How does it play?
Has anyone played with the "lethal damage" option in the GMG?
Would it work for "non-super" settings like sci-fi, modern, fantasy?
Your thoughts, opinions, and especially your experiences are most appreciated!
It looks great on paper, though IME the heavy abstraction of the effects based powers does mean that some people just won't grok it.
I found the rules layout impossible to wade through and the various conditions like "staggered" and "stunned" and "sluggish" and "star shaped" to be impossible to keep track of.
Quote from: Matt;830099I found the rules layout impossible to wade through and the various conditions like "staggered" and "stunned" and "sluggish" and "star shaped" to be impossible to keep track of.
Is there a difference between "star-shaped" and "star-bellied"?
jg
Thoughts, opinions, experiences?I played in three different games, with different results in each (not a good sign). The first game was merely Ok. The second went really well, but mostly when the system faded into the background (not a good sign). By the third game we found too many problems, the GM switched to Champions, and we never looked back.
Issues:
- Presence is costed out wrong. It's cheaper to leave Charisma at 0 and buy up the 3 Presence skills. Normally I'd skip the complaint, but it's sad to see such a simple error in the 3rd edition of a system.
- The flat distribution of the D20 made for some unpredictable results. In one of the other games, the GM used "roll 3d20 take mid" and it worked much better-- a fight between two martial artists of equal PL was a tense and exciting (but long) affair. In the normal games, PL+3 villains could fold quickly, when they should have lasted longer.
- Combat seemed too dependent on Hero Points, as if the supply/lack of HP won/lost the field. In one game, everyone used them to re-roll attacks. In another, for recoveries.
- You may want to take a hard look at the Luck advantage.
Those aren't "critical failures" by any stretch, but in the final analysis it just didn't shine, even though I really wanted it to. As a full disclaimer, True 20 (in some ways a spiritual ancestor of MM3) is one of my favorite games, and the Hero System has faults of it's own.
Does it work for sci-fi, modern, fantasy?It probably could, after you put some work into it. But the skill list is designed with hyper-competent experts in mind. If you have Vehicles, you can drive anything, from a car to a starship. If you have Technology, you can build, invent, and repair anything, from a windmill to a replicator. That makes sense for Ben Grimm or Tony Stark; not so much for spy or sci-fi character.
My guess is that there aren't enough "genre dials" and in the end everything would feel like a superhero game. If you're sold on MM for this idea, I'd go 2E, which published fantasy and modern supplements (and had more skills).
Quote from: James Gillen;830104Is there a difference between "star-shaped" and "star-bellied"?
jg
There is to the Sneetches.
Personally, I love the system. But bear in mind, that I played/ran 3.x for about 8 years straight with a 5 year campaign, so a linear progression system isn't a bother for me.
It's the only supers game that I can play cold and stupid, and still have a decent session.
I admit I've house ruled the heck out of it, but then a game I don't house rule is a game I don't play (meaning I do it automatically, often without thinking that it's a house rule.)
Again, though I find it easy to use, and less arcane than the HERO system (again, personal taste.)
Quote from: trechriron;830086Would it work for "non-super" settings like sci-fi, modern, fantasy?
M&M 2E works pretty well as a generic game, and the 2E Mastermind's Manual is full of optional rules tweaks to emulate this or that genre.
But for 3E, they seem to have taken all that away and made it laser focused on superheroes.
Aside from a few niggles (the cost of Presence, etc.) 3E doesn't really seem to have anything majorly wrong with it, but I still vastly prefer 2E.
2E has more official "stuff" and it feels more hackable and flexible to me.
2E is much more of a generic system. 3E is much more of a superheroes system.
Your milage may vary.
1E always had the best aesthetic. I love that core rulebook, even if the rules are rough.
I have tried to play it a few times but it's one of the more difficult games on my opinion.
It defeated me. I can grasp the basic idea but the sheer effort I'd have to put into mastering it seems like a waste when I can just use Bash or MSH instead.
I have a goodly amount of 2e stuff I'm hanging onto though. I enjoy M&M's default setting and gm-centric material a lot. The villain collections are especially fun to read.
Strikes me as Hero System without the complexity or the payoff. Worst of both worlds.
Quote from: The_Shadow;830422Strikes me as Hero System without the complexity or the payoff. Worst of both worlds.
What do you mean by 'payoff'? Honest question, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Quote from: The_Shadow;830422Strikes me as Hero System without the complexity or the payoff. Worst of both worlds.
Whereas I like a lot of others thought that M&M2 had most of the features of Hero with a great deal more simplicity.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;830590Whereas I like a lot of others thought that M&M2 had most of the features of Hero with a great deal more simplicity.
JG
Yeah, count me as preferring M&M 2nd if I have to play M&M.
Quote from: The_Shadow;830422Strikes me as Hero System without the complexity or the payoff. Worst of both worlds.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;830427What do you mean by 'payoff'? Honest question, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
For me, heavier rules need to have a corresponding "payoff". That is the return you get from having to learn and engage with the those rules.
Some systems seem to have arbitrary rules that don't give that return. You simply have to learn things, just because. Hero is not one of those systems. The payoff you get from grokking the rules is great flexibility, and elegance, similar to the pleasure you get from studying maths or physics. Everything flows and makes sense as a whole.
Hero might not quite have the beauty of natural systems or mathematics, but it approaches that as best an RPG system might.
Thus, there is a payoff for learning those complex rules.
Also, another payoff is that in gameplay it is relatively simple, as the complexity is front-loaded in character creation. Once you've calculated all those point totals you don't often have to revisit them in-session.
M&M tried to take elements of Hero and make it simpler. Laudable, but I'm not convinced that it kept the flexibility and the elegance that are Hero's strengths. It doesn't give the feel or illusion of being a cosmic physics engine that Hero has. It feels "gamey" and hand-wavey to me. Thus the payoff isn't as big. In seeking to eliminate some of the negative (complexity) M&M has also reduced some of the positive results Hero achieved from that complexity.
You might disagree with my assessment of M&M, but I hope I've explained what I meant by "payoff".
Quote from: The_Shadow;830598For me, heavier rules need to have a corresponding "payoff". That is the return you get from having to learn and engage with the those rules.
Some systems seem to have arbitrary rules that don't give that return. You simply have to learn things, just because. Hero is not one of those systems. The payoff you get from grokking the rules is great flexibility, and elegance, similar to the pleasure you get from studying maths or physics. Everything flows and makes sense as a whole.
Hero might not quite have the beauty of natural systems or mathematics, but it approaches that as best an RPG system might.
Thus, there is a payoff for learning those complex rules.
Also, another payoff is that in gameplay it is relatively simple, as the complexity is front-loaded in character creation. Once you've calculated all those point totals you don't often have to revisit them in-session.
M&M tried to take elements of Hero and make it simpler. Laudable, but I'm not convinced that it kept the flexibility and the elegance that are Hero's strengths. It doesn't give the feel or illusion of being a cosmic physics engine that Hero has. It feels "gamey" and hand-wavey to me. Thus the payoff isn't as big. In seeking to eliminate some of the negative (complexity) M&M has also reduced some of the positive results Hero achieved from that complexity.
You might disagree with my assessment of M&M, but I hope I've explained what I meant by "payoff".
Ah, I see, system mastery, for the purpose of bending the system to suit your needs (and by bending I mean working within the rules system to get a result you want.)
I'm the opposite, I don't care for that sort of 'payoff', it gets in the way of my style of gaming. I want the rules to do their job and stay in the background, while doing it, kinda like good civil servants! And for me, M&M 3e does that perfectly.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;830605Ah, I see, system mastery, for the purpose of bending the system to suit your needs (and by bending I mean working within the rules system to get a result you want.)
I'm the opposite, I don't care for that sort of 'payoff', it gets in the way of my style of gaming. I want the rules to do their job and stay in the background, while doing it, kinda like good civil servants! And for me, M&M 3e does that perfectly.
Yep, that's fair enough. I'm unashamedly a fan of rules-heavy systems. Not for the sake of being-rules heavy, but when they are designed that way for a reason and do it well.
Quote from: The_Shadow;830627Yep, that's fair enough. I'm unashamedly a fan of rules-heavy systems. Not for the sake of being-rules heavy, but when they are designed that way for a reason and do it well.
Thankfully, the hobby is big enough for both of us, eh?
So the real question is now to the OP: Mr. TreChriron, what type of game system do you prefer? And do you think that M&M 3e would work for it?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;830641Thankfully, the hobby is big enough for both of us, eh?
So the real question is now to the OP: Mr. TreChriron, what type of game system do you prefer? And do you think that M&M 3e would work for it?
That's a complicated question for me. I love GURPS, and systems with gritty damage/injury BUT players I usually play with (all kinds, all over the place) tend to like things more heroic. They also seem to be more enthusiastic towards "lighter" rules.
For example, I'm running DD5e and it's going marvelously. I am very encouraged by the light rules with enough meat on them that the players can make choices and have fun playing a character they designed.
I have read through a bunch of MM3e books and the Better Mousetrap 3e book from Misfit Studios, and it seems like it could work easily as a "generic system".
I have one more "secret" motivation. I'm looking for a system I can publish with that will support the crazy setting ideas I have in my brain. The universal power system in MM3e really pushes all my "tinkerer" buttons without hurting my "writer-creative" brain. It also has a nice licensing method. :-)
Maybe 3e is not considered a good "generic" fit because someone hasn't released something for it, bending the conventions a tad...?
Quote from: trechriron;830747...Maybe 3e is not considered a good "generic" fit because someone hasn't released something for it, bending the conventions a tad...?
There really hasn't been that much published in support of 3E, and most of what I've seen stays within the standard superheroic conventions. There may be an untapped market for its application to different genres, but I suspect that market is fairly small.
It's far more complex than 5E D&D, due to all the upfront work in character building (particularly power/effect building) and in the use of "variable" powers, which are fun and grant a lot of flexibility and food for imaginative play, but which can really slow down things down if dealing with unprepared players.
I love M&M, though it isn't perfect. It wouldn't be my go-to choice for a generic system but it can do quite a lot. Combat (usually) runs pretty quickly, I've found, though you do have to be careful and watch out for too many conditions piling up. Those can be a pain to keep track of.
I'm actually looking at starting a game in the near future, which after player feedback has gone from a Heroes/Alphas-style game to the bastard offspring of Blade and Hellboy. So I'll be looking at using the lethal damage rules, too. There are some simple options in the core book; I'll have to compare those to the ones in the GMG and see which sound better. I'll definitely go with the slower healing times, though.
I owned and ran M&M 2nd ed a couple of years back.
I quite enjoyed it, however didn't get into the minutae of generating characters from scratch.
We went with using the templates and modding them.
It helped it was sort of D20 compatible, so there wasn't that much of a learning curve running the game.
I took a look at 3rd ed, but I couldn't really be bothered moving up to it. It seemed like a big departure from 2nd ed and I quite liked how 2nd ed worked anyway, so the transition didn't seem worth it.