M&M 2nd Edition: Underwhelmed?

[Thomas5251212]

how so, in that you could then reduce the cost by 1 for each sub-power that you could flaw?

Or only reduce the overall cost. One favored people who had powers with individual flaws; one penalized them (since if they actually treated the flaw is there they paid the same as someone who didn't have it).

two ways to fix that:

- each sub-power have to cost atleast 1 pr level.

- a flaw can only reduce the total cost of the power by 1 pr level, no matter how many sub-powers its applyed to.

And as I've said three times now, both of those favored one case or the other, rather than being a balanced issue. I didn't think that was desireable; neither did at least some others. And in the end, when he looked at it, neither did Steve Kenson.

 

[hobgoblin]

ah, now finaly it made sense...

i didnt quite get what you where saying about how it penalized one over the other until now. sorry about that, and i kinda see the problem...

damn...

still tho, there is allways a point where more flaws will give 0 return, the point where concept overrules min/max-ing. the point that seperate a player from a roleplayer

therefor i will likely apply my suggestion 2 to situations where people want to flaw only some of the sub-powers.

still, i would allso apply the same rule to extras. having two or more sub-powers with the same extra only gives you a +1 in cost pr level.

why? cosmic power and similar. often there is no point in applying a extra or flaw to more then some parts of the power. therefor it becomes a kind of selective trickle down. only that it can jump over some branches

sure, it favors concept over min-max but i dont see that as a problem. to me a superhero game is about concepts, not building the best hero there is. why? thats all to simple. if the player is willingly limiting his character somehow, then they should not be hurt by it

 

[Thomas5251212]

ah, now finaly it made sense...

i didnt quite get what you where saying about how it penalized one over the other until now. sorry about that, and i kinda see the problem...

damn...

still tho, there is allways a point where more flaws will give 0 return, the point where concept overrules min/max-ing. the point that seperate a player from a roleplayer

Except that in addition to this, extraing powers off other powers really didn't serve any function except to be a bookkeeping convenience. It wasn't like it really applied any meaningful limitation to justify a point per rank savings (the idea that just because it made it slightly easier to Drain or Neutralize a power justified this made me laugh, all the more so when you consider most non-attribute Drains and almost all Neutralizes you see in comics are directed at what 2e calls descriptors anyway, and there's no need for powers to be connected that way to share descriptors), so in practice it was a tiny bookkeeping saver that created several problems. That's almost the definition of a piece of design that needs to go from where I sit.

sure, it favors concept over min-max but i dont see that as a problem. to me a superhero game is about concepts, not building the best hero there is. why? thats all to simple. if the player is willingly limiting his character somehow, then they should not be hurt by it

But that's the problem; extraing in practice almost never _did_ limit someone. It was mostly just point gravy.

 

[hobgoblin]

maybe so, maybe so...

but like i said, for some reason i liked the idea. and ill most likely stick to 1ed anyways...

 

[Thomas5251212]

maybe so, maybe so...

but like i said, for some reason i liked the idea. and ill most likely stick to 1ed anyways...

Nothing wrong with that.

The reason I respond to these is that too many critics of 2e I've seen act like there was no reason to make the changes made. In reality, what they're complaining about generally seems to be that the problems didn't bother them, or they liked some aspect that had to go to deal with them. The latter is their right, but they shouldn't act like there was no point here. Otherwise it seems to be trying to raise an issue of who's ox is being gored to a statement of design error. If its design error, then they should be able to respond when challenged on it, but at least some seem to take offense when this occurs.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I'll confess to being very leery at first about a new edition of Mutants & Masterminds, especially given some of the previews on fan site. But now having the book, I'll now confess to being a fan of the revisions. The biggest change I was worried about was divorcing Strength and Dexterity from their respective combat scores, but I can understand the logic as it puts those two ability scores on a more even footing with the other four, and allows for the super-tough guy that has no clue how to land a punch.

While having power creation rules would have been a nice addition, I'm not missing as every concept I've been able to think of so far I've been able to stat up, including the DCAU versions of the Justice League, and able to do so without anyone's Power Level getting to ridiculous heights (namely Superman and Batman), and without too much "fudging" in terms of powers (sole exception being Supes having Improved Initiative as an extra of Quickness; net saving in terms of points equaling zip).

As for the repeated "Blast" theme powers, I see those more as being there to give new players ideas to set up power themes via Alternate Powers, so I can forgive them that trespass.

I guess maybe the highest mark of praise for M&M2e is that a friend of mine, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Champions/Hero System advocate since the days of 1st edition, and loudly criticized every other superhero RPG out on the market (including M&M1e), borrowed my copy of 2nd edition, read through it, and went out to buy his own copy, and is now planning a M&M campaign, and is working on converting a lot of the background NPCs and villains from his old Hero System campaigns to M&M2e for use in the new campaign. I guess if Mikey likes it, Green Ronin did something right.