Champions at 400, 500, 600 CP levels

[iamlibertarian]

I am just curious. Does anyone actually run or play in a campaign that starts at these levels? My though process for asking this question:

 

1) GMs do a Shit Ton of work. They have to do it because they love it, or they won't do it. Higher level games are harder to run. So most GMs with which I have interacted like the lower powered games.

 

2) But, how long do campaigns last? In any genre or gaming system over the decades I have been in or observed, the more frequently you play, the shorter the real life time of the campaign. Even if the gaming group sticks together, they either switch games (D&D Fantast to Hero Supers for example), or at minimum, switch Campaigns within same gaming system.

 

3) Some of us (me, lol) don't mind starting out like Tony Stark with his first cave-built powered armor, as long as we can eventually grow into the Tony Stark with his highly advanced, AI assisted, powered armor with a large bit of Duplication, lol. I don't mind starting out as a low powered mage with a small VPP of spells that takes a spellbook and an hour of study to change slots for, IF I can actually grow into Dr. Strange. Never in my 4 decades of gaming does this happen.

 

So is it any wonder some of us want to START at the 400 - 600 level to see what it's like to play with that much power?

DC

[Lord Liaden]

I have, and even at 700, the 5E suggested "galactic Champions" level. But I've only done so with experienced players I could trust to handle such character builds without GM hand-holding, and only for shorter-term campaigns built around a threat or threats that would challenge them.

[HeroGM]

I've had games run from 2 weeks to 8 years.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I don't at the moment, but I have.

 

I caution against conflating starting point totals with power levels too much.  (For instance, the thread title is about CP, but the first point talks about GMs liking "low powered" games.)  Of course, there's not exactly a direct connection between point totals and power level. Yes, you need more points for a higher-powered game, but you can certainly have a game that is lower-powered despite having more points.

 

Personally, I like that sort of game, especially for groups with fewer characters. More points/moderate power levels enables characters who are well-detailed or broad, without making them world-beaters...

[unclevlad]

I would love to play in a game with relatively high character points, but VERY few limitations allowed.  Some limitations kinda have to be allowed, like HA, but by and large...nope.  This almost implicitly reduces the overall power level by a good margin, while also tending to simplify both character building and ongoing play.

 

Note that it doesn't mean you can't invoke the concept of, let's say, HFO;  it's just that it's not worth a limitation.  (And conversely, switching to the HFO is trivial.)

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't think I could build a campaign around it but it would be fun to run some games with like 750 point, 100 active cost max characters.  What you'd have to throw at a team like that to challenge them would need to be truly epic though.

[Lord Liaden]

That's exactly where those oft-maligned top-end Champions published megavillains would shine.

[Opal]

Back in the day I ran the 3E/BBB equivalent, 'cosmic' level, for a number of years.   Also the other end of the spectrum, 'street' level.   The group was mixed, from serious Hero mavins to relatively casual players.  Both extremes worked well.

 

One thing I noticed was that even with lots of XP, low-power heroes wouldn't cross over to become like their higher-power equivalents.  

 

[Tech]

iaml, I ran a 500 pts-to-start game once: it lasted only a couple sessions. Some people might like to try it and some may not. Apparently, my players don't.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

One thing I noticed was that even with lots of XP, low-power heroes wouldn't cross over to become like their higher-power equivalents.  

 

Well, that's what Derek was talking about: high points doesn't necessarily translate into high power, it could just be flexibility and no gaps in a build.

[fdw3773]

The Champions sessions I run have been at local game events and conventions that involve stand-alone scenarios in recent years. Players that attend vary in experience level where some have played Hero System for decades, while for others it is their first time ever participating in a RPG. They select a pre-constructed character from the DC or Marvel Universe, and the scenario is designed to enable the crossover.

 

As a result, yes, a wide range of power-levels are used: 400 (or lower), 500, 600, and as high as 750. Some attendees really do choose a character like Booster Gold over Batman or Superman, or prefer using Batgirl or the Huntress over Wonder Woman or Power Girl. 🙂

 

If I ran a campaign with players similar to the ones I played ICONS with previously using 6th Edition rules, they would probably start at around the 500 CP level and work their way up from there.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I find myself pushing to build many character concepts to the 400 point level; like I have to figure out new stuff for them just to spend enough points.  400+ points feel more like established older characters who have been in the world a long time and have a great deal of experience, filling in gaps, learning to use their powers in new ways, picking up contacts, etc.  If you really want a beginner character (like Superman when he first showed up, for instance) then the point values have to be lower for most character concepts.  If you want a mega character with a huge concept like the Specter or Martian Manhunter, then you need a whale load of beginning points.

[Tech]

I agree Christopher. Of course it depends on the campaign, but on the supervillain side, not everyone should use that many points. I've got alot of supervillains roughly around 250 pts fighting experienced heroes who've hit total points of 500+, 600+.  Not all the villains should be able to be a threat but sometimes being a nuisance gives the hero(s) a chance to show off. Properly done, my 250 pt 2-team baddies can cause quite the stir with heroes. Recently, had the experienced heroes fight a team of villains where none of the baddies cost more than 187 pts.

[iamlibertarian]

On 3/29/2021 at 5:42 AM, HeroGM said:

I've had games run from 2 weeks to 8 years.

 

I would Love an 8 year game... Even if breaks were taken, or the occasional Guest GM helped out, or rotating GMs within the same campaign setting.

[iamlibertarian]

On 3/29/2021 at 10:29 PM, Opal said:

Back in the day I ran the 3E/BBB equivalent, 'cosmic' level, for a number of years.   Also the other end of the spectrum, 'street' level.   The group was mixed, from serious Hero mavins to relatively casual players.  Both extremes worked well.

 

One thing I noticed was that even with lots of XP, low-power heroes wouldn't cross over to become like their higher-power equivalents.  

 

 

Basically what you are saying is you couldn't take a high fantasy mage (built as one), campaign for 8 real-life years, and turn that character into a Dr. Strange like character?

How about (movie versions) an early Iron Man with the short-lived suit built in a cave...could it in a really long campaign grown into the Iron Man in his last movie, AI assisted, large number of "duplicates", etc.? Would the characters just not grow that way?

Would an early Dr. Strange pretty much have to start out very close to a later Dr. Strange?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Not all the villains should be able to be a threat but sometimes being a nuisance gives the hero(s) a chance to show off. Properly done, my 250 pt 2-team baddies can cause quite the stir with heroes.

 

Well, especially with villains you can build a super tight concept without any extra stuff like where they work or how good they are at darning socks or whatever that a good player uses points on to flesh out their PC.  All they need is what they'll use in the scenario at hand and that can be a lot cheaper than a Player Character build but still very effective.

[Christougher]

On 4/4/2021 at 11:00 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I find myself pushing to build many character concepts to the 400 point level; like I have to figure out new stuff for them just to spend enough points.  400+ points feel more like established older characters who have been in the world a long time and have a great deal of experience, filling in gaps, learning to use their powers in new ways, picking up contacts, etc.  If you really want a beginner character (like Superman when he first showed up, for instance) then the point values have to be lower for most character concepts.  If you want a mega character with a huge concept like the Specter or Martian Manhunter, then you need a whale load of beginning points.

 

There is a great deal of difference between a 300 point character with 100 experience and a 400 point character.

[Panpiper]

Within the last decade I played in a weekly campaign that lasted five years, with 'starting' characters built on 600 points! We had an absolutely wonderful time.

I have never had a problem coming up with challenges regardless of point levels. As a player, I too very much appreciate the opportunity to grow and evolve my characters. That is half the fun of the game in my opinion. Sadly this ambition is all too frequently stymied by the fact that GMs are often notoriously stingy with experience, many awarding all of a single XP for a session. This as often as not in a game played every two weeks with a likely lifespan of six months. WTF?

 

The five year campaign mentioned averaged two experience per game, and the growing range of ability was never an issue. At one point the regular GM suffered a personal tragedy and needed time off from running the game. I took over for a year, but continued a 'version' of the existing game in which the characters found themselves whisked into a different universe, summoned there by an ultra-powerful mage. The summoning was cast just as that mage got hit with a stasis field, and while the summoning worked, it also only came through partially. All the players came in as 0 point children, in the middle of a battlefield. They had to survive and get out, with effectively no power. 'HOWEVER', at the end of that session and every session thereafter, they got SIX experience because they were fast recovering their power. Everyone REALLY enjoyed the rapid evolution of their characters.

[Opal]

1 hour ago, iamlibertarian said:

Basically what you are saying is you couldn't take a high fantasy mage (built as one), campaign for 8 real-life years, and turn that character into a Dr. Strange like character?
How about (movie versions) an early Iron Man with the short-lived suit built in a cave...could it in a really long campaign grown into the Iron Man in his last movie, AI assisted, large number of "duplicates", etc.? Would the characters just not grow that way?
Would an early Dr. Strange pretty much have to start out very close to a later Dr. Strange?

Iron Man is a little unusual in growing notably through his early career.  It seems like most supers come into their full power right away and they experience crazy variations over time, rather than steadily get better - presumably because of writing/marketing/publishing with retcons and different writers and reboots and whatnot.

 

And I'd never say /couldn't/ do something in Champions!, just that IMX, running some multi-year campaigns, and having a few character accumulate hundreds of exp over the years, a character built at a high-power/cosmic level is very different from a more typical one with the same number of points due to accumulate exp.   Points you spend a few at a time, or maybe save up tens of for a 'radiation accident' (though i can't say I've seen a lot of that), just seem to be spent differently than points spent all at once in chargen.

 

The specific example of a high-fantasy (Fantasy Hero/D&D-esque) wizard with tons of exp, yeah, it'd be nothing like Dr. Strange, not even a little bit like him.  Campaign norms, for one thing, are totally different in kill-crazy, treasure-grubbing, S&S or quest-driven high fantasy (which you honestly don't see so much of in TTRPG thanks to D&D) vs either regular super-heroes, or the 'mystic' variations typified by Strange.  

[iamlibertarian]

12 minutes ago, Opal said:

Iron Man is a little unusual in growing notably through his early career.  It seems like most supers come into their full power right away and they experience crazy variations over time, rather than steadily get better - presumably because of writing/marketing/publishing with retcons and different writers and reboots and whatnot.

 

And I'd never say /couldn't/ do something in Champions!, just that IMX, running some multi-year campaigns, and having a few character accumulate hundreds of exp over the years, a character built at a high-power/cosmic level is very different from a more typical one with the same number of points due to accumulate exp.   Points you spend a few at a time, or maybe save up tens of for a 'radiation accident' (though i can't say I've seen a lot of that), just seem to be spent differently than points spent all at once in chargen.

 

The specific example of a high-fantasy (Fantasy Hero/D&D-esque) wizard with tons of exp, yeah, it'd be nothing like Dr. Strange, not even a little bit like him.  Campaign norms, for one thing, are totally different in kill-crazy, treasure-grubbing, S&S or quest-driven high fantasy (which you honestly don't see so much of in TTRPG thanks to D&D) vs either regular super-heroes, or the 'mystic' variations typified by Strange.  

 

Makes sense...which is why it would be nice once in a while (for me) to start at a higher level. I mean, I don't have to play a full on, multiverse saving Dr. Strange, at his power levels, but it would be nice to be able to play a somewhat powerful mage that can at least have an effect on the entire world (after some xp even) 😆😇  I can make a pretty potent Wizard with 400 points, but with 600, damn! lol

[Werehawk]

 For ten years until 2015 (when real life took over the following year when my dad fell ill and succumbed two years later) I ran events at GenCon set in the 31st Century. All the characters were at a minimum 450 pts. These games were set up so both experienced players and newcomers could participate. Players have had no problems adjusting to the higher point totals. I'm looking to run again this year although I'm not pleased at this hybrid plan they have in mind this year. The same three teams are coming back plus two new ones. One is going to be in the 650 pt. range so this is going to be interesting to see how this plays out because this will be uncharted waters for me at this point limit. 

[dmjalund]

Are rotating GMs like Whirling Dervishes?

[Lord Liaden]

Not quite. Dervishes are conducting a sacred rite. GMs just think their games are a sacred rite.

[Terminax]

At my table I currently start at the Standard/Important Superheroes for 400 points and 75 points of complications level as outlined in Champions Complete. Even after a few years of transitioning from 4E to 6E, I get tripped up on certain parts. For starting games, I aim for a 60 to 75 active point limit, though I'm quite willing to entertain more on a case by case basis. I'd like to do a Champions Beyond style game at the 500 point and 100 points of complications level with a 100-120 active point limit, but anything beyond that as a starting point I feel isn't satisfying a place to go because it leaves little room for growth save in topping up already fairly high dice levels. 

[Panpiper]

I don't recall what the 'official' limits were in the 600 point campaign I played in were, but for the most part even after five years we were still roughly in the 60-100 active point range for the most part.

 

The 5th Ed character I played in that: 
https://www.mediafire.com/file/fr1y4w14hd7k0gh/vestige.hdc/file
https://www.mediafire.com/file/lstc7tmc59aiclh/Vestige.pdf/file