Doomed Campaigns

[Blue]

This topic is very much on my mind this morning.

Last night I managed to wrangle together most of the players to be involved in my campaign. There are those who have plenty of ideas, and those who show up and hope for some direction. Naturally, I hoped the two would mix (as in... "I have an idea for you--try this!"). So they made characters while I rolled around the table from person to person, answering questions...

After five hours of character making, I have come to the conclusion that this will be the most screwed up campaign ever. I have a terrible feeling about this campaign, for the following reasons: 3 to 4 of the players have some concept of what they want to do. The others put no imagination into it. Two players are making characters that border more on villains from "The Tick" than on solid superheroic characters. No amount of cajoling seems capable of getting them onto the right path. There are a disproportionate number of gadgeteers, and no one seems to care. No pure bricks, just two people with above average STR and martial arts. No Energy Projectors!...This is so inconceivable to me that I could have never seen it coming.Worst of all, I think the players less interested in the proper tone of the campaign are turning off both me and the other players. For a minute I thought about switching the tone around, but then I'd have the same problem going the other way.

So I thought I'd ask: Have you ever put together a campaign that seemed doomed from the outset? If so, how did it turn out for you?

[Captain Obvious]

Just go with it. Although bricks and energy projectors are standards in super campaigns, they're not indispensable assuming you have people who can engage in hand to hand and ranged combat. After a session or two, things will probably fall together for you....

[altamaros]

What kind of tone should have your campaign ? (dark, four-colors?)

What kind of characters do you have at the table ?
(on the background level)
are they so incompatible ?

i had this kind of problem at my very first Champion game as a GM : i was planning to bring the characters into a "School for gifted youngsters" as teachers. For some reasons, they actually attacked the school and almost destroy it (don't ask me how ! )

[Blue]

Yeh, I'm going to have to roll with it. These are experienced players, but I'm not seeing the flair out of them that I was seeing in the past five or so games we played (Vampire and various D&D incarnations).

I'm not all that good at classifying the campaign. I've been targeting a sort of traditional contemporary marvel/dc universe. Most of the characters in CKC would drop into this campaign pretty well.
I've got one player who is making a misplaced D&D character (actually, a misplaced D&D monster). Interestingly enough, his is one of the tighter concepts. I have one person making a former criminal with problems focusing on being heroic. In and of itself, this works fine for roleplaying. But there will be definite conflicts with... The character who is a judge, complete with gavel and robes, who brokers no criminal wrong-doing from anyone Two scientists with gadget pools that are based around different effects. I expect both guys to spend great amounts of time manufacturing powers and slowing gameplay, despite my strong suggestion that they get together some useful gadgets now. One of said gadgeteers spent a chunk of points on a vehicle. This will make him effective about HALF the time. The half when he is outdoors. Four of the characters have very weak stats. They're built like they are practically human. I expect two of the seasoned players to wind up doing most of the fighting while everyone else sits around regretting their 3 and 4 SPD.I've done my best to cajole and coax them toward higher abilities. They seem completely unconcerned with making balanced characters.

What I figure will happen is this: I'll get them into a fight, they'll realize that their characters have definite problems, then either a)They'll revise said characters (with my blessing), b)They'll want to bring in new characters altogether, or c)They'll want to play something else because they aren't getting the hang of it.

Either way, I'll run and hope for the best. I'm defintely going to have to start with easier villains though.

(Did I mention the clown? Funny thing is that most of the other players seem to hate this character concept; have read the character, it actually works better than most of theirs.)

[Hermit]

I wonder if some of them just don't like the super hero genre? I've seen one group where things were screwed up from the get go (Worse than yours, so take heart in that) as a form of feet dragging and silent protest. Not saying your group IS doing that, but I'd be on the watch out for it in case.

[Blue]

I considered that as well.
Of the campaigns offered to them (One D&D, one a sort of Vampire/Mage/Abberrant Hybrid, and my Champions campaign), I think all of the people who bothered to cast an opinion at all picked mine as their first choice. And these are guys who love Vampire and D&D. So I felt very positive about things.

I think lack of system knowledge has slowed them down. And four of us have FREd, but only two of those were present at this character making session. So two books were being shared by six people. Anytime I was asked a question I had to try and pull it from memory because my book was in use.

By the end of the evening I was kind of glad when they didn't seem to want to hang around and do a sample combat. I was dying to fall back and regroup at that point.

[altamaros]

Several issues in your team :

first : conflicts between characters (judge/former criminal)

No miracle pill: i have in one of my current settings (kind of "super White Wolf" world) a character who is a demon-hunter [psy-lim: hates demons (strong) ] and a alchemist, immortal thanks to a demon trapped in his body (multiform, one with a VPP, other is classic brick). the first minutes of the game were awful, fortunately the players are very good friends and found themselves a way to deal with it)

Suggestion : make the judge think that he is something like a moral ground for the reformed criminal.

Weak stats : see the good side : with low speed, the fights will be quicker.
my suggestion would be to make them fight a test combat with a random villain from CKC (not Dr D.; someone on 350 points) and then have a debriefing all together after. That should give them some ideas about team tactics and character compatibilities I would like to say that i had this idea for my current group but they asked for it themselves : all of them are veteran shadowrunners and they wanted to know how things were running before building defintive characters.

The gadgeteers and their gadgets : count the game time as real time for the purpose of building their gadgets : i.e. tell the players :
"ok, dude; Factory* can build a new gadget in less than one phase in game time; that means that during the fight, i will let you exactly ten seconds to design the power in game terms"

that should bring them to think about their gadgets during the other players' actions.

(Factory was a gadgeteer character in one of my oldest campaigns)

And you have the write up for the clown, i'm interested (fan of Astro City's Jack-in-the-Box)

[allen]

Originally posted by Blue
I have one person making a former criminal with problems focusing on being heroic. In and of itself, this works fine for roleplaying. But there will be definite conflicts with... The character who is a judge, complete with gavel and robes, who brokers no criminal wrong-doing from anyone


These two sound like a great pair to have in a PC group, so long as the players are friends and/or good roleplayers.



Two scientists with gadget pools that are based around different effects. I expect both guys to spend great amounts of time manufacturing powers and slowing gameplay, despite my strong suggestion that they get together some useful gadgets now.


I have two rules about VPPs in games I run (I am, admittedly, accused of being 'iron-fisted' at times). First, no VPPs unless the player submits a list (at least 8 - 10) "sample powers" including a mix of offense/defense stuff, AND a default point-allocation for the VPP -- basically if a villain ambushes you when you aren't prepared for combat where are your VPP points at. Second, I don't allow players unfamilar with HERO to have VPPs at the start of the campaign. I allow them a Multipower at first; after four game sessions (or so), the player may re-write his character to have a VPP. I do relax this restriction depending on the player and the group.



Four of the characters have very weak stats. They're built like they are practically human. I expect two of the seasoned players to wind up doing most of the fighting while everyone else sits around regretting their 3 and 4 SPD.I've done my best to cajole and coax them toward higher abilities. They seem completely unconcerned with making balanced characters.


If we're talking a SPD range of 3 - 5, I don't think it's that big of a deal. If we're talking 3 - 6, the person(s) with 3... I'd force them to raise it to a 4. Obviously, you know your players better than I, but the great Allendini foresees discontent SPD 3 player(s) sitting around stacking dice.



What I figure will happen is this: I'll get them into a fight, they'll realize that their characters have definite problems, then either a)They'll revise said characters (with my blessing)...


As a rule, I allow players to re-build characters after the first four or so sessions



Either way, I'll run and hope for the best. I'm defintely going to have to start with easier villains though.


My advice is to stick to one-night adventures for the first few game sessions with a variety of structure and challenges (straight-forward super-criminals rob bank; investigation-heavy scenario; whatever) until you get a sense of where the players' heads are at -- I'd do this before you decide on a particular campaign tone or theme or whatnot; or at least don't fall too in love with a particular campaign tone or theme until after the first few adventures-- square pegs, round holes, and all that.

[Killer Shrike]

Pick the players that seem to be actually in to it, and dont include the others. Just 'forget' to invite them to the 1st play session.

Dont waste time fighting recalcitrant/disruptive players. If they arent interested in playing in concordance to the campaign setting, trying to run a session will become an absolute debacle.

[Blue]

Originally posted by altamaros
Suggestion : make the judge think that he is something like a moral ground for the reformed criminal.I've actually been thinking about this. I figure the only way they can work together is if he thinks that he's there to guide that individual. And I've already built into the campaign a function for allowing reforming criminals on the super-team, with a "watched". He can easily be the person responsible for monitoring the criminal.
Make them fight a test combat with a random villain from CKC (not Dr D.; someone on 350 points)Now yer just reading my mind! (Cut that out) That's what the first scenario was going to be last night, to familiarize the players with the mechanics of combat (and refresh my memory). It was a sort of virtual combat. They were going to log onto the base's computer and perform a virtual fight. After all, no one can afford to really blow up danger room after danger room. This is the base's alternative. The guy arranging the test combat was going to sell it to them as a "team building exercise" then afterwards tell them about the fight. If I hadn't been so worn out by the character making, I might have pushed for the test combat.
The gadgeteers and their gadgets : count the game time as real time for the purpose of building their gadgetsI sense the only way they're going to get what a pain this procedure is, is by actually experiencing it. Hero-math is intensive. After having to re-design their powers before every combat, they're going to get the message. But it will be painful at first. Plus I expect the other players to start beating them about the head and genitals anytime the players bog down the gameplay with power manufacturing.

And you have the write up for the clown, i'm interested (fan of Astro City's Jack-in-the-Box) The individual is called "rodeo clown" and he's a fairly tough physical combatant, and probably the best rounded character (stats and powers being appropriate to one another) but I don't think the player would be happy with me posting his work.

Thanks for the suggestions. I've been going over my alternatives since about 6pm last night, so I'm accounting for some of this stuff already. It turns out I'm probably here mostly for reassurance ;)

[levi]

Hey Blue,

What is the unifying theme for this campaign? Are they all joining a team chartered to a city? Are they all hunted by the same group / villain?

The reason I ask is the Judge / Reformed Criminal relationship. Internal conflict in a group can help create dynamic tension as long as some higher purpose keeps them focused on the greater good of their partnership. I ran a game with a super-cop character and a reformed super-criminal who where both hunted by the same group (the reformed super-criminal's former teammates). This was a great source of role-playing opportunity for the players and their characters really came together when their mutual enemy came calling. They still had fundamental differences in how they approached situations, but they knew they could count on one another when the chips were down.

[Blue]

Funny you should ask. I just reworked my site to get it out of a very encumbering MSN group. It looks pretty sharp now without all that microsoft advertising jammed in there.

http://home.earthlink.net/~webstudio

In a nutshell, the City of Lazarus has lost it's team of heroes. They were demolished in a horrendous incident only hinted at by the GM and not fully documented. After a protracted legal battle, the city has gotten permission from the inheritor of the local Super-base to house a new team of heroes. The city has put out a call and gotten... the player characters.

The city has grown up out of nothing in the short ten years it has existed and is already rivaling much larger cities. It is also under a crimewave that is disproportional to the rest of the country. There are undertones of a pending apocalypse keyed around this city, only no one knows the full story, and the guy who probably had most of the clues, is dead.

Characters are employees of the city, given the base and it's resources with the proviso that they prevent super-powered crime and minimize their impact on the surroundings (Translation: Don't just arbitrarily cause collateral damage)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Blue
I considered that as well.
Of the campaigns offered to them (One D&D, one a sort of Vampire/Mage/Abberrant Hybrid, and my Champions campaign), I think all of the people who bothered to cast an opinion at all picked mine as their first choice. And these are guys who love Vampire and D&D. So I felt very positive about things.

I think lack of system knowledge has slowed them down. And four of us have FREd, but only two of those were present at this character making session. So two books were being shared by six people. Anytime I was asked a question I had to try and pull it from memory because my book was in use.

By the end of the evening I was kind of glad when they didn't seem to want to hang around and do a sample combat. I was dying to fall back and regroup at that point. My advice is don't let newbies build their characters. Ask them what they want and build it for them. The first time I played Champions, I quickly realized I should let someone else build the character for me so we could actually play - and I had already been a Marvel Superheroes and DC Heroes veteran. The first character I played in a Champions campaign was built by someone else after I described what I wanted. As I played the character for the next 6 months, I learned how the game worked and began to develop my own style of character construction.

[Blue]

These are not the kind of guys to let me make their characters.

The three or four that have turned out fairly well so far are because the player asked me questions, sent me samples, let me make suggestions, etc. The others showed up with no character concept and I was stuck trying to juggle them all at once. The character making session was both a good and bad idea, it turns out. Wish I had time to build the characters one at a time with them, or that they had the wherewithal to send me questions about what they want so I could build samples and e-mail them back. But many of them are just not motivated character builders. But that holds true for most of the games they play; difference is that come game day they know the system and can build a character quickly if need be. Here they don't know it and expect me to help them last minute.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Blue
These are not the kind of guys to let me make their characters.

The three or four that have turned out fairly well so far are because the player asked me questions, sent me samples, let me make suggestions, etc. The others showed up with no character concept and I was stuck trying to juggle them all at once. The character making session was both a good and bad idea, it turns out. Wish I had time to build the characters one at a time with them, or that they had the wherewithal to send me questions about what they want so I could build samples and e-mail them back. But many of them are just not motivated character builders. But that holds true for most of the games they play; difference is that come game day they know the system and can build a character quickly if need be. Here they don't know it and expect me to help them last minute.


If they have never played HEROs at all, I would suggest giving them characters from the game supplements and let them play those in a scratch game. If you have HD, just run some characters off from the character packs.

It sounds like you have a large group, so let half play heros and the other half play villains and just have a slugathon between them. This frees you up to adjudicate and scramble to answer question without having to run NPCs.

After the session, Im willing to bet they will have a better idea for what works and what doesnt work. One or two might be happy with the characters they played in the playtest and will be content with that exact character, maybe with a name and bg change. Viola.

[DocMan]

Intra-party conflict can be a great roleplay tool. It can also rip a party to pieces. I doubt you've too much to worry about with the Judge/Reformed Criminal dynamic. This is mostly because he's a Reformed criminal. He's actively trying to be good. And if the Judge comes down on him for some of his actions, he has a variety of replies to pull out of his hat. Such as "It's not a crime when we do it! We're cops now! The whole 'In the line of duty' thing. You have studied LAW haven't you?" And "You know, Judge, it was a lot easier going straight until you came along. But being around you just makes certain crimes seem more and more appealing." And the ever popular, "Do I have to get a restraining order to get you off my back?" These characters can have some delightful bickering provided no one takes it too far. And the Judge can easily become the character everyone loves to hate.

I played in one campaign where one of the characters was basicly a cop on a hardshell. He was a street cop who'd been given a battlesuit. His schtick was that everything had to be by the book. So, whenever we stopped a group of criminals, he'd open his portable forms drawer and start passing out "After Action Report"s for us all to fill out. Most of us just waited until he turned his back and threw them away. The EB in the party had endless fun making his suit lights burn out. We all made fun of him one way or another, but it created a group dynamic that worked. And he was true to his character. It was a conflict that worked.

For the others, I wouldn't be surprised to find one or both of the gadgeteers creating blasters and force fields soon after the first fight. Figure on one of them to fill the EB slot full time. However, you might have to lower typical speeds in your campaign.

Doc

[Blue]

The "reformed" criminal will still be a loose canon, trust me. The only female of the group, not raised in civilized society, she has a code of personal ethics, and this will directly conflict with anyone pledged to uphold the law. Should be entertaining as heck.

There are ten of us in all. Of those, I can expect 4 to 6 on most game days, which is... manageable. But there's the potential for that odd Ten-man slugfest day.

I'm feeling better about the campaign this morning. I think I need to sweep them into it more, get the assimilated. Then if they suddenly get an inspiration for a character that works better, I'll let them swap that one in.

[Stargazer]

i think ur campaing and player mix as a great potential for a memorable time:) best of luck:)

[Catacomb]

I played in a D&D campaign that wa supposed to have a 'Hackmaster' tone, but the GM lost his cool with it after a couple of sessions involving player on player violence.

[Karma]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Pick the players that seem to be actually in to it, and dont include the others. Just 'forget' to invite them to the 1st play session.


Man "How to loose friends and irritate people"

Tell me Shrike have you actually ever tried this tactic with your friends and if so do they still consider you a decent person?

Having been 'margnalised' in almost this way because I wasn't skilled enough in the style of game play that the group was used to (purile, in case you wondering) I can tell you that the people you 'conveniently forget' are going to not only stop coming to that game but are unlikely to want to have anything to do with you from then on.
If that's what you want then go ahead, you'll probably never hear from them again. If you want to actually keep their friendship then find another way.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Karma
Man "How to loose friends and irritate people"

Tell me Shrike have you actually ever tried this tactic with your friends and if so do they still consider you a decent person?

Having been 'margnalised' in almost this way because I wasn't skilled enough in the style of game play that the group was used to (purile, in case you wondering) I can tell you that the people you 'conveniently forget' are going to not only stop coming to that game but are unlikely to want to have anything to do with you from then on.
If that's what you want then go ahead, you'll probably never hear from them again. If you want to actually keep their friendship then find another way.

Actually, I would just tell them I dont want them in the campaign outright, but a lot of people have a problem with that, so thus the suggested method of exclusion. Sounds like the players can hardly be counted on to show up anyway. Me, Id keep the dependibles and tell the to-busys to come back when they can commit to a regular game. The crap players Id just tell goodbye.

If they are too thin skinned to deal with it, boo hoo. There is no personal animosity involved. Ive occasionally directed such players to other groups or even hooked them up with each other so they can get thier own games going. Its all about fit. If they arent a good matchup for the campaign, or they don't have thier head on straight, I dont need them occupying space at my table.

Its better to have a hanful of dedicated players that want to play the game than to let people that cant be bothered to get into the spirit of the game and chip in to the fun of the group drag the game down.

Friends, not friends, I dont care. My group is made up of players. I have friends who arent invited to my games because they arent serious enough about it, or are too undependible, or just arent any good at it. Ive put friends out of games many many times before, inculding significant others. If they arent contributing to the game, they are gone. If they arent dependible they are gone. On the other hand I've played several great campaigns with people I didnt like one bit and didnt share 1 word with out of game. Its an activity, not a social occasion for me. I show up to play or run the game, not rub elbows with a bunch of adolescent to middle adged geeks with bad hygene and poor fashion sence. ;)

In the last couple of years Ive relaxed my standards on this quite a bit and guess what, the group I currently run is substandard to groups Ive had in the past. To improve the level of play, its time for dead weight to get the heave ho to make room for new players. In the past Ive been known to cycle as many as 20 players to fill one slot. Ive turned players away at the door that show up uninvited. Ive stopped in mid-character creation and sent potential players on thier way. If they arent a good fit, they arent a good fit. If that means the group is a bit small for awhile, so be it. Id rather have fewer dedicated players than more half-assed players. Quality over Quantity all the way.

I think its completely valid for Blue, in this case, to pick the 4 most into it players and invite them for a session that the other players arent invited to. Run a good game in the mode he wants to run in as the GM. Have a good solid campaign. If the other players want to play, they'll straighten thier act up. If they dont, they arent dragging the game down in the meantime. If they dont listen to him as the GM and respect the guidelines he has set down, they are problem players and need to go.

[Doug McCrae]

You win the hardass award, Killer Shrike.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
You win the hardass award, Killer Shrike. Cool. And I didnt even realize I was in the running :rolleyes:

[Insaniac99]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Friends, not friends, I dont care. My group is made up of players. I have friends who arent invited to my games because they arent serious enough about it, or are too undependible, or just arent any good at it. Ive put friends out of games many many times before, inculding significant others. If they arent contributing to the game, they are gone. If they arent dependible they are gone. On the other hand I've played several great campaigns with people I didnt like one bit and didnt share 1 word with out of game. Its an activity, not a social occasion for me. I show up to play or run the game, not rub elbows with a bunch of adolescent to middle adged geeks with bad hygene and poor fashion sence. ;)

Wow, and here i thought the whole point of an RPG is to make new friends and get together to have fun, every one of us is a friend so we will just hang out too, out last get to gether were were at teh friends house for more that four hours then only played for aobut one and a half, the rest of the time we were hanging out chatting and eating, i just can't imagine role-playing with people that i don't like...

[Killer Shrike]

And I dont consider chatting and eating "roleplaying". I chat and eat with my friends when Im not roleplaying, and most of my friends dont roleplay. If your roleplaying group is also your social circle, then so be it.

My point is I get together with people interested in the same hobby as me to do that hobby. My hobby isnt my proxy for having something to do with my friends; there are many much easier and less specialized ways to hang out with pals than get together and play some elaborate game with intricate rules and significant time requirements.

[tesuji]

Blue said...

"What I figure will happen is this: I'll get them into a fight, they'll realize that their characters have definite problems, then either a)They'll revise said characters (with my blessing), b)They'll want to bring in new characters altogether, or c)They'll want to play something else because they aren't getting the hang of it."

IMO and IMG if i approve a character then i am telling that players its right for the campaign. once i do that, its my job in addition to his to make it work out. The campaign centers on and pivots around the characters, their attributes are essential to the story and the game works because of my efforts to make these a reality and NEVER "in spite of" the PCs.

If you really believe that after a session or two your players will be dissatisfied with the characters you allowed as to have these three possible reactions, then IMO that is you admitting you are at fault.

Why would a fight necessarily be this bad? Specifically, what is it written that tells you that the nature of enemies, the scenario setups and the encounter YOU choose has to be one thats going to show up the PCs this badly?

many many moons ago, i ran a very enjoyable summer campaign in DND. The five PCs were two monks, a rogue, a rogue-acrobat and a wizard. N definitive fighter. no definitive cleric. it was an incredibly fun little campaign where amazingly the plot dealt with intrigue and espionage and the "fights" were not stand up slugfests with grim damage totals but instead mobile and highly tactical location battles... in short the story and challenges and events were suited to and made emphasis of the heroes abilities. Their weaknesses when they occured were not scenario breakers but merely obstacles to be overcome.

In short, imagine how good a run of wolverine comics would be if 90% of his encounters were against aerial foes outside where he basically gets madder and madder. The writers just don't seem to script him that way, do they?

There is a reason.

Were i to have approaved those PCs, i would now be looking forward to the challenge and working over their characters and backgrounds to script a story and encounters to fit the ensemble you have been dealt.

The goal is to help them and you have fun, not to teach them a lesson for designing "bad" characters.

Is that a goal within your reach?

Thats up to you.

time will tell.

[bubba smith]

Nice thinking killer

[TheQuestionMan]

Yes, but rarely HERO System. This is where being firm with character creation and means the GM remains engaged in the Campaign. When players present characters that do not fit the concept then friction happens, joy dies, and the game ends.

IMOHO

QM

[sinanju]

Wow, and here i thought the whole point of an RPG is to make new friends and get together to have fun, every one of us is a friend so we will just hang out too, out last get to gether were were at teh friends house for more that four hours then only played for aobut one and a half, the rest of the time we were hanging out chatting and eating, i just can't imagine role-playing with people that i don't like...

That's the point of an RPG for you. To paraphrase the receptionist in hell from Beetlejuice, "No, that is what happens when I game, and that is what happens you game, and that is what happens when they game. It's all very personal."

My gaming tends toward the more social end. Lots of joking around and talking in addition to gaming. But there's nothing wrong with Killer Shrike's approach. His approach looks to me more like the way you put together a softball team or a bowling team. You want people who are there to play (and play well), not just anyone who wants to show up to drink beer and kibbitz. Playing the game is the point of the exercise; if that's not your goal, you're not gonna make the cut--and nothing personal.

As for the gadgeteers issue.... Speaking as a player who LOVES to play PCs with VPPs, I agree that you give them a brief window of opportunity to change their powers, then move on. I always make it a point when I'm the VPP character to have a bunch of pre-designed slots, and to do my number-crunching while other players are acting--I love building new powers on the fly (that's why I like VPPS in the first place) but I don't expect the GM to wait for me.

[Blue]

Wow, this is so long ago I barely remember posting it. 2003? Man. Maybe I should give the overall result...

In retrospect, I think most failings of the campaing, if any, would be squarely hung on me, the GM. I think I did a fair amount of railroading, didn't leave enough space for roleplaying.

I'd consider the campaign a moderate success. If anything it would have done better if I'd spent less time on it and let it grow more organically rather than masterminding everything.

The characters did have a minor difference in power level. Ultimately when combined, the players found the right tone, right in the middle, and I couldn't be more pleased for that.

I ran seven 8 to 12 hour game sessions before resting it quite a while. Then I brought it back for another six like sessions. My turn in the que probably won't be for quite a while with at least 2 campaigns ahead of it.

One could say there was lots of worry for nothing, but then I'd played plenty of times with these guys and never seen them run in such opposite directions before a campaign, so my worry was justified at the time.

[Heckus]

Part of the problem with running "large" champions groups is that everyone has a different view of comic books and super heroing. If you say you're going to play Fantasy everyone thinks LotR or Conan and they can all get on the same page relatively quickly. But, with Supers you have you golden-silver age mind sets, your gritty punisher-esk fans, character-specific fans and so on. OR you get the guy who wants to play a two-fisted street hero who gets by on his wits teamed up with Devil-Tron the Soulgrinder of K'Laarg whose recent actions were only mistaken for doo-goodery (and he can move mountains with his mind).

My worst case scenario with this was back in the 90's with a 8 player group in what was supposed to be a 4-color campaign (main purpose was to familiarize everyone with the rules for future campaigns). About half the team had come up with serious characters, although two of them had the exact same character (speedsters) with different dressing. The other 4 had ideas for cartoony or shtick characters (no personality, just one joke ponies with some super powers). Of the guys with real ideas, 3/4 were brooding loners who had no reason to want to team up for anything more than a one-off.

Oddly enough the game went pretty well. A few players eventually made minor changes to their existing characters once they got into the game or brought in new dudes once they got a feel for the campaign. I didn't make them change, I just ran it as-is and eventually the arrived on the same page.

One funny thing was: At the end of a major story arc there was a big debate over lethality between the CVK and the Casual Killer which led to the CVKer turning an unconscious Casual Killer over tho his hunted (secret government agency). This split my group into 2 smaller groups and a spin-off campiagn started with a player escaping from the evil shadow agency. The Spin-off campaign turned out to be way more fun and only had 4 players (waaay easier to manage in champions).

For my current campaign, we knew we wanted to play Hero system but all i had was a few half-formed ideas, so I jotted the basics of each idea down and let my players vote (prioritizing favorites 1-3). Once they picked the genre I did the same with a few game elements (tone, power level, group origin or not, etc..). This campaign has been going strong since April of '08. I think working with the players helped to make something that they were all interested in.