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.