My existential crisis about SPD

[Doc Democracy]

It is however the bane of point-buy systems that every player wants to cover all the bases with their PC.  It means that characters tend towards the middle and look and/or feel a bit same-y.  Once you have bought "the essentials" there is less left to stamp an identity on the character.

 

Doc

Edited August 25 by Doc Democracy

[Ninja-Bear]

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

It is however the bane of point-buy systems that every player wants to cover all the bases with their PC.  It means that characters tend towards the middle and look and/or feel a bit same-y.  Once you have bought "the essentials" there is less left to stamp and identity on the character.

 

Doc

For the most part I agree. It’s the cover all bases that I think is what gets many people in trouble. They want to cover all bases Well. 

[Grailknight]

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

It is however the bane of point-buy systems that every player wants to cover all the bases with their PC.  It means that characters tend towards the middle and look and/or feel a bit same-y.  Once you have bought "the essentials" there is less left to stamp and identity on the character.

 

Doc

 

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

For the most part I agree. It’s the cover all bases that I think is what gets many people in trouble. They want to cover all bases Well. 

 

There are two forms of covering your bases. One is good and the other is not.

 

The bad way is to attempt to be just as good as another PC's main deal. Those who use VPP's can be especially good at this, along with Multipowers and Multiform. This may be something the GM has to address and it's easiest to do so as XP is being spent.

 

The good way is to cover a glaring weakness. You don't want your character to be repeatedly and easily defeated by a certain type of attack, so you buy some defenses. If that was something that your character was designed to be weak against, then you shouldn't try to become immune but it's fine to purchase enough defense to not be one-shotted. No one wants to just put their character away and read a book because a certain attack is in the villain's repertoire.

[Gauntlet]

One thing that can help with some of your players is to allow Radiation Accidents. Doesn't work for everyone but does for some.

[Steve]

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

The good way is to cover a glaring weakness. You don't want your character to be repeatedly and easily defeated by a certain type of attack, so you buy some defenses. If that was something that your character was designed to be weak against, then you shouldn't try to become immune but it's fine to purchase enough defense to not be one-shotted. No one wants to just put their character away and read a book because a certain attack is in the villain's repertoire.

Superman has had an infamously glaring weakness with Kryptonite for decades. A character may start with a Vulnerability that never goes away or gets mitigated and still be playable. It’s just a dramatic part of the character’s build. In the CU, there are glowing alien space rocks (Kelvarite) that grant powers but also give Vulnerabilities.

[Duke Bushido]

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

It is however the bane of point-buy systems that every player wants to cover all the bases with their PC. 

 

As wierd as this sounds, I have only ever encountered this issue when playing non-supers.  For some reason, when we are doing supers, my players and I have always accepted that a character being I'll-prepared or even particularly susceptible to a particular attack or type of attack as being part and parcel of superheroes.  

 

For example, we have lots of characters who are, as someone said above, just normal people with powers- the Cyclops / Nightcrawler / Punisher type guys who's best defense is teamwork or just not getting hit.

 

Almost every brick we have ever had at any of my tables, including my own Martin Power, way back when I sat on the other side of the screen, were notably defenseless or under-defended against EGO-based attacks, Flash, etc, all while shrugging off bullets and radiation blasts, etc.

 

It was when we got to non-super genres-  sci-fi or Fantasy and such- that the problem arose.  In those genres, rather than being a part of your suite of powers, you would _buy_ youe defenses with your earnings, etc.  Everyone has more-or-less the same access to the same stuff, and eventually....  Well, they al have the exact same little bit of this, little bit if that, healthy scoop of this other thing...,

 

To combat it, we have done things like strict obedience to encumbrance, and most successfully, make those defenses ablative in some way- have them take a bit of damage when they absorb certain thresholds, where they become weaker and eventually need replacing.  More than anything, that has helped lead to specialization in defenses amongst individual characters, and a general increase in teamwork when combatting someone against only a couple of characters are particularly well-defended.

 

 

Doesn't really solve _all_ the problems (and I dont know what does short of assigning a hard cap of "x number of defenses per character," but that doesn't resonate well with anyone, including the GM), but designing your antagonists the same way helps the players be comfortable knowing that they are under-defended against X, and it is okay.

 

Anyway, it works _well enough_ for us that I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

It has to do with your players, that's why its hard to write advice or articles for role playing.  I had good players almost exclusively; they had an idea of what they wanted to play and how they wanted to play it, and didn't have to have the ultimate character or be flawless.  Other groups will have players who want to make the flawless character and never lose or have a weakness.  Others will have people who don't really care that much and are just kind of walking through the game just to hang out.  Others will have someone totally new to the idea of role playing and don't have any real ideas of what to do or how to do it.  It varies so much.

[unclevlad]

It's also an issue with GMing style.  If the GM knows no one has substantial Mental Def, then the first mentalist or two might be such that they can dominate norms...but not necessarily supers.  

 

OTOH, sometimes a GM is in competition with the players...and plays to win.  The single most egregious instance...a flyer had great DCV but bad defenses, IIRC no rDEF.  The GM concocted a KA, OMCV vs. DMCV, 5 shot autofire...and later bragged about it, after he flat out killed that character with 1 attack.

 

He was extreme, but competitive GMs aren't that unusual.

[Duke Bushido]

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

He was extreme, but competitive GMs aren't that unusual.

 

 

Sadly, you are extremely correct, Unclevlad. 

 

I _get_ it, or kind of get it.  Like a lot of folks here, I learned RPGs in the 70s, when _all_ campaigns were adversarial wars of attrition of Party versus GM.  I kind of think that has a lot to do with its wargaming roots, which really were us versus y'all, and it took a long time for other possible playstyles to arise.

 

and it took a long time for a lot of people to get that flash of "this is pointless.  The GM controls _everything_.  He doesn't even _have_ to make sure that everyone we encounter is just _that_ much bwtter than us, or that traps are crafted specifically tailored to our weaknesses.  All he has to so is declare that the sun exploded and we have 15 minutes to feel that, or that the various gods have all said...  "Eh.. Let's just reboot this whole thing and start with something besides monkeys.  Those reptile things had a lot of potential, if we skimp on the ice age a bit..."

 

And even then, it took a long time for a level of trust to come about that allowed each party to have faith the other side was not "out to get them."  I mean honestly-  look at a modem DnD group!  I still don't care for the game myself, but when was the last time you saw a party make sure they had forty pounds of iron spikes?  Or that would literally journey back six days to town to get more before they even _considered_ going into a room or hallway without staking the door open?  Remember when you had NPC porters just to make sure you could carry more than enough trap-prevention devices with you?

 

Alas, there are still a few people on both sides of the screen who seem to feel that "winning" is accomplished only be foiling everything the other side of the screen would like to try.  😕

 

It'd be nice of there was some universal cure for that, too.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think its personality, to a great degree.  GMs who are competitive like that want to "win" and they don't view everyone having a great time and feeling heroic as a win.  I had a GM once who kept upgrading bad guys ever session because we would beat them.

[Doc Democracy]

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think its personality, to a great degree.  GMs who are competitive like that want to "win" and they don't view everyone having a great time and feeling heroic as a win.  I had a GM once who kept upgrading bad guys ever session because we would beat them.

 

I do not now re-use bad guys unless the players want then in a scenario.  if a villain is captured and convicted, they will stay in prison.  That is what I find gives the players the incentive to be heroes, their efforts make a difference.

 

I have said it before, the comic trope of a "revolving prison door" and " good is stupid" is purely due to the need for comics to keep selling issues and for noth authors and readers to read stories about archetypal heroes and villains.  It would make less narrative sense for there to be an infinite series of Joker stand-ins.

 

That is not necessary in an RPG campaign.  Repeating villains should be the ones that do not get their hands dirty, working from the shadows, Moriarty-style, and even those should culminate in a finale where the heroes triumph.

 

Doc

 

PS, yes @Duke Bushido we are beyond page 3.

Edited August 21 by Doc Democracy

[Gauntlet]

The biggest type of Problems I had with GMs wasn't the ones that felt they had to win; it was the ones that only wanted to go with their storyline. If your character did anything that did not go with the straight-line story, then it either was made so that it never succeeded or just stated that it couldn't be done. Made me feel like I was playing a video game, you know the ones where you go down the straight path and can do nothing else.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 8/19/2024 at 11:36 AM, LoneWolf said:

As a long time Dr. Strange fan I have to disagree with him never showing any facility in martial arts. In addition to fighting Wolverine with no magic he also fought Black Panther and Mantis with no magic in Defender #9.  In Doctor Strange #3 he fought Dormammu without using his magic.  Wong in the comics is not a sorcerer but highly skilled martial artist and Dr. Strange practices with him on a regular basis. I am not saying he has superhuman STR, but it is above average.  

In Hero terms (as of 4th) he probably Comic book style Martial Arts. When I first started something like that would bother me. “Does he have martial maneuvers if he doesn’t do martial arts”? Took me a while to understand that in Hero terms giving generic style is away for main characters to be able to fight better as they do in the comics. 

[LoneWolf]

If I remember correctly in the comics, he was supposed to know Kung Fu.  But that was probably due to his training in the Himalayas.  During that time period most, eastern martial arts were considered Kung Fu or Karate.    

Edited August 21 by LoneWolf

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I have said it before, the comic trope of a "revolving prison door" and " good is stupid" is purely dye to the need for comics to keep selling issues and for noth authors and readers to read stories about archetypal heroes and villains.  It would make less narrative sense for there to be an infinite series of Joker stand-ins.

 

This is actually a very good point that I had never considered before.  Mind you I never had a campaign run long enough for repeat villains to show up but I agree completely.  For a comic book, sales depend on popularity of characters and if people love a villain you want to bring them back no matter how little sense it makes (wasn't Captain Cookie chopped into pieces and fed to hyenas last time?  He got better.  Somehow, Captain Cookie has returned).  But in a role playing game setting, players will feel like its pointless to even arrest or capture a bad guy if they just show up on the streets a few sessions later.  This can be played on purpose (to reveal a crooked DA, for instance) but it ought to be the exception.  Heroes should feel like their heroics worked unless you specifically want a vigilante campaign.

 

The movies take the opposite approach, they seem to think that the only way to defeat a bad guy is to murder him.

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The movies take the opposite approach, they seem to think that the only way to defeat a bad guy is to murder him.

 

Yes, but they know that their storyline will never be going as far as that of a comic book so what's the point of not removing them permanently. Still wouldn't be a bad idea to at least bring someone back once in a time. Now of course for villains I am not counting the master villains for a series of movies, they go down at the end.

[Doc Democracy]

9 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Yes, but they know that their storyline will never be going as far as that of a comic book so what's the point of not removing them permanently. Still wouldn't be a bad idea to at least bring someone back once in a time. Now of course for villains I am not counting the master villains for a series of movies, they go down at the end.

 

The problem, in my view, is the potential glorification of lethal violence, especially by self-appointed vigilante enforcers.

 

And if you think dying in a story removes them permanently, then you have not read enough comic books!  I don't think being in a film makes any difference to the villain economics.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

And if you think dying in a story removes them permanently, then you have not read enough comic books!

 

Well yeah but there's a difference between having the villain die every story arc and having one die once in a while and come back later.

[Gauntlet]

42 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

The problem, in my view, is the potential glorification of lethal violence, especially by self-appointed vigilante enforcers.

 

And if you think dying in a story removes them permanently, then you have not read enough comic books!  I don't think being in a film makes any difference to the villain economics.

 

I do agree with you. I mean heck, in the first Batman movie that was not based on the quirky TV Show they killed Joker off with the first movie. He definitely was someone they could continue to use. But they don't want to pay actors any more than for one movie.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

The problem, in my view, is the potential glorification of lethal violence, especially by self-appointed vigilante enforcers.

Well yeah? That the allure of these movies.

[Doc Democracy]

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well yeah? That the allure of these movies.

 

But it ain't superheroes.  Personally, I will watch superheroes till the cows come home but the recent stuff put me off watching it.

 

I did enjoy Moon Knight.  I did enjoy Wandavision and She-Hulk and I thought Peacemaker was the finest piece of superhero television I have watched in recent decades.

 

Doc

Edited August 22 by Doc Democracy

[Ninja-Bear]

8 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

But it ain't superheroes.  Personally, I will watch superheroes till the cows come home but the crescent stuff put me off going.

 

I did enjoy Moon Knight.  I did enjoy Wandavision and She-Hulk and I thought Peacemaker was the finest piece of superhero television I have watched in recent decades.

 

Doc

Ahhh 😱 I missed that point! Good point!

[Gauntlet]

16 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Ahhh 😱 I missed that point! Good point!

 

Plus, when you just continually do it, you lose the wonder. Is the hero going kill the villain or is he going to be the better man and not.

[Steve]

Limited SPD seems like it should figure into this somewhere.

Perhaps there is a speedster character who buys extra points of SPD that can only be used for Moves and Half-Moves.

[Gauntlet]

7 minutes ago, Steve said:

Limited SPD seems like it should figure into this somewhere.

Perhaps there is a speedster character who buys extra points of SPD that can only be used for Moves and Half-Moves.

 

I have done that a few times with Mentalists, 3 Speed for all activities but an additional 3 Speed for Mental Powers. That way on phases 4, 8, 12 he can do anything the normally would be able to do, but on phases 2, 6, 10 he can do additional mental powers. Now if he needs to cancel (like perhaps to dodge) he will also lose any mental powers only phases if he is canceling before them. I have found that if you are going to have a character have more than one speed for doing additional things then you will want to make sure that the total upgraded speed utilizes all of the same phases as the speed for doing all actions (such as speed 6 uses all of the phases of speed 3).