350 - Does it cause "too much" diversity?

[Law Dog]

After running a 350 campaign last year, the group I play with came to the consensus that we didn't like the power level. It just seemed that the diversity spread so wide, that everybody wound up being able to do just about everything and the interdependance on other team members just wasn't there. It may have just been the way the characters were designed, but it left us feeling somewhat disatified. I think were going for a 275-300 with a 125 point base next time around.

How does everybody else like the standard 350 campaign?

[Hermit]

My group loves it. They still tend towards favoring powers over skills, but now, as one person puts it "My Energy blaster can have a job besides making fries." :) One guy made a ninja style super hero who's secret idenity was a Corp Exec (Yes Virginia, there ARE corporate ninjas *S*). With the 350 points he not only had all the combat goodies he wanted, but the perks and skills that would behove a sneaky fortune 500 fellow. :)

[RDU Neil]

This is an interesting question... so I'll pose one of my own.

Is it 350 starting level that is the problem... or simply 350 points, period?

I'll explain. I've got a long term campaign, and only now that some characters are reaching 500 plus do we begin to see the lack of differentiation. EB characters have all the same stuff... everyone can afford Power Defense and Mental Defense and movement powers... (justifiably within characater, as well.)

This wasn't the case when our 275 pt. starting characters reached 350 with EXP. Differentiation was fine.

I just wonder, if folks start at 350 (I'm still at 300 for what I consider a STARTING character. 350 is a character with some adventures under their belt.) are people likely to have all the best skills and powers, 'cause now they can afford them... right from the start? Everyone has stealth because it's so useful, when the brick might have gone without it at lower levels, even if justified in character.

Again... this has only begun to HINT at being a problem in my campaign, because the big guns are a TK , a PSI and an EB... and while VERY VERY different in concept and history... at this point, they all have flight, force field, EB, mental defense, etc. They all have levels and combat skills, etc.

It makes sense... as you'd probably have a difficult time separating out three veteran soldiers from each other, if they were inventoried on paper. Justifiably, each of these heroes can "do it all"... but from a game/drama stand point, it can begin to feel claustrophobic.

It's like in the comics... in his own magazing, Iron Man can go toe to toe with Dr. Doom... but in the Avengers, the whole team is needed to go toe to toe. PCs in my game are to the point where they can easily be "the best of the best" in their own comic... and joined together, they are a bit redundant.

It's an intersting conundrum... though again, I don't think starting point levels are the issue, except that you might reach this point SOONER, rather than later.

[RDU Neil]

I should note, there is also the 500 plus point Martial Artist in the campaign... and he is VERY differentiated. He has built a very broad character, with lots of non-combat skills, lots of weapons and gadgets and contacts, etc. He isn't nearly as powerful as the other big guns... and even a 350 pt martial artist who is extremely combat focused can threaten him. It's just how the player conceives of the character.

Differentiation can only really happen when players "self limit" their characters for dramatic and role playing purposes. Trying to create metagame rules to enforce diversity can just complicate the gaming process, and backfire as well.

C'est la vie.

[Burnout]

When I saw the new 350pt starting level, I have to admit I was a little taken back. In 4th edition you could have a pretty decent character for 250pts, so I've been wondering why there is a shift for an extra 100pts now.

I'm going to start a campaign very soon and I have been trying to decide if the starting point for characters will be 250 or 350. I've made some test characters and I find that 350pt characters are pretty darn tough, while 250 point characters are definitely fledgling heroes. One of my players has already said he wants to start at the 350pt limit, which doesnt surprise me one bit since he is remaking a character he played about 10 years ago who was, to put it mildly, uber.

I guess what I'm asking is, what power level have your groups been happy starting at? I'm contemplating starting people at 275 or 300 since they will be just a smidge tougher than the fledgling hero.

[RDU Neil]

I have a very passionate player who doesn't want to play a "starting character" again. "Been there, done that..." is his attitude. He wants to start off with a character who is competent and skilled and flexible.

That's fine. To me, you can do that at 300 - 350 pts. This is not a "starting level" it is a point based for an mid-range experienced character. A fine place to start, but not a "starting level" if you get my meaning.

My campaign has a 300 pt. starting level, which I feel is mid way between "New Mutant" level (250 pts or so) and "Titans" level (or '70s Avengers level) which would be 350.

If you want a team of modern day Avengers, you are likely looking at 500 plus, for all the perks, and sub skills and team tactics and just raw power... and that doesn't include Thor, of course.

These are just my "winging it" power levels, but they've proven pretty true in my past experience.

Hope this helps.

[Bartman]

I just started in a 350pt campaign as a player and I love it. I was able to design the character I invisioned without having to skimp anywhere. I spent 50pts on skills where I would have only spent about 20 if I were restricted to 250pts. And let's face it his KSes on Art, History, Philosophy and European Royalty would all have been dropped at 250pts. As would have at least half of his languages. At 350 I can give the character what I invisioned him having. He still doesn't have Flash or Power defenses as neither fit his concept.

The campaign has only 3 characters, all of whom seem to be HtH specialists. But even so they are very distinctive. Distinctiveness comes from concept and the player not from the points.

[Hermit]

Well, I already said my group loves it, but I think a lot depends on what you want. I would consider 250 to be 'fledgling', where as more established heroes, the 350 works nicely (Not only allowing more powers and skills, but little touches like perks that are positive reps etc). Another thing to consider is that 350 is not a must reach. I've pondered making a character (if I ever get the chance) who has a full 50pts fewer disadvangages, weaker perhaps, but this does keep one's character from looking totally neurotic or having to purchase the "Susceptibility: 3d6/Turn from angsty White-Wolf products" just to max out. :)

Will you be asking them to chip in anything for a base or vehicle? That's another thing to consider.

[misterdeath]

I Like 350 points. When trying to create a 250 point character, I always had to give up too much, or twist things to fit, or point whore until the sheet screamed.

With 350 I can get what I want, and not have to point whore.

250 is a young, starting hero. Good point for teen angst mutants with one power or two, not people with actual jobs and a cadre of power and stunts.

350 is a good starting team hero. It works. It really does.

D

[MarkusDark]

I personally feel that 350 is too much. Most of my character concepts, when working within Active Point restrictions) work out with just 275 or so. Tacking on another 75 points worth of stuff can be fun but I'd rather leave it out if it means I can leave out another 75 points of Disads. Those are the ones that hurt me head. I wind up thumbing through old supplements and pulling out random disads others have just to meet the quota.

[JohnTaber]

My group started our new campaign with 350 points. In the past I started the PC at 200 points...yeah low powered.

One of the first comments I heard from one of my players was, "Things are more expensive in FREd." In this case he was updating an old PC based on TK, Absorption, and a defensive EC so yeah...he felt a lot of pain. Turns out FREd has adders and other cool stuff that did not exist in the old rule. My players found that SEVERAL effects that they desired were more expensive. I think this helped "combat" the feeling of having oodles of points compared to 200. (Now we also found that Martial Artists stuff did not change in cost so they ended up overpowered at 350 points but that issue has already been discussed in other threads.)

Wanted to throw in my observations as a GM in our recent sessions...

[Patriot]

My Group like the step up to 350,it alows them to write up a PC that is much more well rounded. At 250 , even a pc as simple as a brick (using a 50 Active point cap) only had 3 skills and the dodge manuver and a license to practice (doctor), If he wasnt in a fight he was next to useless,the extra point fixes that.

If you like the lower point range , try this, Run a 250 point game, write up the PCs on 250, with no skills, then give then the 100 to build the background skills,employment skills, hobbies,, then you have the best of both worlds,you have your power level, the 350 point cost, and well rounded characters.

[RevHooligan]

I'm running a 350 point campaign, but at character creation I designated a block of pionts that could only be used for non-compat skills. I felt the extra points helped round out the characters and enabled their secret IDs to be useful and impact the game.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by RevHooligan
I'm running a 350 point campaign, but at character creation I designated a block of pionts that could only be used for non-compat skills. I felt the extra points helped round out the characters and enabled their secret IDs to be useful and impact the game.

"a block of pionts"

Strange how typos can generate the weirdest visual imagery.
;)

Actually, we used to do this, way back in the early days of Champions. Had to spend 50 points on non-combat skills, etc. Never needed that rule in the later years, as we matured in our gaming, and enjoyed exploring those areas without being forced to by a house rule.

[Trebuchet]

I like 350. My character was not only able to purchase some good "candy" skills such as horseback Riding (A luxury when you can run 100+ MPH), but was able to buy several skills to represent her Secret Identity as an executive assistant to a billionaire (Since her boss is also the superhero team leader/cofounder, maintaining that level of expertise was not strictly necessary). But I bought her Bureaucratics, Computer Programming, and KS: Executive Assistant anyway because she wouldn't be satisfied just faking doing a good job. She would want to be really able to do it well. I also bought her 3 points of Norwegian since she's been living in Norway for three years and upped her 2 Pt. English to 3 points (Fully Fluent w/ Accent).

The trick is to make certain the character's skills complement each other without overriding each other. The best way to prevent that is to have the players discuss it amongst themselves. We have two M.D.s on our team, but only one is a surgeon.

[Blue]

My campaign starts at 300. This was because I wanted the characters to have to rely on each other a little more to start out. It's an experiment to induce teamwork. If you can't afford to buy everything then you can't be a one-man-show.

Typically I prefer 350. I know I make better characters at that level and the players probably will too.

[Alex Raven]

I've been playing with the same group for almost 20 years now. We have used many different variations in terms of power levels. My personal favorite is the 250 range. You are able to start with a concept and develop it over time as oppossed to having many more powers with a 350 or 375 point character.

The point totals, however, should not really be a problem IF character concepts remain true. We have had any number of "Jack of all Trades" characters which have never had a central focus or theme. That is where the problem with higher point value beginning characters comes into play.

Why would a ninja have a blaster? "Because I had points to burn", should never be the answer. Points should be spent on fleshing out your character concept as best you can while staying true to the intent of the concept.

My two cents...

[SkyKnight]

I think that 350 works fairly well so far. When you try to make a "250 style" character with 100 extra points to flesh out his other abilities, you get a very good character. I like having 50 to 100 points for skills. Still, I wonder if once we've played for a few years, we'll end up back at 345 points of powers and characteristics and P.S. Lawyer.

I tried running the 150 base, 100 disads level once and it worked very well. People liked only having to find 100 points of disads. It makes the characters a little less comical, and there is less fighting over what constitutes a valid disadvantage.

[i3ullseye]

Well...........

I don;t think it is the points that lead to lacking diversity, but the will of the character to do everything. And over time, within each gorup, the more limited the scope of the campaign the more centralization on skills you will see from the players. If you never make them use a knowledge skill, how many will actively buy them? EVERYONE has Stealth and Acrobatics, those become mission/combat neccessities. But how many can FIX a firearm? Maybe the odd weapon oriented character, but everyone else just has equipment. if they never run into the need to repair it, why woudl they spend points on skills for repairing it.

Now as a GM you have to be true to your villans also. if in a 250 pt game, all players have diverse skills, but the villans are built 2 dimensional, they will have the power edge on the heros. and the encounters will rarely use skills for resolution, but rely on what the villan CAn do, which is again the powers.

For the players side of things, you have some players that want to do EVERYTHING. When all 4 characters are HTH combat monsters... well, you will have decent fights where they rip your bad guys apart, and then not have ANY way to actually follow clues to solve the crime.

But here is an approach i take to remedy this, even at lower levels.

I built my recent campaign around the idea of the Vidocq Society. People from all walks brought together to resolve crimes. Further, the oiginal Vidocq was a criminal that decided to use his talents to HELP the police instead, and manyt hings we use today (criminal recors and profiles, fingerprinting, etc...) were actually invented by him (or first put to wide use).

But my society wanted specific types to fill their roles. So they are actively recruiting for this, hence I justified in game why i was giving my players some design limitations on their characters. they were also new to the hero system so this woudl keep them from making broken characters withouth getting TOO detailed as to why their ideas woudl not fly. Let them learn the system with balanced characters, and then let them experiment after bcoming familiar with the rules.

So I set up a list of desired agent 'types' the society wanted. like Psychic, Magic, Superior human, Mutant, etc.... your typical origins.

I then had a list of 'roles' that needed filled. there was the martial Arts/HTH Combatant, the Healer, the Taxi to shuttle peopl around, the Brick, etc.....

Now each player coudl pick ONE item from each list. once filled, the Society woudl not recruit more from there.

This is running long, so i will reply to continue........

[i3ullseye]

Continued......

Now each character, having one 'type' and one 'role' will not overshadow another in their prrime focus. Sure, more than one can have healing, but he will never heal as well as the primary healer can. I went further....

Each Role and Type had certain point spending conventions in place. game was 150 pts. They HAD to spend 50 on Skills, and they HAD to spend 50 on attributes. the last 50 was determined by the type they picked. Superior humans for example spent 100 on stats. hi tech types spent 50 on powers that must be in items. Etc.....

This kept eveything diverse and woudl have made for a much more cohesive team. i say would have because the game never got off the gorud.

One of the many resons it never got started is one player thought these rules to limited. he wanted to play someone who is physically superior, but with a bow like Hawkeye. and he woudl have to be good in hand to hand also, since heros fight. Scrapping the game was preferred to working within the system i had set up for group recruitment.

I did ask why he thought Spiderman just didn't decide to apply his great agility and use a bow also. The logic was lost......

[Vondy]

I've finally settled on 150+150 for starting characters. Even the street level ones. In that case its just a different distribution of points.

My current street level game uses (with some variance) the heroic power levels defined in dark champions, and most characters have NCM, but they still need 300 points to buy the skills, gadgets, vehicles, bases, and whatnot.

I think 350 is a good number too, but characters tend to start at the campaign limits, with players who want to "grow"

[Prodical]

I don't know what to do.
I have three people interested in playing heroes.
One of them has the Champions ( IV ) rules and the other two said that they were going to track down 5th Ed. this coming weekend.

I have 4 days to decide if I am gonna keep it at 250 (total) or take the plunge with 350.
Reading the posts on this thread is helpful.

[Killer Shrike]

Ive run campaigns up and down the point scale, supers and non-supers.

IMO, All of them were equally fun.

IMO, any given point level is as good as the next so long as the players are having fun, the GM is having fun, and nobody gets hurt in the process. I mean, who can put a point total on fun?

Center the game on the relative power level, not the point level IMO. If the HEROs are all 500 points, but so are the villains, than its not much different that when the heroes were 250 and so were the villains. The key is to challenge the players, and the challenge is going to differ from group to group and week to week.

As far as supers are concerned, I like 250 points, 350 points, 550 points and up, so long as the character is respectibly pointed within the context of the setting and feels challenged but not overwhelmed. Like Goldylocks, I dont want to play an overpowered or underpowered character. I want to a character that is powered just right, and that has little to do with a point total and more to do with how far off median that point total is.


One thing I really like about 350 v 250 is that players can afford to put a larger percentage pf points into flavor & schtick while maintaining thier viability. Whether individual players do or not is up to them. Ultimately you get out of a character what you put into it, so I like to think that power gaming "the mechanic IS the character" types get less out of the game than those who model a concept rather than conceptualize a model.

I have one player for example that is really bad about this. I dont know why, but he just continues to come up with degenerate power-mongering characters that are really nothing more than exploits of broken rules or an attempt to push a questionable rule to the point of breaking. Background? Nope. Concept? Dude, what do you mean concept, I told you he does 500 damage each action on average! Power origin? Woke up like that one day. If he does come up with some background, or even a detail such as, oh I dont know, a REAL NAME, you can be sure it centeres around a lame pun or play on words. He finds a rule or mechanic that seems exploitable, then makes a character whose sole purpose in life is to apply the rules dodge in some fashion. In HEROs, he is most interested in any power that has a stop or yield sign next to it. He wants concepts that basically just semi-validate a lot of damage dealing. Its unfortunate, but there you go.

You can be sure that with 350 points, he will not hand in a character with 50 points of 'fluff' skills. If he has skills at all, they'll be Acrobatics, Breakfall, and/or Stealth, you can be sure. Every last ounce of pointage will be squeezed into a cup and put into a blender with a landmine. Damage will be of primary concern. With a group full of players like this, 350 wouldnt work at all unless I wanted to play a SLUGATHON and they wouldnt have fun at 250 (not enough damage after all).

WIth more mature players comes more restraint. If a group wants more points in a starting (or any other) campaing, and you thinkthe players can handle more points, and most importantly its fun then start off at a higher level. Try out 750 point characters for a run. Adapt/Retry to fit.

[i3ullseye]

I ran an X-Files type game where everyone was 50+25. This was a blast. I think my next campaign will be 75+10. I really like the lower power level because then you rely on the strategy of what combat maneuvers are out there to accomplish your goals. One thing to keep in mind however. lower power level games allow equipment to be purchased, and there are many MANY items out there that actually take the equivalent power level up over 300 or even 500 depending on the campaign. All the lower points at start do is make a more solid base character with skills, and then ensure their 'powers' can be neutralized as items.

[Nato]

For my upcoming online campaign, I've decided to start characters off at 400 points, with only 100 of those points being from disadvantages. The campaign will be a JLA/Avengers style one set in the Champions Universe. I decided on 400 points because it sounded fun, and like a good way for people to get really creative with their powers and also not feel the need to actively search out ways to make their powers cheaper. I set the 100 point disadvantages limit because of my own personal experience with coming up with logical ones for my own characters. Sometimes coming up with the last 25-50 points of the typical 150 points can be a chore - and tends to be more about me meeting requirements than keeping in character. Plus, it's less for me to keep track of. Players won't have the two or three different hunteds I typically see, or force strange susceptibilities into their characters. I just figured that 100 points of disadvantages kind of paints the character's flaws in broadstrokes, yet still gives me enough utility as a GM. I'm not too nervous about having 400 point PCs, at least not with the players I have. My active point limits are also about the same as typical CU 350 pointers too. I figure a lot of it will be spent on more diversified skills and stuff like others have mentioned previously. I'm rather looking forward to starting. Just as soon as Millennium City arrives that is.

[CrosshairCollie]

So far, I like 350. I was in a campaign ... heck, several really ... based on 250, 4th Ed. NOBODY had inherent, full-time powers. Everybody was Focussed or Hero-IDed, because you had to shave those points if you wanted to have more than six points of Background/Noncombat Skills. This was fine for people who just like playing combat wombats, but I've always had a flare for scientists, which takes a fair chunk more. This also frees up some points for appropriate perks and Senses and other things that lots of people *should* have had, but just couldn't squeeze in.

At 350, I recommend (I'm loosening up on 'hard requirements' for characters) 10 percent of the points to be spent on non-combat skills/perks/talents. Despite what one nimrod seems to think, Breakfall is not a noncombat skill, but that's another story.

Another thing to consider, though ... if someone can slap their entire character together on 250 points, let him. If he takes more than 50 points of Disads, write the excess on his sheet as 'Mystery Powers' and drop them on him when you come up with something good.

But, above all, make people stay in concept! In almost any point-based system, it's possible to create a character who can do anything ("What's your guy do?" "He's a Brick/Speedster/Martial Artist/Psychic/Blaster/Mystic!" "You have a Variable Power Pool, don't you?"), that's not likely to be your concept. Yes, Captain America might be better off in many cases if he carried around a laser rifle, but then it wouldn't be Cap, it'd be some guy with a shield and laser rifle.

Hmm ... something else that occurs to me is that Jacks Of All Trades, as it were, are the proverbial 'Masters of None' as well. Someone who focusses on particular traits/abilities/techniques will be better at them than a flyby-night wannabe. Furthermore, in honor of what happened in my first Champions campaign, there's always 'The Set Syndrome'. Set was a brick ... at first ... eventually, he worked his way up to a whopping 32 or so Dex. So he was really strong, really tough, and really *fast* ... and being the most dangerous sucka on the team, he invariably got mass-targetted and flattened first by everything the opposition could muster, usually in a Flash or Entangle followed by a gigantic Coordinated Attack.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

I have one player for example that is really bad about this. I dont know why, but he just continues to come up with degenerate power-mongering characters that are really nothing more than exploits of broken rules or an attempt to push a questionable rule to the point of breaking. Background? Nope. Concept? Dude, what do you mean concept, I told you he does 500 damage each action on average! Power origin? Woke up like that one day. If he does come up with some background, or even a detail such as, oh I dont know, a REAL NAME, you can be sure it centeres around a lame pun or play on words. He finds a rule or mechanic that seems exploitable, then makes a character whose sole purpose in life is to apply the rules dodge in some fashion. In HEROs, he is most interested in any power that has a stop or yield sign next to it. He wants concepts that basically just semi-validate a lot of damage dealing. Its unfortunate, but there you go.

You can be sure that with 350 points, he will not hand in a character with 50 points of 'fluff' skills. If he has skills at all, they'll be Acrobatics, Breakfall, and/or Stealth, you can be sure. Every last ounce of pointage will be squeezed into a cup and put into a blender with a landmine. Damage will be of primary concern. With a group full of players like this, 350 wouldnt work at all unless I wanted to play a SLUGATHON and they wouldnt have fun at 250 (not enough damage after all).


Unless this guy is the only player whose house you can play in, I'd just tell him to hit the road. It's obvious he has no concern at all for his fellow players. Players like that lessen the enjoyment of everybody.

I believe it is possible to have lots of fun with almost any point total. If the players remember that "normals" have stats of 8, a CV of 2 to 4, and a point total of 25-35 points, 250 or 350 points is rather powerful. I still find it useful in my game to occasionally throw agents, thugs or soldiers against the characters. Once your 250 point martial artist has personally stomped 20 members of the Crips street gang into the pavement with his bare hands, he won't feel underpowered. (In a recent game I ran, one of our team's martial artists singlehandedly defeated a group of 100 heavily armed neo-Nazis attempting a coup in Austria. Since he took care to always be amongst them, they couldn't use hand grenades to get him because they'd kill their comrades. After he'd knocked out about 30 of them without being touched, the rest broke and ran. It was awesome.)

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

I have one player for example that is really bad about this. I dont know why, but he just continues to come up with degenerate power-mongering characters that are really nothing more than exploits of broken rules or an attempt to push a questionable rule to the point of breaking. Background? Nope. Concept? Dude, what do you mean concept, I told you he does 500 damage each action on average! Power origin? Woke up like that one day. If he does come up with some background, or even a detail such as, oh I dont know, a REAL NAME, you can be sure it centeres around a lame pun or play on words. He finds a rule or mechanic that seems exploitable, then makes a character whose sole purpose in life is to apply the rules dodge in some fashion. In HEROs, he is most interested in any power that has a stop or yield sign next to it. He wants concepts that basically just semi-validate a lot of damage dealing. Its unfortunate, but there you go.

You can be sure that with 350 points, he will not hand in a character with 50 points of 'fluff' skills. If he has skills at all, they'll be Acrobatics, Breakfall, and/or Stealth, you can be sure. Every last ounce of pointage will be squeezed into a cup and put into a blender with a landmine. Damage will be of primary concern.

I'm with Trebuchet on this one. Dump the guy. An @$$hole like that can make any game a problem, no matter what system.

Putting up with that type is like living in America with a right wing, dogmatic, arrogant and anti-civil rights administration in the White House. I mean... that would be miserable... right?

No way I'd put up with that kind of crap. ;)

[BarryB]

My group converted experienced 4th edition characters based on 250 to 5th edition characters by simply giving everyone 100 points. Since these were not the first characters we'd ever made, all of us had pretty powerful characters in mind.

We were already pretty differentiated to start with, but the extra 100 points allowed us to really make characters that lived up to some of our powerful expectations. Our speedster is now a real speedster (Ah, megascale!), for example.

Of course, each of us, with the possible exception of the brick, wishes we had another 100 - 200 points. Since our group enjoys character growth and development, this gives us a *lot* of room for growth and development. :)

[Spyritwind]

350 is beautiful. No more spending hours shaving points and nearly all characters having OIHID, or FOCI. At 350 the character becomes a well rounded (within concept) and fleshed out begining, or moderately powered character.

Of course 350 points can be abused by players, but then again so can 250. The problem isn't the points, but the players and or the GM.

Part of the problem might be thinking of special powers or tricks for the character. Most of us have spent so many years just trying to squeeze out the most basic charater concept because 250 was not enough points that our brains have trouble inventing things like "brick tricks" because they were never much of an option before. Who could afford them?

If your players look alike at 350 then I'd sit down with all of them and work on some things. There are plenty of advantages to differintiate EB's. The look and feel of the powers can help as well. Two characters with EB's can still use them a bit differently. One may have two more dice than the other and not have flight to become a weapons platform. The other might be more agile with flight and be more of a mobile straffing unit.

Don't let everyone purchase flash defense, power defense, etc. Okay, if they have a danger room to practice in they could all end up with acrobatics and if they have the skills and facilities to do so they could all end up with flash defense lensed, but power defense is harder to come by.

As other's have pointed out fleshing out background can make a big difference as well.

350 is only too many points if not used in certain ways. If it's only used to build your character verticaly instead of horizontaly then it can be a problem. To me bricks pose the biggest threat in this regard, but not limited to that character type. With the additional 100 points a brick 'could' purchase an additional 40 Strength with Reduced END, an additional 10 Constitution, an additional 5 Body and an additional 10 Pd & 10 Ed. Scary!

Just use the veto stamp. :)

[Killer Shrike]

RE: Neil, Trebuchet:

You guys dont know the half of it. On top of his lack of characterization and role playing acumen, he also is renowned for his accidental PC-killing, and general team-screwing.

He's such a bullet head, he often takes out downed comrades, or downs them himself in the first place with friendly fire. When he isnt doing that, he's pissing off or killing or both the wrong NPC, making a complete hash out of whatever plan the party has cooked up, or otherwise adding pure random Chaos into any situation.

This is regardless of character or system mind you. His trademark manuever was breaking a fully charged staff of power in the middle of a climactic battle, killing half of the party flat out. Only 1 other PC fell in that entire battle, and sadly thier corpse was in the blast radius and subsequently vaporized along with the others. It wasnt even merely a contributing factor, all of the characters that died were at or near full hitpoints, and had not yet begun to run on fumes resource wise. He just cut straight to the breaking-of-the-staff-of-power bit after the parties halfling thief got zapped by a good old D&D save or die effect. His character got gated to another plane, and the survivors basically had to cut and run. This was the entire climactic battle of a year long campaign mind you. All told, the player was responsible for the death of 5 party members over the course of the campaign, one PC of which he killed something like 3 times (and subsequently resurrected) with area of affect spells, destroying almost all of his items in the process due to failed saves.

Yeah, Im not kidding. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thats just a notable example. The list of just random, incomprehensible things that he has done in various games with various characters to the detriment of the party is really practically endless.


In fact this past week he couldnt make it, and about midway thru the game 1 of the players commented on the fact that he couldnt believe how smooth the game was going causing the rest of the players to all look at each other and laugh, because they simultaneously realized it was due to his absense.

Why do I still let him play? Because, believe it or not he ADDS fun to the game. Not to encourage his more excessive monkey-wrenching, but some of it is really really funny outside of the game. He so out of touch with common sense that the crap he does and the situations that arise are hysterically funny. You are hating him in-character and rolling on the floor in real life. Plus, he's good people when he isnt aggravating the hell out of you.

As a GM, I can always relax a bit on the villains when he's in the game; he can be counted on to do something stupid that will give me all the plot hooks I need to drive an entire session. Give him enough rope, and he reflexively makes a noose out of it and slips it on a teammate.

Also, he's young yet; he just turned 21 a while ago and has not yet learned restraint. There is a lot of potential there (he's a dedicated gamer, he just isnt any good at playing a role. The phrase 'good initiative, [absurdly] poor judgement' was minted to describe him), and Im foolishly determined to shape him into a better player. Thats why. :cool: :D

[Trebuchet]

I can only admire your patience (and even more so the patience of your players). After such a player had killed my second character, my new characters would all be built with the sole purpose of killing his characters. I'd shove him off every high cliff we came near, or cut his throat in his sleep. (Perhaps an entire clan of assassins devoted to avenging a character slain by this imbecile...)

You do realize, KS, that there is also a good chance he will never improve? Sometimes a sow's ear remains so. :p

[Storn]

Kill shrike... have you tried talking to him outside of the game? Point out some of the role-playing the others are trying to accomplish? And listen to him about what he wants as a player.

Give him Robin Laws book. Tell him to read it and then go out for coffee and discuss what he has read. It might facilitate the process a bit.

Perhaps talk in terms of role playing creation being a bit like a TV show (what's his favorite?) and/or comic book. Going around wiping out 1/2 the main cast is not usually done in a TV show.

Back to the topic at hand; I think 350 has to be watched carefully by the GM. 90 pts into STR, some good movement powers and you've got a real powerhouse on your hands for the super battleground. But active pt limits that are general (can go over with GM approval for that Mass Teleport that the whole team uses and is really a plot creator power instead of plot destroyer), I think forces the players to come under a certain level. I would suggest 70 active pts.

But I think 350 CAN be done. Like Neil said, we are on 300 starting pts and that ain't bad. I think for most of my concepts, I can get the gist of the character for 300 pts. And my main, first character is over 500 and I'm still scrambling for points, because his concept just keeps getting larger and larger.

[Blue]

Shrike, if you convert him there could be a sainthood in it for you. Make copious notes and write a book on converting powergamers to civilized players.

The part about motivation does remind me of an article though. Jeff Freeman on RPGnet used to write some incredibly sarcastic, funny columns. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ackjun98.html

[Peregrine]

From HS5e, p. 15
Standard Superheroic Character Guidelines
Base Points: 200
Max Disad Points: 150
Total Points: 350
Char Ranges: 10-40 (some exceptions, particularly STR)
SPD Ranges: 3-10
CV Ranges: 7-13
DC Ranges: 6-14
Active Points Ranges: 40-80
Skill Points Ranges: 25-80
Skill Roll Ranges: 11-15-
DEF/rDEF: 20/10

Within those ranges, 350 points allows for a character who is more than a 'one-trick pony', who is capable both in and out of combat, who can explore some of the nuances of their archetype from the beginning of the campaign. All of this requires GM/player interaction before and/or during character generation. You can't let the players generate their characters 'in a vacuum', so to speak, and expect a balanced (vis-a-vis each other, or the campaign world) set of player characters, no matter what point totals you use.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Blue
Shrike, if you convert him there could be a sainthood in it for you. Make copious notes and write a book on converting powergamers to civilized players. I've made something of a personal crusade along these lines, bringing a good number of players into the fold of actual 'role' players as opposed to dice rollers.

I dont mind if someone is a powergamer, so long as they are also a ROLE player. It takes all types to make a (imagined fantasy) world go around afterall.

Ergo, a player that has a character concept that is solid and detailed, and then stats the character with some powers that may be abusive BUT FIT THE CHARACTERS SFX and BACKGROUND will not earn my veto power if their character is legal or in case of GMs option type power constructs is self-limiting in some way that constrains them. However a player that takes a collection of abiities and splices them together (overpowered or not), and then kind of splices a half-assed character concept onto that will earn my veto power immediately. I routinely kick back entire characters whether they are balanced/legal or not if I feel that the character as a whole is lacking substance.

"Go back to the begining, come up with a background with some level of plausibility, and give him/her any appropriate skills, perks, and talents to match the characters history. Then, after you have spent those points on background flavor and solidly grounding the character, define a special effect(s) for your superhuman abilities, set your characteristics, and finally construct powers that are in some way validated by your special effect. Tweak as necessary after the fact to result in a polished well rounded character.", or words to that effect are my mantra on HEROs character creation.


I'm not Father Joe by any means however; I've kicked a LOT of players in my day. If they dont contribute to the group or have the potential to grow into a contributing role, then out they go, in mid session if necessary.




The part about motivation does remind me of an article though. Jeff Freeman on RPGnet used to write some incredibly sarcastic, funny columns. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ackjun98.html

Heh. Thats amusing ;)

As it happens my name is Ed, like the GM in the parable. I've been there, done that. It can be a real chore dealing with die-headed munchkins like that. If they are that far gone, I usually dont even get that far with them. It's "sorry, I dont think our playing styles mesh. Buh-bye."

[Celtic Cowboy]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike I have one player for example that is really bad about this. I dont know why, but he just continues to come up with degenerate power-mongering characters that are really nothing more than exploits of broken rules or an attempt to push a questionable rule to the point of breaking. [/B]

Sounds like he takes a commonly used approach to playing Magic:TG and uses it for rpgs. Yikes. One of our group comes up with some twisted decks from time to time, I think I'd freak if he ever pulled that on a character though.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I can only admire your patience (and even more so the patience of your players). After such a player had killed my second character, my new characters would all be built with the sole purpose of killing his characters. I'd shove him off every high cliff we came near, or cut his throat in his sleep. (Perhaps an entire clan of assassins devoted to avenging a character slain by this imbecile...)

See, heres the thing, I as the GM would act to prevent the classic 'Avenging Avatar' situation from developing. You would have to validate to me WHY your new character was out to get the character that killed off your old character, in game. Are you a close relative, seeking revenge, a law enforcement officer of some sort, or (my favorite) play off of the PC killer's background to be someone from his past that has finally tracked him down, often with some dark secret to reveal which will make the other PCs question thier allegiance with him. Occasionally, if you thirst for vengeance and I feel its best to let you get it out of your system and are responsible enough to handle it, I might even let you play the PC-Killers Hunted for a session if he has one (and if you do a good job, perhaps thereafter within the lifespan of the campaign), or let you design a Hunted (and subsequently play them) that I can give him as part of a periodic Disadvantages reevaluation ("Hmm....well Mr. PC-Killer, your PsyLim Code of the Hero isnt what it used to be apparantly, so we'll just subtract that off the character sheet and replace it with Reputation: Unstable and dangerous to be around, and a 10 point Mystery Disadvantage which will surely haunt you later, with interest compounded daily {trademark GMs smirk}").



You do realize, KS, that there is also a good chance he will never improve? Sometimes a sow's ear remains so. :p
Yes, I realize. Ive actually lost a couple of other players who just couldnt stand to play with him. They were inconsistent players, whereas he is extremely consistent, and the bulk of the players, when spoken to independently, did not want to see him put out of the group.

If he doesnt ever improve, he'll get culled. In the meantime, he's good for laughs and if nothing else, makes for memorable games. People are still talking about games from two years ago because the fallout from this players was so major or amusing that those sessions just stick in your memory indelibly.

I talk with the player regularly. He knows he's not a good roleplayer. All the other players rag him constantly. Its kind of become a running joke. He's trying to improve, but unfortunately he really just isnt any good at it. I think he has trouble conceptualizing, or projecting his thought patterns into a differing mindset, which are both important qualities of a roleplayer. He also is not goal or method oriented, being more of a reaction oriented sort. His mind is better at dealing with artificial structures and how they interrelate. For example, he gave up an EE major because he couldnt handle the programming aspects of the course load among other things, and switched to Economics, which is all about understanding and manipulating an artificial structure and reacting with the day to day events of it all.

Programming does rely on artificial structures, but you have to be able to conceptualize and project to program towards something. It requires an end goal and a consisent methodology. Making a character in many systems is similar to making a small application that inherits from base classes and can have some small amount of customization override code, but is prohibited from defining new objects or interfaces itself, particularly a HEROs character. He understands the rules system and he is able to manipulate it, but he does so to make characters that just exploit those rules. He doesnt conceptualize an end result which is a virtual person and then define that via the rules system, instead he identifies loopholes and exploitations in the rules system and then implements them with only the veneer of of a virtual person.

Instead of Warp {background,motivation,personality,some powers}, you have Warp {Was born and has powers, kill stuff, easily annoyed casual killer, RKA NND does Body 0 END Contin Uncontrolled usable Desolid, Desolid, Spatial Awareness Targeting, Teleport}.

[Prodical]

350 it is.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Celtic Cowboy
Sounds like he takes a commonly used approach to playing Magic:TG and uses it for rpgs. Yikes. One of our group comes up with some twisted decks from time to time, I think I'd freak if he ever pulled that on a character though.
Actually, in his case, Jyhad aka Vampire the Eternal Struggle is the CCG of choice. He's also the reason Im selling off my 6000 card collection and never playing that particular game again ;)

[Trebuchet]

If you discussed this player with your other players and they are OK with him staying, then that is a different situation. I think player compatability is the most important thing for a good game.

In my current 4-color superhero campaign of 12 years, I am the primary GM. I was the one who drew up the "universe" and set the initial parameters for the characters. We now have 2 other active GMs as well. I have "override" powers, but I don't make major changes in the game without first discussing them with my co-GMs. I also solicit input from both co-GMs before I make changes to my own character. If one of them doesn't really care one way or another about a proposed change I might do it, but if one REALLY disliked the change I would not do it even if I really liked the proposed change. No change to house rules is worth aggravating one of my co-GMs/players. I have enough respect for them to realize they might see something I missed. (Like when I proposed using Long Term END rules in the campaign. Oy vey!)