Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3327705" data-attributes="member: 4937">The point is that, for example, 3rd edition addresses the principal inherent flaw of package systems - that is the lack of character modeling and flexibility - with a fairly robust skill system and feats that customize the character.  Without these things, the attractiveness of D20 as a system would be greatly reduced - and I probably would have stuck with GURPS despite my problems with it.GURPS at least tries to address its biggest problem at least somewhat.  M&M seemed almost oblivious to the fact its approach had problems.  Well, you have to be nuts not to have a cleric in the party, but I wouldn't go that far.  Yes, the cleric is probably the strongest class in the game but its not so strong as to outclass every other class.  Part of that is due to the nature of the class and level system.  But in point buy systems, the problem is greatly increased.All RPG's invite min-maxing to some extent.  To a certain sort of player, that's part of the fun.  D&D is a 'superhero' system in the sense that high level characters possess abilities that are akin to comic book super-heroes and face similar challenges.  D&D has a min/maxing problem.  The real question for me is how well will the system survive with a min/maxer at the table.  If the system survives a min/maxer while allowing role players, tacticians, ect. to still have fun at the same table, then the system is a pretty decent system.  A system achieves that by have some degree of balance, or at least, not many things that are broken.  I'm not convinced by M&M.Then there ought to be more mechanics to enforce and reward the style of play that the game wants to impose.  There aren't.  As best as I can tell (again this is from years old memory), its hand waved away:  "Don't use lethal damage because your characters don't want to."  That sort of plea by the game will in my experience remain in force for only a few sessions, which is why I said that it didn't be a game intended for more than one offs and short campaigns.I think D&D survives quite nicely regardless.  I've played in mixed groups of RPer's, problem solvers, and power gamers and its more than possible to keep them all entertained.  I read an article one time about how a game will winnow away all the players that can't tolerate the game imposed by the mechanics.  I suspect M&M will winnow away all players who can't tolerate high melodrama, sparse combats, and the social contract to not min/max your characters in certain game breaking ways.Why are you continueing to remind me of the many reasons why I don't play superhero RPG's?  How does that help your argument?  I know that the existing systems are less than satisfactory and frequently the butt of many RPG jokes.  That I'd heard very good things about the M&M system is the only reason I bothered reading through the rules.  No, don't be dense.  It shatters my suspension of disbelief if the villains don't WANT to murder the heroes.  That they are unable to is a different story.  That, upon discovering after attempting to kill the hero, that the hero is merely knocked unconsious, they then devise a diabolical plan to kill them in a horrific fashion doesn't bother me either.  What bothers me is the claim that villains will shun using lethal attacks when they have them available.  What bothers me is the assumption that every villain will act in that way, and the fact that the rules don't adequately address what happens when they don't.  That's to be frank, pretty darn silly.  I don't remember if you can already do this, but it seems to me that a better approach would be to allow hero points to be spent to convert lethal damage to non-lethal damage.  That would adequately simulate the ability of superheroes to be in the middle of something that kills everyone else but only knocks them unconscious (because they are the hero).  Of course, we are continually finding new needs for hero points.I didn't miss that.  I believe you missed my point. What, just because of AC?  I didn't bring AC into the equation because it only exaggerates the difference between a punch and a battle axe.  Instead of 44 hits, we'd be talking about a difference 880 or so swings, ignoring the potential effects of the -4 penalty on converting non-lethal to lethal damage and critical hits and so forth.  I'd say being able to endure 880 or so additional attacks is a pretty meaningful difference.Correct. But this is an argument in favor of getting rid of criticals, the random effects of which are well known to favor NPC's over PC's.  I've made that argument elsewhere, but whether criticals are good for the game have nothing to do with whether or not damage saves are superior to hit points.Deny it?  It's a rather important point.  The one implies the other.  If you have saving throws, you have save or die saving throws, and in particular, you have them if - as you argue - you want a 'one shot one kill' possibility in your system.  The only way to get read of 'save or die' is some sort of ablative system, such as hit points.  This is why I said that if I had to choose between getting rid of hit points and getting rid of saving throws, I'd get rid of saving throws (and give players 'reflex points', 'will points', and 'fort points')Except, as I said, I consider that a good thing and wouldn't change it.  But if you wanted to change it, my point was that you don't need to get rid of hit points to do it.Or Dragonlance.  Or Kara-Tur.  Or Forgotten Realms.  Or any other specific setting.No, it doesn't.  Which is why almost no-computer game does it.  I'm not speaking theoretically here.  I've experienced how this plays out.  I've played more than one system you know.  If you like it great, but I don't like it and I find it frustrating to run.  Power attack.  Sneak attack.  Various other non-core options.  Or just accept that as a finesse fighter he's not going to be as effective against certain foes as a brute.Ok, that's enough.  This conversation is becoming increasingly pointless.</blockquote>

Verification