For me the system borders on genius. But i'm unconvinced, especially as it's geared to existing marvel characters and requires a lot of building of dice pools on the fly.

How effective is the initiative system?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;584720For me the system borders on genius. But i'm unconvinced, especially as it's geared to existing marvel characters and requires a lot of building of dice pools on the fly.

How effective is the initiative system?

The initiative system seems good. Its a simple change up from the usual method and the ability to "pass on" initiative definitely played a part in that scene building interplay that they seemed to enjoy a lot.

As for the dice pool system, this is probably the core of the game's appeal but also its most divisive mechanic. Some players just constantly struggle to take into account multiple factors into every roll. Some players have no issue whatsoever and for these players the activity itself heightens the experience for them. Things that I like about it is that:

1. It constantly encourages playing your PC in character (carrot) but without the need for a mechanic to enforce it (stick), which I tend to dislike.
2. It removes all need for modifiers from external factors -coordination with other people, areas of related knowledge, terrain etc. Everything involved in a scene is right there on the player's character sheet allowing them to make informed choices.

Surely some modifiers from external factors can't be accounted for on character sheet, such as environmental issues that arise within the combat itself.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;584985Surely some modifiers from external factors can't be accounted for on character sheet, such as environmental issues that arise within the combat itself.

Sure, sort of. Scene distinctions, the Doom Pool and an opponent's stress aren't on the character sheet. But the overall the level of player awareness of their options and what effects those options is very high in MHR. Those off the sheet factors are few and transparenr, so there is no need to refer to either the rulebook or GM's call. This makes gameplay tactical but fast.

In a weird way it seems a bit counter intuitive to allow players to chuck everuything and the kitchen sink into their dice pools. That instead they might be rewarded by being more efficient: risking a smaller pool somehow.

Does that make any sense?

Quote from: Silverlion;569051I guess for me I want the player to talk in character, do things in character, and decide actions in character that fit the mechanics.

You can play it like that, except that you then make the mechanics fit with the character's actions. Some things do require looking a bit sideways and being meta (like distinctions) but it is very possible to play it more or less like any other RPG once you learn the rules. I personally found it less storygamey and less meta than FATE (which I loathe). Once the dice actually hit the table, everything is pretty smooth. It's getting to the point where you roll them that could stand some smoothing out.

The big problem is the learning curve for the game is steep and it's really a jargony ruleset with tons of special terms for things that probably don't need them. Learning to play the game from the book is like trying to learn a specialized language, and it's worse if you actually use the jargon at the table. .

Oh and milestones suck balls, they're total storygamey elements which leave me entirely cold. Fortunately, you can just remove them without it changing anything important.

Overall, I think it has potential, but the metagame elements still irk me even as GM. As a player, I think I'd have more issue with it, but I think with a little work, it's salvageable.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;586837In a weird way it seems a bit counter intuitive to allow players to chuck everuything and the kitchen sink into their dice pools. That instead they might be rewarded by being more efficient: risking a smaller pool somehow.

Does that make any sense?

Players can't chuck everything into their die pool. If they can't reasonably justify it to the GM, you can't use it. And the more die you roll, the better chance you have of adding some 1's to the doom pool.

What rules does the game offer for GM's in how to use doom pools in a balanced way and not just fuck the player over by throwing everything at him in one roll.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;586837In a weird way it seems a bit counter intuitive to allow players to chuck everuything and the kitchen sink into their dice pools. That instead they might be rewarded by being more efficient: risking a smaller pool somehow.

Does that make any sense?

Definitely. I struggled with it too to start, but the players didn't and when running for a young group they are what counts. Being more experienced I can adapt.

The idea has become easier for me over time and I have seen it used for good effect in terms of comic book emulation where situations often incorporate multiple elements. It removes a single long scale of power with a shorter but wider one, if that makes sense. This helpgeist reflect the fungible nature of superhero power, allowing superheros that should be out of their league still participate or compete but in different ways. All in all, good stuff

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;587188What rules does the game offer for GM's in how to use doom pools in a balanced way and not just fuck the player over by throwing everything at him in one roll.

Not sure I understand the question.  The Doom Pool is balanced through play as it increases when the PCs gain resources i.e. PP. If you want to spend it all on one roll, you can but then it diminishes, so there is a serious cost for the Watcher. As a player, sucking up the DP should feel like contributing as you are helping to diffuse the overall tension and challenge of a scene, even in failure.

Quote from: Skywalker;587309Not sure I understand the question.  The Doom Pool is balanced through play as it increases when the PCs gain resources i.e. PP. If you want to spend it all on one roll, you can but then it diminishes, so there is a serious cost for the Watcher. As a player, sucking up the DP should feel like contributing as you are helping to diffuse the overall tension and challenge of a scene, even in failure.

I'm not sure I understand either. My comprehension of this game is a bit schizoid; sometimes i get it and it sounds awesome, other times...not.

I would like to play it, because I think that would make sense of a lot of things. But again the lack of dedicated chargen is a bummer. Either that or I want to play Galactus, or Silver Surfer (seriously), or Dr Strange. Neither of them are statted, unlike in the MHSAGA game I still own, despite somehow disposing of the fucking cards!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;588606I would like to play it, because I think that would make sense of a lot of things. But again the lack of dedicated chargen is a bummer. Either that or I want to play Galactus, or Silver Surfer (seriously), or Dr Strange. Neither of them are statted, unlike in the MHSAGA game I still own, despite somehow disposing of the fucking cards!

Silver Surfer will appear in Annihiliation next month and Dr Strange is in Civil War.

The hardest part to grok about MHR, and maybe the part that leaves you in doubt, is the system quantifies the effect of actions and not so much the actions themselves. This is probably one of the largest paradigm shifts made in RPGs of late and it can be difficult to get comfortable with (Skill Challenges in 4e, leaving aside their mechanical issues and vitriol for that game, have the same conceptual shift).

Though the usual suspects chalk it up to "storygaming" I don't think its an accurate description. It is certainly a move from the mechanics modelling actions. The most positive result of this shift is IME that conflicts become more exciting and freeform as they are decided more by the decisions of players rather than just the GM. The second positive result IMO in terms of superheroes is that it makes the RPG so much easier to use and create stuff for. Superheroes are about unlimited possibilities, but the effect of those possibilities is usually a lot more limited. As such, the approach marries with the subject matter well.

I was also interested in a lot of this "how storygamey is it" stuff about MHR. I managed to get the author and Jeff Grubb (the writer on the original Marvel FASERIP game) to talk about it:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/06/marvel-two-in-one-cranium-crushin.html

Quote from: Zak S;588707I was also interested in a lot of this "how storygamey is it" stuff about MHR. I managed to get the author and Jeff Grubb (the writer on the original Marvel FASERIP game) to talk about it:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/06/marvel-two-in-one-cranium-crushin.html

Awesome interview.

Thanks!