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

[OddHat]

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

 

Ugh, who 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.

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.

 

I agree; I'm in it for the story, and for the goofing around. The mechanics are their own kind of game, and I do enjoy working with them, but I'm not all that worried that Flesh Gordon would be a tougher combat machine if he didn't "waste" points on his Strato Ship and Wave Motion Gun. He's a Pulp Space Adventurer turned Hollywood beach bum; he needs the gun.

[Checkmate]

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

 

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.

Yes I agree it belonged in the other thread, but there were others commenting about limits that were relevant to the other discussion.

Basicaly you seem to be in defensive mode' date=' 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.[/quote']

It was actually one of the things I wanted to comment on earlier (and thought I had) that it might have been something to look at, the last poster just reminded me.

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

Not at all, and I appreciate the effort (and don't we all fall into that trap)

[JmOz]

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

 

Cool, you know it is equaly possible (and I am to lazy to check) that you did comment on it and I did not notice

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Personally' date=' 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."[/quote']

 

[derail]One of the easiest battles I recall one of our groups dealing with was the Dark Mirro Universe versions of ourselves. Why? We knew where we were, and made the educated guess we'd have to deal with our opposites soner or later. They didn't know who we were. We were heros, so we would co-operate. They weren't and they didn't work as well together. Within a couple of phases, we had rendered two characters helpless because we knew where they were weak.[/derail]

[Zed-F]

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

 

I like the Squad Leader in Spandex aspect. I like wargames, and I like exercising good tactics to defeat a credible threat to my character.

 

But I also like the roleplaying and character building. So, if some games have more of one than the other, that's ok. I can enjoy either or both for what each offers.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

I like the Squad Leader in Spandex aspect. I like wargames, and I like exercising good tactics to defeat a credible threat to my character.

 

But I also like the roleplaying and character building. So, if some games have more of one than the other, that's ok. I can enjoy either or both for what each offers.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy a good super-brawl as much as the next player (and I'm also a wargamer from waaaaay back), but I don't play Champions for the combat. I play it for the role-playing. Fortunately, role-playing a superhero generally involves frequent combat.

 

However, because my PC is light on defenses and has the smallest attacks on our team, I often have to "think outside the box" in order for her to make a positive contribution to our team's combat. Knocking down a high-DCV opponent so the slower members can pound on the bad guy or defending a fallen or otherwise occupied teammate can be just as important to the team's ultimate victory as delivering the final blow that puts down the bad guy (and she's had her share of those too.)

[DEFCON Clown]

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

 

I really don't care what your special effect is, mutant, robot, alien, highly trained normal, you are all superheroes and as such aren't bound by the same rules as Joe Shmoe on the streets. Your concept says you are normal and you have 33 DEX? Fine. If the player wants NCM they can have it, if they don't then they don't have to take it. I've had players do both, some have taken it and some haven't. Niether way caused any problems.

 

I would never force someone to take a disadvantage because of their origin. Hell on our current team we have a member who is 100% made of water. They don't have a vulnerability vs. Electricty and we are all fine with it. Frankly if you want realism you are playing the wrong genre. I think Office Worker HERO comes out in 08, why don't you wait until then to play?

[OzMike]

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

 

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

 

And then edit yourself, which is a good thing.

 

I've really enjoyed these discussions about all of this stuff too.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

[derail]One of the easiest battles I recall one of our groups dealing with was the Dark Mirro Universe versions of ourselves. Why? We knew where we were' date=' and made the educated guess we'd have to deal with our opposites soner or later. They didn't know who we were. We were heros, so we would co-operate. They weren't and they didn't work as well together. Within a couple of phases, we had rendered two characters helpless because we knew where they were weak.[/derail']

I'm pretty sure it'd work the same way with our team. My point was that comparing each other's player characters' "combat effectiveness" against each other is pointless anyway because we don't fight each other - ever. We cooperate, we back each other up, and we watch each others' backs. And the synergy in and out of combat created is far greater than the sum of it's parts which makes sense given that we're a "team comic title" and not an assembly of individual characters like the JLA or Avengers). The only character who gets anything like a detailed life as an individual hero outside our gaming sessions ("issues") is my PC Zl'f, and that's only because I happen to enjoy writing stories about her. That does NOT mean the other players don't have just as interesting and fully developed PC's. (Mentor's character Cyberknight became a billionaire and married Kathy Ireland; my character rides horses. You do the math.)

 

There's not a single PC in MidGuard that couldn't be made more combat effective by dumping "non-essential" abilities - non-essential as in "used only for role-playing/concept development purposes." Sure, different characters would have different amounts to use, but reassigning those "wasted" points for CSLs, more dice of damage, or new and improved Powers would make the characters better in combat at the cost of making them less of a character and more of a Combat Wombat. That's a price none of us in the campaign are willing to pay.

[bwdemon]

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

 

Two posts I'd like to work off of and acknowledge some things in...

 

The game or campaign should make it possible for someone with some human characteristics to still be a viable and important character. OTOH' date=' in a high level game, who is to say a highly trained "normal" can't have 25 DEX?[/quote']

 

This is one of the most important parts to the game, as far as I'm concerned. I fully agree that the game and campaign should make it possible for someone with human characteristics to still be a viable and important character (that's where the Rule of X comes in). I also fully agree that in some games a highly/intensely trained normal can have a 25 DEX or 33 DEX or whatever is appropriate for the campaign.

 

I just don't like charging two players two different prices for the same effect. To each his own.

 

This is OddHat's biggest concern, repeatedly stated, and I do understand it. I'll answer it with an example and a question of my own:

 

Character #1 uses a mutant concept and Character #2 uses a power armor concept. Character #1 buys "12d6 EB at 1/2 END" and pays 75pts for it. Character #2 buys "12d6 EB at 1/2 END, OIHID" and pays 60pts for it. Character #2 pays less for the same thing.

 

Does the GM destroy the mutant character and render the game unplayably unfair by allowing the power armor character to pay less for the same thing?

 

My next question, regardless of the answer and offered to any who would take it up, is what matter more: concept or point efficiency?

[Gary]

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

 

Two posts I'd like to work off of and acknowledge some things in...

 

 

 

This is one of the most important parts to the game, as far as I'm concerned. I fully agree that the game and campaign should make it possible for someone with human characteristics to still be a viable and important character (that's where the Rule of X comes in). I also fully agree that in some games a highly/intensely trained normal can have a 25 DEX or 33 DEX or whatever is appropriate for the campaign.

 

 

 

This is OddHat's biggest concern, repeatedly stated, and I do understand it. I'll answer it with an example and a question of my own:

 

Character #1 uses a mutant concept and Character #2 uses a power armor concept. Character #1 buys "12d6 EB at 1/2 END" and pays 75pts for it. Character #2 buys "12d6 EB at 1/2 END, OIHID" and pays 60pts for it. Character #2 pays less for the same thing.

 

Does the GM destroy the mutant character and render the game unplayably unfair by allowing the power armor character to pay less for the same thing?

 

My next question, regardless of the answer and offered to any who would take it up, is what matter more: concept or point efficiency?

 

Character #2 doesn't have the same thing. He pays less for a lesser power since it will work in fewer circumstances than character 1's (at least if the GM is enforcing the limitation).

 

Concept matters, but so does balance and fairness. If character 1 pays 20 pts for something, character 2 shouldn't pay 10 or 30 pts for exactly the same thing.

[OddHat]

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

 

This is OddHat's biggest concern, repeatedly stated, and I do understand it. I'll answer it with an example and a question of my own:

 

Character #1 uses a mutant concept and Character #2 uses a power armor concept. Character #1 buys "12d6 EB at 1/2 END" and pays 75pts for it. Character #2 buys "12d6 EB at 1/2 END, OIHID" and pays 60pts for it. Character #2 pays less for the same thing.

 

Does the GM destroy the mutant character and render the game unplayably unfair by allowing the power armor character to pay less for the same thing?

 

As Gary points out, the Power Armor character is not getting the same thing. The character with the limited power is agreeing that he will get less use out of his power than the character without such a liimitation. In exchange, he pays fewer points.

 

If the GM fails to enforce limitations, that's his choice.

 

My next question, regardless of the answer and offered to any who would take it up, is what matter more: concept or point efficiency?

 

My choice not to use NCM is about fairness on the mechanical side of the system. There's no reason to short change someone on the mechanical (points) side for something on the story (concept) side. The two are related, but separate.

[OzMike]

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

 

My choice not to use NCM is about fairness on the mechanical side of the system. There's no reason to short change someone on the mechanical (points) side for something on the story (concept) side. The two are related' date=' but separate.[/quote']

 

But you'd allow a player to take the disad if they wanted to, right? You might try to talk them out of it, but if they wanted to take it you'd let them? Or do you totally disallow it?

 

Just Curious.

[bwdemon]

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

 

The power armor character gives up is consistency, which impacts the opportunity to use the power, not the use of the power when available. To me, the distinction is very important, but apparently not to OddHat and Gary. This is fine, but differs from my feelings on the issue, so the example isn't going to be useful.

 

Going a different direction now to try to solve some of the issue...

 

For the most part, I think we all agree that in many campaigns a normal human, regardless of how highly trained and how incredibly talented, would have some upper limit to their range of characteristics. There would come some point at which the GM would say (and the player should say) "you've escaped your concept, got a reason for it?" and the player would have to either explain it or have the change disallowed.

 

For a game without stat inflation and an eye toward more realistic attributes, I would put this at NCM and allow double cost to a certain point beyond that (said point depends on concept and campaign). Others would apparently go higher, though I believe 30 tended to be a well-recognized limit?

 

If true, then we've already determined that a normal human can't go beyond a certain level, now we're just quibbling over where to set that level (apologies to the late Winston Churchill).

 

If superhuman speedster can go above 30 DEX and perfect normal human cannot, then perfect normal human is necessarily hindered - by concept alone - and cannot be as good as the superhuman speedster in that regard.

 

If superhuman speedster can go above 40 DEX and perfect normal human cannot, then perfect normal human is necessarily hindered - by concept alone - and cannot be as good as the superhuman speedster in that regtard.

 

As soon as you set a level whereby a normal human could not possibly exceed a given figure in any chosen thing, you've cut that character off solely by virtue of that character's concept. This leaves few alternatives.

 

1. Set the campaign maximum at whatever perfect normal human can reach. Doing so achieves fairness, but also means that no PC may ever be superhuman regarding that particular characteristic.

 

2. Admit that even the perfect normal human has limits, beyond which only superhumans may go. Doing so impacts the range of options open to the perfect normal human, but allows for superhuman characters regarding that particular characteristic.

 

3. No limits on anything - with enough training and the right genes, an infinite DEX is possible for anybody. Here the game can suffer horribly from imbalance issues, any acknowledgement of realism goes out the window, and "superhuman" is a meaningless word.

 

For me, I would choose either #1 or #2. Most likely, I would choose #2. For most games, a reasonable limit would be imposed based on the campaign in question. For the "no inflation" campaign, it'd be NCM with the option ot buy up a few points beyond at double cost. For the standard superheroic game, I could see allowing perfect normal human characters up to legendary levels, but limited to particular characteristics critical to the concept and probably still disallowing or severely restraining things like STR.

[OddHat]

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

 

But you'd allow a player to take the disad if they wanted to, right? You might try to talk them out of it, but if they wanted to take it you'd let them? Or do you totally disallow it?

 

Just Curious.

 

I don't give points for NCM at all, in any campaign.

[OzMike]

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

 

I don't give points for NCM at all' date=' in any campaign.[/quote']

 

Cool.

 

For the record, I do if the players choose to take it. But they aren't extra disad points or anything. They count toward the 350pts. In the champions/supers genre.

 

Outside of that genre, I either everyone has it for no points or I ignore it and just set ceilings on stats.

[OddHat]

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

 

For the most part, I think we all agree that in many campaigns a normal human, regardless of how highly trained and how incredibly talented, would have some upper limit to their range of characteristics.

 

This is genre dependant. In a Wild Martial Arts (Wuxia, Destroyer novels) or Mythology campaign you can train to the point of leaping over mountains and smashing tanks with your fists. In Office Hero, you're lucky if you can train to the point of leaping over the copying machine.

 

There would come some point at which the GM would say (and the player should say) "you've escaped your concept, got a reason for it?" and the player would have to either explain it or have the change disallowed.

 

Agreed, and true of any concept.

For a game without stat inflation and an eye toward more realistic attributes, I would put this at NCM and allow double cost to a certain point beyond that (said point depends on concept and campaign).

 

Groovy, and that's your call.

 

Others would apparently go higher, though I believe 30 tended to be a well-recognized limit?

 

It's the limit used in the CU for physical stats.

If true, then we've already determined that a normal human can't go beyond a certain level, now we're just quibbling over where to set that level (apologies to the late Winston Churchill).

 

I'm discussing whether or not it makes sense to charge two players different prices for functionally identical game elements. I don't disputes the GMs right to set whatever limits he likes in his campaign.

As soon as you set a level whereby a normal human could not possibly exceed a given figure in any chosen thing, you've cut that character off solely by virtue of that character's concept. This leaves few alternatives.

 

Agreed here.

 

I've used all three of the options you offer, depending on what I was GMing at the time.

[JmOz]

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

 

The power armor character gives up is consistency, which impacts the opportunity to use the power, not the use of the power when available. To me, the distinction is very important, but apparently not to OddHat and Gary. This is fine, but differs from my feelings on the issue, so the example isn't going to be useful.

 

Going a different direction now to try to solve some of the issue...

 

For the most part, I think we all agree that in many campaigns a normal human, regardless of how highly trained and how incredibly talented, would have some upper limit to their range of characteristics. There would come some point at which the GM would say (and the player should say) "you've escaped your concept, got a reason for it?" and the player would have to either explain it or have the change disallowed.

 

For a game without stat inflation and an eye toward more realistic attributes, I would put this at NCM and allow double cost to a certain point beyond that (said point depends on concept and campaign). Others would apparently go higher, though I believe 30 tended to be a well-recognized limit?

 

If true, then we've already determined that a normal human can't go beyond a certain level, now we're just quibbling over where to set that level (apologies to the late Winston Churchill).

 

If superhuman speedster can go above 30 DEX and perfect normal human cannot, then perfect normal human is necessarily hindered - by concept alone - and cannot be as good as the superhuman speedster in that regard.

 

If superhuman speedster can go above 40 DEX and perfect normal human cannot, then perfect normal human is necessarily hindered - by concept alone - and cannot be as good as the superhuman speedster in that regtard.

 

As soon as you set a level whereby a normal human could not possibly exceed a given figure in any chosen thing, you've cut that character off solely by virtue of that character's concept. This leaves few alternatives.

 

1. Set the campaign maximum at whatever perfect normal human can reach. Doing so achieves fairness, but also means that no PC may ever be superhuman regarding that particular characteristic.

 

2. Admit that even the perfect normal human has limits, beyond which only superhumans may go. Doing so impacts the range of options open to the perfect normal human, but allows for superhuman characters regarding that particular characteristic.

 

3. No limits on anything - with enough training and the right genes, an infinite DEX is possible for anybody. Here the game can suffer horribly from imbalance issues, any acknowledgement of realism goes out the window, and "superhuman" is a meaningless word.

 

For me, I would choose either #1 or #2. Most likely, I would choose #2. For most games, a reasonable limit would be imposed based on the campaign in question. For the "no inflation" campaign, it'd be NCM with the option ot buy up a few points beyond at double cost. For the standard superheroic game, I could see allowing perfect normal human characters up to legendary levels, but limited to particular characteristics critical to the concept and probably still disallowing or severely restraining things like STR.

 

Two different issues are being combined here

 

1) Should a character have limits based on origin (A normal human can only have abilities this high)

 

2) Should there be a difference in cost based on origin

 

Another way of thinking about it, if you say that a normal human can buy up everything dex gives you (via Lightning reflexes, CSL's, etc...) to superhuman levels then from a mechanic point of view what is the difference than buying the game based building block called dex to buing each component seperatly? Especialy if you are allowing another character origin to buy it as dex.

[Mentor]

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

 

But you'd allow a player to take the disad if they wanted to, right? You might try to talk them out of it, but if they wanted to take it you'd let them? Or do you totally disallow it?

 

Just Curious.

We would in our game. In fact I did. My PC was the bilionaire scientist who built the power armor. He had a 20 STR, DEX, CON and 4 SPD and only justified them because he was a physically tough Air Force fighter pilot. He even paid double for the extra 3 points of INT bringing him up to 23. I have been playing the character for 13 years and he has not only never been useless, he is the team's leader. This in a game with Trebuchet playing a DEX 43, SPD 9 Martial Speedster (Zl'f), Blackjack playing a heavy duty Brick who desolifies, my oldest son Tommy playing a weather based Energy projector who rules in the sky and distance combat as well as Dangerous Dan's MA Cloud Dragon, my 12 year old son CGs tunnelling Brick/MA Vesuvius and El Tripon's wizard Magister. I have the only PC with NCM and he holds his own in combat just fine as long as the armor doesn't get taken away or malfaunction (both have which were adventures in and of themselves).

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

We would in our game. In fact I did. My PC was the bilionaire scientist who built the power armor. He had a 20 STR' date=' DEX, CON and 4 SPD and only justified them because he was a physically tough Air Force fighter pilot. He even paid double for the extra 3 points of INT bringing him up to 23.[/quote']

 

Did he pay extra for stat enhancements provided by his power armor, or was this permitted to circumvent the NCM limits because it was a power? If the latter, how is that significantly different from a character defining bonus characteristics as a power such as "combat supertraining: +10 DEX, no figured, and +1 Speed"??

[Trebuchet]

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

 

Did he pay extra for stat enhancements provided by his power armor' date=' or was this permitted to circumvent the NCM limits because it was a power? If the latter, how is that significantly different from a character defining bonus characteristics as a power such as "combat supertraining: +10 DEX, no figured, and +1 Speed"??[/quote']The only Characteristic Cyberknight's armor enhanced was STR (+45 STR); which was of limited use since Cyberknight mostly functioned tactically as a tough energy projector at range with missiles and energy blasts. No extra CON, STUN, SPD, DEX, etc. I suppose you could look at that as "circumventing" the NCM , but it worked out just fine. (For one reason, he was the only PC whose Secret ID also had a Hunted, so he could get into trouble in or out of his armor.) Disads are IMO primarily plot hooks anyway; and Cyberknight's was applied as often as any other Disad in our campaign.

 

Mentor's basic statement that his NCM character wasn't unbalanced is still accurate. He was neither too tough nor too weak; despite always being the slowest PC on the team. (Our other brick Silhouette also has a SPD 4, but has a higher DEX and vastly higher CON and STUN.)

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

The only Characteristic Cyberknight's armor enhanced was STR (+45 STR); which was of limited use since Cyberknight mostly functioned tactically as a tough energy projector at range with missiles and energy blasts. No extra CON' date=' STUN, SPD, DEX, etc. I suppose you could look at that as "circumventing" the NCM , but it worked out just fine. [/quote']

 

Well, I don't see NCM as something to circumvent, and I suspect another 20 points of disad's wouldn't be that tough to come up with. However, the comments mean a lot more when the character's armor doesn't enhance most of his other stats (technically PD and ED, I'm sure, but bought as armor so it's less visible - and pretty much any NCM genre has some form of armor anyway), so the character is actually played under the constraints of NCM.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

Well' date=' I don't see NCM as something to circumvent, and I suspect another 20 points of disad's wouldn't be that tough to come up with. However, the comments mean a lot more when the character's armor doesn't enhance most of his other stats (technically PD and ED, I'm sure, but bought as armor so it's less visible - and pretty much any NCM genre has some form of armor anyway), so the character is actually played under the constraints of NCM.[/quote']Cyberknight did take "No Figured Charactristics" on the STR in his powered armor. Additional defenses were bought, as you surmised, as Armor. The idea was an ordinary man (albeit an athletic one trained as a fighter pilot) wearing powered armor.

 

As I'm sure you realize, in play there's a big difference between a brick with 30 PD/ED and 35 CON and one with 30 PD/ED and 20 CON. The latter can (and will) be Stunned with 4 or 5 fewer dice. That's pretty significant in a campaign with average attacks between 12 and 15d6.

[assault]

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

 

I don't insist on NCM. It would simply be an arbitrary penalty against certain character origins.

 

More to the point, I don't regard there as being any consistent difference between "human" and "superhuman". After all, why does the ability to blow fire from your nose enhance your dexterity? It would, frankly, make as much sense to impose NCM limits on many superhuman characters as on "normal humans".

 

I've actually considered doing something along these lines. In effect, all superpowers would be bought through packages.

 

Ultimately, it's too complicated to be worth the effort.

[Checkmate]

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

 

I don't insist on NCM. It would simply be an arbitrary penalty against certain character origins.

 

More to the point, I don't regard there as being any consistent difference between "human" and "superhuman". After all, why does the ability to blow fire from your nose enhance your dexterity? It would, frankly, make as much sense to impose NCM limits on many superhuman characters as on "normal humans".

 

I've actually considered doing something along these lines. In effect, all superpowers would be bought through packages.

 

Ultimately, it's too complicated to be worth the effort.

This is exactly what I do. I've used the example that giving an Artist a magic ring doesn't suddenly give him the ability to take out a Seal team without that ring (as Green Lanter Kyle seems to be able to do). On top of that, however, I've basically stated that any stat bought over the NCM (that you haven't paid double for) is considered a super power.