No progression in Champions

[Doc Democracy]

The free Digital Hero article this month discusses giving players the ability to make fully fleshed out characters without reference to point totals and then play the game with no general progression of powers or abilities.

 

I've been considering that for some time, instead of abilities getting better giving improvements in social status and access to facilities of outside organisations. The article also suggests awarding cards that could be cashed in for immediate in-game benefits.

 

Anyone tried this out for real? I'm a classic case of a Builder personality and I would have to see _something_ progress during the game.

 

 

Doc

[Vondy]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

Not exactly this, but something similar. I've run long runs of adventures where no experience was given, though I did tally new contacts and reputation and the like. Each player had already discussed the direction they wanted their characters to go in and after a while they developed those abilities. It wasn't so much because they had "accumulated enough points" but because they had role played the development out and it was the right time in the story for the character to grow or reap the benefits. I've also run a solo game where no experience was ever given out. The character just got various contacts and perks as the game progressed. The player never even asked about experience. It worked pretty well.

[arcady]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

"Theatrix" is a diceless RPG that has progression which amounts to doing an updated rewrite based on an essay every so often. The character thus gains some things and loses some things with no conrete methods to it.

 

You really need the right tone for this sort of thing though - without development of some kind a character will begin to feel stagnant and the game will thus start to drag for the player - which can then spread out to other players.

[RDU Neil]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

Not exactly this' date=' but something similar. I've run long runs of adventures where no experience was given, though I did tally new contacts and reputation and the like. Each player had already discussed the direction they wanted their characters to go in and after a while they developed those abilities. It wasn't so much because they had "accumulated enough points" but because they had role played the development out and it was the right time in the story for the character to grow or reap the benefits. I've also run a solo game where no experience was ever given out. The character just got various contacts and perks as the game progressed. The player never even asked about experience. It worked pretty well.[/quote']

 

My early years of playing and running Hero were more like this. Nothing mature or concrete in terms of why we did it this way... just the guys in the group built their characters, then we played them out. Occassionally, somone would say, "Man, my guy really should be able to do X!" and in general, we'd agree and figure out a way to do it, and put it on the sheet. EXP wasn't really discussed all that much.

 

Then I started gaming with new guys, who had come to Hero on their own (didn't learn it with me, or have been taught by me) so their interpretation of "the right way to play Hero" was very different. (One of the issues with a Meta-system/tool kit like game, is that it is open to a wide variety of interpretations.) In this case, they demanded EXP, and a few of them would constantly tinker and change their characters every week. The expected regular progression, whether to more power, broader skill set, more knowledges and contacts, whatever... they were builders, some aggressively so. I had to figure out how to manage that... and we did eventually find a way, but the point here is that even with extremely powerful, nearly fully fleshed out characters (600-700 points, having grown from 300) the players I have still want to "earn points" and tweak and build. That is just part of the fun of the game, to them. If you have players like that, then "No Progression" games might really bug them.

 

It's more a matter of taste, than of system, IMO.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

That is just part of the fun of the game, to them. If you have players like that, then "No Progression" games might really bug them.

 

Yeah. I make characters that are driven for self improvement (it's a personality quick I have and it pretty much makes it into all my characters). Martial artists who are always trying to improve self knowledge or combat ability, Supersuits endlessly trying to improve design, speedsters trying to get those few extra MPH out or learn a new speedster trick.

I would say that most (not just part as RDU Neil mentions) of the fun of gaming, for me, is that sense of self improvement. Part of the reason I love long running games as well I suppose. I love playing in character, I sorta like the tactics of combat, but seeing the character grow, and improve (both mechanically, but even more importantly personally) is the greatest joy for me as a Roleplayer.

 

I don't think I would even consider playing in a "no progression" game.

[BNakagawa]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

I only worry about character development when my character is behind the curve enough to make playing them more frustrating than entertaining.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

I agree that character progression is a big part of the fun in an RPG. I can't imagine playing in a long running campaign (1/week for over a year) in which my character doesn't mechanically improve at all. Its inconcievable.

When I'm playing a character I'm always thinking about where I want to take his powers and abilities next.

 

As a GM, I like to see my players advance their characters to "the next level" as well. I often take players aside who's characters don't seem to be advancing and assist them in doing so. Especially with players unfamiliar with the system.

 

Even with a great GM and some excellent roleplaying, I would see my character as stagnant if there were not mechanical improvment over time...it just don't seem right to me.

[Rene]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

Even with a great GM and some excellent roleplaying' date=' I would see my character as stagnant if there were not mechanical improvment over time...it just don't seem right to me.[/quote']

 

Case-by-case basis with me.

 

Some characters are built for great improvement. The rookie group of heroes that will graduate slowly to the big leagues. In Champions terms, that is most of the Marvel Universe in the first ten years of existence.

 

But some characters and game styles don't have a need for great mechanical changes, except as occasional plot devices, that get "fixed" soon. Superman and Batman, for instance, are more or less "complete" characters and have been for a while.

 

You can even mix the two styles in a single group of players, that is very appropriate for a blend of veterans and novices, where some players start the game powerful but change little, while others should gain more XP to signal the novice catching up. That is the scheme of hundreds of fantasy novels...

[Mentor]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

I find myself in the position of recognizing that our group already has players who use XP for other than Combat or Ability related powers as the rule rather than the exception.

 

Trebuchet's PC, Z'lf operates withing a self limited definition of maximum damage and defenses she will ever have. Thus she has instead improved in her job as a billionaire industrialist's personal assistant by buying the appropriate clerical skills, Bureaucratics, and High Society. She has stood in for the team leader so often (i.e., when i am GMing or running my other character) that she is now recognized as a leader by the team and the world.

 

My PC is the Billionaire, originally just getting a stipend from a trust, for whom I felt constrained to buy the 15 points of Money option, as we were more and more operating with the freedom that his wealth allowed. Without taking Disad points, he also suffers the perils of wealth and fame, which is as it should be.

 

When players use the honor system to spend their XP on fleshing out the PC, when the GM makes sure that these abilities or reputations are recognized, acknowledged and applauded, and when the Heroes act in such a way to earn their status as the Avengers, Justice League or the Caped Crusader, then the campaign should treat them with said respect.

 

Just because your PC has the powers of Superman, you can't expect to have the public or powers that be treat him/her with the same kind of respect unless that character acts like a Superhero.

[Rapier]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

The free Digital Hero article this month discusses giving players the ability to make fully fleshed out characters without reference to point totals and then play the game with no general progression of powers or abilities.

 

I've been considering that for some time, instead of abilities getting better giving improvements in social status and access to facilities of outside organisations. The article also suggests awarding cards that could be cashed in for immediate in-game benefits.

 

Anyone tried this out for real? I'm a classic case of a Builder personality and I would have to see _something_ progress during the game.

 

Eh. I think that kind of takes the fun out of everything. I've always looked at it the same way I do working out. If you go and do a couple sets every day you get stronger. Most of the XP my group spends is to buy off limitations and disads. Occasionally to buy up a stat. Rarely (but it does happen) to add an extra d6 to the old EB. Sometimes instead of XP (or in addition to) I hand out a skill, perk, talent (or even a disad) that the character has been "developing" during the game.

 

Now, way back when I played Star Wars for a little while and they had this concept called Force Points that allowed you to reroll or some other RL effect. I tried to implement something similar in our Champions game and it just didn't work very well. What do you do when you need the players to fail a skill roll and they use the RL effect point to guarantee success? It just caused too many problems and got in the way of the story. Besides I do enough of that on my own:

 

Me: Roll for success

Player: I failed by 3.

Me: I don't think you heard me, Roll For Success.

Player: Um, ok, [confused] I failed by 1.

Me: ROLL FOR SUCCESS.

Player: Um, I made it?

Me: GOOD JOB!

 

If there is no progression of abilities, what is the impetus/the drive? I just couldn't get past the fact that using an EB with x3 END all the time (flexing a muscle) wouldn't eventually become x2 END (as the muscle gets stronger). I think that is where my Suspension of Disbelief would break down.

 

But thats just my £.02.

[yamamura]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

The free Digital Hero article this month discusses giving players the ability to make fully fleshed out characters without reference to point totals and then play the game with no general progression of powers or abilities.

 

I've been considering that for some time, instead of abilities getting better giving improvements in social status and access to facilities of outside organisations. The article also suggests awarding cards that could be cashed in for immediate in-game benefits.

 

Anyone tried this out for real? I'm a classic case of a Builder personality and I would have to see _something_ progress during the game.

 

 

Doc

 

Which article is it in Doc?

 

G

[Doc Democracy]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

Which article is it in Doc?

 

G

 

Sorry - I should have included the link - you can find it here

[ghost-angel]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

We have one game where Experience is no longer given, progression is completely story based, if you don't have the character doing it they will never learn it.

 

The point ranges for the characters now go from 600 to 800 when we put it down on paper, mostly just due to some of the effects and powers at hand. Since each character isn't competing on a point for point level we're all pretty much balanced as we have expanded in our particular areas of expertise..

 

the 800 point character will become a smear quickly in hand to hand combat but is a master of ranged combat and other non-directly-combat related effects. The near 700 point hand to hand moster can tear pretty much anything apart, but doesn't have much experience outside combat (knowledges, languages, etc) to lend beyond attitude.

 

I think it's all a part of which players are involved, our other game could never work this way because some of the people in it wouldn't be able to cope without quantifying and equalizing everything that way.

[Rapier]

Re: No progression in Champions

 

We have one game where Experience is no longer given, progression is completely story based, if you don't have the character doing it they will never learn it.

 

I think it's all a part of which players are involved, our other game could never work this way because some of the people in it wouldn't be able to cope without quantifying and equalizing everything that way.

 

We've been gaming together for over 13 years now. I've never demanded that each and every ability/power/etc be strictly accounted for. I've given away bases, vehicles, contacts, perks, skills, powers, you name it and every single one has been entirely story based.

 

I also think that, as a group, we greatly enjoy playing characters that are still learning rather than a hero that has already achieved 20 some-odd years of experience. We also have a fairly high character turnover rate. Each of us has a small portfolio of characters we play, depending on the needs of the story, desires of the player, etc. Sometimes you just really want to play a brick for a while. This works well since our campaign is more of an Avengers/Justice League type where whomever is on hand tackles the supervillain. When someone starts a new character they have the option of creating a character anywhere from raw opener (350pts since we converted to FREd) to the same number of points as the average of all the regular characters.

 

In talking this over last night, we pretty much decided that we are riding the cusp of pointless. We use many pointless advances (extra-dimensional base, vehicles, followers etc). But we still also account for many things with points. Most of us are hard science folks (physicist, chemist, engineer) and I don't think we'll ever get over the hands-on love of the numbers.

 

I guess what it all comes down to is "whatever works." Until I read through this article I never really considered our playstyle. It was just how we did things, and never considered that everyone might not be playing the same way.