Alternate balance concept

[Warp9]

The idea has occurred to me that I might run a HERO game with a strange sort of game-balance, or in this case, actually a “game-imbalance.â€

 

The concept is that you have these super-natural beings who are “awakening,†but I also wanted to have “normal†humans along side them. Due to the power of the “super-naturals†there would be a point gap between them and the normals. The fact that PCs are normally built on the same number of points could be a problem to setting up this kind of game.

 

 

My solution would be to focus of the “awakening†part of things. These super-naturals don’t start off with any of their abilities, but instead “wake up†when they start playing, and probably take a few months (out-of-game) time to reach full power. Whereas it is possible to build a heroic level “normal†who does start out with all his abilities.

 

I was thinking of a 2 for 1 trade off. The extremes would be a 150 point “normal human†Hero, or a 300 point “super natural.†It would also be possible to start out as a competent 50 point character, who would end up as a 250 point “Super-Natural.â€

 

The obvious problem is that this is not really a “balance.†One sort of character will start off far more powerful than others, but then later on become dwarfed in relative power. The other extreme will be feeble at the start of the game, but then over-shadow the “normals†later on.

 

 

This kind of balance seems reminiscent of old-style D&D “balance,†where fighter started off as being more powerful than Magic Users, but, at higher levels, the Spell Casters become much more powerful than the fighters.

 

Anyway this is something I've been kicking around. . . . Any opinions on the concept are welcome

[Force]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

My group had a campaign similar to this about 10-15 years ago.

 

In a nutshell:

 

The scenario was you personally were whisked off to a far away world.

 

You then were given 10 base points per day to 'build' your powers. Lots of role playing at first to develop your character and later on you became more effective.

[Victim]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Just change the way points are spent. A 300 point character that spends tons of points on skills and contacts will be different than one that spends his points on powers.

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

I find that point balancing is overrated and mostly illusory. The trick isn't equalizing points or even power levels, but equalizing the contributions of the PCs to the players' satisfaction.

 

Which is to say, if your players are on board with the idea, you're golden.

[Mike W]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

I think austenandrews is on the right track. If the players are on board, it could really work. As long as all of the players remain valuable in some aspect, the different "power levels" can work. We've all played games which play off this concept.Games such as Werewolf, where the Ahrouns and the Theurges were on much different power levels in combat but the Theurge is still vital to the party's success. Or D&D where the Clerics are never the toughest guys in combat, but everyone wants the healer around afterwards - or a thief with his so-so hit points and THAC0 but who can disarm all those traps and scout around.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

My group had a campaign similar to this about 10-15 years ago.

 

In a nutshell:

 

The scenario was you personally were whisked off to a far away world.

 

You then were given 10 base points per day to 'build' your powers. Lots of role playing at first to develop your character and later on you became more effective.

Interesting, I'd like to hear more about how that worked out. . . .

 

My main concern involves the mixing of lower-powered characters who have their abilities up-front vs more powerful characters who have to wait a bit to "grow into it."

 

It does sound like you had a positive experience with the slower growth process.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Just change the way points are spent. A 300 point character that spends tons of points on skills and contacts will be different than one that spends his points on powers.

I can agree with that concept.

 

My concern here is that I want to run a campaign set on an Earth which should appear fairly normal until these "Super-Naturals" start to manifest. I am concerned about the idea having too many 300 point "normals" running around.

 

There are many Super-Hero games where "normals" are built on the same points as the other super heroes. But usually these characters do somewhat bend the definition of "normal." If the normals in my game are limited to normal human ranges of characteristics, I am somewhat concerned that they may start to look too much alike (you'll tend to "max out" in too many areas. Although since I've never actually done such a game, it may turn out that I'm worrying about nothing.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

I find that point balancing is overrated and mostly illusory. The trick isn't equalizing points or even power levels, but equalizing the contributions of the PCs to the players' satisfaction.

 

Which is to say, if your players are on board with the idea, you're golden.

I think austenandrews is on the right track. If the players are on board, it could really work. As long as all of the players remain valuable in some aspect, the different "power levels" can work. We've all played games which play off this concept.Games such as Werewolf, where the Ahrouns and the Theurges were on much different power levels in combat but the Theurge is still vital to the party's success. Or D&D where the Clerics are never the toughest guys in combat, but everyone wants the healer around afterwards - or a thief with his so-so hit points and THAC0 but who can disarm all those traps and scout around.

Good Points!

 

Balance is in the eye of the beholder to some extent, and as long as the PCs seem to be useful they should have a good time.

 

The only issue is (and it is my fault for not mentioning this fact before) that I intend on this campaign being a highly "simulationist" game.

 

I've realized that I've become more of a naritivist GM of late. That is not a bad thing, but I thought it would be cool to run a game with a more simulationist aspect. The term Simulationist, in this case (at least for me), means that I'll let things go as they go without trying to push the plot in any direction as GM.

 

All that being said, there are things I can still do to shape the story, but I do need to keep the GM influence fairly light. If I am not doing a great deal to spin the story in such a way that all the PCs are effective, then having the characters be on a more equal footing may become important.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

I think austenandrews is on the right track. If the players are on board' date=' it could really work. As long as all of the players remain valuable in some aspect, the different "power levels" can work. We've all played games which play off this concept.Games such as Werewolf, where the Ahrouns and the Theurges were on much different power levels in combat but the Theurge is still vital to the party's success. Or D&D where the Clerics are never the toughest guys in combat, but everyone wants the healer around afterwards - or a thief with his so-so hit points and THAC0 but who can disarm all those traps and scout around.[/quote']

 

Given how much better Thieves and (especially) Clerics [i swear a party of all 3.x clerics would have more raw power and flexibility than any other option] have gotten over time (mostly through Player bitching), I'm guessing this doesn't always work.

 

And in Hero, it's a little sillier. Points don't equal raw power, they equal usefulness. And PC's could easily be two or three of the most capable "normals" on the planet - I mean, some people write up special forces as topping 300pts, Batman at 700 or more... 300pt OUTSTANDING humans should be reasonable enough if they're recruited for a reason. (To study them, to train them, to hunt the renegade thems...)

 

Especially if you charge points for _unique_ equipment, it should be easy enough to come up with distinct 300pt humans.

 

 

If you DO want point imbalance, you'll have to stop the supers from taking much in the way of skills. Otherwise their "normal" buddies will look weak.

[Vondy]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

I find that point balancing is overrated and mostly illusory. The trick isn't equalizing points or even power levels, but equalizing the contributions of the PCs to the players' satisfaction.

 

Which is to say, if your players are on board with the idea, you're golden.

 

You describe: equillibrium.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Interesting, I'd like to hear more about how that worked out. . . .

 

My main concern involves the mixing of lower-powered characters who have their abilities up-front vs more powerful characters who have to wait a bit to "grow into it."

 

To sime extent, this may depend on campaign duration. If the 300 point characters grow so slowly it will take two years' real time to achieve parity with the normals, and another two years to achieve notable superiority, the

players of the 300 point characters may feel they have been hard done by if the campaign runs 30 months.

 

On the other hand, if the real time to achieve parity is a month, and they have their full 300 points after 3 months, a campaign of the same 30 month duration may leave the lower point players feeling they got the short end of the stick.

 

I think the "grow into it" aspect may be a red herrint. austenandrews hits the nail on the head that, if the low and high point characters do truly stand shoulder to shoulder - each making regular and meaningful contributions in their own way - there should be no problem.

[OddHat]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Good Points!

 

Balance is in the eye of the beholder to some extent, and as long as the PCs seem to be useful they should have a good time.

 

The only issue is (and it is my fault for not mentioning this fact before) that I intend on this campaign being a highly "simulationist" game.

 

I've realized that I've become more of a naritivist GM of late. That is not a bad thing, but I thought it would be cool to run a game with a more simulationist aspect. The term Simulationist, in this case (at least for me), means that I'll let things go as they go without trying to push the plot in any direction as GM.

 

All that being said, there are things I can still do to shape the story, but I do need to keep the GM influence fairly light. If I am not doing a great deal to spin the story in such a way that all the PCs are effective, then having the characters be on a more equal footing may become important.

 

For what it's worth, I've run campaigns with a very similar concept, and they can be almost self-steering.

 

One way to do this: Tell all players that they can be Normals or Supers. Tell the Normals that they can only buy skills and equipment, no straight powers, and restrict the equipment to real-world technology, requiring perks for access to anything that couldn't be picked up legally via civillian channels and strictly enforcing the real-tech limit. The Normals must also take NCM. If the Normals chooe to be Martial Artists, do not let them buy more than one or two extra DC.

 

None of these restrictions apply to the Supers. Make sure that the Supers have solid builds, and let them have attacks and defenses that are significantly higher than what you allow for the Normals.

 

Enforce differentiation between characters. No more than one FBI agent, one Blaster, one ex-Navy Seal, one Chi Martial Artist, etc. Discourage the use of Super-Skills (as these let the Supers tread on the Normals' turf).

 

When I tried something like this, I ended up with a campaign where the Normals took center stage in the investigative portions of the adventure, while the Supers stepped forward to take center stage in combat. It had a solid feel to it, and I rarely had to stretch to make sure that everyone had a role.

On the other hand, all of the players were fairly "narativist".

[Mike W]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Given how much better Thieves and (especially) Clerics [i swear a party of all 3.x clerics would have more raw power and flexibility than any other option] have gotten over time (mostly through Player bitching), I'm guessing this doesn't always work.

 

And in Hero, it's a little sillier. Points don't equal raw power, they equal usefulness. And PC's could easily be two or three of the most capable "normals" on the planet - I mean, some people write up special forces as topping 300pts, Batman at 700 or more... 300pt OUTSTANDING humans should be reasonable enough if they're recruited for a reason. (To study them, to train them, to hunt the renegade thems...)

 

Especially if you charge points for _unique_ equipment, it should be easy enough to come up with distinct 300pt humans.

 

 

If you DO want point imbalance, you'll have to stop the supers from taking much in the way of skills. Otherwise their "normal" buddies will look weak.

 

I have never played 3rd edition D&D so I can't comment on the changes much, but I doagree that the "normal" PCs need schtick of some kind that the Supers can't infringe on be that in how many skills they can have, or contacts or whatever. A lot of that could be sorted out in backgrounds. Don't allow any "super scientist" types among the superheroes. Maybe do like they had in Iron Man when Rhodes was in the armor. You have one guy in the armor, who knows how to use it and another character is the guy who designed the armor and has to fix it, improve it, whatever. Another option might be to not make the "normals" pay for any equipment at all and just keep a tight rein on what they can get.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

To sime extent, this may depend on campaign duration. If the 300 point characters grow so slowly it will take two years' real time to achieve parity with the normals, and another two years to achieve notable superiority, the

players of the 300 point characters may feel they have been hard done by if the campaign runs 30 months.

 

On the other hand, if the real time to achieve parity is a month, and they have their full 300 points after 3 months, a campaign of the same 30 month duration may leave the lower point players feeling they got the short end of the stick.

 

I think the "grow into it" aspect may be a red herrint. austenandrews hits the nail on the head that, if the low and high point characters do truly stand shoulder to shoulder - each making regular and meaningful contributions in their own way - there should be no problem.

 

I would agree with this assessment.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Especially if you charge points for _unique_ equipment, it should be easy enough to come up with distinct 300pt humans.

That point is one I'll have to consider further.

 

It is worth adding that I'm not sure that I'll be charging anybody points for any kind of equipment.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

For what it's worth, I've run campaigns with a very similar concept, and they can be almost self-steering.

 

One way to do this: Tell all players that they can be Normals or Supers. Tell the Normals that they can only buy skills and equipment, no straight powers, and restrict the equipment to real-world technology, requring perks for access to anything that couldn't be picked up legally via civillian channells and strictly enforcing the real-tech limit. The Normals must also take NCM. If the Normals chooe to be Martial Artists, do not let them buy more than one or two extra DC.

 

None of these restrictions apply to the Supers. Make sure that the Supers have solid builds, and let them have attacks and defenses that are significantly higher than what you allow for the Normals.

 

Enforce differentiation between characters. No more than one FBI agent, one Blaster, one ex-Navy Seal, one Chi Martial Artist, etc. Discourage the use of Super-Skills (as these let the Supers tread on the Normals' turf).

 

When I tried something like this, I ended up with a campaign where the Normals took center stage durring the investigative portions of the adventure, while the Supers stepped forward to take center stage in combat. It had a solid feel to it, and I rarely had to stretch to make sure that everyone had a role.

On the other hand, all of the players were fairly "narativist".

Excellent suggestions!

 

It sounds like what you are suggesting is definitely applicable to my situation; I'll will have to think a bit more about how best to apply your advice to my setting.

 

 

Here is a bit more information about my specific goals for this game. . . .

 

As I’ve said above (a few posts up), I’d like to set up a situation and let it play out with as few artificial constraints as possible.

 

The specific situation is that a group of super-natural creatures ended up being forced to take the role of humans (which is a story in and of itself, but not important to go into here).

 

They assumed this guise at the earliest stages possible (embryo), and even lost the memories of what they were.

 

After some time, they began to spontaneously remember their true nature, and begin to change back into their true forms. The shift would not be instant, but it could happen fairly quickly. The idea of making the progress drawn out, is not necessary, but it would allow for some interesting opportunities (as has already been discussed).

 

The Game begins at a point where the characters (at least the non-human ones) have started to remember what they really are.

 

The rest of the world is very close to our own Earth–it is not a world where bizarre events are common, and no other super beings exist. The new abilities manifested by these creatures will be totally unprecedented.

 

As a simulation, the game-story focuses on the lives of these transforming individuals. The characters will slowly begin to realize what is going on. And they will soon discover that they are not the only ones in that situation. The family and friends will also play an important role in the journey (that is why I’d like to have some “normal humans†in the game).

 

The transforming PCs will have to deal with questions of what they are. Especially at first, it will all be a big mystery. Once they find the initial answers, more questions will arise. Do they still consider themselves human? Or do their true loyalties lie elsewhere?

 

How will they use these new abilities? Will there be an effort made to keep what is going on a secret from the world at large?

 

For the humans involved in the situation there are other questions that must be answered. Are the humans who become aware of what is going on willing to trust that all these transforming entities will still keep their allegiance to humanity? Or should something be done before these creatures gain too much power and decide that they no longer care about humans?

[stmichaeldet]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Hmmmm. Ordinarily, I'm all in favor of the idea that characters with different power levels can successfully campaign together, though I think it takes the right combination of campaing, GM, and players to pull it off. I've experimented with it a few times, with mixed results.

 

But, if "the game-story focuses on the lives of these transforming individuals," and the normals' role is as foil and sounding-board for the effect of the transformations on society, it seems to me you run the risk of the normal players feeling like sidekicks and second-fiddles to the Transformers. Have you considered allowing everyone to play a super (though you could still allow anyone to play a normal, if they felt they had a strong concept), but having them come up with four or five important NPCs in their characters lives? That would ground all the characters socially, and provide you with plenty of fodder to use to illustrate the normal reaction to the changes.

 

- St. Michael

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Hmmmm. Ordinarily, I'm all in favor of the idea that characters with different power levels can successfully campaign together, though I think it takes the right combination of campaing, GM, and players to pull it off. I've experimented with it a few times, with mixed results.

 

But, if "the game-story focuses on the lives of these transforming individuals," and the normals' role is as foil and sounding-board for the effect of the transformations on society, it seems to me you run the risk of the normal players feeling like sidekicks and second-fiddles to the Transformers. Have you considered allowing everyone to play a super (though you could still allow anyone to play a normal, if they felt they had a strong concept), but having them come up with four or five important NPCs in their characters lives? That would ground all the characters socially, and provide you with plenty of fodder to use to illustrate the normal reaction to the changes.

 

- St. Michael

One thing I notice is that I should have chosen my words a bit better: "As a simulation, the game-story focuses on the lives of these transforming individuals" that statement sounds like I intend on some kind of naritive control over the story, which I do not.

 

But in any case, you may be correct about the "normals" feeling like second fiddles.

 

Although I was never planning on forcing anybody into a "normal" role that didn't want to go in that direction. I intended that those decisions to be left up to the Players.

 

One of the reasons that I wanted to go with the slow advancement concept is so that there would actually be a reason to play a normal. Basically you have two options:

 

You can take your points up front, and play a normal Heroic Character.

 

Or you play a very weak character, who may (after 3 or 4 months real time) reach a point of greater power. Of course the transforming characters, may not survive long in their weaked state. Normally PCs shouldn't die off easily, but, given the simulationist nature of this game, PC death becomes a real possibility. And even if the characters do not die, there is no way to be sure that the game will even last that long (I'd do my best to keep the game going, but sometimes games don't go the distance). So playing a transfroming role is a bit of a gamble.

 

But that does not make the game "fair." Such a game might be said to be unfair to everybody, but just a different times. The transfroming characters get ripped off at the start, and the normals get ripped off later.

 

I guess the real test of that is if the Players feel ripped off or not. If everybody gets to make the choices they want, and are happy to live with the consiquences, then there should not be a problem.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

But that does not make the game "fair." Such a game might be said to be unfair to everybody, but just a different times. The transfroming characters get ripped off at the start, and the normals get ripped off later.

 

I guess the real test of that is if the Players feel ripped off or not. If everybody gets to make the choices they want, and are happy to live with the consiquences, then there should not be a problem.

Yeah. So you might be asking the wrong people, unless some of us are your players.

 

In a sense it gives everyone their, "day in the sun," which is interesting, as long as that eventual payoff isn't too far down the road for those who have to be patient. Another thing to consider is this: if the game happens to last much longer than it takes for the slow-growth characters to become more powerful than the rest (even if you aren't planning on it now, the players could get attached to the game and want to keep going with it--it happens), what are you going to do to balance it again? I think it is worth at least a little consideration ahead of time. (While the D&D mages are annoyed to begin with, the fighters REALLY get bitter at the end, for why should they continue playing their characters when the mages consistently solve every problem and defeat every enemy before they can unsheath their weapons, and it only promises to grow worse?)

[Force]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Interesting, I'd like to hear more about how that worked out. . . .

 

My main concern involves the mixing of lower-powered characters who have their abilities up-front vs more powerful characters who have to wait a bit to "grow into it."

 

It does sound like you had a positive experience with the slower growth process.

 

No problem. I will give you the basic layout.

 

The premise behind this was a group of powerful/omnipotent aliens had come back to Earth to see how we had progressed from a bunch of apes (think about the begining of 2001:A Space Odyssey). Bewildered that a race of advanced beings at an advanced stage could be so kind and caring and yet be so torn apart by constant war, chaos and strife, they decided to test the concepts of earth's ideas of good and evil. Taking a smorgasborg of individuals, they were seperated into basic groups of good and evil. Some of them had their DNA mutated, others given access to advanced technology, some both to set about the process of gaining 'super' powers. These people were then placed in different 'ages'/'parallel universes' based on earth's history/mythos: past, present and 'future' in mortal combat, good vs evil. Each day was a trial just simply to survive as their powers grew (10pts a day). Finally, when the aliens were done with their 'research' (at least as far as they could under their 'laboratory conditions') we were sent back to 'our' earth, hence the 'birth' of super powered beings, to once again be watched as the experiment was given a 'live' test.

 

The campaign was diverse and did not need to worry about continuity at first as powers and characters were developed. When we were returned to earth we got a complete re-write as long as we kept fairly close to our 'original' builds/concept. It allowed for multiple gm's (we all took turns) with multiple genre's (from Lord of the Flies in the early parts clear to Terminator, from ancient greek mythos to WWII).

 

The continuity took hold after returning to earth. We also found out that the good and evil 'seperation' had been based on the alien's point of view that was not 'perfect'. Some folks that were on the 'good' side were actually 'evil' and vice versa. This created many openings for some very interesting plot twists. We also found that the aliens had done this with a much larger 'sampling' than we had been led to believe (or even possibly larger than we could imagine) when we were returned to earth.

 

Well, that's it in a nutshell. If you want more additional information on how the actual game/build mechanics worked, let me konw.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Yeah. So you might be asking the wrong people, unless some of us are your players.

The game will likely be run play-by-post (using chat program technology when necessary), and I do not have a specific group lined up at this time.

 

It is even possible that some of you might want to play in the game.

 

In a sense it gives everyone their, "day in the sun," which is interesting, as long as that eventual payoff isn't too far down the road for those who have to be patient. Another thing to consider is this: if the game happens to last much longer than it takes for the slow-growth characters to become more powerful than the rest (even if you aren't planning on it now, the players could get attached to the game and want to keep going with it--it happens), what are you going to do to balance it again? I think it is worth at least a little consideration ahead of time. (While the D&D mages are annoyed to begin with, the fighters REALLY get bitter at the end, for why should they continue playing their characters when the mages consistently solve every problem and defeat every enemy before they can unsheath their weapons, and it only promises to grow worse?)

Those are some good points.

 

And I should also say that I don't like D&D that much, so one shouldn't get the impression that I am holding up D&D methods as being the "right way to do things." Still it is always to explore various ways to do things. . . .

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Well, that's it in a nutshell. If you want more additional information on how the actual game/build mechanics worked, let me konw.

Yes, it would be great to hear more about the mechanics, especially the "growing into the powers" concept.

 

How long did it take (real time, not game time) for the characters to reach full power?

[Force]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Yes, it would be great to hear more about the mechanics, especially the "growing into the powers" concept.

 

How long did it take (real time, not game time) for the characters to reach full power?

 

As far as the number of gaming sessions, we only got together to play once per week for about 4 hours or so. There were 5 of us and we each gm'ed at least 3 times each, so a minimum of 15 gaming sessions. 'Points' were given out at approx 5-15 points a session along with xp (2-3). We took severe limitations to build some powers (to represent the 'newness') and then bought off the limitations as we earned more 'points'. We had no disads as these were all cosnsidered 'base points'. Then we were sent back to earth when we had approx 175-225pts total (including xp). We then rebuilt our characters with careful double checking by all of us in the group to make sure we stayed within our original concept in a 250pt campaign (100pt base+150pt disad) + xp (around 40 I would guess). You would be amazed at how much 'Life Support: Do not need to eat' was taken.

 

We were combat monsters, as we did not take to many skills that we did not 'possess' personally (i.e. as players) or what we felt our characters learned during our time off world (i.e. lots of combat skills, paramedics, survival and such). It was hard to earn your degree in physics when you didn't know where your next meal was coming from.

 

Some of our disads were the same. We all took loyalty to team. You really develop that when friendships are forged in the crucible of combat. I think we all took some sort of distinctive feature: mutant at various levels.

 

We were also good. We knew not only our characters, but the others as well. We had powers and abilities that compensated for our weaknesses and complimented our strengths. We knew what others would do when things went down.

 

But the most important insight we gained was what we learned when we had to roleplay our characters so much in the early stages.

 

It was one of the most deep campaigns I have participated in, outside of an old Shadowrun and an Amber campaign.

[Force]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

Here is a copy of my character I found. I built it in HDv1 with 200+150disads.

 

Colussus

 

Player:

 

Val**	Char***	Cost
55/80**	STR	45
20**	DEX	30
43**	CON	66
20**	BODY	20
13**	INT	3
14**	EGO	8
20**	PRE	10
10**	COM	0
	*
10/40**	PD	-1
10/40**	ED	1
6**	SPD	30
20**	REC	0
86**	END	0
80**	STUN	10

*7"**RUN22"**SWIM011"/16"**LEAP0Characteristics Cost: 224

 

Cost**	Power	END
15**	Gravity Field: Elemental Control, 30-point powers*
15**	1) Flight 15" (30 Active Points)*	3
15**	2) Force Field (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance 0 END (+1/2) (30 Active Points)*
16**	3) Density Increase (3200 kg mass, +25 STR, +5 PD/ED, -5" KB), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (31 Active Points)*	2
45**	Dense Skin: Armor (15 PD/15 ED)*
3**	Life Support , Safe in High Pressure, Safe in Low Pressure/Vacuum*
15**	Gravitic Awareness: Spatial Awareness (22 Active Points); Costs Endurance Costs END Every Phase (-1/2)*	2
17**	+17 Mental Defense (20 points total)*
10**	Power Defense (10 points)*

Powers Cost: 151

 

Cost**	Martial Arts Maneuver
5**	Defensive Strike: 1/2 Phase, +1 OCV, +3 DCV, STR Strike*
4**	Fast Strike: 1/2 Phase, +2 OCV, +0 DCV, STR +2d6 Strike*
4**	Martial Block: 1/2 Phase, +2 OCV, +2 DCV, Block, Abort*
5**	Passing Strike: 1/2 Phase, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, STR +v/5; FMove*

Martial Arts Cost: 18

 

Cost**	Skill
3**	Oratory 13-*
3**	KS: Computer OS (INT-based) 12-*
3**	PS: Computer Operator (INT-based) 12-*
3**	Teamwork 13-*
30**	+6 with HTH Combat*

Skills Cost: 42

 

Cost**	Perk
5**	Money: Well Off*

Perks Cost: 5

 

 

 

Total Character Cost: 440

 

Val**	Disadvantages
20**	Hunted: Villian 11- (Frequently), As Powerful, Harshly Punish, Extensive Non-Combat Influence*
25**	Hunted: Anti-Mutant Organization 8- (Occasionally), More Powerful, Harshly Punish, Extensive Non-Combat Influence, PC has a Public ID or is otherwise very easy to find*
25**	Hunted: Aliens 14- (Very Frequently), More Powerful, Watching, Extensive Non-Combat Influence, PC has a Public ID or is otherwise very easy to find*
20**	Psychological Limitation: Protects Innocents Common, Total*
15**	Psychological Limitation: Loyal to Team Common, Strong*
10**	Psychological Limitation: Overconfident Common, Moderate*
15**	Social Limitation: Public Identity Frequently (11-), Major*
15**	Distinctive Features: Large Size/Skin Not Concealable, Noticed and Recognizable, Detectable By Commonly-Used Senses*
5**	Distinctive Features: Mutant Physiology Concealable, Noticed and Recognizable, Detectable By Uncommonly-Used Senses*
10**	Enraged: Innocent Hurt (Common), go 8-, recover 14-*

Disadvantage Points: 160

 

Base Points: 200

Experience Required: 80

Total Experience Available: 120

Experience Unspent: 40

[Warp9]

Re: Alternate balance concept

 

As far as the number of gaming sessions' date=' we only got together to play once per week for about 4 hours or so. There were 5 of us and we each gm'ed at least 3 times each, so a minimum of 15 gaming sessions. 'Points' were given out at approx 5-15 points a session along with xp (2-3). We took severe limitations to build some powers (to represent the 'newness') and then bought off the limitations as we earned more 'points'. We had no disads as these were all cosnsidered 'base points'. Then we were sent back to earth when we had approx 175-225pts total (including xp). We then rebuilt our characters with [i']careful[/i] double checking by all of us in the group to make sure we stayed within our original concept in a 250pt campaign (100pt base+150pt disad) + xp (around 40 I would guess). You would be amazed at how much 'Life Support: Do not need to eat' was taken.

 

We were combat monsters, as we did not take to many skills that we did not 'possess' personally (i.e. as players) or what we felt our characters learned during our time off world (i.e. lots of combat skills, paramedics, survival and such). It was hard to earn your degree in physics when you didn't know where your next meal was coming from.

 

Some of our disads were the same. We all took loyalty to team. You really develop that when friendships are forged in the crucible of combat. I think we all took some sort of distinctive feature: mutant at various levels.

 

We were also good. We knew not only our characters, but the others as well. We had powers and abilities that compensated for our weaknesses and complimented our strengths. We knew what others would do when things went down.

 

But the most important insight we gained was what we learned when we had to roleplay our characters so much in the early stages.

 

It was one of the most deep campaigns I have participated in, outside of an old Shadowrun and an Amber campaign.

Thanks for the info and character write up!