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

[Felon]

Again- as I've said- its not that iterative attack options are entirely absent in M&M, its just that they're a lot more elegant and intuitive in HERO. As common a schtick as multiple attacks for speedsters is in the source material, it shouldn't be expensive and unbalancing to the system. In HERO, its neither.

Have I just stepped into Bizarro-World for this thread?

HERO may have many fine qualities, but intuitiveness and elegance isn't on the list. If you've been playing it for a decade or so, it's easy to take everything you've learned by rote for granted and retroactively say it's all so very simple, so obvious, so logical. But for someone coming fresh and doing an apples-to-apples comparison, HERO is about as ponderous as it gets.

M&M has a very simple meta-rule: one attack on a character in each round of combat. They have a way to add autofire onto an attack that works with this meta-rule, and the method for buying it is neither convuluted or expensive. Really, I'd love to hear what's prohibitive here.

In HERO, you'd do basically the same thing, buying an Advantage, except you'd have to also find some way to allow for the heinous END cost (END cost being one of HERO's cumbersome and pointless elements). Then, you're rollling damage every time for every attack that hits, which is not only a nuisance, but the tendency will be that it's either tremendously overpowered or downright ineffectual. If every punch has the same Damage Class as the campaign's average attack, then it's the former*. If it's even a few DC's below the average, it'll be a lot of ding-ding-dings against the campaign's average defenses. Seen it happen plenty of times.

* -- Note that I'm being generous in assuming that the term "average damage class" exists in a given campaign. I've been in a lot of Champions games that are free-for-alls where caps and ranges don't exist. If you can affort that 30d6 HTHA, it's fair game.

 

[Felon]

But all around, I have zero experience with either one. I've always been interested in trying out Hero System, though (and in fact once owned Hero System 5th Edition, but it was another game system I bought and never got to play, and ended up selling it), so there's that. Although I'm not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect of having to buy the rulebooks, again. Especially since I now hear that that base rules are split into two $40 books! So I'm wondering what folks who've played both systems think of them? Which one do you think makes for the better and more fun game? Did you have a better experience in a superhero campaign with Hero System or Mutants & Masterminds? I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks.

My experiences with other gamers playing HERO System in 20+ years can be summed up as follows: take the 250 points you're alloted, and see how much you can get away with.

My experiences with gamers playing M&M over the course of one year is more like: it's so easy to get away with murder, it's obvious that this game relies on GM fiat.

For instance, let's say a player wants the power to turn enemies into slugs, which they can then pour salt on. In HERO, this is (supposedly) balanced through cost-prohibitiveness. The base power is expensive, and there are advantages to buy for it that are essentially mandatory. The end result is a power that requires about six to eight hits to actually kick in, and there's no detrimental effect on your target until it finally does kick in, so he's probably beating you up in the meantime.

The player now will go one of two ways: he'll either realize this isn't going to work like he envisioned and he abandons the idea, or he'll mitigate the cost by lathering on Limitations. Let's see, Activation 14< (-1/2), Doesn't work underwater, in vacums, in intense magnetic fields (-1/4 x 3), Only works in Hero ID (-1/4), and then the biggest non-Limitation of all: Obvious Inaccessable Focus (-1/2).

Now, in M&M, the power is not at all cost prohibitive on your average PL10 budget. Nor is it some cumulative effect that takes place after a half-dozen hits. The enemy has to make a saving throw to avoid becoming a worm, and that's pretty much it. Acknowledging this, the player may quickly come to the realization that there is no pretext of the system policing his efforts to design an over-the-top power, so he either has to police himself or fully expect the GM to put his foot down. Or perhaps the character gets the power and, in all likelyhood, after using it a few times everyone agrees that this ability is a little exploitative.

My problem with Champions/HERO is that it implicitly offers the pretext of playing gatekeeper through elaborate (some say "elegant") point-costing, but what it really does is ween unassuming players over to the dark side of min-maxing. I think the place where this really becomes evident is the 150 points of Disadvantages each player is required to come up with in building their character. It quickly becomes evident that all Disads are not created equally disadvantageous. Some, like Psychological Limitation and Distinctive Feature, just add some color to your character. Others, like Vulnerability and Susceptability, can get you killed. And still others, like Hunted, don't ever seem to amount to anything (most GM's just can't be bothered).

The part that's problematic is that the system-recommended baseline of 150 points is just TOO FRIGGIN' MUCH. Most characters just aren't going to have that much depth. Now, I realize that and if I'm the GM I lower it, but rest assured that the number of Champions campaigns that reduce that baseline is not large.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Have I just stepped into Bizarro-World for this thread?

HERO may have many fine qualities, but intuitiveness and elegance isn't on the list. If you've been playing it for a decade or so, it's easy to take everything you've learned by rote for granted and retroactively say it's all so very simple, so obvious, so logical. But for someone coming fresh and doing an apples-to-apples comparison, HERO is about as ponderous as it gets.

I've been playing HERO since it came out in the 1980s. And when it came out, I grasped it instantly. Since that point, it has been my favorite system, bar none. (Well, except for that flirtation with the FUZION system, that is...*shudder*...I'm glad they ditched that experiment!)

In that time, I've introduced several people to the game, including a few non-gamers. Never had a problem with someone trying to figure out how do get their desired result. The only issues came with doing that efficiently...and that issue doesn't matter if 1) everyone is about as equally inefficient or 2) the inexperienced players ask for & receive assistance from more experienced ones.

M&M, though...

I grokked the game fairly easily, as did my players. However, those players- every last one of them at the very least experienced with 3Ed/3.5Ed from the release date of those games, if not other RPGs as well- were constantly peppering me with build questions. The multi-shot thing wasn't the only issue (which arose with the Speedster and the "Über-Marksman")- they simply didn't find M&M's design choices to be to their liking. M&M's take on autofire didn't feel like autofire to them.

Now, while its true that a HERO autofire attack may just bounce off of someone's defense or involve a lot of dice rolling, not everyone will agree that this is a bad thing.

As for Disads? I do have to agree that some of them are only as good as the GM who is running the campaign. I, for one, made sure I made those Hunted/Hunter/DNPC rolls or had NPCs grab Foci, but I know that many HERO GMs didn't.

But I also have to agree with your later assessment of M&M as being more dependent on GM fiat. To me, at least, HERO simply doesn't seem as easy to "break" as M&M has proven itself to be.

 

[Thanee]

Then, you're rollling damage every time for every attack that hits, which is not only a nuisance, but the tendency will be that it's either tremendously overpowered or downright ineffectual.

And that is different in M&M?

The damage save is basically the damage roll, just done by the defender and not by the attacker.

If the attack's damage isn't up to the PL limit, it will be rather ineffective.

What's simpler in M&M is, that you don't have the STUN/BODY bookkeeping.

END cost being one of HERO's cumbersome and pointless elements

Why pointless? I like it very much. Cumbersome, to a degree, yes, certainly. But pointless? No way. It definitely has a point, and a lot of uses, that without such a system do not exist.

For example, one character I made had a mecha suit that had energy reserves, which could be used in emergency to boost some of its various systems temporarily and to relocate energy between its systems (kinda like what you could do in the old X-Wing/Tie-Fighter games, where you could allocate more energy on the shields, or on the weapons, or on the engine to get a boost where it is needed). Multipower, Increased END Cost as a partial Power Disadvantage (for the boosted part of the Power), and END Reserve was a good way to handle this. Not sure if M&M has anything to simulate this reasonably well. Especially the timed limits that the END sets, so you can use that only for a short time, but can use it again after a short break to recharge.

Also, HERO is a truly generic system, unlike M&M, which is pretty focused on the supers genre (it certainly can be used for other genres with some changes, but isn't really built for it). END is a lot more important in heroic campaigns, for example.

I think the place where this really becomes evident is the 150 points of Disadvantages each player is required to come up with in building their character. It quickly becomes evident that all Disads are not created equally disadvantageous.

Yep. Disadvantages have always been a bit of a problem in the HERO System.

6E fixes that to some degree (i.e. you need to take a lot less Disads now, so you can focus on the character-defining ones). Finally!

Of course, generally, both systems allow a lot of minmaxing... none of them is really better or worse than the other in that regard (maybe HERO is a bit worse, because it offers even more flexibility). Both require a pretty mature approach to character design for sure. That's a "flaw" of point-based character creation in general.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ValhallaGH]

Not sure if M&M has anything to simulate this reasonably well.

Alternate powers with the Fade flaw. For this example, an alternate Boost would do the trick. Once the Alternate runs out of power, the entire array is out of power.

How this meets the "reasonably well" criteria is a matter of tastes.


Enjoy.

 

[Thanee]

Alternate powers with the Fade flaw. For this example, an alternate Boost would do the trick. Once the Alternate runs out of power, the entire array is out of power.

How this meets the "reasonably well" criteria is a matter of tastes.

Heh. Yep, that's for sure.

One thing I would consider a "flaw" here is, that the Fade flaw only applies to the power (or array). With END in HERO you have a power source (not to be confused with D&D 4E like power sources ), that fuels (and limits) the character as a whole. It's more of a direct, straightforward way to build such things. Also, of course, Fade makes the power degrade.

Anyways, mostly I am saying, that END isn't just a pointless exercise in bookkeeping, but definitely has its uses. And if you don't like it, there is always the No END advantage.

Bye
Thanee

 

[coyote6]

I've been playing HERO since it came out in the 1980s. And when it came out, I grasped it instantly. Since that point, it has been my favorite system, bar none. (Well, except for that flirtation with the FUZION system, that is...*shudder*...I'm glad they ditched that experiment!)

In that time, I've introduced several people to the game, including a few non-gamers. Never had a problem with someone trying to figure out how do get their desired result. The only issues came with doing that efficiently...and that issue doesn't matter if 1) everyone is about as equally inefficient or 2) the inexperienced players ask for & receive assistance from more experienced ones.

M&M, though...

I grokked the game fairly easily, as did my players. However, those players- every last one of them at the very least experienced with 3Ed/3.5Ed from the release date of those games, if not other RPGs as well- were constantly peppering me with build questions. The multi-shot thing wasn't the only issue (which arose with the Speedster and the "Über-Marksman")- they simply didn't find M&M's design choices to be to their liking. M&M's take on autofire didn't feel like autofire to them.

I think it's just an individual thing; for example, I understood M&M and HERO both very rapidly (I used to make up Champions villains in high school -- in class, from memory of the books), and I "get" both of them, and can understand or accept the way they do some things they do. I even dig both of them. I prefer M&M nowadays, and would pick it for a regular superhero game (OTOH, if I wanted to run high-powered martial artists, I'd be looking hard at Hero -- Ninja Hero has been a favorite since it came out; M&M would barely be a blip on the radar).

But when I bought Silver Age Sentinels, my brain bounced right off that thing. Could not get it, could not dig it. Never have quite figured out why, but I gave up trying. I know there were people who got SAS & loved it, though. But me, I just steal character names for NPCs from it.

I hope to try BASH next weekend; we'll see how that goes. I did get a copy in the DTRPG charity drive, but I barely downloaded it the other day, and have barely glanced at it (first impression: the layout is kind of ugly ).

 

[Quantum]

I like Mutants And Masterminds better, but I'd much prefer DC Heroes RPG or Marvel RPG. Marvel is the one I started with for superhero RPGS. I also like Palladium Heroes Unlimited.

The thing I don't particular care about Mutants And Masterminds though is that you have to buy your saves and there are feats with ranks. I just don't agree with those concepts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think it's just an individual thing<snip>

Clearly- I mean, they understood the game, no question. They just didn't care for it. I thought things were going fine then it was universal walkout time. They didn't like the design.

Bummer for me part 2 & 3 on that front is that I picked up W&W right after the campaign started and I'm still planning to pick up True20. Given the DNA of those RPGs, they probably won't care for them either.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

The thing I don't particular care about Mutants And Masterminds though is that you have to buy your saves

How else would you put a cost to them?

and there are feats with ranks. I just don't agree with those concepts.

If a feat has ranks it's actually a power in disguise. You can make your own ranked feats that way, or take away ranked feats and just have people buy powers.