Schmucks?

[MitchellS]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant 1-2 teams to take on a megavillain, not 1-2 teams per megavillain.

 

IOW, that the baddest of the bad megavillains require a teamup between the two most powerful hero teams to oppose a major push of theres.

Oops, sorry then. My mistake. I think we agree then.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Okay, given that it was my post that started this crap, I guess I should weigh in. Since there are 7 pages of posts, I'm going to have to casually dismiss some arguments with a mere wave of my hand.

 

Such is my power.

 

"But I can build Superman on 350 points!/I can cheese out a powerful character/point limits don't tell you how powerful someone is"

So what. So can I. Years ago, I posted my 4th Edition 375 point Superman on the webrpg boards (I went by the name "Cavalier" then), and everyone freaked out and tried to throw holy water at me. Yes, he had a 125 Str, a 10 Spd, a 50 Dex, and 50/50 Defenses with Damage Reduction. He was nasty. He was also barely legal, even in 4th Edition. When I make general posts on these boards, I'm not trying to take into account every possible jackass who can build a nasty character. I'm the guy who made Captain Beatdown--he was 350 and would kick Destroyer around the block. I'm talking about normal 350 characters.

 

You're being derogatory to 350 point characters!

Wah. They're not real people. Listen up, everyone. These guys are make-believe. Night-duck isn't going to be angry at me because he's NOT REAL. If you are upset because I called a group of 350 point made up characters "schmucks", then get a thicker skin.

 

But I don't use Dr. Destroyer in my game/I want supers to be afraid of military hardware/I like "realistic" games.

First of all, if anybody dares to say that games where superheroes can only flip cars over are somehow more realistic than games where a guy can throw a tank to the moon, then you have just flunked Jr High science class. No soup for you! (Not that anyone here said exactly that, but that statement invariably comes up, so I'm cutting it off at the pass.) For god's sake, just say you like lower powered games. If you don't use Dr Destroyer that's just fine, but the Champions Universe does. And in the Champions Universe, 350 point heroes are scrubs.

 

You don't send 350 point heroes to fight Dr D until he's injured.

You don't understand. There's no one to injure him. The PCs come in, after someone else has already fought him and put a beating on him, and Dr D is only at half-power? Please tell me who it was who put that beating on him. It sure as hell isn't Unity. It's not any of the other example heroes. That is the whole friggin' point.

 

Alright, let me explain my post.

 

In the Champions Universe, there have to be heroes more powerful than the listed ones. It's fine if you think the Champions should be left as is/are good example characters/are sexually arousing because the dress in nurses uniforms and wear gloves... no, actually, that last one isn't fine. If you think that, you're a sicko. Otherwise, you know what Dr Destroyer's plan is?

 

Dr D: "I'm going to walk downtown and start shooting landmarks. When the Champions show up, I'll SHOOT THEM TOO."

 

He doesn't need a matter-rearranging bomb. He doesn't need mind-control gas. He has a 30D6 Energy Blast.

 

"Aha!" you say. "But he's overconfident! There's a flaw in his plan somewhere!"

No, there's not. His plan is to shoot the heroes when they approach. He doesn't need another plan. See, the heroes have to be powerful enough so that he would bother to create a super-weapon.

 

"But, the master villains only show up once a year or so."

So what? When they show up, they win. They aren't going to show up "once a year", because after they show up the first time, they win.

 

"But that's when a team of heroes..."

Shows up and gets killed down to the last man. Please show me a hero that will take Dr D's 10D6 RKA and still be in a position to do something.

 

"But the Champions can beat Mechanon..."

Only if you let that Corky kid from "Life Goes On" run Mechanon. Beware, he drools on the dice.

 

"But all the heroes in the comics started out crappy, and they've earned their way to the top. Look at Amazing Stories #12 when, in his first appearance, Ultra the Living Reactor..."

Multiple responses to this. First, many golden age heroes have gained in power in the real world because they were competing against other comics. Superman can fly because Captain Marvel can fly. Also, in continuity, they often haven't increased in power. Second, many characters started out just as powerful as they are now. The Human Torch may have learned more tricks, but in issue #1, an F-4 flew too close to Johnny and melted into slag from the heat. He's always been powerful. Kyle Raynor may not have known what the hell he was doing, but he still managed to whip Mongol early on. Wait a minute... Kyle Raynor still doesn't know what the hell he's doing. I rest my case (and the first person to mention the "Ion" story arc gets to spend the night in a barn dressed as a sheep with a lonely farmhand for company). Third, most classic comic book heroes developed in an organic comic book universe. You can afford to slowly grow more powerful when the entire world is based around you. Superman didn't have to worry about Darkseid showing up back in 1939, because there was no Darkseid then. The Champions Universe isn't growing and developing. Steve Long may release more books, but the big stuff is already defined. The master villains are already out there. The superheroes don't have time to grow into good characters. The powerful heroes are needed right now.

 

 

Sure, a 350 point hero can be powerful in your world. Or you can rule-rape a character design to make a guy really powerful. Or you can ignore any villain above 350 points, or scale somebody down. Or you can have Dr Destroyer forget that he has a 30D6 EB.

 

Or you can admit that the Champions, and every othe published superteam, are gonna get their asses handed to them when they fight a master villain. And if 50 heroes show up? That's 50 dead heroes.

[Kristopher]

Re: Schmucks?

 

A) I'm not so sure about 50...probably depends on which 50, and if they were smart about it...but the body count would still be high.

 

None of that makes them schmucks.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Schmucks?

 

A) I'm not so sure about 50...probably depends on which 50, and if they were smart about it...but the body count would still be high.

 

None of that makes them schmucks.

 

I think "schlub" or "schmoe" might be more apropos to what CG was saying.

 

How about one or two iconic NPCs who could go mano y mano with Dr. D for oh, half a turn?

[Pendaran]

Re: Schmucks?

 

it doesn't make them schmucks really, it just makes them starting heroes, they're the ones running around fighting VIPER and DEMON cells, foiling bank robberies, defending cities from freaks and lunatics of the superpowered variety, sometimes stepping up a bit higher depending on the arc, doing all the sorts of things starting heroes might do.

 

Expecting them to routinely do more than that is the thing that's silly as they're starting heroes.

 

It's like saying the New Warriors should be able to defend the MU from all threats.

 

The Champs U is a fully functioning supers universe with villains of wildly varying levels of power and capability, makes sense, that like any other comic book universe, there would be superheroes of similar highly varying levels of capability. That's just how comic book universes go. It doesn't invalidate one group of hero over another, as they do different things.

 

It's like the reason I accepted as very sensible the one time as to why Spidey is not so much a regular Avenger (though they're gonna change that soon, sigh). Sure, he could be on the team, but then that's one less guy vitally needed for keeping the streets clean and keeping people like the Kingpin of crime at bay.

[KA.]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Champsguy,

I don't know why I bothered to defend your position, you just did a beautiful job of defending it yourself.

 

I just don't know exactly what the other side of this argument is?

 

a) I think that 350 point characters can take on the major threats when necessary. (In my opinion, not 350 point characters that any sane GM is going to allow.)

 

I think that GM's can come up with their own Powerful NPC Heroes.

(I think that would really threaten to outshine the PC's. Having the characters exist as part of the official universe is one thing, having them be the GM's pets is another.)

 

c) I don't want a world where anyone is more powerful than a 350 point PC.

(Nothing really wrong with that, but the official universe already has more powerful characters in it.)

 

c) I think it would be a waste of effort for Steve and Co. to come up with writeups for High Power NPC's that aren't likely to be used for anything.

(This one I might consider buying after I take it for a test drive.

I don't really need "write ups", I would just like there to be some mention of who these people are, in some official product, someday.)

 

I think this problem is like the discovery of a new planet. You start to notice irregularities in the orbit of the furthest known planet, and you start to try to figure out what the cause is. After a while you conclude that there must be "something" there. As you begin to study the "something" you eventually realize that it must fit the profile of a "new planet".

 

The fact that the world is not currently under the control of Dr. Destroyer, Taco-Grande, or some other name I can't spell, or at the very least ravaged by wars among these giants, indicates that there is some active group of heroes that is keeping them at bay.

 

Here is how I feel about this:

It isn't earth-shaking.

It doesn't "ruin" the official setting.

It does not require some kind of immediate response from anyone at DOJ.

 

It is just like looking at a scale drawing of a horse farm that is going to be built, and realizing that it has no fences.

"What is going to keep the horses from running off?"

"Uhhhh . . . they just won't."

 

It doesn't mean you have to scrap all the blueprints and start from scratch.

It just means that at some point someone needs to build a fence.

 

KA.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

 

I just don't know exactly what the other side of this argument is?

 

c) I don't want a world where anyone is more powerful than a 350 point PC.

(Nothing really wrong with that, but the official universe already has more powerful characters in it.)

 

(actually, it's "I don't want anyone they can't deal with...")

 

There is a lot of inflation in the CU. This is a bad thing, There are few concepts that, under 5th rules, _require_ more than 350 points. Most that do, do so because they're inherently flawed as a team member (So... this Superman homage can actually do anything these three other PCs can? Riiight...). (NPCs may take more points; this is unimportant)

 

As long as you leave out "Ooh. Must have more dice/CV/SPD than (Character X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...)", and scale down real world objects to more reasonable levels (as well as the NPCs), that is.

 

Why not "just use more points"? It's clunky, it's awkward, it puts players out of their design comfort zone... it's inelegant. It's also less fun to build a character for, to _me_.

[Pendaran]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Most that do, do so because they're inherently flawed as a team member

 

And right there it is again with the condescending insults. It's entirely praiseworthy to relentlessly mangle both 350 points and various presented stats to get something to feel like its archetype in the comics, but the exact moment you go the other way, you're being "flawed", you're "taking 'Kewl' over 'cool'", you're contributing to "point bloat" that apparently "plagues" the books.

 

Ok, so you guys hate the xp system, you guys hate the villain stats that can blow through 350 point heroes, you guys hate that the developers flat out call 350 points starting level, and the world as presented, well damn if that don't need changing too.

 

So I'm going to ask it again... what are you getting out of this system? Why do you use it? Why do you buy the books? Why do you spend the money? Why do you not use Hero Quest, it will do exactly the same things you are talking about as being laudable (little advancement, getting everything possible out of a few stats and the like) without nearly as much number crunching.

 

Let me break it down like this... I HAVEN'T been playing Champions for years and years and years, I haven't watched the hero system evolve over editions, I haven't played at 250 or whichever.

 

I came into this game, this year, being sold on it as a superhero rpg that comes the best out of all of them out there to letting you feel like, you know, roleplaying in a comic book universe. I dropped down a chunk of money on it. When I say, "what would you tell a player coming into this game cold.." I'm in part talking about myself.

 

And the answers I get to the questions I've asked would uniformly lead me to say that in general, if this was how Champions worked, I would give it a miss.

 

More explicitly, had I come to this board first to look for opinions, I would not have bothered with this game whatsoever.

 

You guys get borderline hateful to the notion that everything can't be done in 350 points, no matter what you have to discard or ignore or whichever. Look at your language. "Flawed", the snarky use of "Kewl", telling people they must love mary sue NPCs like Elminster.

 

I just bought this damn game, I don't want to have to houserule it eight million different ways from sunday, mangle what the developers present as fast and easy character creation, take a sledgehammer to comic book portrayals and convetions, just to not be branded as violating some sacred notion of the hero system. I would like to be able to use the game I dropped a rather large sum of money on as is.

 

As a comics fan, I want to be able to buy the rpg, and use it to feel like I'm playing a character in a comic book universe, with all the resultant capability and feel. If I already have to sledgehammer those universes to make them fit the game, and accept mentalities where I have to dismiss half the stuff that goes on in said continuities, well, not quite the robust superhero rpg I was promised, was I?

 

As a player, bluntly, having to ridiculously min max what is explicitly in system stated to be a starting character puts ME out of my comfort zone. It feels like I'm having to cheat and twink out my starting character as much as possible. I'd rather feel like I just used the system to more naturally reflect something than having instead had to hack and squeeze every last bit out of it that I could. /That's/ power gaming to me, not the other way around. To me it is the very height of inelegant to have to sit down with a system and hack away at it until it "works".

 

I happen to like that one can use the book guidelines and actually have them mean what they say, it reflects thought being put into the system they put together, how advancement would work, and how robust the system is.

 

If you guys think Hero is so weak as a system that going above 350 makes things awkward and untenable, and requires what for a new player would be intense min maxing and number crunching, why do you use this system? Do you forbid your players to ever earn experience? Do you hand it out as slowly as possible? Do every single one of you just play PBEMs?

 

I've created 350 point chars, nodded and said to myself "that's about where a comic book character I'd consider 'starting' would be". I've created 800 point characters and said "yeah, that feels iconic". I created a character somewhere inbetween those levels, just to get feels for what they could do with the system itself, without ripping it apart.

 

"Few concepts require more than 350 points".. yeah.. you can certainly create guys with names like "Batman", "Superman" and the like, or create "homages" to them. Those homages won't feel anything remotely like the things they do in the comics without the aforementioned total manging, but ok, sure, if a pale shadow of what is being approximated is hunky dory.

 

Here's what boggles me especially, ok, so someone's Superman homage can do as much as 3 other PCs on that team can. Maybe that means that's not in fact a team for a Superman homage to be on? Maybe it just means that? What's so bad to say "at the power level of this team and what they'll be doing in campaign, someone coming right out of the gate like Superman would really not have a place here, you know, like how in the comics Thor isn't a member of the New Warriors." Why is it better to just tell the player that they're intent and design is laughably flawed in the most condescending way possible?

 

I mean, to sum up, here were my questions as a new player, and here are the answers this messge board (mostly the Champions and Dark Champions) has given me across multiple threads and responses on this issue that I've read over:

 

"So will this system run the gamut of superhero comics?"

 

"Why yes, if you out of the gate strictly depower everything from given versions, and are willing to relentlessly min max so as to never go above a certain level of points, because it's /bad/ to do so, and accept that even then, there are certain things you still won't be able to do at all without massive fiating, but if you want to do them, you're a twink who obsesses over every little detail that don't matter anyway and are the reason why npcs like Elminster exist, you ruiner of rpgs as an industry you."

 

"Ah... ha... well, how about the Champions Universe, that any good as a setting? To game in and the like, maybe to use to help run a game for someone without a lot of time to world design."

 

"Why no, the Champs universe is terribly flawed and point bloated, and needs heavy stat and conceptual editing to make sure the pcs are revolved around all the time and are the center of the entire universe."

 

"But comic book universes have hundreds of supers at wildly varying power levels anyway, surely you could just focus on the one suitable level in a game and not the other until you've built up to it."

 

"No, that's wrong, and contributes to point bloat and makes the pcs feel useless."

 

"Ah, well, how about xp? Will there being a sense of being able to grow and change over time? You know, like how the 80s Titans grew into the heroes they are today, or comparing the core five X-men to when they were teenage students to now, or even just things like a hero going on a hero's journey and becoming vastly more skilled and competent with their powers, doing new things they hadn't done before and just generally pushing themselves to be better."

 

"If you can't express all of that through roleplaying, you're some kind of twink, XP happens rarely, and going over 350 points is bad."

 

and then there was..

 

"Wow, I just read the essential Iron Fist, that guy was damn impressive. Seems like to play someone like him you'd need this, this, this, this and etc.."

 

"Haahahaha! why no you fool! First off, half of that stuff that impressed you so much and had great writing and art behind it, bunk. Pure bunk and main character syndrome. Expecting to be able to do that isn't realistic at all! Why can't you stop obsessing on detail and be realistic! Especially about comics! Why if we just handwave away most of that stuff, use this homebrew system here and downplay the rest, it's just fine! Wow, even /less/ then 350 points! I've topped myself!"

 

"... and if I wanted to play Iron Fist doing all the things that were neat and fun about his comic book? Without homebrew systems and the like?"

 

"If you can't accept the lesser versions thereof, you're a detail obsessed powergamer."

 

Or then there was..

 

"Look, if I'm playing Mr Terrific, I want to feel like I'm playing the supergenius who's skilled at every human endeavour under the sun, if I want to play Thor I want to feel like a majestic warrior god bestriding the Earth, storms forming in his step, if I want to play Batman, I want to feel like the millionaire playboy Dark Knight with his cool toys and intense training, if I want to play Green Lantern, I want to feel like a galactic powerhouse keeping law and order across an entire star system, if I want to play Nightwing I want to feel like the daring acrobat tackling street crime with nothing but my skill and will and bravery. Shouldn't it be a vastly different playing experience and level playing each of these guys? Shouldn't they just look different?"

 

"No! in fact they can all be done in /250/ points and put side by side! And if you don't think that makes sense, you are again getting obsessed with point bloat and everything that's bad about comics that we should dismiss anyway! I don't want to fully approximate comics anyway! You shouldn't be trying to do that with this game! Comics suck nowadays anyway!"

 

And it's that last notion that gets me, that people approach this game with the view that the comics are made to fit it, and not the other way around. It's a comic book superhero rpg. I come to it /from comics/. If I can't easily use it to fit whatever comic book experience I'm trying to get out of gaming with it, why am I bothering with it? What is the point of it being a comic book rpg?

 

At least Godlike went out of the way to say "this is not a comic book rpg". Champions goes out of the way to say that it is. Why does that mean the comics come second, or if they come first, come with massive qualifiers?

 

By comparison, there's something like SAS, when when I looked at it, they fully indeed go into what different levels of superheroing both exist and would look like in that world, point values for each, exemplars for each, ways for each to matter in their own way, full discussions of "at this general point level of superhero gaming, the sort of things that happen are..". Why is that inferior to the "nothing over 350 points" mantra particularly?

 

It was at least a nice change from "if you need more than point value x to feel like you're playing at a particular thematic level, you are contributing to the ruination of this game."

 

I have to wonder if any thought at all goes into how stuff like that sounds to people coming into this game new.

[Starlord]

Re: Schmucks?

 

I don't understand why this is even a debate, it all comes down to what works best for you. This is repeated a thousand times over the course of all of HERO's books. There isn't a right way or a wrong way and one side has no business ridiculing the other for playing a certain way.

 

 

The bottom line is the CU ISN'T a fully-fleshed pretend universe, its a CAMPAIGN SETTING for an rpg. First and foremost, it should provide a means for YOUR players to be the heroes (of whatever power level). Other heroes aren't as much of a necessity TO PLAY THE GAME. Other heroes shouldn't be provided until time allows, other things are more important to DOJ right now (not that I don't think an ALLIES book would be an interesting read at some point).

 

PS: Y'know, there ARE scores of heroes mentioned throughout the books, someone has a list of 'em somewhere I believe. They seem to be forgotten here. Those folks aren't 'officially' statted, but who's to say many aren't built on huge numbers of points.

[Publius]

Re: Schmucks?

 

I feel exactly the same way Starlord, the Champions are "how to" and the fact that the established CU doesn't have any megagiant heroes is not particularly troubling to me, especially since PCs can always be made at higher point values with no muss or fuss to battle these greater evils in your games. I also agree that an allies book would be very cool, although there are a good deal of HERO characters in the Champs Universe book and all that. With the destruction of Detroit (which I love having lived there many years)isn;t there a rough sort of reasoning for the dearth of high powered heroes, i.e. Destroyer brought them all down with him in that event.

 

Pendaran, I understand the sense of frustration. There are some folks however who enjoy 1000-point games and that sort of thing and that I think is a great thing. It can be really fun and really sharp. Myself, I am a big believer in the "cinematic realism" concept for my games. I don't want real-life in my game, I want cinema-like capabilities and maybe a few cool abilities. I don't think that the suggested starting levels should get in the way of what is fun gaming for you.

 

The only thing I would counsel, and it is simply a suggestion, is that if someone runs a higher point value game they might want to have their players stick to their concepts. I have had players in the past that started throwing extra points into stuff that didn't fit their concept because "I think I need a ranged energy attack just in case and I figured I had the extra points". That to me is a problem, because it leads to "everything but the kitchen sink" sorts of characters who all have a means of flying, all have an energy blast and a melee back-up etc. Other folks might like this sort of character in their campaigns and to them I say: "great! have a good time", because whether or not I like them is immaterial to your enjoyment.

 

In a way it is kind of odd, most game systems I start with characters that are above the starting level. One of the reasons I love HERO is that I can create the character I want without having to go through umpty-level nonsense. I want someone who fights with 2-weapons and can belch fire? No problem. I want someone who has superior skills and a neat special gadget collection? No problem. The point values are important only in that it maintains balance, and while there are some areas where I have some real issues (Skills being one of them), I recognize that these are my own issues and can deal with them how I see fit, or not as the case may be.

[caris]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Alright, let me explain my post.

 

In the Champions Universe, there have to be heroes more powerful than the listed ones. It's fine if you think the Champions should be left as is/are good example characters/are sexually arousing because the dress in nurses uniforms and wear gloves... no, actually, that last one isn't fine. If you think that, you're a sicko. Otherwise, you know what Dr Destroyer's plan is?

 

Dr D: "I'm going to walk downtown and start shooting landmarks. When the Champions show up, I'll SHOOT THEM TOO."

 

He doesn't need a matter-rearranging bomb. He doesn't need mind-control gas. He has a 30D6 Energy Blast.

 

"Aha!" you say. "But he's overconfident! There's a flaw in his plan somewhere!"

No, there's not. His plan is to shoot the heroes when they approach. He doesn't need another plan. See, the heroes have to be powerful enough so that he would bother to create a super-weapon.

 

Hmmm… Well, outside of being completely out of character, how about that plan in no way shape or form significantly helps Destroyer meet his stated goal of world conquest. The mind-control gas, the matter-rearranging bomb, and the orbital laser cannons aren’t for use on the heroes, it is to blackmail one mill… one billion dollars from the governments of his choice.

 

"But that's when a team of heroes..."

Shows up and gets killed down to the last man. Please show me a hero that will take Dr D's 10D6 RKA and still be in a position to do something.

 

Average or Max result?

 

I can think of three off the top of my head that could handle an average Body result with a slightly higher than average Stun Multiplier, but to be honest I don’t have every one of the new books and not all of the characters stood out as much as those three so there may be more. It is amazing what a 60 Active Point VPP can do to your defenses.

 

"But the Champions can beat Mechanon..."

Only if you let that Corky kid from "Life Goes On" run Mechanon. Beware, he drools on the dice.

 

Well, it only seems fair to let him play with Mechanon, since obviously he is the one you’ve been having play Witchfire all this time. I consider a fight between Champions and Mechanon, to generally be a close thing, with the long term advantage to Mechanon, but it is not the slam dunk you like to think it is.

 

Yes, Destroyer, Takofanes, Menton, Warlord, Mechanon, etc., etc., etc. are extremely capable of killing any of the published heroes that have actual character write ups, but those characters are not complete wimps. Of course, that also leaves out that we have lots of characters that have not bee written up, and probably will never get a write up. The Iron Imam and the Eternal Tulku from Mystic World both seem likely to be strong enough to fill some of what you and the others want. I suspect that there is at least a chance that you will get your wish and see the write up for a powerful “hero,†when they finally get around to publishing the Tiger Squad (at a membership of 50 that is a team that should get a book of its own). The fact that the Tiger Squad is going to be opposition in most games that they show up in, it would make it more likely for Steve, Darren and company to present a potentially sympathetic character that is more powerful in that team than in a more traditional NPC role like Dr. Silverback fills. Than there is Walkabout, but I suspect that he falls under “powerful but limited†like Eternal Tulku. I suspect that most of Walkabouts power is only going to be accessible in the Dreamtime. Of course, we have a Star*Guard. I don’t know what kind of power he has, but most likely he deals more with threats like Istvatha V’han which are very likely to become threats outside of the Earth very quickly. Dr. Destroyer would probably need a couple of decades to get up to inter-stellar conquest.

 

It seems to me that Hero Games is taking a simple and straightforward method of dealing with the problem. They have powerful heroes in the setting, but they aren’t making too much of a fuss about them. This way those members of their target market that really don’t want NPC heroes overshadowing their game world can pretty much ignore those characters, because they are not getting supplements every month that make a big deal about what the uber-NPCs are doing. Those who need some heroic balances to Dr. Destroyer, et. al. can imagine epic battles between the Iron Imam and Takofanes as Takofanes is forced to leave Jerusalem. It seems to me that the only people with a real problem are the ones who want to actually see a lot of write ups for high level heroic characters.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: Schmucks?

 

The only thing I would counsel' date=' and it is [i']simply a suggestion[/i], is that if someone runs a higher point value game they might want to have their players stick to their concepts. I have had players in the past that started throwing extra points into stuff that didn't fit their concept because "I think I need a ranged energy attack just in case and I figured I had the extra points". That to me is a problem, because it leads to "everything but the kitchen sink" sorts of characters who all have a means of flying, all have an energy blast and a melee back-up etc. Other folks might like this sort of character in their campaigns and to them I say: "great! have a good time", because whether or not I like them is immaterial to your enjoyment.

 

 

This is a good point to keep in mind. I've also noted it before, but it bears repeating. Good characters have a coherent concept behind them. At a certain point level, unless people have such a concept and stick with it, some characters stop making sense.

 

For example, one can make a pretty good version of Hawkeye or Green Arrow at 350 pts. At 450-500, you can have a fully-realized version of that particular archetype. If you're doing a campaign based on 750, your GA is, if you stick to concept, never goingt to miss any target he has any possibility of physically hitting - i.e., anything that is not desolid or in orbit or whatever. He's also going to have a wide variety of special-purpose arrows, and a great complement of skills - tracking, stealth, all that sort of stuff.

 

What he's not going to have, hopefully, is attacks which do 20d6 AP damage. That's going outside the parameters of such a character - Hawkeye's bow just became a howitzer. Hawkeye doesn't need wings or optic-blasts or a damage shield, either. Similarly, if the Dark Avenger of the Night suddenly has body armor exceeding the defenses of Fort Knox, something is off track. The Shang Chi clone who is doing Dragonball-Z-level damage is also pretty darn questionable (though if you're trying to play a version of pre-CRISIS Karate Kid, you're probably still fine).

 

What this means is that with some characters, unless you are being very careful, the archetype falls apart. Hawkeye and Black Canary shouldn't have stats resembling Thor.

 

In fact, some character themes break down at very high point levels, just as some are virtually impossible to do at low points without unholy amounts of twinking. Does anyone really need a 750-point Foxbat or Squirrel Girl? It isn't even in character for some character types to be that epic. At very least, the character has to change to reflect the status - Robin grows up and becomes Nightwing.

 

Speedsters start to break at the high point levels too, though for different reasons. First of all, unless the GM sets SPD caps for other character types, the high SPD stops being so special, since it can only go so high (12 max). Second, unless you're very point-inefficient, such a character will be able to do most of the crazy stunts guys like Flash do in the comics, which can be very hard to deal with in terms of game balance.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Yes' date=' Destroyer, Takofanes, Menton, Warlord, Mechanon, etc., etc., etc. are extremely capable of killing any of the published heroes that have actual character write ups, but those characters are not complete wimps. [/quote']

 

Actually, Warlord is an excellent master villain for starting characters. He is himself tough but not unstoppable by any means. If anything, his crew need a bit of boosting to provide challenge for most teams. Warlord is a good example of a big player who isn't unstoppably tough for competently-played, low-power teams.

 

Menton, on the other hand...

[MitchellS]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Or you can admit that the Champions' date=' and every othe published superteam, are gonna get their asses handed to them when they fight a master villain. And if 50 heroes show up? That's 50 dead heroes.[/quote']

I think we can admit that they will get their heads handed to them if they fight Dr. Destroyer or Takofane (but those two villains are designed to fight armies of heroes as the CU history shows) but those two Master Villains are not representative of them all, and their plots take years to come to fruition. They are not making weekly or monthly appearances in the CU. They are making appearances every few years, and in the case of Dr.Destroyer none in the last 12 years.

 

We only have 25 published heroes so far. You can add 8 more if you want to include the Millennium City 8. Of the "official" 25 three are 600+, four are 500-600, five are 400-500, and thirteen are below 400. That's not much of a sample considering the 110+ we know are active within the US alone.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that we don't want to see more superheroes published. I would love to see the Sentinels, Justice Squadron, Peacekeepers, etc. published. I think the point most of us are rebuffing is that the Champions Universe will somehow implode because there are not 50 750+ heroes around to save the day. The simple fact of the matter is that the really major threats (Dr. Destroyer, Takofane, Tyrnannon) make infrequent appearances and the world's heroes responds when they do. If in your game Dr. Destroyer attacks every other session, then yes, you need more powerful superheroes. If in your game Dr. Destroyer sends agents and operatives to do his dirty work then you don't need high-powered heroes.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that 40-50% of the CU villains are under powered, 25% are a good fight that can be won, 15% are a major challenges that will be lost more than won, and 10% are out of the 400 or less character's leagues. But that's just the nature of any game. You don't take Darkseid up against the Teen Titan and expect them to win through combat. You expect the Titans to win by out thinking our out maneuvering Darkseid, just as the did Trigon. In any game there needs to be threats for the players to work up to. Dr. Destroyer is the ancient red dragon of D&D. First level characters don't attack it, they cause a landslide to cover it's cave opening.

 

Most of the time the heroes find a way to defeat the over-powered foe, they don't beat him into submission. When you look at the big JLA villains, as an example, few of them are defeated by the League beating on them, because most of the JLA is not powerful enough to hurt them. It's the same in the Champions Universe.

[Katherine]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Side A Misconceived posistion: Starting characters are WIMPS and hardly worth playing! The Champs U needs 2000+ point mega gods to merely exist!

 

Side B misconceived posistion: Any character over 355 points is pure cheezy point bloat! You can do God on 250 points and thats the way the game is meant to be played!

 

Both sides real opinions are likely somewhere in the middle. In any event, its just opinion anyway until DOJ gets their Gaming Continuity Enforcement Squad up and running.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

It does not matter if the big megavillains only appear infrequently, because as things stand, when they appear, they should *win*.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Side A Misconceived posistion: Starting characters are WIMPS and hardly worth playing! The Champs U needs 2000+ point mega gods to merely exist!

 

Side B misconceived posistion: Any character over 355 points is pure cheezy point bloat! You can do God on 250 points and thats the way the game is meant to be played!

 

Both sides real opinions are likely somewhere in the middle. In any event, its just opinion anyway until DOJ gets their Gaming Continuity Enforcement Squad up and running.

 

It is *not* opinion that no existing statted heroes can account for why the megavillains have not succeeded yet. Basic game mechanics can demonstrate that.

[MitchellS]

Re: Schmucks?

 

It is *not* opinion that no existing statted heroes can account for why the megavillains have not succeeded yet. Basic game mechanics can demonstrate that.

Your statement is too broad. UNITY can account for every Master Villain except Dr. Destroyer (who has made no appearances in 12 years), Takofane (who seems to only make one or two appearances a year, kills a bunch of people, and leaves), and Tyrannon (who isn't even aware of earth yet). Gravitar, Warlord, Menton, etc. are all beatable by UNITY, as I assume they would be by the Sentinels or Justice Squadron.

[Rene]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Lots of misconceptions at work. I could never understand the argument that once you cross some arbitrary point-total line, games devolve into brainless slugfests, and only low-point games encourage "thinking".

 

I think any Superman story dealing with Mr. Mxyzptlk (or even Lex Luthor) involves much more thinking on the part of the protagonist than any time Daredevil battled Gladiator (that is the name of the guy with buzzsaws on his wrists?). Despite the fact that Superman is 1500 pts, while Daredevil is 400.

 

People will say playing Daredevil requires more thinking than the Avengers because Daredevil would have a harder time battling some bank robbers. Man, if your GM is planning Avengers adventures around bank heists, then he isn't doing his job right.

 

Likewise the realism thing. The low-point snobs will say it's more "realistic". At least IMO, realism has a lot more to do with mood and in-world rationale, than point totals. I think Alan Moore's Miracleman is more realistic than the Amazing Spider-Man, even though Miraclaman can punch through tanks, and Spidey can't.

 

The 350-pts thing is very relative too. If you're playing in the Wild Cards universe, 350 pts will give you a first-class superhero, because the foes usually are normal guys, and the world-shaking villains are 600 pts. Now, in the Marvel Universe, 350-pts isn't quite a "schmuck", but it's a guy in the low-end of the superhuman community. Think Angel, Beast, or Black Knight. In MU, the respectable superheroes are the ones with 600 pts (Cap. America, Spider-Man, Mr. Fantastic, the Thing).

[caris]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Actually, Warlord is an excellent master villain for starting characters. He is himself tough but not unstoppable by any means. If anything, his crew need a bit of boosting to provide challenge for most teams. Warlord is a good example of a big player who isn't unstoppably tough for competently-played, low-power teams.

 

Menton, on the other hand...

I was referring to a one on one fight, and Warlord in particular should be one of the more tactically savvy of the master villains.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Schmucks?

 

And right there it is again with the condescending insults. It's entirely praiseworthy to relentlessly mangle both 350 points and various presented stats to get something to feel like its archetype in the comics, but the exact moment you go the other way, you're being "flawed", you're "taking 'Kewl' over 'cool'", you're contributing to "point bloat" that apparently "plagues" the books.

 

Ok, so you guys hate the xp system, you guys hate the villain stats that can blow through 350 point heroes, you guys hate that the developers flat out call 350 points starting level, and the world as presented, well damn if that don't need changing too.

 

 

(sigh). There's just me, actually. _I_ posted that. XP is fine, "Starting" level is largely meaningless, and the world has a lot of "more power" for the sake of "more power".

 

But mostly, what I would really, _really_ like is for the other half to JUST SHUT UP. I don't care what they DO, but the opposite is not the same. I am happy to say 'whatever is works for you is fine and valid', but have received _nothing_ to affirm that my preferred way is okay.

 

Or in other words, you're not with the open minded HERO thinkers here.

 

Oh, and the "word" "kewl" is icky.

 

So I'm going to ask it again... what are you getting out of this system? Why do you use it? Why do you buy the books? Why do you spend the money? Why do you not use Hero Quest, it will do exactly the same things you are talking about as being laudable (little advancement, getting everything possible out of a few stats and the like) without nearly as much number crunching.

 

 

I like the number cruching. I actually consider HERO to be all I want out of an RPG, because as my first game, it defines what I want out of an RPG.

 

Let me break it down like this... I HAVEN'T been playing Champions for years and years and years, I haven't watched the hero system evolve over editions, I haven't played at 250 or whichever.

 

I came into this game, this year, being sold on it as a superhero rpg that comes the best out of all of them out there to letting you feel like, you know, roleplaying in a comic book universe. I dropped down a chunk of money on it. When I say, "what would you tell a player coming into this game cold.." I'm in part talking about myself.

 

And the answers I get to the questions I've asked would uniformly lead me to say that in general, if this was how Champions worked, I would give it a miss.

 

More explicitly, had I come to this board first to look for opinions, I would not have bothered with this game whatsoever.

 

You guys get borderline hateful to the notion that everything can't be done in 350 points, no matter what you have to discard or ignore or whichever. Look at your language. "Flawed", the snarky use of "Kewl", telling people they must love mary sue NPCs like Elminster.

 

I just bought this damn game, I don't want to have to houserule it eight million different ways from sunday, mangle what the developers present as fast and easy character creation, take a sledgehammer to comic book portrayals and convetions, just to not be branded as violating some sacred notion of the hero system. I would like to be able to use the game I dropped a rather large sum of money on as is.

 

 

A fundamental precept of HERO is that there is no one right way. I'm just insisting that my way is A right way.

 

The game, as you have it, will work. It will not work exactly how _I_ like it, but it will work.

 

As a comics fan, I want to be able to buy the rpg, and use it to feel like I'm playing a character in a comic book universe, with all the resultant capability and feel. If I already have to sledgehammer those universes to make them fit the game, and accept mentalities where I have to dismiss half the stuff that goes on in said continuities, well, not quite the robust superhero rpg I was promised, was I?

 

 

It will work however you want it to. Notice the use of "it will work".

 

As a player, bluntly, having to ridiculously min max what is explicitly in system stated to be a starting character puts ME out of my comfort zone. It feels like I'm having to cheat and twink out my starting character as much as possible. I'd rather feel like I just used the system to more naturally reflect something than having instead had to hack and squeeze every last bit out of it that I could. /That's/ power gaming to me, not the other way around. To me it is the very height of inelegant to have to sit down with a system and hack away at it until it "works".

 

 

I think the game should be used so it works how the player/GM wants it to work. Which it does. Which means it works fine as 350 for all. Which means that the slight fragment of bone (that there are no Uber-NPCs) being tossed here will be fought for tooth and nail.

 

I happen to like that one can use the book guidelines and actually have them mean what they say, it reflects thought being put into the system they put together, how advancement would work, and how robust the system is.

 

If you guys think Hero is so weak as a system that going above 350 makes things awkward and untenable, and requires what for a new player would be intense min maxing and number crunching, why do you use this system? Do you forbid your players to ever earn experience? Do you hand it out as slowly as possible? Do every single one of you just play PBEMs?

 

 

Again, just me, not an army of me's (yet). I've said it's fine to go over. I prefer _never_ going over, however. (XP, at a slow rate; the book I learnt by suggests 1 XP/session. That takes a while to build up.)

 

I've created 350 point chars, nodded and said to myself "that's about where a comic book character I'd consider 'starting' would be". I've created 800 point characters and said "yeah, that feels iconic". I created a character somewhere inbetween those levels, just to get feels for what they could do with the system itself, without ripping it apart.

 

"Few concepts require more than 350 points".. yeah.. you can certainly create guys with names like "Batman", "Superman" and the like, or create "homages" to them. Those homages won't feel anything remotely like the things they do in the comics without the aforementioned total manging, but ok, sure, if a pale shadow of what is being approximated is hunky dory.

 

 

They can. They _might_ not, but it is rude and dismissive to insist that it is "total manging" to do so. 250 never felt like that, but 350 is enough points to built a reasonable homage (indeed, for most, a reasonable clone).

 

Superman is an explicit exception because... (see below)

 

Here's what boggles me especially, ok, so someone's Superman homage can do as much as 3 other PCs on that team can. Maybe that means that's not in fact a team for a Superman homage to be on? Maybe it just means that? What's so bad to say "at the power level of this team and what they'll be doing in campaign, someone coming right out of the gate like Superman would really not have a place here, you know, like how in the comics Thor isn't a member of the New Warriors." Why is it better to just tell the player that they're intent and design is laughably flawed in the most condescending way possible?

 

 

Superman doesn't 'fit' the team he is _on_, if it was a point based game. He is the strongest, the fastest, and the toughest... and there are many people who do not exceed him in _any_ of their schticks. If everyone on the team is built on the same points, he's unbuildable. Because he needs to be more powerful thasn the other _players_.

 

 

It was at least a nice change from "if you need more than point value x to feel like you're playing at a particular thematic level, you are contributing to the ruination of this game."

 

I have to wonder if any thought at all goes into how stuff like that sounds to people coming into this game new.

 

I'm not saying any of that. While it sounds like you have had some nasty experiences, in _my_ experiences, it's the "more points" side of the equation that tends towards dogmaticism.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

Your statement is too broad. UNITY can account for every Master Villain except Dr. Destroyer (who has made no appearances in 12 years)' date=' Takofane (who seems to only make one or two appearances a year, kills a bunch of people, and leaves), and Tyrannon (who isn't even aware of earth yet). Gravitar, Warlord, Menton, etc. are all beatable by UNITY, as I assume they would be by the Sentinels or Justice Squadron.[/quote']

 

I am not so certain of that myself; in particular, for Menton and Gravitar. Gravitar has some nasty multipower attack options all but customized for team busting, and Menton's combo of powerful mental attacks and obscene mental speed is deadly.

 

And again, the point still stands: even if all you count is Takofanes and Dr Destroyer, thats still enough for the question to be valid, as one megavillain that cannot be successfully opposed is all it takes to end the world.

[OddHat]

Re: Schmucks?

 

(sigh). There's just me, actually. _I_ posted that. XP is fine, "Starting" level is largely meaningless, and the world has a lot of "more power" for the sake of "more power".

 

But mostly, what I would really, _really_ like is for the other half to JUST SHUT UP. I don't care what they DO, but the opposite is not the same. I am happy to say 'whatever is works for you is fine and valid', but have received _nothing_ to affirm that my preferred way is okay.

 

Your prefered way is OK. So is Meta's.

 

Nice to have that done.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Schmucks?

 

I was referring to a one on one fight' date=' and Warlord in particular should be one of the more tactically savvy of the master villains.[/quote']

 

True. Of the lower tier master villains, the Warlord is the one who is going to make best use out of minions and tactics. After all, he's got his own army, if he doesn't actually *use* it, he's being underplayed. . .

 

( he does have the second highest superhero kill count on record, but I can't remember whether thats a solo count or including his minions. I imagine its buffed by mercilessly subjecting superheroes with relatively weak defenses to lethal ambushes and such )

[MitchellS]

Re: Schmucks?

 

I am not so certain of that myself; in particular, for Menton and Gravitar. Gravitar has some nasty multipower attack options all but customized for team busting, and Menton's combo of powerful mental attacks and obscene mental speed is deadly.

 

And again, the point still stands: even if all you count is Takofanes and Dr Destroyer, thats still enough for the question to be valid, as one megavillain that cannot be successfully opposed is all it takes to end the world.

And those two Master Villains can be opposed, just not by one team. It takes multiple teams to do the task, and there's nothing wrong with that.