How would you have handled this (GMs)?

[Ragdoll]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Oh' date=' UN sanctioned team, by the by, and the fight was at the Washington Monument, IIRC. How badly would you have put the screws to Avvie?[/quote']

 

*passes out torches and pitch forks, hides CLOWN shirt, and tucks away the big floppy shoes and rubber nose*

 

"Off with her head!"

 

<_< >_>

 

I kid! =D

 

Avatar likely would have been up on attempted manslaughter charges maybe?

Shooting at the CLOWN member that attempted to evac the injured likely wouldn't help her case either. O_O

 

Um, seriously though why the hate for CLOWN? Do some players really get bent out of shape when CLOWN shows up? XD

[caris]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

To throw in my two cents. I probably would not have handled it in game at all, because what I'm hearing is that Avatar's player is wanting to play a "loose cannon" type of character. The tip off should have been in the training scenario, where he went off on her teammates full force with the "if they are my allies, they aught to be able to take it" justification. Now there isn't anything wrong with playing a loose cannon, but it something that should be done carefully. You need to make sure that the other players and the GM are OK with it.

[caris]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Um' date=' seriously though why the hate for CLOWN? Do some players really get bent out of shape when CLOWN shows up? XD[/quote']

 

I only ever used CLOWN once and I did not have this issue. On the other hand, I've heard enough war stories here about CLOWN scenarios that have gone bad, and I can see where CLOWN has to be handled very carefully to think I got a bit lucky.

 

As has been pointed out it is very easy to use CLOWN to humiliate the PCs, which is a bad idea. While such characters are a staple of the Silver Age (Impossible Man, Bat-Mite, Mr. Mxyptlk, some of the Flash's Rogue's gallery, The Yancy Street Gang, etc.), it isn't always a genre convention that converts well to a game. It is to easy for a player to get angry over his PCs humiliation.

 

Also given the affection that some GM's have for CLOWN (me for example), if they don't end up getting "favored villain" status or percieved as such. I've noticed some times that players percieve certain opponent NPCs as being a favorite of the GM's and getting annoyed with the character. This can result from over use of the character, the character's build seeming excessive in some way, or the perception that the GM is fudging things in the character's favor. This can also lead to bad feelings with players either leaving the game or having their PCs behaving unreasonably about the character. I had a friend who has this problem with one of his villains. The original build was way over the top 30+ DEX, 12 SPD, 75%/75% Resistant Damage Reduction, really high PD, ED, MD and Power Defense, Regeneration, 3D6 AP HKA, Martial Arts, etc. (The build has been toned down some.) To an extent my friend got lucky, the players just took this character as a challenge, but they are a tad unreasonable about it. There is one player, who's character thinks that they are carrying around this NPC's head in a sack. I saw another PC using gobs of inches in Tunneling that closes behind them to bury this NPC in the earth. I saw another scenario where given a choice between saving the Earth and beating on this NPC, the PCs chose to beat on the NPC.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

As has been pointed out it is very easy to use CLOWN to humiliate the PCs, which is a bad idea.

 

Part of CLOWN's intended use (going back to the original organizations book)

was to humiliate superheroes (PCs). Unlike CLOWN, Foxbat actually works as a comic-relief type character because he's the brunt of the humor as opposed to the PCs.

 

In game, PCs seem to be forced to play 'Elmer Fudd' to CLOWN's 'Bugs Bunny', whereas Foxbat is closer to 'Daffy Duck/ Wile E Coyote'

 

Also, part of it is that many PCs may not find fighting CLOWN fun, as most of their attacks are flashes, mind control and entangles. Attacks designed to waste your actions and make you look stupid while doing so.

[Black Omega]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I don't hate CLOWN but I agree with the distinction between Foxbat and CLOWN. CLOWN's campaign use is to at least embaress PC's while frustrating them in combat. Now, I admit I don't have a great sense of humor. So as a GM I've never used CLOWN. In a comedy game or with the right group CLOWN can be great. A group that would make itself a part of the joke and try and reverse things on CLOWN would be perfect.

 

For other groups, CLOWN is often an invitation for angry PCs to want to really pound the little snots. Except their powers make that an exercise in frustration since they can prolong the combat without doing or taking much damage.

YMMV.

[caris]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Part of CLOWN's intended use (going back to the original organizations book)

was to humiliate superheroes (PCs). Unlike CLOWN, Foxbat actually works as a comic-relief type character because he's the brunt of the humor as opposed to the PCs.

 

In game, PCs seem to be forced to play 'Elmer Fudd' to CLOWN's 'Bugs Bunny', whereas Foxbat is closer to 'Daffy Duck/ Wile E Coyote'

 

Also, part of it is that many PCs may not find fighting CLOWN fun, as most of their attacks are flashes, mind control and entangles. Attacks designed to waste your actions and make you look stupid while doing so.

 

Yeah, and there are characters out there who are designed to kill superheroes (PCs), and it is just as much a mistake to use them to kill your PCs outside of certain circumstances as it is to use CLOWN to humiliate your players.

 

As far as Foxbat being the brunt of the joke. Yeah, usually that is the case, but two of the most common uses that I've seen for Freddy are even more embarassing to the player. "You're Foxbat's hero" and "Be Foxbat's vallentine" are designed to upset the PC who is the object of Foxbat's attention.

 

So do you have as much trouble with Binder?

[casualplayer]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

If an in-character dressing down didn't get the point across (when the Secretary General of the UN reams Avatar a new one,) then I would run the tissue gambit. Nimble, evasive, clever villain kidnaps some high muckety-muck, switches clothes and broadcasts the bloody assault that ensues when the loose cannon goes off on Archduke Ferdinand. Then the character goes to Stronghold, which is great role-playing fun. Eventually, if the player gets wise, the character gets to do the mission-for-pardon or if the player stays dumb they can rot in solitary.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

As far as Foxbat being the brunt of the joke. Yeah, usually that is the case, but two of the most common uses that I've seen for Freddy are even more embarassing to the player. "You're Foxbat's hero" and "Be Foxbat's vallentine" are designed to upset the PC who is the object of Foxbat's attention.

 

Right. Players don't seem to be bothered by that as much, probably because Foxbat doesn't have the "GM is screwing with us" vibe that Clown has.

 

Plus, Foxbat always seems to get his comeuppance, whereas CLOWN doesn't.

 

So do you have as much trouble with Binder?

 

Actually, no. I like Binder (and the rest of the Ultimates---they were the first super-villain group in Champions), I've never run them as comedy villains or seen any other GM run them that way.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Right. Players don't seem to be bothered by that as much, probably because Foxbat doesn't have the "GM is screwing with us" vibe that Clown has.

 

Plus, Foxbat always seems to get his comeuppance, whereas CLOWN doesn't.

 

There are characters and situations like CLOWN in the source material. However, in building a whole team for this purpose, CLOWN goes over the norm for the genre.

 

As well, how often do we see these situations, where the character is basically publicly humiliated, in comics not intended as comedies? Not very often. If this happpens every third or fourth issue, the hero isn't really taken seriously. If it happens once every several years, then it's a change of pace. I think if CLOWN, or something similar, is appearing more than once in a couple of years of weekly gaming, then either the game is aimed at a comic relief tone (fine if all the players knew that was the theme) or the GM is overusing this comic relief.

[caris]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Right. Players don't seem to be bothered by that as much, probably because Foxbat doesn't have the "GM is screwing with us" vibe that Clown has.

 

Plus, Foxbat always seems to get his comeuppance, whereas CLOWN doesn't.

 

I think you have just hit on the heart of the problem. It is too easy when running a comedy character to forget that they shouldn't be letting the players feel like the GM is screwing with them. I'm sorry, but that isn't a fault of the character. I could run Foxbat true to concept, and still have the players feel like I'm screwing with them.

 

If the GM runs CLOWN so that there is no chance for the PCs to beat them or turn the tables on them, than it is the GM that is making a mistake. Just because they are "funny" and "harmless" doesn't mean you put the PCs in an unwinnable situation, unless you know that your players are OK with that kind of thing.

 

I repeat the one time I used CLOWN, I got lucky, but I can look at what I did and see what about it was right. From what I happened, I can make up "Rules for using CLOWN," and funny thing is most of those same rules would apply to any character, serious or funny:

 

1. CLOWN should be a challenged to be faced, not a trial to be endured. In other words, the PCs should be able to stand a chance against them. It is the same thing as 5th Ed has been doing with it's campaign use advice. You adjust CLOWN's power level to be appropriate for you're group. In the case of when I used them, I did not use every member from the 4th Ed write up. That was more characters than I wanted to manage, and the sheer numerical advantage over my PCs would have been too much. I also picked the appropriate members for the prank and for my PCs. I did not load up with all Mind Controllers, because my team had no mentalist. (By the same token, I would never have thrown Menton against this team. He would have wiped the floor with them.) Ultimately, my PCs beat CLOWN, but it wasn't a gimme by any stretch.

 

2. The joke probably shouldn't be intended to be on the PCs. While having plots and scenarios spring from actions of people against the PCs are good things, not every story has to spring from some one trying to upset the PCs' lives. Some times it can be the PCs interupting CLOWN's prank. Just like you can have a story about PCs interupting a Grab robbery, a Mechassassin hit, or a Dr. Destroyer plot to conquer the Earth.

 

3. Consider what your players likes and dislikes are. Not everyone likes certain types of humor, or even certain types of stories, so don't force people to participate in something they are going to hate. Slapstick comedy is one, but romance can be as much of a problem for some players. So can story dealing with certain types of crime.

 

So, while I can certainly see that CLOWN is difficult to use without causing problems, I don't think that CLOWN is inherently the problem. Any more than any other character out there. I think it is more about GMs misusing the characters, or using them inappropriately that is the real problem. It is a problem that can happen with any character really.

 

 

Actually' date=' no. I like Binder (and the rest of the Ultimates---they were the first super-villain group in Champions), I've never run them as comedy villains or seen any other GM run them that way.[/quote']

 

I have seen the Ultimates run as a bunch chump characters for comic relief, but the point I was getting at is that I don't think that the fact that CLOWN has a lot of "Flashes, Mind Control, and Entangles" is really the problem. There are a lot of villains published out there who only have one or more of those three powers as their primary attack. In some cases like Binder, it is to make them more of a support character, so as to play up the usefulness of team work. In other cases, it can be done to stress the non-lethality of the character. In CLOWN it is a combination of those two things, to emphasize to the GM that people should be getting hurt, and to play up CLOWN is a team that works well together.

[Ragdoll]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I think you have just hit on the heart of the problem. ...snippage!.... I could run Foxbat true to concept, and still have the players feel like I'm screwing with them.

 

1. CLOWN should be a challenged to be faced, not a trial to be endured. In other words, the PCs should be able to stand a chance against them. ..snippage...!

 

I'd always assumed that's the way CLOWN was supposed to be run. Just like any other villain to overcome, except these villains are comedy themed and aren't really out to turn your character into a stain.

 

I've never quite understood some of the more adversarial aspects of gaming. For instance why the assumption that if a GM is using CLOWN (or Foxbat for that matter) they're out to screw with you.

 

I mean it's a different thing if your campaign's tone is gritty and dark, and the GM pulls out CLOWN. Maybe not such a good idea, it's jarring and messes up the setting. But if you're running a game where the tone can be changed from time to time. Gritty, dangerous, light hearted, etc, well as long as you have the ability to overcome said threat what's the harm?

 

No one sees Superman flipping out and melting Mr. Mxyzptlk into a grease spot, or grabbing him and shaking him violently while screaming into his ear and foaming at the mouth:

 

"Think that's FUNNY! HUH! HUH!" *beats on Mr. Mxyzptlk again and again* "Come ON! Tell me it's FUNNY!"

 

In general he doesn't act that way because the tone of the specific episode with Mr. Mxyzptlk is supposed to be humorous. Watching Superman beat Mr. Mxyzptlk to death in a comic who's tone is supposed to be light heart that week would come off looking strange.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I think you have just hit on the heart of the problem. It is too easy when running a comedy character to forget that they shouldn't be letting the players feel like the GM is screwing with them. I'm sorry' date=' but that isn't a fault of the character. I could run Foxbat true to concept, and still have the players feel like I'm screwing with them. [/quote']

 

I agree, but the "embarassing the PCs" thing is built into CLOWN's design. 7 out of 15 members have mind control (usually a limited version which is used to force the target to act silly in some fashion). That's a lot.

[caris]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I agree' date=' but the "embarassing the PCs" thing is [b']built into CLOWN's design[/b]. 7 out of 15 members have mind control (usually a limited version which is used to force the target to act silly in some fashion). That's a lot.

 

I said it before, there are characters out there who have "killing the PCs" built into them too. A GM who uses Mechassassin, Lazer, The Monster, etc. to kill off PCs at whim is being a bad GM, not that those characters are inherently flawed. Any time the GM uses characters in such a way that their success is a foregone conclusion is doing something wrong. I could use Menton a lot more easily to abuse my players based off his write up, with a hell of a lot more justification, than anything I see in CLOWN. Generally speaking, if any of CLOWN (excepting The Trickster and possibly April Foolmaker) were to see someone they were fighting break down in tears over something they were doing, they would stop. Menton would laugh and see what he could do to make it worse.

 

I disagree with you of the 15 members only 6 have any form of Mind Control (7 if you count Merry Andrew, who can configure his VVP to have a Mind Control slot). Of those 6, only three are limited in the commands they can give. Of those three only two are kind of silly. One of those two is on the week side, and the PC has a heck of a lot of lee way in how they can interpret that command. Going back to the original six, only one of them has Mind Control as their primary schtick.

 

April Foolmaker - is really the biggest problem of the bunch of mind controlers. She is the one who really enjoys getting people to do silly stuff. Mind Control is also pretty much the whole of her schtick. Of course the END costs of her powers is going to really slow her down.

 

The Trickster - I would say is another problem, but I would have to question the sanity of GM that is pulling out that 2200 point character in the same scenario as the rest of CLOWN. Heck, he is the team's patron, more than an actual member of the team, which is obvious if you read his background. Also if the GM has The Trickester actually engage anyone directly, so that he is using his Mind Control in anything other than a subtle way, the GM is just screwing with the players and is ignoring the character's write up completely.

 

Toe Tapper - is another problem. Mainly because of the powers/tactics write up. Removing the the Mind Control from the character sheet really doesn't hurt the character. Even so we are back to looking at how limited the Mind Control is. Toe Tapper has no way to prevent the lowering of the Break out Roll. He can only use it 8 times, and it is an OAF (there is also an implication that it should be No Range, but it isn't officially on the character sheet). Also, the commad doesn't really stop most characters from being part of the fight, just sort of requires them to do something else at the same time. A GM just has to consider if their PCs are going to mind dancing at the same time. Some will be bothered by and some won't. Don't use Toe Tapper against the ones who would be bother by it, any more than you would use Menton's Mind Control against a female PC to turn her into his concubine for the night, if you know that the player (or really anyone in your group) has a problem with that scenario.

 

Trump Knight - is another one of those "why did they bother giving him that?" situations with his Mind Control. Yeah, it is to give him a "Hearts" related power, but still it seems like the one offensive power that he would use the least, if at all. It is a whopping 9D6 with the command of "Love." With a command like "Love" there is an awful lot of wiggle room in what the character would do. With only 9D6, the GM is either going to allow that the results are not too silly, or only allow the power to really have any major impact on people with relatively weak EGOs, unless Trump Knight gets a better than average roll. (With an average Roll you only get the +20 effect on people with an EGO of 11 or less.)

 

Random - is the third of our limited Mind Controllers. I don't really see the command "Stop" as being all that embarassing. She also only has a 3 in 36 chance of that being the Multipower slot that she uses.

 

Beuford The Bard - is not limited to giving only a silly command, and there is nothing in the write up to encourage you to have him do so. His write up clearly states that he is cautious about using his Mind Control to make sure his team mates are not in the area effect, which is quite large.

 

Merry Andrew - There is one Mind Control in his selection of sample gadgets. There is nothing indicating that the GM should include it in the selection of slots that Merry Andrew has for any given adventure, which means the GM should consider if it is appropriate to use against his PCs before putting it in the pool.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing your arguement. Out of 15 members there are 3, maybe 4, with truely problematic Mind Controls. One of those is pretty obviously meant to be kept on a much higher threat level than the rest of the team. (Seriously, any GM throwing The Trickster at a bunch of 250 point, 4th Ed standard super hero level, characters is engaging in serious over kill, and is screwing with the PCs. Of course, the same could be said about a GM that threw the high end Dr. Destroyer from Classic Enemies against the same team of PCs.) I'd say that the PC group would have to be pretty powerful and/or large before you were forced to have to use either Toe Tapper or April Foolmaker. So I'm still saying that a GM who uses CLOWN to embarass and humiliate the PCs, is not really using the team properly, any more than a GM who uses Black Harlequin to kill off PCs is using Black Harlequin correctly, (Yes, Black Harlequin should be trying to kill the PCs, but his success should not be a forgone conclusion.), and is the real source of the problem not CLOWN.

 

The only real problem that I see with CLOWN is that they do not carry enough warning lables to remind GMs that just because they are "funny" characters does not mean that the same common sense rules for using/choosing villains for your PCs do not apply. You have to give CLOWN the same kinds of considerations, granted with a bit of a twist, that you give to Eurostar, the Crowns of Krim, the War Machine, or even Dr. Destroyer or Takofanes.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I disagree with you of the 15 members only 6 have any form of Mind Control (7 if you count Merry Andrew, who can configure his VVP to have a Mind Control slot). Of those 6, only three are limited in the commands they can give. Of those three only two are kind of silly. One of those two is on the week side, and the PC has a heck of a lot of lee way in how they can interpret that command. Going back to the original six, only one of them has Mind Control as their primary schtick.

 

April Foolmaker - is really the biggest problem of the bunch of mind controlers. She is the one who really enjoys getting people to do silly stuff. Mind Control is also pretty much the whole of her schtick. Of course the END costs of her powers is going to really slow her down.

 

The Trickster - I would say is another problem, but I would have to question the sanity of GM that is pulling out that 2200 point character in the same scenario as the rest of CLOWN. Heck, he is the team's patron, more than an actual member of the team, which is obvious if you read his background. Also if the GM has The Trickester actually engage anyone directly, so that he is using his Mind Control in anything other than a subtle way, the GM is just screwing with the players and is ignoring the character's write up completely.

 

Toe Tapper - is another problem. Mainly because of the powers/tactics write up. Removing the the Mind Control from the character sheet really doesn't hurt the character. Even so we are back to looking at how limited the Mind Control is. Toe Tapper has no way to prevent the lowering of the Break out Roll. He can only use it 8 times, and it is an OAF (there is also an implication that it should be No Range, but it isn't officially on the character sheet). Also, the commad doesn't really stop most characters from being part of the fight, just sort of requires them to do something else at the same time. A GM just has to consider if their PCs are going to mind dancing at the same time. Some will be bothered by and some won't. Don't use Toe Tapper against the ones who would be bother by it, any more than you would use Menton's Mind Control against a female PC to turn her into his concubine for the night, if you know that the player (or really anyone in your group) has a problem with that scenario.

 

Trump Knight - is another one of those "why did they bother giving him that?" situations with his Mind Control. Yeah, it is to give him a "Hearts" related power, but still it seems like the one offensive power that he would use the least, if at all. It is a whopping 9D6 with the command of "Love." With a command like "Love" there is an awful lot of wiggle room in what the character would do. With only 9D6, the GM is either going to allow that the results are not too silly, or only allow the power to really have any major impact on people with relatively weak EGOs, unless Trump Knight gets a better than average roll. (With an average Roll you only get the +20 effect on people with an EGO of 11 or less.)

 

Random - is the third of our limited Mind Controllers. I don't really see the command "Stop" as being all that embarassing. She also only has a 3 in 36 chance of that being the Multipower slot that she uses.

 

Beuford The Bard - is not limited to giving only a silly command, and there is nothing in the write up to encourage you to have him do so. His write up clearly states that he is cautious about using his Mind Control to make sure his team mates are not in the area effect, which is quite large.

 

Merry Andrew - There is one Mind Control in his selection of sample gadgets. There is nothing indicating that the GM should include it in the selection of slots that Merry Andrew has for any given adventure, which means the GM should consider if it is appropriate to use against his PCs before putting it in the pool.

 

I was also including Popgun (even though he was expelled), who has a mind control slot in his multipower.

[KA.]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Even Batman would violate his CVK to take out CLOWN once and for all.

 

KA.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

We just wound up with Ares with PMS.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Even Batman would violate his CVK to take out CLOWN once and for all.

 

KA.

 

It's interesting how much hatred we reserve for those who make us look foolish, like CLOWN.

 

I would think if anyone were going to break Bats' C vs K, it would be the psychotic killer who has killed or maimed several people close to him, not someone who makes him sing and dance in public, but harms no one.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

It's interesting how much hatred we reserve for those who make us look foolish, like CLOWN.

 

I would think if anyone were going to break Bats' C vs K, it would be the psychotic killer who has killed or maimed several people close to him, not someone who makes him sing and dance in public, but harms no one.

 

I think this is more of a case of overriding the player's CVK.

 

In addition to the other attacks I mentioned, CLOWN also has three members with fairly annoying transform attacks (targets get turned into photos, dice and animals) which may or may not completely remove the targets from combat.

 

If you've spent the better part of a game just watching it because your character was turned into a photograph...

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

 

I've never quite understood some of the more adversarial aspects of gaming. For instance why the assumption that if a GM is using CLOWN (or Foxbat for that matter) they're out to screw with you.

 

I think many players (me too I guess depending on the GM) see introducing CLOWN into a game as "a shot across the bow" (but still not as bad as Dr Destroyer).

 

I mean it's a different thing if your campaign's tone is gritty and dark, and the GM pulls out CLOWN. Maybe not such a good idea, it's jarring and messes up the setting. But if you're running a game where the tone can be changed from time to time. Gritty, dangerous, light hearted, etc, well as long as you have the ability to overcome said threat what's the harm?

 

No one sees Superman flipping out and melting Mr. Mxyzptlk into a grease spot, or grabbing him and shaking him violently while screaming into his ear and foaming at the mouth:

 

"Think that's FUNNY! HUH! HUH!" *beats on Mr. Mxyzptlk again and again* "Come ON! Tell me it's FUNNY!"

 

In general he doesn't act that way because the tone of the specific episode with Mr. Mxyzptlk is supposed to be humorous. Watching Superman beat Mr. Mxyzptlk to death in a comic who's tone is supposed to be light heart that week would come off looking strange.

 

This sounds pretty much what happened with Avatar (an iron-age character in a silver-age game played by a player who may've been in a bad mood to begin with and was looking for the combat to be "cathartic". The perfect storm of bad RPG situations).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

If you've spent the better part of a game just watching it because your character was turned into a photograph...

 

I find this no more obnoxious than spending the better part of a game just watching because you were struck with a large surprise attack, or got creamed with a lucky damage roll. A 4d6 RKA rolling, say, 15 BOD and a 5x Multiple does 75 STUN. That's enough to Stun most Supers, and the villains are stupid if they fail to take advantage of a Stunned target.

[Ragdoll]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

It's interesting how much hatred we reserve for those who make us look foolish, like CLOWN.

 

I would think if anyone were going to break Bats' C vs K, it would be the psychotic killer who has killed or maimed several people close to him, not someone who makes him sing and dance in public, but harms no one.

 

*laughs* Yeah, I was gonna say. Seems like most players, if faced with the choice, would rather be slaughtered by Mechanon in public rather than be forced to dance, or turned into a photograph.

 

[caris]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I think this is more of a case of overriding the player's CVK.

 

In addition to the other attacks I mentioned, CLOWN also has three members with fairly annoying transform attacks (targets get turned into photos, dice and animals) which may or may not completely remove the targets from combat.

 

If you've spent the better part of a game just watching it because your character was turned into a photograph...

 

I’m sorry. I have to do it.

 

What are the odds of a character getting turned into a pair of dice or a photograph?

 

To be turned into a pair of dice Random has to:

 

1. roll a 7 on 2D6, which is I believe 1 in 6. Not to bad she can probably accomplish that.

2. make her attack roll. She has a base CV of 7, and 1 skill level to work with, we will go ahead and give that to her.

3. roll over her target’s Power Defense on 2½D6. Power Defense isn’t that common, so we will go ahead and give that to her.

4. must do a total of twice her target’s Body, cumulatively. Well, unless her target has less than 8 Body, that isn’t going to happen on the first attack at all. I won’t be giving that one to her. So now, we have to start over at step one again. I’ve really got to wonder how often she actually manages to turn a super hero into a pair of dice without the GM deliberately fudging in her favor.

 

To be turned into a photograph, Shapshot’s target must have their 2xBody + Power Defense < roll on 6D6. So anyone with 19+ BODY is immune, granted there are not that many 20 Body characters running around. Still if your Body is greater than 10 you will ignore an average roll or less. Snapshot’s attack is not cumulative, so I once again wonder how often he actually turns a super hero into a photograph.

 

I covered The Trickster, who is the only one that I see who can turn people into animals, in the Mind Control post.

 

I’ll restrain myself on Popgun’s Mind Control.

 

It does seem like you are stretching to create a justification for disliking CLOWN. You can just dislike CLOWN because they are not your style and you’ve had nothing but bad experiences with them. There are plenty of published character’s past and present I felt that way about.

 

I can understand that some people dislike CLOWN.

 

I can understand that many people have had bad experiences with CLOWN.

 

I’m just not buying that CLOWN is any more inherently embarrassing to fight than any other group of characters out there.

 

I can find 5th Ed and other 4th Ed characters that can humiliate PCs in the same way that I’m told that CLOWN is built to do. Heck, I can find characters that are built to do that very thing better, and have been given personalities more inclined to actually humiliate those PCs rather than just embarrass them.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

It does seem like you are stretching to create a justification for disliking CLOWN. You can just dislike CLOWN because they are not your style and you’ve had nothing but bad experiences with them. There are plenty of published character’s past and present I felt that way about.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're the one stretching a point here.

 

I never said they were completely unusable, but their is stronger potential for CLOWN to piss off players, than say, The Ultimates or really, just about any other villain team and I've presented a few reasons why this might be the case (the combination of powers and their SFX)

 

I've only played in one game with the original version of CLOWN and observed another with the 4th ed. version. Neither went "swimmingly".

 

On this board (and going waaaay back to the cybergames days) I have read many CLOWN "war-stories" (few good).

 

To be honest, I've spent more time posting about these guys than I EVER thought I would and I think all of my relevant points are in my earlier posts so I'm bailing on this thread and I'm giving you the last word on it.

[KA.]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

It's interesting how much hatred we reserve for those who make us look foolish, like CLOWN.

 

I would think if anyone were going to break Bats' C vs K, it would be the psychotic killer who has killed or maimed several people close to him, not someone who makes him sing and dance in public, but harms no one.

 

This shows what happens when you forget to add a smilie to your post.

 

I really was just kidding.

 

As far as I remember, I have never actually been in a game where CLOWN appeared.

 

I have read a lot of the 'war stories' describing the various awful uses CLOWN has been put to, and I remember basically hating the concept the first time I read the write-ups.

 

But I think my major objection to CLOWN is that they, more than other groups mentioned, seem to be designed to bully the players.

 

Yes, I know about Bat-Mite, Myx, etc.

 

They are okay in the source material, because, Batman and Superman are not actually being 'played' by a real human being.

When the writer decides to add Bat-Mite to a story, he is in control of both sides of the conflict.

There is no second party to be humiliated.

 

CLOWN, in concept, reminds me of the nastier form of bully I remember from my childhood.

 

Not the 'in your face' bully, that would just want to fight you, or demand you pay tribute. You could just fight them and they would eventually go away.

 

CLOWN is more like the 'social bully'. The person who uses their seeming inferiority, and/or connection to authority figures, to inflict pain and still play the part of victim.

 

I am sure we have all met them.

 

In most groups, there is usually one jerk who will trip you, frog you, put something in your food, and when you prepare to respond, will back off defensively saying:

"Hey man! I was just kidding! Gosh! What's the matter with you?"

thereby making it appear that they are somehow the injured party.

 

Perhaps the most obnoxious example of this that I can remember is Nellie Olsen from Little House on The Prairie.

 

She would do/say the nastiest thing she could think of, and then go running for the nearest Teacher, Parent, etc. wailing:

"Laura is trying to hit me! Make her stop! I didn't do anything!"

 

That is what CLOWN represents to me.

 

They are built to inflict both physical and emotional damage on the players, and then hide behind:

"Well they don't harm any innocents."

"They don't use killing attacks."

"They're just kidding."

 

That last line has been the battle cry of the social bully since the dawn of time.

 

I still don't buy it.

 

To me, CLOWN is the symbol of:

"The GM is going to crap on your character and any way that you respond will be wrong."

 

If you are playing Toon Hero, then they are perfectly appropriate, other than that, no.

 

I think that if I was playing in a campaign and CLOWN showed up with any frequency, my response would be:

"Oh, it's CLOWN. They don't really hurt anyone, so we might as well just leave. Back to the base."

 

I might not enjoy having my character squashed like a bug by Dr. Destroyer, but at least, if I get the chance, I can pound the crap out of him.

He will do his best to kill me, but he won't back off with his hands up saying "I was just kidding."

 

KA.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

*laughs* Yeah, I was gonna say. Seems like most players, if faced with the choice, would rather be slaughtered by Mechanon in public rather than be forced to dance, or turned into a photograph.

 

 

The guy who dies fighting is a hero.

 

The guy who gets depantsed in front of a crowd is a loser.

 

 

If someone wants to play a hero, but you make them play a loser instead, they may not be happy.