In other discussions, on other forums, the discussion entered in to the territory covered by this poll. Some would like to see most of it changed, others think it needs some polish. I think the rules need some more verbosity, and some work to fill in some things that are hinted at, but not actually covered in the rules.

Where are y'all on this one?

Thank you for putting this one up, Ypsilanti; a poll, by nature, is going to be pretty rough in terms of defining what's good/what's not good, but the categories you chose do a strong job of hitting the major categories.

I was kind of hee-hawing between "Great" and "Best ever!" but went for Great because there definitely is room (as Jeff and Jack have themselves stated) for clean-up and improvement.  V&V 2.0 and 2.1 have been noted for attending to a rather restricted power level, as far as the RAW are concerned - the exponential hit point calculations make anyone over/above a solid Justice League/Avengers level rather self-defeating in terms of playability; another point of (potential) serious difficulty is characters with multiple, multiple attacks per round, and the lack of a workable skills system.  Nonetheless, the game still cracks the whip when it comes to sheer rapid-fire game progression and fight resolution.  Although my experience with other systems is admittedly limited (M&M 2e forms the majority of it; 3e is a big "ugh" experience and I've yet to give a shot to others - which have a good reputation - such as Truth & Justice), I would say that the introduced amendments for 3.0 do address a number of the outstanding rough points.

Part of the appeal for me is the lack of verbosity and the leaving of many things open to GM interpretation. I dislike games such as the recent editions of Hero and M&M that try to give a rule for every bit of minutiae that might come up during play. Oftentimes that legalistic language makes it HARDER to understand the rules. I don't know whether I would want a "skill system" in V&V. Seems like a good idea at first, but then I see games with these enormous lists of skills where half of them seem almost redundant like acrobatics, gymnastics, breakfall, tumbling, and athletics all being skills.

Matt, I agree with you, and I'm still very "Iffy" on Skills. A lot of games are pretty rigid, and define everything that the authors think might happen, then when something unforeseen happens (and it will), the players are stuck. I also worry that having a lot of skills will turn a fun adventure into a long string of Skill Rolls.

A save vs the relevant has worked pretty well for me, and the players seem okay with it.

Were this a Spy game - I would expect to see skills out the Byoo-tox.

Matt wrote on Mar 21^st, 2015 at 1:55am:


It's like you're reading my mind.

I kinda wonder if anyone thought the V&V rules were "totally broken" or "totally outdated," would they even be on this site?

Good points Matt and Tempest...
Actually, I just put the full range of responses up there to cover all the bases. If I had just gone with "Acceptable" on up, someone would say it was a pretty crappy poll. Worse yet, they would be right.

I kinda like the roll-under mechanic. But if I woke up tomorrow and V&V was a roll-over system - I would be okay with that as well

It gives you a chance to use that shitty "jinxed" d20 that always rolls 1's.

Matt wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2015 at 8:40pm:


You're not a true gamer until you have destroyed a dice with a hammer, vise, or fire because it failed you one too many times.

Quote:


That's the only way it would count.

I had a friend who would toss a bunch of d4's outside your bedroom door after you went to bed...

I admire that level of pranksterism.

My only issue with the "just give them a stat roll" for a skill is hinged off one V&V dude, and some comic book guys.

Aztech has an above average, but still not amazing, INT for a guy who invented a flying pack with life support gear, and a functional laser system.

Conversely, if he has some sort of skill adder to reflect that he put in time and training in it, this might give him a better roll than someone who is super smart, but has little or no training.

Now compare the following three comic book super-scientists: Henry Pym, Tony Stark, Reed Richards.

Highest INT? Possibly Tony. Highest Skill? Possibly Pym. Highest total? Reed, ever day and twice on Sundays. You might be able to make the argument that Reed wins both categories, and I'd be kinda hard pressed to say you're wrong, but hopefully my point comes through.

Just making it a stat roll to me is almost meaningless. It reflects nothing of real dedication and training. If you really want to go grognard old school 1e AD&D, maybe take a look at what 5e did with their skill system. It blends a bit from both worlds. You have a proficiency bonus that links to level, and if you're proficient in a skill, you add that bonus to the stat check. It's simple, and it rewards "training" as opposed to only rewarding lucky die rolls and Heightened Stat B.

This would also make it easier to depict highly skilled characters without having to give them ridiculous and thematically unsupported stats.

Just my 2 cents.

After last nights game I "tweaked" with the d20 to make it roll lower. 

5 rolls of 20's out of the first 6 d20 rolls last night between me and Paul. Has to be a record.

Poll is now CLOSED.

The votes are about what I expected.

Thank-you all for your participation - just wish we would have had more voters.