Number Crunching Vs Roleplaying

[BlacKlily]

I run a large group of 9, I have both my number Crunchers, and my Role-players, for this reason I do story driven campaigns with high action. But occasionally usually after one of my number crunchers do a mighty stunt in combat, the rolplayers get peeved and start whining about character power.
So over the years I have put caps on starting powers and stats and even taking the time to tell the role-players how do some of the basic number crunching tricks.
From this I have learned that building the character properly in the first place to follow or grow into your hero's concept is actually far more powerful then a cool concept.
Opinions?

[Doug McCrae]

I don't like the big power imbalance you get in Champions between players that know the char gen system inside out and those that don't. Or as you put it - number crunchers and roleplayers.

One solution our last GM used was to get plain English character descriptions from the players then do all the stats himself. This works pretty well IMO.

[Tamashii2000]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
I don't like the big power imbalance you get in Champions between players that know the char gen system inside out and those that don't. Or as you put it - number crunchers and roleplayers.

One solution our last GM used was to get plain English character descriptions from the players then do all the stats himself. This works pretty well IMO.

I did that once, got discriptions of all the characters and tried to create them for them. worked pretty good except in one case.

[Tech]

Originally posted by BlacKlily
I run a large group of 9, I have both my number Crunchers, and my Role-players, for this reason I do story driven campaigns with high action. But occasionally usually after one of my number crunchers do a mighty stunt in combat, the rolplayers get peeved and start whining about character power.
So over the years I have put caps on starting powers and stats and even taking the time to tell the role-players how do some of the basic number crunching tricks.
From this I have learned that building the character properly in the first place to follow or grow into your hero's concept is actually far more powerful then a cool concept. Opinions?

I see so many valid points that you've brought up but have mixed reactions, but not due to me disagreeing. I certainly agree with you: a well-founded and sound concept can certainly allow more character growth that one that isn't. A cool concept on the other hand, can also allow a great deal of growth because the player has a character he or she enjoys. In both cases however, the character must be well-built and in concept. I suppose this means I agree with caps that they're a good idea. However, I have no such hard limits in my campaign and it still works. I should say I have all veteran players except for one teenager, who's the daughter of the veteran player.

I have a character who would probably cause some howling among some of you because a couple of her powers are well over 100 and 200 active points, though greatly limited, approved by the GM. No, I didn't try to sneak it through - I was quite open about it. Still, there are a lot of players out there who aren't veteran players and play bags-of-points and not concepts, players who care only to smash the villain and rake in the experience, players who think that their characters shouldn't be limited by the GM and I feel for those who have those players in their campaigns. (I ran into one, once... for which I still regret it.)

Whether a high-powered character or low-powered, a well thought-out concept beats points anyday.

[Killer Shrike]

Tech: Many players see thier characters as bag-o-points, and most of them are veterans. I bounce them right out of the group or screen them before they see play. I've found that 1 rabid power monger can ruin the game for everyone else in the past and just dont permit it anymore.


General Topic: As the GM I screen all characters for playability, considering both RP and combat effectiveness. This helps to minimize the OMG character who outstrips the other characters. It still occasionally happens, usually once a character has had the opportunity to take a basically balanced suite of powers, and optimize the character to accentuate their strengths and/or minimize weaknesses, pushing the character into the red zone in the process.

[bwdemon]

My opinion on this is that players can be both number crunchers & roleplayers... the two aren't mutually excludable and some people will truly be neither. Competency (or a lack thereof) does not define the depth of a role or the ability of a player to execute it.

That said, I agree that caps on power levels will help somewhat. However, this will allow the number crunchers to diversify, creating characters with fewer deficiencies. So there'll still be a difference, it'll just be in the number of ways that a given character will be useful.

One of the things I've toyed with is setting aside points at character generation that *have* to be used on noncombat/background skills. This doesn't hinder well-developed characters at all and it enforces at least a little depth on the worst of the shallow number-crunchers.

On the flip side of that, make sure that the roleplayers aren't making superheroes without the "super". If the average VIPER agent is a bigger combat threat than the character, then maybe they should work on that aspect a bit. If they spend all of their points on noncombat powers & skills and whine about someone who put more points into combat powers & skills, then they've got nobody to blame but themselves. They built the character the way they wanted to, after all.

Finally, I'd like to add that many roleplayers are as guilty of number-crunching as the worst "Hulk Smash!" brick. I can't begin to tell you how many people I've seen carrying the banner (cross?) of roleplaying while controlling a character with enough social skill to unite the world with nothing more than a smile. These are the characters with 21- skills in things like Oratory, Persuasion, and Seduction. They can get anyone to do anything so long as they can get them to look at or hear them for a couple of seconds. It's incredibly powerful, but in a sneaky way. Do the roleplayers really not know the system or are they just abusing it in a different way?

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae

One solution our last GM used was to get plain English character descriptions from the players then do all the stats himself. This works pretty well IMO.

This is one I have heard before, and I just don't understand. Part of what I love about HERO is the ability to build the character exactly as I envision it. If I had a GM that insisted on building the characters himself, I would think strongly of not playing- I would not have any kind of connection to the character. My relationship with my character begins at concepts and grows to fruition during building. Sort of like a baby, if someone else builds it, there is sort of a surrigate mother feeling, the sneaking feeling that this character is not mine.
Having characters someone else builds is fine for Con games or one shots but for a continuing game I just can't understand it.
Now if the the GM is having balance problems, let me know what and where and I will be perfectly happy to stay within these guidlines. I once built a character with a medium sized cosmic pool (about 30 points). After the first adventure, it became clear that he was just too versatile for the game, and I asked the GM to let me retire the character and build a new one.

[JohnOSpencer]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
I don't like the big power imbalance you get in Champions between players that know the char gen system inside out and those that don't. Or as you put it - number crunchers and roleplayers.

One solution our last GM used was to get plain English character descriptions from the players then do all the stats himself. This works pretty well IMO.

I tried to do this with my current party. I asked them to tell me their character concept and I would help them build their characters. With the exception of the one I live with, they all handed me finished characters! I was able to help them fine-tune their characters, so I guess it ended the same.

My point is this: The player and the GM should co-operate to make a character. This way no-one is less powerful(unless they want to be) and no one steps on anyone elses toes.
IMO, YMMV

John Spencer

[Peregrine]

Player-GM cooperation? What a concept! And here I thought that it was the GM's job to put the players in their place, to keep their characters weak and mewling as the world around them proves their worthlessness.

\sarcasm off

[Klytus]

In our group, there are only 2 of us that really understand the ins and outs of the Hero system - both from the rules and years of RP experience. This is why we usually work with the others when they design a character. The player in question describes a character concept, and we all sit down at the computer with Creator (I don't have Hero Designer yet) and we start plugging in the numbers and using our best design tricks. It works very well for us. The only complaints we get are regarding the difference between an imagined concept, what looked good on paper, but doesn't work in game. No one ever fusses about "His character is better than mine!"

[BlacKlily]

Personally as a Gm I favor the ones who roleplay. So even the few hard core number crunchers I have now work to round out thier character more. The number crunchers often help the more Role oriented players with streamlining thier characters and using the rules...all expect one...who refuses help from anyone then gripes later.
I have found over the years that by starting limits, and asking the number crunchers to help the roleplayers with steamlining characters I get a great mix....except for the one guy who just will not accept help and is sure he knows everything. That is the player who miss quotes rules often, and wants to be the center of attention in all things.
However he coined these two phrases and started the same disscussion I started here on our groups game site...and well it got me thinking about my style as a player and GM.
To be honest he has really has forced me to keep on my toes and provide a very interactive game. Just sometimes it is so exhusting.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by JohnOSpencer

My point is this: The player and the GM should co-operate to make a character. This way no-one is less powerful(unless they want to be) and no one steps on anyone elses toes.
IMO, YMMV

John Spencer

This is what I try and do with any game I start. I work with my players in building thier characters. The experienced builders go at it, and I look over and make world specific suggestions, and the people that are a little more unfamiliar with the system and I pull up to the computer pull out FREd and fire up HD.

[RadeFox]

Im in the GM should help out Pool. It is after the GM who knows best what the game world is like, and how the story line is planned to go (which I know usually changes, but still!). If you see all the characters sitting before you before you play, and you damn well better as the GM! You should KNOW which ones are good, solid, and do-able, and which ones are likely to have little to do, and be constantly overshadowed. If you had a hand in the whole creation process, then the defficiencies of a character are likely minor and easily redone with some points crunching to bring them up to par with the rest of the group, and of course, in line with their foes.

[Tech]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Tech: Many players see thier characters as bag-o-points, and most of them are veterans. I bounce them right out of the group or screen them before they see play. I've found that 1 rabid power monger can ruin the game for everyone else in the past and just dont permit it anymore.

I would have to disagree with you based only on my experience, although I will add that my veteran players are also good roleplaying veterans. Perhaps my experience is rare but I've found that those players who understand roleplaying and stop grabbing for the points become the very best. Based on my experience alone, good roleplayers can handle powerful, low-point, simple and complex characters. The GM (me, in this case) doesn't have to worry about a point war or worry about raving players because someone pulled off an incredibly heroic act with a big power.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Tech
I would have to disagree with you based only on my experience, although I will add that my veteran players are also good roleplaying veterans. Perhaps my experience is rare but I've found that those players who understand roleplaying and stop grabbing for the points become the very best. Based on my experience alone, good roleplayers can handle powerful, low-point, simple and complex characters. The GM (me, in this case) doesn't have to worry about a point war or worry about raving players because someone pulled off an incredibly heroic act with a big power. What I mean is that you are more likely to run into point-whores among those who are familiar with the HERO System than among those who are not, because the very concept of point-whoring is outside the ken of gamers that have never played a point-based game before.

IME, having dealt with dozens of players in the context of HERO's campaigns, is that players new to the system, even if they are powergamers, are much less likely to catch on to the various "heroisms" that are exploitable within the system than veteran HEROs players.

The guy thats never played HEROs might try to cheese out a Disadvantage or Limitation here or there, but it takes an old-skool Champions grog to sit down and build an Elemental Control abusing min-maxed collection of random abilities right off the bat.

[Tech]

Killer Shrike, you'll hear no disagreement from me here. You are so correct. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, those who know the system well can really pull some horrible rabbits out of the ol' magic hat, so to speak. Y'know something, it's kinda sad, too.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Tech
Killer Shrike, you'll hear no disagreement from me here. You are so correct. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, those who know the system well can really pull some horrible rabbits out of the ol' magic hat, so to speak. Y'know something, it's kinda sad, too. Its unfortunate, and short sighted.

What people like that seem incapable of understanding is that when they "cheat the system" they are really just cheating themselves. If they make unbalanced characters they just unbalance the game and ultimately ruin the fun for everyone.

I think it stems from adversarial mentalities; they are out to "win" or "beat the game", totally missing the point that the game is just cooperative storytelling. There is no winner or loser in the competitive sense. Ultimately everyone "wins" or "loses" together -- if the game was fun then everyone wins, else everyone loses. :(

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
This is one I have heard before, and I just don't understand. Part of what I love about HERO is the ability to build the character exactly as I envision it.
...
After the first adventure, it became clear that he was just too versatile for the game, and I asked the GM to let me retire the character and build a new one. You're a good player, Lord Mhoram.

I see where you're coming from here, but what other solution is there? Few players have your sensitivity. What's the GM to do about the gross-out monster that doesn't realise he's hurting the game?

[Doug McCrae]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, is a big power imbalance necessarily a bad thing? I mean what if player A is a rabid min-maxer but players B, C and D don't care?

Now, myself, if I was player B-D, I'd have a big big problem if player A was, in addition to being a power gamer, an asshole. If he used his power to bully the other PCs and give them less game time (the worst thing you can do to another player, whatever method you use) I would have a problem. But if player A was a nice guy and used his power with a strong measure of sensitivity, then I wouldn't mind.

It all depends who you play with.

[WhammeWhamme]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, is a big power imbalance necessarily a bad thing? I mean what if player A is a rabid min-maxer but players B, C and D don't care?

Now, myself, if I was player B-D, I'd have a big big problem if player A was, in addition to being a power gamer, an asshole. If he used his power to bully the other PCs and give them less game time (the worst thing you can do to another player, whatever method you use) I would have a problem. But if player A was a nice guy and used his power with a strong measure of sensitivity, then I wouldn't mind.

It all depends who you play with.

Since I am beginning to suspect I have Psych Lim: Devil's Advocate...:

Totally. I mean, look at a(ny) classic team: there is always power imbalance. As long as everyone is treated fairly, there's no hard feelings. Ifthere's a spot-hog, in source or replication, there's a problem.

Rule of thumb: If you talk more than the GM, SHUT UP!

[Agent X]

Sometimes, numbers crunching is necessary just to get close to what you are trying to build... for role playing reasons.

[zarglif69]

What all this? this too complicated for me. me brick. me not know what roleplay is. All I know is throw truck, smash bad guy.

[Vondy]

A persons ability to role play isn't impacted by whether or not they are a number cruncher.

The two skills are mutually exclusive and can be present or absent in an individual simultaneously or indivudiually.

Its what you do with the character after the numbers have been crunched that matters.

Number crunching is a design time funtion. Role playing is a run time function.

[Insaniac99]

agreed D-man, I myself try to come up with fun concepts but at the same time, whenever i look at a character sheet, I can just sense potential and eak out a few more points and tighten that nut a tiny bit more, but then in games I role play (though for me, it take a little bit for me to REALLY get in character) and don't care about shining in battle.

[Gary]

The trouble with severe character imbalance is what it forces the GM to do. If he scales the villains to the weaker heroes, the stronger heroes will crush them. It he scales the villains to the stronger ones, the weaker ones get knocked out or killed in the first 2 phases.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
The trouble with severe character imbalance is what it forces the GM to do. If he scales the villains to the weaker heroes, the stronger heroes will crush them. It he scales the villains to the stronger ones, the weaker ones get knocked out or killed in the first 2 phases. You know, if a lot of design schemes are floated and people don't turn their noses up because the way some other guy built their character wasn't "aesthetically pleasing" the game often generates a great deal of excitement from the sheer unpredictability of a broad range of speeds and damage classes and defenses. If I'm the GM and one guy is a speedster with the brass to have a 12 speed you better believe that most of my villains are going to realize he is one of the first ones who needs to go down. Speed 4 Tortoise Man may just sneak under the radar.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
You know, if a lot of design schemes are floated and people don't turn their noses up because the way some other guy built their character wasn't "aesthetically pleasing" the game often generates a great deal of excitement from the sheer unpredictability of a broad range of speeds and damage classes and defenses. If I'm the GM and one guy is a speedster with the brass to have a 12 speed you better believe that most of my villains are going to realize he is one of the first ones who needs to go down. Speed 4 Tortoise Man may just sneak under the radar.

I'm talking about severe imbalance of power. IOW, Speed Demon has 12 SPD, greater attacks, higher DCV, and higher defenses than Tortoise. Any villains that could whack Speed Demon would laugh at Tortoise.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae

One solution our last GM used was to get plain English character descriptions from the players then do all the stats himself. This works pretty well IMO.

This works great as an option for the players. When I GM, I offer to build characters for them from a description, if they like. Some prefer to build the characters themselves, others with me doing the number-crunching. Either way is fine with me - whatever they find most enjoyable. It's a game, and everybody is supposed to be having fun. If a GM took character creation away from ME, I'd be looking for something else to do that evening. For some of us, designing characters is a large part of the game experience.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
You're a good player, Lord Mhoram.

I see where you're coming from here, but what other solution is there? Few players have your sensitivity. What's the GM to do about the gross-out monster that doesn't realise he's hurting the game?

*Blushes* I try. I've GMed for too many years not to see what another GM may be going through due to my actions.

As to what solution. That is a tough one. I have been increadibly lucky for the last 13 years I have not had a bad player in the entire time. Well, a couple but they drifted out within 2 or 3 sessions. So I can usually just talk to them and say "Hey, the character isn't working, it's messing up my fun and some other player's, let's see what we can do to fix that, while keeping the character the way you want it."

When that isn't available having the GM build them seems overkill, but rather that than no one having fun.

[MoonHunter]

Make the skills and abilities of your troupe work for you, rather than against you. I tend to pair up my "number crunchers" and my roleplayers. EAch one is supposed to "coach" the other in their specialty. This has resulted in a) less intraplayer conflict as the roleplaying natzi whine about the non roleplayers, b) improves the mechanics of the characters, so the roleplayers don't feel underpowered, and c) made everyone a better player all around.

Even with this, I think the GM needs to be involved in every aspect of the character, its design, and its development. I am not advocating GMs creating the character. I am advocating that the GM take into consideration, the campaign, the storylines, and who is playing the character, when approving a character or any EP expenditure.

The players need a good reason to buy new abilities and skills. They should have in game reasons (or be in the magikal list of things I should of had in the begining, but did not have enough points).

I approved one player a post ms. marvel Rogue character. After some tweaking to make it actually fit that level of conception, I let it in the game. Our power gamer complained that his characters get the 3rd degree and that I would never let him have a character like that.
I said, "That's right. I can trust her not to abuse the character's abilities and mangle the campaign. If I gave that character to you, that is exactly what would happen. You would suck down the entire team, swipe King Arthur's focus and take on the universe." He nodded.

Experience point expenditures need to be checked on. One of my players kept adding a point here and there... to take advantage of some roundings with limitations. When you did the raw math, you found out he was a few points short. You need to check these things.

Just some semi-random thoughts.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Gary
I'm talking about severe imbalance of power. IOW, Speed Demon has 12 SPD, greater attacks, higher DCV, and higher defenses than Tortoise. Any villains that could whack Speed Demon would laugh at Tortoise. Sure that's true to an extent, but that's why GMs build villain teams. I wouldn't allow a such a grossly imbalanced character into my game in the first place even were one of my players to try to bring him into the game. In any case it's not hard to manipulate each hero into squaring off against an appropriate opponent; we do it all the time in my campaign. Indeed, we 3 GMs deliberately try to design villains who are good and logical opponents for the heroes. It's not hard to do usually. Only two of our current team can fly, so aerial villains generally get the attention of our good flyer by default. Our brick flies, but she's usually needed against the villain's brick on the ground. And sometimes we just outright manipulate events to get the heroes into clashes with their foes. I'm running just such a scenario later today. :D

[Kristopher]

When it comes to number crunching vs role-playing, I prefer the latter, but often find I have to do the former in order to make a character last long enough to bother with. I know it doesn't bother some people, but I can't stand putting gobs of work into the role-playing aspects of a character, only to have him or her taken out.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Sure that's true to an extent, but that's why GMs build villain teams. I wouldn't allow a such a grossly imbalanced character into my game in the first place even were one of my players to try to bring him into the game. In any case it's not hard to manipulate each hero into squaring off against an appropriate opponent; we do it all the time in my campaign. Indeed, we 3 GMs deliberately try to design villains who are good and logical opponents for the heroes. It's not hard to do usually. Only two of our current team can fly, so aerial villains generally get the attention of our good flyer by default. Our brick flies, but she's usually needed against the villain's brick on the ground. And sometimes we just outright manipulate events to get the heroes into clashes with their foes. I'm running just such a scenario later today. :D

What happens when 2 of the "ubers" square off and one of them takes out the other quickly (perhaps by a high stun multiple). Then you get the situation where a powerhouse is free to start nuking some of the "lessers"?

Anyway, it sounds from what you've described before that most members of your team are well balanced relative to each other. I've been in campaigns where there were clearly "haves" and "have nots". The GM had to do a lot of fudging and kludges to make it work.

[Polaris]

First off, excellent topic! This is something that our group has been going round and round in, and is the main reason that some in our group want to switch away to a less mathematical system. We have a large RP troupe (we have several games going on of various genres, and players within the troupe play in the ones they want).

Here are some things we have tried and what happened:

1. We tried the "you provide a description, and the GM will assign stats". I liked this idea, but we ran into some problems with people asking for guidance on what would be appropriate or too strong (would I be too strong if I could lift a battleship over my head?). The GM (and the rest of us) finally got tired of that.

2. One of the role players (she knows little about the system, and is FAR more concerned about role playing and seeing how her character can overcome adversity and challenge than how quickly she can smite the villain) pointed out "it doesn't matter how powerful the other players are relative to yours... you aren't going to be fighting THEM". This was great in theory, but it didn't always work in practice (the 'number cruchers' tended to steal all the glory).

3. We are presently trying a "just make your character, and don't worry about the points". After the players make their character, a GM is going to look it over and make sure that it is roughly in line with the group. This way, it is not an exercise of how you can squeeze points. Since we are just starting this, I don't know how it is going to work.

While playing Fuzion (which is what brought our group to Champions), we had the Rule of X, and that seemed to work very well in our group. We have always, and continue, to have limits on Active Points in a power.

Polaris

[Enforcer84]

in the end, I always thought that the active point limit was the way to go. It allows everyone the opporotunity to start off "even" as far as hitting power, defensive ability and mobility. They don't have to but it generally ends up that way. Plus the GM can plan for things because he knows that things aren't going to get past his level of comfort for a bit. After you have gained xp, all bets are off, though and characters can sprout in different ways.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
I'm talking about severe imbalance of power. IOW, Speed Demon has 12 SPD, greater attacks, higher DCV, and higher defenses than Tortoise. Any villains that could whack Speed Demon would laugh at Tortoise. So, you cater to Tortoise in your game a little. Set up circumstances where Tortoise has an opportunity to use his environment to win when Speed Demon's brute power can't. I agree that there is a point where the difference is too extreme but I think most games move the other way much more often and end up too "mediocre."

[Agent X]

I hate the active point limit. Some power constructs are vastly more expensive active point wise than they will be effective. I think the "GM lookover" is a much better method of making sure things are okay - assuming your GM knows their stuff.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Agent X
I hate the active point limit. Some power constructs are vastly more expensive active point wise than they will be effective. I think the "GM lookover" is a much better method of making sure things are okay - assuming your GM knows their stuff.

Still, you could use a certain limit of active points as a "red flag" to help you spot problems. Not a hard cap, just something to help you out.

No?

[Insaniac99]

Originally posted by Gary
The trouble with severe character imbalance is what it forces the GM to do. If he scales the villains to the weaker heroes, the stronger heroes will crush them. It he scales the villains to the stronger ones, the weaker ones get knocked out or killed in the first 2 phases.

sorry, i disagree, that is partly due to lazy GMing, i am running a campaign where there are people with 100-200 point in defferance some times more, sometimes less. and you jsut need to have villians of differant power levels like in the comics, the big guys duke it out, while the little guys go off and play, i mean in my game, i have lots of agenst that ANYONE can jsut pummel, and then supers of varying power levels, the weakest of them all, gets to feel useful because they can easily take out the agents, and the agents, if left alone, can realy hurt the supers and then the combat thugs usually aren't as good out of combat, so you let that detective shine for a bit, and stuff. you just have to do a little more work, and get the players to realise when they have to pair off to their own dude.

[Insaniac99]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Still, you could use a certain limit of active points as a "red flag" to help you spot problems. Not a hard cap, just something to help you out.

No?

agreed, in my campaign, I said, "as a general rule start with an active point limit of X, but if you want a power, and it goes over, ask me and i might allow it"

then again, most of my players have a nova attack, it will kill or almost kill anyone, but the characters are completely wiped by useing it, and my players rarely use them.

[Doug McCrae]

Currently I run my superhero games something like systemless, I don't actually use Champions at all. The method for power balance I used in my last campaign was just asking the players to try to construct characters of roughly equal power. This worked pretty well but only because they were a decent bunch of people.

In Champions if you applied this approach, would you consider junking the point totals altogether? Instead you could have a couple of sample characters to use as a power-level guide.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Insaniac99
you just need to have villians of differant power levels like in the comics, the big guys duke it out, while the little guys go off and play
Bingo. I've been in games that are similar. It takes a bit more work and player understanding to enforce Genre.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Gary
Anyway, it sounds from what you've described before that most members of your team are well balanced relative to each other. I've been in campaigns where there were clearly "haves" and "have nots". The GM had to do a lot of fudging and kludges to make it work. Our group works hard to avoid stepping on each others toes. Each player respects the shtick of the other players' characters. Our brick is slow with a fairly low DEX (4 SPD, 23 DEX), but has respectively tremendous defenses (33 PD) and the biggest attack (14d6). My MA is blindingly fast and seldom misses (9 SPD, 43 DEX), but has the smallest attack (10d6 max, 8d6 is normal attack) and very low defenses (12 PD). Everyone else falls somewhere in between. It works out pretty well, but I'll be the first to admit not every group can pull this off. We're very picky about who we invite into our game. I find that saves us a lot of trouble. :)

[RadeFox]

Wow, A brick with 4 spd and 23 Dex, and your calling him slow/fairly low?? Good lords, well I suppose compared to the 43(!!!) Dex MA, he would be. Sounds like that campaign is seriously 4 color mega-heroes! I know I'd hate to fight anything that could challenge them!

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by RadeFox
Wow, A brick with 4 spd and 23 Dex, and your calling him slow/fairly low?? Good lords, well I suppose compared to the 43(!!!) Dex MA, he would be. Sounds like that campaign is seriously 4 color mega-heroes! I know I'd hate to fight anything that could challenge them! We are indeed a four color campaign (Still 350 point base, though most of our characters have about 30 XP now.), where our characters are the campaign equivalent of the Avengers or the Justice League. The 23 DEX of our brick isn't even our lowest DEX; we have two SPD 5 DEX 20 characters as well as a SPD 4 DEX 20 powered armor type. It works out pretty well. Our second-tier MA has a SPD 6 DEX 29, but he hits much harder (13d6), has 40% higher defenses and has other semi-mystical powers. On the other hand really I enjoy my MA having a 22- Acrobatics roll. :)

Our brick, by the way, defies convention two ways: 1) She's female. 2) She's our team scientist, with a 28 INT. :D

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Still, you could use a certain limit of active points as a "red flag" to help you spot problems. Not a hard cap, just something to help you out.

No? Now that makes sense.

[BoloOfEarth]

Alternately, you could set an active point cap for all powers except 1-2 "specials". A "special" could be a Nova attack that wipes the character out, or a Once-A-Blue-Moon attack that is severely limited in other ways (Only vs. Dragons or some such). The GM puts extra attention on approving the "special" attack, including all EP expenditures (to make sure the limitations on END or frequency-of-use don't get bought down or off).

Never really tried this, mind you; I had hard active point caps for over a decade, and turned 180 and am trying a no-caps campaign right now.

IME, those who number-crunch and point-shave their characters are more combat monsters, while those who don't care about such mundane tasks are more interested in the noncombat game aspects. Not a hard-and-fast division, but generally it seems that way to me. Also, IME, the number cruncher is the one (at least in my campaign) who spends points on skills that will only be useful once a decade, but fit the character concept.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Insaniac99
sorry, i disagree, that is partly due to lazy GMing, i am running a campaign where there are people with 100-200 point in defferance some times more, sometimes less. and you jsut need to have villians of differant power levels like in the comics, the big guys duke it out, while the little guys go off and play, i mean in my game, i have lots of agenst that ANYONE can jsut pummel, and then supers of varying power levels, the weakest of them all, gets to feel useful because they can easily take out the agents, and the agents, if left alone, can realy hurt the supers and then the combat thugs usually aren't as good out of combat, so you let that detective shine for a bit, and stuff. you just have to do a little more work, and get the players to realise when they have to pair off to their own dude.

Let's take a simple example. Suppose the hero team consists of Superman and Robin. You as GM create villains who are equal matches for them. Let's call your villains Braniac and Penguin for the sake of argument and let's have them match up vs the heroes.

There are 6 possibilities:

1 and 2) Either the heroes win at about the same time or the villains win at about the same time. No problem.

3) Superman beats Braniac first. He then helps out and clobbers Penguin in 1 phase. Robin feels useless.

4) Braniac beats Superman first. Braniac then clobbers Robin in 1 phase. Robin feels useless.

5) Robin beats Penguin first. Robin tries to help out vs Braniac, but quickly realizes that his best attack barely does any damage (Braniac has the defenses to go toe to toe with Superman after all). Robin feels useless.

6) Penguin beats Robin first. Penguin tries to help out vs Superman, but can't dent his defenses. Robin feels useless as he realizes that keeping Penguin occupied didn't help his side at all.

[Gary]

What might be a good idea would be a Normal Power Maxima analogous to Normal Characteristic Maxima. If you have a 50 pt NPM, then costs double after 50.

This is actually fair because those last couple of dice are essentially equal to NND dice.

You could even combine it with NCM. For example, a character who chose to take NCM might be allowed a 10 pt higher NPM than characters without NCM. Of course under this variant, NCM is worth 0 as a limitation.

Another option is to give frameworks lower NPMs than single powers. A multipower might have a 50 pt NPM while a single energy blast has a 60 pt NPM. Multipowers are already tremendously efficient.

People could still customize their characters, but they would simply pay more if they want to be significantly more powerful.

[Insaniac99]

Originally posted by Gary
Let's take a simple example. Suppose the hero team consists of Superman and Robin. You as GM create villains who are equal matches for them. Let's call your villains Braniac and Penguin for the sake of argument and let's have them match up vs the heroes.

There are 6 possibilities:

1 and 2) Either the heroes win at about the same time or the villains win at about the same time. No problem.

3) Superman beats Braniac first. He then helps out and clobbers Penguin in 1 phase. Robin feels useless.

4) Braniac beats Superman first. Braniac then clobbers Robin in 1 phase. Robin feels useless.

5) Robin beats Penguin first. Robin tries to help out vs Braniac, but quickly realizes that his best attack barely does any damage (Braniac has the defenses to go toe to toe with Superman after all). Robin feels useless.

6) Penguin beats Robin first. Penguin tries to help out vs Superman, but can't dent his defenses. Robin feels useless as he realizes that keeping Penguin occupied didn't help his side at all.

this is where you bring in the Cinematic gameplay, you fudge a few rolls once in a while, and, the heros won't win the batles all the time, additionally, the high powered characters genneraly have alot more stun than the other players, so unless something really lucky happens, they will be up longer.

another problem you seem to be having is that you are only thinking in directly damaging terms so lets go over your points:

1 and 2: no problem like you said, but they shouldn't be likely to happen if they really are that much more powerful.

3: again not that likely to happen, but what you do is either bring in another guy (a villian is watching them and joins up the combat) OR pengiun uses his otehr stuff, like a poisen gas, superman, being suprised takes a breath and is sent into coughs even though no permanant damage is done and robin keeps working on penguin since he is smart enough to know his enemy's ploys and has his gas mask on.

4: Robin whips out a gas grenade (he will get another action before brainiac can do anything) and hides himself and superman, he then helps superman and they retreat untill supes is better, robin feels useful because he saved Superman's life, even if the villians got away.

5: robin decides not to use directly damaging attacks against Brainiac, and instead uses his flash or smoke grenades to blind Brainiac, which allows Superman a opening to whomp on Brainiac, superman then thanks robin for istracting him.

6: penguin uses his special tricks like sleeping gas and stuff, that robin (because f his knowledge of his enemies) can defend against, like a gas mask against the sleeping gas. superman, unprepared for this, is cought unawares and robin realises that keeping penguin occupied worked well even if he was defeated.

remember that batman/superman cartoon movie? two totally differant power levels, but joker takes out superman like he is nothing because he is SO differant from what superman ran into that he didn't expect anything like him and batman saves his butt. that is a good example, because that is how you would run a campaign of diferant powerlevels., it just requires out of the box thinking, and a little more work.

there are lots more ways that the situations could be handled, but i just typed this up really wuickly, I'm sure the other's can add more if they want.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Insaniac99
this is where you bring in the Cinematic gameplay, you fudge a few rolls once in a while, and, the heros won't win the batles all the time, additionally, the high powered characters genneraly have alot more stun than the other players, so unless something really lucky happens, they will be up longer.

another problem you seem to be having is that you are only thinking in directly damaging terms so lets go over your points:

1 and 2: no problem like you said, but they shouldn't be likely to happen if they really are that much more powerful.

3: again not that likely to happen, but what you do is either bring in another guy (a villian is watching them and joins up the combat) OR pengiun uses his otehr stuff, like a poisen gas, superman, being suprised takes a breath and is sent into coughs even though no permanant damage is done and robin keeps working on penguin since he is smart enough to know his enemy's ploys and has his gas mask on.

4: Robin whips out a gas grenade (he will get another action before brainiac can do anything) and hides himself and superman, he then helps superman and they retreat untill supes is better, robin feels useful because he saved Superman's life, even if the villians got away.

5: robin decides not to use directly damaging attacks against Brainiac, and instead uses his flash or smoke grenades to blind Brainiac, which allows Superman a opening to whomp on Brainiac, superman then thanks robin for istracting him.

6: penguin uses his special tricks like sleeping gas and stuff, that robin (because f his knowledge of his enemies) can defend against, like a gas mask against the sleeping gas. superman, unprepared for this, is cought unawares and robin realises that keeping penguin occupied worked well even if he was defeated.

remember that batman/superman cartoon movie? two totally differant power levels, but joker takes out superman like he is nothing because he is SO differant from what superman ran into that he didn't expect anything like him and batman saves his butt. that is a good example, because that is how you would run a campaign of diferant powerlevels., it just requires out of the box thinking, and a little more work.

there are lots more ways that the situations could be handled, but i just typed this up really wuickly, I'm sure the other's can add more if they want. Good points. There's no reason to get caught up in straight out damage dealing and not think about the intangibles.

[lemming]

As an example of differing power levels:
I ran a massive crossover in a shared universe. The teams involved heroes that could throw 60d6 to ones that topped out at 14d6.
The final combat involved everyone. Most people were running 3-4 characters plus a smattering of DNPCs. I did have a chart for people so that they could go for power level appropriate opponents. In most cases it worked. The Master Villian was knocked out by one of the DNPCs of a lower tiered hero. She had gotten hold of an agent weapon and rolled well.
One of the reasons it worked for us, was there was plenty of room to work. It would be more difficult with two characters, but Insaniac99 has many good points.

[Kristopher]

The GM shouldn't have to "fudge and nudge" on a regular basis. If you have to overrule the dice multiple times every session, you haven't done your job very well. IMO.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Insaniac99
this is where you bring in the Cinematic gameplay, you fudge a few rolls once in a while, and, the heros won't win the batles all the time, additionally, the high powered characters genneraly have alot more stun than the other players, so unless something really lucky happens, they will be up longer.

High power characters do more damage in addition to having more stun. It's quite possible that they take each other out as fast or faster than the low power supers.


Originally posted by Insaniac99

another problem you seem to be having is that you are only thinking in directly damaging terms so lets go over your points:

I was keeping things simple.


Originally posted by Insaniac99

1 and 2: no problem like you said, but they shouldn't be likely to happen if they really are that much more powerful.

3: again not that likely to happen, but what you do is either bring in another guy (a villian is watching them and joins up the combat) OR pengiun uses his otehr stuff, like a poisen gas, superman, being suprised takes a breath and is sent into coughs even though no permanant damage is done and robin keeps working on penguin since he is smart enough to know his enemy's ploys and has his gas mask on.

Superman has full life support and flies. If this happened in the comics where Penguin takes out Superman with poison gas, the readers would howl. There has already been many threads screaming about continuity and consistency in comics.


Originally posted by Insaniac99

4: Robin whips out a gas grenade (he will get another action before brainiac can do anything) and hides himself and superman, he then helps superman and they retreat untill supes is better, robin feels useful because he saved Superman's life, even if the villians got away.

How is he doing this? He's still occupied with Penguin. Not to mention Braniac flies, has full life support, and goes first. And 1 action from Braniac is enough to take out Robin.


Originally posted by Insaniac99

5: robin decides not to use directly damaging attacks against Brainiac, and instead uses his flash or smoke grenades to blind Brainiac, which allows Superman a opening to whomp on Brainiac, superman then thanks robin for istracting him.

Braniac has enhanced senses and probably flash defense. In the comics, there is literally nothing that Robin could do to him. Remember, he's tough enough to take on Superman head to head. And he flies.


Originally posted by Insaniac99

6: penguin uses his special tricks like sleeping gas and stuff, that robin (because f his knowledge of his enemies) can defend against, like a gas mask against the sleeping gas. superman, unprepared for this, is cought unawares and robin realises that keeping penguin occupied worked well even if he was defeated.

See 3 above.


Originally posted by Insaniac99

remember that batman/superman cartoon movie? two totally differant power levels, but joker takes out superman like he is nothing because he is SO differant from what superman ran into that he didn't expect anything like him and batman saves his butt. that is a good example, because that is how you would run a campaign of diferant powerlevels., it just requires out of the box thinking, and a little more work.

there are lots more ways that the situations could be handled, but i just typed this up really wuickly, I'm sure the other's can add more if they want.

This type of thing only works if it's a cooperative storytelling event where the dice don't apply. And it's assuming that the Superman character is mature enough to step away from the spotlight and give it to Robin. That's not always the case for players who would build a Superman in a campaign where Robins exist.

[Gary]

Originally posted by lemming
As an example of differing power levels:
I ran a massive crossover in a shared universe. The teams involved heroes that could throw 60d6 to ones that topped out at 14d6.
The final combat involved everyone. Most people were running 3-4 characters plus a smattering of DNPCs. I did have a chart for people so that they could go for power level appropriate opponents. In most cases it worked. The Master Villian was knocked out by one of the DNPCs of a lower tiered hero. She had gotten hold of an agent weapon and rolled well.
One of the reasons it worked for us, was there was plenty of room to work. It would be more difficult with two characters, but Insaniac99 has many good points.

Did any of the upper levels throw out 30D6 or 10D6 killing area effects?

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Gary
Did any of the upper levels throw out 30D6 or 10D6 killing area effects? Good point, Gary. If the uber-characters have area effects it could really screw things up. One prays if a big AE goes off in such a battle it would be selective but the more Guy Gardnerish personalities might decide to just 'sweep away the chaff'. All of it.

[Oruncrest]

Originally posted by Gary
Let's take a simple example. Suppose the hero team consists of Superman and Robin. You as GM create villains who are equal matches for them. Let's call your villains Braniac and Penguin for the sake of argument and let's have them match up vs the heroes.

There are 6 possibilities:

5) Robin beats Penguin first. Robin tries to help out vs Braniac, but quickly realizes that his best attack barely does any damage (Braniac has the defenses to go toe to toe with Superman after all). Robin feels useless.

More like:
5) Robin beats Penguin first. Realizing that he probably won't be able to cause Brainiac any damage (Braniac has the defenses to go toe to toe with Superman after all), Robin tries to find out what Brainiac & Penguin were up to, then puts a stop to their nefarious scheme while Superman puts the kibosh on Brainiac.

Success isn't necesarily determined by how many people you can beat up un a turn you know. And who knows, if there's some sort of equipment around that can stop or slow Brainiac down enough for Supes to clobber him, Robin would use it.

In fact, there's a Superman annual (#10 I believe) where robin does just that. Superman is wrapped up in the coils of a parasitic plant, the Black Mercy, and Mongul (who put Supes in that predicament, has just finished explaining what the Black Mercy is to Wonder Woman, Batman, and Robin and is wondering which of the three he should kill first.

While WW is punishing Mongul's fist mercilessly, Batman is getting the Black Mercy off of Superman. Robin tries to give Bats Monguls gloves (which Mongul had to use to handle the Black Mercy safely), but Batman ignores him and becomes the Black Mercy's next victim.

Superman wakes up. Robin points him in Mongul's direction and off Supes goes to open up a can of WhoopAss. Meanwhile, Robin uses Mongul's gloves to pull the Black Mercy off Batman (gotta love the glove) and goes off in the direction of the Supes/Mongul fight. Good thing too, 'cause Mongul had just gotten the upper hand when Robin shows up and drops the Black Mercy on him.

Useless? No. Even though Robin was well out of his weight class, he certainly wasn't useless.

[Insaniac99]

Originally posted by Gary
High power characters do more damage in addition to having more stun. It's quite possible that they take each other out as fast or faster than the low power supers.



I was keeping things simple.



Superman has full life support and flies. If this happened in the comics where Penguin takes out Superman with poison gas, the readers would howl. There has already been many threads screaming about continuity and consistency in comics.



How is he doing this? He's still occupied with Penguin. Not to mention Braniac flies, has full life support, and goes first. And 1 action from Braniac is enough to take out Robin.



Braniac has enhanced senses and probably flash defense. In the comics, there is literally nothing that Robin could do to him. Remember, he's tough enough to take on Superman head to head. And he flies.



See 3 above.



This type of thing only works if it's a cooperative storytelling event where the dice don't apply. And it's assuming that the Superman character is mature enough to step away from the spotlight and give it to Robin. That's not always the case for players who would build a Superman in a campaign where Robins exist.

I'm not gonna quibble because i don't read that many comics, and only really watch the TV shows.

the point is, you need to use your brain and get the players to use their brains, and not be thinking in terms of "my club will only break if i hit him with it, I'm useless" and instead think "well, i can't hurt brainiac, so how can I help Superman"

you do need players who are in this for fun, but I haven't had many problems at all


by Kristopher
The GM shouldn't have to "fudge and nudge" on a regular basis. If you have to overrule the dice multiple times every session, you haven't done your job very well. IMO.

so, you are telling me, that if after a huge run where the players are learning that {Insert Master Villian Everyone Should Be Afraid Of} is involved and face them in the big smackdown, you are telling me that you would let some lucky shot by a member to take {IMVESBAO} out in one hit? if you are you are only hurting the fun for their players, make {IMVESBAO} all the suddenhave a few more defenses, a bit more stun, or some damage reduction, or have some goons rush in to occupy the PC's time while {IMVESBAO} recovers and is back in the fight.

it may be the differance in my playstyle that creates this differance of opinion, I go in with at best a plot seed amount of information, and then let the players run with it taking everything in stride, then when they want the battle i jsut think up something that sounds OK to get them there, then i run a very cinematic type game, if you should be able to do it, you can even if you don't have it exactly in your character write up. I only gave my players a AP limit, and even that wasn't rigid, that was just a suggestion and i let quite a few powers that go over that, i just trust my players with this responsibility. it is a bit extra work for their battles, but it is worth it.

[BoloOfEarth]

Originally posted by Oruncrest

Success isn't necesarily determined by how many people you can beat up un a turn you know. And who knows, if there's some sort of equipment around that can stop or slow Brainiac down enough for Supes to clobber him, Robin would use it.


I agree. I was a player in a game where I was the lowest-powered, slowest character in the game. Heck, my character got taken out by an agent (Malvan trooper) of Firewing. In one shot.

Despite this, my character saved every other character in the game at least once, mostly because I was considered the lowest threat. As the slowest, I also had plenty of time to watch what was going on and figure out what the bad guys were *really* up to.

[Brandi]

Originally posted by Gary
Superman has full life support and flies. If this happened in the comics where Penguin takes out Superman with poison gas, the readers would howl.

Actually, I think Supes was retconned in the comics back to needing to breathe, and I'm quite sure in the animated series he needs to (he wear breathing equipment when travelling in space for sure).

I think previous comments on how Robin may have advantageous knowledge of Penguin's tactics compared to Supes are very relevant here, though there's always the problem that a given PC's player isn't quite as clever as his PC is supposed to be...

[Gary]

Originally posted by Oruncrest
More like:
5) Robin beats Penguin first. Realizing that he probably won't be able to cause Brainiac any damage (Braniac has the defenses to go toe to toe with Superman after all), Robin tries to find out what Brainiac & Penguin were up to, then puts a stop to their nefarious scheme while Superman puts the kibosh on Brainiac.

Success isn't necesarily determined by how many people you can beat up un a turn you know. And who knows, if there's some sort of equipment around that can stop or slow Brainiac down enough for Supes to clobber him, Robin would use it.

In fact, there's a Superman annual (#10 I believe) where robin does just that. Superman is wrapped up in the coils of a parasitic plant, the Black Mercy, and Mongul (who put Supes in that predicament, has just finished explaining what the Black Mercy is to Wonder Woman, Batman, and Robin and is wondering which of the three he should kill first.

While WW is punishing Mongul's fist mercilessly, Batman is getting the Black Mercy off of Superman. Robin tries to give Bats Monguls gloves (which Mongul had to use to handle the Black Mercy safely), but Batman ignores him and becomes the Black Mercy's next victim.

Superman wakes up. Robin points him in Mongul's direction and off Supes goes to open up a can of WhoopAss. Meanwhile, Robin uses Mongul's gloves to pull the Black Mercy off Batman (gotta love the glove) and goes off in the direction of the Supes/Mongul fight. Good thing too, 'cause Mongul had just gotten the upper hand when Robin shows up and drops the Black Mercy on him.

Useless? No. Even though Robin was well out of his weight class, he certainly wasn't useless.

Yeah, but does this happen consistently in the comics?

Remember, we're talking about a PC team where Superman and Robin are going to be in virtually every adventure together. If there are 10 combats, I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of them will have the Robin character feel pretty useless. There are only so many times where a Robin level character can do anything vs a mega power.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Insaniac99
I'm not gonna quibble because i don't read that many comics, and only really watch the TV shows.

the point is, you need to use your brain and get the players to use their brains, and not be thinking in terms of "my club will only break if i hit him with it, I'm useless" and instead think "well, i can't hurt brainiac, so how can I help Superman"

you do need players who are in this for fun, but I haven't had many problems at all



so, you are telling me, that if after a huge run where the players are learning that {Insert Master Villian Everyone Should Be Afraid Of} is involved and face them in the big smackdown, you are telling me that you would let some lucky shot by a member to take {IMVESBAO} out in one hit? if you are you are only hurting the fun for their players, make {IMVESBAO} all the suddenhave a few more defenses, a bit more stun, or some damage reduction, or have some goons rush in to occupy the PC's time while {IMVESBAO} recovers and is back in the fight.

it may be the differance in my playstyle that creates this differance of opinion, I go in with at best a plot seed amount of information, and then let the players run with it taking everything in stride, then when they want the battle i jsut think up something that sounds OK to get them there, then i run a very cinematic type game, if you should be able to do it, you can even if you don't have it exactly in your character write up. I only gave my players a AP limit, and even that wasn't rigid, that was just a suggestion and i let quite a few powers that go over that, i just trust my players with this responsibility. it is a bit extra work for their battles, but it is worth it.

Yeah if you have mature responsible players, it would probably work. However, mature responsible players probably wouldn't design characters that are too far apart in power level and effectiveness in the first place.

[BoloOfEarth]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah if you have mature responsible players, it would probably work.

Pardon me, but exactly what are these "mature responsible players" you're talking about? ;) Are we talking about some alternate universe here?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, but does this happen consistently in the comics?

Remember, we're talking about a PC team where Superman and Robin are going to be in virtually every adventure together. If there are 10 combats, I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of them will have the Robin character feel pretty useless. There are only so many times where a Robin level character can do anything vs a mega power.

Well, World's Finest ran for years teaming Superman and Batman. The Avengers run with a Thunder God on one hand and a guy who talks to ants on the other. Compare the Thing and Mr. Fantastic.

The catch is that the writer makes it work - there's always something for Superman to do, and somewhere for Batman to shine. Mind you, this leads to theories like "The scientists and super-advanced aliens just go duh, what do we do Batman - therefore Batman has an area effect INT drain."

Of course, the writer doesn't have to put up with Superman's player interrupting "But I can do this to deal with it", or explaining why a gun that topples the Thunder God doesn't kill the carny guy with the trick arrows. Plus, the writer gets a month at a time to come up with a new adventure. He also gets to decide that the character who can solve it all, or who has nothing to do, is otherwise occupied.

Regardless of genre, there are always some staples of the written material that just don't work well in the game.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Oruncrest
More like:
5) Robin beats Penguin first. Realizing that he probably won't be able to cause Brainiac any damage (Braniac has the defenses to go toe to toe with Superman after all), Robin tries to find out what Brainiac & Penguin were up to, then puts a stop to their nefarious scheme while Superman puts the kibosh on Brainiac.

Success isn't necesarily determined by how many people you can beat up un a turn you know. And who knows, if there's some sort of equipment around that can stop or slow Brainiac down enough for Supes to clobber him, Robin would use it.

In fact, there's a Superman annual (#10 I believe) where robin does just that. Superman is wrapped up in the coils of a parasitic plant, the Black Mercy, and Mongul (who put Supes in that predicament, has just finished explaining what the Black Mercy is to Wonder Woman, Batman, and Robin and is wondering which of the three he should kill first.

While WW is punishing Mongul's fist mercilessly, Batman is getting the Black Mercy off of Superman. Robin tries to give Bats Monguls gloves (which Mongul had to use to handle the Black Mercy safely), but Batman ignores him and becomes the Black Mercy's next victim.

Superman wakes up. Robin points him in Mongul's direction and off Supes goes to open up a can of WhoopAss. Meanwhile, Robin uses Mongul's gloves to pull the Black Mercy off Batman (gotta love the glove) and goes off in the direction of the Supes/Mongul fight. Good thing too, 'cause Mongul had just gotten the upper hand when Robin shows up and drops the Black Mercy on him.

Useless? No. Even though Robin was well out of his weight class, he certainly wasn't useless.

And so the GM spends more of his time contriving situations that prop up the low-powered character than he spends on anything else. Sorry, no go. That kind of thing only works so often, and it's a lot easier to pull off in fiction where all of the characters and events are completely under control.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Kristopher
And so the GM spends more of his time contriving situations that prop up the low-powered character than he spends on anything else. Sorry, no go. That kind of thing only works so often, and it's a lot easier to pull off in fiction where all of the characters and events are completely under control. Seconded. That situation is something that I hate in comics. Once is okay. Twice, maybe. If it happens every time, then it seriously stretches credibility.

Where it /is/ possible is if either the lower-powered guy has skills (and serious skills) in an area where the higher-powered guy has serious gaps, and the adventure is a mix of scenes. So they each get their chance to shine. Sure, the big guy is better in a fight, but he wouldn't be there without the little dude!

It's also possible if the player of the less-powerful character is in the game /solely/ for the kicks, and doesn't mind sitting out half of the session while unconscious. 'Course, this stops being fun for the other players if that character is constantly knocked out/held hostage/otherwise leads to them being slapped.

Take Jubilee just after the relaunch of the X-Men title (round 1993). She hung around with the X-Men, tended to keep herself safe, hardly did anything useful (but did sometimes, when appropriate) and kept a positive demeanour. I probably wouldn't be happy playing her, but I know some people who would.

Even if only so that they can say: 'I fought Dr Destroyer, kicked him, and I lived!' 'Yeah, but you only lived because Ultra-Man stepped in front of you and deflected his power blast.' 'Yeah, but I lived! I rock!'

And that's a good way to use a low-powered character. Just takes a very special player.