350 - Does it cause "too much" diversity?

[Law Dog]

After running a 350 campaign last year, the group I play with came to the consensus that we didn't like the power level. It just seemed that the diversity spread so wide, that everybody wound up being able to do just about everything and the interdependance on other team members just wasn't there. It may have just been the way the characters were designed, but it left us feeling somewhat disatified. I think were going for a 275-300 with a 125 point base next time around.

 

How does everybody else like the standard 350 campaign?

[Hermit]

My group loves it. They still tend towards favoring powers over skills, but now, as one person puts it "My Energy blaster can have a job besides making fries." One guy made a ninja style super hero who's secret idenity was a Corp Exec (Yes Virginia, there ARE corporate ninjas *S*). With the 350 points he not only had all the combat goodies he wanted, but the perks and skills that would behove a sneaky fortune 500 fellow.

[RDU Neil]

This is an interesting question... so I'll pose one of my own.

 

Is it 350 starting level that is the problem... or simply 350 points, period?

 

I'll explain. I've got a long term campaign, and only now that some characters are reaching 500 plus do we begin to see the lack of differentiation. EB characters have all the same stuff... everyone can afford Power Defense and Mental Defense and movement powers... (justifiably within characater, as well.)

 

This wasn't the case when our 275 pt. starting characters reached 350 with EXP. Differentiation was fine.

 

I just wonder, if folks start at 350 (I'm still at 300 for what I consider a STARTING character. 350 is a character with some adventures under their belt.) are people likely to have all the best skills and powers, 'cause now they can afford them... right from the start? Everyone has stealth because it's so useful, when the brick might have gone without it at lower levels, even if justified in character.

 

Again... this has only begun to HINT at being a problem in my campaign, because the big guns are a TK , a PSI and an EB... and while VERY VERY different in concept and history... at this point, they all have flight, force field, EB, mental defense, etc. They all have levels and combat skills, etc.

 

It makes sense... as you'd probably have a difficult time separating out three veteran soldiers from each other, if they were inventoried on paper. Justifiably, each of these heroes can "do it all"... but from a game/drama stand point, it can begin to feel claustrophobic.

 

It's like in the comics... in his own magazing, Iron Man can go toe to toe with Dr. Doom... but in the Avengers, the whole team is needed to go toe to toe. PCs in my game are to the point where they can easily be "the best of the best" in their own comic... and joined together, they are a bit redundant.

 

It's an intersting conundrum... though again, I don't think starting point levels are the issue, except that you might reach this point SOONER, rather than later.

[RDU Neil]

I should note, there is also the 500 plus point Martial Artist in the campaign... and he is VERY differentiated. He has built a very broad character, with lots of non-combat skills, lots of weapons and gadgets and contacts, etc. He isn't nearly as powerful as the other big guns... and even a 350 pt martial artist who is extremely combat focused can threaten him. It's just how the player conceives of the character.

 

Differentiation can only really happen when players "self limit" their characters for dramatic and role playing purposes. Trying to create metagame rules to enforce diversity can just complicate the gaming process, and backfire as well.

 

C'est la vie.

[Burnout]

It's a good question

 

When I saw the new 350pt starting level, I have to admit I was a little taken back. In 4th edition you could have a pretty decent character for 250pts, so I've been wondering why there is a shift for an extra 100pts now.

 

I'm going to start a campaign very soon and I have been trying to decide if the starting point for characters will be 250 or 350. I've made some test characters and I find that 350pt characters are pretty darn tough, while 250 point characters are definitely fledgling heroes. One of my players has already said he wants to start at the 350pt limit, which doesnt surprise me one bit since he is remaking a character he played about 10 years ago who was, to put it mildly, uber.

 

I guess what I'm asking is, what power level have your groups been happy starting at? I'm contemplating starting people at 275 or 300 since they will be just a smidge tougher than the fledgling hero.

[RDU Neil]

I have a very passionate player who doesn't want to play a "starting character" again. "Been there, done that..." is his attitude. He wants to start off with a character who is competent and skilled and flexible.

 

That's fine. To me, you can do that at 300 - 350 pts. This is not a "starting level" it is a point based for an mid-range experienced character. A fine place to start, but not a "starting level" if you get my meaning.

 

My campaign has a 300 pt. starting level, which I feel is mid way between "New Mutant" level (250 pts or so) and "Titans" level (or '70s Avengers level) which would be 350.

 

If you want a team of modern day Avengers, you are likely looking at 500 plus, for all the perks, and sub skills and team tactics and just raw power... and that doesn't include Thor, of course.

 

These are just my "winging it" power levels, but they've proven pretty true in my past experience.

 

Hope this helps.

[Bartman]

I just started in a 350pt campaign as a player and I love it. I was able to design the character I invisioned without having to skimp anywhere. I spent 50pts on skills where I would have only spent about 20 if I were restricted to 250pts. And let's face it his KSes on Art, History, Philosophy and European Royalty would all have been dropped at 250pts. As would have at least half of his languages. At 350 I can give the character what I invisioned him having. He still doesn't have Flash or Power defenses as neither fit his concept.

 

The campaign has only 3 characters, all of whom seem to be HtH specialists. But even so they are very distinctive. Distinctiveness comes from concept and the player not from the points.

[Hermit]

Well, I already said my group loves it, but I think a lot depends on what you want. I would consider 250 to be 'fledgling', where as more established heroes, the 350 works nicely (Not only allowing more powers and skills, but little touches like perks that are positive reps etc). Another thing to consider is that 350 is not a must reach. I've pondered making a character (if I ever get the chance) who has a full 50pts fewer disadvangages, weaker perhaps, but this does keep one's character from looking totally neurotic or having to purchase the "Susceptibility: 3d6/Turn from angsty White-Wolf products" just to max out.

 

Will you be asking them to chip in anything for a base or vehicle? That's another thing to consider.

[misterdeath]

I Like 350 points. When trying to create a 250 point character, I always had to give up too much, or twist things to fit, or point whore until the sheet screamed.

 

With 350 I can get what I want, and not have to point whore.

 

250 is a young, starting hero. Good point for teen angst mutants with one power or two, not people with actual jobs and a cadre of power and stunts.

 

350 is a good starting team hero. It works. It really does.

 

D

[MarkusDark]

I personally feel that 350 is too much. Most of my character concepts, when working within Active Point restrictions) work out with just 275 or so. Tacking on another 75 points worth of stuff can be fun but I'd rather leave it out if it means I can leave out another 75 points of Disads. Those are the ones that hurt me head. I wind up thumbing through old supplements and pulling out random disads others have just to meet the quota.

[JohnTaber]

My group started our new campaign with 350 points. In the past I started the PC at 200 points...yeah low powered.

 

One of the first comments I heard from one of my players was, "Things are more expensive in FREd." In this case he was updating an old PC based on TK, Absorption, and a defensive EC so yeah...he felt a lot of pain. Turns out FREd has adders and other cool stuff that did not exist in the old rule. My players found that SEVERAL effects that they desired were more expensive. I think this helped "combat" the feeling of having oodles of points compared to 200. (Now we also found that Martial Artists stuff did not change in cost so they ended up overpowered at 350 points but that issue has already been discussed in other threads.)

 

Wanted to throw in my observations as a GM in our recent sessions...

[Patriot]

350

 

My Group like the step up to 350,it alows them to write up a PC that is much more well rounded. At 250 , even a pc as simple as a brick (using a 50 Active point cap) only had 3 skills and the dodge manuver and a license to practice (doctor), If he wasnt in a fight he was next to useless,the extra point fixes that.

 

If you like the lower point range , try this, Run a 250 point game, write up the PCs on 250, with no skills, then give then the 100 to build the background skills,employment skills, hobbies,, then you have the best of both worlds,you have your power level, the 350 point cost, and well rounded characters.

[RevHooligan]

I'm running a 350 point campaign, but at character creation I designated a block of pionts that could only be used for non-compat skills. I felt the extra points helped round out the characters and enabled their secret IDs to be useful and impact the game.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by RevHooligan

I'm running a 350 point campaign, but at character creation I designated a block of pionts that could only be used for non-compat skills. I felt the extra points helped round out the characters and enabled their secret IDs to be useful and impact the game.

 

"a block of pionts"

 

Strange how typos can generate the weirdest visual imagery.

 

Actually, we used to do this, way back in the early days of Champions. Had to spend 50 points on non-combat skills, etc. Never needed that rule in the later years, as we matured in our gaming, and enjoyed exploring those areas without being forced to by a house rule.

[Trebuchet]

I like 350. My character was not only able to purchase some good "candy" skills such as horseback Riding (A luxury when you can run 100+ MPH), but was able to buy several skills to represent her Secret Identity as an executive assistant to a billionaire (Since her boss is also the superhero team leader/cofounder, maintaining that level of expertise was not strictly necessary). But I bought her Bureaucratics, Computer Programming, and KS: Executive Assistant anyway because she wouldn't be satisfied just faking doing a good job. She would want to be really able to do it well. I also bought her 3 points of Norwegian since she's been living in Norway for three years and upped her 2 Pt. English to 3 points (Fully Fluent w/ Accent).

 

The trick is to make certain the character's skills complement each other without overriding each other. The best way to prevent that is to have the players discuss it amongst themselves. We have two M.D.s on our team, but only one is a surgeon.

[Blue]

My campaign starts at 300. This was because I wanted the characters to have to rely on each other a little more to start out. It's an experiment to induce teamwork. If you can't afford to buy everything then you can't be a one-man-show.

 

Typically I prefer 350. I know I make better characters at that level and the players probably will too.

[Alex Raven]

I've been playing with the same group for almost 20 years now. We have used many different variations in terms of power levels. My personal favorite is the 250 range. You are able to start with a concept and develop it over time as oppossed to having many more powers with a 350 or 375 point character.

 

The point totals, however, should not really be a problem IF character concepts remain true. We have had any number of "Jack of all Trades" characters which have never had a central focus or theme. That is where the problem with higher point value beginning characters comes into play.

 

Why would a ninja have a blaster? "Because I had points to burn", should never be the answer. Points should be spent on fleshing out your character concept as best you can while staying true to the intent of the concept.

 

My two cents...

[SkyKnight]

I think that 350 works fairly well so far. When you try to make a "250 style" character with 100 extra points to flesh out his other abilities, you get a very good character. I like having 50 to 100 points for skills. Still, I wonder if once we've played for a few years, we'll end up back at 345 points of powers and characteristics and P.S. Lawyer.

 

I tried running the 150 base, 100 disads level once and it worked very well. People liked only having to find 100 points of disads. It makes the characters a little less comical, and there is less fighting over what constitutes a valid disadvantage.

[i3ullseye]

Well...........

 

I don;t think it is the points that lead to lacking diversity, but the will of the character to do everything. And over time, within each gorup, the more limited the scope of the campaign the more centralization on skills you will see from the players. If you never make them use a knowledge skill, how many will actively buy them? EVERYONE has Stealth and Acrobatics, those become mission/combat neccessities. But how many can FIX a firearm? Maybe the odd weapon oriented character, but everyone else just has equipment. if they never run into the need to repair it, why woudl they spend points on skills for repairing it.

 

Now as a GM you have to be true to your villans also. if in a 250 pt game, all players have diverse skills, but the villans are built 2 dimensional, they will have the power edge on the heros. and the encounters will rarely use skills for resolution, but rely on what the villan CAn do, which is again the powers.

 

For the players side of things, you have some players that want to do EVERYTHING. When all 4 characters are HTH combat monsters... well, you will have decent fights where they rip your bad guys apart, and then not have ANY way to actually follow clues to solve the crime.

 

But here is an approach i take to remedy this, even at lower levels.

 

I built my recent campaign around the idea of the Vidocq Society. People from all walks brought together to resolve crimes. Further, the oiginal Vidocq was a criminal that decided to use his talents to HELP the police instead, and manyt hings we use today (criminal recors and profiles, fingerprinting, etc...) were actually invented by him (or first put to wide use).

 

But my society wanted specific types to fill their roles. So they are actively recruiting for this, hence I justified in game why i was giving my players some design limitations on their characters. they were also new to the hero system so this woudl keep them from making broken characters withouth getting TOO detailed as to why their ideas woudl not fly. Let them learn the system with balanced characters, and then let them experiment after bcoming familiar with the rules.

 

So I set up a list of desired agent 'types' the society wanted. like Psychic, Magic, Superior human, Mutant, etc.... your typical origins.

 

I then had a list of 'roles' that needed filled. there was the martial Arts/HTH Combatant, the Healer, the Taxi to shuttle peopl around, the Brick, etc.....

 

Now each player coudl pick ONE item from each list. once filled, the Society woudl not recruit more from there.

 

This is running long, so i will reply to continue........

[i3ullseye]

Continued......

 

Now each character, having one 'type' and one 'role' will not overshadow another in their prrime focus. Sure, more than one can have healing, but he will never heal as well as the primary healer can. I went further....

 

Each Role and Type had certain point spending conventions in place. game was 150 pts. They HAD to spend 50 on Skills, and they HAD to spend 50 on attributes. the last 50 was determined by the type they picked. Superior humans for example spent 100 on stats. hi tech types spent 50 on powers that must be in items. Etc.....

 

This kept eveything diverse and woudl have made for a much more cohesive team. i say would have because the game never got off the gorud.

 

One of the many resons it never got started is one player thought these rules to limited. he wanted to play someone who is physically superior, but with a bow like Hawkeye. and he woudl have to be good in hand to hand also, since heros fight. Scrapping the game was preferred to working within the system i had set up for group recruitment.

 

I did ask why he thought Spiderman just didn't decide to apply his great agility and use a bow also. The logic was lost......

[Vondy]

I've finally settled on 150+150 for starting characters. Even the street level ones. In that case its just a different distribution of points.

 

My current street level game uses (with some variance) the heroic power levels defined in dark champions, and most characters have NCM, but they still need 300 points to buy the skills, gadgets, vehicles, bases, and whatnot.

 

I think 350 is a good number too, but characters tend to start at the campaign limits, with players who want to "grow"

[Prodical]

I don't know what to do.

I have three people interested in playing heroes.

One of them has the Champions ( IV ) rules and the other two said that they were going to track down 5th Ed. this coming weekend.

 

I have 4 days to decide if I am gonna keep it at 250 (total) or take the plunge with 350.

Reading the posts on this thread is helpful.

[Killer Shrike]

Ive run campaigns up and down the point scale, supers and non-supers.

 

IMO, All of them were equally fun.

 

IMO, any given point level is as good as the next so long as the players are having fun, the GM is having fun, and nobody gets hurt in the process. I mean, who can put a point total on fun?

 

Center the game on the relative power level, not the point level IMO. If the HEROs are all 500 points, but so are the villains, than its not much different that when the heroes were 250 and so were the villains. The key is to challenge the players, and the challenge is going to differ from group to group and week to week.

 

As far as supers are concerned, I like 250 points, 350 points, 550 points and up, so long as the character is respectibly pointed within the context of the setting and feels challenged but not overwhelmed. Like Goldylocks, I dont want to play an overpowered or underpowered character. I want to a character that is powered just right, and that has little to do with a point total and more to do with how far off median that point total is.

 

 

One thing I really like about 350 v 250 is that players can afford to put a larger percentage pf points into flavor & schtick while maintaining thier viability. Whether individual players do or not is up to them. Ultimately you get out of a character what you put into it, so I like to think that power gaming "the mechanic IS the character" types get less out of the game than those who model a concept rather than conceptualize a model.

 

I have one player for example that is really bad about this. I dont know why, but he just continues to come up with degenerate power-mongering characters that are really nothing more than exploits of broken rules or an attempt to push a questionable rule to the point of breaking. Background? Nope. Concept? Dude, what do you mean concept, I told you he does 500 damage each action on average! Power origin? Woke up like that one day. If he does come up with some background, or even a detail such as, oh I dont know, a REAL NAME, you can be sure it centeres around a lame pun or play on words. He finds a rule or mechanic that seems exploitable, then makes a character whose sole purpose in life is to apply the rules dodge in some fashion. In HEROs, he is most interested in any power that has a stop or yield sign next to it. He wants concepts that basically just semi-validate a lot of damage dealing. Its unfortunate, but there you go.

 

You can be sure that with 350 points, he will not hand in a character with 50 points of 'fluff' skills. If he has skills at all, they'll be Acrobatics, Breakfall, and/or Stealth, you can be sure. Every last ounce of pointage will be squeezed into a cup and put into a blender with a landmine. Damage will be of primary concern. With a group full of players like this, 350 wouldnt work at all unless I wanted to play a SLUGATHON and they wouldnt have fun at 250 (not enough damage after all).

 

WIth more mature players comes more restraint. If a group wants more points in a starting (or any other) campaing, and you thinkthe players can handle more points, and most importantly its fun then start off at a higher level. Try out 750 point characters for a run. Adapt/Retry to fit.

[i3ullseye]

I ran an X-Files type game where everyone was 50+25. This was a blast. I think my next campaign will be 75+10. I really like the lower power level because then you rely on the strategy of what combat maneuvers are out there to accomplish your goals. One thing to keep in mind however. lower power level games allow equipment to be purchased, and there are many MANY items out there that actually take the equivalent power level up over 300 or even 500 depending on the campaign. All the lower points at start do is make a more solid base character with skills, and then ensure their 'powers' can be neutralized as items.

[Nato]

For my upcoming online campaign, I've decided to start characters off at 400 points, with only 100 of those points being from disadvantages. The campaign will be a JLA/Avengers style one set in the Champions Universe. I decided on 400 points because it sounded fun, and like a good way for people to get really creative with their powers and also not feel the need to actively search out ways to make their powers cheaper. I set the 100 point disadvantages limit because of my own personal experience with coming up with logical ones for my own characters. Sometimes coming up with the last 25-50 points of the typical 150 points can be a chore - and tends to be more about me meeting requirements than keeping in character. Plus, it's less for me to keep track of. Players won't have the two or three different hunteds I typically see, or force strange susceptibilities into their characters. I just figured that 100 points of disadvantages kind of paints the character's flaws in broadstrokes, yet still gives me enough utility as a GM. I'm not too nervous about having 400 point PCs, at least not with the players I have. My active point limits are also about the same as typical CU 350 pointers too. I figure a lot of it will be spent on more diversified skills and stuff like others have mentioned previously. I'm rather looking forward to starting. Just as soon as Millennium City arrives that is.