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

[pawsplay]

Only if that's what the GM chooses to do.

Sure, sure. Obviously, any game system is subject to a lot of variation between campaigns.

I'm just starting an M&M campaign. I've told the players to make 135pp PCs at PL 9. I've further told them that I intend to advance the campaign to PL 10 fairly quickly, but then remain at PL 10 indefinitely. (Right now I have in mind to stay at PL until they have about 190 to 200pp, but that's subject to change, especially given that I'm a new M&M GM.)

Power Level is not "level," as you seem to want to insist it is. PL could just as easily have been called "Power Tier." SK probably should have used another name, if the confusion and misinformation in this thread is any indication.

I think your post demonstrates how M&M's PL system allows you to graduate characters to a higher level, hence Level makes sense to me. Tier means literally the same thing as level, anyway. A three-tier cake has three layers, or levels.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think your post demonstrates how M&M's PL system allows you to graduate characters to a higher level

A "yes or no" question for you. Are you aware that if I have a PC with 190pp, in a PL 10 campaign, if the GM says, "I'm upping the PL of the campaign to 11," absolutely nothing changes on my current character sheet?

If you answer correctly, then we just very clearly have different definitions of "level-based." (And while I applaud individuality, when it comes to denotational aspects of communication, you'd do better to adjust to the majority, rather than expecting the majority to adjust to you.)

 

[coyote6]

The saves situation is a mess in M&M. It is basically inevitible that saves will trail behind attack DCs.

I think that's fairly intentional. But I also think the save PL caps should be looked at & revised if/when they ever do another edition.

not much guidance is given on how to build NPCs, and the example NPCs do typically have maxed out abilities.

IIRC, only the ones written by a couple of authors do that. The ones Kenson & other authors write tend to not have maxed-out F/R/W saves. Not every person -- including authors -- design characters the same way.

Further, it is suggested that heroic archetypes can be be used as NPCs, and they definitely have maxed out attacks in almost all cases. In my experience, M&M combat is more about using hero points as a sort of currency than about the modifiers or advanced tactics.

Attack/Damage and Defense/Toughness are the primary combat stats; if those aren't PL-capped, the character isn't actually as capable as their PL would seem to indicate, which makes PL a less useful measurement. Therefore, IMO, it's a good idea for most characters to be pretty close to capped.

(Having just played a game at a con where I ran a nominally-PL8 character with a +7 attack, +6 damage, +7 defense, +6 Toughness, I have to say, it wasn't all that fun, taking something like 6 or 7 hours of play before my character managed to contribute much to a fight. Given that it was a PC with nearly zero non-combat utility . . . fortunately, the characters themselves were pretty neat, the plot was intriguing, and the players were entertaining.)

Yes, my calculation only holds if you play the game as suggested.

How do you play it?

For whatever it's worth, ISTR that Kenson has made it clear that it's merely a suggestion; IIRC, he's said he doesn't follow it (I may be remembering one of the other authors, though). Steve generally intended M&M to be run and used very flexibly, with lots of GM input on stuff.

 

[pawsplay]

A "yes or no" question for you. Are you aware that if I have a PC with 190pp, in a PL 10 campaign, if the GM says, "I'm upping the PL of the campaign to 11," absolutely nothing changes on my current character sheet?

That's not actually 100% true. You may be able to benefit from modifiers which would normally exceed the lower PL, such as Boost. As far as permanent traits go, then, yes.

If you answer correctly, then we just very clearly have different definitions of "level-based." (And while I applaud individuality, when it comes to denotational aspects of communication, you'd do better to adjust to the majority, rather than expecting the majority to adjust to you.)

All I expect is for people to listen. I will happily adjust my thinking if you can give me a convincing argument why the levels in M&M aren't levels, advancement in M&M by levels isn't level-based advancment, and level-based limits on traits aren't level-based limits on traits.

 

[Elric]

(Having just played a game at a con where I ran a nominally-PL8 character with a +7 attack, +6 damage, +7 defense, +6 Toughness, I have to say, it wasn't all that fun, taking something like 6 or 7 hours of play before my character managed to contribute much to a fight. Given that it was a PC with nearly zero non-combat utility . . . fortunately, the characters themselves were pretty neat, the plot was intriguing, and the players were entertaining.)

You're quite underpowered here, but you still should be able to contribute.

Against a +8 defense/+8 toughness defender, you take 13.87 average attacks to KO them, compared to 9.35 if you had +8 attack/+8 damage.

By comparison, it takes a +8 attack/8 damage attacker 6.24 attacks to KO you, compared to 9.35 if you had +8 defense/+8 Toughness.

Calculation method and assumptions the same as The Atomic Think Tank- Elric's Builds

 

[cattoy]

I prefer HERO.

If you don't want to gamble big bux on a system you may not end up liking why don't you grab a old copy of Champions for 5 dollars and see if you like it. I find 3rd edition and earlier in bargain bins all the time.

It's gotten much more comprehensive since then, but the core mechanics still drive the game system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For that matter, HERO 4th was a step forward and had a lot of nifty sourcebooks, like their "Ultimate" series- and should be just about as cheap!

 

[ValhallaGH]

give me a convincing argument why the levels in M&M aren't levels, advancement in M&M by levels isn't level-based advancment

Nice circle!

Yes, my calculation only holds if you play the game as suggested.

Nope.
If you use one of the optional sidebars (a popular option, but an option) and if you play that option as suggested, then you're spot on.
Too many ifs to say "this is how the game is."

Side note: D&D and other level-based games don't limit you with your level. The give you a base to build off of, encouraging you to jam together as many bonuses as you can to get as large a total as possible.
M&M is the exact opposite with its point-based progression. No matter where all your bonuses come from, they can't exceed X, either in total or in effect (no over-buying a stat to make it resistant to Drain, for example; you can buy it but it doesn't exist unless your PL somehow increases). Very different design and philosophy.

 

[pawsplay]

Nice circle!

Nope.
If you use one of the optional sidebars (a popular option, but an option) and if you play that option as suggested, then you're spot on.
Too many ifs to say "this is how the game is."

I'm not quoting sidebars. p .178, under Increasing Power Level:

... However, sooner or later, you're going to want to raise the campaign's power level, giving the heroes a bit more room for advancement and spend their earned power points.
A good guideline is to follow the starting power point totals when it comes to power level: when the heroes accumumulate an additional 15 power points from the start of the campaign or the last time the power level was raised.

That's not "optional weapon classes versus armor types" optional, or "why not try hit points with M&M?" optional, that's what the game has to say about Increasing Power Level, subheading of Awarding Power Points. It's optional only in the sense that Green Ronin is not dictating how anyone plays M&M. It's as optional as the suggested limits on buying Luck.

Side note: D&D and other level-based games don't limit you with your level. The give you a base to build off of, encouraging you to jam together as many bonuses as you can to get as large a total as possible.
M&M is the exact opposite with its point-based progression. No matter where all your bonuses come from, they can't exceed X, either in total or in effect (no over-buying a stat to make it resistant to Drain, for example; you can buy it but it doesn't exist unless your PL somehow increases). Very different design and philosophy.

I agree that D&D and M&M handle levels somewhat differently and they represent a different design and philosophy. They both, however, have levels, with a very similar structure, meaning, and purpose. M&M is point-based, D&D is not; D&D advancement is motly open-ended, M&M is not; but both have level systems that place almost completely equivalent restrictions on the PCs in each game.

 

[ValhallaGH]

They both, however, have levels, with a very similar structure, meaning, and purpose.

We disagree. Apparently neither of us is able to convince the other of our position. Therefore, I propose that we drop this line of discussion. Continuing further is a pointless waste of time and energy, and presumably increases the frustration level for both of us and anyone who's still reading this thread. (Bless their diligent souls.)