EPIC Champions--unofficial material, what should I write about?

[megaplayboy]

I'm working on writing an unofficial "guidebook" on running "Epic" superhero campaigns(typically, campaigns with very high point levels and power levels, and multi-session story arcs). IME this is a topic which seems to divide the superhero gamer community--a lot of gamers say "I'm just not into it" or associate "high-powered" with "powergaming" or even munchkinism, while others are quite fond of it but often have difficulty locating like-minded gamers. Since I'm trying to write for as broad an audience as possible, I'd like to solicit opinions and feedback from everyone on a few topics:
1. what would you like to see covered/discussed in such a guidebook?
2. what are your concerns about such campaigns, and what do you think might make such a campaign setting more appealing to you?
3. what do you think makes such campaigns "cool" or fun or interesting to play, and what do you think the pitfalls of such campaigns might be?
4. Do you have any suggestions for suitable "source material" for such campaigns?
5. Do you think there are things that are easier/harder to do in such campaigns, and do you have any suggestions for how to change or mitigate that?

Thanks in advance for your feedback. I'll post a general outline of what I've written so far, and what I plan to write about, in subsequent posts.

[Bloodstone]

I think the Authority mentality (we will make the world a better place, regardless of what the world wants) vs the JLA mentality (maintain the status quo and let normal folks solve many of their own problems) tends to become much more apparent in high point games, if only because people have a much greater ability to actually make a difference if they want to.

So, you probably want to make sure everyone is on the same page before things get ugly... though that argument can make for one hell of a game session

[megaplayboy]

I think the Authority mentality (we will make the world a better place, regardless of what the world wants) vs the JLA mentality (maintain the status quo and let normal folks solve many of their own problems) tends to become much more apparent in high point games, if only because people have a much greater ability to actually make a difference if they want to.

So, you probably want to make sure everyone is on the same page before things get ugly... though that argument can make for one hell of a game session

A good suggestion. There's probably a lot of space in between those two viewpoints, too(e.g., work within the system to change things, but don't go outside the system because then the line between you and some types of supervillains gets really blurry...).

[moquif]

How about keeping a gaming group together long enough for these multi-session story arcs to be concluded.

[megaplayboy]

How about keeping a gaming group together long enough for these multi-session story arcs to be concluded.

I guess that's a good one, although that seems like a more general gaming issue to address. It's also a fairly complicated one to address, since it involves not only game content and GMing style, but also player personalities and group dynamics. I've participated in 2 or 3 campaigns that each lasted for 2-3 years and 100-200+xp. The main thing is just to have reliable players, a stable place to meet and game, competent GMing, interesting stories and good group dynamics. As a general rule, I'd suggest running a few one-shot sessions first, for the first 2-3 months, to get a feel for how reliable the players are, and then announcing a multi-part story arc and asking who in the group can commit to being there for the whole thing. I agree wholeheartedly that starting a multi-session arc to only then find out a couple of your gamers are a little flaky/going out of town/weren't really into it is a recipe for GM frustration/rage.

[Cygnia]

Maybe advice on how to treat epic threats ala Galactus or Anti-Monitor as Epic Threats and not just "Planet Eater? Ah, must be Tuesday..."

[megaplayboy]

Maybe advice on how to treat epic threats ala Galactus or Anti-Monitor as Epic Threats and not just "Planet Eater? Ah, must be Tuesday..."

A very good suggestion. I will add it to the list.

[Bloodstone]

How about keeping a gaming group together long enough for these multi-session story arcs to be concluded.

Oddly, the last JLA level game I was invited to never really got off the ground... but I don't think that had anything to do with the power level.

I really, really wanted to play that character too, but he's made a fine NPC mentor in my games so at least all the work wasn't wasted

Which ultimately could be a good suggestion for play anyhow. Having low power sidekicks or even unaffiliated street level heroes to play from time to time to take a break from saving the universe every week can be a good thing sometimes...

[moquif]

Not to brag but my group will be hitting the 10 year mark soon with only one player leaving. We have 3 campaigns running (two superhero, one fantasy). I think having multiple GMs is important so you have a back up if the "primary" GM can't make it. Being regular makes everyone comfortable. I also think it helps that all the players are adults and relatively stable lives. In our group we have two married couples and a two players who are siblings and the married couples have their own businesses. So chances are, they're not going anywhere. I think that has a bigger influence since bad GMing can be fixed by either switching GMs or learning how to GM well.

[megaplayboy]

Not to brag but my group will be hitting the 10 year mark soon with only one player leaving. We have 3 campaigns running (two superhero, one fantasy). I think having multiple GMs is important so you have a back up if the "primary" GM can't make it. Being regular makes everyone comfortable. I also think it helps that all the players are adults and relatively stable lives. In our group we have two married couples and a two players who are siblings and the married couples have their own businesses. So chances are, they're not going anywhere. I think that has a bigger influence since bad GMing can be fixed by either switching GMs or learning how to GM well.

That's very good to hear. I've also had experience with relatively stable groups, and with multiple GMs. It's particularly interesting when multiple GMs run the same group in the same campaign setting, though that has its own pitfalls as well. Something else I plan to write about.

[megaplayboy]

Oddly, the last JLA level game I was invited to never really got off the ground... but I don't think that had anything to do with the power level.

I really, really wanted to play that character too, but he's made a fine NPC mentor in my games so at least all the work wasn't wasted

Which ultimately could be a good suggestion for play anyhow. Having low power sidekicks or even unaffiliated street level heroes to play from time to time to take a break from saving the universe every week can be a good thing sometimes...

This is true. If you apply some options, you can also have the heroes confront situations in "underpowered" mode(i.e., if the heroes have situations where they're less powerful(their alter ego, inside a building where they can't take the giant robot, outside their power armor, in a dimension where their magic doesn't work, etc.)), and have to use their wits instead of just blasting their way to victory.

[Orion]

Things to include:

1. How to handle epic power levels in more mundane adventures, yet still make them fun. Yes, we need to fight Galactus next week, but that Viper base needs to be taken out today.
2. Campaigns that concentrate on the role playing aspect, and not the power aspect. Maybe I can beat up Superman, but concentrate on romance and politics instead. That is, the campaign is about people with powers, not about using the powers. Stopping the museum heist means just showing up in time - no dice are rolled at all. Now you have to figure out why the heist occurred.
3. If you have powers at all, they are epic level. No street-level powers - everyone is god-like in ability. This alone makes a huge change in campaign style.
4. A good chart (may already exist) that details the damage done by many common things, and the damage needed to destroy other things. What exactly does a 6d6 killing attack do to people and vehicles, and what strength does it take to crush a car into a steel basketball? How fast do you need to fly to go all the way through a Neptonian cruiser? Talk about the defense needed to shrug off tank cannons and starship lasers, and do so without resorting to complicated builds.
5. What separates a god from an epic-level power, or is there even a difference? Some want to play Thor and Odin, and call them gods, whereas I define gods as GM constructs with very basic descriptions and no more. If it has a list of powers or points, it cannot be a true deity in one of my games. Can the characters act like gods, or be a major servant of a god or universal power?

Much of this is based on campaign styles. What one may consider epic, another may not. I've played more 700+ point characters than 300 pointers, yet the 700+ were characterized as being at X-Men levels, and below the Avengers. Not really that epic, and there were many villains on that same level. At a base level, I'd say to qualify as an epic character, they should no longer need to worry about mooks and agents. Any man-portable weapon bounces off. Endurance is not a factor - they can fight as long as bad guys keep coming. They worry about more than a single city.

Epic fits better with the no points style of gaming, imho. Just bring a character. If there is no point limit, it reduces a lot of the power gaming and off-the-wall builds from the start. If you only get a couple points, they all matter. If you get as many points as it takes to build the character, they suddenly aren't important. However, the description of the character and what they can do becomes much more important.

[megaplayboy]

Things to include:

1. How to handle epic power levels in more mundane adventures, yet still make them fun. Yes, we need to fight Galactus next week, but that Viper base needs to be taken out today.
2. Campaigns that concentrate on the role playing aspect, and not the power aspect. Maybe I can beat up Superman, but concentrate on romance and politics instead. That is, the campaign is about people with powers, not about using the powers. Stopping the museum heist means just showing up in time - no dice are rolled at all. Now you have to figure out why the heist occurred.
3. If you have powers at all, they are epic level. No street-level powers - everyone is god-like in ability. This alone makes a huge change in campaign style.
4. A good chart (may already exist) that details the damage done by many common things, and the damage needed to destroy other things. What exactly does a 6d6 killing attack do to people and vehicles, and what strength does it take to crush a car into a steel basketball? How fast do you need to fly to go all the way through a Neptonian cruiser? Talk about the defense needed to shrug off tank cannons and starship lasers, and do so without resorting to complicated builds.
5. What separates a god from an epic-level power, or is there even a difference? Some want to play Thor and Odin, and call them gods, whereas I define gods as GM constructs with very basic descriptions and no more. If it has a list of powers or points, it cannot be a true deity in one of my games. Can the characters act like gods, or be a major servant of a god or universal power?

Much of this is based on campaign styles. What one may consider epic, another may not. I've played more 700+ point characters than 300 pointers, yet the 700+ were characterized as being at X-Men levels, and below the Avengers. Not really that epic, and there were many villains on that same level. At a base level, I'd say to qualify as an epic character, they should no longer need to worry about mooks and agents. Any man-portable weapon bounces off. Endurance is not a factor - they can fight as long as bad guys keep coming. They worry about more than a single city.

Epic fits better with the no points style of gaming, imho. Just bring a character. If there is no point limit, it reduces a lot of the power gaming and off-the-wall builds from the start. If you only get a couple points, they all matter. If you get as many points as it takes to build the character, they suddenly aren't important. However, the description of the character and what they can do becomes much more important.

Some good suggestions. I have in mind that the EPIC in EPIC Champions is an acronym, meaning Experienced, Powerful, Immortal(or Iconic) Cosmic Champions. Heroes don't have to be all four(or five) of these things in order to be considered "epic", but two or three of them is probably good enough. Many heroes are experienced and have been around a long time--this tends to build their name recognition, and expands their overall capability, if not their power level. Some heroes are quite powerful, of city-shaking, if not universe-shaking power, and consequently the types of threats they face will also include many powerful foes to challenge them. They aren't necessarily always experienced or skilled (or wise) in the use of that power, though. Some heroes are immortal(such as deities) or iconic(their name is a household word, and they've come to symbolize some kind of positive abstract concept, like justice or strength), and as such they've developed a sense of responsibility to go along with that public recognition. Finally, some heroes are cosmic, or frequently deal with problems of cosmic importance, and thus the scope of what epic heroes deal with tends to be broader and deeper.
IME storytelling and RP becomes more important, not less important, when the stakes are higher and the heroes more powerful.
Sometimes the mooks get upgrades, and the epic heroes aren't dealing with 5 Team agents, but rather actual supervillains(albeit lesser-powered ones), who are there to slow them down a bit.
I do plan to address "benchmarks" for various power levels--what a blast of that magnitude can destroy, what sort of objects a STR of that level can toss around casually, and so forth.
Separation between gods and heroes is an interesting question, albeit in an epic campaign setting, there may be no difference whatsoever. The concept of "omnipotence...with a loophole" is something I'll address(hint: really powerful PCs and NPCs really only "balance out" if they've got some kind of weakness or "mute switch"). I think you can have a bit of a mixture--perhaps the higher and more abstract the being, the less likely they are to have a writeup and instead be a GM construct(e.g., in "Haven" there are many avatars of monotheistic deities, who are corporeal, have stats and can be fought(and even temporarily defeated), but "the Greater Good" is a truly abstract entity, able to perform almost any feat but really not being a "character" that can be presenced, influenced or battled in any concrete mechanical sense).

[assault]

Characters in the source material sometimes seem to be quite different when they are appearing in their own titles from when they are in team books. For example, the kind of plotlines related to secret identities, supporting cast members and even regular opponents that drive solo books are often virtually absent in team books. It could be worth emulating this difference, if for no other reason than to not drive the GM mad trying to keep track of PCs disadvantages/complications.

Basically, I would suggest including an option to reduce the number of disads/complications each character takes as the PC group gets larger.

There can also be differences in the apparent power levels of characters between the different books in which they appear. For example, mooks are theoretically a real threat to Batman in his solo books, but he can keep up with the big hitters in team books. Superman, on the other hand, tends to lose power in team books - his powers tend to be cut down to a core set. Likewise, the Flash, Green Lantern and most of the heavy hitters.

This might be worth modelling - it can be worth simplifying characters even at high, or even unlimited, point totals, just for ease of play.

At the lower end, the use of things like Damage Reduction and appropriate characteristic values can allow a character to both be threatened by mooks and not immediately die when the big attacks are being thrown around. This could be worth discussing.

There's also a more general question of power level. A lot of the source material that would be relevant doesn't just involve high powered characters. In fact, the "typical" power level in a group can be considerably lower. The JLA isn't just Superman, Flash and Green Lantern - it's Green Arrow, Hawman and Aquaman as well. (Exact composition varies...) The Legion of Superheroes isn't just Mon-El, Element Lad and Wildfire - it's Shadow Lass, Phantom Girl and Invisible Kid too. The Avengers aren't just Thor and Iron Man either.

Obviously this raises the old multiple characters per player discussion, but there are other ways of dealing with it as well. Incidentally, in many of these cases the lower powered characters aren't exactly cheap builds in point terms either. They can have lots of power tricks, skills, perks and the like, even though they don't have the raw power of their teammates. Then again, their teammates aren't necessarily slouches in those areas either.

But that takes us back to my suggestion of simplifying characters. That might not, in retrospect, be entirely appropriate.

Incidentally, one of the things that I've noticed is that a lot of the things that make ultra-powerful characters look that way aren't really combat related. That's not always the case, of course, but being able to dig a tunnel straight through the centre of the Earth at superspeed, for instance, pretty much screams out "POWER!" - more so than being able to bounce a tank shell off your character's chest.

Power is partly a matter of appearance.

[Bloodstone]

Basically, I would suggest including an option to reduce the number of disads/complications each character takes as the PC group gets larger.

While this is unrelated to high powered heroes, we did bandy about the idea of Personal Disadvantages and Group Disadvantages in an old 5E game to somewhat simulate this sort of thing.

It mainly came about as a means of dealing with that fact everyone had different rogues galleries Hunting them (aka the Legion of Doom effect)...