Campaign Damage Caps, Code vs. Killing & Pulling a Punch

[Hyper-Man]

It seems like we get new threads about campaign caps every few months so rather than hijack another thread I figured I would start my own.

I wonder how often GM's take Code vs. Killing and other similar Disad/Complications into consideration when setting campaign caps. Instead of a "universal" damage class cap (soft or hard) they instead have the cap take into account that characters have to voluntarily reduce the # of dice used in attacks when there is any concern for potential of inflicting serious injury to a living target.

There already is a longstanding mechanic designed for this situation in the rules:
Pulling a Punch
from 6e2 page 87,

To Pull a Punch, an attacker takes a -1 OCV penalty for every 5d6 (or 5 DCs) in the attack. If the Attack Roll succeeds, the punch (or other HTH attack) does half the BODY it would normally do, and Knockdown and Knockback are calculated from this BODY. However, if the attacker makes his Attack Roll exactly, he does full damage to his target.

Superman's famous "World of Cardboard Speech" is basically an acknowledgment that he has always operated under such a limitation.

That man won't quit as long as he can still draw a breath. None of my teammates will. Me? I've got a different problem. I feel like I live in a world made of... cardboard, always taking constant care not to break something, to break someone. Never allowing myself to lose control even for a moment, or someone could die. But you can take it, can't you, big man? What we have here is a rare opportunity for me to cut loose and show you just how powerful I really am.
— Superman, Justice League Unlimited

Say a GM wants to use a 12DC cap with this in mind. Should they allow a character who can achieve a STR of 75+ into the game if they have the following?

1. The proper Psychological Limitations that force him to take care when there is potential to do BODY to a living target.
2. Require them to 'Pull their Punches' and be accurate enough (even by voluntarily reducing the DC of the attack enough if necessary) to not make 'exact rolls to hit' (thereby negating the 1/2 BODY effect of 'Pulling').

I think this should be just as valid a way to limit combat potential as any 'hard' caps. It's another way to explain why such powerhouses like Superman & Green Lantern can function on teams with characters like Batman and other lesser powered heroes who appear to fight at their maximum potential instead. At the same time it allows those same powerhouse characters to do other non-combat feats of strength (lifting a 747 for example).

Comments?

[Hugh Neilson]

I think a focus on restraint would be very consistent with the source material, and a very interesting game could arise from a premise such as "Your characters are among the Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Their powers could easily be deadly against thugs, agents and even many other Supers. While the characters will have high powered attacks, it is a campaign expectation that they will use judgment and restraint in the exercise of those powers, lest they injure or kill others, even their opponents."

It requires players adopt a different mindset from the usual "I paid for 15d6, the game is designed around 15d6 and I will use 15d6" approach. It also requires the GM carefully design scenarios for the occasional target against whom full power is appropriate. If the result of exercising restraint is that the heroes have their heads handed to them, and the villain succeeds in his plans, then they will not soon exercise restraint again. If the result is that, after a period of getting nowhere, they realize this opponent can take it, and they rally to a hard-fought victory, restraint continues to be encouraged. Perhaps the more difficult scenario to pull off is getting their heads handed to them, at a plot point where this is not devastating, and returning with higher power for the ultimate rematch, and a hard-fought victory, then returning to restrained power levels against the next group of opponents.

Practically, if most scenarios require full power to achieve victory, then restraint quickly vanishes.

[Hyper-Man]

I think a focus on restraint would be very consistent with the source material, and a very interesting game could arise from a premise such as "Your characters are among the Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Their powers could easily be deadly against thugs, agents and even many other Supers. While the characters will have high powered attacks, it is a campaign expectation that they will use judgment and restraint in the exercise of those powers, lest they injure or kill others, even their opponents."

It requires players adopt a different mindset from the usual "I paid for 15d6, the game is designed around 15d6 and I will use 15d6" approach. It also requires the GM carefully design scenarios for the occasional target against whom full power is appropriate. If the result of exercising restraint is that the heroes have their heads handed to them, and the villain succeeds in his plans, then they will not soon exercise restraint again. If the result is that, after a period of getting nowhere, they realize this opponent can take it, and they rally to a hard-fought victory, restraint continues to be encouraged. Perhaps the more difficult scenario to pull off is getting their heads handed to them, at a plot point where this is not devastating, and returning with higher power for the ultimate rematch, and a hard-fought victory, then returning to restrained power levels against the next group of opponents.

Practically, if most scenarios require full power to achieve victory, then restraint quickly vanishes.

You hit upon points I hadn't realized I was even striving for!

Another consistency with the source material is that this approach gives a better explanation for why 'mind-controlled' heroes can seem so much more powerful (see Wonder Woman in Grudge Match) when they stop holding back.

[Ockham's Spoon]

I think Hugh's analysis is spot on. Given the typical player mindset, I think it would be hard to manage a Superman-type character just through "restraint". I am sure some players could do it, but for most I think a system of sticks and carrots should be laid out so the players will fully understand the consequences of their actions.

[Stone]

I think a focus on restraint would be very consistent with the source material, and a very interesting game could arise from a premise such as "Your characters are among the Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Their powers could easily be deadly against thugs, agents and even many other Supers. While the characters will have high powered attacks, it is a campaign expectation that they will use judgment and restraint in the exercise of those powers, lest they injure or kill others, even their opponents."

It requires players adopt a different mindset from the usual "I paid for 15d6, the game is designed around 15d6 and I will use 15d6" approach. It also requires the GM carefully design scenarios for the occasional target against whom full power is appropriate. If the result of exercising restraint is that the heroes have their heads handed to them, and the villain succeeds in his plans, then they will not soon exercise restraint again. If the result is that, after a period of getting nowhere, they realize this opponent can take it, and they rally to a hard-fought victory, restraint continues to be encouraged. Perhaps the more difficult scenario to pull off is getting their heads handed to them, at a plot point where this is not devastating, and returning with higher power for the ultimate rematch, and a hard-fought victory, then returning to restrained power levels against the next group of opponents.

Practically, if most scenarios require full power to achieve victory, then restraint quickly vanishes.

Hard to argue with this.

[Hyper-Man]

I think Hugh's analysis is spot on. Given the typical player mindset, I think it would be hard to manage a Superman-type character just through "restraint". I am sure some players could do it, but for most I think a system of sticks and carrots should be laid out so the players will fully understand the consequences of their actions.

But isn't this really part of what is meant when people compare role-playing vs. roll-playing?
I know it seems risky to most GM's to take this kind of approach to campaign limits but I think the payoff over time would be players less worried about improving their characters power level and get more into the mindset of what the character is worried about (accidentally injuring/killing someone). The power house characters would still get to cut loose vs. robot, zombies, natural disasters, etc... and the exceptional 'normal' characters gain street cred for just being able to hang with the power house guys.

I know the purpose of rigid rule-of-X caps is to make a GM's job of creating challenging conflict easier but an unintended effect of such caps is to create a certain 'vanilla' combat centric power curve across all characters. This tends to take the away some of the 'super' out of superheroes IMO.

Anyway, I am hoping to get more folks to chime in with their thoughts on the subject.

[Tasha]

It seems like we get new threads about campaign caps every few months so rather than hijack another thread I figured I would start my own.

I wonder how often GM's take Code vs. Killing and other similar Disad/Complications into consideration when setting campaign caps. Instead of a "universal" damage class cap (soft or hard) they instead have the cap take into account that characters have to voluntarily reduce the # of dice used in attacks when there is any concern for potential of inflicting serious injury to a living target.

There already is a longstanding mechanic designed for this situation in the rules:
Pulling a Punch
from 6e2 page 87,

Superman's famous "World of Cardboard Speech" is basically an acknowledgment that he has always operated under such a limitation.

Say a GM wants to use a 12DC cap with this in mind. Should they allow a character who can achieve a STR of 75+ into the game if they have the following?

1. The proper Psychological Limitations that force him to take care when there is potential to do BODY to a living target.
2. Require them to 'Pull their Punches' and be accurate enough (even by voluntarily reducing the DC of the attack enough if necessary) to not make 'exact rolls to hit' (thereby negating the 1/2 BODY effect of 'Pulling').

I think this should be just as valid a way to limit combat potential as any 'hard' caps. It's another way to explain why such powerhouses like Superman & Green Lantern can function on teams with characters like Batman and other lesser powered heroes who appear to fight at their maximum potential instead. At the same time it allows those same powerhouse characters to do other non-combat feats of strength (lifting a 747 for example).

Comments?

The reason that I use Semi hard caps for DC and Defenses is to make certain that the PCs are built in a way that one doesn't overshadow the others and that I can make sure that any combat is challenging.

It is up to the player and the PC's Psych limits to decide HOW to use their damage. I usually warn the players when the PCs are fighting squishies (ie "It appears that the Mafia thugs you are fighting are unarmored"). I allow the Players to make their own decisions about how to apply their powers and make them deal with the consequences as required.

Most Villains are built to withstand a PC's attacks. Either by avoidance (High DCV/ or DMCV) and or by Damage Mitigation (High PD/ED/Mental defenses) or some average of both. IMHO suddently throwing villains out there that have little to no defenses is just a way to blindside the Players and is quite unfun. It's like the bait and switch campaign, that starts out as one thing and ends up as another. Again, I build thugs differently than full on Villains. Thugs have a number of varieties ranging from slightly better than normal folk, to ones that can take a full blast or two. It is plainly obvious to the players what ones they are facing.

As I have stated in earlier threads, we never had a ton of KA's in our Champions games. The characters that used KA's showed restraint in choosing armored targets and non living things to use their KA's on. Our group only had to briefly deal with Wolverine clone munchkins who clawed each and every unfriendly with their AP KA claws. The couple we did play with were quickly directed into other characters that they group fit our style of play better.

Oh, a DC 12 character can reach DC16 with a Haymaker, and DC 18 with a standard pushed Haymaker.

When you allow a character with DC over max you can expect that the power will be used at full strength against targets they expect should take such an attack. The only time they might dial it down is when dealing with targets that are obviously going to take a ton of body from such an attack. Allowing that higher DC attack just means that I as a GM either have to have Villains with higher Def or deal with the one PC that mows through my Villains quickly. So a move from DC 12 to DC 14 might be fine if the campaign as a whole is ready to move to the next power plateau, but DC 12 to DC 16 is too high a jump esp with other PCs at DC 12

[Tasha]

But isn't this really part of what is meant when people compare role-playing vs. roll-playing?
I know it seems risky to most GM's to take this kind of approach to campaign limits but I think the payoff over time would be players less worried about improving their characters power level and get more into the mindset of what the character is worried about (accidentally injuring/killing someone). The power house characters would still get to cut loose vs. robot, zombies, natural disasters, etc... and the exceptional 'normal' characters gain street cred for just being able to hang with the power house guys.

I know the purpose of rigid rule-of-X caps is to make a GM's job of creating challenging conflict easier but an unintended effect of such caps is to create a certain 'vanilla' combat centric power curve across all characters. This tends to take the away some of the 'super' out of superheroes IMO.

Anyway, I am hoping to get more folks to chime in with their thoughts on the subject.

The reason for the caps is that if I make a villain that is challenging to Superman and Wonder Woman, then Blue Beetle's character is useless in combat. I can give BB the thugs to beat up, but that is going to pale for BB's player over time. Eventually he's going to wonder why he can't play on the level as Supers and WW. Also, if I build adventures around the second stringers like BB, then Superman and Wonder Woman's players are going to be bored and unchallenged.

The real idea behind Rule of X is to make the Player's experience more even. To prevent one "Star" PC from dominating the sessions. The vast majority of players are going to want to play the world beaters, and nearly no one wants to play the second stringers esp when both are adventuring together.

Also, I have found that when the powerlevels are CLEARLY defined, the players don't want to increase the PC's power level. It's when the GM always makes the Villains MUCH more powerful than the PC or worse yet when the NPCs are better than the PC and "help" that the Players start the stat wars. When everyone is comfortable with the powerlevel, those experience pts go to things like better Skill rolls, and things like KS,PS, Sci, Langs and things like that. Also you sometimes get players that want a new power that expands into a place the player wanted. I also tend to disallow players to spend exp on "Spot defences". I make them wait a few sessions then see if they still want to buy Power defense or Mental defense. Bonuses are given for RP reasons for them to suddenly having the new power.

[steamteck]

I also use a soft cap to determine the power level range of the campaign. It lets theplayers know what to expect. I've also found it helps the players know how to make effective characters. The point values work well enough that everyone has something to bring to the table.

My guys are role players and always start with restraint against potentually squishy bad guys. The NPC heroes do it also which reinforces it.

Some characters simply cannot take certain other characters but it often turns into a rock- paper -scissors thing where everyone has their moment. In one recent adventure the mega brick coun't handle a fast moving energy projector but teleporting martial arts guy could. On the other hand he really couldn't quite bring the enemy brick but the PC brick could.

[Peregrine]

I think a focus on restraint would be very consistent with the source material, and a very interesting game could arise from a premise such as "Your characters are among the Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Their powers could easily be deadly against thugs, agents and even many other Supers. While the characters will have high powered attacks, it is a campaign expectation that they will use judgment and restraint in the exercise of those powers, lest they injure or kill others, even their opponents."

It requires players adopt a different mindset from the usual "I paid for 15d6, the game is designed around 15d6 and I will use 15d6" approach. It also requires the GM carefully design scenarios for the occasional target against whom full power is appropriate. If the result of exercising restraint is that the heroes have their heads handed to them, and the villain succeeds in his plans, then they will not soon exercise restraint again. If the result is that, after a period of getting nowhere, they realize this opponent can take it, and they rally to a hard-fought victory, restraint continues to be encouraged. Perhaps the more difficult scenario to pull off is getting their heads handed to them, at a plot point where this is not devastating, and returning with higher power for the ultimate rematch, and a hard-fought victory, then returning to restrained power levels against the next group of opponents.

Practically, if most scenarios require full power to achieve victory, then restraint quickly vanishes.

This. It would probably be easier for a GM to get players to go along than it would be for one or more players to get a GM to go along.

[JohnOSpencer]

The reason for the caps is that if I make a villain that is challenging to Superman and Wonder Woman, then Blue Beetle's character is useless in combat. I can give BB the thugs to beat up, but that is going to pale for BB's player over time. Eventually he's going to wonder why he can't play on the level as Supers and WW. Also, if I build adventures around the second stringers like BB, then Superman and Wonder Woman's players are going to be bored and unchallenged.

While I would never argue with caps, you can still make it interesting for the 'lower powered' character. In your example, Blue Beetle can always use his sight flash to give WW or SM a huge advantage. Also, with all his skills (assuming he's not in comic relief mode) he will be the focus when it comes to any sort of skill use.

You have to gauge what your players can handle and work with it. If they can't handle being overshadowed by someone else then I love hard caps, everyone will feel equal in combat. If they can handle a game where each character will have the spotlight once in a while, then I say throw the caps out the window.

[Stone]

While I would never argue with caps, you can still make it interesting for the 'lower powered' character. In your example, Blue Beetle can always use his sight flash to give WW or SM a huge advantage. Also, with all his skills (assuming he's not in comic relief mode) he will be the focus when it comes to any sort of skill use.

You have to gauge what your players can handle and work with it. If they can't handle being overshadowed by someone else then I love hard caps, everyone will feel equal in combat. If they can handle a game where each character will have the spotlight once in a while, then I say throw the caps out the window.

I've never been a fan of caps myself. If a PC wants to spend their points on a massive attack, then that's less points for other things like movement, defense, or useful utility powers. Obviously, the GM needs to pay attention to characters are building and veto particularly unbalancing builds. I've ran groups where PC attacks ran from 7DC to 13DC within the same group. IMO it can make for a fun game if the PC's understand their character's abilities. Neither Captain America or Batman are in the same DC levels as Ironman or Superman, but they both are major players in their respected hero teams. The same can be said for Champions.

I understand the reason behind caps. I just think allowing some variance in power levels can be fun if the PC's understand the situation and willing to play along.

[steamteck]

Well. as I said I've got the soft caps but I feel it gives my PCs a handle on whats going one and doesn't make them all clones in abilities. For example, I have a soft cap of 14DC. Anything after that is doubled in cost. My players primary attacks range from 7 to 15 DC which I think is a pretty good range and as I said everyone gets their time to shine but everyone isn't good against every enemy.

[Hugh Neilson]

Most Villains are built to withstand a PC's attacks. Either by avoidance (High DCV/ or DMCV) and or by Damage Mitigation (High PD/ED/Mental defenses) or some average of both.

This is my experience as well. And it trains the players that they ca use their full powers at their discretion. That said, what happens when that 15d6 Blast tags the high DCV target.

IMHO suddenly throwing villains out there that have little to no defenses is just a way to blindside the Players and is quite unfun. It's like the bait and switch campaign, that starts out as one thing and ends up as another. Again, I build thugs differently than full on Villains. Thugs have a number of varieties ranging from slightly better than normal folk, to ones that can take a full blast or two. It is plainly obvious to the players what ones they are facing.

Bolded for emphasis. I agree, but I don't think the suggestion is to blindside the players. They would be advised up front that restraint will be part of the campaign, that there is no guarantee the opposition can take a full max DC attack and survive, and that defenses will not necessarily be obvious. With no surprises, this should be a viable approach. Toss it into a standard game where the players are used to being able to use full power without risk, and it is breaking the underlying rules, and will become unfun pretty quick.

As I have stated in earlier threads, we never had a ton of KA's in our Champions games. The characters that used KA's showed restraint in choosing armored targets and non living things to use their KA's on. Our group only had to briefly deal with Wolverine clone munchkins who clawed each and every unfriendly with their AP KA claws. The couple we did play with were quickly directed into other characters that they group fit our style of play better.

Oh, a DC 12 character can reach DC16 with a Haymaker, and DC 18 with a standard pushed Haymaker.

When you allow a character with DC over max you can expect that the power will be used at full strength against targets they expect should take such an attack. The only time they might dial it down is when dealing with targets that are obviously going to take a ton of body from such an attack. Allowing that higher DC attack just means that I as a GM either have to have Villains with higher Def or deal with the one PC that mows through my Villains quickly. So a move from DC 12 to DC 14 might be fine if the campaign as a whole is ready to move to the next power plateau, but DC 12 to DC 16 is too high a jump esp with other PCs at DC 12[/QUOTE]

[Hugh Neilson]

A thought. We generally believe the characters should be capped so they are of comparable utility in combat. Those discussing games without such caps, and a wide spread in CV's, still discuss all the characters in terms of combat.

In the game where characters must commonly exercise restraint in combat, that's likely because most of their opponents are less powerful combatants than they are. On occasion, they will encounter enemies with equal or even greater power, at which point they are challenged to succeed in combat.

But what's the challenge in the other scenarios, where combat is so easy you can't even use full power without fear of demolishing the target far too effectively? These would be games where combat is likely featured, but is seldom the focus. So, what will be the focus of the games where restraint is essential, since it clearly can't be "winning the combat"?

The reverse situation would be one where combat is not the main challenge because the PC's are clearly outclassed (Galactus; Call of Cthulhu), and the challenge there is generally either skill-based to research the way to achieve a victory, or turns back to combat against other targets to obtain the info and/or maguffin required to defeat the major challenge.