Player-Built Characters...

[etherio]

Hey Everybody...

 

I've been playing HERO games for about 20 years now, but I'm new to the BB, so please bear with me if this has come up before...

 

I get the impression, from both the rulebooks and from people's comments here, that most of you operate something like this in regards to introducing PCs:

 

--Player makes character at home and brings it on game night. GM scans character for any glaring abuses of the rules. Game commences.--

 

In our group, there's pretty much no such animal. All characters are built in a sort of cooperative negotiation with the campaign's GM, from start to finish. The finished product is the child of both player and GM. One reason is that we've developed a scale that suits our group, for everything from damage classes, to combat skill levels, to statistics, etc. In addition, each campaign's GM has finely tuned ideas about what should be available to PCs, and the birth of each new PC invariably further defines that world.

 

We've had a few players who've seemed put-off by our reluctance to allow characters that were built otherwise, or were brought in unmodified from their old campaigns, and I wonder how most HERO gamers feel about this.

 

Gimme your input...

[Snarf]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

I do pretty much the same thing with new players. With players who know the Hero System, I do a compromise between the two extremes. They make their character but they talk to me before and after they make it, and there's usually some revisions.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

(bring in PCs with only a cursory nod on gameday)

 

What????

 

Sorry Etherio that has never 100% absolutely not no way no how mister how Champions PCs in any game I have been involved with been generated.

 

PCs are generated by the player (plus help from other players or GM on difficult or unusual constructs) usually about 3-4 weeks BEFORE game day. Once the Player feels he has done a good job and is satisfied the GM recieves a copy.

 

The GM then employs what ever arcane processes he likes to determine the validity of the PC. At this time he might throw out the PC all together, change limitation levels (sorry no vacuum will be encountered -0 please), tweak Disads, etc. Then either a face to face (preferably or email) exchange is made with the player as the GM explains his executive decisions. Since it is the GMs game the Player has to accept any changes as final or build up a new PC.

 

Usually said PC is either accompanied by text detailing origin, power SFX and rationale for powers. Sometimes Unusual Builds can take all of the 3-4 weeks to get nailed down right. I imagine that in FRed, the new duplication rules create enough weird PCs that the GM has his mind doing loop the loops to figure out if or what the Dupe is like. (My fav TK Silly Putty Man)

 

Hawksmoor

[i3ullseye]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Well, most of the time I usually work with the Players to make Characters, normally our first session is indeed going over the campaign setting and generating at least the basics of the character. This is normally after the end of another game, so we don't spend a whole day JUST on getting ready for another.

 

The following session is when we finalize characters and then get the game rolling. Now I normally work WITH the players a lot during creation. Especially players that are not very familiar with the rules. For those that DO know the rules, I will normally let them create a PC then let me do a quick once over on them.... but I set up character creation guidelines well in advance, and I clearly define which powers and abilities someone can and can not take, which roles the players will fill in the world, and in some instances which roles they need to try to fill within the group.

 

With a good character guideline document in place, you can let those more familiar with the system really run with it, and then just put final touches, or ask for a few tweaks, before the character starts to play.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Well, the current GM I run with has only one problem: there is a possibility than anything can and will exist somewhere in creation/the-multiverse/reality.

 

Since the GM has no limit on concept that leaves mechanics. His usual rule is 60 Active Points maximum on creation, running to about 75 or so after experience, topping out at 90ish at the absolute highest after much play and scrutiny. He also requests that 1/4-1/3 of the character involve non-combat related points (skills, perks, talents and even some powers).

 

Some players get regularly smacked down because they simply want stuff to make them invulnerable. Some players get a lot of rope to go do things because he a) trusts them trusts them and c) believes they are almost genetically incapable of power-gaming/min-maxing (that would be me.)

 

With the exception of one campaign where all the rules have been blown out of the water and we're going full tilt on everything, powers regularly top out around 100+ active points. But that is with a very small group of people, and the game is story driven to the point of several sessions going without dice being used.

 

Creation works like this: Player thinks of concept. GM either builds character for the inexperienced player with input from them or Experienced Player builds character then hands to GM for approval. In some cases the GM goes "remove this, lower that." and it is done. (In my case the GM goes "why didn't you put all this in an EC? of course it makes sense." And then I come back with more background skills and an EC.)

 

It's not a side-by-side thing, but there is input on both sides and rarely, if ever, is a concept or idea completely shot down.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Most of the players in my game aren't very experienced, especially in making characters. So as a default, I make most of the characters (though the player will walk me through their concept as I do).

 

Basically, it works like this. Player and I talk about the character's concept, where I'll rule out concepts that don't belong in this campaign, point out difficulties in making certian concepts work (time control for example) or let them know a certain concept would need to be toned down for starters but can be built up to with experience. Once a concept is settled on, the player can make the character on his own time if he has the means, or we do it together before the game starts. Either way, before the game starts, I go over the character with the player. If they did the work themselves, I might point out some automatic changes because of a house rule or a balance issue, but otherwise the character is allowed as long as it meets the campaign guidelines.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

For every single character in every Champions game/campaign I've ever GM'd, I've been an integral part of building the player's characters. Partly this is because I have (now) 14 years of experience with the system, partly this is so I can try and make sure there are no glaring problems or holes unless they're character-driven, and partly this is because by bouncing ideas back and forth with the player it both helps crystallize the character concept for the player and lets me get a feel for the character's personality before they ever see the light of play -- which helps a LOT in putting adventures together.

 

Usually I set aside a 6 to 8 hour block for each player (or group of 2 or 3 players) to put characters together...and frequently go over the alloted time. The next time we meet it's for a game. Once that game is over (and I always make sure to include at least one combat encounter as a sort of "shake down" cruise) we talk about the session, their characters, what worked and what didn't. Then I allow them to make chages to tweak the characters, so long as it doesn't change the character into something that bears no resemblence to what came before. (On one or two occassions I have allowed a player to scrap a character who just proved unplayable period, and start over with an entirely new characcter.)

 

Case in point: I just started a new campaign recently with three new players, none of which had ever played Champions before. I talked with them before the day we got together to make characters, so all had good, solid concepts by the time we sat down to put numbers on paper. One thing became apparent, though, pretty quickly -- though they all had good ways to avoid being hit (mostly DEXs in the 28-30 range), or ways to recover rapidly if they were (Regen), when we were going over the various types of defense, every single one of them expressed disdain about Mental Defense when I told them that with very few exceptions, mental attacks were always Stun Only. I'd explained the concept of Stun vs. Body, but I don't think they really understood it...they've played almost exclusively D&D prior to this.

 

The first game session I included a combat scenario, and put two villains against the 3 PCs -- I figured that should be about right, since I had doubts about their teamwork and the players didn't know the system yet. I selected Black Diamond and Hummingbird as my antagonists. This gave me a good selection of threats: mostly physical with hand-to-hand, and an agile, hard-to-hit threat with a mental attack. Granted, it was only 5d6, so I didn't think I was in serious danger of ruining the scenario, but I thought it just might give the players a taste of what a Stun-Only attack can do if they had no defense against it. (Let me be clear: I wasn't trying to punish them or anything, but to get across the idea that attacks that didn't do BODY damage were still a threat to be recconed with. A mental attack seemed the way to go because I could usually dish about 15-17 Stun per attack, which shouldn't be a game-breaker. I neede something that could get through their defenses without them seeing me rolling handfuls of dice and concluding I was trying to blow them away with overwhelming firepower; mental attacks seemed to fit the bill.)

 

As it was, the villains very nearly won, thanks mostly to a lack of teamwork on the part of the players (and characters) though that changed near the end of the combat. One of the characters, a mutant who used a pair of thermal/electric projections pistols which converted his innate bio-energy into heat or electricity, spent quite a few rounds CON-Stunned thanks to high rolls on the 5d6 mental attack from Hummingbird, and he had a terrible time trying to hit an 18 DCV target. (This was the first time I'd run a shrinking ranged-attack character, and I now see why many regard this as a "broken" combo.) Finally, though, he did a Brace and Aim, and hit her with both pistols, for near max damage. Hummingbird was effectively out of the fight at that point, but so was the gun-toter.

 

The other two PCs (a rich playboy teleporter and a catlike martial artist) were dancing with Black Diamond, and she was getting the upper hand. The teleporter quite literally didn't have anything that could get through her defenses...so he resorted to strategy ( ) and verbal taunts to keep her mad enough she wasn't thinking straight. Ocelot (the martial artist) was doing so-so against her, until Black Diamond did a full-speed move through on her, got near max damage and max knockback -- imbedding Ocelot in a marble wall. She was seriously hurt -- down over half her Body -- but this was the character with Regen, so in 3 phases she was back up and in the fray again. Between them, The Rose (the teleporter) and Ocelot took out Black Diamond, though it was The Rose who "finished her off" -- by baiting her into a full-steam-ahead blinding-fury charge -- and holding his action to teleport at the last second so Black Diamond did a move through on a solid marble pillar. Ouch. GM's Discretion-land!

 

They learned a fair amount about teamwork, and its importance. They also learned not to dismiss Stun out of hand. Two of them made adjustments after the game now that they had a better idea of how thins worked; in particular, the gun-toter and the teleporter got a few points of Mental Def. When I asked Ocelot's player about that, she shrugged and said "No, I'm not going to get any. Ocelot didn't get hit with a mental attack, so she has no reason yet to know how terribly effective they can be. After she does get creamed that way, she'll change her mind and I'll buy some then."

[John Desmarais]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

--Player makes character at home and brings it on game night. GM scans character for any glaring abuses of the rules. Game commences.--

 

Our typical method is for me to give the players a packet of campaign background info a week or two ahead of time so they can start thinking about characters. We then spend the first session with everyone building characters together (with my help where needed).

 

John D

[Vex]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

I gave the players notice that they could build new characters and then discussed their concepts with them. They spent a few weeks building them and then gave them to me. I pretty much rebuilt the characters and gave them back. They seem pretty happy with the results. They are new players and are obviously inexperienced when it comes to construction.

[Blue]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

If anyone wants to introduce a character they have to send it to me by e-mail before I let it in. Reasons:

• I have specific campaign rules for building characters; I want to be certain they have adhered to these.
• I want to make sure Hunteds are accounted for, as I like to roll these before the game in order to prepare an appropriate time for their appearance.
• I like to see if there is a way I can save them points, and sometimes there is.
• I like to kill superfluous or silly disadvantages and suggest ones that are more in keeping with the character.
• I like to already have in mind something about the character that ties them to the campaign, even if they themselves are not aware of it yet.

But one of the PCs from the last campagn was designed by me at the request of the player, which was fine; He doesn't show up much and therefore I knew he'd have trouble with the mechanics of design.

[Mentor]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

For ten years we built PCs as etherio described, and were disatisfied with the imbalance of characters and their abilities.

 

Our current campaign started with the primary GM (Trebuchet) creating a set of power guidelines (good be worried by military heavy weapons) as well as personality requirements (ie, no psychopathic loners or superior alien gods) making the team aspect primary. Power levels based on then fairly standard fourth edition recommendations were instituted with any deviation being approved by the GM.

 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the game was by invitation. Those individuals in the fairly large local gaming community of our acquaintence who are abusive, disruptive, egocentric or inept were not welcome. Thus we have a great campaign with a terrific group of players and a glorious team. The transition to 5th edition was easy and the combat abilities rose only slightly and in only some of the heroes. We used the points mostly to round out the personalities and noncombat skills, which we use a lot.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

They learned a fair amount about teamwork' date=' and its importance. They also learned not to dismiss Stun out of hand. Two of them made adjustments after the game now that they had a better idea of how thins worked; in particular, the gun-toter and the teleporter got a few points of Mental Def. When I asked Ocelot's player about that, she shrugged and said "No, I'm not going to get any. Ocelot didn't get hit with a mental attack, so she has no reason yet to know how terribly effective they can be. After she [i']does[/i] get creamed that way, she'll change her mind and I'll buy some then."

Great story, Dr. A. I just hope the players don't spend the rest of their Champions careers always buying the defense for the last attack that hurt them. "Uh oh, a Drain attack! I'll use my unspent XP to buy Power Defense." "Oh, drat, I got Flashed! I'd better buy Flash Defense before the next game."

 

Sure it's easy to justify exotic defenses in most cases, but if everybody has Power Defense and Mental Defense the GM may have to rely increasingly on larger conventional attacks. That's not fun.

 

Rather than buy Mental Defense for my MA, I simply bought her a higher than average EGO (14) to reflect her strong willpower and which makes it harder for egoists to either hit or control her. With her Overall level, she can have an ECV of 6, which means most egoists have to roll fairly good to hit her since most egoists in our campaign seem to have EGO in the 18-23 range..

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

When I asked Ocelot's player about that' date=' she shrugged and said "No, I'm not going to get any. Ocelot didn't get hit with a mental attack, so she has no reason yet to know how terribly effective they can be. After she [i']does[/i] get creamed that way, she'll change her mind and I'll buy some then."

 

Ummmm..."Then she'll buy some"? This seems the classic question of "Yes, I know why the character might wish to develpop a defense. My question was how the character would logically develop this power."

 

If Dragon Fist was hit by NND's a lot last game, should he be able to spontaneously develop the defense in time for the next game session?

 

"Dragon Fist has used his unspent xp to buy LS: Self contained breathing, Intense Heat, Intense Cold, 5 points of Hardened Hearing Flash Defense and a 5/5 Force field. After being hit by all those NND's last week, he trained to hold his breath for indefinite periods, catch fire and freeze solid without injury, grow bony carapaces over his ears and project a field of NND-stopping goodness"

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

All characters in my game have passed through a GM Screen at a minimum prior to entering play.

 

For less experienced/systems-capable people I will translate their concept into HERO terms.

 

For problem players that have a habit of double dipping or hacking the system I require their character a week or more in advance to allow time for back and forth revision.

 

 

I never use point caps for standard supers, but excercise veto on any power that I think is game breaking or overly efficient.

 

As a general rule, outside of character creation and for all systems, I prefer to run Preludes for each PC prior to the game, and allow some tweaking afterwards if something came up in the Prelude.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Ummmm..."Then she'll buy some"? This seems the classic question of "Yes, I know why the character might wish to develpop a defense. My question was how the character would logically develop this power."

 

If Dragon Fist was hit by NND's a lot last game, should he be able to spontaneously develop the defense in time for the next game session?

 

"Dragon Fist has used his unspent xp to buy LS: Self contained breathing, Intense Heat, Intense Cold, 5 points of Hardened Hearing Flash Defense and a 5/5 Force field. After being hit by all those NND's last week, he trained to hold his breath for indefinite periods, catch fire and freeze solid without injury, grow bony carapaces over his ears and project a field of NND-stopping goodness"

This is a problem I have in my game, at least in part, though I consider it a minor one. The player of the brick keeps badgering me about wanting Mental Defense and Flash Defense, stating that her nigh invulnerable brick has a serious weaknesses. I keep replying, not only whould your character have no idea of how to develop those Powers, you've no in game reason for buying then, as you haven't been attacked with anything Mental Defense or Flash Defense would protect against (except once, but that missed). Not only that, but every character has a weakness. The fewer and less exploitable your weakness are, the more crippling they can be, and the more difficult it is to cover for them.

 

The metagame reasoning: If I let one player character have all they types of defenses, I need to come up with something else entirely just to affect her. Whatever that is would end up affect the rest of the group all the more (because they aren't bricks) and wouldn't be fair to them when it shows up.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

I had a player that fell into this trap. He wanted a defense against everything.

 

So I let him play such a character; thats where the Rook character on the Millennial Men came from. Me, I dont have a problem with it because I know that ultimately I can scale the game as needed to compensate for it, and ultimately can just take the character out of play if it becomes uncontrollable.

 

Ive found that one of the best ways to cure players of their foibles is to make them pursue it to the max. Glut them on it.

 

Like a kid forced to smoke an entire carton of cigarettes, often this orgy of munchkiny behavior will cure the player of their fascination and they can move on. If not you know that they are incorrigible and can get rid of them if necessary.

 

Gotta a guy that likes to do a lot of damage? Make him dial it up to the max factor where all he can do is inflict max damage all the time, and make that damage be ridiculous. Then make sure that each abuse of power is persectued/prosecuted/mocked/villified/etc. Have villains just surrender to the character without a fight. Have the authorities dislike and downtalk the character. Have NPCs shun the character, and refuse to talk to the other PCs if the damage monkey is around. Have one or more organizations call for him to be dampered or quarantined or otherwise restrained. Make the player beg to play a character with reasonable offense, or to radiation accident their existing character to reduce their lethality. It works more times than not.

 

 

Same thing w/ DEF boy, but in reverse.

[Magmarock]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Back in the day (more than ten years ago) any player could bring any PC. The GM would scan it and either allow it or veto it (the latter if the PC was truly sick).

 

Since then, our group has gone through a number of changes regarding the method of team building. This would be for campaigns, not individual bashes which are, in effect, testing grounds for new character concepts. As a sidenote, we seem to have fewer and fewer bashes these days. I don't know why that is.

 

So, back on topic, about ten years ago we got tired of having redundant PCs stepping on other characters' toes. You know the drill. This is what we did: After the campaign style & theme (street level, city, international, etc.) were decided on by everyone, we then started planning, at the beginning of a campaign, who would play what role in the upcoming game: Who will play the leader, the second in command, recon, the soldiers, the loner (yes, we allowed only one each time because nothing sucks more than a whole team of loners). And while we did that, we decided who was playing the team brick, the mentalist, the martial artist, and if anyone was going to run a 'special' character (i.e duplicator, speedster, shapeshifter, gadgeteer, etc.) so we wouldn't have more than one. If we had two bricks, for instance, one would be the tougher brick, while the other brick would be far stronger.

 

Additionally, we had some group members who kept "one-upping" other players' PCs in power level (with XPs) and so to stop the "DEX wars" and "DC wars", we instigated the active point caps. I really hated those caps, too, because that meant if you wanted to build a really interesting power (with one or three advantages) the power would suck due to the low number of dice.

 

And we also set a balance for PCs regarding damage vs speed. Meaning, the more actions your PC has, the less dice damage your PC could do in a single attack. This generally meant that bricks were like molassass, while speedster ran around alot but couldn't harm a fly.

 

Once, we broke out of that mold and built PCs based purely on concept. Points were not an issue, but all the concpts had to be around the same power level. That meant, no "Silver Surfer" while the rest of the group ran "Dare Devil" and "Nightwing" characters. That game worked out very well and we played it for a while. The game was only put on hold because we had some players leave, due to real life issues.

 

We have played other theme games like where all the PCs were street-level M/As or, more recently, all were villains trying to find redemption as heroes (as the Grey Guardsmen). We obviously agree now that planning works for us, since we keep doing it. The last three city-based campaigns we played in were all planned out.

 

Through the years we've played the following campaigns, named for the teams. In chronological order, they are: Metallica, Nexus, V.A.L.O.R., UNIT 1, Omega Force, The Crusade, Storm Front, and INH (originally stood for "Insert Name Here" and later became Independent Northwest Heroes) all out of Portland, Oregon except for UNIT 1 (UN team, International) and Omega Force (National team USA). We also had the Grey Guardsmen who were based out of Millenium City.

 

For our current game, we decided to return to the UNIT 1 concept and build the next team line-up. Since we are a much smaller group now, we tossed out all active point caps (yay). But we still planned what PCs to build. As always, each player builds their own PC, but now since we are trading off the GMing duties, everyone gets to see all of the characters. A current copy of each PC is provided for whoever is running the game. Right now, that would be me.

 

Dang, I have rambled enough and it's getting late. I think my input is done.

 

Cheers,

 

Mags

[DevoDog]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

When I first started playing Champs, we all pretty much created our own characters. However, at the time (1st Edition), Munchkining didn't really happen much.

 

In my last campaign, I had created characters for 3 of the players based on their inputs, two of the other players created their own characters.

 

I've never been much for min/maxing my creations, but one of the other players was. And, as it turned out, his character was immensly more effective than the others.

 

So, after our 2nd session, all of the characters were rebuilt. The "power" character was scaled down while the other characters were scaled up.

 

I think the problem lies in how different people create different characters. From a balance issue, I honestly thing you're better off having one person create ALL of the characters (heroes and villains) in a campaign.

[Magmarock]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

That's right. Some people are better and crunching the numbers, and some are just flat-out better at building decent PCs (my brother is one of the latter).

 

I stuggle, because my PC concepts are not mainstream. Sometimes even the cost limits are too restrictive. Advantages are expensive for a reason, I get that, but sometimes you need to combine 3 or four to make a truly unique power. Sure, limitations make it cheap again, but those Active Point Caps kill all my creativity. Grumble.

 

Mags

[Descant]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

*Trying desperately to not be irritated beyond reason that I spent half an hour typing this once, previewed, and hit the back button to edit ONE typo to find my text vanished utterly with no way to reclaim and NO WARNING this would happen...*

(End of rant)

 

First off, Dr. Anomaly and Ghost Angel, I wish I knew more GM's like the ones running your campaigns at an earlier stage in my gaming career! Dust Raven's games are very much like you described, and, as I am a character- and story-based gamer with a taste for continuity, I very much enjoy playing in his campaigns. Reason: Instead of introducing characters into his campaign, he designs his campaign around the characters that the players want to run.

 

Once, we took this to an extreme, and we decided to try and come up with an all-out concept game. All the characters worked toegther, knew each other, and players decided what their relationships to one onther would be before the game. This turned out to be a high-tech game (Knight City, listed on Raven's site TLO3T), where we all worked for the same company in research and development, security, and, later, began being hired-out as a city-sanctioned defense force. Unfortunately, this was very short-lived as we lost a player and then life intervened further, but we have plans to revive the campaign sometime when we can get everybody together again, possibly minus the one player. I liked how well the concept flowed in that one.

 

Most of our games, however, have been meet-the-other-PCs-in-the-first-adventure-and-form-a-team games, and they, too, have worked well, especially since Raven has ingenious ways of involving most of our characters' disads in one initial run that ties us nicely together. Then again, not everybody is looking for stories that get that detailed out-of-combat, or complicated moral dilemmas or long character conversations... and that's okay, too. Ultimately, though, the best kind of GM is one who works to give the players the kind of game they want to play, so everybody enjoys the experience.

 

This is a problem I have in my game, at least in part, though I consider it a minor one. The player of the brick keeps badgering me about wanting Mental Defense and Flash Defense, stating that her nigh invulnerable brick has a serious weaknesses. I keep replying, not only whould your character have no idea of how to develop those Powers, you've no in game reason for buying then, as you haven't been attacked with anything Mental Defense or Flash Defense would protect against (except once, but that missed). Not only that, but every character has a weakness. The fewer and less exploitable your weakness are, the more crippling they can be, and the more difficult it is to cover for them.

As a side note, it finally happened! Our Brick came up against some real nasties from PSI, and got knocked out by a pair of egoists while tangling with Bodyjack (named for the power from the UNTIL book), who had, in the last fight, found her an incredibly useful target. A wild combination of her severe hatred for having somebody else running around with her body, quite a few incredibly lucky die rolls for defense, and a rather foul attitude toward mental attacks after this led me to suggest the compromise (inspired by "Iron Will" from the same tome as above): Aid EGO 3d6, Only to resist mental powers (-1/2), costs END (-1/2), Self only (-1/2). This is far more in-concept than a sudden development of mental defense, and will work pretty much the way the character's mind would. Of course, her mind would not work that way unless she had fought for her willpower against mentalists before. So NOW, it works. I, too, very much agree with disads and powers being to concept. I really should go out and buy some heavy Flash Defense for Touchstone, but then again, that would greatly devalue his Vulnerability to Flash attacks due to sensory overload. Concept wins, therefore, I'll deal!

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Thanks for the compliment, Descant! (Cool name and avatar, too! )

 

I know what you mean about playing "within concept". The character I play in the Friday night game I co-GM, Dr. Anomaly (natch!) is a scientist-sorceror with two VPPs (75 pt gadgets, 30 pt magic) and a huge list of Knowledge and Science skills. Outside of the VPPs, he's got two devices and one spell always at his command. (One of the "outside the pool" gadgets, by the way, is just an Instant Change clothing transmogrifier.)

 

During Friday night's game, Dr. Anomaly found himself in the middle of of a huge, nasty mostly-magical fight (along with his teammates) with only his one outside-the-pool spell and his 30 pt magic pool with which to work. The Bad Guys were throwing around 75 Active Point (and above) Killing Attacks, Transforms, NNDs, and so on. Needless to say he felt a little overwhelmed! Why was he at such a disadvantage? Well, in paying for the flexibility of the Gadget pool, there's always that chance to have your gadgets taken away (or get caught without them, like in this case) and 30 Active Points of magic isn't a lot to work with.

 

I resorted to doing minor "buffing" things for other party members: +15 STUN to an about-to-drop comrade, a +20 STR for the brick, +2 OCV for the power armor wearer, that sort of thing. Oh, yeah. And conjuring up a pair of non-magical, industrial-strength boltcutters to get the magic-dampening shakles off an NPC mage.

 

The vast majority of the combat (well, all of the direct combat, except for one thing) was done by the other members of the team, but the Good Guys won by the skin of our teeth. Yes, I was severly limited in what I could do, but it was a lot of fun nevertheless! (And the look on Balrog's player's face when he realized his character now had a 90 STR was worth the price of admission...)

 

One other little thing Dr. Anomaly learned during that fight...until now, in 95%+ of the cases, his magic has all been pre-built in expendable (Charged) things like scrolls, potions, and talismans. Ditto for his gadgets. It was about the time he cast his 4th spell directly that I realized his END was now down in the single digits! Having always used Charged or 0 END items up until now, the good Doctor had never bothered to build his own reserves up that much...!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

During Friday night's game, Dr. Anomaly found himself in the middle of of a huge, nasty mostly-magical fight (along with his teammates) with only his one outside-the-pool spell and his 30 pt magic pool with which to work. The Bad Guys were throwing around 75 Active Point (and above) Killing Attacks, Transforms, NNDs, and so on. Needless to say he felt a little overwhelmed! Why was he at such a disadvantage? Well, in paying for the flexibility of the Gadget pool, there's always that chance to have your gadgets taken away (or get caught without them, like in this case) and 30 Active Points of magic isn't a lot to work with.

 

I resorted to doing minor "buffing" things for other party members: +15 STUN to an about-to-drop comrade, a +20 STR for the brick, +2 OCV for the power armor wearer, that sort of thing. Oh, yeah. And conjuring up a pair of non-magical, industrial-strength boltcutters to get the magic-dampening shakles off an NPC mage.

 

The vast majority of the combat (well, all of the direct combat, except for one thing) was done by the other members of the team, but the Good Guys won by the skin of our teeth. Yes, I was severly limited in what I could do, but it was a lot of fun nevertheless! (And the look on Balrog's player's face when he realized his character now had a 90 STR was worth the price of admission...)

 

One other little thing Dr. Anomaly learned during that fight...until now, in 95%+ of the cases, his magic has all been pre-built in expendable (Charged) things like scrolls, potions, and talismans. Ditto for his gadgets. It was about the time he cast his 4th spell directly that I realized his END was now down in the single digits! Having always used Charged or 0 END items up until now, the good Doctor had never bothered to build his own reserves up that much...!

I've always felt this is the kind of situation that leads to good role-playing. It's too easy for most characters to just use their basic attacks on the bad guys and get fairly predictable results. It's when a character is hampered or underpowered in some way they have to get creative. My character Zl'f is hands down the fastest character on our team, but she's also at the absolute bottom of the damage done list. We often end up fighting villains where her low dice attacks (8-10d6) simply cannot cause the villain harm. In such cases she has to do something else, such as Martial Throw or Legsweep said villain so the other team members can hit the now-lower DCV villain, defending downed or defenseless comrades, or (in a recent adventure) temporarily blinding a giant opponent to reduce the villains OCV by hanging on the giant's back and keeping her hands over the giants eyes.

 

It's not important whether you can actually damage an opponent if you can still affect the combat in some useful way, and it often leads to better role-playing than just blasting away with the standard attack Power.

[Christougher]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

Ive found that one of the best ways to cure players of their foibles is to make them pursue it to the max. Glut them on it.

 

Like a kid forced to smoke an entire carton of cigarettes, often this orgy of munchkiny behavior will cure the player of their fascination and they can move on. If not you know that they are incorrigible and can get rid of them if necessary.

 

Same thing w/ DEF boy, but in reverse.

 

An example please of how you'd do this for the DEF boy, and the DEX/CV monkeys?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

An example please of how you'd do this for the DEF boy' date=' and the DEX/CV monkeys?[/quote']

 

Personally I have no problems with these concepts. They are going to take a large number of points from the available pool and are intergral to many very good concepts.

 

Then we have player preference. If I was creating a DEF Boy I would want no more than 10% of my STUN totals being removed by the Average Campaign attack, preferably lower. If I have 60 STUN =6 or LESS stun on the Average Attack; This guy is a Brick It should take a lot to bring him down. If I was creating a DEX/CV Monkey I would want to take my initiative with the first three characters per phase, have the maximum SPEED allowed per phase, Hit on 15- the average DCV and Be hit on an 8-.

 

Not that unbalancing really since I am pumping a lot of points into these abilities.

 

Hawksmoor

[Descant]

Re: Player-Built Characters...

 

I've always felt this is the kind of situation that leads to good role-playing. It's too easy for most characters to just use their basic attacks on the bad guys and get fairly predictable results. It's when a character is hampered or underpowered in some way they have to get creative.

**SNIP**

It's not important whether you can actually damage an opponent if you can still affect the combat in some useful way, and it often leads to better role-playing than just blasting away with the standard attack Power.

I have actually recently come to this realization myself. The character I'm playing in our current campaign has most of his combat abilities locked up in Foci (Phase pistol with various settings: EB, NND, RKA, and a happy little SPD drain , and a Phase Displacement harness: Teleportation, Desol, and FF). Normally, aside from the foci, he's Hypersense man with latent psychic abilities, and an uncanny knack for figuring out gadgets (like alien guns and belts, for instance ) and jury-rigging. So where I have normally been EBing the baddies in other games, I have to take on a slightly different tack with him. Usually he's hostage-guy (his teleport can take another person with, and he's got a bonus to grab-by with it!), or a good distraction, or else he goes after the hard-to-sense people. But instead of dodging, he can abort to Desolid, and not be losing as many actions, and he's great for snagging the item the bad guys want while the rest of the party keeps the combatants busy, cos he can phase through walls and barriers unnoticed and slow down pursuers. So he's the guy with the options in combat. It's really been fun, because it forces me to think about new tactics entirely, which livens up combat a bit.