pulpcitizen

Also used in the Unknown Armies percentile mechanics I believe.

Gotcha.

Reprints of the magazine?

'No brainer' type options are present in pretty much all point-buy systems, as well as non-points based ones that allow selectivity, at least in my experience. There is a potentially a line of thought that by not worrying about balance but rather about character design, then the utility issue can side-stepped. For example a recent high-powered GURPS campaign I ran benefitted from the players having little munchkin-knowledge of the current edition: it led to a party of quite varied power, yet within the context of the campaign it was fitting and I felt enjoyment was had as everyone had ther chance to shine. The reason I felt it worked despite arguably imbalanced characters (I purposely applied no character limits other than starting points - no maxima were in effect: this was made clear to the players at the outset), was because the players were encouraged to focus on niches for their characters: that is to say I think that niche protection ois the best form of balance, but I am probably rambling. Sometimes 'good enough' is plenty in my view.

The good thing about training time/downtime is that a GM can arguably fine tune it better than basic experience systems, but I agree that such fine-tuning is hard to assess fully since there is typically a random element to the outcome.

Except that first edition GURPS Supers (GURPS third edition) meshed well with Psionics since the design approach to powers and psionics was the same. They broke that with second edition GURPS Supers (GURPS third edition)... Back on topic - does there need to full and indisputable balance for a game to work effectively? I suggest this since I question how truly balanced any point buy system really is. At the end of the day points costs and gains are arbitrary values that have (hopefully) been play-tested to a state of finesse, yet such systems fall down in the 'meta-game' in some ways - the default and/or baseline chocies that are made on a local gaming level, as well as cost breaks that get thrown in. As soon as modifiers apply they are a further arbitrary cost change that is based on perceived utility, again affected by the meta-game choices. I don't see the potential imbalance of the power systems as a problem. I see it as a feature. But once again I offer the caveat that I may change my mind once my next campaign (with BRP supers) is actually underway... :thumb:

I would generally treat as a chance each day, but in certain campaigns the 'all or nothing' approach may be more suitable as Kloster notes.

Whilst it makes some sense to mechanically make non-lethal the default condition for a supers game, if playing in a 'with great powers comes great responsibility' style, then arguably making the players think and make choices is very much in keeping with the silver age onwards. This is an issue I have with the likes of Hero, M&M and MEGS - that since the default is pretty non-lethal to a greater or lesser extent in each case, then there is litlte impetus to recognise the need to act responsibly since the mechanics save the characters from serious repercussions, instead of the characters saving themselves by acting responsibly. In essence the rules allow the players/PC's to abdicate any responsibility since there is no need to have any mechanically.

That's the one. It is also known as the Mayfair Exponential Game System (hence MEGS), and current ownership is now a somewhat murky issue I believe.

MEGS was the game engine for DC Heroes then later Blood of Heroes, and in terms of point buy systems my favourite simply due to its mechanical elegance. Its weakness was similar to that of Hero: high end functionality was fine, but gradation at low levels was minimal.

Agreed Really? there are two or three spot rules that seem to handle this function already, at least as I see it. Given the variable growth and mechanical functioning efficiency is a complicated issue - starting efficiency vs efficiency after considerable experience for example, so comapring starting characters would not be a fair comparison necessarily, and efficiciency could be balanced in the area of charcter growth rather than massive rule change to the power systems. Are you not simply creating a GURPS/MEGS/Hero/M&M wannabe then? It is funny, but after 20 years of Champions, GURPS and MEGS, I feel I am stepping in the other direction - it really is different strokes for different folks. I have not yet used BRP as a supers game but I plan to, and my opinion may change after I have tried to do so. My view is that there is value in the BRP powers systems, and it is the skills systm that i want to emphasize as so many supers games are lacking in this area. I feel the powers systems simply need appropriate expansion, and that BRP can or should be utilised for its differences rather than similarities to the various point-buy games. The training rules seem an intriguing alternative to the flat experience point increase of point-buy. But that is just one view.

Good point, but then training seems to be well (better?) emphasized in the BRP rules now.

I look forward to seeing more for the other powers.

I think the system has potential for supers use, but that the superpowers selection (and attendent modifiers etc) needs expansion. In essence I feel that a setting incorporating the magic system(s) and psionics alongside powers can work. That said, I feel that the superpowers need to be a costlier way of building broader and/or more reliable effects than available through the restricted mechanisms of the other optional power systems. It also occurs to me that there are options that can be used by PC's to restrict their own lethality - which is the point of many comic book stories, isn't it? With great power comes great responsibility. I think the perceived problem lies in that (relatively) low-lethality is the default mode for many super-hero rpgs such as DC Heroes/MEGS/Blood of Heroes, Hero/Champions, Mutants and Masterminds, so BRP suffers a little by comparison (as can GURPS for similar reasons). Another issue is the 'why?' factor. Why does a GM want a system that plays more like another system? If it is perceived that the other system works more accurately or effectively (or both) then use it. But if there is something that is preferable about BRP by comparison, then the question arises of the need to bolt-on (more) rules changes to achieve the desired outcome, since the result will potentially be removed from the starting system - in other word that which is in favour of using one system gets lost amid add-ons. I honestly think that the basics exist to run not just so-called 'gritty' stories, but also more 'mainstream' comic book inspired tales. Admittedly this view isn't supported by experience yet, but that is something I plan to address. One thing that did occur to me is the potential to run games in a so-called 'widescreen' mileiu/style (like the Authority, the Ultimates, Black Summer et al).

The starting Magician/non-Magician issue can be balanced using the non-powered heroes skills increase. It means that other characters will have an edge in their areas of non-magical expertise as a balance. If that contradicts any preference of having all characters start at a low kill level (Mage or non-Mage), then the issue of whether you want balance becomes a question. If trying to keep skill levels low, then perhaps simply forgo the spell-skill benefits of Mages (ie the POW x 1 starting level on the starting spells) and simply have all characters purchase the magic skills from normal skill points, perhaps devising a range of appropriate magic professions to incorporate a selction of spells for each.