Quote from: Skywalker;588678Silver 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).

Obviously I don't think it's a 'story game', not remotely.

But I'm unfamiliar with 4e/skill challenges and I'm not sure what you mean by quantifying the effect of actions (as opposed to the actions). You've lost me somewhat here.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;588718But I'm unfamiliar with 4e/skill challenges and I'm not sure what you mean by quantifying the effect of actions (as opposed to the actions). You've lost me somewhat here.

In MHR, the system determines the effect of an action, but doesn't really sweat how that effect is created. So, binding up someone with webslinging is the same as grappling someone or freezing someone with ice.

The system doesn't go: "what are you doing? OK this is what you roll". It goes "what are you trying to acheive? OK this is what you roll". The focus on effect can be seen as shifting the view from out of the mind of the PC, which is why it can generate a story game tag for some. However, conventional RPGs have been doing this for years, as the primary purpose is to allow a greater range of action to have less mechanical effects, to simplify the system element.

From a supers POV, I like this as I don't feel the need to try and model everything a superhero can do. I just need to work out how much of an effect the PC has and then apply a few broad actions as to what the PC does to acheive it.

Edit: Also, this approach tends to make conflicts less reliant on GM discretion as the system is quantifying effects to a greater extent. Again, this is something that conventional RPGs too (doing damage) but MHR does so on a more macro level. As a player and a GM, I find I enjoy this in some games (normally where combat is a common feature in drama of the game) as it makes the conflict more competitive, makes choices made seem more important, and allows for things to be less predictable.

So how does the advise Uatu to manage the doom pool - ie what advice to play the game fairly and not just piss off the players.

I've ordered it. Not quite sure how Amazon has sourced it, but it's in the UK somehow.

Maybe the authors have been a bit sly with the not-chargen in this game: anyone with any game design nous or hobby experience understands how people lurve to kitbash stuff.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;588912Maybe the authors have been a bit sly with the not-chargen in this game: anyone with any game design nous or hobby experience understands how people lurve to kitbash stuff.

There is both random character generation and guidelines for freeform character generation. There is no points buy character generation though.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;588904So how does the advise Uatu to manage the doom pool - ie what advice to play the game fairly and not just piss off the players.

I am not sure what you mean here TBH. The Watcher can play the Doom Pool as hard as they want. The natural balance and flow of resources means that GM dickery would be a bad idea.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;588904So how does the advise Uatu to manage the doom pool - ie what advice to play the game fairly and not just piss off the players.

The thing that impressed me about the way the doom pool and the dice all work in my two playtests of the game was that the game is self-balancing.

My first game, I threw a solo Emma Frost up against two Super Villains with a small group of thugs. In this game, I had a hard time getting and keeping Doom Dice, but Emma almost always had PlotPoints to spare.

My second game was Emma Frost teamed up with Spider-Man and her old flame Tony Stark vs two heavy hitter villains and a half dozen or so second-stringers. This time, I seemed to more dice and larger sized dice, although I had to spend them quickly to keep up with the heroes, and while players always seemed to have a few plotpoints, they were a bit of a tighter resource than in the solo game I played.

You see, the solo player got to do all the dice rolling in all the reactions, so despite just being the only character out there, she could hold her own against the bad guys, because she got alot more resources than I got few from her.

Whereas in the three player team, those plot points were more distributed across the players, giving them fewer options and a bit tighter of resource economy, but as I had three people rolling for actions, in addition to reactions, I had more chances to get an Opportunity and buy or step-up doom dice. But since I was rolling so many more reactions, I was also spending more dice to keep up. I eventually was able to end the scene (and the playtest) with 2d12, but by that time, it was obvious the heroes had won and it was a foregone conclusion anyways.

Quote from: Skywalker;589008I am not sure what you mean here TBH. The Watcher can play the Doom Pool as hard as they want. The natural balance and flow of resources means that GM dickery would be a bad idea.

Well, the GM has to consider playing adversarially. Not just playing the baddies, but considering actual strategies with the doom pool.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589059Well, the GM has to consider playing adversarially. Not just playing the baddies, but considering actual strategies with the doom pool.

I don't think so. In my experience it all flowed pretty organically. There is a bit of a resource management aspect, but its highly situational. If you just play naturally, it seems to work fine.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589059Well, the GM has to consider playing adversarially. Not just playing the baddies, but considering actual strategies with the doom pool.

Sure. However, the process is simple, so I don't really see the need for strategic advice. Most GMs will pick it up after a session.

Ok, now I have the book!

This is a weird feeling. I've been back and forth as to whether to buy this for a few months now. It's also something that i've not seen on sale in any shop at all, and i'm not even sure I can get the Civil War book (i imagine, from what I know of it) Fear Itself would be fun.

I was a bit disappointed with 40k in this sense: i thought there' dbe a ton of fansites/material on the web and I only know of one place (and it's a bit haphazard and not particularly enamoured of the FFG product). So it might be nice to get into all the fan made plot files/datafiles/events whatever, even if MWP could have chosen a more generically popular even other than 'breakout'.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589175Ok, now I have the book!

This is a weird feeling. I've been back and forth as to whether to buy this for a few months now. It's also something that i've not seen on sale in any shop at all, and i'm not even sure I can get the Civil War book (i imagine, from what I know of it) Fear Itself would be fun.

I was a bit disappointed with 40k in this sense: i thought there' dbe a ton of fansites/material on the web and I only know of one place (and it's a bit haphazard and not particularly enamoured of the FFG product). So it might be nice to get into all the fan made plot files/datafiles/events whatever, even if MWP could have chosen a more generically popular even other than 'breakout'.

Try http://exploring-infinity.com/2012/03/12/marvel-heroic-roleplaying-collected-miscellanies/

It has links to tons of resources.

This is interesting. For me, although i've been aware of 'these kinds' of rpg for a while now I've never owned onw, the most curious part is that they are a type of game where the rules are almost up to the players to create.
Of course it will be said games have always been DIY thanks to rule zero and the 'if you don't like x, get rid of it'. I've always felt that kind of presentation and approach, in more 'traditional' games (uh oh), basically sucked. I'm not against people houseruling (it's not like I can do anything about it anyway). Far from it. But it always felt a bit of a kludge and a bit of a cop out: stand by your ideas, or fix them, but don't waste my time giving me permission to do what I can do anyway.
But here we have games now where the players are endorsed mechanically to create things that actually add to the rules and the use thereof.

It's not all rosy: the game is clearly not intended for people who aren't au fait with the Marvel universe (unsurprisingly). There is zero discussion on any element of the setting outside of the event. There are no antagonists or rules to create any beyond the 'how to customise a datafile' section or the antagonists from the Event, which seems to be the format the followup books (more events) will take. It's not a bad selection, and of course it will always be defined by what it lacks given half a century of marvel continuity. But there are some strange choices. There are probably more characters than there are in the basic MSHAGA book, but the latter has more iconic characters: Dr Doom, MAgneto, Annihilus, Rhino, Electro, Dr Octopus, and so forth. I've yet to read the book so it may be that NPC's are treated differently and so I don't need to worry about provision of enemies, but superficially it's not intuitive. Also there's no discussion of the environment or the setting: no section on Manhattan, the Baxter Building, the Avengers Mansion, the Daily Bugle etc, for instance. Is that a big deal? YMMV. But I don't know how MWP plan to approach such things, if at all.

MHR is like most Star Wars RPGs in that sense in that most setting material can be sourced elsewhere so the rulebook does not give it much coverage. There is some setting material in Civil War covering the major locations and even providing stuff for Wakanda and Atlantis. But its much lighter than what you would get in many RPGs.

I personally like the fact that MHR is focussed on the immediately playable. Source material is presented in terms of how it's used in game rather than an encyclopaedic entry. I find it helps keep things fast and free, which is especially good for me with Supers, but I can see how some may not like it.

The same approach goes for the rules. There will almost be no need for further rules expansion. There is an initially higher hurdle to understand how the game operates, but once over that everything is simple.

FWIW if Marvel Heroic is your first game along these lines then expect your first session to be difficult. I suggest getting some like minded players and taking your time. I usually run a session and give its a couple of months to sink in as my brain acclimatises

I had a look at the Civil War book. The selection of datafiles is...ok. A fair few are in the core book (though obviously tweaked as per the story).

Now I suspect that, over the next year, they will switch their publishing model and move away from events and toward straight up data dossiers. I don't mind not having stats for the Fantasticar or the Baxter Building or whatever. But the lack of villains is an issue (afaict).

This debate is always going to happen with every licensed SHRPG given the sheer weight of material within the Marvelverse. But I think there are some core minimums that you ought to provide. The basic hero files are decent enough in terms of choice (I would have included Hulk, Dr Strange, perhaps Thor, Silver Surfer, Namor, Hawkeye, and one or two others). But there's no stats for Magneto, Dr Doom, The sinister Six, The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants...I think a few more top draw names would have been a very good idea. Yes you can make them up, but that's not really the point. So to that end I'd have done Secret Wars instead of Breakout, even if it is decades old