Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

[OddHat]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

If non-Superhumans can't have "Powers" in HERO system, Steve is going to need to re-write Dark Champions, Pulp Hero, Fantasy Hero, Space Hero, and Champions.

[OzMike]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

6th edition?

[Lucius]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

No, of course not. Normal Characteristic Maxima was a mistake and it should not exist in the game at all. That's already been established in prior threads.

 

Now, for a normal person in a superhero game, there SHOULD be a possible physical limitation like "Only Human" or "Merely Mortal."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that of course, that doesn't preclude Lucius from taking the limitation on his own characters - he's too much of a gamist to pass up the points, regardless of his principles.

 

PPS: (post palindromedary stuff)

 

Note: Captain America has been physiologically modified by an experimental "super serum" he volunteered to take in WWII. He is therefore NOT a "normal human" any more than someone bitten by a radioactive spider is.

 

I might reject a build because it doesn't fit the setting; I will not ask a player to pay extra points for permission to have a character built in a way that does not fit the setting.

 

You keep saying things that make me want to rep you.

[Checkmate]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

No' date=' of course not. Normal Characteristic Maxima was a mistake and it should not exist in the game at all. That's already been established in prior threads.[/quote']Really? Wow, and who's on the official decsion making committee that came up with that? I just want to know so in the future I know who to ask what I can and can't have in the world I create

 

From what I'm reading, people do set limits on DEX. It seems to me that a lot of you have decided to go with 5th Ed. and that 30 is about the max that can be attributed to normal human training. That means if someone wanted a 40 DEX they should probably be a mutant, genetically engineered or some other concept beyond normal human training . That means if I want to be a trained human who is equivilant to a mutant with a 40 DEX, I have to spend more points in Lightning Reflexes and combat skill levels.

 

Now of course there are those of you thinking "I'd never allow a 40 DEX in my game" well I assure you, letting someone take a 27-30 DEX in my game would be the equivilant of most people letting in a 40 DEX. So I say again: Everyone sets limits, mine are just lower than most.

[JmOz]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

Removed, as tone was to strong, will repost later

[JmOz]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

I'll throw in some of my thoughts on the matter, but I can't get into replies here or on the other thread for a couple days...

 

1. Every comic book character has an infinite uncontrolled cosmic VPP that tends to be more active when their name is in the title of the comic and less active outside of it. If the story calls for the untrained human slug to hit the fastest combat god on earth, then it'll happen. If the 98-pound weakling has to knock out the stone-jawed unbreakable monster, it'll happen. When the writer puts fingers to keyboard, anything can happen.

 

2. Being able to hit someone doesn't show better DEX, it shows better combat ability and/or luck and/or favorable writing. Never forget, you always hit with a "3" and you always miss with an "18" in HERO. Blind squirrels and nuts - you know how it goes.

 

3. Something from the other thread I saw is that JmOz would consider a person with magic-based or mental-based powers to be within a normal human background. I would consider that a mystic/mentalist background, which brings the character into the realm of superhuman. Anything beyond mere training and natural aptitude has the potential to exceed normal human ability and make the character into an "other than normal human." Again, a disconnect in definitions, but it could make things a little less polarized.

 

4. In the scenario discussed in the previous thread, a normal human would have to pay more points to mimic the superhuman's appropriately-above-NCM characteristics. This is true. However, they shouldn't try to and don't need to simulate those characteristics. They should have their own schtick and focus their points to make an appropriate character. If they want to be superhuman, then make a superhuman concept.

 

5. Fairness is very important. That's why I like my Rule of X. The end result in combat is that all characters will be reasonably competent and reasonably similar over the course of a full turn, regardless of how they go about it. They are free to go about it in a wide variety of ways, too.

 

6. It seems that there is a disconnect on what a "normal" human is and what that means within normal characteristic maxima. Few people could train in anything for the rest of their living days and ever approach NCM in any characteristic. It takes an un-freaking-believable human to hit NCM. To hit it in more than one thing? All that more amazing. A normal human? That's the guy with base characteristics between 8 and 10.

 

7. A non-superhuman hitting lots of people in a short amount of time is represented by a sweep or an appropriate power (e.g. AOE Selective), not by multiplying SPD out of the range of human capability.

 

8. I consider it very important for the GM to have near-absolute control over the setting and range of variables in the game. They're devoting a lot of time and effort to the project and they should have fun with it. They are not obligated to allow whatever a player wants - it has to fit into the setting and game that the GM envisioned. That said, players have near-absolute control over their character within those parameters.

 

9. Batman has as many points to spend as he wants and spending double to go over NCM isn't a concern. He could come in anywhere from 300pts to over 2,000pts. It all depends on whether you want to simulate the widest possible breadth of abilities and equipment he's displayed at the highest levels ever displayed or whether you want to limit particular inputs. In a game, the only person that determines whether an input is valid as a basis for the character concept is the GM.

 

Those are a few of my clarifications and talking points from the prior thread. More to come a couple days from now...

 

 

Thank you for a well stated post, I disagree with a few points, and I will attempt make it clear why, while staying on the topic of this thread: Should a character with a "trained Normal" Origin be forced to take the NCM disad?

 

First I will deconstruct your points

 

1) Writers or Gm's fiat, I agree with you in basic concept

 

2) While true, Dex is an important ingredient to combat ability, it is also the most cost efficient

 

3) The reason for mentalisim and Magic (Specificaly spellcasting) to be included in intence training is that is how the two big companies handle it, with anyone being able to cast spells with training, and the whole untaped abilities of the mind thing, your millage may varry.

 

4) A few things, false assumption: Normal humans should be under NCM in a superhero world, though that is a core concept for this discusion. The other issue, is one of points, a character should not have to spend more points because of there origin that another character does, it's a basic concept in hero, stated many ways "You get what you pay for".

 

5) Rules of X can be useful tools, so can point totals, use them together not only one. In otherwords if a character is dedicating more points to combat abilities he should be inherently better in combat, if he is spending less he should be worse

 

6) You are probably right in the real world, but we are talking about a super hero world, so it does depend on the genre and what you are trying to represent

 

7) False Assertion: High Speed is not necesarily out of the realm of human capabilities, especialy if the player has sold back some running. For example a speed 6 where the player has sold back 3" of running creates a character who the same distance as a speed 3 with 6" plus spends more endurance (which in some ways is more realistic, what ever that means). Note I am not saying a high speed is a good idea for game balance reasons.

 

8) With power comes corruption, what then would near absolute power create? Seriously, the idea is cooperative storytelling, why your basic assertion is good, I think the use of the term "Near absolute" is to strong, The GM does need more control over the world than the player, but about a 70-80%/20-30% mix is good, For player characters a 90%/10% mix in favor of the players is about right.

 

9) True about Batman, but not true about the PC who wants a character similar to the caped crusader. Then to tell the player that he is going to be forced to pay extra for the privlage of being as competent as the other characters are, well there is the problem...

 

Now my thoughts on it

 

Human in comic books seem to come in two flavors:

 

1) Normal humans (the kid superman saves from falling off of the bridge)

 

2) Important Characters, who seem to be much more capable than is humanly possible, note important supporting characters fall in this range to. Characters routinly do the imposible, even if they are just "Exceptionaly trained humans" , jeeze not so exceptionaly trained pull of the near imposible occasionaly (Jimmy Olsen sneeking into a top secret goverment facility guarded by genetic mutants including telepaths anyone...).

 

So the question becomes what does a "normal human" actualy mean in a comic book world, and does NCM help simulate it?

 

Well assuming you wanted to play the important character then you really are not like a normal human, NCM puts a limit on your abilities that makes you have more of your character points to be as efficicent, removing part of what you can do out of combat to compensate

 

Lets look at the sourcematerial here, do skilled normals seem more or less useful out of combat? In what I have read normaly moreso. Are they as useful in combat? This depends on the series in question honestly, but I would say they tend to be middle range combatants (Bats excluded ironicaly enough, he is normaly in the background).

[Gary]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

If people are so dead set against a Dex of 25 for realism purposes, why aren't they dead set against someone learning a dozen or more skills at world class levels? That's just as unrealistic if not more so.

[JmOz]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

No, of course not. Normal Characteristic Maxima was a mistake and it should not exist in the game at all. That's already been established in prior threads.

 

Now, for a normal person in a superhero game, there SHOULD be a possible physical limitation like "Only Human" or "Merely Mortal."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that of course, that doesn't preclude Lucius from taking the limitation on his own characters - he's too much of a gamist to pass up the points, regardless of his principles.

 

PPS: (post palindromedary stuff)

 

Note: Captain America has been physiologically modified by an experimental "super serum" he volunteered to take in WWII. He is therefore NOT a "normal human" any more than someone bitten by a radioactive spider is.

 

 

 

You keep saying things that make me want to rep you.

 

IMO The mistake on NCM is not the basic concept but the inclusion of it as a disad instead of just a campeign ground rule option (Either the game is or is not an NCM, just like The Bleeding rules will or will not be used)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

7) False Assertion: High Speed is not necesarily out of the realm of human capabilities' date=' especialy if the player has sold back some running. For example a speed 6 where the player has sold back 3" of running creates a character who the same distance as a speed 3 with 6" plus spends more endurance (which in some ways is more realistic, what ever that means). Note I am not saying a high speed is a good idea for game balance reasons.[/quote']

 

Another approach is to limit the character to movement in only X phases per turn. That 6 SPD character could, for example, have a limitation on movement powers (or a physical limitation) that he cannot exceed 6" (or whatever his running is) combined in two consecutive phases.

 

In our 6 SPD example, he could move 6" in phase 2, but could not move again until Ph 6. Alternatively, he could make a half move in each phase. Moving that to out of combat speeds, he gets the same movement as a 6 SPD character who sold his running down to 3", or a 3 SPD character in general.

 

The movement issue is a bit separate, however. The change from a 2 SPD to a 3 SPD increases MPH by 50%, and 2 to 4 (normal human to peak human) doubles running speed. There's nothing in between 14.4 kph sustained (a pretty fair clip itself; 2 Spd), 21.6 kph sustained (3 spd) and 28.8 kph sustained (4 spd) unless we sell running back, and that only works in 1/6 increments. That's simply a limitation of gaming in general - unless we want to charge for movement in centimeters per hour, there are some speeds the system won't support.

 

 

A third option would be to double all movements and make them maximums per turn, whether divided by SPD to get a per phase maximum, letting the character choose when to move within the turn without limit (to his max) or some other approach (eg. no more than 1/2 max in 1 phase; no more than 1/4 max as a half move).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

IMO The mistake on NCM is not the basic concept but the inclusion of it as a disad instead of just a campeign ground rule option (Either the game is or is not an NCM' date=' just like The Bleeding rules will or will not be used)[/quote']

 

While I can see some room for argument here (I could build a Disad that subjects my character to the bleeding rules when they aren't used), I agree NCM is in a class all by itself. How many characters take NCM and then spend more than 20 points on the doubled cost of characteristics over 20?

 

The Age disadvantage has a similar issue, if not worse. If you see it on the character sheet, bet on the savings from stats where the NCM limit rises (INT, EGO) being greater than the cost of stats where the limit is lowered. Your Wizard needs some more INT? No biggie - just take the Age disad. Now you can have a 25 INT. You weren't buying his physical stats above 15 anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

If people are so dead set against a Dex of 25 for realism purposes' date=' why aren't they dead set against someone learning a dozen or more skills at world class levels? That's just as unrealistic if not more so.[/quote']

 

In my opinion, Gary, the ONLY reason is that the game system has built in some assumptions about stats that go beyond the level of Normal Human, but not skills that do the same.

 

It's funny how "normal humans" can reach a 30 stat in some areas at no penalty cost if they're old (or simply frail - I've seen character writeups with Age who aren't that old, but just suffer from poor physical health), but can never reach a 30 in others without paying double.

 

With the exception of STR, because lift ability is easily quantifiable, none of the stats' breakpoints are really capable of reference to a real world figure. 20 was just the cutoff the first game designed around non-Supers in Hero arbitrarily selected (probably solely by reference to STR). NCM could just as easily be 20's across the board at age 40, with the stats affected by aging reduced/increased by 5 at the other age categories (or start at 25 across the board at age 40, with 30's possible in the physical stats with normal NCM, but 20's in mental stats, and vice versa for the age 60+ category). If they had gone this approach, we'd have a bit more granularity in Heroic games. As well, buying most stats up to the NCM breakpoint would be a lot more expensive, so a lot less common.

 

There's no magic to every stat having the same base NCM maximum either, although again any game system will trend to this for ease of understanding.

 

We'd probably have a lot more 40-60 age characters though...

[Gary]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

In my opinion, Gary, the ONLY reason is that the game system has built in some assumptions about stats that go beyond the level of Normal Human, but not skills that do the same.

 

It just seems funny that a lot of people are very selective in what 'realism' they enforce.

[OddHat]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

It just seems funny that a lot of people are very selective in what 'realism' they enforce.

 

Yes. I, for example, require most flying characters to carry thermal underwear, a crash helmet, a compass, a map, airsick bags, and a box of "Depend" undergarments.

 

 

 

[Mentor]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

If people are so dead set against a Dex of 25 for realism purposes' date=' why aren't they dead set against someone learning a dozen or more skills at world class levels? That's just as unrealistic if not more so.[/quote']

I don't think it is about realism for most people but about character differentiation. The example is often something like "Batman could never win against a foe that fights Superman, so why would anybody want to play Batman unless he was statted close to Superman?" The game or campaign should make it possible for someone with some human characteristics to still be a viable and important character. OTOH, in a high level game, who is to say a highly trained "normal" can't have 25 DEX?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

It just seems funny that a lot of people are very selective in what 'realism' they enforce.

 

I agree. Hey, we have to fix the damage rules for realism, right? In real life, some people fall 3+ stories and are basically uninjured, while others slip on the floor, fall about 5' (head to ground) and are killed instantly. So a 1d6 attack should be capable, in some cases, of inflicting an instant kill, and a mush higher attack should be capable in some instances of causing no lasting harm.

 

I guess we have the latter - it's theoretically possible for 20d6, or even 30d6, to come up all 1's (or 18 1's and no 6's so your PD absorbs the BOD damage). But a 1d6 attack/fall can't do any BOD to a normal person.

[Niles]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

I think that Normal Charicteristic Maxima should be removed from the game as a disadvantage. I have no objection to it appearing as a suggested campiagn rule for heroic level games, but as a disadvantage it's a crock.

 

Either a Character is going to be built without signifigantly violating the Maxima anyway in which case "a disadvantage which is not a disadvantage is not worth points," or they aren't going to buy it unless forced by the GM.

[mirage]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

This is an offshoot so I'll give some background.

 

The discussion came about in the CSL vs MA thread and became the old 'More DEX vs Levels + Reflexes' debate. It's covered a lot of ground over there, so I thought it deserved it's own thread.

 

Here is (in my understanding) the gist:

 

Do you think that a character concept defined as a 'normal' person should have to take/have NCM?

 

Discuss.

 

(And please, like my sig says, be nice. It's a game.)

 

The way I run things in my game is: if you define your sfx as a normal, you take NCM. You can still buy stats above NCM, but you're going to pay the points for it.

 

Then again I like the idea of seeing normals who mix it up with supers getting splattered. I consider it a no-brainer, going to the gym for a few weeks, taking some martial arts then putting on a hockey mask, cape and rollerskates will not grant you the ability to go head to head with the paranormals. It also makes the normals who can handle themselves command more respect and rarer.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

I think that Normal Charicteristic Maxima should be removed from the game as a disadvantage. I have no objection to it appearing as a suggested campiagn rule for heroic level games, but as a disadvantage it's a crock.

 

Either a Character is going to be built withoutsignifgantly violating the Maxima anyway in which case "a disadvantage which is not a disadvantage is not worth points," or they aren't going to buy it unless forced by the GM.

 

 

Heartily agreed.

[Checkmate]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

I agree. Hey, we have to fix the damage rules for realism, right? In real life, some people fall 3+ stories and are basically uninjured, while others slip on the floor, fall about 5' (head to ground) and are killed instantly. So a 1d6 attack should be capable, in some cases, of inflicting an instant kill, and a mush higher attack should be capable in some instances of causing no lasting harm.

 

I guess we have the latter - it's theoretically possible for 20d6, or even 30d6, to come up all 1's (or 18 1's and no 6's so your PD absorbs the BOD damage). But a 1d6 attack/fall can't do any BOD to a normal person.

Okay let's take it the other way then fellas, since you don't care about realism at all, why have damage? Let players walk into the sun if they want to, so what if there is no air in space, and you can't really walk there, realism doesn't matter right? Let them jump off of Mt Everest hit the ground, brush off the dirt and keep trucking.

 

EVERYONE does this to one extent or another. Every comic you've ever read has done the same thing.

[Gary]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

Okay let's take it the other way then fellas, since you don't care about realism at all, why have damage? Let players walk into the sun if they want to, so what if there is no air in space, and you can't really walk there, realism doesn't matter right? Let them jump off of Mt Everest hit the ground, brush off the dirt and keep trucking.

 

EVERYONE does this to one extent or another. Every comic you've ever read has done the same thing.

 

It's something called "suspension of disbelief". A man walking on the sun breaks my suspension. A man learning 15+ skills at world class levels or having a Dex in the mid 20's doesn't.

 

Yet strangely enough, a mid 20's dex breaks yours while learning 15+ skills at world class levels doesn't.

[OddHat]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

It's something called "suspension of disbelief". A man walking on the sun breaks my suspension. A man learning 15+ skills at world class levels or having a Dex in the mid 20's doesn't.

 

Yet strangely enough, a mid 20's dex breaks yours while learning 15+ skills at world class levels doesn't.

 

And to point out the range of different issues being discussed, I don't mind setting campaign limits low or high for whatever reason. Silver Age Sun Diving Weirdness or Iron Age "heroes" getting beatten to death by homeless street kids, you can run a fun game. I just don't like charging two players two different prices for the same effect.

 

To each his own.

[Mentor]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

Okay let's take it the other way then fellas, since you don't care about realism at all, why have damage? Let players walk into the sun if they want to, so what if there is no air in space, and you can't really walk there, realism doesn't matter right? Let them jump off of Mt Everest hit the ground, brush off the dirt and keep trucking.

 

EVERYONE does this to one extent or another. Every comic you've ever read has done the same thing.

It is not about realism, it is about character concept in a super genre universe. Character concept assumes certain things which don't necessarily line up with real world physics or biology, but only some things, not all things. Daredevil, Batman and Captain America are twice as quick as the talented normal. Cap can at least use super soldier serum as an excuse, but all three are twice as fast as the elite SPD goon or soldier. "Realism" in the case of comic genre means something very different from our lives.

 

I am currently also running a Pulp hero game and the out landish Martial Artist is noteworthy at SPD 4 and DEX 20, but he isn't "fast as Sheeta the leopard or a strong as bolgani the gorilla" like Tarzan is. In a Super universe, DEX and SPD are used to quantify some things other than just agility and a GM and player determines when DEX or CSLs are appropriate. It is not either/or.

[JmOz]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

Really? Wow, and who's on the official decsion making committee that came up with that? I just want to know so in the future I know who to ask what I can and can't have in the world I create

 

From what I'm reading, people do set limits on DEX. It seems to me that a lot of you have decided to go with 5th Ed. and that 30 is about the max that can be attributed to normal human training. That means if someone wanted a 40 DEX they should probably be a mutant, genetically engineered or some other concept beyond normal human training . That means if I want to be a trained human who is equivilant to a mutant with a 40 DEX, I have to spend more points in Lightning Reflexes and combat skill levels.

 

Now of course there are those of you thinking "I'd never allow a 40 DEX in my game" well I assure you, letting someone take a 27-30 DEX in my game would be the equivilant of most people letting in a 40 DEX. So I say again: Everyone sets limits, mine are just lower than most.

 

Okay let's take it the other way then fellas, since you don't care about realism at all, why have damage? Let players walk into the sun if they want to, so what if there is no air in space, and you can't really walk there, realism doesn't matter right? Let them jump off of Mt Everest hit the ground, brush off the dirt and keep trucking.

 

EVERYONE does this to one extent or another. Every comic you've ever read has done the same thing.

 

Checkmate, you have some good points, but it is more appropriate on the other thread, this one is not about wether or not limits are appropriate but rather if NCM should be manditory for heroes with "Intence Training" Origins.

 

You obviouly think it should, fine, and for the world you describe it can work (But we still have the points equality problem). However you don't need to bring up on how it would ruin YOUR game, this thread is about something bigger, about the idea of does NCM accuratly represent what a trained normal can do in the majority of comics. Some of us look at issues where we see GL fighting a whole jail of Super villains without his ring and say no. You look at the basic concept of the character and say yes. it is a matter of perspective.

 

Basicaly you seem to be in defensive mode, and I appoligise because I am sure I am part of the reason why you are, the perfect example is when someone in the other thread echoed an idea me and Hugh talked about in a number of posts, but you failed to consider (or at least comment on) until someont else mentioned it to you.

 

Calm down, you seem very intelegent and I have enjoyed arguing points with you (I am still trying to figure out a way to explain why your EC comment is wrong, I know it is, but I am having a hard time expressing why). Try to keep on the subject at hand: Should NCM be required on any character with a Trained real hard origin.

 

BTW I would love to see a thread about resticting F/X based on origins in general terms, and if I start one in the next couple days I hope you will bring the same enthusiasim to it as you have on all of teh CSL vs MA threads.

 

I hope this does not come off as to preachey, arrogent, or self rioutous, it is not intended to be insulting, but I do slip into that at times.

[OddHat]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

It is true that someone purchasing powers in any framework, especially an Elemental Control, is getting a point break on those powers compared to someone who buys powers without a framework. That is partially offset by the Drain One Drain All Limit, and partially offset again by the initial investment of points in the EC, but it is ultimately a discount for characters with a GM approved "tight" power set. Its purpose in the system is to help balance Energy Projectors and other power-centered characters against Bricks and characterisitc-centered characters, who gain a huge number of hidden bonus points from Figured Characteristics.

 

A "Perfectly Balanced" version of HERO would probably need to drop Figured Characteristics and Elemental Controls, as well as replacing Advantages and Limitations as they are now with Adders and Disads. I'm not particularly in favor of this, but it would make it very clear right up front exactly how many Active points Character A brought to the table vs Character B.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

 

A "Perfectly Balanced" version of HERO would probably need to drop Figured Characteristics and Elemental Controls' date=' as well as replacing Advantages and Limitations as they are now with Adders and Disads. I'm not particularly in favor of this, but it would make it very clear right up front exactly how many Active points Character A brought to the table vs Character B.[/quote']Ugh, who'd want to play in "Perfectly Balanced Hero"?

 

While character construction is something I enjoy and am pretty decent at, I'll never feel it's the end purpose of the system to build "balanced" characters. This is supposed to a role-playing system; and I at least find it fun to run the less powerful but faster/smarter/more agile character on occasion. Too many people seem to have decided balance in combat is some kind of Holy Grail; and "if only the rules were done right and characters were perfectly matched we'd have more fun." I disagree. This isn't a game about combat; it's a game about characters who are supposed to have their own fictional feelings and lives. Does anyone think Batman sits around brooding about how much more powerful in combat Superman is? No, Batman is out kicking bad guys' asses from dusk 'til dawn.

 

Personally, I take some pride in the fact that never ONCE in our Champions campaign's 13+ years have we thrown one PC against another in combat. Not in an arena battle, not in a mind control scenario, not with evil clones/mirrors, not in a "training session." We can make some edjamacated guesses as to who might win between characters X and Y within MidGuard, but we don't know, and that's just how I like it. It's irrelevant, because we've built characters and not combat machines. I refuse to play Squad Leader in Spandex™. For my character, at least, those adventures fighting bad guys are just unwelcome and all too frequent interruptions in her real life. The only "balance" needed is against the bad guys, and that's subject to modification "on the fly" anyway.