Doesn't anyone like low-powered campaigns?

[Jhereg]

I can’t help but notice that most of the Hero Players I meet online prefer High-powered campaigns. All the Champions campaigns seem to be 325 pts or more. And even the Fantasy/Sci-fi campaigns are 250 with superheroic house rules.

I just want to know if there’s anybody else out there like me, who prefers low-powered, realistic campaigns. I run my fantasy and sci-fi campaigns on 50+50. At most, if I want an action movie feel, I’ll go 75+75. And my Champions campaigns start at 100+150, or sometimes 100+100.

And it’s not just coming from me. My players love being underpowered, especially in any “real world” campaing. To me, nothing gets the blood pumping better than knowing the possibility of my character’s death is very real. Maybe it’s just a matter of taste.

[caris]

Originally posted by Plastick Hero
And it’s not just coming from me. My players love being underpowered, especially in any “real world” campaing. To me, nothing gets the blood pumping better than knowing the possibility of my character’s death is very real. Maybe it’s just a matter of taste.

Well, it very much is a matter of taste, but it is also a matter of perception. You percieve low points to be more "realistic" and more "dangerous". I have friends that see high power as more "epic" and more "thrilling".

I don't really think that either of you are right or wrong. It is just a matter of picking the tool that you feel works best to produce the feel you want.

[Dog Soldier]

Even the term 'low power' means different things to different people. I know of a group that thinks 300 + 150 campaigns are 'low power'

[Metaphysician]

In my mind, a Champions campaign of 350 points *is* low powered.

[Snarf]

Well, I'm starting a 75/75 Fantasy Hero campaign. That's pretty low powered but not at all realistic.

I started a 35/35 campaign earlier, which was even less realistic.

[Arthur]

Well, I wrote the "Realistic Supers" article that appeared in DH some time ago.

I'm a big fan of "let's inject superhumans into the real world and explore 'what would it REALLY be like?'" Would they dress in spandex and shout everything? Would you?

I like my Champions campaign at 75+75 or at most 100+100. However, the characters can purchase things like Weapon Familiarities and use mundane weapons at no further point cost.

If I were to play in a four-color game where I had to pay points for everything, I would still stick to 250 total (I prefer 125+125 over 100+150).

[BNakagawa]

Point values do not dictate power levels.

You can powergame at any point value. You can roleplay at any power level.

But some regions of the point/power scale lend themselves more readily to one style than the other.

I rather like low powered campaigns in that I prefer characters to be functionally limited. I think that what a character is incapable of is just as interesting a way of defining a character as what they are good at.

$0.02

[abalux]

My Fantasy HERO campaign (also my very first campaign) is a Heroic 125+75, and I've had no problems so far. I think it really is just a matter of taste.

[pinecone]

It really is just a matter of taste...I prefer to run Champions at the street level but most of my friends prefer a bigger more four color feel and so I usually end up near the middle. All scales have good points and bad points, which is best for you depends on which points make for the most fun for you and your group.....Back when I could run a lot I often ran a low power and a high power at the same time and swaped back and forth...but that was a lot of time that is seldom available .....

[ghost-angel]

If done right point values can have little to no meaning for "power level." Our current High Power Campaign has character point ranges from 600-800. Each one is as effective as the next, simply because it's what the characters can do, not how many points they did it with. but then, no one has munchkined this game - we never really had a chance to.

On that note one of my best ever characters started out as a mere 45pts total at mid campaign when everyone else was reaching just over 100.

I don't munchkin very well though, my character concepts keep getting in the way .. My GM jokes that he never has to worry about me munckining a game because I can't even do it when I try. :p

I like any level as long as I can fit my character idea into the game.

[farik]

Our Fantasy Hero game started at 25+25 and it's going great experience point rewards are so relatively large we can really see how our characters grow based on the adventures. Our biggest challenge is remembering to avoid traditional threats but instead it's exciting to fight "normal" thugs. Something as simple as a single Gaurdian Ape is a big climax for our adventurers. Fighting a sea troll requires cunning and intellect since we don't have the raw power to wear it down. It's great.

[Dust Raven]

I run several campaigns of various power levels, ranging from 150+100 to 300+150. I really wouldn't really call any of them 'low' or 'high' level.

I've played in a game that characters were build on 600+ points and it didn't last long for me. It was boring. Everyone had to spend a huge amount of point just to keep from dying due to where the characters went (lots of LS and movement powers). This really cut down on compatable concepts (not one martial artist or gadget guy, and our ubersense man had to have a pre-game radiation accident to spend his extra 300 points).

I've toyed with the idea of running a low powered (150 or less total points) supers campaign, but I think I'll skip it. I like to see cars flying around in a supers game. I haven't decided what level character will be at for the Rifts campaign I'm planning.

[Nevenall]

My fantasy hero campaign is up to 225+ total points, and my Star Wars campaign has just started, at 50 total points.
Both are fun, but I find my lower point campaign much more exciting. The characters have room to grown, and the NPCs they run into don't tend to be really powerful.

[austenandrews]

I prefer low-powered games, but oddly enough my current FH campaign is practically into Champions numbers. Go figure.

I do enjoy the feeling of real challenge and risk.

-AA

[Edsel]

I actually prefer Heroic-level games. My old Omega Team campaign was 75+75 and my next campaign will be 100+50. The Fantasy Hero campaign our group's other GM is about to kick-off is also 100+50. Our group seems to have a preference for gritty lower powered games. We have played 350 point games in the past but they have always been shorter lived affairs.

[Blue]

My campaign is 300. But I'm dying to run a Dark Champions level campaign or a teen champions game, both of which would be lower.

Too bad it's stacked up behind a half dozen other games that the players want to play.

Heh. How cool is that? There are 4 different GMs in my grou wanting to run right now. That's so many that I didn't even offer.

[lemming]

I tend toward higher powered games. I think I shocked people at my Con game with the characters. :D

[Vondy]

I run a "heroic level superhero" game. The powers levels <i>tend</i> to run between the Powerful Hero and Low Powered Superhero levels, but that doesn't reflect point totals. Many of the characters are built of 400+ points.

[Madstone]

Honestly, I would love to try a low-powered game such as a teen supers set-up or such, but low powered as in trained normals holds no interest for me. I like a good dose of fantasy in my supers. It's a strong part of the appeal for me. Crimefighting and secret agent action is secondary. Gimme the mythology! :)

Low powered like old new mutants (old new?:confused: ) intrigues me, though, as does a mystery men oddball supers campaign.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Blue
Too bad it's stacked up behind a half dozen other games that the players want to play.

Heh. How cool is that? There are 4 different GMs in my grou wanting to run right now. That's so many that I didn't even offer.

actually too many GM's can spoil the plot.

Since every member of the group IM in qualifies as a GM (8 out of 8) I NEVER get to GM. I can't get to be a better GM.
ARRRRGHTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However I do have some 230 point Champions characters generally designed using 4th Ed Rules though conversion would be pretty simple (and MIGHT raise them to 250 at the outside)

[Mike W]

Points and power level are not quite the same thing. When my GM decided to run a 350 point street level game, I took an old four color character whose background would fit and adapted him. It worked out fine. His variable pool got cut in half and replaced with more skills. A little other tweaking went on too, but he's basically the same character other than the VPP modifications. What makes it "low-power" is the increased restrictions on what yo can buy. We all want to play street level, so we accepted the increased power restrictions.

We did play a Star Wars game on 100+75 for a while too. You'd be amazed at how well it converts - once you get past the basic idea that Star Wars ships are designed in a way that NO ONE with even the slightest military background would design them.

[Kristopher]

Star Wars HERO: the first thing the two technically competent characters did was completely rebuild our ship to make some kind of sense in fight. We utterly broke genre.

[Metaphysician]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Star Wars HERO: the first thing the two technically competent characters did was completely rebuild our ship to make some kind of sense in fight. We utterly broke genre.

Heh.

[Badger]

I like both. But the way I look at it is no matter how powerful you are there is always a more powerful villain somewhere. ;)

Though psychologically I guess people like the high powered because we are all (relatively) competent normals in real life. So why not pretend to be powerful and all. After all this is just an evolved game of cops&robbers that we played from youth. (Blasphemy I know, I think I heard some thunder going to hide under the desk to avoid getting hit by lightning:p ) So what ever you enjoy go with.

Ahh the game of cops&robbers

Kid 1: I shot you
Kid 2: No you didnt.
Kid 1: Yes I did you were just five feet away.
Kid 2: I dont care it missed me.

[Eosin]

I prefer a 150 point game with just a small dab of magic / supertech to it. Full color champions can be fun but it is rare for our group to have a sustainable supers game. When we do game with supers as often as not we use the Xmen and the X-verse as the setting so we are playing some high powered - down to medium powered characters but no one in the superman - surfer league.

[Enforcer84]

I tend to be drawn to the higher point totals since I kind of suck at munckining.
and I likes my background skills, and supersenses and those get costly after while.:cool:

[Agent Chains]

I like the low-powered campaigns for campaigns that are going to last for a while. I ran a fantasy campaign that started at 25/25 points and lasted for 3 years. They were around 250 points at the end. It was fun to look back at when they were nothings and how they had survived to go after the big stuff. For short campaigns I tend to go for the high powered stuff. I am not sure why.

[AlHazred]

I've designed everything from a 0+25 point retired Roman centurion to a 750+250 Cosmic Superhero, and it's all in the GM. I run a Harn Hero game that started at 50+50 and has now reached the 200-point region, and I'm participating in a Very Powerful Heroic cross-genre game that started at 150+100. And what makes or breaks a game is always the GM: he stacks the deck to make the challenges challenging, which a good GM can do at any power level.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Badger
Ahh the game of cops&robbers

Kid 1: I shot you
Kid 2: No you didnt.
Kid 1: Yes I did you were just five feet away.
Kid 2: I dont care it missed me.

Ah yes...easy to laugh at now that we play more mature, sophisticated games...:)

GM: He hit you
Player: No he didnt. My levels were in DCV.
GM: You have hand to hand levels. They don't add to DCV against ranged attacks. Besides, you didn't say you were putting your levels in DCV.
Player: I dont care it missed me.

Uh oh! :eek:

[mudpyr8]

I like to start my fantasy games at 25+50 points. That maps pretty well to realistic levels where the average person is 25 pts. I like to see my games evolve to 200+ points, and I award "healthy" experience (2-3 per session, plus a 0-3 point "kicker" for adventure completion based on how well they did). This moves players allong pretty well and keeps everyone growing, while keeping things at a semirealistic levels.

I like my heroic characters to make sense in society. 150 pt starting characters are truely "Heroes", not fledglings. A 75 pt character is still challenged by 25pt thugs, which are of course easily justified. Once they get to 150 pts, the 25pt thugs still remain, but now have a different feel.

One idea I have yet to do, because my group generally isn't interested in supers, is a 150 pt supers game. Few restrictions on powers, but the sole idea is that full powered supers exists, just on a lower scale. There's no problem with that growing to higher point levels, but I would almost do it on a 3 real months = +25 point basis. No incremental improvements.

[kuriequinn]

To be honest, I like both.

Right Now I am playing in one high powered game, the Character is 650 points with 345 points of unspent experience. I am running/playing in another world that is 100/75 point scale. In a way though I think I prefer the lower power campaigns because the tendency of anything being at a cosmic scale is a lot lower if not almost impossible. Where as in our high power game, EVERYTHING is at the cosmic scale.

[Foxx!]

Plastick Hero:

As you said, I think it’s a matter of taste. To me, point levels are like any campaign aspect such as genre, setting, etc. Like you, I prefer starting from the 100~300 range. But, like AlHazred said, I think the GM matters more.

Cheers

[Kolava]

I don't actually have a thing for "high power", it's just that most characters concepts I build end up costing a whole lot. The irony is, I usually feel guilty for having exploited loopholes to lower the cost afterwards, so there's no winning :mad:

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Jhereg
I can’t help but notice that most of the Hero Players I meet online prefer High-powered campaigns. All the Champions campaigns seem to be 325 pts or more. And even the Fantasy/Sci-fi campaigns are 250 with superheroic house rules.

I just want to know if there’s anybody else out there like me, who prefers low-powered, realistic campaigns. I run my fantasy and sci-fi campaigns on 50+50. At most, if I want an action movie feel, I’ll go 75+75. And my Champions campaigns start at 100+150, or sometimes 100+100.

And it’s not just coming from me. My players love being underpowered, especially in any “real world” campaing. To me, nothing gets the blood pumping better than knowing the possibility of my character’s death is very real. Maybe it’s just a matter of taste.

I agree totally. My fantasy hero campaign is 50+50, and characters are fairly powerful. I do allow Multipowers, Variable Power Pools, Elemental Controls and Spells outside any framework. I also created optional rules for skill usage, that magnify the applicability and usage of the limited amount of skills that players can purchase.

There's a few other posters on this board, who love low-powered games. If Steve sees enough demand, then maybe I'll submit my low-powered fantasy hero campaign for publication.

It seems there's a growing demand for low-powered games, I suppose this comes with the advent of fantasy realism and other genre realism literature.

[cyst13]

One of the earlier posters made an excellent point. A high point total does not necessarily mean a high-powered character. I ran a game with a 225 pt. character who blended in well with the local normals in medieval Cairo. Instead of spending all his points on increasing his combat effectiveness, he broadened his range of skills and language abilities and entered the game with a network of contacts. The combat abilities he did have were horizontally broad rather than high CV/damage. He had three different martial arts styles (unarmed, H2H weapon, ranged). He was a lot of fun to play and was able to handle himself well in a wide variety of situations. At the same time, he was not invincible and still had to be afraid of the local authorities and follow the law most of the time. I'm very big on broad competence over increasing CV/damage. Players can never win an arms race with the GM anyhow.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by cyst13
One of the earlier posters made an excellent point. A high point total does not necessarily mean a high-powered character. I ran a game with a 225 pt. character who blended in well with the local normals in medieval Cairo.

Sounds interesting.


Instead of spending all his points on increasing his combat effectiveness, he broadened his range of skills and language abilities and entered the game with a network of contacts. The combat abilities he did have were horizontally broad rather than high CV/damage. He had three different martial arts styles (unarmed, H2H weapon, ranged).

I would disagree, versatility is powerful. Being adaptable is a power in itself. Also, I believe, having many languages is powerful as well. Here's how:


The thick-furred bugbear charged the priest with a savage speed. The priest stepped back, holding the palm of his hand toward the bugbear, his hand open. Not moving an inch the cleric stared at the bugbear, with a steady, steely gaze.

The bugbear looked at the cleric, quizically, it's thick eyebrows raised, and stopped dead in it's tracks. "Arooo?" said the bugbear.

"Parley!" said the cleric firmly.

"Aroooo?" said the bugbear.

"Parley!" said the cleric, more forcefully.

"Arooo?" said the bugbear again.

"Parley!" said the cleric one more time.

The bugbear shrugged and swung his blood-crusted and spiked club at the cleric's head.

That's, how language can be very powerful.


He was a lot of fun to play and was able to handle himself well in a wide variety of situations. At the same time, he was not invincible and still had to be afraid of the local authorities and follow the law most of the time.

Sounds like an interesting game. I wonder where your GM got the resources to run the game. :)

[Kristopher]

Given the rules and interpretations changes, I don't consider 350 point FRED to be any more "high-powered" than 250-point 4th Ed. 350 is even listed as "standard superheroic."

[Jhereg]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Given the rules and interpretations changes, I don't consider 350 point FRED to be any more "high-powered" than 250-point 4th Ed. 350 is even listed as "standard superheroic."

I hadn't considered that. As we always play heroic games, I haven't paid too much attention the "cost of living increase" of FRed.

[cyst13]

You're right. It was (and still is) an interesting campaign. I may have been rather sloppy in the wording of my post. I was (and still am) the GM of the Cairo campaign. I also built the character for my player because he's got a very busy schedule. As to where I found the resources for it; I went to the library. I've found it's nearly impossible to run a good historical realist campaign based simply upon gaming materials. Even excellent support books (like the GURPS worldbooks) leave out far more info than they put in. Which is unsurprising, seeing as that they are only 96 pages long. I always do at least a month's research prior to running an historical campaign. You have to know all the little details in order to get the flavor right and to answer all of the questions that the players inevitably have. "Daily Life" books are usually the best place to start.

As far as your disagreement about power levels, I don't think we are actually disagreeing at all. I wasn't saying that spending points on languages makes one weak. I just wanted to say that you could spend 200+ points on a wide variety of skills and powers which would lend your PC great versatility (which is fun to play) without making him so combat effective that he can kill anyone in his way with a sneeze and a cough.

[Kdansky]

We're playing 150 base + any number of disadvantages, though we only count 1/5th (aka 20%) of any disadvantage point so no player is forced to take 75. (and it really matters if you have 150 or 125 points, thats nearly 20% difference). We are using Super rules and playing FH with it ;)

[Grym]

I have a question for those of you running "low powered" FH. What sort of magic system are you using, and how competent are starting mages? Are they more along the lines of apprentice at the beginning (light spell, detect/read magic), 1-3 lvl D&D (some ranged damage, armor, and general utilities), or something else? Not having played, I don't really know what point levels map to what concepts.

[Jhereg]

Originally posted by Grym
I have a question for those of you running "low powered" FH. What sort of magic system are you using, and how competent are starting mages? Are they more along the lines of apprentice at the beginning (light spell, detect/read magic), 1-3 lvl D&D (some ranged damage, armor, and general utilities), or something else? Not having played, I don't really know what point levels map to what concepts.

We use the spell colleges out of the old (2nd Ed. I think) FH Rule Book and Companions. Spells usually have at least -4 in limitations making most spells cost 3-7 points. So a starting 50+50 pt. mage can afford an attack, defense, and a few useful minor spells.

[farik]

We have a very open magic system since we're playing a game that spans multiple worlds (we sail off the edge of one world and onto the edge of another). Basically a player can create a magic system by defining it's special effects and any common limitations the three gamemasters all have to approve it and then any future spells are approved by the three GMs as well. Spells are constructed without any special cost break and nobody can use a power framework. Spell strength varies depending on the magic system. A player who wants to sling powerful energy blast can throw variable special effects on a few different attacks and he can simulate a large number of spells for very few points. Even with 50 pt characters a mage with summoning magic can summon a group of monsters that are just as powerful as the rest of the party and still have defensive magic in the form of teleportation and EDM.

[mudpyr8]

We run a tailored magic system ideal for low-powered campaigns. A 75 pt starting mage can have 10 spells or so, of moderate power. The mages are fairly balanced with non-mages, even at the 180 pt character level. We will be publishing it in our setting book (scheduled for GenCon release).

The 75pt mages have been a lot of fun to play. The system supports improvisation, as well as rotes, maximizing player choice while minimizing Hero rules overhead. The goal is a magic system that is rich yet easy to play.

I know that doesn't tell you a lot, but you are welcome to come to our site, register, and participate in playtesting once it starts.

[Al_Beddow]

I read most of this...

For both my original HERO Traveller campaign AND my new TE campaign, I showed the players the stuff in FREd about power levels, focus on skills vs powers, campaign style etc.

For both campaigns I've chosen to go midway between the lowest and middle level of HEROIC campaign, 100 + 75.

So far everyone in both games are quite happy with the level I've started them at. They've been able to build great characters, not overdoing it with the primary/secondary stats etc.

All this talk about "low powered" and "high powered" reminds me of that munchkin game "Dungeons & Dragons 3e". From early on all I heard people talking about was their "half dragon-half lizardman" characters, and how "nothing under 15th level is worth the time to play".

[coach]

I also like low-level campaigns as much as high level. And, anyway, low-level turn into high-level, if played long enough. A while back I ran a higher-level fantasy game, with characters starting at 175 total. But my most recent one is a low-level, with characters starting at 75 total. It was hysterical to watch the Bugbear trip over a 3' wall. Twice! At lower levels I tend to play it a little more for comedy, but it is fun to be able to give the players a scare with just Goblins. The superhero game I am in started very low, like 200 points, but we are now around 450, mid to high range. There's actually very little difference in play. We still regularly get our butts handed to us, but now it is just by bigger bad guys. I definitely like them both.

[Kdansky]

We are using a "everyone can take everything" magic system. This holds also true for non-magic powers, so we've got a demon with multiform, invisibility, wings and shapeshift, a caster with multipower and one with VPP (although we're not sure if it is broken yet). We're using quite a bunch of house rules because we discovered that HERO isn't really superior to GURPS or DSA if you're playing FH. We didin't even bother buying FH, because why would we need a book that just limits the character creation somehow? If there is interest, I can compile our rule changes to english and post them on the web.

[mudpyr8]

I think your characterization that FH limits characters is way off. There is a lot of very useful material in there for running Fantasy games, even if you are running a "no holds barred" character set.

We run 75 pts in a very serious game. What works is then normals are a realistic threat. A thug with a knife can't be ignored. When you are 150pts, 25 pt characters are mostly inconcequential, especially when you can't arm them with a blaster like a typical supers thug.

[Kdansky]

We made our own world, so we absolutely do not need background information. What else except background information + limitations is in FH?

And yes, a minor thug with a knife will get massacred by our characters.

Thug: "Hey you, gimme your money or I'll kill you!!"
PC1: (Zombie): "I'm already dead, try me."
PC2: (Demon) *shapes into black demon with leather wings and 10" claws* "Any last words?"

Which implies that the "usual" NPC is of higher power level than random thugs.

[mudpyr8]

You are essentially running a fantasy supers game. Normals are inconsequential, and certainly not low-powered.

I'm not talking about random thugs necessarily, but now a dock worker, or conspiring merchant don't have to be 150 pts to be a challenge. If a merchant is 150 pts, are their other 150 pt merchants? Doesn't that break the mold of normality? Hero can handle it, and I think it makes for a very satisfying game to have normals (25-70 pts) as adversaries. Then when you introduce a villain or demon or monster of 200-300 pts, things get crazy fun.

[Jhereg]

Now when I say we like low-powered FH, I mean we like to be the random thugs. :D

[mudpyr8]

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout.

[Tasha]

I agree that point totals don't necessaraly equal power level.

I can create a 500 pt character that balances pretty well with 350pt characters. It all depends on how much you munchkinize your character. I prefer not to have to come up with cheesy limitations (ie not in intense magnetic fields) just to make a power construction fit into 250pts. I also like my characters to have a decent amount of background skills. In 250pts I have a very difficult time doing that.

Way back in the 3rd edition days, we played at 250 pts. Then Fantasy Hero and Danger International were released. We decided that having those cool skills were essential to our characters. The problem was that we couldn't take our characters as written and add the skills without increasing the power level. So we decided to play champions at 100+150 +50pts in non-combat lvl skills (150+150). That made our characters more rounded and we started have adventures where we didn't spend all session beating up villains. Now in 5th edition we have characters 200+150 and I find that I can write up characters with more complex power conceptions. I can also play competitive characters that don't have every power focused, and limited to death. I am sick of playing mystical focus girl, powered armor suit woman, removable cyber module lady etc.

So I am running my Teen Champions game at 200+150. I prefer that level and besides it is much easier to use the published villains if I am at the assumed power level of the Champions Universe. Some of the players in my campaign have marveled that the feel of 200+150 wasn't much different than 100+150, just the amount of cheesing and the amount of affordable skills was different (ie less cheese, more skills).

BTW when I am playing non-supers (ie Fantasy hero or Star Hero) I like playing at 75+75. I have also had fun with 50+75 as well.

Tasha :)

[ghost-angel]

Power level can also mean different things .. we restrict the Active Points on powers to around 60 normally, which means no matter how high you go in points you're not getting above that 60pt AP, which helps to even out playing fields a bit. It simply allows us to put in more powers allowing for more diverse courses of action. Of, what usually happens in our group is the number of skills explodes, at 350 pts you have better got a min. of 50pts just for skills, preferabbly closer to 100. By the time you reach 500 with experience most characters in our group are at, or excede, 100pts in non-combat related skills and skill levels.

But.. there are always those games that spin wildly out of control.....

[tgaptte]

For supers, I definitely prefer higher points. Specifically I prefer the new "standard hero" at 350 pts. Previously on the 250 pt standard, I would have to severely limit and cram my character concept into a small pool of points...I'd have cool character ideas that I just couldn't make work.

I find that with 350 points, I don't have to come up with cheesy limitations or short myself on skills to fit my character under the point limit. My 350 pt heroes are not any more powerful than my 250 pt heroes, but they are more rounded and much more fun to play.

Tim

[Kdansky]

We do feel though that some of our characters have too few background skills because they simply can't pay for them (as I said, we only have 150 cp). It concludes to this: The more broken a character is (Multiform/Multipower/VPP) the more background skills he usually has, because he has a lot of points spare compared to the rest.

[Jhereg]

Some may be happy to learn that partly thanks to some of the responses on this thread, I’ve decided to give a Standard Super campaign a shot (to date, I’ve never started a campaign higher than 250 pts). I’ve only talked to one of my players about it, but he seems eager. The biggest change however is the wide open Champions Universe scope we’ll be using for the first time in 10 years. Previously, our Superhero campaigns have been limited in scope in one way or another (only mutants, only mentalists, etc.). But I think everyone will enjoy an all out 4-Color campaign.

[bubba smith]

it seems to me that not all super-heroes can be powerful demigods they can have powers butthey aren't omnipitent

[algesan]

I can’t help but notice that most of the Hero Players I meet online prefer High-powered campaigns. All the Champions campaigns seem to be 325 pts or more. And even the Fantasy/Sci-fi campaigns are 250 with superheroic house rules.

I just want to know if there’s anybody else out there like me, who prefers low-powered, realistic campaigns. I run my fantasy and sci-fi campaigns on 50+50. At most, if I want an action movie feel, I’ll go 75+75. And my Champions campaigns start at 100+150, or sometimes 100+100.

And it’s not just coming from me. My players love being underpowered, especially in any “real world” campaing. To me, nothing gets the blood pumping better than knowing the possibility of my character’s death is very real. Maybe it’s just a matter of taste.

If I want underpowered and realistic, I have what keeps me from gaming more. It is called real life.:D

[Kdansky]

Oh! Thread necromancy!

*starts to chant*

[bubba smith]

don't blame me THIS time
there is one advantage to playing a low powered hero,you cam pit them against higher power supers without the damage looking like godzilla battled king ghidorah or getting too outlandish

[Diamond Spear]

it seems to me that not all super-heroes can be powerful demigods they can have powers butthey aren't omnipitent

Excuse me sir, but do you have a license to practice thread necromancy? :eg:

[Vondy]

What's done is done.

I've moved exclusively to heroic games that focus on competent characters with a cinematic level niche. This doesn't mean they are low points - the games are generally skill intensive - but they aren't full-on cinematic uber-characters, either.

[mudpyr8]

I'm a huge fan of low-powered games. Our core setting is designed to start at 75 points, and the current playtest campaign started at 50. My Stalker games are also 100pts total.

I'm there with you.

[bubba smith]

Excuse me sir, but do you have a license to practice thread necromancy? :eg:
ever since i joined this board:eg:
and i must say i love being on this board

[Hyper-Man]

ever since i joined this board:eg:
and i must say i love being on this board


Were you previously on the Election Board?
I heard they love having recounts. :D

[bubba smith]

no way

[bcaplan]

Both the games I just ran at GenCon were low-powered.

The first, Juche, was a high school horror game. The PCs (a cheerleader, a drug dealer, a math teacher, and the principal) had 75 CPs, and were built to mimic the main characters in horror movies - normal folks who somehow managed to survive through most of the story.

The other, Punctuated Equilibrium, was a Post-Apoc story about ordinary DC residents trying to survive the end of the world. The PCs (a dentist, a street punk, a Secret Service agent, and a Senator's daughter) had 150 CPs, but a lot of the points were spent on powers and skills the players didn't realize they had until they had a chance to use them.

I've run both stories several times, and they're a lot of fun. When I have a little time, I'll probably write some more...

[Lord Liaden]

High-powered gaming for me. My real life is sufficiently low powered; in my fantasy life I want to kick butt and take names, with style! :D

[CTaylor]

I prefer low end games of all sorts. I started the fantasy hero game I'm running now at 75+25, and the characters have earned around 50 experience by this point, slowly. I ran a 75+75 point superheroic campaign once that had some very creative, interesting characters - if I run another champions game, it will be at that power level.

In my opinion low powered campaigns are more interesting and more fun, but some can't stand them because they are unable to start with the exact character they desire with every single skill that their concept possibly could include.

[CrosshairCollie]

The lowest game I can really think about playing would be a 200 point Teen Champions or 'street-level supers' game. The only two genres I do are Fantasy and Supers. HERO's for supers, D&D's for fantasy.

[bubba smith]

street level supers sounds about right powers around spider-mans level

[mayapuppies]

I consider myself a low-power guy. My fantasy worlds are based on 75+75 but very skill intensive focusing on broad spectrum skillsets. It keeps the relative power-level of the characters down.

My Post Apoc supers campaign (coming soon) will feature 100+50 point supe's. Should be interesting.

[CTaylor]

Its always been interesting to me that almost every game starts you at level 1, yet Hero the players and GMs seem to believe you should start at the main peak of your powers. Start with it all, don't be Superman from Action Comics 1, be Superman from Action Comics 500. Don't start out like Cyclops in the early X-Men, be the badass, martial arts knowing, never miss Cyclops from modern X-Men. Don't be a beginning hero, be Conan right away.

Low powered campaigns give you all that room for growth, and in my experience at least when you start low and build slowly over time you have a better built character than if you started out with the equivalent of all those xps.

[Hugh Neilson]

Its always been interesting to me that almost every game starts you at level 1, yet Hero the players and GMs seem to believe you should start at the main peak of your powers. Start with it all, don't be Superman from Action Comics 1, be Superman from Action Comics 500. Don't start out like Cyclops in the early X-Men, be the badass, martial arts knowing, never miss Cyclops from modern X-Men. Don't be a beginning hero, be Conan right away.

Low powered campaigns give you all that room for growth, and in my experience at least when you start low and build slowly over time you have a better built character than if you started out with the equivalent of all those xps.

Some might say that other games start you off as Bob the Farmer with his hoe or Jimmy Olsen and require you to work your way through 50 years of games to achieve status as Conan in his first appearance or Action #1 Superman. The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Games and players seem to require characters continually grow in power and abilities, where fiction tends to include a lot of characters who start out fairly powerful and stay there. How much did Conan's combat skills increase over his history? Elric's certainly didn't. SpiderMan still has the same power suite, more or less, that he had over 40 years ago.

[CTaylor]

Generally speaking, fictional heroes don't change much over time - they usually are weaker at first in old comics and more powerful now, but they flatten out very rapidly. The reason for this is that if you have a popular, interesting character and change him too much he stops being that interesting character and becomes something else. Games are the opposite. Rewards are what keeps people interested in their character, the growth and change, looking forward to learning something new, changing, gaining power and treasures.

[Lord Liaden]

Some might say that other games start you off as Bob the Farmer with his hoe or Jimmy Olsen and require you to work your way through 50 years of games to achieve status as Conan in his first appearance or Action #1 Superman. The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Games and players seem to require characters continually grow in power and abilities, where fiction tends to include a lot of characters who start out fairly powerful and stay there. How much did Conan's combat skills increase over his history? Elric's certainly didn't. SpiderMan still has the same power suite, more or less, that he had over 40 years ago.

The goals of many games besides RPGs are not just to do something, but to win something, a tangible reward that lets you "keep score" as to how successful you've been. Early RPGs chose increasing character abilities, which as game mechanics are easy to keep track of. Some more recent games have tried to diversify the rewards with such things as in-game-world perks, metagame-altering mechanics, and others.

For static characters Conan isn't actually that great an example IMHO. It's debatable whether his skill as a combatant increased all that much over his long career. I believe he became a more cunning and resourceful fighter, but it's true that his basic style remained direct and aggressive, relying at least as much on power and speed as on skill. However, over the years Conan learned many new and useful things, often commented on in Howard's stories. He learned to ride a horse, shoot a bow, and sail a ship; he gained thieving skills and jungle woodcraft, knowledge of military tactics, confidence games, politics, and many languages. Conan in his late 30's or early 40's is a much more rounded character, and in some ways much more dangerous, than in his youth.

[Hugh Neilson]

The goals of many games besides RPGs are not just to do something, but to win something, a tangible reward that lets you "keep score" as to how successful you've been. Early RPGs chose increasing character abilities, which as game mechanics are easy to keep track of. Some more recent games have tried to diversify the rewards with such things as in-game-world perks, metagame-altering mechanics, and others.

Absolutely. But that's still a departure from much of the source material. And we never expect a character to weaken, rather than strengthen, in the game. The source material sees characters rise and fall. Vlad Taltos starts out the early novels with much more advantages than he has in the more recent publications.


For static characters Conan isn't actually that great an example IMHO. It's debatable whether his skill as a combatant increased all that much over his long career. I believe he became a more cunning and resourceful fighter, but it's true that his basic style remained direct and aggressive, relying at least as much on power and speed as on skill. However, over the years Conan learned many new and useful things, often commented on in Howard's stories. He learned to ride a horse, shoot a bow, and sail a ship; he gained thieving skills and jungle woodcraft, knowledge of military tactics, confidence games, politics, and many languages. Conan in his late 30's or early 40's is a much more rounded character, and in some ways much more dangerous, than in his youth.

But even this is a pretty atypical RPG track - start off very powerful in combat and become better rounded, learning languages and other primarily noncombat skills, with no improvement to combat abilities. Of course, one could also interpret this, in RPG terms, as Conan becoming a superior combatant all along - but his opponents becoming better at the same rate. That also happens in RPG's.