Favorite Rules of "X"

[bwdemon]

I've been toying around with some Rules of X that I think might be good, but I'd like to see what other people are using or have considered, too. I'm interested in different power levels, exploits, and anything else you want to add on the subject.

 

DC(best) * SPD = 60 (350pt game)

 

I really like this one as it captures how often any given character could be doing their damage. You end up with a 5spd/12dc or 6spd/10dc base, which is fine and promotes a lot of secondary powers. I could also see an "X" value of 65 or 70 in a 350pt game, if more players are involved, in order to encourage specialization.

 

What I don't have is a good Rule of X to take defense into account. Maybe some combination of best DCV, SPD (to account for the "I hit you and then I run to where you can't hit me" types), and active points in best defense?

 

I'm not too interested in a blanket "SPD + AP (attack) + AP (defense) + OCV + DCV + Levels" kind of rule, because I don't think it does a good job of limiting the factors involved. In fact, I'd rather have separate rules of X for both offense and defense, so players can't steal too heavily from one to pump up the other.

 

Anyway, let me know what you've used and how it's worked out, as well as other Rules of X that you've yet to try, but think may be good.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

I use basic benchmarks in place of the "rule of X"

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

I just use the force. Seriously, I agree with Sleepydrug. Just set some benchmarks for the PCs to work with, less work, less math.

 

John

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

I'm not too interested in a blanket "SPD + AP (attack) + AP (defense) + OCV + DCV + Levels" kind of rule' date=' because I don't think it does a good job of limiting the factors involved. In fact, I'd rather have separate rules of X for both offense and defense, so players can't steal too heavily from one to pump up the other.[/quote']

 

Why not? Don't the source materials provide us with high-attack glass jaw types, and characters with massive defenses but minimal attack powers (Alpha Flight's Diamond Lil, for example)?

 

I don't use any general rule, just benchmarks and the eyeball test. Maybe a character over the benchmark in offensive punch has less defenses and/or less tactical maneuverability to compensate.

 

Your DC * SPD makes some sense, but it may break down around the edges. Can I have a 3 SPD character that does 20d6? BTW, that 20d6 will be Ranged, and he'll have a great OCV (not factored into your basic rule). On the other end, an 8 SPD is limited to 7 1/2d6, and may find some frustration if opponents have 25 DEF.

 

If we assume both characters always hit, Soeedy will inflict an average of 12 STUN per turn (1.5 x 8) while Pokey gets 45 STUN through on every hit (135 per turn). Speedy should concentrate on throws - Pokey can hit them while they're down.

 

Once we start applying formuli, I think we get into min/max'ing - how do I manipulate the formula to get "the best" result? And having told players "her's the hard and fast rule", it's tough to say "Oh, that character's not allowed to make full use of the rule".

[Pegasus]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

...pokey...

 

 

Seriously though, I have played with these kind of rules and without, and I find that when they are in place they cause much more trouble than they're worth. You virtually guarantee that all characters will max out their attacks according to speed rather than building toward a concept. I understand what you're going for, but I think you'll find it counterproductive in the long run. I think it fosters at least slight resentment in the players as well.

 

I'd be careful with def maximums, too. There are too many concepts that could be thrown out the window with that one.

 

I prefer a benchmark system myself, where the players concept is compared to current benchmarks and characters. Once in a while a Superman-wannabe does pop up, but if that's what the player wants, why not? It can be worked with. If it's a problem, that should be nipped in the bud long before the final character creation. Just tell your players not to expect to do everything at once, there has to be some give and take in concept.

[Rapier]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

I've tossed out all my maxes long ago. You want 80 DEF? Go for it. I let the points even it out. About the only thing I do is check the character over for concept, make some rulings on specific power constructs and offer some guidance with skills/stats/powers that the player may have overlooked.

 

 

When all characters are based around the same points, you tend to end up with characters that are fairly balanced. If someone pumps all their points into combat stats/abilities, they are all but useless out of combat...and the reverse holds true.

 

Plus, by not defining ceilings players are not driven to max those ceilings whenever possible. Getting rid of all the Rules of X has greatly improved our gaming.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

To me, "Rules of X" in games are like "Zero-Tolerance Policies" in schools and workplaces. They both try to substitute for human judgement, and they both do it poorly. A school has a "zero-tolerance" policy on, say, weapons (to cover the rear ends of school officials and prevent lawsuits), but then some kid gets expelled because he'd helped his mother with a catering job over the weekend, and accidentally came to school on Monday with a forgotten butter knife in the bed of his pickup truck. Likewise, sooner or later, any Rule of X will end up allowing some character that's terribly abusive, and preventing some character that's actually reasonable and well-designed.

 

Forget Rules of X. Use your good judgement instead.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

I consider a lot of factors in power-level ... several of them that have nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers on the sheet. Things like ...

 

1. The player. Can the player handle this kind of character? How long will it take him to add up the dice? Can he handle a character this complex (No absorption or VPPs for the n00bs)? Does he get the genre?

 

2. The opposition. I confess, there's a big part of me that operates on the 'It's my job to challenge you, so no matter how powerful your character turns out, he will be challenged; if not physically in battle, then mentally or morally', so I don't often apply hardcaps. However, I do try to keep things fairly even amongst the PCs, if I can, so I don't have a case of 'anything that can hurt X, will kill everybody else'. I'm pretty good at nullifying a character's strengths in ways less subtle than a Drain/Suppress.

 

3. The fact that I build all the characters, because nobody else knows the system.

[phydaux]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

The problem I have with "Rule of X" is that it doesn't cover all possible situations.

 

DC(best) * SPD = 60 is a good rule. A Brick character with a 60 STR and a 5 SPD would fit nicely. But what about when he starts to throw Haymakers? Or what if he buys 18" of Superleap for the +6D6 on a Move Through?

 

I say OK, because Haymaker has an attack speed and DCV penalty, and Movethrough will leave any character without flight on his back at the start of his next action. But that's just me. I've had GMs nix characters I've made because of these maneuvers.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

In our long running campaign (since 1992) we use a guideline (NOT a Rule) of SPD + Damage Classes is less than or equal to 20. It seems to work pretty well to prevent gross imbalances in combat capabilities. We have no caps on defenses beyond the obvious that they must be "in concept" and we try to avoid stepping on each others' schtick.

 

Formal Rules of X can't cover all contingencies, and in my experience just create a uniformity of characters combat abilities. (Points spent on maxed out Rule of X abilities usually leave too many left over, and so the extra points get spent on oddball defenses.) When we dropped our original formal damage and defense caps 3 years ago and went to the above guideline, all the characters did 11d6 or 12d6. Now the spread is from 10d6 to 15d6 and the defense spread ranges from 12 PD to 32 PD.

[bwdemon]

Re: Favorite Rules of "X"

 

Here's the thing... if you just set benchmarks such as a max DC and a max DEF and a max SPD and whatever, then everyone builds everything to the max. This may not be the case with your group of gamers, but that's the way things are in my area. In the past and with other groups, this wasn't usually an issue. It is now, so I'm trying to set rules to prevent the abuses before beginning a new game.

 

With my equations, characters don't step up out of the boundaries at all and if they want to be better in one area, then they have to give up others. The first rule of DC & SPD is but one of three intended. The second operates chiefly on DCV & DEF and the third operates chiefly on OCV & DC. Considered separately, each allows for problems. Taken together, the trio will plug the key loopholes that I worry about.

 

See, I have a problem with a game that says "12DC is the max", because it allows high-dex, high-spd characters the ability to do the same damage as low-dex, low-spd characters. Due to the cheapness of martial arts, this becomes a major problem.

 

Would I be fine with a 20d6 attack and a 3 spd? Sure, because it fits the first test. Can it pass the second and third, though? Not under Hugh Neilson's terms (OCV would be too high), so the character fails and a rebuild is required.

 

So why not allow the glass-jaw brawler or the tough-as-nails wuss? Because they aren't good heroes, that's why. They're boring, one-dimensional, and best reserved for minor villain roles. IIRC, one of the books for Champions even cautions against allowing all-offense or all-defense characters.

 

All-or-nothing characters also force the issue of competition in that you need to have opponents who can challenge the entire group. If I'm stuck waylaying the group with ego attacks all day because Steel Stu is invulnerable to all other sorts of harm, then I'm not being fair to the other characters and, once characters get some experience, you better believe that mental defense will be high on the list of purchases. Then what? I just start adding more DC to villain attacks so I can one-shot-kill everyone but Steel Stu, just so I can hurt him? Likewise, if you prepare a villain's defenses to handle a one-shot-kill attack, then nobody else will be able to do anything and, again, that would be unfair to everyone else.

 

You can't just let the players go during character creation UNLESS they have a strong compulsion toward game balance. If even one of them goes outside the boundaries, then the whole game suffers. So you set firm, fair rules and let people work within them. Some end up with more SPD and some end up with more DC and some end up with higher CVs. You get a good mix of characters and avoid game-breaking imbalances.

 

As for the additional math, any Champions player should be able to look at a character sheet and answer a Rule of X within a matter of seconds. This isn't higher math, people, this is grade school stuff.