Point Cheaters and "Comic book" Realism
Paul Mata
And if there is one thing I can't stand are players that create their
characters' powers too such and extent where they put in little
"limitations" i.e. +20 Dex only for CV purposes. Or even better yet "only
works on a habital environment.." What really ticks me off is that even the
creators of Champions use this silly tactic. Please, please use LEVELS or
experience points to create the effects or powers you want.
So, for example one wanted to create a character like Capt. America who has
a Max DEX of 20 by definition. Don't buy +20 dex with the limits of for CV
only. Remember, Capt America has had years and years of experience. If
anything, talk to your GM about loaning you some EXP..which you pay back
through roleplaying
SD Anderson
> one thing I can't stand are players that create their
> characters' powers too such and extent where they put in little
> "limitations" i.e. +20 Dex only for CV purposes. Or even better
> yet "only works on a habital environment.." What really ticks
> me off is that even the creators of Champions use this silly
> tactic.
A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
Point value as a measure of utility becomes useless when point
values can be lowered so severely.
GURPS Supers did something to fix this that I like. There is
a limitation to limitations. No matter what, you cannot buy a
power's cost down below 1/4th it's real value. You can take
further limitations to purchase additional enhancements, or you
can for sake of character concept take the additional limitations
without reducing price any further than -75%. 4:1 is still a
pretty good deal. And it avoids a lot of the abuses that
Champions permits when you take a lot of petty limitations and
get 10:1 or greater point generator.
Patricia J Hall
SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in article
<#mNghINA#GA....@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com>...
> Paul Mata wrote:
> > one thing I can't stand are players that create their
> > characters' powers too such and extent where they put in little
> > "limitations" i.e. +20 Dex only for CV purposes. Or even better
> > yet "only works on a habital environment.." What really ticks
> > me off is that even the creators of Champions use this silly
> > tactic.
>
> A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
> By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
> build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
> killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
You know Ron? :-)
James Mcadams
[snip]
>So, for example one wanted to create a character like Capt. America who has
>a Max DEX of 20 by definition. Don't buy +20 dex with the limits of for CV
>only. Remember, Capt America has had years and years of experience. If
>anything, talk to your GM about loaning you some EXP..which you pay back
>through roleplaying
The best solution I've found for this is redefining the
campaign limits. I've run games where the Average Dex is 14, and Speed
is 3. (And lowered the average DC's into the 8-10 range).
All of a sudden Cap, Bats, and Ninja become credible threats,
without needing handfuls of levels to catch up to the PCs.
When you've got a CV of 4-6, that fellow with the 7-9 is a _real_
pain to get ahold of. Of course, I tend to give that sort of character
"survival" defenses - which means that 12Def is about the norm. One
'super-powered' hit, and they're reeling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McAdams | Do,
jmca...@interaccess.com | or Do Not.
630-859-6902 | There is no "Try". - Yoda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Viscido
> Paul Mata wrote:
> > one thing I can't stand are players that create their
> > characters' powers too such and extent where they put in little
> > "limitations" i.e. +20 Dex only for CV purposes. Or even better
> > yet "only works on a habital environment.." What really ticks
> > me off is that even the creators of Champions use this silly
> > tactic.
Well, as GM, you should just veto such things. I certainly would.
>
> A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
> By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
> build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
> killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
>
> Point value as a measure of utility becomes useless when point
> values can be lowered so severely.
In the first place, you should always look at the ACTIVE points of the
power as well as the real cost. If you tell your players "No more than
60 active points per power" for their characters (you have that right
as a GM), then when they come to you with a 60 real point power that
is 1600 or so Active points, you just say, "nope." On Champions MUSH,
we have the rule that no PC can start out with more than 12 DCs or 60
active points, whichever is lower. That pretty much stops that sort of
thing.
>
> GURPS Supers did something to fix this that I like. There is
> a limitation to limitations. No matter what, you cannot buy a
> power's cost down below 1/4th it's real value.
This is a good idea, actually -- though it might not go quite far
enough. I've seen characters with a string of say, 6 +1/4
Limitations. Each one was technically worth about +1/4 ("does not work
in intensified darkness fields, does not work in pouring rain", etc),
but most of them would hardly ever realistically show up. A character
getting a small points discount off of a single +1/4 Lim is one
thing... but when you add them up, they aren't going to come up
appreciably more often, realistically, but they can cut the cost of
the points down a LOT. One rule I used for a while was, you can't have
more than one of the same VALUE limitation on a power. I.e. you can
put one +1/4, one +1/2, one +3/4, one +1, etc... If you do that,
players can't take lots and lots of minor Limitations. If they need
the Limitation to make the power work right, they can take it, but
they don't save any points (subsequent +1/4 Lims are worth +0,
essentially).
> You can take
> further limitations to purchase additional enhancements, or you
> can for sake of character concept take the additional limitations
> without reducing price any further than -75%. 4:1 is still a
> pretty good deal. And it avoids a lot of the abuses that
> Champions permits when you take a lot of petty limitations and
> get 10:1 or greater point generator.
Well, anyone who has that many limitations on his char is obviously
going to have to pay for it in terms of game play. If the guy has lots
of Limitations, then as GM, you make sure ONE of them comes up all the
time. That, or just plain veto the power. It's not only possible, but
actually quite easy, if you know what you're doing, to stay within the
LETTER of the rules while at the same time violating the SPIRIT of the
rules. To me, the spirit of the rules is much more important. For
example, there is technically no reason you can't use charges in a
MP. A char with 20 MP slots, each on 16 charges, while not technically
violating any written rule in the BBB that I know of, is clearly
violating the spirit of the Charges rules by giving hismelf 320 uses
of his MP. I would veto any such MP as abusive, regardless of what the
BBB says. This is one of those cases where GM judgment has to come
in. Unfortunately it seems a lot of GMs are unwilling to take on
players and tell them not to do things that are abusive if those
things are within the letter of the rules. My advice is, if you don't
like it, don't allow it. I don't care what the rules say. As GM it's
your job to have a balanced campaign that's fair to all your
players. If one of them has a character that will ruin things, veto
it. That one player may not like it, but in the end all the rest of
your players will thank you (and, if he has any brains, he'll realize
you were right in the long run too).
Steven @ Champions MUSH
--
Steven V. Viscido [ste...@tbone.geol.sc.edu]
Dept. of Biological Sciences, Univ. of S.C., Columbia, SC 29208
{http://tbone.geol.sc.edu/~steven/}
Bryan J. Maloney
> I have been playing Champions since its first edition as a young teenager.
> And if there is one thing I can't stand are players that create their
> characters' powers too such and extent where they put in little
> "limitations" i.e. +20 Dex only for CV purposes. Or even better yet "only
> works on a habital environment.." What really ticks me off is that even the
It's even in the rules: "A limitation that is not a limitation is not a
limitation." The problem is that many GMs don't enforce that rule.
--
What you say may very well be true, but it may also very well be irrelevant.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Sakura
James Mcadams <jmca...@yin.interaccess.com> wrote:
>In article <3632e...@bonaparte.pixi.com>, Paul Mata <equ...@pixi.com> wrote:
>>So, for example one wanted to create a character like Capt. America who has
>>a Max DEX of 20 by definition. Don't buy +20 dex with the limits of for CV
>>only. Remember, Capt America has had years and years of experience. If
>>anything, talk to your GM about loaning you some EXP..which you pay back
>>through roleplaying
>
> The best solution I've found for this is redefining the
>campaign limits. I've run games where the Average Dex is 14, and Speed
>is 3. (And lowered the average DC's into the 8-10 range).
A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
the population.)
Advanced combat training and the like - the usual reason that superheros
give for their inhuman dex scores - ought to be done with skills and skill
levels, IMHO. I'm not sure where the 'Dex inflation' started, but it
seems to have been present for many years.
J
--
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - je...@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
Robert Stadler
>
> A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
> By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
> build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
> killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
You think that's bad? Destroying the world can be done much more
cheaply, with a sticky AOE attack. I think the worst I've seen is
Aid, OAF immovable, 2 charges, burnout 8- (You get a bigger limitation
from two charges with burnout than from 1 charge), self only, gestures,
incantations (two must-haves for abusive powers), concentrate 0 DCV, 5
hours to use. There were a few other limitations that I'm forgetting,
but this is a total of -9, which is quite sufficient. Basically, this
is the Throne of Power in the character's hideout (it might even have
been bought as part of a base, in which case the real cost would be 2%
of the active cost). Every night, the character must go meditate in the
throne to get juiced up for the coming day. If this was bought as part
of a base, then you could get a 20d6 aid to all physical stats (STR,
BODY, CON, Stun, END) fading at 5/day for 425 active points and 8 real
points. On average this would give you 70 STR, 35 BODY, 35 CON, 70
STUN, and 140 END. You would probably max out the aid by the second
day, after which, so long as you didn't miss any doses, you would be
permanently at +120 STR, 60 BODY, 60 CON, 120 Stun, and 240 END. Not
bad for 8 points, eh? I should note that this was devised purely as an
intellectual exercise. No sane GM would ever allow anything even
vaguely resembling this into his campaign.
> Point value as a measure of utility becomes useless when point
> values can be lowered so severely.
>
> GURPS Supers did something to fix this that I like. There is
> a limitation to limitations. No matter what, you cannot buy a
> power's cost down below 1/4th it's real value. You can take
> further limitations to purchase additional enhancements, or you
> can for sake of character concept take the additional limitations
> without reducing price any further than -75%. 4:1 is still a
> pretty good deal. And it avoids a lot of the abuses that
> Champions permits when you take a lot of petty limitations and
> get 10:1 or greater point generator.
I've heard that it's even worse in Fuzion, where a power can cost a
negative number of points with complications. I haven't played Fuzion
myself, though.
--
/-----------------------+---------------------------------------\
| | |
| Libertas operatur | Robert Stadler |
| Freedom works | rstadler at Princeton.edu |
| | |
\-----------------------+---------------------------------------/
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>You think that's bad? Destroying the world can be done much more
I did it once using Shrinking. It was a Doomsday Weapon, actually: 93
million miles range, 8 charges which lasted a minute each, enough Shrinking
so that by the seventh or eighth hit the sun would drop below its
Swartzchild radius and its own gravity would keep it from coming back.
Pop! A slow (comparatively) and chilly death for the Earth.
===================<BBlac...@bigfoot.com>====================
Brandon Blackmoor Dogs bark, babies cry,
Black Gate Publishing Rain falls, and Politicians lie.
=================<http://www.black-gate.com>===================
Ron Charlotte
>
>A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
>the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
>yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
>the population.)
Some of it is the pure nature of the game mechanics, but a lot of it
is consistant to the genre. Look as far back as the old "Doc Savage"
novels. Even his companions Renny, Monk, Long Tom, and the others
were considerably more nimble than "John Q. Thug". Even such
lumbering powerhouses like the Thing, the Oddity (from Wild Cards),
et.al. are far quicker and more dexterous than normals.
>Advanced combat training and the like - the usual reason that superheros
>give for their inhuman dex scores - ought to be done with skills and skill
>levels, IMHO. I'm not sure where the 'Dex inflation' started, but it
>seems to have been present for many years.
On the whole, I think that you object to the exploitation of the game
mechanic. In Champions, dex affects CV and SPD directly, as well as
the wide range of DEX based skills. It's only human nature to want
ones creation to be more effective.
One of the nastiest baddies I've got going right now is a version of
Mackie Messer (Mack the Knife). The character has several defense
only combat levels to reflect the fact that his ability to vibrate
into desolid is completely reflexive. It makes the sucker really hard
to fight. Even when you catch him "solid" he's really hard to hit.
People tend to go for the obvious rather than try to think around
corners when it comes to trying to create characters for a game as
potentially complex as super hero genre.
--
Ron Charlotte -- Gainesville, FL
swru...@compuserve.com
Robert Stadler <rsta...@princeton.edu> wrote:
.
>
> I've heard that it's even worse in Fuzion, where a power can cost a
> negative number of points with complications. I haven't played Fuzion
> myself, though.
>
I have played fuzion... campaign ongoing for a while.
A power cannot go negative with limitations if a gm is using those.
If a GM is using complications, there is no safety net... the GM and player
assess each complication based on frequency, severity and combat
importance... so I find it very hard to believe a GM would ever assess a
power-based comp as worth more than the power cost... it just goes right
against the logic...
It is certainly possible as a hypothetically silly example...
I buy extra limbs for 5 OP and talk my gm into thinking having them glow in
the dark is a very frequent, strongly limiting, and major importance in
combat thing and get 20-25 OP from it...
Note however that COMP in fuzion equates to BOTH power limitations and
character disads...
Imagine a character in hero who buys immune to aging as a mutant power and
takes DF: Mutant for 5-10 CP....
net result... he just GAINED points by buying a mutant power???
But guess what... the big rub is... he may actually be worse off... several
wimpy mutant abilities might not come close to compensating for the social or
campaign issues...
So while it is possibly but unlikely in fuzion... and possible using house
rules in hero... its not necessarily "worse" or even wrong to have this
possibility... IMO
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>In article <3632e...@bonaparte.pixi.com>, Paul Mata <equ...@pixi.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>So, for example one wanted to create a character like Capt. America who has
>>a Max DEX of 20 by definition.
Why would Cap have a maximum of 20 dex?
Firstly remember that Normal Characteristic Maxima makes it more expensive to
buy a stat above 20, it does _not_ mean that you can't do so.
Secondly the last MSH stats I saw for Cap had him with Remarkable Str which was
above human limits, that was authorised by Marvel so presumably is at least
somewhat accurate.
Thirdly I don't think that the Marvel universe is one where the normal
characteristic maxima would apply to many characters. Most of the Marvel
characters that I've seen have done some remarkable feats which would put them
beyond human ability (same for DC actually, I remember years and years ago
seeing Robin & Batgirl in a contest and Robin bouncing a crossbow bolt off of
Batgirl's crossbow bolt in flight and still getting a bullseye)
>>don't buy +20 dex with the limits of for CV
>>only.
I'd be looking to build cap with a high dex, martials arts package and combat
levels with that package. Of course his Shield could also be given some DCV
levels.
>> Remember, Capt America has had years and years of experience. If
>>anything, talk to your GM about loaning you some EXP..which you pay back
>>through roleplaying
>
> The best solution I've found for this is redefining the
>campaign limits. I've run games where the Average Dex is 14, and Speed
>is 3. (And lowered the average DC's into the 8-10 range).
>
> All of a sudden Cap, Bats, and Ninja become credible threats,
>without needing handfuls of levels to catch up to the PCs.
Cap & Bats are in completely different levels from Ninjas. Cap is the best hand
to hand combatant in the marvel universe and bats in DC. The second tier heroes
like Electra, Daredevil etc seem to have little trouble dealing with multiple
ninjas.
>When you've got a CV of 4-6, that fellow with the 7-9 is a _real_
>pain to get ahold of. Of course, I tend to give that sort of character
>"survival" defenses - which means that 12Def is about the norm. One
>'super-powered' hit, and they're reeling.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
SD Anderson
> You know Ron? :-)
This guy's name was Matt.
SD Anderson
> Well, anyone who has that many limitations on his char is
> obviously going to have to pay for it in terms of game play. If
> the guy has lots of Limitations, then as GM, you make sure ONE
> of them comes up all the time.
In the case I used, one limit almost was guaranteed to come up
since there is rarely a blue moon out. (FTR: A blue moon refers
to cases where the full moon occurs twice in a month). Then he
has activation and burn out etc. However, he's only down 70
points on this attack and still can make a viable character.
Watch out when it does work however.
Nightshade
>Advanced combat training and the like - the usual reason that superheros
>give for their inhuman dex scores - ought to be done with skills and skill
>levels, IMHO. I'm not sure where the 'Dex inflation' started, but it
>seems to have been present for many years.
Usually this is done because it's the generic 'edge' superheroes have
over the ordinary thugs and the like. Honestly, it can be hard enough
to make certain sorts of of superhero characters to make a living as
it were in a game as compared to the comics, because most people don't
provide the 'writer on the character's side' factor found in the
actual comics. Same thing applies to Speed in Champions.
George Novodvorsky
: Robert Stadler wrote in message <3634E3B3...@princeton.edu>...
:>
:>You think that's bad? Destroying the world can be done much more
:>cheaply, with a sticky AOE attack. I think the worst I've seen is...
OK. Disclaimer - yes, I know these aren't real powers.
But, just for the sake of argument:
...
:>Aid, OAF immovable...
Actually, if it's immovable, it's not accessible.
You can't grab the throne away in combat, can you?
Arguably you could grab the character out of the throne,
but gestures and concentration, which you also took,
already cover having the power turned off by a grab.
: I did it once using Shrinking. It was a Doomsday Weapon, actually: 93
: million miles range, 8 charges which lasted a minute each, enough Shrinking
: so that by the seventh or eighth hit the sun would drop below its
: Swartzchild radius and its own gravity would keep it from coming back.
But Shrinking would also reduce the target's mass proportionately,
no? So its own gravity would be reduced...
Also - how many levels of Usable Against Others did you need to
affect the Sun? Isn't the advantage based on target mass?
George
--
Sakura
>>
>> A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
>> By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
>> build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
>> killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
>
>cheaply, with a sticky AOE attack.
Transfer. I think this one is more or less from one of the Champions
books - Mystic Master? Anyway, it wen't something like this:
xd6 Transfer Body, AE: Radius (possibly increased radius), Personal
Immunity, 0 end, continuous, no range. The transferred character points
feed back into the transfer, thus increasing the radius affected, the
maximum amount of transfer, and how much is transferred at once.
Net result: a continually expanding circle of destruction that grows at
a frightening rate.
The moral of this story is, don't let Adjustment powers adjust
themselves...
Peter Meilinger
: >You think that's bad? Destroying the world can be done much more
: >cheaply, with a sticky AOE attack.
: Transfer. I think this one is more or less from one of the Champions
: books - Mystic Master? Anyway, it wen't something like this:
: xd6 Transfer Body, AE: Radius (possibly increased radius), Personal
: Immunity, 0 end, continuous, no range. The transferred character points
: feed back into the transfer, thus increasing the radius affected, the
: maximum amount of transfer, and how much is transferred at once.
: Net result: a continually expanding circle of destruction that grows at
: a frightening rate.
: The moral of this story is, don't let Adjustment powers adjust
: themselves...
They do have their uses though. For example, I've been trying for
awhile now to write up the magic system described in the Ethshar
books by Lawrence Watt-Evans. For those who haven't read the
books, there are several different magic types - wizards are
similar to AD&D mages, witches are more psionic in nature,
demonologists summon demons, and warlocks use vast amounts
of psychokinetic power until it kills them. Great books.
Anyways, there's one first order spell that I forget the name of,
but it creates the effect described above and would destroy
the entire world if left alone long enough. To top that, it's
described as one of the easiest spells to learn and cast and
the counterspell was lost centuries ago. I couldn't figure out
a way to do this without making it ridiculously expensive, until
someone suggested an effect very similar to the one described
above. Mind you, it works a lot better as a plot device than
as a spell a PC would know, but it's good to have a write-up.
Pete
James Mcadams
Ron Charlotte <ro...@gator.net> wrote:
>On 26 Oct 1998 22:22:37 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>
>>A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
>>the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
>>yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
>>the population.)
>
>Some of it is the pure nature of the game mechanics, but a lot of it
>is consistant to the genre. Look as far back as the old "Doc Savage"
>novels. Even his companions Renny, Monk, Long Tom, and the others
>were considerably more nimble than "John Q. Thug". Even such
>lumbering powerhouses like the Thing, the Oddity (from Wild Cards),
>et.al. are far quicker and more dexterous than normals.
To what degree? I wrote a simple combat simulation when I
started thinking about this, that had 2 characters standing toe-to-toe
punching each other. For 2 normals, the results were 50/50. If one
character had an 11 Dex, the numbers jumped to something like 75/25.
(First blow, and a DCV breakpoint make a BIG difference).
I agree that many bricks are more dextrous than normals. But
I think numbers in the 11-14 range reflect that plenty. Having
bricks who are challenging Jordan or Sanders for agility is a bit
much IMO. (NOTE: It's an exageration. Please use a different
subject if you want to take me to task for mis-representing
professional athletes. Thank you. :)
SD Anderson
> The moral of this story is, don't let Adjustment powers adjust
> themselves...
stack limitations to buy up a big killing attack area effect
World. Character concept was planetary assassin. He'd teleport
to his next target as the current one started to crumble (some
kind of delay 'penalty' in the stack that gave him time to blip
to another world). Not quite as cheap as some schemes presented
here, but cheap enough.
SD Anderson
> A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to
> be part of the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your
> powers are. (Uh, yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also
> more dextrous than 98% of the population.)
Because the two most successful first generation SHRPGs,
Champions and V&V, both produced characters who rocked if they
had a DEX of 27 or an Agility of 40. Champions went further and
gave little sidebars telling how to increase their efficiency and
effectiveness, making the 'official' purpose of playing the game
devising very powerful characters who had low real point costs.
Surprise surprise that players who learned from GMs who'd
played those games end up with characters where Dex beyond the
norm is mandatory.
SD Anderson
> wide range of DEX based skills.
Yes and one option for any GM who finds this to cause problems
ought to be raising the cost of DEX or severing it's bonus to
SPD.
As it stands now buying a 30 to 35 DX produces a guy who gets
a lot of moves for free, almost always hits and really is hard to
hit.
In terms of utility governing point cost, this sort of
character is too effective for the points paid. Solution is to
raise the cost. Perhaps staggering Attribute costs like GURPS,
Stats over normal level (20) cost more than stats up to 20,
Status WAY over that (30 - 39) cost more etc. Or break it into
5 point increments, or even 3 point increments per price
increase.
SD Anderson
> Honestly, it can be hard enough to make certain sorts of of
> superhero characters to make a living as it were in a game as
> compared to the comics, because most people don't provide the
> 'writer on the character's side' factor found in the
> actual comics. Same thing applies to Speed in Champions.
OTOH a lot of players have few if any intentions of recreating
comic book characters. They want basic PCs with incredible
powers and abilities.
One of the drawbacks to making DEX so crucial, and this
applies to most systems, not just Champs, is that it does so much
for the character for so little cost in character resources.
"Writer on the Side" type 'missed me' powers in Champs terms
include DCV levels and defining Defense as 'missed me!' even
though the attack hit. But these tend to cost more than buying
DEX up and don't provide the skill bonuses etc that come with the
DEX increase. So, athletic based characters have numbers that
would shame a cheetah or praying mantis!
So it goes.
Joseph Senecal
> A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
> the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
> yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
> the population.)
That is one of the advantages of the Fuzion system, Most super heroes
end up with a DEX ( & REF ) in the range posible to normal humans. One
of my toughest villians actually had a dex below that of the average
human. Sure you could hit her, the question was, could you hurt her?
This is not to say that Fuzion is superior to Hero, but it does have
it's good points.
> Advanced combat training and the like - the usual reason that superheros
> give for their inhuman dex scores - ought to be done with skills and skill
> levels, IMHO. I'm not sure where the 'Dex inflation' started, but it
> seems to have been present for many years.
Since the first edition. Normal dex for the sample heroes was 20, with
the "slow clumsy" bricks having only an 18.
Nightshade
>Actually, if it's immovable, it's not accessible.
>You can't grab the throne away in combat, can you?
>Arguably you could grab the character out of the throne,
>but gestures and concentration, which you also took,
>already cover having the power turned off by a grab.
Actually, you can grab it away if just touching the throne is enough
to take control of it. There's nothing about an immobile focus that
makes it inaccessible.
Nightshade
>In article <3634E3B3...@princeton.edu>,
>Robert Stadler <rsta...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>>SD Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
>>> By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
>>> build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
>>> killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
>>
>>You think that's bad? Destroying the world can be done much more
>>cheaply, with a sticky AOE attack.
>
>Transfer. I think this one is more or less from one of the Champions
>books - Mystic Master? Anyway, it wen't something like this:
>
>xd6 Transfer Body, AE: Radius (possibly increased radius), Personal
>Immunity, 0 end, continuous, no range. The transferred character points
>feed back into the transfer, thus increasing the radius affected, the
>maximum amount of transfer, and how much is transferred at once.
Turns out that one doesn't work because of a missing piece of data
about how Transfer works when used on multiple targets through area
attacks.
Nightshade
>Nightshade wrote:
>> Honestly, it can be hard enough to make certain sorts of of
>> superhero characters to make a living as it were in a game as
>> compared to the comics, because most people don't provide the
>> 'writer on the character's side' factor found in the
>> actual comics. Same thing applies to Speed in Champions.
>
> OTOH a lot of players have few if any intentions of recreating
>comic book characters. They want basic PCs with incredible
>powers and abilities.
>
> One of the drawbacks to making DEX so crucial, and this
>applies to most systems, not just Champs, is that it does so much
>for the character for so little cost in character resources.
I don't think I consider DEX 'costing little' though it does hit three
important areas (though one of those, SPD, is minor since you'll
usually want, at least in superheroic settings, far more SPD than DEX
will yield) Now if you want to talk Strength...
>
> "Writer on the Side" type 'missed me' powers in Champs terms
>include DCV levels and defining Defense as 'missed me!' even
>though the attack hit. But these tend to cost more than buying
>DEX up and don't provide the skill bonuses etc that come with the
>DEX increase. So, athletic based characters have numbers that
>would shame a cheetah or praying mantis!
I just dont' find that a particular issue in a superhero setting;
often even theoretically 'normal' heroes in an area are shown as
anythign but. It's far more a problem when the system is used in
other genres.
GoldRushG
devising very powerful characters who had low real point costs. >>
Yup. That's why I play. :/
Mark @ Gold Rush Games ICQ: #9614976; http://members.aol.com/goldrushg
Call or fax our Toll Free number to order! 800-936-4GRG.
RETAILERS: Join our retailer mailing list for product updates:
www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/GRG-Retail
George Novodvorsky
:> In Champions, dex affects CV and SPD directly, as well as the
: As it stands now buying a 30 to 35 DX produces a guy who gets
: a lot of moves for free, almost always hits and really is hard to
: hit.
: In terms of utility governing point cost, this sort of
: character is too effective for the points paid.
Oh, I don't know that's true.
The character has spent 60 to 75 points on this one thing, after all.
Any 60-75 point single concentration *should* be fairly useful.
The same points on STR "produces a guy who" knocks most targets out with a
single blow - which generally hits, even the high DEX guy, since it can be
done by picking up and swinging a Mack truck. And the resulting PD, REC,
and STUN helps defense against the many more punches the high DEX guy can
land in the mean time whenever he's not diving for cover.
The same points on EGO and Ego Attack "produces a guy who" generally hits,
even the high DEX guy, because it doesn't go against DEX, at any range,
with no range penalties, and does damage against a defense most targets
lack. True, there are no direct defensive bennies - but the attack is
naturally invisible, so the attacker can hide "in plain sight" - in a
crowd, for example - and just keep attacking until the target goes down,
without ever having known who was making her head hurt so.
The same points on EGO and Mind Control or Mental Illusions can have far
more subtle and far reaching effects than just knocking someone out, also
naturally invisibly.
The same points on Desolid, 0 END can allow someone to laugh off the high
DEX guy - or the Brick - entirely.
The same points on Variable Power Pool produces every power in the book,
as it's needed - if you know whom you're facing, you're undefeatable.
Heck, the same points on Wealth, Well Connected, and Contacts can create a
network of lawyers and such to make any of the above characters' lives a
living hell without ever facing one in combat.
So what have we learned here? Speedsters are over powered, Bricks are over
powered, Mentalists are over powered, Desolids are over powered, VPPs are
over powered, Perks are over powered. Everyone is over powered.
Let's call the whole thing off. :-).
Seriously, you can't just make a blanket statement like that. Yes, in
some, even many, cases DEX is nice. So are all the other powers I have
mentioned. You have not shown DEX is *nicer* than everything else, or even
an overwhelming fraction of everything else, for the points paid.
George, who used to angst about raising the cost of STR to 1.5
before thinking about it in this way.
Mad Hamish
>Sakura <je...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>
>> A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
>> the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
>> yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
>> the population.)
>
>That is one of the advantages of the Fuzion system, Most super heroes
>end up with a DEX ( & REF ) in the range posible to normal humans.
But how true to the comics is this?
I mean have a look at the really strong characters in Marvel & DC comics. The
Hulk, Superman, Thor, Hercules, Captain Marvel etc. All of them are above human
dexterity (well maybe not The Hulk, but I wouldn't be sure of that)
> One
>of my toughest villians actually had a dex below that of the average
>human. Sure you could hit her, the question was, could you hurt her?
The other question is can she hit you.
>
>This is not to say that Fuzion is superior to Hero, but it does have
>it's good points.
>
>> Advanced combat training and the like - the usual reason that superheros
>> give for their inhuman dex scores - ought to be done with skills and skill
>> levels, IMHO. I'm not sure where the 'Dex inflation' started, but it
>> seems to have been present for many years.
>
>Since the first edition. Normal dex for the sample heroes was 20, with
>the "slow clumsy" bricks having only an 18.
I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How many
heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not more dextrous than the
average human?
Joseph Senecal
> >> A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
> >> the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
> >> yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
> >> the population.)
> >
> >That is one of the advantages of the Fuzion system, Most super heroes
> >end up with a DEX ( & REF ) in the range posible to normal humans.
>
> But how true to the comics is this?
> I mean have a look at the really strong characters in Marvel & DC comics.
> The Hulk, Superman, Thor, Hercules, Captain Marvel etc. All of them are
> above human dexterity (well maybe not The Hulk, but I wouldn't be sure of
> that)
The Hulk never seemed particuly agile. He never seemed to dodge, and had
trouble hitting a moving target, though he was good at improvising area
of effect attacks.
Superman is off the scale in everything, superstrong, superfast,
supersmart, super anything else you can think of. He bounces bullets off
his chest to stop bystanders from getting hurt, then dodges the thrown
gun just to show he doesn't have to take it... (well it looked strange
in the movies)
Ditto for Captain Marvel.
Thor was a god, though I don't think his agility exceeded human limits.
Hercules was only half god, he only had unhuman STR in the legends (not
that he was defecint in other areas), but I haven't seen the comics.
But several of the heros listed were all arround do everything types.
The Hulk is a clasic brick, high str, low dex (at least compared to
other heroes).
Other clasic bricks I can think of are Blok from the Legion of Super
Heros (couldn't dodge at all really), and Collosis from the X-Men.
> > One
> >of my toughest villians actually had a dex below that of the average
> >human. Sure you could hit her, the question was, could you hurt her?
>
> The other question is can she hit you.
About as well as a compantant thug. Not all that often in other words.
Though if she did hit (the heroes cleverly avoided that), it would hurt
big time. If she was feeling mean, she could always use that door she
just ripped off the bank vault as an area effect attack...
> >
> >This is not to say that Fuzion is superior to Hero, but it does have
> >it's good points.
> >
> >> Advanced combat training and the like - the usual reason that superheros
> >> give for their inhuman dex scores - ought to be done with skills and skill
> >> levels, IMHO. I'm not sure where the 'Dex inflation' started, but it
> >> seems to have been present for many years.
> >
> >Since the first edition. Normal dex for the sample heroes was 20, with
> >the "slow clumsy" bricks having only an 18.
>
> I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How many
> heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not more dextrous than the
> average human?
Oh I agree completly that almost all heroes (and villians) have higher
than average Dexes, but I'm don't think most of them exceed the limits
of what a well trained human can do (after all, many of them are
suposidly just well trained humans). There are many reasons why their
dexes are higher than average, primarly because the clusmy ones don't
last (unless they're bricks).
Number compaison (based on my experiance, which is limited with Fuzion).
Champions: Human norm is 10, max is 20, Energy projectors start at 20
dex and go up from there, Marial artists (suposidly human usually) have
26-30 dex, and even bricks have at least 18's. Though I have seen some
exceptions over the years.
Fuzion: Human norm is 3-4, max (in supers game) is 10. Most characters
have Dex & Ref in the range 6-8 with the rest of the combat value being
done with skills.
I suppose that's another difference, in Fuzion, most starting characters
will get roughly half their CV from stat and half from skill. In Hero,
most starting characters I've seen get most if not all of their CV from
dex.
I will admit that part of how Fuzion gets supers stats into the range
posible for normals is to raise what is posible for normals in a supers
campaign (from 7 to 10). :-)
I'm not saying that unhuman dexes are unreasonable in Champions (I
consider them part of that game), just that a game where this isn't
needed is better. A note in Champions that the max human stat in a
superheroic game is 25 or even 30 would eliminate that problem. It's
just that very few train (or get boosted) to that level.
Joseph Senecal.
aeve...@my-dejanews.com
SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> Champions went further and gave little sidebars telling how to increase
> playing the game devising very powerful characters who had low real
> point costs.
Ah, I remember those! Threes and eights were the magic numbers and "CON builds
better bodies five different ways!"
Amongst my friends, we STILL have a tendency for such munchkinism. I think
we're all too competitive by half.
Sakura
Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:43:37 -0800, JSen...@aol.com (Joseph Senecal) wrote:
>>> A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
>>> the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
>>> yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
>>> the population.)
>>
>>That is one of the advantages of the Fuzion system, Most super heroes
>>end up with a DEX ( & REF ) in the range posible to normal humans.
>
>But how true to the comics is this?
>I mean have a look at the really strong characters in Marvel & DC comics. The
>Hulk, Superman, Thor, Hercules, Captain Marvel etc. All of them are above human
>dexterity (well maybe not The Hulk, but I wouldn't be sure of that)
Above human average dexterity - maybe. Above human 'maximum' dexterity?
No way.
See, the problem with giving people high dexes (rather than high combat
skills, which all of the people you mention would have) is that it has
effects in non-combat. All of a sudden, the Hulk, with his massive,
powerful fingers, can repair a swiss watch with ease, or balance on a
tightrope, or juggle...(Note that this is fixeed partially in Fuzion by
splitting the Dex stat up into Dex, Agl, and Tech, IIRC...)
If they hit people a lot in combat, it's because they're trained in
combat - that shouldn't be surprising, since they've been superheros (and
consequently fighting people) for a long time. But why does that make
them any better at, say, dancing a waltz?
>>Since the first edition. Normal dex for the sample heroes was 20, with
>>the "slow clumsy" bricks having only an 18.
>
>I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How many
>heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not more dextrous than the
>average human?
That's more than just being 'more dextrous than the average human' -
that's being more dextrous than 99% of the human race (maybe only 90% for
bricks). I think superheros would be better modeled in most cases by
buying a modest dex and plenty of CSLs. There are notable exceptions -
the Beast, for example - but his increased agility is definitely one of
his powers.
Basically, if it's a stat, and it's over 20, I look on it as a superpower.
And if that power doesn't fit in with the rest of the character, it
bothers me.
aeve...@my-dejanews.com
> or powers you want.
Part of the problem is probably that the DEX to CV relationship is fairly
easy to understand, but that Combat Skill Levels aren't. I know that I'm
still having trouble understanding how to use CSLs.
Anybody care to write up a simple primer?
SD Anderson
> I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How
> many heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not
> more dextrous than the average human?
You're changing the argument against the virtual requirement
of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
scores.
Green Lantern, Ant Man, Hawkeye, current version Supergirl &
Superboy, Firestar, Iron Man, etc are all above average Dex
characters, as depicted in comics, but none really have reflexes
like a praying mantis. They do NOT cross the superhuman
threshold that a 20 tends to represent in games like V&V,
Champions or GURPS: Supers.
Game mechanics confer so many benefits to being on the high
side of this threshold that it is in fact the NORM in many games
to have DEX in that zone. GURPS being the notable exception by
making DX 20+ ghastly expensive. (If the cost were lower I have
no doubt I'd be seeing lots of DX 20+ PCs being shown to GMs...)
In this, SHRPGs fail to recreate the characters shown in
comics.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>See, the problem with giving people high dexes (rather than high combat
>skills, which all of the people you mention would have) is that it has
>effects in non-combat. All of a sudden, the Hulk, with his massive,
>powerful fingers, can repair a swiss watch with ease, or balance on a
>tightrope, or juggle...
The Avengers, #1, September 1963.
Thor, Iron man, Ant Man, and Wasp track The Hulk to a circus, where he is
impersonating a :life-like robot". Ant Man and Wasp witness him: a) juggling
wild animals while balanced on two oil drums; b) spinning an animal cage
wagon overhead with his feet; and c) snatching the teeny-tiny Wasp out of
the air with his huge green fingers without hurting her. (He also has no
trouble at all hitting Thor or Iron Man with his fists or with thrown
objects, in case you are curious.)
>(Note that this is fixeed partially in Fuzion by splitting the Dex stat up
>into Dex, Agl, and Tech, IIRC...)
"Fixed"? Taking one stat and making people buy it three times is "fixed"?
Why not have four different stats for "Strength": Punch, Lift, Push, and
Pull? I like Fuzion, and my current system of choice is a variant of it, but
the gratuitous stat proliferation was a move *backward*, in my opinion.
This isn't to say that Dex escalation isn't a potential problem in
Champions. It can be. I have seen at least one group impose a consensual
moratorium on buying Dex higher than 23 unless the character had some
compelling reason to have it higher (this after the average Dex of the
villains had risen to the mid-30's because otherwise they would never hit
the heroes). Dex gives a lot of bang for the buck in Champions, and it is
tempting to buy it in bulk while it's on sale.
===================<BBlac...@bigfoot.com>====================
Brandon Blackmoor Everything that criminals do with
Black Gate Publishing guns is already against the law.
=================<http://www.black-gate.com>===================
Sakura
Brandon Blackmoor <BBlac...@bigfoot.DELERE.com> wrote:
>Sakura wrote in message <71cjbj$3b7$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>>
>>See, the problem with giving people high dexes (rather than high combat
>>skills, which all of the people you mention would have) is that it has
>>effects in non-combat. All of a sudden, the Hulk, with his massive,
>>powerful fingers, can repair a swiss watch with ease, or balance on a
>>tightrope, or juggle...
>
>The Avengers, #1, September 1963.
Yeah, I shoulda known somebody would come up with one counterexample. All
right, replace Hulk with Thing, Juggernaut, Abomination, whatever. The
only thing your example proves is that the Hulk specifically has high dex,
not that every brick (and every superhero) has it.
>>(Note that this is fixeed partially in Fuzion by splitting the Dex stat up
>>into Dex, Agl, and Tech, IIRC...)
>
>"Fixed"? Taking one stat and making people buy it three times is "fixed"?
Well, considering that they represent three very different things - yes.
I know people who have very good manual dexterity, but they couldn't
walk across a log without falling off. Conversely, it's possible to have
a lot of balance and grace while moving, but be a lousy shot with a rifle.
Hand-eye coordination != balance != fine motor control. An individual
/can/ have all three of these, but there's no reason they must all be at
the same level.
>Why not have four different stats for "Strength": Punch, Lift, Push, and
>Pull?
Because Strength is a measure of 'muscle power'. Dex is a combination of
several different things including balance, coordination, and fine motor
control. I suppose you /could/ split strength up, but I doubt that a
character who can pull three times as much as he can push would seem
logical or 'realistic', even by a comic book standard.
On the other hand, characters with poor Agility but excellent Tech are far
more likely to occur - didn't the Punisher have a wheelchair-bound
gadgeteer-type sidekick, or am I thinking of someone else?
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>Yeah, I shoulda known somebody would come up with one counterexample. All
>right, replace Hulk with Thing, Juggernaut, Abomination, whatever.
No. I've played the "Sweeping generalization, Disprove sweeping
generalization; Modify and restate sweeping generalization, Disprove
modified sweeping generalization; (ad nauseum)" game before, and it bores
me. Your initial declaration that super-strong superheroes (and
superheroines: She-Hulk is a fine example) are typically no more dextrous
than normal humans is incorrect and demonstrates a staggering ignorance of
the source material, their abilities varying with the writer and the needs
of the plot notwithstanding.
>Well, considering that they represent three very different things - yes.
Poppycock.
In a role-playing game, *particularly* in the superhero genre, I do not want
to play a game where each minute variation of ability is categorized and
purchased separately. "Intelligence" could be split into a dozen or more
separate stats, if you wanted to go that route. For all I know, a game where
each character has 152 separately categorized and individually purchased
stats (push, pull, hop, jump, color, charm, etc.) may appeal to you. It does
not appeal to me, and neither does your argument.
===================<BBlac...@bigfoot.com>====================
Brandon Blackmoor Black Gate Publishing
Challenge authority -- you are your own master.
=================<http://www.black-gate.com>===================
Andy Pearlman
aeve...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <3632e...@bonaparte.pixi.com>,
> "Paul Mata" <equ...@pixi.com> wrote:
> > Please, please use LEVELS or experience points to create the effects
> > or powers you want.
>
> Part of the problem is probably that the DEX to CV relationship is fairly
> easy to understand, but that Combat Skill Levels aren't. I know that I'm
> still having trouble understanding how to use CSLs.
>
> Anybody care to write up a simple primer?
8pt Combat Skill levels aren't that particularly useful. The place where
they become evil, is when you change them into Overall Skill Levels, buy a
whole bunch of cheap skills at minimum values, and suddenly become Batman.
I had a character named Wheel, who basically was a wimpy micro-brick(150
points) + 5 overall skill levels + 50 points of skills, most of which were
on an 18-... Yet at the same time, the 5 skill levels could be used as
combat levels. Meant that he acted kind of like a weird martial artist in
combat.
But here are some of the relative values of Combat Skill Levels:
Allow you to bounce attacks.
Give you more flexibility - look at what 4 levels with Punch, Block, Dodge
gives you compared to +6 dex. If you are a brick with a 14 dex(gasps from
the audience), this means you have a 12 DCV or 9 OCV when you want it. As
opposed to 10/7.
So you run into Martial Artist Man with a 26 Dex, Martial Punch, Block,
Dodge. He goes at phase 2, does a martial punch. You burn to a dodge. Phase
4, he still has to try to hit a 12 DCV. Phase 6, he goes first, and still
needs to hit that 12 DCV. You then proceed to switch all your levels into
OCV, take a swing. You hit, he's gone(after all, you beefed up your
offense/defense with all the points you saved on Speed and Dex!). Else
repeat.
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at
http://www.inet-images.com/gallery/pearlman_a.html
Andy Pearlman
SD Anderson wrote:
> Paul Mata wrote:
> > one thing I can't stand are players that create their
> > characters' powers too such and extent where they put in little
> > "limitations" i.e. +20 Dex only for CV purposes. Or even better
> > yet "only works on a habital environment.." What really ticks
> > me off is that even the creators of Champions use this silly
> > tactic.
>
> A player I know did this just to see how gross he could get.
> By stacking tons of limitations onto the power he managed to
> build something that produced an area effect world, many dice
> killing attack. Real cost under SEVENTY points.
>
> Point value as a measure of utility becomes useless when point
> values can be lowered so severely.
This is actually the real mathematical problem in Champions. Power
increases fast on the arithematic scale, but limitations are more
geometrical. The simple version of this is a campaign which has a base
of a 12d6 attack, but the GM allows up to 14d6. Defenses average out at
say 25 points. If I buy a 14d6 attack on an 14-, this makes my average
damage 49-25 or 24. *.9 = 21.6. Except I just paid 47 v 60.
One of the things I've been experimenting with is only applying the
limits to the parts of powers expected to actually do something. As an
example, 14- on an energy blast really isn't a limit at all on the first
6d6 in a 12d6 average campaign. It would be expected to bounce off of
everyone's defenses of 25. So, you only get to apply the limit on the
points spent after 30.
The other thing is that limits which act like disads should apply
somehow. So OIF, which is very similar to the Physical Disadvantage:
Powers don't work without OIF, should mean the character has less total
disadvantages, not necessarily more points.
Sakura
<aeve...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <3632e...@bonaparte.pixi.com>,
> "Paul Mata" <equ...@pixi.com> wrote:
>> Please, please use LEVELS or experience points to create the effects
>> or powers you want.
>
>Part of the problem is probably that the DEX to CV relationship is fairly
>easy to understand, but that Combat Skill Levels aren't. I know that I'm
>still having trouble understanding how to use CSLs.
>
>Anybody care to write up a simple primer?
I'm not sure how much simpler they can get, but OK...
You've got an OCV and a DCV, based on your DEX.
You've got Combat Skill Levels. Let's say you had the following set:
1 level with strike (2 pts)
1 level with strike, grab, block (3 pts)
1 level with hand-to-hand (5 pts)
1 level with ranged (5 pts)
1 level of DCV (5 pts)
1 level with all combat (8 pts)
Now, let's say you've got a 14 DEX. This means that your OCV and DCV are
both 5.
You try to punch someone (basic strike).
You can use your 2 pt level and 3 pt level as OCV (and only OCV): you
have 7 OCV/5 DCV.
The level with hand-to-hand can be OCV or DCV, since you're in
hand-to-hand combat: 7 OCV/6 DCV or 8 OCV/5 DCV
The level of DCV always applies: 7/7 or 8/6
And the level with all combat can be either OCV or DCV: 8/7 or, er, 8/7
The ranged level doesn't help because it's hand to hand combat.
Later, someone is shooting at you. Your 2 and 3 point levels don't help,
and neither does your level with hand-to-hand. Your DCV level applies,
and some GMs might let you use the ranged level as well as the all-combat
level to add to your DCV. Result: 5 OCV/8 DCV
Hope this helps...any specific questions?
George Novodvorsky
: This is actually the real mathematical problem in Champions. Power
: increases fast on the arithematic scale, but limitations are more
: geometrical. The simple version of this is a campaign which has a base
: of a 12d6 attack, but the GM allows up to 14d6. Defenses average out at
: say 25 points. If I buy a 14d6 attack on an 14-, this makes my average
: damage 49-25 or 24. *.9 = 21.6. Except I just paid 47 v 60.
And it's true, in one-on-one toe-to-toe slugathons, the character who took
the 14- roll is more powerful.
However, his main attack can't be relied on.
One out of ten attacks, he just stands there looking stupid - no matter
how weak his target's defense is.
This means that this character cannot be trusted on to save the mayor from
the (normal characteristics) disgruntled sniper, or to defend the little
old lady from the (slightly above normal characteristics) mad slasher, (sub
normal characteristics) rabid dog, what have you.
If he's a loner, he quickly gets some really bad press.
"You took down Dr. Destructor - but you couldn't save Granny from Bowzer?"
If he's in a team, he is better off, but the other members have to cover
for him. He sometimes doesn't pull his weight.
"You take this agent, I'll take that one" tactics sometimes
just don't work when they really need to.
The disadvantage is precisely in the fact that you can't use the
mathematical average. It's rare that you get to shoot at a single opponent
enough times for the run of luck to average out - it is often very
important for any given shot to connect.
: One of the things I've been experimenting with is only applying the
: limits to the parts of powers expected to actually do something. As an
: example, 14- on an energy blast really isn't a limit at all on the first
: 6d6 in a 12d6 average campaign. It would be expected to bounce off of
: everyone's defenses of 25. So, you only get to apply the limit on the
: points spent after 30.
Seems terribly unfair to the characters who only took 8d6 attacks.
They're already hosed by the fact that only 2d6 of their
attacks get through the average's villain's defenses - now their
disadvantages don't buy them as much savings?
Remember, just because the PCs look at the campaign sheet where it says
"12d6 average attack" doesn't mean that villains do, or should be built
that way. That guidance is to match PCs to each other, not to the
villains. If every campaign you run into a "group of average super
villains, built just like you" you are not staying true to the comic book
source material. Some villains should laugh at the Brick's 12d6 punch, and
need to be taken down through Ego Attacks, and Energy Blasts. Occasionally
completely indestructable villains will pop up, and need to be taken down
by cleverness, investigation, and roleplay, not dice rolls. But normals,
who crumple like a house of cards at 6d6 attacks, should be all over the
place. Remember, Superman's arch enemy isn't equal strength Doomsday - it's
physically normal Lex Luthor.
Mad Hamish
>In article <3638f50b...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
>Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:43:37 -0800, JSen...@aol.com (Joseph Senecal) wrote:
>>>Sakura <je...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>>>> A-men! I've never understood why superhuman dexterity seems to be part of
>>>> the standard 'superhero package' no matter what your powers are. (Uh,
>>>> yeah, sure I'm a big slow brick, but I'm also more dextrous than 98% of
>>>> the population.)
>>>
>>>That is one of the advantages of the Fuzion system, Most super heroes
>>>end up with a DEX ( & REF ) in the range posible to normal humans.
>>
>>But how true to the comics is this?
>>I mean have a look at the really strong characters in Marvel & DC comics. The
>>Hulk, Superman, Thor, Hercules, Captain Marvel etc. All of them are above human
>>dexterity (well maybe not The Hulk, but I wouldn't be sure of that)
>
>Above human average dexterity - maybe. Above human 'maximum' dexterity?
>No way.
But i's _not_ above the maximum human dexterity in Champions because there isn't
any. It's at the level where a normal would have to pay more but that's not the
same thing at all....
An olympic level athlete could well have over 20 dex. NCM means that you have to
pay more (representing doing more work to build up the characteristic) _not_
that it's an absolute maximum.
eg have a look at Defender - 23 int.
Similarly Crusader is a normal human who didn't take NCM for a disad and has 26
dex....
>
>See, the problem with giving people high dexes (rather than high combat
>skills, which all of the people you mention would have) is that it has
>effects in non-combat. All of a sudden, the Hulk, with his massive,
>powerful fingers, can repair a swiss watch with ease, or balance on a
>tightrope, or juggle...
How about his ability to jump accurately a mile or two?
If you wanted to be picky about it the phys lim (large hands) would represent
things that he can't do because of his size,,,
>(Note that this is fixeed partially in Fuzion by
>splitting the Dex stat up into Dex, Agl, and Tech, IIRC...)
>
>If they hit people a lot in combat, it's because they're trained in
>combat - that shouldn't be surprising, since they've been superheros (and
>consequently fighting people) for a long time. But why does that make
>them any better at, say, dancing a waltz?
>
>>>Since the first edition. Normal dex for the sample heroes was 20, with
>>>the "slow clumsy" bricks having only an 18.
>>
>>I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How many
>>heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not more dextrous than the
>>average human?
>
>That's more than just being 'more dextrous than the average human' -
>that's being more dextrous than 99% of the human race (maybe only 90% for
>bricks).
Again, how many comic book characters can you think of that _aren't_ clearly
more dextrous than most humans?
> I think superheros would be better modeled in most cases by
>buying a modest dex and plenty of CSLs. There are notable exceptions -
>the Beast, for example - but his increased agility is definitely one of
>his powers.
>
>Basically, if it's a stat, and it's over 20, I look on it as a superpower.
>And if that power doesn't fit in with the rest of the character, it
>bothers me.
So a tech based hero with int 23 is considered a power?
Mad Hamish
>In article <71dfci$bu1$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
>Brandon Blackmoor <BBlac...@bigfoot.DELERE.com> wrote:
>>Sakura wrote in message <71cjbj$3b7$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>>>
>>>See, the problem with giving people high dexes (rather than high combat
>>>skills, which all of the people you mention would have) is that it has
>>>effects in non-combat. All of a sudden, the Hulk, with his massive,
>>>powerful fingers, can repair a swiss watch with ease, or balance on a
>>>tightrope, or juggle...
>>
>>The Avengers, #1, September 1963.
>
>Yeah, I shoulda known somebody would come up with one counterexample. All
>right, replace Hulk with Thing,
A test pilot, listed with Good dex in MSH (as Ben Grimm has, i'd consider it low
for a test pilot myself)
> Juggernaut,
MSH gave him a poor Agility.
> Abomination,
MSH gives him excellent dex which is listed as intensive training in dexterity &
accuracy. Just below Olympic Althlete....
> whatever. The
>only thing your example proves is that the Hulk specifically has high dex,
>not that every brick (and every superhero) has it.
Which gives us Hulk, Superman, Thor, Hercules, Captain Marvel, Abomination etc
as bricks with high dex, Now I'd consider that a reasonable pattern. Low dex
comic book characters are an exception rather than a rule...
>
>>>(Note that this is fixeed partially in Fuzion by splitting the Dex stat up
>>>into Dex, Agl, and Tech, IIRC...)
>>
>>"Fixed"? Taking one stat and making people buy it three times is "fixed"?
>
>Well, considering that they represent three very different things - yes.
>I know people who have very good manual dexterity, but they couldn't
>walk across a log without falling off. Conversely, it's possible to have
>a lot of balance and grace while moving, but be a lousy shot with a rifle.
Which could be represented by phys lims & lack of weapon familiarities in Hero.
Sakura
Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On 1 Nov 1998 04:24:38 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>Yeah, I shoulda known somebody would come up with one counterexample. All
>>right, replace Hulk with Thing,
>
>A test pilot, listed with Good dex in MSH (as Ben Grimm has, i'd consider it low
>for a test pilot myself)
Remember that Dex isn't the only necessity for a test pilot, and a lot of
his skill in piloting planes is just that - /skill/. Just because he can
pilot planes does not mean that he is a natural at everything else
physical.
>>Well, considering that they represent three very different things - yes.
>>I know people who have very good manual dexterity, but they couldn't
>>walk across a log without falling off. Conversely, it's possible to have
>>a lot of balance and grace while moving, but be a lousy shot with a rifle.
>
>Which could be represented by phys lims & lack of weapon familiarities in Hero.
What phys lim represents 'good manual dexterity, average balance'? I'd
say having an average sense of balance is not a phys lim, even if you have
extraordinarily nimble fingers.
I suppose one could buy the DEX with a limitation (only for manual
dexterity) but at that point why not just split it into two+ stats (which
is what Fuzion does)?
Sakura
Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On 30 Oct 1998 14:44:03 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>
>>Above human average dexterity - maybe. Above human 'maximum' dexterity?
>>No way.
>
>But i's _not_ above the maximum human dexterity in Champions because there isn't
>any. It's at the level where a normal would have to pay more but that's not the
>same thing at all....
Note the quotes around 'maximum'. They're there for a reason. Basically,
exceeding the NCM should only be done in truly exceptional cases - an
Olypic athlete, or someone with Batman or Daredevil-level training are
excellent examples. Just being a superhero isn't.
>An olympic level athlete could well have over 20 dex. NCM means that you have to
>pay more (representing doing more work to build up the characteristic) _not_
>that it's an absolute maximum.
The point is that even the big 'bricks' are at Olympic athlete-level
dexterity. Not at 'slightly above average', which I could deal with, but
the slowest, clumsiest superheros are built on a par with the cream of the
crop of the athletic world. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone else?
>>That's more than just being 'more dextrous than the average human' -
>>that's being more dextrous than 99% of the human race (maybe only 90% for
>>bricks).
>
>Again, how many comic book characters can you think of that _aren't_ clearly
>more dextrous than most humans?
Which is why I'm saying that havoing stats in the 'above average' range
doesn't stretch things too much. Having them in the 'human peak -
superhuman' range does.
People like Batman and Captain America, who are at the peak of human
potential, should probably have stats around the 23 range - if you go much
past that, you're stretching the believability of what could be considered
'normal human'.
Batman undergoes rigorous training to bring his DEX up and keep it at the
level it's at. If Batman is at the peak of human performance, and that is
/average/ for other superheros, it really loses a lot of impact. If, on
the other hand, Batman is at a 23 DEX and those superheros that don't
deliberately train for agility and such are in the 14-18 range, Batman's
training actually /means/ something.
>> I think superheros would be better modeled in most cases by
>>buying a modest dex and plenty of CSLs. There are notable exceptions -
>>the Beast, for example - but his increased agility is definitely one of
>>his powers.
>>
>>Basically, if it's a stat, and it's over 20, I look on it as a superpower.
>>And if that power doesn't fit in with the rest of the character, it
>>bothers me.
>
>So a tech based hero with int 23 is considered a power?
Sure, although I suspect I'm using 'powers' differently from you. When I
say 'power', I'm really meaning that as any ability that sets the
character apart from others. This would include Tony Stark's engineering
genius, Batman's agility, and several other examples of 'normal human'
powers.
If everybody and his brother has DEX 23, then to be something really
special you have to go even higher. This is what I mean by 'DEX
inflation'.
If a character's intelligence isn't one of his primary attributes, I think
most people would think it odd if they were given an INT of 23. If they
were 'bright, but not a genius', then they'd be somewhere between 13 and
18. All I'm doing is applying that same standard to DEX - if they're
supposed to be pretty agile, but it's not one of the major points of their
character, then the stat should probably be below a 20.
Think of it this way - if DEX (and CON, for that matter) inflation is
brought under control, then you'll have more points to spend on those
powers that would flesh your character out, but that you couldn't afford
because you needed to pay 40 points or so just to be competetive in
combat...
Ron Charlotte
>In article <#W14dygA#GA....@nih2naac.prod2.compuserve.com>,
> SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> Champions went further and gave little sidebars telling how to increase
>> their efficiency and effectiveness, making the 'official' purpose of
>> playing the game devising very powerful characters who had low real
>> point costs.
>
>Ah, I remember those! Threes and eights were the magic numbers and "CON builds
>better bodies five different ways!"
>
>Amongst my friends, we STILL have a tendency for such munchkinism. I think
>we're all too competitive by half.
Despite the concept that rpg's aren't _supposed_ to be competitive, we
North Americans and British Commonwealth types (which comprise the
bulk of gamers) _are_ quite competitive by nature.
Sigh... You should see what happen when my brother Jack and I play
Monopoly.... the rest of the family and friends generally won't let us
play in the same game. It just turns into a bloodbath...
--
Ron Charlotte -- Gainesville, FL
Ron Charlotte
<10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> In Champions, dex affects CV and SPD directly, as well as the
>> wide range of DEX based skills.
>
> Yes and one option for any GM who finds this to cause problems
>ought to be raising the cost of DEX or severing it's bonus to
>SPD.
>
> As it stands now buying a 30 to 35 DX produces a guy who gets
>a lot of moves for free, almost always hits and really is hard to
>hit.
Youn are quite right, but a lot depends on the character base. I
exclusively run 250 point starting point characters (100 + 150 max
disads). A character with such a dex is generally going to be quite
ineffective due to lack of offensive ability (I also require at least
20 points of non-combat skills, which I also apply to NPC antagonists
for the sake of balance). My game has a lot of non-combat elements,
though, so "combat monsters" tend to get bored and drop out or alter
the characters via XP.
>
> In terms of utility governing point cost, this sort of
>character is too effective for the points paid. Solution is to
>raise the cost. Perhaps staggering Attribute costs like GURPS,
>Stats over normal level (20) cost more than stats up to 20,
>Status WAY over that (30 - 39) cost more etc. Or break it into
>5 point increments, or even 3 point increments per price
>increase.
There's nothing stopping one from deciding that the Normal Cha. Maxima
rule applies to all characters, or even adding another, higher break
point.
Andy Pearlman
George Novodvorsky wrote:
> Andy Pearlman <apea...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> : This is actually the real mathematical problem in Champions. Power
> : increases fast on the arithematic scale, but limitations are more
> : geometrical. The simple version of this is a campaign which has a base
> : of a 12d6 attack, but the GM allows up to 14d6. Defenses average out at
> : say 25 points. If I buy a 14d6 attack on an 14-, this makes my average
> : damage 49-25 or 24. *.9 = 21.6. Except I just paid 47 v 60.
>
> However, his main attack can't be relied on.
> One out of ten attacks, he just stands there looking stupid - no matter
> how weak his target's defense is.
>
> This means that this character cannot be trusted on to save the mayor from
> the (normal characteristics) disgruntled sniper, or to defend the little
> old lady from the (slightly above normal characteristics) mad slasher, (sub
> normal characteristics) rabid dog, what have you.
Er what? I saved 13 points for a 10% chance that in an odd situation, my power
might not work. Yet at the same time, I do 4.6 stun on the average extra. With
a 5 speed, let's say I fail once per turn. Amazing bad luck. The numbers are
almost identical(slightly less stun, but significantly higher chance of
stunning opponent)
Furthermore, that 13 points can be easily be used in such a way to compensate
for the evilness of a 10% drop. Get 4 skill levels.
> If he's a loner, he quickly gets some really bad press.
> "You took down Dr. Destructor - but you couldn't save Granny from Bowzer?"
And the other 9 times he saved the person? And the 4 skill levels that make
sure he hits the sniper? How about when normal super misses the villain in
combat and blows away a bystander? The press is better when that happens?
"I'm sorry Dr. Random, but Mr. Goodshoes was distracted when he killed the
Mayor. You failed to knock out the villain in your previous action. We're
charging you with murder because your power didn't work."
> If he's in a team, he is better off, but the other members have to cover
> for him. He sometimes doesn't pull his weight.
> "You take this agent, I'll take that one" tactics sometimes
> just don't work when they really need to.
Spread the EB with the extra 2d6. Nail two agents in two different hexes.
Spread the EB 5d6. You still have a 9d6 EB, and can hit agents over a range of
4 hexes. Tends to be useful.
And the times he doesn't pull his weight tend to be made up by the fact that
on the whole, he simply does more damage.
> The disadvantage is precisely in the fact that you can't use the
> mathematical average. It's rare that you get to shoot at a single opponent
> enough times for the run of luck to average out - it is often very
> important for any given shot to connect.
Applies way too much weight to that 10%. As I noted above, 4 skill levels(i.e.
+4 OCV) means you can go from a 14- to an 18-. Which is roughly 10%. Worst
case scenario. Watch what happens to an 11-. Goes to 15-, or a +28% increase.
Your shots connect on the average, more often.
> : example, 14- on an energy blast really isn't a limit at all on the first
> : 6d6 in a 12d6 average campaign. It would be expected to bounce off of
> : everyone's defenses of 25. So, you only get to apply the limit on the
> : points spent after 30.
>
> Seems terribly unfair to the characters who only took 8d6 attacks.
> They're already hosed by the fact that only 2d6 of their
> attacks get through the average's villain's defenses - now their
> disadvantages don't buy them as much savings?
How is it unfair? If I could have only bought a 5 1/2d6 attack, I would do
nothing. That 14- means I do stun on the average. That's a pretty big
advantage on 5 1/2d6 man. Even if he does get to save Grandma once in a blue
moon.
That's much more a complaint about how powers get structured when they are of
minimal utility, yet cost 25 points to begin with. A 60 point power, if it can
be bought, is often amazingly more useful than a 40 point power.
Jamie Rosen
Andy Pearlman (apea...@mail.idt.net) writes:
>
> Furthermore, that 13 points can be easily be used in such a way to compensate
> for the evilness of a 10% drop. Get 4 skill levels.
Just wanted to point out that you can't use skill levels to improve your
activation roll. It has nothing to do with skill, it's an inherent
liability in the power.
--
Jamie Rosen - author, gamer, electronic musician, and general nice person
JoJo the Indian Circus Boy Fan Club Member #00002!
"It's not the belt that gives the wrestler credibility, it's the wrestler
that gives the belt credibility." - Chris Benoit
swru...@compuserve.com
apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> Er what? I saved 13 points for a 10% chance that in an odd situation, my power
> might not work.
Actually you saved 13 points for knowing that it might not work in any
situation, no matter how odd...
> Yet at the same time, I do 4.6 stun on the average extra.
Good math.
> Furthermore, that 13 points can be easily be used in such a way to compensate
> for the evilness of a 10% drop. Get 4 skill levels.
That wholly depends on... how the campaign is structured and GM limits... if
you are buying skioll levels to bring your OCV IN line with others.. you have
hardly compensated for antyhing.. you just have 13 cp to spend somewhere
else...
> And the other 9 times he saved the person? And the 4 skill levels that make
> sure he hits the sniper? How about when normal super misses the villain in
> combat and blows away a bystander? The press is better when that happens?
But the point he is making is.. the super who is caught on camera trying and
missing with his magic bolt is going to have a different view from the gallery
than one who raises his mighty glowing red hand and gets sound effects like
the Excelsior dieing in STIII and a few whisps of smoke... while in game terms
and probabilities it all maths out.. when the audience cannot see you really
did anything... they will take a different tack...
wholly un mathematical and wholly un game systemy.. but more true methinks to
the notion that... "those npcs are people, what did they see"
> Spread the EB with the extra 2d6. Nail two agents in two different hexes.
> Spread the EB 5d6. You still have a 9d6 EB, and can hit agents over a range of
> 4 hexes. Tends to be useful.
Usually wiping agents with EBs does not require "extra DC"..
> And the times he doesn't pull his weight tend to be made up by the fact that
> on the whole, he simply does more damage.
That really depends on the game specs.. how much difference does 4 more stun
matter... how often does that mean you drop one more villain one attack
faster? Where does your GM put those little breakpoints.. armour at value x
means he will be con stunned by a 14dc but not by a 12dc...
> Applies way too much weight to that 10%. As I noted above, 4 skill levels(i.e.
> +4 OCV) means you can go from a 14- to an 18-. Which is roughly 10%. Worst
> case scenario. Watch what happens to an 11-. Goes to 15-, or a +28% increase.
Now the key point... how many games limit their attacks by CP??? Most limit it
by AP. So what you are trding here is another 13 points of non-combat stuff
for... 10% unreliability...
And again, if that skill level thing is allowed ..does it really make your OCV
higher than avaerage or did you just buy your OCV a different way...
> Your shots connect on the average, more often.
Only if you assume that without the 14- you would have NOT BOUGHT the skill
levels ... more likely you would have and sold back non-com stuff if the skill
levels were important.
There are .."the points we spent here" and "all the other points spent" saying
the savings from here buy this subset of "all" is not rational.
> That's much more a complaint about how powers get structured when they are of
> minimal utility, yet cost 25 points to begin with. A 60 point power, if it can
> be bought, is often amazingly more useful than a 40 point power.
Agreed... this is one of the reasons i prefer the ADDER ala fuzion instead of
MULTIPLIER ala HERO4. Never liked the fact that a fireball was relatively
useless against anything bigger than agents if the same level firebolt did not
wipe the super off the map. Now the adder means that at low levels the ADDER
is slightly disproportionate to the power in the penalizing way but i would
rather have the effects balance out for 10-20 DC than 3-4 DC in my supers
games. (the other advantage for ADDER is it eliminates the super baby powers
issue altogether)
Hall
Jamie Rosen <dq...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<71ngvc$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> Andy Pearlman (apea...@mail.idt.net) writes:
> >
> > Furthermore, that 13 points can be easily be used in such a way to
compensate
> > for the evilness of a 10% drop. Get 4 skill levels.
>
> Just wanted to point out that you can't use skill levels to improve your
> activation roll. It has nothing to do with skill, it's an inherent
> liability in the power.
You can use your experience to buy an activation 14 or less down to an
activation 16 or less . . .
Lady Fusion
<deactivating lurking device>
Been watching this thread for awhile, and decided to finally put my own 6
cents in (inflation, ya know).
Something that a lot of us Hero players are forgeting (or not), is that the
combat system for Hero essentially boils down to a wargame miniatures
system. Building a character "to concept" as a normal human, with realistic
normal maximums, is only really practical if the campaign as a whole
enforces such a thing. If playing in the "standard" 250 point campaign as
presented in the base rules, you naturally wind up with Dex and Con
inflation just so that your character will be competent from the wargame
aspect. Sad but true, but the concept often times has to take a back seat to
bow to the system if the character wishes to do more than simply be what we
term as 'Hostage Boy". By that I mean that a character built along the lines
of your concept as a "trained normal" will often times be lying in a pile,
while the rest of the PCs are still partaking of combat.
As for the "skill levels instead of Dex" argument, I have tried going that
route, only to find that having all the things that go off of Dex being so
much lower (Speed being a big example) just don't make for an acceptable
tradeoff. I know, I know. It sounds like powergaming. BUt, in Hero at least,
it's a harsh reality. Being a character with a max of 20 Dex, 20 Con, 4 Spd,
and 50 Stun means that in an average 60 points active campaign you will be
spending all your actions ether Dodging or Diving for Cover (being a bit
slower than you average Champs brick), and praying that they don't use Area
of Effect attacks too much ( not having the defences to withstand any kind
of abuse).
Now, in my experience, Normal Charactristic Maxima is one of the most UNused
disads in the entire system, simply for the fact that no player that I have
encountered wished to have to blow a great deal of points just to stay awake
in combat which is what the bulk of Champions is about IMO... capes beating
other capes up).
On a slightly different topic, though one that has mentioned in this thread,
I for one don't believe it is necessary to have 20 points (on ANY points at
all) in Non-Combat Skills to make for a good role-playing character. I
believe that non-combat skills (or any skills at all) should be purchased in
accordance to the character's concept, not a pre-ordained notion that ALL
characters should have some skills. Some characters simply might not HAVE
any applicable Champs/Hero tpye skills, unless you count having hobby skills
towards that point restriction. In my opinion, if someone is playing someone
that is an artist, or a plumber, or a writer, they might not legitimatly
HAVE 20 (or how ever many) points in non-combat skills, especially relivant
non-combat skills. If the GM is actually going to have said skills used,
that's another thing, but in most games I've played in, those skills are
just background skills, to fill out the concept and are never actually used
once game play begins.
Just my input. Let the angry retorts begin!!!
<lurking device reactivating, raising anti-flame screens>
Lady Fusion
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>Mad Hamish wrote:
>> I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How
>> many heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not
>> more dextrous than the average human?
>
> You're changing the argument against the virtual requirement
>of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
>scores.
>
> Green Lantern,
I haven't ever seen much to suggest that any of GLs were massively dextrous
compared to other comic characters (except test pilot for Ray and the Warrior
bit for Guy)
> Ant Man,
Again, I don't see evidence for him standing out in comics. I _also_ haven't
seen him written up in Champions with a very high dex.
> Hawkeye,
Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the ability to
shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
ridiculous amount of dexterity...
> current version Supergirl &
>Superboy, Firestar, Iron Man, etc are all above average Dex
>characters, as depicted in comics, but none really have reflexes
>like a praying mantis.
Iron Man does have damned good reflexes, because he's built them and evasive
maneuvers etc into the suit at various times.
Let's not forget how often these characters manage to dodge bullets and the
like,
> They do NOT cross the superhuman
>threshold that a 20 tends to represent in games like V&V,
>Champions or GURPS: Supers.
I'd say that the 3 games have massively different takes on what a 20 represents
(although I haven't seen V&V for a while)
A 20 in Champions is a lot less of a deal than a 20 in GURPS.
>
> Game mechanics confer so many benefits to being on the high
>side of this threshold that it is in fact the NORM in many games
>to have DEX in that zone. GURPS being the notable exception by
>making DX 20+ ghastly expensive. (If the cost were lower I have
>no doubt I'd be seeing lots of DX 20+ PCs being shown to GMs...)
>
> In this, SHRPGs fail to recreate the characters shown in
>comics.
No they don't, what they may do is change the relative dexes needed to do it.
Get all dex scores & multiply them by 10 and there's no difference between the
characters's relative abilities (if secondary characteristics are modified
sensibly)
But again that's a matter for the individual GM to decide.
Bryan J. Maloney
<ladyf...@mci2000.com> wrote:
> tradeoff. I know, I know. It sounds like powergaming. BUt, in Hero at least,
> it's a harsh reality. Being a character with a max of 20 Dex, 20 Con, 4 Spd,
> and 50 Stun means that in an average 60 points active campaign you will be
> spending all your actions ether Dodging or Diving for Cover (being a bit
Fighting Patriot wore armor. Y'know "armor", right? He also really
enjoyed sniping from distance. Toss out the smoke grenade to make it hard
to see him, flick on the IR, ping, ping, ping... (Actually, he had all
kinds of grenades, kind of like Green Arrow--1970s style--with a flag
motif and armor.)
> Now, in my experience, Normal Charactristic Maxima is one of the most UNused
> disads in the entire system, simply for the fact that no player that I have
I'll use it for my characters if it fits. Of course, I'll also consider
paying the extra 10 points for the SPD 5...
--
What you say may very well be true, but it may also very well be irrelevant.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Sakura
Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:11:04 -0500, SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM>
>wrote:
>>of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
>>scores.
>
>Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the ability to
>shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
>ridiculous amount of dexterity...
That's not DEX, that's having a lot of levels with his Bow. Having one
very high learned skill is not evidence for having a high dex at all.
>Let's not forget how often these characters manage to dodge bullets and the
>like,
DCV levels at 5 points per. Why are so many people reluctant to use
skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
Andy Pearlman
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> In article <363EDD6C...@mail.idt.net>,
> apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, that 13 points can be easily be used in such a way to compensate
> > for the evilness of a 10% drop. Get 4 skill levels.
>
> That wholly depends on... how the campaign is structured and GM limits... if
> you are buying skioll levels to bring your OCV IN line with others.. you have
> hardly compensated for antyhing.. you just have 13 cp to spend somewhere
> else...
The problem(and this is the big problem), is that a character bought like this
tends to force the other players towards the maximum. If I max out DC and CV for
less points, then the reliable character ends up either needing to mini-max or
dropping skills to compete in combat. Somewhere, that mythical campaign average
10dc character is strongly thinking about trading skills for power.
The 13 points on OCV is actually 8 + 5 spent somewhere else :-). You can also do
the I buy +20 Strength, get back 4 points that were spent on PD, and sell off 3
points of stun. If you started with 15 Str, you now have a 7d6 attack(for grandma
vs. the agents), +4 Rec, and +7 Stun. Or Martial Arts with +1 OCV to martial
kick(another messed up set of powers - there is absolutely no point reason in the
world to buy both a martial kick and a martial punch - +2 OCV to a martial kick
means you have a martial punch with -1 DCV, +2d6 damage)
Which brings me back to the original point - a 14- activation roll on damage not
expected to do anything is not a limit.
> But the point he is making is.. the super who is caught on camera trying and
> missing with his magic bolt is going to have a different view from the gallery
> than one who raises his mighty glowing red hand and gets sound effects like
> the Excelsior dieing in STIII and a few whisps of smoke... while in game terms
> and probabilities it all maths out.. when the audience cannot see you really
> did anything... they will take a different tack...
It depends entirely on the nature of the activation roll. Strictly read, you
shouldn't have any sound effects from an activation roll - why would your special
effect work when your power doesn't? The simple one, the gun which misfires, makes
a simple click. To have the audience read anything into that action is bizarre.
Perhaps the hero was worried about nailing a bystander? Maybe he didn't think he
had a shot? Why would the audience think the hero who missed know what he was
doing?
Unless the audience has the angle and viewpoint of the hero, they're not going to
care if the hero missed or if the hero didn't fire. The problem is the mayor is
dead. The hero failed.
> > Spread the EB with the extra 2d6. Nail two agents in two different hexes.
> > Spread the EB 5d6. You still have a 9d6 EB, and can hit agents over a range of
> > 4 hexes. Tends to be useful.
>
> Usually wiping agents with EBs does not require "extra DC"..
A 9d6 EB tends to stun more agents than a 7d6 EB. Especially agents. Agents can
only spread out so far. An extra 2dc means they need to spread out an additional 2
hexes. Open field, probably doesn't make much of a difference. A 4 hex street?
> > And the times he doesn't pull his weight tend to be made up by the fact that
> > on the whole, he simply does more damage.
>
> That really depends on the game specs.. how much difference does 4 more stun
> matter... how often does that mean you drop one more villain one attack
> faster? Where does your GM put those little breakpoints.. armour at value x
> means he will be con stunned by a 14dc but not by a 12dc...
That average 4 stun is actually 7 stun. It drops when you factor in the activation
problem(the average 17*10 vs 24*9). But the basic problem is that the tougher the
character, the more useful that 14dc becomes vs the 12dc. A 30 defense becomes
12*10 vs 19*9. Still roughly the same average difference, but now the difference is
large enough to almost be an attack on its own.
Also, if you look at the worst case scenario(everyone has 12dc), then you still do
90% of the stun that everyone else does. Even if you fail 1/turn, that's still 80%.
Yet the cost is 66%.
Andy Pearlman
Lady Fusion wrote:
> <deactivating lurking device>
>
> As for the "skill levels instead of Dex" argument, I have tried going that
> route, only to find that having all the things that go off of Dex being so
> much lower (Speed being a big example) just don't make for an acceptable
> tradeoff. I know, I know. It sounds like powergaming. BUt, in Hero at least,
> it's a harsh reality. Being a character with a max of 20 Dex, 20 Con, 4 Spd,
> and 50 Stun means that in an average 60 points active campaign you will be
> spending all your actions ether Dodging or Diving for Cover (being a bit
> slower than you average Champs brick), and praying that they don't use Area
> of Effect attacks too much ( not having the defences to withstand any kind
> of abuse).
Here's the simple example character:
Build a mini-maxed 150 point character. Try to get an 18 Int/Pre/20 Dex and
generate a campaign average attack.
Buy 30 points of skills.
Buy an extra 20 points of defenses(remember, char maxima doesn't prohibit you
from buying armor, forcefield, etc...) to get you up to campaign level.
Buy 5 overall levels.
You will have an absolutely sick number of 18- skills(remember the optional
extraordinary skill rule?). You can average a 12DCV any time you want. If you
buy Reflection, watch those overall levels zoom your roll up.
Also, if you make the somewhat logical conclusion that any uncontrolled 1 hex
object is something capable of being blocked(example: If a character with
enough growth/density increase flies directly at you, you can martial throw
him. Why is a car any different? Because it can't try to avoid you in mid-air?)
zul...@my-dejanews.com
[some snippage may occur with shipping]
|acceptable tradeoff. I know, I know. It sounds like
|powergaming. But, in Hero at least, it's a harsh
|reality. Being a character with a max of 20 Dex, 20
|Con, 4 Spd, and 50 Stun means that in an average 60
|points active campaign you will be spending all your
|actions ether Dodging or Diving for Cover (being a bit
|slower than you average Champs brick), and praying
|that they don't use Area of Effect attacks too much (
|not having the defenses to withstand any kind of
|abuse). Now, in my experience, Normal Characteristic
|Maxima is one of the most UNused disads in the entire
|system, simply for the fact that no player that I have
|encountered wished to have to blow a great deal of
|points just to stay awake in combat which is what the
|bulk of Champions is about IMO... capes beating other
|capes up).
Wow. Your experience is so different from mine. I practically require NCM,
unless there's a concept reason not to take it (It's not an everyman, though
- the PCs still get their 20 points if they take it). I also rarely allow
speeds above 4. And, yeah, I do this for "standard" 250 point campaigns.
It's only necessary for the PCs to raise their stats above NCM if you've
built the villains that way. If /everyone/ has speed 6, then they all might
as well all have speed 3. It's the same game, you're just multiplying
everything by a factor of 2 or more.
Of course, I also differ with your philosophy that supers gaming is capes
beating on other capes. Combat's a part of the game, but it's never been the
focus for me.
[snip]
|is necessary to have 20 points (on ANY points at all)
|in Non-Combat Skills to make for a good role-playing
|character. I believe that non-combat skills (or any
20 points in noncombat skills is maybe a little high.
[snip]
|especially relevant non-combat skills. If the GM is
|actually going to have said skills used, that's
|another thing, but in most games I've played in, those
|skills are just background skills, to fill out the
|concept and are never actually used once game play
|begins.
Again, your gaming experience is just /so/ different than mine. My players
/use/ those skills. When I'm designing a module, I'm not just looking at the
DNPC frequency numbers, I'm looking at the whole sheet. If Joe PC put a lot
of points in Piloting, then, at least once, they're going to run into a
plane. If Jane PC took Bureaucratics, Fast Talk, and Seduction, then one
adventure might require the PCs to get some classified information from an
unhelpful clerk. If Harry Heroic paid points into all of his powers with
"supercharged by chlorine" - eventually, he's going to get dunked in a pool.
If I don't think I can make something (advantage, disadvantage, skill, power,
whatever), I gently suggest the player pick something else.
|Just my input. Let the angry retorts begin!!!
Angry? Why should I be angry?
S A Rudy http://www.eclipse.net/~srudy
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Now you, too can say "I've been to Hellenback!" Go to |
| http://www.eclipse.net/~srudy/hellenback/ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
swru...@compuserve.com
apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> The problem(and this is the big problem), is that a character bought like this
> tends to force the other players towards the maximum.
In my experience, this is not required to "force to the max" ...
It happens all enough on its own. Now certainly, regardless of which disad is
used... the more efficient character builder player will get more bang for the
buck.. I offset this in my game by offering to help anyone design their guy...
no one minimaxes like the gm.
>If I max out DC and CV
>for
> less points, then the reliable character ends up either needing to mini-max or
> dropping skills to compete in combat. Somewhere, that mythical campaign
average
> 10dc character is strongly thinking about trading skills for power.
Again regardless the player who does more for less egts off better... UNLESS
the GM realizes its not points at all that create balance but rather his
control over the setting.... as in what if NPC luck rolls have a deleterious
effect on unreliable powers... or what if circumstances where you have one
shot and magnitude is less critical than activation occur fairly regularly...
I guarantee you, as GM i will make sure you FEEL that activation roll IS a
disad. Thats my job.
> The 13 points on OCV is actually 8 + 5 spent somewhere else :-). You can also
do
> the I buy +20 Strength, get back 4 points that were spent on PD, and sell off
3
> points of stun.
UNLESS your GM sees strength and stun and PD as more than just variables in a
combat equation and says "Why oh why do you have lowered STUN? Why oh why do
you have 35 str? "
>Which brings me back to the original point - a 14- activation roll on damage
not> expected to do anything is not a limit.
Again the expectation is the bulk of that IS doing something
... its helping the rest go thru defenses.. its adding to knockback...
its costing endurance and action for no gain.
>
> It depends entirely on the nature of the activation roll. Strictly read, you
> shouldn't have any sound effects from an activation roll - why would your
special
> effect work when your power doesn't?
POWERS which cost endurance are visible. POWER which fail
activation rolls cost endurance. ERGO... you get the SFX but not the full
working power...
> The simple one, the gun which misfires,
makes
> a simple click. To have the audience read anything into that action is
bizarre.
> Perhaps the hero was worried about nailing a bystander? Maybe he didn't think
he
> had a shot? Why would the audience think the hero who missed know what he was
> doing?
>
If the audience sees you fire the gun and miss.. they think you missed... if
they see you point pull and clikc.. they think you maybe lost track of ammo.
one can look dumber than the other.
> Unless the audience has the angle and viewpoint of the hero, they're not going
to
> care if the hero missed or if the hero didn't fire. The problem is the mayor
is
> dead. The hero failed.
Sorry in actuality the WHY the hero failed and how much effort he seemed to
be doing will usually matter...DEPENDING ON HOW THE GM IS RUNNING THE GAME.
The press and public opinion about the PCs and their actions has a MAJOR
campaign effect in my game.. even have an online newspaper showing articles
about events in the city and editorials..
When BAD REP hits.. you can see it in article slant...
Once the PCs were chasing a villain who was in a van in traffic... one HERO
went ahead and shutdown engines stopping traffic dead and letting them do
car-to-car searches... firefight ensued... the HERO was just finished patting
himself on the back for avoiding a prolonged chase when the firefight
SURROUNDED BY TRAPPED RUSH HOUR DRIVERS began to have collateral damage. The
newspapers were rife with "citizens trapped in killing zone by "heroes"
articles...
BTW, even if you sneak an not visible when failed power past your GM... then
it might look like you did nothing.. even worse in some cases.
Nightshade
>DCV levels at 5 points per. Why are so many people reluctant to use
>skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
Pretty simple, really. If you account for the contribution to Speed,
which is often a freebie since most people buy more SPD than they're
getting from DEX, DEX itself is only running 6 point per 3 DEX...which
gives you both a general DCV and OCV bonus, _and_ allows you to go off
earlier in the phase. Compared to that, any of the combat levels
beyond the 3-pointers are simply unattractive.
Sakura
Ah, right, I forgot...Champions is where points are more important than
concept.
So, basically, DEX (like CON) is too cheap. Maybe I'll fiddle with otehr
values for it - 5 points per wouldn't be too bad, if you managed to get
the players to subscribe to the non-inflation theory of character
building...
SD Anderson
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mad Hamish) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:11:04 -0500, SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure that's unreasonable for the super hero genre. How
> >> many heroes/villians can you think of which are clearly not
> >> more dextrous than the average human?
> >
> >of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
> >scores.
> >
>
> I haven't ever seen much to suggest that any of GLs were massively dextrous
> compared to other comic characters (except test pilot for Ray and the Warrior
> bit for Guy)
>
> > Ant Man,
>
> Again, I don't see evidence for him standing out in comics. I _also_ haven't
> seen him written up in Champions with a very high dex.
>
>
> Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the ability to
> shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
> ridiculous amount of dexterity...
As Sakura observed in his post, there is little evidence Hawkeye is
possessed of superhuman abilities in EVERY DEX based activity. He is
a pretty decent all around athelete and unbelievable bowman, but nothing
that isn't explained through a DEX in the 18 to 20 range and lots of
skill with a bow, some DCV levels and a couple of levels here and there.
No evidence in any comic he's been in that he has a nervous system
and muscles that react faster than humanly possible.
Yes, he can be built cheaper if you raise his DEX. That's the
complaint: High DEX provides too much for the cost.
> > current version Supergirl &
> >Superboy, Firestar, Iron Man, etc are all above average Dex
> >characters, as depicted in comics, but none really have reflexes
> >like a praying mantis.
>
> Iron Man does have damned good reflexes, because he's built them and evasive
> maneuvers etc into the suit at various times.
Again that would be DCV and OCV skills, focused.
> Let's not forget how often these characters manage to dodge bullets and the
> like,
> > They do NOT cross the superhuman
> >threshold that a 20 tends to represent in games like V&V,
> >Champions or GURPS: Supers.
>
> I'd say that the 3 games have massively different takes on what a 20 represents
> (although I haven't seen V&V for a while)
> A 20 in Champions is a lot less of a deal than a 20 in GURPS.
Both Champs & GURPS pretty much use it as the dividing line
between human and super human. V&V puts it's dividing line at
18.
> > Game mechanics confer so many benefits to being on the high
> >side of this threshold that it is in fact the NORM in many games
> >to have DEX in that zone. GURPS being the notable exception by
> >making DX 20+ ghastly expensive. (If the cost were lower I have
> >no doubt I'd be seeing lots of DX 20+ PCs being shown to GMs...)
> > In this, SHRPGs fail to recreate the characters shown in
> >comics.
> No they don't, what they may do is change the relative dexes needed to do it.
> Get all dex scores & multiply them by 10 and there's no difference between the
> characters's relative abilities (if secondary characteristics are modified
> sensibly)
Yes they do, if the Ultra Dex model is accurately emulating the
comic characters, every comic super would be able to perform numerous
DEX based day to day activies with unbelievable ease.
SD Anderson
> >On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:11:04 -0500, SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM>
> >wrote:
> >>of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
> >>scores.
> >
> >Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the ability to
> >shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
> >ridiculous amount of dexterity...
>
> very high learned skill is not evidence for having a high dex at all.
>
> >like,
>
> skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
Because you can save points raising the CHA if you use that DEX for
anything more than one or two specific things, like to attack and to
defend.
DEX provides SPD and initiative as well as OCV and DCV levels and puts
any DEX based skills you give the character up a NEAT starting point.
DEX really costs 20 points per ten levels because it gives you 1 level
of SPD (10 pts). A 30 DX (60 points) is really providing 7 levels of
OCV, 7 levels of DCV, 2 levels of SPD and 20 points of initiative before
you spend any more points on skills to reap higher levels.
When you get down to it, most players will toss character concept out
the window for point efficency. Some don't even understand why this is
wrong.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>That's not DEX, that's having a lot of levels with his Bow. Having one
>very high learned skill is not evidence for having a high dex at all.
That's true, but it doesn't apply to Hawkeye. Hawkeye is Captain Dexterity.
He jumps, he flips, he hangs, he shoots arrows, etc. etc.
But yes, having extraordinary proficiency with *one* skill does not
neccesitate having a high Dex.
BBlackmoor
Lady Fusion
<deactivating lurking device... followed by a amssive snippage of quoating
from her previous post>
>Wow. Your experience is so different from mine. I practically require
NCM,
>unless there's a concept reason not to take it (It's not an everyman,
though
>- the PCs still get their 20 points if they take it). I also rarely allow
>speeds above 4. And, yeah, I do this for "standard" 250 point campaigns.
>It's only necessary for the PCs to raise their stats above NCM if you've
>built the villains that way. If /everyone/ has speed 6, then they all
might
>as well all have speed 3. It's the same game, you're just multiplying
>everything by a factor of 2 or more.
>
>Of course, I also differ with your philosophy that supers gaming is capes
>beating on other capes. Combat's a part of the game, but it's never been
the
>focus for me.
>
It's not my philosophy, just what I have seen in most games run by other
groups. I myself apply to the "people with powers" style of gaming supers,
AKA "soap opera supers". I consider a successful night's run one that has as
much role-play and as little combat as possible. Would much rather see my
players plum the depths of their characters than saying "Gee Brain, who are
we going to beat up tonight?". In fact, my most successful gaming event was
the "Funeral for a Friend" three-night consecutive role-playing
tour-de-force in my long-running Enigmaverse camapign... no one even put on
their PJs at any point. Actually had PLAYERS in tears at one point.... damn
good session.
[snippity-snip of more long-windedness on her part}
>[snip]
>|especially relevant non-combat skills. If the GM is
>|actually going to have said skills used, that's
>|another thing, but in most games I've played in, those
>|skills are just background skills, to fill out the
>|concept and are never actually used once game play
>|begins.
>
>Again, your gaming experience is just /so/ different than mine. My players
>/use/ those skills. When I'm designing a module, I'm not just looking at
the
>DNPC frequency numbers, I'm looking at the whole sheet. If Joe PC put a
lot
>of points in Piloting, then, at least once, they're going to run into a
>plane. If Jane PC took Bureaucratics, Fast Talk, and Seduction, then one
>adventure might require the PCs to get some classified information from an
>unhelpful clerk. If Harry Heroic paid points into all of his powers with
>"supercharged by chlorine" - eventually, he's going to get dunked in a
pool.
>If I don't think I can make something (advantage, disadvantage, skill,
power,
>whatever), I gently suggest the player pick something else.
>
On this I agree with you, and again, not my philosophy, just my experience.
However, I think that the character is more than the sum of what they spent
points on. Just because Mr. Faboo spent 30 points on Non-Combat Skills
doesn't make him any better a character for role-playing than the character
that just took one Professional Skill. And by and large, skills like
Seduction, Fast Talk, and the like are just cop-outs for bad role-players to
to say "I made my roll, what happens now?", as opposed to actually
role-playing out the use of the skill. Not the rule, by any means, but what
I have seen time and again.
>
>|Just my input. Let the angry retorts begin!!!
>
>Angry? Why should I be angry?
>
Heh... I've seen the way a lot of these posts get ugly after someone has
accidently attacked some gamer or another's sacred (sp?) cow. :-)
Lady Fusion
<Creator of the Enigmaverse, web page pending... eventually :-)>
Chris Camfield
>
>
>Jamie Rosen <dq...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
><71ngvc$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>
>> Andy Pearlman (apea...@mail.idt.net) writes:
>> >
>> > Furthermore, that 13 points can be easily be used in such a way to
>compensate
>> > for the evilness of a 10% drop. Get 4 skill levels.
>>
>> Just wanted to point out that you can't use skill levels to improve your
>> activation roll. It has nothing to do with skill, it's an inherent
>> liability in the power.
>
>You can use your experience to buy an activation 14 or less down to an
>activation 16 or less . . .
I don't see Activation 16- in my copy of the BBB! :-P
I don't think the chance of a power failing on a 17 or 18 is any
appreciable limitation.
I think Andy's point, though, was, though an activation 14- might
fail, it saves you 13 points that could buy you extra stats, skills,
defences, whatever.
CC
Mad Hamish
>In article <3640fe8f...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
>Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:11:04 -0500, SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM>
>>wrote:
>>> You're changing the argument against the virtual requirement
>>>of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
>>>scores.
>>> Hawkeye,
>>
>>Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the ability to
>>shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
>>ridiculous amount of dexterity...
>
>That's not DEX, that's having a lot of levels with his Bow. Having one
>very high learned skill is not evidence for having a high dex at all.
Nope, not entirely I would agree that being able to hit a bullseye from 300
yards would be bow skill but being able to do it while moving erratically and
not under control points to great amount of eye-hand coordination & balance.
>
>>Let's not forget how often these characters manage to dodge bullets and the
>>like,
>
>DCV levels at 5 points per. Why are so many people reluctant to use
>skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
So what makes you think that Hawkeye is that skilled in hand to hand combat,
which a 5 point level would imply?
Nightshade
>In article <36441411.2450753@news>,
>Nightshade <Night...@nightdark.com> wrote:
>>je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>DCV levels at 5 points per. Why are so many people reluctant to use
>>>skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
>>
>>Pretty simple, really. If you account for the contribution to Speed,
>>which is often a freebie since most people buy more SPD than they're
>>getting from DEX, DEX itself is only running 6 point per 3 DEX...which
>>gives you both a general DCV and OCV bonus, _and_ allows you to go off
>>earlier in the phase. Compared to that, any of the combat levels
>>beyond the 3-pointers are simply unattractive.
>
>Ah, right, I forgot...Champions is where points are more important than
>concept.
Hey, welcome to the real gaming world, where sometimes concept isn't
God. It's very easy for people to justify the more cost effective
ability when part of what they're getting of the game _is_ the game
aspect. I know it's heretical to suggest that 'game' is as much a
part of 'role-playing game' as 'role-playing' for some people, but
whether purists like it or not, that's the case.
>
>So, basically, DEX (like CON) is too cheap. Maybe I'll fiddle with otehr
>values for it - 5 points per wouldn't be too bad, if you managed to get
>the players to subscribe to the non-inflation theory of character
>building...
>
Actually, I suspect it's less DEX is too cheap than levels and DEX are
out of balance with each other. But if you raise the cost of DEX too
much, you make it prohibitively expensive to build characters who
_should_ be high DEX. It's not an easy problem to address this late
in the day. It's not a coincidence that Fuzion split DEX into two
pieces and reduced both the contribution to SPD and the DEX to skill
ratio.
>J
Sidhain
>Hey, welcome to the real gaming world, where sometimes concept isn't
>God. It's very easy for people to justify the more cost effective
>ability when part of what they're getting of the game _is_ the game
>aspect. I know it's heretical to suggest that 'game' is as much a
>part of 'role-playing game' as 'role-playing' for some people, but
>whether purists like it or not, that's the case.
>
one of the rise in LARPS is the gact that game is less important than
role...
and if you aren't interested in the 'role' part play computer games, video
games or board games....
They don't usally require you to play the role...
because in my experience and opinion, people who enjoy the background, and
the way the charecters behave (not their abilities) have more fun and enjoy
it more than those whos focus is abilities....
becaue I can create a villain to counter anyo pc's abilities, and those just
interested in th game aspect get frustrated that thier vaunted ability is
now made useless, instead of role-playing their way out of the situation
they kepp trying and trying....and trying to get their power to work on the
villain....
and fail ..
One of the best Pc's I saw ran ever, had absolutly no real powers in
superhero game I was running, yet she was the team's leader and the first to
resolves situations without violence, without use of 'powers' at all....and
tha players of that game continue to ask me some 5 years later to restart
that campaign....
I mean Monopoly is aobut playing the 'game'
not Champions, Marvel or what have you
Mind you this has all been in my opinion.
Sidhain
>
> When you get down to it, most players will toss character concept out
>the window for point efficency. Some don't even understand why this is
>wrong.
>
>
Simple solution to this is when concept is written as a concept you decide
the number of points to provide then verify that the charecter is suitable
to the campaign before its run...I am not fond of point systems they are far
more prone to abuse then non point systems and players feel justified
because well "it says I can do this" or "such and such was built that way"
however its all a matter of player maturity...
Some players will ream any system they use others will make honest mistakes
at judging powers, on of the things I like in the new Marvel Saga Game is
the concept of Pushing because someoen with a low level power rating can
push beyond it when necessarry....this helps them be more viable at lower
power levels.
Sakura
Nightshade <Night...@nightdark.com> wrote:
>je...@schultz.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>So, basically, DEX (like CON) is too cheap. Maybe I'll fiddle with otehr
>>values for it - 5 points per wouldn't be too bad, if you managed to get
>>the players to subscribe to the non-inflation theory of character
>>building...
>
>Actually, I suspect it's less DEX is too cheap than levels and DEX are
>out of balance with each other.
Possibly. On the other hand, combat levels probably shouldn't get much
cheaper - they're already pretty squished together as it is - so it'd need
to be DEX that goes up anyway.
> But if you raise the cost of DEX too
>much, you make it prohibitively expensive to build characters who
>_should_ be high DEX.
Not necessarily. If the campaign average DEX is 23, then Spiderman should
probably have about a 33-35 or so - he's supposed to be quite the nimble
hero (it is his main defense). If the campaign average is 14, though, you
can make Spidey at a much lower dex level - 22-28 or so - and still
preserve the feel of him being much more dextrous than most other heros.
Sakura
Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On 5 Nov 1998 15:58:01 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>>
>>>Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the
>ability to
>>>shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
>>>ridiculous amount of dexterity...
>>
>>That's not DEX, that's having a lot of levels with his Bow. Having one
>>very high learned skill is not evidence for having a high dex at all.
>
>Nope, not entirely I would agree that being able to hit a bullseye from 300
>yards would be bow skill but being able to do it while moving erratically and
>not under control points to great amount of eye-hand coordination & balance.
Or great skill with a bow - remember, high skill means that you know how
to compensate for performing in adverse conditions. Now, if Hawkeye could
shoot a bullseye /or/ thread a needle /or/ tie a cherry stem in knots with
his tongue while swinging upside down from a trapeze...then that is more
evidence for high dex.
>>>Let's not forget how often these characters manage to dodge bullets and the
>>>like,
>>
>>DCV levels at 5 points per. Why are so many people reluctant to use
>>skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
>
>So what makes you think that Hawkeye is that skilled in hand to hand combat,
>which a 5 point level would imply?
Please read again. I said +1 DCV, not +1 in HtH combat. It's on pg 23 of
the HSR - not in the little table, but the text below it talks about being
able to buy +1 DCV with all attacks for 5 points. That +1 DCV would be how
you represent someone who is very skilled at getting out of the way, not
putting himself in vulnerable positions, etc.
As for why I think Hawkeye is that skilled...well, if he can dodge bullets
with any degree of certainty (your example above) then my guess is he's
got a pretty high DCV. I'd buy it as DCV because I'm betting that Hawkeye
and other non-armor-wearing supers probably spend a lot of time training
in 'getting out of the way', as a survival technique if nothing else.
Ron Charlotte
<ladyf...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
><deactivating lurking device>
>
>Been watching this thread for awhile, and decided to finally put my own 6
>cents in (inflation, ya know).
>
>Something that a lot of us Hero players are forgeting (or not), is that the
>combat system for Hero essentially boils down to a wargame miniatures
>system. Building a character "to concept" as a normal human, with realistic
>normal maximums, is only really practical if the campaign as a whole
>enforces such a thing. If playing in the "standard" 250 point campaign as
>presented in the base rules, you naturally wind up with Dex and Con
>inflation just so that your character will be competent from the wargame
>aspect. Sad but true, but the concept often times has to take a back seat to
>bow to the system if the character wishes to do more than simply be what we
>term as 'Hostage Boy". By that I mean that a character built along the lines
>of your concept as a "trained normal" will often times be lying in a pile,
>while the rest of the PCs are still partaking of combat.
I can't agree more. Like most of the games whose base rules were
developed in the late 70s and early 80s, the rules _are_ linear
descendents of wargaming rules (inches as a measure, for example). A
lot of the things that some folk don't like about the game system stem
from this fact.
The only way I know of to change these factors is to play with house
rules in a group that is willing to accept the ground rules, or to
make a ruling by fiat (which can lead to other headaches).
>On a slightly different topic, though one that has mentioned in this thread,
>I for one don't believe it is necessary to have 20 points (on ANY points at
>all) in Non-Combat Skills to make for a good role-playing character. I
>believe that non-combat skills (or any skills at all) should be purchased in
>accordance to the character's concept, not a pre-ordained notion that ALL
>characters should have some skills. Some characters simply might not HAVE
>any applicable Champs/Hero tpye skills, unless you count having hobby skills
>towards that point restriction. In my opinion, if someone is playing someone
>that is an artist, or a plumber, or a writer, they might not legitimatly
>HAVE 20 (or how ever many) points in non-combat skills, especially relivant
>non-combat skills. If the GM is actually going to have said skills used,
>that's another thing, but in most games I've played in, those skills are
>just background skills, to fill out the concept and are never actually used
>once game play begins.
It all depends on the nature of the game (and GM). The campaign I run
has at least 1/3 of any given gaming session in which the characters
are using non-combat skills. I make a point of putting in situations
where the deciding factor in even some combat situations are the
applicable use of NC skills.
That said, I understand that sometimes you just gotta trash the real
estate and bash heads.
--
Ron Charlotte -- Gainesville, FL
Nightshade
>
>>Hey, welcome to the real gaming world, where sometimes concept isn't
>>God. It's very easy for people to justify the more cost effective
>>ability when part of what they're getting of the game _is_ the game
>>aspect. I know it's heretical to suggest that 'game' is as much a
>>part of 'role-playing game' as 'role-playing' for some people, but
>>whether purists like it or not, that's the case.
>>
>It shouldn't be RP is the important part of RPG's...
Shouldn't be. And who was it that elected you to decide what other
people were to get out of there games, Sidhain?
>one of the rise in LARPS is the gact that game is less important than
>role...
>and if you aren't interested in the 'role' part play computer games, video
>games or board games....
So what if you're interested in both, or those don't get you what the
'game' part of 'role playing game' gets you? Are you supposed to be
consigned to outer darkness?
>They don't usally require you to play the role...
>because in my experience and opinion, people who enjoy the background, and
>the way the charecters behave (not their abilities) have more fun and enjoy
>it more than those whos focus is abilities....
And I've seen it both ways. Now that we've dealt with the broad
generalizations...
>becaue I can create a villain to counter anyo pc's abilities, and those just
>interested in th game aspect get frustrated that thier vaunted ability is
>now made useless, instead of role-playing their way out of the situation
>they kepp trying and trying....and trying to get their power to work on the
>villain....
Or, they get interested in trying to work out a way to use those
abilities in new and less obvious ways. Assuming people who play
games for the game aspect are stupid or inflexible is, in and of
itself, pretty stupid.
>and fail ..
>
>One of the best Pc's I saw ran ever, had absolutly no real powers in
>superhero game I was running, yet she was the team's leader and the first to
>resolves situations without violence, without use of 'powers' at all....and
>tha players of that game continue to ask me some 5 years later to restart
>that campaign....
>
And guess what? Coming with methods to do that can be just as much an
interest of people who aren't exceptionally interested in the
roleplaying aspect, too. Puzzle solving, even social puzzle solving,
doesn't have to have a thing to do with roleplyaing per say, nor say
anything about a persons dedication to character concept and being in
character.
>I mean Monopoly is aobut playing the 'game'
>
>not Champions, Marvel or what have you
>Mind you this has all been in my opinion.
And it's an opinion that basically says that people who play for other
reasons than you are doing it 'wrong'. Guess what? They don't care.
They don't get what you do out of the game, and they don't need your
permission to enjoy it the same way.
[For the third parties that think this response was unnecessarily
sharp, I've seen too many people who think their own style is the Only
Right Way to Play over the years to have much toleration for it any
more.]
Nightshade
But not necessarily enough more to give him his primary defensive
edge, which is not being hit, especially against skilled normals.
Of course that's all the DEX I'd give him in a campaign under regular
circustances, but then, I've rather rarely seen anyone go above 26
tops, and 35 is still a signicant increase over that.
Andy Pearlman
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> In article <36418F4E...@mail.idt.net>,
> apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem(and this is the big problem), is that a character bought like this
> > tends to force the other players towards the maximum.
>
> In my experience, this is not required to "force to the max" ...
> It happens all enough on its own. Now certainly, regardless of which disad is
> used... the more efficient character builder player will get more bang for the
> buck.. I offset this in my game by offering to help anyone design their guy...
> no one minimaxes like the gm.
That's not a real solution. Several times, I've decided I've wanted a character who
has somewhere around 3 completely unrelated, below campaign average attacks. The
basic Zen Archer - a RKA, martial arts, and some weird mental powers for breaking
mental illusions/mind control. It costs more.
I know as a player, I can concept them together such that a multipower works and
perhaps is reasonably cheap. But it looks amazingly clunky and unnatural.
> Again regardless the player who does more for less egts off better... UNLESS
> the GM realizes its not points at all that create balance but rather his
> control over the setting.... as in what if NPC luck rolls have a deleterious
> effect on unreliable powers... or what if circumstances where you have one
> shot and magnitude is less critical than activation occur fairly regularly...
This is also known as screw the player. Furthermore, this sets a bad precedent. If
NPC luck rolls can have bad effects on unreliable powers, characters who are
friendly and lucky, should make for good effects on rolls. Or worse yet, if the
character him/herself is lucky...
> I guarantee you, as GM i will make sure you FEEL that activation roll IS a
> disad. Thats my job.
Activation roll is a limit. And why do you feel obligated to make it such a
disadvantage or that it is your job? i.e. you agree with me that it is overvalued
as is.
> UNLESS your GM sees strength and stun and PD as more than just variables in a
> combat equation and says "Why oh why do you have lowered STUN? Why oh why do
> you have 35 str? "
"My stun is at base, my rec is at base, and I have 35 str because of any number of
reasons."
Anyone who can't justify a 35 str for any vaguely non-human character doesn't know
what they're doing.
This is as opposed to buying a character with an extra 3 stun and more extra PD.
> Again the expectation is the bulk of that IS doing something
> ... its helping the rest go thru defenses.. its adding to knockback...
> its costing endurance and action for no gain.
And in order to get that exact same something with a *normal* power? How much do
you pay? Why should you pay more?
> > It depends entirely on the nature of the activation roll. Strictly read, you
> > shouldn't have any sound effects from an activation roll - why would your
> special
> > effect work when your power doesn't?
>
> POWERS which cost endurance are visible. POWER which fail
> activation rolls cost endurance. ERGO... you get the SFX but not the full
> working power...
That's not a strict reading. People use the word Ergo and thus when making stuff
up. Special effects come from power usage. If you have an activation roll, your
power fails to work. Fails. No power, no special effect. And as I noted from the
example of a gun misfiring, there is no special effect other than a 'click'.
Here's another example: If I buy EB, Fire, not in vacuum, and the special effect is
of course fire springing from my fingertips. If I'm in a vacuum, nothing happens. I
can spend end if I want, but nothing is going to happen.
From a character perspective or evil nasty villain who wants to destroy the world,
sure those special effects of activation might be nice and even add color. But
nowhere does it say that they are required or even expected.
> himself on the back for avoiding a prolonged chase when the firefight
> SURROUNDED BY TRAPPED RUSH HOUR DRIVERS began to have collateral damage. The
> newspapers were rife with "citizens trapped in killing zone by "heroes"
> articles...
We're not talking about gross stupidity over time, we're talking about a single
action that takes space over the span of two seconds. Two actions by a hero will
happen in the time that a normal will get one action. The normal is going to be
lucky to even notice what did actually happen.
Paul Mata
character, then you have to go through the trouble of "buying" a better
character. They aren't meant to all be the AMAZING Spiderman right off the
bat. Most times then not, they start off as the kinda sorta INCREDIBLE
Spiderman (if you get my AMSH humor). Not only does it reflect the
character's growth when you look back at your game logs; but doesn't cheese
the the system. So how do you get a new character to run with more
experienced characters? Borrow points in advanced from the GM. Granted
you'll go through many games just paying those points back but at least
you'll stop "twisting" and tweaking the game rules to make that character.
What I don't understand is why the game's authors just don't simply use the
"hero/villain NPC bonus" more often to explain/ or substitute for NPC
experience growth. I think they are the guilty party as head power tweakers.
Refer to almost all their DARK HERO books. +20 DEX for CV's only---c'mon get
real.
Sakura
>>Not necessarily. If the campaign average DEX is 23, then Spiderman should
>>probably have about a 33-35 or so - he's supposed to be quite the nimble
>>hero (it is his main defense). If the campaign average is 14, though, you
>>can make Spidey at a much lower dex level - 22-28 or so - and still
>>preserve the feel of him being much more dextrous than most other heros.
>
>But not necessarily enough more to give him his primary defensive
>edge, which is not being hit, especially against skilled normals.
Well, he's an experienced superhero, so he's very likely to have combat
levels as well. And his spider-sense isn't just Danger Sense - it
includes several levels of DCV as well.
Jose Allen
Hell, in the SAGA rules, hes 'world-class'. Which makes him ONE OF THE BEST in the
world IF NOT the best. How many games actually do that for you?
Mad Hamish wrote:
> On 5 Nov 1998 15:58:01 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>
> >In article <3640fe8f...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
> >Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:11:04 -0500, SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM>
> >>wrote:
> >>> You're changing the argument against the virtual requirement
> >>>of SUPER HUMAN Dexterity scores into one against ABOVE AVERAGE
> >>>scores.
> >>> Hawkeye,
> >>
> >>Hawkeye? Hawkeye isn't clearly above normal human dexterity, yep the ability to
> >>shoot bullseyes with a bow while being swung around upside down isn't a
> >>ridiculous amount of dexterity...
> >
> >That's not DEX, that's having a lot of levels with his Bow. Having one
> >very high learned skill is not evidence for having a high dex at all.
>
> Nope, not entirely I would agree that being able to hit a bullseye from 300
> yards would be bow skill but being able to do it while moving erratically and
> not under control points to great amount of eye-hand coordination & balance.
> >
> >>Let's not forget how often these characters manage to dodge bullets and the
> >>like,
> >
> >DCV levels at 5 points per. Why are so many people reluctant to use
> >skill instead of stat to represent superhero prowess?
>
> So what makes you think that Hawkeye is that skilled in hand to hand combat,
> which a 5 point level would imply?
>
LLWatts
>>probably have about a 33-35 or so - he's supposed to be quite the nimble
>>hero (it is his main defense). If the campaign average is 14, though, you
>>can make Spidey at a much lower dex level - 22-28 or so - and still
>>preserve the feel of him being much more dextrous than most other heros.
>>
>
>But not necessarily enough more to give him his primary defensive
>edge, which is not being hit, especially against skilled normals.
Against skilled normals, DEX 22-28 and some basic intelligence on the player's
part is plenty. I'm in a Dark Champions PBEM, and my DEX 18 martial artist got
charged by 7 thugs. She dodged the lot of them.
Leah
swru...@compuserve.com
apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> > > The problem(and this is the big problem), is that a character bought like this
> > > tends to force the other players towards the maximum.
> >
> > In my experience, this is not required to "force to the max" ...
> > It happens all enough on its own. Now certainly, regardless of which disad is
> > used... the more efficient character builder player will get more bang for the
> > buck.. I offset this in my game by offering to help anyone design their guy...
> > no one minimaxes like the gm.
>
> That's not a real solution. Several times, I've decided I've wanted a character who
> has somewhere around 3 completely unrelated, below campaign average attacks. The
> basic Zen Archer - a RKA, martial arts, and some weird mental powers for breaking
> mental illusions/mind control. It costs more.
I think we are suddenly on two different subjects... I was talking about
"efficiency" differences.. not concept differences. Certainly, two differing
concepts can have differing strengths and weaknesses. If I as a GM see a
character as not adewuate to be functional in the campaign, I will tell the
player that up front. Have rarely seen that happen tho.
> I know as a player, I can concept them together such that a multipower works and
> perhaps is reasonably cheap. But it looks amazingly clunky and unnatural.
Well once we get down to "look" or feel about the mechanics, we are
certainly into opinion, no point in arguing there.
>
> This is also known as screw the player.
Really? In our circles its called... a disad is a DISAD... and I definitely
feel as GM it is my job to make sure that DISADs either power or character
occur, JUST as its my job to make sure advantages and strengths show up. As
GM i WILL SCRIT scenes and NPC talents and scenario goals to highlight the
differences between the PCs and make sure their strengths and weaknesses get
highlighted... in proportion to their values relative to the campaign. Its
not "SWCREWING the PLAYER" when i have a session where his level 5 in ancient
greek languages comes into play because a Spartan warrior has just been
dropped into midtown and his ability to speak with him is CRUCIAL. Its
likewise not "SCREW the player" when his disads are highlitghted by a scene
either.
We definitely have a disparate view of the GMs role.
> Furthermore, this sets a bad precedent. If
> NPC luck rolls can have bad effects on unreliable powers, characters who are
> friendly and lucky, should make for good effects on rolls. Or worse yet, if the
> character him/herself is lucky...
Nice try, you play SFB? All depends on relative reasons and rationale for
powers. Maybe its because of a similarity in origin that Distortion King
causes Cheesy Ladds activation roll to go bad. Maybe the fact that it occured
is a CLUE not a SCREW... And yes, certainly, i have to rationalize it within
my cosmology before springing it.
> > I guarantee you, as GM i will make sure you FEEL that activation roll IS a
> > disad. Thats my job.
> Activation roll is a limit.
From the BBB.. a limitation that is not a limit is not worth points... so
just because something is written on paper and paid points does NOT mean its
a limit. It means there is a chance for it to limit the character and the GM
should make sure it happens. FOCUS and many limits rely and depend on the GM
to make sure they occur.
> And why do you feel obligated to make it such a
> disadvantage or that it is your job?
Because the player paid me to do so when he took points back for it. Same as
its my job to make sure the things he spent good points on seem advantageous.
>i.e. you agree with me that it is overvalued
> as is.
No, we disagree that there is an "as is". I believe the balance is created by
the GM not the character sheet. If I let a player take an activation roll...
then i am promising him it will be a disad. During the campaign I will help
see it IS JUST THAT. A player taking "powers not work in darkness" just
insured that i will have scenes occuring at night where those powers were
needed.
> "My stun is at base, my rec is at base, and I have 35 str because of any number of
> reasons."
OK maybe i misunderstood, i thought you had said something about selling back
one of those stats.
"> Anyone who can't justify a 35 str for any vaguely non-human character
doesn't know
> what they're doing.
> This is as opposed to buying a character with an extra 3 stun and more extra PD."
That really depends on how the GM defines things. Some campaigns do not allow
beyond normal max unless it TIGHTLY fits the character conept. Just "slightly
inhuman applied to a mentalist would not rationalize a mentalist getting 35
strength in mine.
> And in order to get that exact same something with a *normal* power? How much do
> you pay? Why should you pay more?
BEcause the limiting elements wont be affeting me. they will be affecting the
guy with the disads.. i trust my GM to make sure of that.
> > POWERS which cost endurance are visible. POWER which fail
> > activation rolls cost endurance. ERGO... you get the SFX but not the full
> > working power...
>
> That's not a strict reading. People use the word Ergo and thus when making stuff
> up.
UH OK usually i seem them used when making a conclusion...
as for strict reading....
BBB pg 52 says powers that normally cost end to use have visible special
effects. BBB page 101 says the character spends endurance regardless of
whether the power activates.
I would say its certainly a matter for the GM and or the special effect as
too whether the powers sfx show up on a failure...
> Special effects come from power usage. If you have an activation roll, your
> power fails to work. Fails. No power, no special effect. And as I noted from the
> example of a gun misfiring, there is no special effect other than a 'click'.
and if the "power" was a shell that may or may not explode... it is fired and
then fails activation... etc.. there are many sfx... certainly a gm could
reduce the sfx in the case of a failure... as in the click you mention or
maybe even eliminate them... all depends on sfx.. but this is a far cry from
"no power.. no sfx"
> Here's another example: If I buy EB, Fire, not in vacuum, and the special effect is
> of course fire springing from my fingertips. If I'm in a vacuum, nothing happens. I
> can spend end if I want, but nothing is going to happen.
Nice definition... what if your fingertips glow as the heat/energy you would
normally be expending.. say the END cost... were released ? What about a GAS
AOE round bought.. not in high winds? The green mist of doom is still
released from the shell and can be seen just not in any useful manner.
It depends on SFX... but to me, in most cases that END is going somewhere,
not just to the land of lost socks.
> From a character perspective or evil nasty villain who wants to destroy the world,
> sure those special effects of activation might be nice and even add color. But
> nowhere does it say that they are required or even expected.
Again i see it in there in the power cost end thing. You dont have to read it
that way. read it how you like. I think it could vary by sfx.
>
> We're not talking about gross stupidity over time, we're talking about a single
> action that takes space over the span of two seconds. Two actions by a hero will
> happen in the time that a normal will get one action. The normal is going to be
> lucky to even notice what did actually happen.
Weel i think we have definitely determined we look at this differently.
Probably stems from radially different campaigning atmospheres. In my games,
a PC has a good chance of being caught in press tapes at anytime he is
engaged depending on how and when of the scene. IF a tragic event occurs...
people and investigators will work over that tape... and usually signs of a
character trying and missing are seens differently than if a character did
not seem to try... and a fizzling power IS seen as more than just "bad dice
luck" and a character with a couple "known fizzles of import" will see a
reputation forming. He probably wont get commercial deals.. probably wont get
invites to nightline.. but maybe to springer... "Super impotence and those
who live with this affliction" episodes...
But the good news is.. we dont have to agree. You certainly have a different
take ON THE RULES and the role of the GM than I. Given that, its been a good
discussion. Thanks!
SD Anderson
> Check Hawkeye stats in BOTH Marvel games. Hes got both high
> world IF NOT the best. How many games actually do that for
> you?
One of the best, in terms of human standard, and highly
trained making him equivalent (combining his stats and his
skills) to a mutant or other super type with a superhuman DEX.
One option is to redefine the Hero numbers so that 25 or 30
becomes peak human normal score. But as long as 20 remains the
definition of human normal maximum, non-superpowered characters
with stats in the 20s range are abusive to concept.
A500Amiga
>enough. I've seen characters with a string of say, 6 +1/4
>Limitations. Each one was technically worth about +1/4 ("does not work
>in intensified darkness fields, does not work in pouring rain", etc),
The player of type character should be GM's dream make one out of every four
adventures occur in the rain, the villians hide in a building protected by a
darkness field, have at least one villian in each adventure have find weakness,
when they use it they find out one of his limitations, and sets a trap in the
next adventure. Too many small limitations are an excuse for the GM to place
those limits.
I had a character with Regeneration does not work in the dark. The GM gave +1/2
limitation.
About 1/3 of all the time we meet the battles occured at night and many inside
where low light conditions reduced the ability.
As it was a common limitation, I expected it to occur frequently.
If you want a lot of limitations you should be willing to recognize that there
will be a majority of times that one or more of the limits will kick in.
The GM should discourage over limitations, by actually putting the player in
that situation.
Nightshade
Notice I said 'skilled normals'. Even guys with a 5 CV will hit a
little too often for comfort over a large enough series of rolls. If
you're based on a low resistant defense, or even worse no resistant
defense motif, this can be more than just irritating.
Mad Hamish
>In article <363e301...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
>Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>>On 1 Nov 1998 04:24:38 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>>Yeah, I shoulda known somebody would come up with one counterexample. All
>>>right, replace Hulk with Thing,
>>
>>A test pilot, listed with Good dex in MSH (as Ben Grimm has, i'd consider it low
>>for a test pilot myself)
>
>Remember that Dex isn't the only necessity for a test pilot, and a lot of
>his skill in piloting planes is just that - /skill/.
Yeah, but does the US Airforce put you through fighter training if you can't tie
your shoelaces?
>
>>>Well, considering that they represent three very different things - yes.
>>>I know people who have very good manual dexterity, but they couldn't
>>>walk across a log without falling off. Conversely, it's possible to have
>>>a lot of balance and grace while moving, but be a lousy shot with a rifle.
>>
>>Which could be represented by phys lims & lack of weapon familiarities in Hero.
>
>What phys lim represents 'good manual dexterity, average balance'?
Offhand I'd consider phys lim - dex effectively 10 for balancing
to describe it pretty well as a rough suggestion.
> I'd
>say having an average sense of balance is not a phys lim, even if you have
>extraordinarily nimble fingers.
>
>I suppose one could buy the DEX with a limitation (only for manual
>dexterity) but at that point why not just split it into two+ stats (which
>is what Fuzion does)?
Sakura
Mad Hamish <h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On 2 Nov 1998 22:37:32 GMT, je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>
>>Remember that Dex isn't the only necessity for a test pilot, and a lot of
>>his skill in piloting planes is just that - /skill/.
>
>Yeah, but does the US Airforce put you through fighter training if you can't tie
>your shoelaces?
Now hold on. When did 'above human average dex, but not at the top of
human range' (which /is/ what we've been talking about - something around
the 13-15 mark in Champions) become 'unable to tie shoelaces'? Try again,
thanks.
The US Airforce also doesn't require you to be a tightrope walker to pilot
a fighter plane.
>>>>Well, considering that they represent three very different things - yes.
>>>>I know people who have very good manual dexterity, but they couldn't
>>>>walk across a log without falling off. Conversely, it's possible to have
>>>>a lot of balance and grace while moving, but be a lousy shot with a rifle.
>>>
>>>Which could be represented by phys lims & lack of weapon familiarities
>in Hero.
>>
>>What phys lim represents 'good manual dexterity, average balance'?
>
>Offhand I'd consider phys lim - dex effectively 10 for balancing
>to describe it pretty well as a rough suggestion.
Which is actually 'good everything except balance', but I'll leave that
aside and just say that there's not enough space for fine detail in phys
lims. At what point does it becoem a 10-pt phys lim? At what point a 15?
What if you have: Dex 18, balance 10 - do you get the same level of phys
lim as Dex 14, balance 10? etc.
Let me restate:
>> I'd
>>say having an average sense of balance is not a phys lim, even if you have
>>extraordinarily nimble fingers.
>>
>>I suppose one could buy the DEX with a limitation (only for manual
>>dexterity) but at that point why not just split it into two+ stats (which
>>is what Fuzion does)?
J
SD Anderson
> The US Airforce also doesn't require you to be a tightrope
> walker to pilot a fighter plane.
This does cut to a serious problem: Professions do have a
requirement of knowing many skills. GURPS gets around this by
making initial skill purchases cheap, 1/2 minimums or 1 point for
Hard Maneuvers gets you some training in them. Champions comes
in with an initial expensive purchase for the skill.
In many cases spending a sizable portion of point allotment on
character background produces a character too weak to play in the
game.
It might be advisable to put up a small VPP as a professional
skills package, no more than 5 real, 20 active, no more than 6
active points assigned to any one skill or perk unless the GM
allows it, to cover any job related abilities. Note: once a
skill level has been defined, note it on a sheet. That's it's
actual max unless Experience is spent on it.
Sakura
SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> This does cut to a serious problem: Professions do have a
>requirement of knowing many skills. GURPS gets around this by
>making initial skill purchases cheap, 1/2 minimums or 1 point for
>Hard Maneuvers gets you some training in them. Champions comes
>in with an initial expensive purchase for the skill.
> In many cases spending a sizable portion of point allotment on
>character background produces a character too weak to play in the
>game.
>
> It might be advisable to put up a small VPP as a professional
>skills package, no more than 5 real, 20 active, no more than 6
>active points assigned to any one skill or perk unless the GM
>allows it, to cover any job related abilities.
Honestly, I just prefer to give the players extra points to cover their
professional stuff (extra points earmarked for such things, that is), and
make PS: a pretty wide-ranging skill as well. Most professions in HERO
require two or three skills at most - usually, one (PS) is sufficient.
Another option (for superhero games specifically) is to make people create
their character without any super powers first - as a 25 pt normal or
whatever is appropriate - and then give extra points for powers and things
related to superheroing.