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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3332644" data-attributes="member: 198">No argument there.  Knowing Jason, if it was a +2 Princess, on the other hand... Also true, which is why I've always had problems with the way the implied setting works, and why I like Eberron as much as I do. It tends to account better for the existence of such characters (partly by making them incredibly rare) in the same world as Pete the 1st lvl commoner than any published setting I've seen.I think the former ("M&M doing mythic") is probably a little easier than the latter, if simply because of the modular version of M&M. And the fact that M&M has the somewhat built-in expectation of much less serious power escalation than D&D does, as I mentioned before. So all you'd need to do is start the PCs off as PL10-12 characters in a world of mostly PL1-5 people. You could do the same thing in D&D, but then you'd have to drop XP and level advancement very quickly, if not right off the bat.I think M&M would work well for making it more fine-grained, and if going with D&D, I'd probably go with starting the PCs off at a higher level and significantly slowing down the level gain process. Also, maybe break up the things gained over a level and have each gained after a few sessions, so there's the sense of a more gradual progression. You know, something like having the skill pts of the next level gained after three sessions, the saves after another three, BAB after three more, hit pts after another three, and spellcasting and/or special abilities after the final three. This is just what I'm making up off the top off my head, so there'd be much better methods if one spent some time on them.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Again, right off the top off my head:Advantage - M&M does radical change occurring in a fine-grained manner (1 pp per session rather than a level jump after a number of them) better. Disadvantage - The class based system is just simpler to track than a modular system.Advantage/disadvantage (depending on where your preference lies) - Combat is likely to be  more unpredictable in M&M, esp. at higher PLs, due to the reliance on a save rather than hit pts. It would probably be somewhat similar to high-level D&D with a lot more incpacitating spells.These are really hard for me to say, since I just don't have the experience or, more importantly, the time spent reading and thinking about M&M. I do think it's a very strong and robust system, so I don't think it would really break down, but it's definitely easier for a well-informed player to powergame in M&M than in D&D, I think. Due to the modular nature of the game, just running core M&M is similar, I think, to running D&D with a whole heap of supplementary materials allowed, since there's a very high payoff for synergizing multiple abilities and powers. That's one reason why I think M&M requires a little more rules-savvy from the DM if run right out of the box than D&D (if running core D&D only).I'm not sure if that answered your question, but there's my 2 pp (yes, I always overestimate).</blockquote>

Verification