Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

[Alverant]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

In Cosmic heroes, the main difference is scope. "Saving the world" doesn't mean saving a large chunk of human civilization, it means keeping the planet itself intact. In a way it's like Pulp hero in that you have larger than life characters traveling to exotic locations. Except now it's larger than superhero lives and the exotic locations are different planets.

 

A cosmic character with fire based powers don't have "ordinary" fire, they have stellar fire, elemental fire, primal energy, or mystic fire from a dimension you need a second mouth with 3 tongues to say correctly. The "normal" aliens in a standard superhero game are common place and could be 5th generation native born Earthlings.

 

Police officers in a Cosmic campaign would be considered superheroes in other campaigns. A squad of SWAT cosmic cops could give Dr.Destroyer an impressive fight and have a good chance of winning.

 

The appeal of being in a cosmic level campaign is like being in a superhero campaign except everything is bigger from the characters to the stakes.

[assault]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

A cosmic character with fire based powers don't have "ordinary" fire' date=' they have stellar fire, elemental fire, primal energy, or mystic fire from a dimension you need a second mouth with 3 tongues to say correctly.[/quote']

 

Unless they're Sun Boy, who started off with the power to glow really brightly. Brighter than your typical lightbulb, in fact.

 

Then there's Fire Lad.

[Hermit]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

That's what I'm talking about. You have a real knack with words' date=' Hermit.[/quote']

Thanks

 

A big part of why I don't get into the genre is the power level. It's just too high for my tastes. I like things closer to the low end. I'm able to buy into it more and I guess relate to the characters. In Champions' date=' I prefer 250 and start feeling bored or like its time to wrap up a PC at about 450-500 so 1000+ point PCs go right over my head concept and focuswise.[/quote']

 

Well, a lot of my campaigns never really reach the high end (at least with me as a player) so perhaps I'm more eager to just get to the top at the start since otherwise getting there is not as likely. However, standard power levels for space faring superheroes are doable, and I enjoy them as well. It's a matter of scale, and as others have pointed out, the points consideration is making sure the PCs get even footing more or less. This is one reason I'm looking forward to the far too far away for my tastes "Champions Beyond" book.

[OddHat]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

A big part of why I don't get into the genre is the power level. It's just too high for my tastes. I like things closer to the low end. I'm able to buy into it more and I guess relate to the characters. In Champions' date=' I prefer 250 and start feeling bored or like its time to wrap up a PC at about 450-500 so 1000+ point PCs go right over my head concept and focuswise.[/quote']

 

Personally, I don't mind high power levels with an interesting concept. (For that matter, I see point cost and power level as only loosely related, but that's a different conversation.) However, there is a point where handling the characters becomes too much of a stretch. I can GM for "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive" Superman as long as a player would like. "Can create a perfect duplicate of the Earth in seven minutes" Superman, on the other hand, can only be interesting (for me as a GM) in a solo game.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

While our High Powered game was not Galactic Champions, the characters were well into the 900 point range at the end, the majority of the campaign took place in the 700-800 point arena.

 

It was a spectacular campaign of multi-dimensional mayhem, saving reality, time streams, and all kinds of apocalyptic style fun.

 

Two things helped, one was a low number of players 3-4 for the majority of the game (we lost some and gained some players of the course of 13ish years, of which I was an active participant for the last 6 or so). Second was the near strict adherence to Schtick.

 

Each character picked an aspect, or a set of capabilities as Theirs. When you can spend points in all sorts of places it can be tempted to create an entire team of Jack-Of-All-Trades. It became important to seriously explore exactly what each persions main ability was, and could do.

In the end we had Four characters with the follow Main Powers: Nature, Time, Invisibility, Enhancement. With skill sets involving Technology, Magic, Faith/Religion, and Interaction. We had to make sure we could spread out nicely, without interfering - and yes we did have several things that reached very high levels of ability (especially if you're used to more "normal" games), like Skill Rolls well over 20 or Active Points reaching close to 200.

 

It can be a lot of fun to do, but in all honesty I wouldn't recommend it for everyone. There have been several players that we introduced to the game that didn't last very long for various reasons.

[assault]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Some suggestions for people considering this kind of game:

 

Get the Showcase Presents volume of early Legion of Superheroes stories. They're rather neat stories, and most of the characters are at standard Champions PC power levels.

 

I also suggest this website, especially the Alternate Legions section. There are multiple campaign settings just sitting there waiting to be borrowed.

 

An LSH homage campaign is definitely on my "to do" list. Unfortunately I'd rather play in it than GM.

 

 

 

 

I'd probably play Cosmic Boy, although Lightning Lad is the Big Drama character. Superboy is cool too, of course.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Buy it or I'll rip up all your copies of Digital HERO!

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

And no one mentions the Starjammers of X-Men fame? For shame.

 

I like a Galactic Champions style game, but I'm not one for REALLY powerful characters like Silver Surfer, I'm more like Nova at best.

[OzMike]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Let me add some others, if you please:

L.E.G.I.O.N. (DC Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.E.G.I.O.N.

Omega Men (DC Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Men

Adam Strange (DC Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Strange

Captain Comet (DC Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Comet

Guardians of the Galaxy (Marvel Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy

Starjammers (Marvel Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starjammers

Dreadstar (Epic/First/Malibu/Bravura Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadstar

Nexus (Capital/First/Dark Horse Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_%28comics%29

Grimjack (First/IDW/Comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrimJack

 

And no one mentions the Starjammers of X-Men fame? For shame.

*snip*

 

Ahem

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

That's what I get for posted at 3:45AM EST.

 

My apologies.

[OzMike]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

No worries

[JmOz]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

In all honesty however, and I realise that some of this is because Galactic Champions actualy has 2 meanings, but you don't need high points for a GC Game

 

Look at the 4 founding members of the Guardians of the Galaxy

 

If the GM provides them with a ship to use as a base the characters are not that hard to do on the standard 350

 

Vance: EB (TK), some body armor

 

Martinex: EB (Fire and ICe MP), body armor, some life support, science skills

 

Charlie: Tank with piloting skills, some life support

 

Yondu: Indirect RKA, Noble savage skill set

 

Even Niki is fairly easy, the only real powerhouse is Starhawk, and a good pointsmith could probably get a fair version of him under 350

[McCoy]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Sometimes you want to punch out a Nazi.

Sometimes you want to fry a Nazi with laser eye beams.

 

And sometimes I really just want to drop a planet on one.

Repped!

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Well, another way of looking at it is, you can be Frodo, or you can be Aragorn. Some people like being Frodo, some people like being Aragorn, and some people like to play each. They can both participate in epic adventures, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

The only point I have here is that there's nothing wrong with high-points games or characters; so long as they're run correctly, they can be just as immensely enjoyable as "normal" characters or campaigns. It's a good idea to set one's biases and preconceptions aside and just roll with it.

Besides, given the 250 point Year One Batman and the 2500 point JLA Batgod--no reason most character concepts can't scale up quite a bit.

[Vann the Red]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Sometimes you want to punch out a Nazi.

Sometimes you want to fry a Nazi with laser eye beams.

 

And sometimes I really just want to drop a planet on one.

 

Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis...

 

Yep, the point scales aren't what I'm after. More of a street-level guy. Don't read Avengers or JLA any more for that reason.

 

VtR

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

You could probably have a 750 point campaign where active points are capped at 50(Think "peak Doc Savage" level pulp, Harbinger level Dark Champs, epic high fantasy, etc.), or a 250 point campaign with no active point caps.

Personally, IME, high points games tend to have less powergaming behavior by players, not more--they tend to focus heavily on story and roleplay, rather than roll-play(the Dragonball rule(there's always someone out there who can easily kick your butt) tends to encourage creative solutions). Also IME I've played in campaigns that started at 250-300(where I wasn't totally happy but kinda tolerated the restrictiveness of the parameters) and finally made it to 400+(where I began to feel like my characters were finally starting to realize my vision of what they could be), only to have the people who were enthusiastic at the beginning start to sour as the game became too "high powered" for their tastes. More than a bit frustrating, and what became even more frustrating is that the tolerance for playing at a level that's not what one ideally wants to play at, IME tends to be pretty unilateral wrt low-mid level enthusiasts vs. mid-high level enthusiasts(IOW, the mid-high guys are more willing to tolerate playing at a lower level than vice versa). Hopefully YMMV, but just food for thought. A slight attitude adjustment can work wonders for one's enjoyment of a genre or sub-genre that isn't their first choice.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Sometimes you want to punch out a Nazi.

Sometimes you want to fry a Nazi with laser eye beams.

 

And sometimes I really just want to drop a planet on one.

 

A game genre I will never run:

 

Galactic Pulp Champions.

 

But it would be absolutely awesome to play in.

[nexus]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Personally, IME, high points games tend to have less powergaming behavior by players, not more--they tend to focus heavily on story and roleplay, rather than roll-play(the Dragonball rule(there's always someone out there who can easily kick your butt) tends to encourage creative solutions).

 

My dislike for high points games isn't totally about "power gaming" (which is, really, only a problem when everyone isn't in agreement on how optimized they want things). I really dislike the "Role-play/Roll-play" dichotomy. It's different play styles. that's it. I don't think any power level is more or less prone to role playing and stories. It's what the players want and if they're having fun, more power to them. I admit one mechanical issue that makes me shy away from Galactic Champions level games is the prevalence of Variable Power Pools especially combat variable and/or cosmic ones. I do not like those things.

 

The level and scope is just something I can't really wrap my head around. I can't get into things and it starts to seem a little ridiculous for lack of a better term. I guess I like the stories told on a lower level. They're more what I can relate too and enjoy. Once the scope gets to large the focus drifts from the stuff I'm interested in and yes, it does seem to become "Who's got the biggest Nova Blast?"

 

I guess I want to punch a Nazi (or a drug dealer or a super powered crook) more than I want to save the World/Galaxy/Universe. I mean those make great occasional adventures or cappers for an entire campaign but as a regular thing it loses impact for me.

 

Also IME I've played in campaigns that started at 250-300(where I wasn't totally happy but kinda tolerated the restrictiveness of the parameters) and finally made it to 400+(where I began to feel like my characters were finally starting to realize my vision of what they could be), only to have the people who were enthusiastic at the beginning start to sour as the game became too "high powered" for their tastes.

 

See, I feel like my characters are done when they get to around 400-500 points not that they're becoming what I wanted them to be. Anything else just extraneous or I have to start getting things that "don't fit". One of the big problems I'm running into attempting to GM a 750 point game is creating NPCs. I get bored spending the points.

 

More than a bit frustrating, and what became even more frustrating is that the tolerance for playing at a level that's not what one ideally wants to play at, IME tends to be pretty unilateral wrt low-mid level enthusiasts vs. mid-high level enthusiasts(IOW, the mid-high guys are more willing to tolerate playing at a lower level than vice versa). Hopefully YMMV, but just food for thought. A slight attitude adjustment can work wonders for one's enjoyment of a genre or sub-genre that isn't their first choice.

 

I don't think it's a matter of "attitude" but preference but I'll say IME, it's the people that prefer High Level games that turn up in their noses at playing "Losers, Jobbers and Wimps". To be fair I think it's human nature that the people that are endorsing or supporting what we like always sound more reason than those close minded jerks that want something else

[OddHat]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

I don't think it's a matter of "attitude" but preference but I'll say IME, it's the people that prefer High Level games that turn up in their noses at playing "Losers, Jobbers and Wimps".

 

Not my experience, really. I've run everything from games where a street punk with a knife is a serious danger to games where the PCs can smash cities or (given time) planets, and I haven't run into that attitude among my core players.

 

I'd say its something that varies a lot among groups.

 

Note that I'm not talking about point totals per say, but about power levels, which can be quite different. Jackie Chan has played characters that would require 300+ points to accurately write up even with no wuxia / supernatural elements at all. and you can do some fairly impressive (relative to a 'realistic" setting) Superheroes at 150 or fewer points without particular munchkinism.

[OddHat]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

You could probably have a 750 point campaign where active points are capped at 50(Think "peak Doc Savage" level pulp' date=' Harbinger level Dark Champs, epic high fantasy, etc.), or a 250 point campaign with no active point caps.[/quote']

 

I think it's less a matter of active point caps than approved powers and special effects. There's real world military hardware that requires active points in the 100+ range in Hero.

[nexus]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Not my experience, really. I've run everything from games where a street punk with a knife is a serious danger to games where the PCs can smash cities or (given time) planets, and I haven't run into that attitude among my core players.

 

I'd say its something that varies a lot among groups.

 

.

 

Well, that's why I said In My Experience. I haven't seen why Megaplayboy was describing either where the high powers guys were so willing to play low end characters while the low enders pout and grip about "Too high powered" but you didn't reference that. In the past I've encountered much more bitching about being forced to play "wimps" than I have protestation about games being too high powered. I can name two or three people on this board that have that attitude off the top of my head.

 

 

I *have* heard allot of accusations that high end games are inherently less conducive to role playing, story and character development; the role playing vs roll playing things and that's just BS. It's the players. You can have hardcore munchkins in 50+50 games and Drama Queens in 500+500 ones. The opposite argument is a relatively new one on me.

[OddHat]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Well' date=' that's why I said In My Experience.[/quote']

 

And why I responded with "not in mine".

 

It's the players. You can have hardcore munchkins in 50+50 games and Drama Queens in 500+500 ones.

 

And this I agree with.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

 

I dunno Nexus. Having read your posts... I just don't know if Galactic Champions is really your thing. I know it isn't mine; I consider "225 total points" to be "too many" in many cases, so I'm more comfortable in the lower end of the spectrum myself. But maybe I'm not clear, why do you want to be sold on it?

[nexus]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

Maybe I've just been brainwashed into obeying the "You must earn your power" meme established in D and D and other early RPGs.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Sell me on "Galactic Champions"?

 

With great power comes the ability to summon ice cream.