Hero System Vs. Mutants & Masterminds. Which is the better super-hero game?

[Jeff Wilder]

It's been many years since I ran Hero (Champions), and I'm only getting started running M&M. My Champions game was a fairly long-running affair, and we really enjoyed the game, but ... honestly, the combats took forever.

I mean, in terms of time, running a Champions combat was about the same time commitment as running a Star Fleet Battles combat. On the other hand, M&M combats I've played in have been fast and elegant.

That may have been ameliorated in subsequent editions, I dunno. If so, of course, the basis of my choosing M&M is invalid. (It's also worth noting that way-back-when, we loved all-night combats. Now, not so much.)

BTW, I'm not making any claim that M&M is any lighter on the rules. I don't think it is. It's just much less fiddly in combat.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My most recent M&M campaign fell apart in part due to the fact that M&M doesn't have a straightforward and intuitive way of having a speedster do an Autofire punch or series of move-by attacks over a wide area- classic speedster schtick.

Sure it does.

First, you can apply the Autofire extra to Strike. This allows super-speed punching of a single opponent.

Second, right in the Super-Speed power entry, it lists "Rapid Attack: You can make a melee attack against any opponents in a radius of (power rank x5 feet) around you, provided you can physically reach them."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you read the M&M version of Autofire, it isn't true iterative attacks, its bonuses. The HERO version is true iteration. That mechanical difference has a strong flavor difference.

And to make multiple move-by attacks in HERO, you don't need to add any effects- you simply have the option of attacking those you pass adjacent to. The faster you move, the more move-by attacks you can perform, all along the path you travel, not just in a "radius."

 

[ValhallaGH]

If you read the M&M version of Autofire, it isn't true iterative attacks, its bonuses. The HERO version is true iteration. That mechanical difference has a strong flavor difference.

It also has a huge connotative difference when discussing it with people. Especially people that didn't participate in the other discussion.
And to be fair, M&M has those features, you and yours simply didn't like the way they worked and desired a different model. Which isn't a bad thing on either side, simply a clash of tastes.


I've never played HERO system, simply looked at it. It's robust enough to do just about anything (and probably anything with a couple of supplements and creative rules use) but I've said the same about M&M before.
My issue with HERO is that it is mechanically complicated and loaded with acronyms (I was in the military; RPG has two wildly different associations in my mind and that's just one example). It's not more complicated than a number of other games, but it is notably complicated.
M&M can be very complicated, but it can also be very simple, depending upon how finicky one chooses to get when designing things. HERO may have the same feature, but my perusal of OCV/DCV/Stun/etc leaves me with the impression that there is a certain level of (mildly intimidating) complexity that is completely unavoidable.

(Since I'm not part of the desired sample-group, I'm choosing to abstain from the poll.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It also has a huge connotative difference when discussing it with people. Especially people that didn't participate in the other discussion.
And to be fair, M&M has those features, you and yours simply didn't like the way they worked and desired a different model. Which isn't a bad thing on either side, simply a clash of tastes.

Well, I said as much in my first post about Autofire. To us, the absence of true iteration was NOT a feature, but a bug.

No question: when it comes to terminology and the math of PC design, HERO is probably one of the most "intimidating" RPGs out there. Equally obvious is that M&M is a truly flexible system, and is extremely easy to pick up for anyone familiar with D20 RPGs in general.

Still, my experiences running both games have surprised me.

I had no problems teaching HERO to experienced gamers back when D&D was in its 2Ed form. And once past the tedium (that existed for some) of PC design, everything ran smoothly. There was almost no touching of the book for the players- everything they had to know for combat was in front of them on their character sheets.

But when I resurrected that Supers 1900 campaign for my current group- all experienced gamers who had extensive play in 3Ed/3.5, but who were mostly family men with time constraints, I opted to run it in M&M. The thought was that they'd pick it up more quickly and like the system because of its D20 derived design.

I found they picked it up just fine, and generally liked the flexibility, but was surprised when they didn't like some of M&M's design decisions, like the lack of iterative attacks.

Its entirely possible that they might have enjoyed HERO more- despite the learning curve- since they wouldn't have had to combat preconceived notions about D20 gaming.

 

[Mallus]

Second, right in the Super-Speed power entry, it lists "Rapid Attack: You can make a melee attack against any opponents in a radius of (power rank x5 feet) around you, provided you can physically reach them."

I was thinking: Blast, range - personal, area-of-effect - explosion (or the one you can shape). I forgot it's handled directly under Super-Speed.

Also, while I have great respect for the HERO system, make mine Mutants and Masterminds!

 

[jdrakeh]

I voted for HERO. Despite my general disdain for the system as being overly fiddly, I think it mechanically models supers better than M&M. That said, I think that the learning curve for M&M is much less steep.

 

[Thanee]

I've yet to try HERO, but I know for sure M&M is an excellent game. I would say it's infinitely flexible, actually, so that could be hard to top.

Heh. I'd say you don't know infinity unless you know HERO.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

The design decision regarding iterative attacks was, I think, that they were worried it would get out of hand: there would be more than one or two dice rolled per attack, and extra attacks would probably dominate since they give an extra chance to try and an extra chance to damage.

There are options with the M&M system to do iterative attacks: there is a power one can buy, in the Mastermind's Manual, called Extra Attack. It's horribly expensive, and a general consensus on the M&M official boards is that it unbalances the system. But the option does exist.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The design decision regarding iterative attacks was, I think, that they were worried it would get out of hand

I also think there's an issue of streamlining (faster combat resolution) and mobility (if multiple attacks mean standing in one place, as in 3.5). For superheroic combats, I appreciate these reasons very much.