Schmucks?

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

I think you're looking at something you made up yourself. The only benchmark tables we have are in 5E' date=' and they list [b']Very High Powerful[/b] heroes in the 14-20d6 range, and Cosmically Powerful in the 14d6+ range. By your definition Thing has a 150 Str (to do 30d6 punches) because he has a Monstrous strength.Perhaps in your games the Things does 30d6 but not in mine or anyone else's I have ever game in over the last 22 years. That's not the way the system is designed to work; and I think George McDonald had a pretty good understanding of how it works.

 

Incorrect. I'm comparing the stats for a tank gun in the two systems. According to that, ~8d6 RKA = ~Monstrous damage.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Well, as usually happens in threads that go on for any length, I have managed to argue myself back around to the starting point.

 

One thing I must point out, even though I am in the "high power NPC" camp:

WhammeWhamme is not exactly advocating the idea that high power NPC's don't fit in the established game world.

His real point is that the game world did not need to be pushed up in power to begin with.

Not that there was no need for a range of power levels in both PC's and NPC's, but that they did not need to move up the starting level.

 

That still does not mean that you can actually build Dr. Doom as he appears in comics on 250 pts. or 350 pts., but for those of us who have been around a long time, the 500 pt. Dr. Destroyer used to scare the crap out of our 200 pt. PC's. If you are gaming within a created world, rather than attempting to recreate a particular comic, then things really are all relative.

You cannot create Dr. Doom for 350 points, but if your PC's are limited to 200 pts. then you can create someone who is that level of "scary" for 400-500.

 

I am not really switching sides here, it is just that I too, for quite a while, thought that WhammeWhamme was obstinately denying the reality that the current crop of NPC's could not stop the Major Threats. What he really seems to be saying is that there is no real reason for the Major Threats to be as powerful as they are.

 

One bit of perspective I have gained, however. I think things are about as far along the scale as they need to be. Other than normal character growth through XP, I don't think that the power level of NPC's (and PC's for that matter) needs to be ramped up again at any future time. In other words, I don't want 6th Ed. Champions to have starting characters at 450 pts.

Why?

Because I kind of like the SPD chart the way it is.

I am not trying to start some kind of hippie, left wing, Points conservation campaign.

But, at the previous, and even the current, starting levels, not everyone could, or would want to, spend the points for a SPD of 12.

Now I know that there is such a thing as "concept" and "GM control" and all that.

And I do enforce limits in my world.

But eventually it gets to be like being a Multi-Millionaire who gives his teenaged son a $10,000/week allowance, but won't let him buy a sportscar.

It is a lot easier to say no to something when the person doesn't really have the resources to buy it.

As the starting power level creeps up, the starting SPD tends to creep up too.

Eventually you either have a whole bunch of people with SPDs of 8,9,10 or above, and there is less granularity to divide Brick from MA from Speedster.

I don't think there is a major problem now, I am just saying that I hope that starting points don't get jumped up with each new edition, as if this somehow makes it "bigger and better".

 

This too may be part of what WhammeWhamme is so concerned about.

 

KA.

 

 

I think one of my fundamental philosophical disagreements with the other camp, is that I *don't* treat the matter of point totals and power levels as entirely relative. For any given character concept ( including amount of pregame experience ), there is an optimum point total going with an optimum build, to accurately represent the character. Thus, cutting down, say, 15d6 EBs to 12d6 while reducing the power of their opposition proportionately is *not* just as valid as keeping the values greater, if those greater values better represent what both characters are supposed to be able to do.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

That's something I've been wondering about. What good does it do to implement hyper-"efficient" builds on 350 pt characters' date=' when the same thing can be done with the 1000 pt characters? Don't we end up right back where we started?[/quote']

 

My guess is, hyper-"efficient" point builds are only for PC heroes.

 

Any other way of using them just results in *everybody's* writeup being clunky, rather than just a few.

[nexus]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Page 346, 5th Ed corebook, sidebar, last sentence:

 

"And never forget, villains get experience too. . ."

 

 

The other term for this, would be "flagrant double standard."

 

I didn't say NPCs don't change or advance, but that they don't get "experience" So yes, it is a double standard and quite on purpose. You know why? NPCs and PCs are two different animals. Villains are NPCs. They don't have players. NPCs don't have "Adventures". If I gave them experience as PCs they'd rarely get it since they only "do" anything when they interact with the PCs. Outside of direct interaction with the PCs their success or failure is determined not be rolls of the dice, but by my fiat. Do I give them experience for examplary roleplaying as well or creative fiction? I do for PCs. Doing otherwise would be a double standard, right? NPC don't have power levels. They can start at whatever point level I decide they do. I can fudge their attributes to adjust them on the fly, they don't have to point balance with disadvantages, etc

 

So no, I don't contemplate every "Adventure" they go on and give them experience. They progress, or not, as the plot of my game demands. If they're supposed to provide a suitable challange they advance. If they're bully boys the PCs are supposed to eventually outclass they don't advance. NPCs are plot devices and aspects of the story, not my "PCs" and shouldn't, IMO, be handled as such. In fact, in 20+ years of gaming I've never met any GM that was past the 101 stage that DID treat NPCs like PCs as far as giving them experience. They just built them and advanced them to suit the story/game.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Buy minor abilities?

 

Really, at 1 XP/session, unless a given Champions game lasts longer than any game I've observed first hand, no one is going to leave their starting zone. (or buy off more than one disadvantage) (Or have the suggested XP/session levels gone up?)

 

Um. . . yes.

 

XP per scenario: 1 base; +2 for a very long, involved adventure ( presumably +1 for middle of the road ); +1 per session the scenario takes past the first; +1 if the adventure is difficult; +1 if the characters are heavily outnumbered.

 

In addition, individual experience bonuses include +1 for a character if the character: is clever, inventive, subtle, or well roleplayed; if the character solves a mystery; if the adventure is a resounding success.

 

( there's also a -1 each if the adventure is a total failure or the character is roleplayed poorly )

 

All told, a character should average about 2-3 XP per session, assuming they roleplay well. More importantly, they should only really be given at the end of a scenario, so assuming a three session scenario of moderate difficulty, your looking at about 5-6 XP in one lump. Especially epic scenarios could score considerably more ( longer, more complex, tougher, and more opportunities for individual awards ).

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Origin? I don't even know what most of them were _like_ at origin.

 

350 is the "how they look to the casually interested superhero geek" value needed. (ie with everything that everyone knows about them... or rather, everything _I_ know about them. )

 

Most such people know that Superman can push around small celestial bodies, and that the Fantastic Four routinely fight cosmic threats.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

To your point (for which you shall be repped' date=' I just forgot to rep you for your Laden/Arafat comment a few moments ago, both of these being rep-worthy), I don't even get this controversy. Any level of play seems fine to me. And aren't we forgetting what this is...a game that allows people to roleplay heroic fiction (wait, let me say this differently - [b']FICTION[/b])? Isn't that intrinsically fraught with: a) a disconnect with reality; and the incorporation of many, many, many assumptions which color the world such that sopme fantastic things can be made to seem realistic. Yes, verisimilitude is important, but that's a matter of internal consistency in a fictional setting. As such, that can be done at any level and with bad guys who are small-time and cosmic.

 

Agreed on most points, especially that the matter is one of internal consistency, not external "realism."

 

The thing is, high powered heroes are required to *maintain* internal consistency.

 

( the other option is removing all higher powered villains, but the result of *that* is to move the setting away from the genre )

 

Speaking of which, I seem to remember a whole bunch of people here arguing for less-than-intelligent actions on the part of, say, Takofanes and Dr Destroyer, with the justification that it is "in genre." Where, pray tell, are those people now?? They really should be here arguing for the presence of high powered NPC heroes, seeing as the presence of such characters is very much in genre.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

I didn't say NPCs don't change or advance, but that they don't get "experience" So yes, it is a double standard and quite on purpose. You know why? NPCs and PCs are two different animals. Villains are NPCs. They don't have players. NPCs don't have "Adventures". If I gave them experience as PCs they'd rarely get it since they only "do" anything when they interact with the PCs. Outside of direct interaction with the PCs their success or failure is determined not be rolls of the dice, but by my fiat. Do I give them experience for examplary roleplaying as well or creative fiction? I do for PCs. Doing otherwise would be a double standard, right? NPC don't have power levels. They can start at whatever point level I decide they do. I can fudge their attributes to adjust them on the fly, they don't have to point balance with disadvantages, etc

 

So no, I don't contemplate every "Adventure" they go on and give them experience. They progress, or not, as the plot of my game demands. If they're supposed to provide a suitable challange they advance. If they're bully boys the PCs are supposed to eventually outclass they don't advance. NPCs are plot devices and aspects of the story, not my "PCs" and shouldn't, IMO, be handled as such. In fact, in 20+ years of gaming I've never met any GM that was past the 101 stage that DID treat NPCs like PCs as far as giving them experience. They just built them and advanced them to suit the story/game.

 

 

Oh, sure, I doubt anybody actually tracks the adventures and XP gathering that villains and NPCs do.

 

The point, however, is that NPCs *do* progress. . . and having a character remain static despite experiences that should lead to advancement breaks suspension of disbelief.

[MitchellS]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Incorrect. I'm comparing the stats for a tank gun in the two systems. According to that' date=' ~8d6 RKA = ~Monstrous damage.[/quote']

Are you also one of those guys who gives Thor a 58 Str too because it says he can only lift 100 tons, and that's where the numbers come out between the two systems? You really discredited yourself with that comment.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Most such people know that Superman can push around small celestial bodies' date=' and that the Fantastic Four routinely fight cosmic threats.[/quote']

 

Superman is NOT a character I consider suitable for point based play.

Even an 800pt "homage" would be but a pale shadow of Superman.

 

Unless it wasn't Comic Book Superman, at which point a reasonable approximation can be done on relatively low point values.

 

 

As for the Fantastic Four... really, I don't see why they'd be hugely powerful. They're quite... focused... in what they can do, more so than a lot of Champions characters, IMO, and aren't too hard to do fairly.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Are you also one of those guys who gives Thor a 58 Str too because it says he can only lift 100 tons' date=' and that's where the numbers come out between the two systems? You really discredited yourself with that comment.[/quote']

 

Hey, your the one who tried to bring in Marvel RPG stats as reference. I favor going by the comics themselves.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that 90% or so of any given characters appearances are somehow magically invalid. . .

[Chuckg]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Are you also one of those guys who gives Thor a 58 Str too because it says he can only lift 100 tons' date=' and that's where the numbers come out between the two systems?[/quote']

 

Nope. Because Meta knows durn well that Thor lifts more than 100 tons.

 

The only discrediting going on here is you, by straw man.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Um. . . yes.

 

XP per scenario: 1 base; +2 for a very long, involved adventure ( presumably +1 for middle of the road ); +1 per session the scenario takes past the first; +1 if the adventure is difficult; +1 if the characters are heavily outnumbered.

 

In addition, individual experience bonuses include +1 for a character if the character: is clever, inventive, subtle, or well roleplayed; if the character solves a mystery; if the adventure is a resounding success.

 

( there's also a -1 each if the adventure is a total failure or the character is roleplayed poorly )

 

All told, a character should average about 2-3 XP per session, assuming they roleplay well. More importantly, they should only really be given at the end of a scenario, so assuming a three session scenario of moderate difficulty, your looking at about 5-6 XP in one lump. Especially epic scenarios could score considerably more ( longer, more complex, tougher, and more opportunities for individual awards ).

 

Or 1 XP/session if they role play poorly.

 

That said, even 4 XP per session... that's 100 sessions to make it to 750 points. That's two years of campaigning weekly. At 2 XP, that's four years.

At 6 XP/3 sessions... that's, again, four years.

 

Now, I suppose this happens. But imagine this in PBeM... where the fastest rate I've seen is 4 XP/1.5 months. That would be over twelve years of campaigning.

 

Or imagine the monthly gaming group. Eight years of campaigning to get to 750.

 

And I repeat... the game should not be aimed at the people who will find the time to roleplay champions either more than weekly, or weekly for years on end. They're the addicts. Go after people who want a game for a few months, tops.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

The Human Torch can let loose the equivalent of a small nuclear blast. The Invisible Woman can block pretty much anything *short* of a nuclear blast. Reed can whip up technology so advanced it might as well be magic, and can do pretty much anything with his body that doesn't require changing its composition. And the Thing can take a pounding better than almost anyone else, keeping on going until he's dead.

 

Tell me, how exactly do you *accurately* write them up for few points??

[Chuckg]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Whamme -- So, a game should be designed for people who *don't* want to play it regularly and/or for longer than a few months?

 

That is an... odd... philosophy.

 

And 'addicts'? Lay off the demeaning verbiage.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Or 1 XP/session if they role play poorly.

 

That said, even 4 XP per session... that's 100 sessions to make it to 750 points. That's two years of campaigning weekly. At 2 XP, that's four years.

At 6 XP/3 sessions... that's, again, four years.

 

Now, I suppose this happens. But imagine this in PBeM... where the fastest rate I've seen is 4 XP/1.5 months. That would be over twelve years of campaigning.

 

Or imagine the monthly gaming group. Eight years of campaigning to get to 750.

 

And I repeat... the game should not be aimed at the people who will find the time to roleplay champions either more than weekly, or weekly for years on end. They're the addicts. Go after people who want a game for a few months, tops.

 

 

All well and good, except you ignore one other major subgroup: Those who don't play at the beginning point level.

 

Perhaps because, horror of horrors, they actually want to start out with characters comparable to comic book heroes marginally more powerful than early Claremont Colossus.

[gregghelmberger]

Re: Schmucks?

 

The other term for this' date=' would be "flagrant double standard."[/quote']

 

Meta, I completely disagree. It's not a flagrant double standard. It's not a slight double standard. It's not any kind of double standard at all. For me at least, and for every GM I've ever met who was worth his or her salt, the campaign is the tale of the PCs and their actions, period, paragraph, end of story. Every other character, setting, organization, whatever are all plot devices and nothing more. The GM doesn't need to worry about being fair or unfair to NPCs because NPCs are merely his tools, his pawns, his homonculi. They don't "earn" or "deserve" experience the way PCs do; they expand or contract, go away or come back purely as the PCs story dictates and nothing more, ever. To say that there's a "double standard" implies that the GM has the burden to treat the NPCs on par with the PCs, and not only is that grossly fallacious, it's positively corrosive to any properly run game.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Whamme -- So, a game should be designed for people who *don't* want to play it regularly and/or for longer than a few months?

 

That is an... odd... philosophy.

 

And 'addicts'? Lay off the demeaning verbiage.

 

A game should be designed so it can be picked up and run happily. Because that is where it _grows_. Designing it for people already playing is unlikely to be truly helpful to the game.

 

And I include myself under the "addict" category, while not necessarily indicating anyone else here.

[Chuckg]

Re: Schmucks?

 

For me at least' date=' and for every GM I've ever met who was worth his or her salt, the campaign is the tale of the PCs and their actions, period, paragraph, end of story.[/quote']

 

In what way does the above statement *not* parse out to be identical in meaning to 'Anyone who doesn't see it the same way I do is stupid?'

 

Yes, they are my homonculi, my creations. However, a /good/ storyteller can get the story told without having to invoke Script Immunity all the damn time.

 

And it's just as much Script Immunity to give the PCs breaks that NPCs don't get than it is to give the NPCs breaks that PCs don't get.

 

Do you want to know what's /really/ "corrosive" to any well-run game?

 

It's if the PCs ever get the idea that they're not earning their achievements... that the GM is giving them special gimmes.

 

Really hoses the ol' sense of accomplishment, doesn't it?

 

And without that, it's not much fun playing.

 

At least, not to me or those I game with.

[MitchellS]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Hey, your the one who tried to bring in Marvel RPG stats as reference. I favor going by the comics themselves.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that 90% or so of any given characters appearances are somehow magically invalid. . .

Do you ever wonder why you are the only person to constantly argue power inflation on these boards; why no one else has your opinion as to the appropriate power levels of characters? You enjoy stat/power inflation games and that's fine but your concept of power levels is not supported by nearly 24 years of published Champions material. Apparently everyone who has ever worked on a Champions book in all those years was wrong and you are right.

 

As to why your comments discredit you:

 

#1 You're comparing apples to oranges. The two vehicle's systems are different and can't be used as benchmarks for each other.

 

#2 You used the vehicle example as your basis for benchmark when you knew just as well as everyone else that Hero System vehicles are exceptionally poorly designed and can't be used in conjunction with superheroes. Military vehicles have inflated defense values, and because of that must have inflated weaponry to be able to damage each other. That's why they give you "cheat" rules in Galactic Champions. You know this not a good basis for comparison and still used it to try and prove your point.

 

#3 You just got through telling me that 30d6 is Monstrous level and then give me a 24 DC example to prove your point. 30 is more than 24. If you wanted to prove your point you should have used a 30 dc example.

[zornwil]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Whamme -- So, a game should be designed for people who *don't* want to play it regularly and/or for longer than a few months?

 

That is an... odd... philosophy.

 

And 'addicts'? Lay off the demeaning verbiage.

I think addict was a pretty general light-hearted comment, I hardly think of it as demeaning. We don't play enough, I wish I were an "addict".

 

As to the points/session, I don't much care what the book says. It's really just a matter of the GM knowing what he wants and what his group likes. There's no way for any rulebook - in my opinon - to hit an ideal sweet spot.

[Kristopher]

Re: Schmucks?

 

 

Superman is NOT a character I consider suitable for point based play.

Even an 800pt "homage" would be but a pale shadow of Superman.

 

Unless it wasn't Comic Book Superman, at which point a reasonable approximation can be done on relatively low point values.

 

I've seen excellent renditions of Superman on about 800 pts, with no goofy tricks. Yeah, sure, as written on 800 pts, he might take a point or two of STUN from what some might consider "schmuck" attacks, but it would take dozens of "schmucks" to hit him enough in one turn to keep up with his REC.

 

OK, I conceed that these 800+ Superman renditions couldn't turn back time by spinning the earth backwards, or kick the moon out of orbit, or tow planets with magic bungie straps...

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

The Human Torch can let loose the equivalent of a small nuclear blast. The Invisible Woman can block pretty much anything *short* of a nuclear blast. Reed can whip up technology so advanced it might as well be magic, and can do pretty much anything with his body that doesn't require changing its composition. And the Thing can take a pounding better than almost anyone else, keeping on going until he's dead.

 

Tell me, how exactly do you *accurately* write them up for few points??

 

Use Marvel "Nuclear Blasts" as the scale, instead of real world ones. That solves pretty much the only real problem. (You _can_ do a Magician, actual magician, on 'relatively few points', and stretching is a pretty wimpy schtick. As for the Thing... he's a brick. And _only_ a brick. If there's a single concept that's efficient to do in Champions, it would be that.)

 

However, anything more specific than that will have to get in que behind three major NPCs for my campaign, two PC's I want to write up, and the rather large "The Extremes" hero team I'm designing to rebut an earlier point... especially since I'm not much of a conversions guy. I like to play my own characters.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

In what way does the above statement *not* parse out to be identical in meaning to 'Anyone who doesn't see it the same way I do is stupid?'

 

Because "Every Crow I have seen was black" =/= "to be a Crow, something must be Black".

 

gregg simply has never seen anythign else work. Feel free to give contrary examples, it may well broaden his life.

[Kristopher]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Meta' date=' I completely disagree. It's not a flagrant double standard. It's not a slight double standard. It's not any kind of double standard at all. For me at least, and for every GM I've ever met who was worth his or her salt, the campaign is the tale of the PCs and their actions, period, paragraph, end of story. Every other character, setting, organization, whatever are all plot devices and nothing more. The GM doesn't need to worry about being fair or unfair to NPCs because NPCs are merely his tools, his pawns, his homonculi. They don't "earn" or "deserve" experience the way PCs do; they expand or contract, go away or come back purely as the PCs story dictates and nothing more, ever. To say that there's a "double standard" implies that the GM has the burden to treat the NPCs on par with the PCs, and not only is that grossly fallacious, it's positively corrosive to any properly run game.[/quote']

 

Sounds to me like you and every GM you've met who was "worth his salt" has cardboard NPCs and a setting that panders to the players and their characters. You can't treat NPCs like "tools" and "homonculi" and still have them come across as anything other than artificial. A good NPC has his own motivations and his own personality, and what's corrosive to the game is when you ignore that in favor whatever is expedient. Inconsistent characters who change their behavior and/or power level whenever it's convenient to the plot pretty much suck. Authorial fiat is transparent and puts serious strain on suspension of disbelief.