allowed my to form some gaming buddies that lasted through my high school years, and even a few beyond. 

Now, I realize we have all had bad experiences in d&d, but I feel lucky to have missed out on a lot of common problems typical gaming groups have had.  I would say that my positive experiences with d&d far outway the bad.  Even though I've learned many other systems, I'd still say morethan half of my gaming has been done in d&d.  Even though i may be a little rusty, I would consider myself a rules expert in 1st and 2nd ed ad&d.  I'm a little weak in 3.0, and i'm getting there in 3.5.  I don't mean to sound condescending, but I have had ALOT of experience in the d20 system.  I would consider myself to be versed enough to form educated opinions on d20.   Now that thats out of the way let me say that there is only one thing inherent in d&d that I dislike, and that is that your experience is based more on killing monsters than on anything else.  Other than that, there is nothing i dislike about the system out of context. 

Notice I said "out of context". Let me explain.  When I sit down and want to play Star Wars, I want to play STAR WARS.  Not somebodies balanced version of what they think sStar Wars should be.  The Star Wars universe is Not balanced, by any stretch of the inagination.  No non force user in the universe stood a chance against Vader and the Emperor, thats why they were in power for around 20 years.  Until Luke built up the chaps to be able to take on his father.  (sorry about the spoiler in case someone hasn't seen it)  The d6 Star Wars did an exceptional job conveying the feeling of the movies into a role playin game.  However, you need an experienced GM who can maintain certain levels of balance and enough insight into his players to only allow the right people to play jedi characters.  Ones who are not lime light seeking glory hogs who will destroy the game for all involved. 

Now back to the "out of context".  The greatest strenght of d&d is also its greatest weakness.  As a level based system, it does a great job telling the story of The Lord of the Rings, where you have a 20th level character (like, lets say Aragorn) who can mow through hundreds of orks without breaking a sweat.  And that stays true to the world of middle earth.  With d20, you can recreate an authentic middle earth feeling game that stays true to the flavor of the books that you've read.  Now, there are some settings that just do not fit into the limits of that kind of system.  They have tried to move away from the hit point system in the d20 but most of the offshoots are unable to get away from its inherent flaws.  I will use Star Wars d20 and Stargate as examples.  Every time in the shows or the movie, when someone is hit by a staff blast, they are either down for the count or dead.  Enter d20, a staff blast does 6d6 dmg that a mid level character would be able to shrug off and continue fighting.  Similarly, lightsabers cut off limbs, cut through metal, it would have killed Vader when Luke hit him had he not used the force to reduce the damage.  Again in d20 (I don't remember what the exact numbers are) even a low level character can survive a hit without any long term effects, definitely not condusive to an authentic feel of Star Wars. 

The d20 system is by far not the most fexible or versitile of game systems.  Again it comes back to being a level based system which forces you to progress along certain paths.  Some classes may advance more slowly in combat ability in liue of other benefits, but you are still forced to raise your attack bonus and saves and such.  True versatility and customization come from skill based systems, such as Shadowrun, Star Wars d6, Storyteller, L5R, and on and on.  Even DQ.  Part of what I like about the DQ system is its "realism" over a false sense of balance that a lot of games place a priority on.  If you want a more "fantastic" feeling fantasy game, play d&d, it does that really well.  If you want a more "realistic" fantasy game, I haven't found a better one than DQ.  I realize its got its own flaws, and one is i've always felt magic is in its very nature fantastic, and the DQ magic system i've felt is very dry.  With the new rules implemented by Verne in Shadow of the Dragon and the pentat in the Dragon Isles, magic is becoming just as tactical as the combat system, which fires me up and is the main reason i'm playing a mage this time around.  In a skill based system you don't have to advance in any combat skill or ability if you do not wish to, enabling you to rely on role playing or any other abilities your character may have.  It gives you complete control over how your character end up.  Isn't that true versatility and customization? 

So, to finally get to your questions, I don't think you should be able to blow all your points an a single stat or ability, but if you are going to arbitrarily place limits on your bonuses, you should place them on the base modifier and not the total modifier.  If lets say at 5th level you can't have a stat above 20, that is a max modifier of +5.  And then to say that you cannot hane a total fortitude modifier higher than +5, why would anybody put points in the more expensive one and not just max out the cheaper one.  Why not keep the 20 max stat cap and say you can't have a higher BASE fortitude modifier than +5.  Then your not putting an artificial limit on the total modifier and its not like you can have infinite fort saves or anything because you are already at a +10 max before taking into accout feats or powers.  Even if someone could then torgue all the bad guys with his super duper blastomatic power, he would probably have some major flaws that would prove his downfall by some intelligent and enterpriseng villain if he were not with some more balanced heroes.  Sounds like a good story. 

Now, I'm looking at m&m "out of a context".  If we use it for the marvel example you gave below, it would do a poor job conveying that world because Wolverine and Cyclops aren't meant to be a balanced fight, like most of the marvel superheroes.  There are just some superheroes that would kick others butts on any day of the week.  And that is marvel, and probably dc also.  Looking at m&m from an out of context stand point, I think it does do a good job balancing each character against one onother, which is its flaw when placed in the context of a Heroes RPG, because Peter and Sylar are just on a completely different level than the others.  So my main gripe with the system I would say is the ill concieved total modifier limit, which seems poorly thought out and actually limits a lot of your versatility in creating a character, at least as far as the end result total modifiers go.  So what you end up with is characters with the same modifiers and different powers.  To me that seemed way to cheesy. I too would consider myself to have a high level of game balance ability in my campaign design and GM-ing (just ask someone whos played with me) which is why I can see better ways to maintain a balance in the campaign than what they came up with.  It just rubbed me the wrong way.

I wouldn't say I have any predisposition against the d20 systems, I am just acutely aware of its strenghts and weaknesses.  In fact, I am still playing in a number of d&d games, 2 of which I am running.  But I have found that the d20 system is a poor conveyence for anything beyond a fantasy setting.  The more modern and futuristic you get, the more rooted in realism the genres become, and the poorer d20 does of conveying the proper feeling that should be there.  A big one I remember is in the game of Alternity, where a singularity gun (which creates a localized singularity to dispatch your foes) did a measley couple of dice if damage.  (yeah fucking right!!!  no living thing on this planet or any other would survive such an ordeal.  No save, do not pass go, do not collect $200!)  The SG-1 system really tried to change a lot of what the d20 system is, and did a fairly good job of conveying the feel of the Stargate universe (with a couple glaring exceptions) so much so that I felt it worth the 50 bones i had to lay down to get it.  I'm still happy with it, and if I were to play or run an SG-1 game, it would be the d20.  Well, hopefully I have accurately conveyed my thoughts on the whole d20 thing and i hope it is fairly straight forward and easy to understand.  If i didn't convey myself clearly or completely, let me know, for I am still new to this whole post thing.  I am much more able to convey my thoughts in person for I have had much more expereince in that medium.  I value and appreciate all of your input thus far, I think that it is just the fact that the designers placed arbitrary limits on the total modifiers which just rubs my rhubarb the wrong way.  I think that was at the core of what I was trying to convey in my last post.  Let me know if you have any further questions, thanks buddie.
TV

Please allow me to address your remarks before I tackle your points.  First and foremost, I may well be misunderstanding much of the mechanics of the game.  The campaign I've created a character for is being run at my buddies house in Sugar Grove and is relatively new.  (like within the last few months)  I have not actually played as of yet, as conflicts with my woman's schedule or kiddie problems have caused me to miss each of the games thus far.  So I only have an understanding of the character generation rules for now, being thats all I read while I had the book to create my dude. 
#1) Yeah, but hit points weren't the only thing wrong with Star Wars d20.  And I don't see them ever moving d&d away from the hit point system.
#2) I've just reviewed my last post, and being as careful as I was, I still don't see where and how you came away with the conclusion that I said m&m is a level based system like d&d.  I didn't even start talking about m&m until the second to last paragraph.  (thanks by the way, its a lot easier to read now  )  From what i got from my post, I stated that you have a total modifier cap based on your characters power level.  And my understanding, as you gain points, the rules suggest that the campaigns level be increased every 15 points gained or so.  So I never said it was level based system, only that it had level based caps on your total modifiers.  (which it does)  So i'm not understanding where your confusion on that is stemming from, perhaps you could elaborate a little further on that.  I realize I still may not be completely able to convey what my thoughts on the subject are via electronic.  If I had you sitting next to me, a book, and a scratch piece of paper, I would be able to show you exactly what i meant.  (you gonna be at Perkins for Memorial day, or you got other plans?)  From what I understand, its not even a d20 system, its more like a true 20 system, using only d20s.  (thanks for the clarification Scott)  But I haven't even gotten that far yet, all I've been focusing on is character gen.
#3) In my opinion, I think players tend to like an authentic feel for the game they play to be true to the established world they are playing in.  In the absebce of a setting based game, I beleive there are an equal or so amount of people who prefer realism over balance and vise versa.  In my opinion the games that have are relatively balanced while still allowing a player that wants to to min/max, is going to sell the most copies.  Thats the beauty of gaming, there may be some gamers who like one type of game system over the other, and those who like the other over the one.  Well SG-1 is about to start, got to go...

on #1) Although I understand what you are saying logically, from a players point of view, it is difficult to break away from the concept that when you are half down on hit points, you are half way to death.  When your down to single digits, you have been beaten within an inch of your life, and when you are at 0, your unconsiuos.  And at -1 you are bleeding and dying.  So I understand that in a fantasy setting hit points are a combination of trading blows and wearing down your opponent until finally you are able to deliver the cinimatic final blow that drops your foe.  The hit point system lacks a good feeling of realism but it makes combat easy to run and play and lends itself well to a fantasy setting .  Now in a modern or sci-fi setting is where the hit point system completely breaks down.  You can't wear your opponent down with laser weapons and staff blasts.  The feel in the show is you get hit with a staff, your down or dead.  So as fluffy as the designers would like to make that arguement, that line of thinking just cannot apply out of the fantasy genres.  Personally, I like it for the fantasy settings that need  the feel of a single powerful character that can wade through lesser folk easily.  However i also like the realistic combat of DQ where no matter how cool you are if you go up against 100 orks, you're going DOWN.  I like both, it all depends on what mood i'm in as to which i'd rather play at any given moment.  At times I like the fantastic feel of being able to acomplish amazing feats of combat, and at others I like the realism of a well though out realistic game.  Sometimes i'm willing to trade balance for those things and at others I need a balanced system to properly tell the story I want to tell.  I don't think that makes me any less of a gamer, in fact I consider myself to be a capable enough gamer to be able to have fun under a vast array of systems.  Especially with cool people at the gaming table with me.

on #2) Sorry if I was confusing on this one, but all throughout character creation, the limits imposed on where you spend your points are based on your campaigns level and is evident throught the generation process.  For me, I can't speak for any other gamers (there sure are a lot out there, but I'm pretty sure i know what I like) but for me, half of the fun of any particular game system is how fun its character generation system is.  There are games out there that I am just as content to sit down and crank out a couple of characters as I am to sit down and play it.  And its not anything against the play of the game system, just that its that much fun to make characters for it.  I don't know if that makes me some sort of weirdo or freak gamer, but there are some systems with so many options and so many different ways you can take any particular character that I have great fun fleshing them all out.  The game systems I really like are the ones that are just as much fun to play as they are to make the characters for.  Perhaps m&m is a system i would have great fun playing one I get past my dislikes of the generation process.  If it didn't sound interesting to me and come so highly recommended by so many gamers I respect (you being one of them) I probably would have been turned off of the whole system just based on my dislikes of its character generation.  I still look forward to playing in our home game and hope to be able to make the next scheduled game.  (I don't too much care for playing pre-gens, so i'm not likely to jump into any con style games)

on #3) I think the average gamer wants it all.  But that game system does not yet exist.  If it did, it would make all others obsolete and a lot of companies would be out of business.  Some people swear by GURPS, but i've always felt it a little too simplistic.  I've actually broken down game systems on a grid based on what i believe to be the two trade offs that game systems make when it is designed.  Most game systems strive to be balanced so that is not exactly one of the things traded off to acieve something else. (there is always DQ to make that statement wrong, but that is pretty much the only one that has taken its realism at the cost of balance, at least as the core 3rd rules are concerned.  The changes Verne and the Pentat continue to incorporate make it an intriguing (my spelling sucks) system to continue to game in)  The two main beasts that games trade off with are realism vs playability with realism on the x axis and playability on the y axis.  So in quadrant 1 you have the game systems that are low on realism and low on playability.  (ie. 1st ed AD&D)  In the second quadrant you have game systems with a high amount of realism and a low amount of playability.  (ie. RoleMaster)  In the third quadrant you have the games that have a high degree of realism and playability.  (ie. DQ.  At its heart it is a fairly simple and straight forward system to use.  its combat rules only take up a few pages out of the book and there isn't much more to it than that.  Of course all the changes made have made it a great deal more complex, but i'm not exactly complaining.)  And in the fourth quadrant we have the game systems with a low degree of realism and a high degree of playability.  (ie. Star Wars d6)  I don't see any other way to look at it.  Now, I don't think any quadrant is better than any other, it just depends on which will most accurately convey the proper feeling of the story you are wanting to tell or wich will convey the right feel of a setting that determines which one would be most appropriate for the campaign.  (btw, you made a reference to a C&C game, what is that?)

There are quite a few games that I have no complaints with.  There is so much to chose from out there that there is probably a game for everyone.  (I beleive EVERYONE has an inner gamer, it's just some people deny it more than others)  The only reason I've continued to game for almost 25 years is when I get burned out on d20, there is so much still out there to do, your inner gamer just can't get bored.  Of the nearly 25 years of my gaming life [except a 2 year hiatus (read x-girlfreind) where I only games 4 times, the 2 gencons and 2 vernecons within the time frame]  gaming has always been a large part of my life. The last sentence in your 5th paragraph I think hits the nail on the head.  D20 does a great job for fantasy games, but it just falls apart in modern and sci-fi genres compared to whats out there.  I don't think m&m fits into that though because it isn't really a d20 games as far as I understand it.  (which I admit is very limited for now, to just the character gen rules)

 You said it (m&m) is easily abused, are you refering to after the game starts?  Because I just don't see that happening at the start with how they have written the character gen rules.  I've learned a good GM can balance pretty much anything if he knows what he is doing.  Its just somethin that comes with a lot of experience.

Thats funny you mention DQ as a tactical mini game with an rpg wrapped around it.  Thats exactly how d&d started, the game Chainmail with an rpg wraped around it.  Well, I know there is a lot obout the DQ system you don't like, now its the pentat (which now includes us) that can rework the things that you may feel are severely flawed to make it a better game for all those involved.  Even though the elusive 4th ed DQ may seam like a pipe dream right now, you never know what the future may hold.  Just look, the Sox won the world series and the Bears made it to the superbowl (with one of the sorriest QBs in the NFL) all in the same decade, maybe this is the decade for DQ. 

I'll probably pass on the pbp.  I've got enough d20 games on my plate at the moment and I've only played in 1 generic campaign setting in the last 8 years, not because I actively dislike them or anything, its just I prefer the history, background, and common frames of reference an established setting brings to the table.  Another big part of what makes or breaks a game for me is its setting.  Needless to say, I was quite happy when 3rd ed d&d shifted to Greyhawk from Forgotten Realms as its base setting, as i've never really liked FR and always liked Gh.  I know, I'm wierd. 

Man, you guys are cracking me up...
Tony...
seem-give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect.
       -appear to exist

seam-joint consisting of a line formed by joining two pieces
       -a slight depression in the smoothness of a surface
       -a stratum of ore or coal thick enough to be mined for profit.

Not picking on you, but you get more misspellings than anyone i have ever read after. Seem/seam looks like the one you repeat the most..
love you buddy
OK Bye!
d

Tony, I really do not think that Drew or anyone is trying to make fun of you, he is just trying to help you with your typing and spelling skills.

And Drew, if you were making fun of Tony...

    we know where you live   

Yes we are :P

But as someone in the same boat (bad speller), use Firefox 2 or get the google toolbar and run the spell checker.  It helps.

You'll get better as you type more too.

They have a Firefox 2?  I haven't even beat the first game yet.  Is it available for PS2 or PC?

Whats the MAO stand for?