I originally posted this in the actual play thread, but I thought it might better to create a spin off so as not to derail the excellent actual play.
I've said it other places before but this game requires a mind set that appreciate a level of abstraction and type of desired emulation that have a hard time gasping and really getting into. But it seems to work very well in that mode for those that have an easier time with it. I think that and the difficulty I have thinking in that manner are the main reasons I find it such a fascinating, yet frustrating game.
For instance, it took me a bit to grasp something when I ran it: the nature that emotional/mental stress worked. It felt like an issue in the rules or a mistake I was making that caused most character's pools to resist them as opposed to Physical generally smaller. But I came to the conclusion that I was looking at it wrong. A player doesn't just say "I'm going to inflict Emotional Stress on that NPC." but has to come up with a justification, role play and describe some action that strikes the GM as appropriate (perhaps justified by a sfx?) any more than a character described as normal person physical could state 'I inflict Physical Stress on Colossus." without some in game/narrative justification for it. The M has more explicit fiat power. In say Hero System, the norm vs Colossus situation would be managed by the dice. 2-3d6 damage isn't going to get through the mutants 30+ Defenses.
In Hero, a normal might set up an trap the collapses a building on the X-man that inflicts damage with their skills, equipment and powers. In MHRPG that would be simulated by using the character's Tech specialty, perhaps some power set or Distinction related to such situations... One would be more tight focused task resolution (building, placing the trap, drawing in Colossus, etc), the other might be more drawn back/wide screen/panel focus with the entire situation resolved with one roll that results (or not) in the steel Russian getting a building dropped on him over the 'course' of the panel, some of the set up might even be considered retroactive (an interesting approach to schemer and trickster characters like Arcade or Mysterio?)
In MHRPG it seems like it could a case of the GM "That can't work, try something else or tell me how that would work story-wise?" It seems to focus on the medium with more of authorial stance while many other games take a world simulation approach with an improv actor stance if that makes any sense.
I've said it other places before but this game requires a mind set that appreciate a level of abstraction and type of desired emulation that have a hard time gasping and really getting into. But it seems to work very well in that mode for those that have an easier time with it. I think that and the difficulty I have thinking in that manner are the main reasons I find it such a fascinating, yet frustrating game.
For instance, it took me a bit to grasp something when I ran it: the nature that emotional/mental stress worked. It felt like an issue in the rules or a mistake I was making that caused most character's pools to resist them as opposed to Physical generally smaller. But I came to the conclusion that I was looking at it wrong. A player doesn't just say "I'm going to inflict Emotional Stress on that NPC." but has to come up with a justification, role play and describe some action that strikes the GM as appropriate (perhaps justified by a sfx?) any more than a character described as normal person physical could state 'I inflict Physical Stress on Colossus." without some in game/narrative justification for it. The M has more explicit fiat power. In say Hero System, the norm vs Colossus situation would be managed by the dice. 2-3d6 damage isn't going to get through the mutants 30+ Defenses.
In Hero, a normal might set up an trap the collapses a building on the X-man that inflicts damage with their skills, equipment and powers. In MHRPG that would be simulated by using the character's Tech specialty, perhaps some power set or Distinction related to such situations... One would be more tight focused task resolution (building, placing the trap, drawing in Colossus, etc), the other might be more drawn back/wide screen/panel focus with the entire situation resolved with one roll that results (or not) in the steel Russian getting a building dropped on him over the 'course' of the panel, some of the set up might even be considered retroactive (an interesting approach to schemer and trickster characters like Arcade or Mysterio?)
In MHRPG it seems like it could a case of the GM "That can't work, try something else or tell me how that would work story-wise?" It seems to focus on the medium with more of authorial stance while many other games take a world simulation approach with an improv actor stance if that makes any sense.