Review of Chris Aylott's "A Matter of Family" posted...

[Teflon Billy]

I reviewed the "A Matter of Family" .pdf adventure for Mutants and Masterminds,

It can be found here ----> Yup, right here

 

[Valiantheart]

That wasn a pretty good article and was very accurate with the school of character design in M&M. I myself go with a concept creation method and worry about optimization last. The game is well put together but can be broken by twinkys with ease. The other thing I've noticed is the need to send baddies 3-4 PLs higher than the group of PCs to really challenge them.

 

[coyote6]

On the one hand, I like that the M&M characters are "modelled" and not "optimized" -- M&M is a fast and loose system, and simply doesn't spend a lot of effort trying to quash munchkinitis (and I really like that), so "optimizing" is fairly trivial. I think the assumption is that players are there to play supers, not game the character creation system.

Also, I think you get more interesting characters by modelling rather than optimizing. And, finally, optimizing is what made me tire of Champions/Hero a decade ago, and I don't think I'm quite over it yet.

OTOH, I think I'm naturally inclined to powergame.

It's also easier to figure out what would make a good fight when characters of similar power levels have similar combat capability. And the PL limit makes quite a tempting milestone -- it's easy to assume "It's a PL X character, he should have offensive and defensive powers at PL X, and attack bonus & Defense at X."

IME, though, the game doesn't work so well if everybody has maxed out attack & Defense scores. IMO, characters seem too much alike (and the martial artist type that didn't max out Weapon or Strike or somesuch has very little he can do to keep up with the bricks & energy projectors).

(As for Protection: our house rule is you have to reduce past -3 for subdual attacks; lethal attacks still bounce when reduced to less than 0. I didn't want supers to have to have Protection 10 to be bulletproof, and I thought it would encourage non-lethal attacks, which matched the kind of comic books I wanted to emulate.)

Now I really want to play M&M.

 

[Teflon Billy]

On the one hand, I like that the M&M characters are "modelled" and not "optimized" -- M&M is a fast and loose system, and simply doesn't spend a lot of effort trying to quash munchkinitis (and I really like that),

What do you like about that?

so "optimizing" is fairly trivial. I think the assumption is that players are there to play supers, not game the character creation system.

That has never been my experience. To my ear, that's like saying D&D players aren't interested in going up levels, cause they are already Sword-Swingers or Spell Casters, which is plenty heroic.

I've never seen a Player, create a PL10 Character and look at his primary focus and not go "Ok, that's +10"..whereas I've seen it done for the characters in the supplements plenty, which leaves us with a large power disparity between PC PL10's and Published NPC PL10's.

This, in my opinion, cuts into the product's utility.

Also, I think you get more interesting characters by modelling rather than optimizing. And, finally, optimizing is what made me tire of Champions/Hero a decade ago, and I don't think I'm quite over it yet.

I hear you.

I'm not saying that Modelling isn't a valid method of caracter creation, I'm saying that if players don't use the modelling system (and according to this statement...

OTOH, I think I'm naturally inclined to powergame.

..at least you dont then it's going to make for them trouncing NPC's whose background writeup is that they are super-badass.

Imagine say Daredevil going to Latveria to meet to face down Dr. Doom.

In M&M Daredevil has a pretty decent chance of KOing Doom with one tap of his cane if Doom is Modelled rather than optimized.

 

[Wraith Form]

I reviewed the "A Matter of Family" .pdf adventure for Mutants and Masterminds, **SNIP**

Good review, TB. Makes me seriously consider buying the adventure...but then again, isn't that the whole point?

 

[rowport]

TBilly-

Good review. For some bizarre reason, I cannot comment on your article page, so I will do so here. I bought the download last night, and agree with your assessment, especially the need to beef up the opposition. (I have not playtested, but just on face-value these guys need some more power IMHO.) I plan to run the module in a few weeks. Thanks for the article!

 

[coyote6]

What do you like about that?

IME, attempts to "munchkin-proof" RPGs end up, after a point, with rules that are unnecessarily convuluted and/or plain stupid. Further, in a superhero system, you want to allow PCs to have some amazing abilities, so munchkin-proofing seems to end up limiting what kind of characters one can create (usually to the system's discredit). Finally, munchkin-proofing always fails, anyways. I haven't seen any RPG that can't be abused. Therefore, aside from steps that are really just good game design, excessive amounts of munchkin-proofing is a waste of time and energy. Tell the GM & players "hey, don't abuse the rules -- what's the point?", and let individual GMs and players decide what's abusive and what's not. (The line developer can decide for the game.)

Somewhere, I think I have a quote by Sean Punch (GURPS Line Editor) on this subject; but I can't find it, alas.

That has never been my experience. To my ear, that's like saying D&D players aren't interested in going up levels, cause they are already Sword-Swingers or Spell Casters, which is plenty heroic.

Well, character creation isn't the same to me as character advancement.

By "gaming the system", I mean abusing the game system; when we played Champions, we called it "raping the rules". My favorite example involved combining Champions II's rules on END Battery recovery (1/10th per recovery) with increased recovery, high END Battery multiples, and Increased END limitations (you buy END Battery at, say, x128, recovery once per phase or segment; this is a huge Advantage; then buy Increased END x250 -- this is an even huger limitation, but has no real net effect. You can make the Increased END large enough to reduce the price to anything you want; add Area Effect and Uncontrolled COntinuous to suit your tastes. Perfectly legal in Champions 2e, as far as I could tell, and completely abusive).

With M&M, I think the designer's assumption is that players will play the superheroes they want to play, rather than min-maxing their character's design so as to get The Most Power. Ultimately, it's futile. The GM can always create a character that can defeat any PC.

I've never seen a Player, create a PL10 Character and look at his primary focus and not go "Ok, that's +10"..whereas I've seen it done for the characters in the supplements plenty, which leaves us with a large power disparity between PC PL10's and Published NPC PL10's.

May I introduce you to Spinnerette, a PC from my M&M game with nothing above rank 8 (and the only things at rank 8 are Swinging and Snare)? Palisade doesn't have Super-Strength maxed out (rank 8) nor Protection, though Flight is and she has Amazing Save (Damage), which hits 10 ranks when combined with Protection.

Of course, that's only half the PCs -- the electric guy and the telekinetic are both maxed out at 10 ranks in their main powers.

This, in my opinion, cuts into the product's utility.

True.

I wish they'd done a detailed character creation example, and maybe included some designer's notes on how they intended the system be used, and what explicitly stated they saw as a baseline stats (attack, Defense, offensive & defensive powers, range of powers, range of skills, etc.) for a character of beginning PL (at least). Give us a yardstick to measure with, as it were.

The current situation, the only yardstick is PL limit, which gives the effect of making one think that one's character should have maxed out powers. IMO, that clearly isn't the intention, as demonstrated by sample characters (how many characters have base attack or Defense anywhere near their theoretical maximum?).

Also, I think M&M will break down if every character is maxed; powerful villains like Dr. Doom, Darkseid, Atomic Brain, etc., simply won't be defeatable by PCs, if they're min-maxed -- the PL 10 attacks will bounce off of the PL 20 defenses, assuming the PCs can even hit the villain's Defense of 56 (and if the PCs are Power Attacking, they won't be able to hit).

I'm not saying that Modelling isn't a valid method of caracter creation, I'm saying that if players don't use the modelling system (and according to this statement [...] at least you dont"

Well, I use a mix. I've sworn to use my powergaming powers only for good.

 

[Teflon Billy]

IME, attempts to "munchkin-proof" RPGs end up, after a point, with rules that are unnecessarily convuluted and/or plain stupid. Further, in a superhero system, you want to allow PCs to have some amazing abilities, so munchkin-proofing seems to end up limiting what kind of characters one can create (usually to the system's discredit). Finally, munchkin-proofing always fails, anyways. I haven't seen any RPG that can't be abused. Therefore, aside from steps that are really just good game design, excessive amounts of munchkin-proofing is a waste of time and energy. Tell the GM & players "hey, don't abuse the rules -- what's the point?", and let individual GMs and players decide what's abusive and what's not. (The line developer can decide for the game.)

Absolutely true and I couldn't agree more. for my own Cascade City Homebrew, this works perfectly: deciding with the players what Power Levels "within" the PL to aim for.

But I was talking about Player-made PC's and how they mesh with Published stuff.

What you say in the quote below...

I wish they'd done a detailed character creation example, and maybe included some designer's notes on how they intended the system be used, and what explicitly stated they saw as a baseline stats (attack, Defense, offensive & defensive powers, range of powers, range of skills, etc.) for a character of beginning PL (at least). Give us a yardstick to measure with, as it were.

The current situation, the only yardstick is PL limit, which gives the effect of making one think that one's character should have maxed out powers. IMO, that clearly isn't the intention, as demonstrated by sample characters (how many characters have base attack or Defense anywhere near their theoretical maximum?).

...is exactly the kind of 20'/20 hindisght I wish I had. Your suggestion, had they implemented something like it, would solve virtually all of my concerns.

I'm going to cut and paste that paragraph for future threads on this subject if you don't mind.

Also, I think M&M will break down if every character is maxed; powerful villains like Dr. Doom, Darkseid, Atomic Brain, etc., simply won't be defeatable by PCs, if they're min-maxed -- the PL 10 attacks will bounce off of the PL 20 defenses, assuming the PCs can even hit the villain's Defense of 56 (and if the PCs are Power Attacking, they won't be able to hit).

Well, in my mind "world beaters" like Dr. Doom shouldn't be defeatable by the likes of PL10 characters. That's what guys like Sandman, Baron Zemo and Doctor Octopus are for

If I was running a Marvel game using M&M, and the first thing out of my players mouths (After finishing up their PL10 Characters) was "We're going to Latveria to confromt Dr. Doom...they could frankly expect one outcome

I'm not saying that Modelling isn't a valid method of caracter creation, I'm saying that if players don't use the modelling system (and according to this statement [...] at least you dont"

Well, I use a mix. I've sworn to use my powergaming powers only for good.

So do I, I usually model tp start, the go back in and optimize as best I can.

Yes, it adds an extra step, but the results are (IMO) worth it.

 

[spacecrime.com]

TBilly-
I bought the download last night, and agree with your assessment, especially the need to beef up the opposition.

I agree with Teflon Billy too.

FWIW, the bad guys are on the light side for a reason -- as TB figured out, they're in the adventure to move the story along, not be its centerpiece. My biggest worry was that a group of new players might get in over their head and not have the time or mental energy to enjoy the investigative and decision-making sides of the adventure, so I chose "might be too easy for some" over "might be too hard for others".

Where I goofed is that I got stuck in physical-book thinking. I've got effectively infinite space to work with, and there was no reason not to spend a page or two on meatier variants of the villains. I'm just so used to economizing and "one size has got to fit all" design thinking that I literally never thought about it until TB called me on it. I also didn't think about the possibilities of customizing for player experience rather than power levels, and there's some interesting things to be done there.

Anyway, lesson learned, and there are some future books that are going to be stronger because of it. Thanks to Teflon Billy and his players for a great review!

cheers,

Chris Aylott

 

[Teflon Billy]

....Anyway, lesson learned, and there are some future books that are going to be stronger because of it...

So we can assume that you and Phil have decided to go ahead with more M&M Material then?