Quote from: grubmanSo, what do you think of Mutants & Masterminds?  It's pretty much the grandaddy of Supers now.  It's very well done and complete.  You can make any type of super you want and while character creation is very involved, it is pretty simple in play and really captures the genre well.

Never played it. One guy in my group bought it to run it and didn't like it, so we never opened it again.

Quote from: estarYe gods if you are a SFB fan then what is the issue with Champions/Hero System? The complexity of the system should be a piece of cake for you. It has a ton more options than Marvel Super Heroes.

I don't mind complexity. I do mind needless complexity.

Comic books are not wargames, and are far from complex in structure. To me a comic book based game should follow the same basic principals. MSH does everything a supers game should do with a minimum of rules and a maximum of flexibility. Because of the technical player I am, Champions has me paying too much attention to the character sheet and not enough attention to the character.

Quote from: James McMurrayNever played it. One guy in my group bought it to run it and didn't like it, so we never opened it again.

How about V&V then?  That was my favorite before M&M...in fact, when we were playing V&V and reading tons of Marvel Comics, TSR announced their MSH RPG.  I thought it would be the end all supers game (It was Marvel, after all!), so instantly purchased it.  My friends and I took turns reading it, even gave it a playtest, and couldn't believe how lackluster and (almost insultingly) simplex it was.  Needless to say it wasn't robust enough to support the types of adventures we were having with V&V.  How did you compare the two and choose MSH?

MSH's simplicity was the deciding factor. That you could get up and rolling in minutes and almost never have to look anything up made thinking in four colors a lot easier.

That and its ties to Marvel made it easier to introduce people. It's a lot easier to get someone who digs Wolverine interested in playing when there's literally no work involved between deciding to play and starting the game. You could make a Wolvie clone in V&V but you had to sit and do it. Likewise from the GM screen side of things: all the familiar nasty faces were already put together for you. You even had giant foldout maps of New York, complete with Daily Bugle for your 3 story tall Doctor Octopus robots to smash around in.

Also, supplement availability is a big deal. I don't know if V&V had something similar, but for a long time Dragon magazine had from 1 - 3 MSH articles in every issue. Being a "new toys" junkie, this was like the cherry on top. I already played D&D too, so it meant I could now use 95% of every magazine instead of 70%. V&V would have required conversions for all of it.

Summary: Familiarity is a huge plus. Ease of use is another. A steady stream of supplemental materials means lots of reading and lots of new directions to explore. The three combined have kept MSH at the top of my heap for decades.

MSH doesn't have the steady flow of materials now, but it has a ton of stuff that was put out back then that I didn't buy and can now get for free, which is close to the same thing.

Apart from the fact that playing Wolvie in MSH sucks big time...

Back to the Topic.

We decided to use M&M 2e.

Why ? Because of it's non-lethalness feels more "comicbook-ish". Sure Char-gen can be a bear figuring up PL balance issues (attack/defense/toughness/etc.) But overall when I did run it, it ran well. We hardly rolled at all in the other time I ran it, which is a good thing.

I thought about Ditching SKILLS though. and just let PCs pick a few SKILL Feats to replace them. Stuff like SCIENCE or LAW or the like. More MSH Skill like

Will that get you much? Skills are more cumbersome in other D20 games, as you have to think of them when you advance a level. In M&M you just buy 'em, so there's not much added.
And they're rather useful for street-level characters. In M&M you can actually run along with some big guns even if you've got no powers at all (and attributes in the "normal" range).

Quote from: LacrioxusI thought about Ditching SKILLS though. and just let PCs pick a few SKILL Feats to replace them. Stuff like SCIENCE or LAW or the like. More MSH Skill like

I'm not sure from your posts if you've played M&M before or not, but I would suggest trying it with the skills before you make that decision.  The list in 2e are pretty streamlined, and I think you will be suprised at how usefull they are to have as both a GM and a player for answering the "how do I do this" question in the simplest way possible.

Quote from: James McMurrayMSH's simplicity was the deciding factor. That you could get up and rolling in minutes and almost never have to look anything up made thinking in four colors a lot easier.

That and its ties to Marvel made it easier to introduce people. It's a lot easier to get someone who digs Wolverine interested in playing when there's literally no work involved between deciding to play and starting the game. You could make a Wolvie clone in V&V but you had to sit and do it. Likewise from the GM screen side of things: all the familiar nasty faces were already put together for you. You even had giant foldout maps of New York, complete with Daily Bugle for your 3 story tall Doctor Octopus robots to smash around in.

Also, supplement availability is a big deal. I don't know if V&V had something similar, but for a long time Dragon magazine had from 1 - 3 MSH articles in every issue. Being a "new toys" junkie, this was like the cherry on top. I already played D&D too, so it meant I could now use 95% of every magazine instead of 70%. V&V would have required conversions for all of it.

Summary: Familiarity is a huge plus. Ease of use is another. A steady stream of supplemental materials means lots of reading and lots of new directions to explore. The three combined have kept MSH at the top of my heap for decades.

MSH doesn't have the steady flow of materials now, but it has a ton of stuff that was put out back then that I didn't buy and can now get for free, which is close to the same thing.

OK, I'm in an argumentative, jerky mood...

You haven't played M&M, from the way this post skirts the question, you haven't played V&V (which you state MSH is lightyears ahead of:rolleyes: ), a lack of comments on Aberrant, Gurps Supers, and only a very popular generic "too comlicated!" comment on Hero 5th leads me to believe you have no experience with any of the systems that the OP asked about either...I just don't get it.  I certainly am happy that you have a system you love to play, and I have nothing against MSH itself, but if you are going to pimp a game, you have to have some solid argument about why it's the best, or a good choice for what the poster is asking for...not just saying, IT ROCKS!  EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS...when you know nothing about the other games!

P.S.  Didn't read anything in the OP about playing in the Marvel Universe, so that kind of kills all your positive reasons for playing the game.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't mind complexity. I do mind needless complexity.

Comic books are not wargames, and are far from complex in structure. To me a comic book based game should follow the same basic principals. MSH does everything a supers game should do with a minimum of rules and a maximum of flexibility. Because of the technical player I am, Champions has me paying too much attention to the character sheet and not enough attention to the character.

I wouldn't call champion rules needless complexity. Sure there is a lot of DETAIL but take a champions character sheet and explain how it works takes only a few minutes. I know because I done this. Later they learn the ins and outs of constructing a champion characters. About the most complicated thing is learning the turn-segment system.

You said comics books are not wargames and neither they are RPGs. When you build a RPG you have choices about how it works as a game. You like MSH bacause you feel it captured the comic feel in a minimum of rules. Great for you.

However when I play a GAME whether it on a board or a RPG I like my options spelled out. I don't like GM fiat to judge whether a Red result or a +10 result means X one time and Y another. As a GM I want to be consistent and want rules to help me do that.

This is the essence of what I call the wargamer approach to RPGs. The rules are the rules and neither GM fiat or player whining shall alter them. Champions supported this for me and Marvel did not.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

P.S.
On a general note

 BTW the attitude of the Rules are the Rules have nothing to do with plot and role-playing.  Rules are the physical "laws" of the gameworld. Player does X and Y will happen, subject, in most cases, to the chance of the dice.

Quote from: grubmanOK, I'm in an argumentative, jerky mood...

You haven't played M&M, from the way this post skirts the question, you haven't played V&V (which you state MSH is lightyears ahead of:rolleyes: ), a lack of comments on Aberrant, Gurps Supers, and only a very popular generic "too comlicated!" comment on Hero 5th leads me to believe you have no experience with any of the systems that the OP asked about either...I just don't get it.  I certainly am happy that you have a system you love to play, and I have nothing against MSH itself, but if you are going to pimp a game, you have to have some solid argument about why it's the best, or a good choice for what the poster is asking for...not just saying, IT ROCKS!  EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS...when you know nothing about the other games!

P.S.  Didn't read anything in the OP about playing in the Marvel Universe, so that kind of kills all your positive reasons for playing the game.

Where did I say I was arguing the OP? I said I'd argue my opinion and you said you wanted to. That you disagree with my opinion is only to be expected. I'm sorry if me having found a game I like and played it exclusively because it's always been the best choice for me offends you, but I went into this saying I like my opinion and it won't change. I've read several other games and even played a few (V&V very briefly, 1/2 a session of DC, a few sessions of SAS, and maybe a couple others). But I always go back to the one that's best for me. I've explained why it's best (for me). You disagree, and that's cool.

Quote from: estarI wouldn't call champion rules needless complexity. Sure there is a lot of DETAIL but take a champions character sheet and explain how it works takes only a few minutes. I know because I done this. Later they learn the ins and outs of constructing a champion characters. About the most complicated thing is learning the turn-segment system.

I think it's needlessly complex for a comic book game. That's just my opinion though, and obviously you disagree. It's all good.

QuoteYou said comics books are not wargames and neither they are RPGs. When you build a RPG you have choices about how it works as a game. You like MSH bacause you feel it captured the comic feel in a minimum of rules. Great for you.

Thanks!

QuoteHowever when I play a GAME whether it on a board or a RPG I like my options spelled out. I don't like GM fiat to judge whether a Red result or a +10 result means X one time and Y another. As a GM I want to be consistent and want rules to help me do that.

Cool. For most games I agree. I'm a 3.x, Rolemaster, Spacemaster, and Hackmaster fan. But when I dive into the comic book genre I was fast and loose like a four color page. You don't, and that's great for you.

QuoteThis is the essence of what I call the wargamer approach to RPGs. The rules are the rules and neither GM fiat or player whining shall alter them. Champions supported this for me and Marvel did not.

Definintely understandable.

QuoteBTW the attitude of the Rules are the Rules have nothing to do with plot and role-playing.  Rules are the physical "laws" of the gameworld. Player does X and Y will happen, subject, in most cases, to the chance of the dice.

I agree completely, but heavier rule systems trigger my min-maxing nature and make me tend to focus more on rules and less on character. Character doesn't get completely neglected because of any system, but the right system helps to aim my play closer to the role instead of the roll. For some reason this is especially true in a supers game, perhaps because my favorite stories were always about the world shattering threats and the powerful heros that stop them, so I look at making the powerful hero capable of stopping such threats.

Quote from: James McMurraybut the right system helps to aim my play closer to the role instead of the roll.

I would argue it would be right approach. A rule system can force down a particular path by the way it is constructed. It hard to a min/maxer using MSH because the detail isn't there.

Plus there are some detailed system that really focus one ONE thing and ONE thing only and that is all they are good. For me Chivalry and Sorcery is the prime example of this. It seems to me that as the RPG Industry matured fast and light rule system became the norm for focused RPGS. (Look at the various RPGs from West End Games)

However Champions/Hero System isn't focused on just the one thing. It turned that the original approach worked for a whole range of genre. It took a couple of editions to make it all work for both superheroes and normals. You don't have to use the full monty for your game.

The basic mechanics of Champions are as simple or simpler than Marvel. Subtract the Offensive Value from the Defense Value subtract or add modifier if need be add 9 and roll 3d6. If you are under the value then you hit. Then roll the number of dice called by the power to see the effect.

Of course there more to champions than that but it can be summarized in a page and be handed to a player along with a character sheet. Then they are playing.

For my "Heroes appear in 1986" campaign I didn't really explain how every power broke down into points. I "interviewed" the players ran through a 1 on 1 for their origin and then created the resulting character. Produced a variety of characters that turned out to have varying point totals.

The only guy that had complications was the one who wanted to play a "Green Lantern" type. I had him be "Power Lance" who wielded a staff/lance that channeled energy. After his origin, he believe he had these "slots" that he can switch powers in and out of. I didn't really get into the fact that it was really a Cosmic Power Pool that could manifest any Champions power or effect.

He had a half page of different combo that I had precalculated for him. And he was doing things like switching off flight in mid-air and falling for a segment or two when he needed to unleash a full energy blast.

Three months down the road he started reading the Champions book and it was like a lightbulb going off in his head. After that he starting designing all kinds of crazy shit for his lance to do and putting all his xp in to expanding his cosmic power pool. He had great fun doing it.

Those first sessions had nothing to do with min maxing or calculating points. I used Champions as a toolkit. And for that campaign I toned down the wargame aspects considerably. The nice thing is that the detail was there when I needed it for the areas I wanted it for. It would have been a lot harder to go from less detail to more detail with Marvel Super Heroes.

Enjoy
Rob

P.S.

Early Hero System games (1st Edition Fantasy Hero, Danger International, etc) had a major flaw in trying to run anything realistic. We quit Fantasy Hero for GURPS when a player punched a guy through two stone walls and he got up. We went over the rules twice and that was the correct result.

Later editions fixed this but by then I was way too invested in GURPS to switch back. Too bad because it power system made a fun fun toolkit to build my campaign's magic with. Like D&D I still had cleric casted pretty much the same spells as wizards. Wizards spells were powered by endurance as per the standard Fantasy Hero rules.

But Cleric magic used a limitation called a endurance pool. In Champion allow the simulation of battery powered superpowers and other rechargeable powers. Well in my fantasy game it only recharged when the cleric did acts of service for his diety. If it was zero, no spells could casted.

All of a sudden all the players who played clerics started to take their deities mandates more seriously. I know I could have denied spells in AD&D but somehow this made the process more explicit and sensible to my players.

I haven't looked at Champions since way back in the day, and don't know which edition it was it the time, so it's quite possible, if not likely, that a later version would work better. But I'm not in the market for a new supers game. MSH always did everything I needed it to, so I see no reason to throw out a great game on the off chance that something else might be good too. If I had more free time I'd check out a lot of new games, but as it stands I go with what I know works most of the time.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhere did I say I was arguing the OP? I said I'd argue my opinion and you said you wanted to. That you disagree with my opinion is only to be expected. I'm sorry if me having found a game I like and played it exclusively because it's always been the best choice for me offends you, but I went into this saying I like my opinion and it won't change. I've read several other games and even played a few (V&V very briefly, 1/2 a session of DC, a few sessions of SAS, and maybe a couple others). But I always go back to the one that's best for me. I've explained why it's best (for me). You disagree, and that's cool.

OK, nevermind.  

Re-read  what I said if you really want to talk about it...I have no idea what the ramble above referes to.