A question of power level

[Atomic Ray]

Greetings,

 

First time caller long time listener...been playing champions since first printing first edition.

 

A question came up recently on another forum dealing with miniatures and RPGs in regards to superheroing and low powered games. Apparently the GM in question had issues with his group basically demanding more points. The GM had a sound idea for a lower level game setting and the characters while low powered, 75-125pts total, would still be the cream and not the side kicks of 500pt mega heroes. So the game is off.

 

My thought is this, and it has come up many times in the past as I am a defender of all things non-rules lawyering, point cheating, and number crunching....why not low powered games?

 

After all it is the idea of the hero that binds the story not the points, right?

 

Atomic Ray

"Elder hero from the Age of Steam, inventor, two fisted, and aging 1:25yrs...currently looks 45 but is much older"

[Trebuchet]

Re: A question of power level

 

My only objection, such as it is, is that 150 points is where we play Pulp Hero, so 125 points supers are rather low-powered and possibly only barely worthy of the name "super" although it's certainly possible to have powers at that level.

 

In a situation such as you describe, I'd look to establish some sort of compromise. It doesn't do the GM any good to have a good low powered setting if his players all want something with more oomph but obviously it has to be something the GM is willing to run.

 

And welcome to the Hero boards. There are a lot of long-time players here. I've been playing since 1993 myself.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: A question of power level

 

Different people like different styles of games. While a 125 point character may be 'the cream', as you say, a normal punk with a .22 can probably still put a world of hurt on him, and some folks don't like that ... like me. I like my supers bulletproof, to the point where I simply have a game rule: A Normal Person Can Not Hurt A Super With A Standard Weapon. I don't even bother rolling.

 

It may be a fine story, but that doesn't mean it's one everybody's going to want to participate in. A GM without a game is not a GM; the style of game, game world, game power level and so forth need to be things everybody can enjoy.

[Shigeru]

Re: A question of power level

 

To put this in comparison, the first edition of Heroes Unlimited by Palladium games was such that characters hade ONE power. THat power made a big difference, but didn't make people into superheroes by default.

 

THe big difference-maker in that game was education. You might have super strength, but if all you could manage to do was graduate high school and get a job at McDonalds, you had limitations. Whereas someone with Specialized Military Training,. or a Masters Degree, actually had a wealth of flexibility, even if thier power was "super hearing". It was a very different look at roleplaying.

 

THis 125pt Supers game sounds similar. One power might be affordable, but all of a sudden the guy with Comnbat Driving or Stealth or 10 points in Martial Arts has a big advantage over those that don't. THe pints go a lot farther in defining ones strengths and weaknesses.

 

THe test of that theory, of course, lies inthe GM. Can they promote a fun time for all players, maintain balance, give characters a challenge without rolling right over them? THat's the true experiment.

[Atomic Ray]

Re: A question of power level

 

The potential for a common thug to injure a hero goes far beyond a .22cal or if said thug is unable to cause or affect a hero; the same .22cal put your superhero's girlfriend, mom, best friend, or a common citizen plucked off the street...superman can be hurt by a single .22cal clearly.

 

So in the end it is somewhat insulting to consider the real heroes in our world who do great things with 50pts at best...so in context give that heroic cop another 75pts and you have a superhero.

 

I think it has a great deal to do with the games we started with. My first superhero game was the original V&V where you where a normal person with one power much like the majority of the characters on TV's Heroes.

 

In a city full of blind men the one eyed man is king.

 

I appreciate the inputs either way, the point is actually moot as it is not my game.

 

I have run many a lower point game and they were all fun, challenging, and they did not miss the planet throwing powers.

 

Consider the real question that we all ask our selves, if you could have any one power what would it be? Once you have answered...flight, bulletproof, strength, etc...then ask yourself what would you do with the power? Do you whine and whimper that there isn't enough power(s) to be worth the effort or would you do something with it? Heroes work through the process by effort not by number crunching and lists of abilities.

 

Would you steal, would you be selfish, would you cheat? Heroes are by their nature cursed because they most often do not have a choice, they have to do the right thing regardless if they have any bullets left or if the building is on fire. Get that same guy a power or double his strength or improve his skills by 100% and you will have a superhero...IMO.

 

I am no hero and I suspect I would be a terrible super, because I am not that strong to put my family aside for strangers but I would try...and by trying I would earn my chance to be heroic and noble, and that would be super.

 

Power gamers have poisoned the industry to the point that we can never go back. The starting characters have to be planet smashers, cosmic knights, and avatars of Suns. Gone forever is the chance to be a hero, now there is only a pile of numbers, lists of skills, and a laundry list of powers.

 

I would welcome a decent group of players to run a game but I am not interested in the current vein of everyone starting the game as green lantern/superman/etc. equals.

 

But my 5 minutes on the soapbox are done.

 

Thanks again.

 

Atomic Ray

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: A question of power level

 

I think it could be a problem of players bringing a preconceived character notion into the game (often a retired character with godly point totals), instead of thinking of a concept that would fit the game the GM wants to run.

 

I've known people who love to pull out their favorite character and try to use it for every new game they play in. I think it's a sign of laziness, and disrespectful to the GM. If the GM can make a world, I have no problem with making just one character to fit into that world.

 

Then again, they may not have wanted to play lower point total supers. Different folks for different folks. I personally think such games have a lot of appeal. Though I'd go with a 150 total rather than 125, as the 125 just seems an odd number. Not that I'm saying it was arbitrary, just not one of the "usual" point totals used.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: A question of power level

 

Our groups aren't planet crushers either but they are definitely larger than life. My fantasy players want too be Conan or Aragorn equivalents not the normal person thrust unto a Hero's position. nothing wrong with the other approach. Thats just their preference. If we're playing pulp they want to be over the top like the Shadow,Phantom or Doc Savage. If we're playing superheroes they want a level they can't have the other games/ Again that's what they want. I think the GM and players needed more communication about expectations and maybe he needed to package it differently.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A question of power level

 

If you look at the very early days of superheros, you could get away with it.

 

I mean, look at the early xmen. Cyclops had one power. Angel had one power.

 

More recently, every character's gotta be able to solo.

 

How else are you going to get your own book?

[Atomic Ray]

Re: A question of power level

 

That is the rub isn't it? Communication between the GM and players. The funny part of the story is that the GM is question is the regular DM for the long running D&D group who begged for the GM to provide a Champions game for the group...his one request was to make a lower level super world and the characters would be novices. After weeks of preparation and communication with said group, mutiny.

 

And that is where the question of low end gaming resurfaced.

 

To be truthful I do not mind the high end point games, but and it is a huge see it coming from a mile away butt, I prefer the focus of one power or at the very least a tight theme. Super Strong Guy that is stronger than any 10 other strong supers...cool. The same guy with said strength, and FTL flight, and invunerable, and instant regeneration, and laser beam eyes, and...en infinitum at nausium...is not ok.

 

The everything super is lame, anoying, chickenshite, and just plain weak.

 

Ah well to each his own. Power gamers buy games, cry the loudest, and the cycle continues.

 

Thanks again for the inputs.

 

Atomic Ray

[Bloodstone]

Re: A question of power level

 

Well, in addition to expectations, it also comes down to character building philosophy and a sense of scale.

 

I've played in games where an 18 DEX is treated as an unreal degree of grace and coordination the likes of which no man alive in the real world could ever hope to obtain. And I've played in games where a "bulky, slow moving" Brick had an 18 DEX.

 

One can also easily bloat the points on just about any concept by stating out trivial bits and minutia...

 

The everything super is lame, anoying, chickenshite, and just plain weak.

 

Ah well to each his own. Power gamers buy games, cry the loudest, and the cycle continues.

 

Was this really necessary? Obviously not everyone enjoys the same games and not all concepts work for all games....

[Trebuchet]

Re: A question of power level

 

That is the rub isn't it? Communication between the GM and players. The funny part of the story is that the GM is question is the regular DM for the long running D&D group who begged for the GM to provide a Champions game for the group...his one request was to make a lower level super world and the characters would be novices. After weeks of preparation and communication with said group, mutiny.

 

And that is where the question of low end gaming resurfaced.

 

To be truthful I do not mind the high end point games, but and it is a huge see it coming from a mile away butt, I prefer the focus of one power or at the very least a tight theme. Super Strong Guy that is stronger than any 10 other strong supers...cool. The same guy with said strength, and FTL flight, and invunerable, and instant regeneration, and laser beam eyes, and...en infinitum at nausium...is not ok.

 

The everything super is lame, anoying, chickenshite, and just plain weak.

 

Ah well to each his own. Power gamers buy games, cry the loudest, and the cycle continues.

 

Thanks again for the inputs.

I don't know if it was your intention, but your attitude seems rather condescending. It's not like the only two options are very-low-powered supers or "Gods in Spandex." There is a very broad happy medium. Not everyone who wants a 250 or 350 point character expects his character to have superstrength, and FTL flight, and be invulnerable, and have instant regeneration and laser beam eyes, etc. Some just may want to have their characters be a bit more powerful than a typical pulp era hero.

[BcAugust]

Re: A question of power level

 

Hmm, I'd be a bit upset with a 125 "supers" game, but mainly because I tend to like spending a few points on "concept" skills/powers that that tight a budget doesn't generally allow. That, and I find hacking the system minigame a bit boring.

 

Admittedly, I'd play a normals game at that budget. And I don't have a problem with low powered games in general. I suppose it depends what he considers the universe. I mean, from what it sounds like, the players did try to work with it, and found that there was no happy medium.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A question of power level

 

Reading this thread again, I find myself wondering if we've just been subjected to a drive-by trolling?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: A question of power level

 

Was this really necessary? Obviously not everyone enjoys the same games and not all concepts work for all games....

 

Utterly unnecessary, and rather plonkworthy.

[mirage]

Re: A question of power level

 

If you look at the very early days of superheros, you could get away with it.

 

I mean, look at the early xmen. Cyclops had one power. Angel had one power.

 

More recently, every character's gotta be able to solo.

 

How else are you going to get your own book?

 

 

In the early days of Television people were happy to have a black and white set with one bad speaker.

 

But you aren't going to sell to many of those today.

[lemming]

Re: A question of power level

 

Power level can mean so many things.

 

I like seeing a breadth as characters develop.

 

One of my more frustrating characters was a speedster. I wanted to have him do lots of power tricks and such, but I would of had to drop power by a lot. Instead, he was very fast and hit very hard multiple times. And very boring. Thankfully, the campaign itself was very interesting with many different plots going on.

 

Another character of mine, tech wiz with many different skills and ways to do things. The first character would clean her clock, but she's more interesting to play. She's also about an extra 100 points...

 

When you get down to low powered supers, I find them boring and probably have an adverse reaction to them due to some forced low power campaigns which were more low powered heroes and then you'd have 20 agents that were only 10-15 points lower than you in any combat.

 

That being said, The Hero System is a toolkit that builds an infinite number of campaigns. You and your group have to work it out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A question of power level

 

When you get down to low powered supers' date=' I find them boring and probably have an adverse reaction to them due to some forced low power campaigns which were more low powered heroes and then you'd have 20 agents that were only 10-15 points lower than you in any combat.[/quote']

 

To me, this is key. When you tell players "Supers", I think they envision a game where their characters are notably more capable than the average. If normals, including, say, the thugs hired by the villains, are held to characteristics of 8 - 10, and elite agents have stats in the 11-12 range, all with 2 SPD, the Supers with their CONs of 18-20, DEX's of 15-18 and SPD 3-4, plus some superpowered attacks, can feel quite superior.

 

If the VIPER agents are their superiors in virtually every way, the Hero's aren't very Super, are they?

[fiducia]

Re: A question of power level

 

I'm not a fan of low powered super hero games unless the setting you're playing in is purposefully 'street level' or Pulp. Super's aren't super's in my opinion unless they can have the freedom of points to explore the concept of their power set to the fullest. Iron Alloy (my multi-formed baby brick) is the perfect example of this. She's my balls to the wall super and for the most part she's unstoppable, though she doesn't have her glass jaw moments. Darkness is a Dark Champions: TAS character and is slightly nerffed power-wise as a result, at least in so far as my original concept called for. BUT that's what I signed up for when I agreed to play her in a TAS game and the GM worked with me to keep the concept cohesive while still keeping the points even with everyone else playing.

 

It would be one thing if the GM in your example was going for a lower powered than "Hero Standard" world setting but that works very badly with how the point buy system really works. I'm sorry the game fell apart. Hopefully he'll try again.

[sbarron]

Re: A question of power level

 

....why not low powered games?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on these boards who wouldn't be interested in playing a low powered game' date=' especially if the GM had a good idea he wanted to play. That said, 75 to 125 points is pretty low for a "supers" game. Sure, you could can buy powers, but in ever other way the character is going to look like a cop, soldier, high school student, etc... Which is not a problem, [i']per se[/i]. But it's also not very "superheroic."

 

In a game with so few points, I think it would be very easy to lose the feel of a true supers game. That game could easily end up more like G.I. Joe, X-Files, or PS238, . While these would all be fun games in their own right, none of them are traditional "superhero" settings. So I can see why there might have been a disconnect between the GM and the players.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: A question of power level

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on these boards who wouldn't be interested in playing a low powered game' date=' especially if the GM had a good idea he wanted to play. That said, 75 to 125 points is pretty low for a "supers" game. Sure, you could can buy powers, but in ever other way the character is going to look like a cop, soldier, high school student, etc... Which is not a problem, [i']per se[/i]. But it's also not very "superheroic."

 

In a game with so few points, I think it would be very easy to lose the feel of a true supers game. That game could easily end up more like G.I. Joe, X-Files, or PS238, . While these would all be fun games in their own right, none of them are traditional "superhero" settings. So I can see why there might have been a disconnect between the GM and the players.

 

Well said. Frag, Teen Champions characters get 200 points, and they're supposed to be raw rookies.

[Atomic Ray]

Re: A question of power level

 

This was not a baited hook in which to troll with...rather a selected vent within a like minded, super-gamers, forum.

 

I agree 200 would be a great deal easier to flesh out a concept than say 125-150; completely.

 

The original thought was not so much an off the cuff question but rather a soapbox theme tainted by the flavor of a couple decades of dealing with whimpering, point crunching, power gamers that have sucked the will out of me.

 

So I have successfully released the venom from my system and I thank you all for the recovery of my tact and bearing.

 

Humble appologies to all who were slighted.

 

I guess the end recount is this:

 

"If the highest point character in the given world has 200pts then starting characters with 125-150pts could expect to be young gods and thusly enjoy a margin of playability and success."

 

The idea of not being a super because of a certain starting point with power level is a tomAto and tOmato aurgument IMO. For me a super is a character who has ability, talant, and/or a gift that exceeds the realm of what normal people could achieve...a guy who can throw a bowling ball over a mile, a kid who can walk through walls, a lady who can teleport these are all supers in my mind. Super in regards to super powered does not reflect the choices of the character as in superhero or supervillian but rather the fact of having a super ability/talent/power period.

 

Modern Pulp might be fun. Today's setting with politics, internet, and $5 gas along with 100-150 people developing into supers without prior generational peers...they are the first within reason (1000yrs ago there was 2-3, 500yrs ago there were less than 10, 250yrs ago 20-30, etc..).

 

One process I used in the past was to allow up to a certain level say 300pts, period. But, if you chose to start with any points saved then you could apply them to the character with valor or experience...basically say you had made a 200pt character then you have growth potential equal to your playtime experience, earn 15 valor points (given at the end of sessions) and you can apply an equal amount of saved points to improve or refine your character...so 15VP would grant 200pt guy 15/15=30pts and 300pt guy 15 in reserve...reserve points were used in crital situations to recover from death, fight off radiation sickness, not to mutate, etc. but not for improvements.

 

Players could use their VP to boost rolls, powers, etc. but once use it was gone....stong guy needs 4 more die of strength to save the busload of kids etc..

 

Anyway my question was misdirected by venom and tempered by power gamer poison, thanks for you collective calm.

 

Atomic Ray

[Metaphysician]

Re: A question of power level

 

I would say the fundamental flaw in the afforementioned campaign idea has nothing to do with 'low power' per se, and more to do with the contradiction in the premise. "75-125 points" and "cream of the crop" don't so much go together, not as an actual supers game. If your doing something Heroes-ish, where most superhumans have fairly weak powers, are often entirely normal with no especially meaningful skills otherwise, and are not expected to run around in spandex? Yeah, you could do that, and it'd likely be fun. However, your character's significance is solely in that he *is* superhuman, not necessarily in what he can actually achieve from such. And he should entirely expect to be outdone in every way by highly skilled non-superhumans, *especially* in combat.

 

And even Heroes has quite a few people who couldn't even be slightly done on 125 points. Whereas if the PCs are cream of the crop, well, there's not much hope of ever getting any better, is there. And if the only way to meaningfully grow from there is in domains outside of the minor powers, that just emphasizes the fact that the superhuman powers don't really matter all that much. Nathan Petrelli went this route in Heroes, essentially, but if a campaign exists where thats the *only* meaningful route to go? Problems.

 

Put differently, I think the GM in your example fails to realize just how few 125 points is, and how little it goes around. The fact that he thinks 500 points produces a 'mega hero' just supports that idea.

[Vulcan]

Re: A question of power level

 

There is one real problem with the 125 point 'super'. If you include his gear, a rather ordinary soldier can easily equal the point level - and his military-grade assault rifle will likely be a far higher AP attack than that of the 'supers' in question.

 

I have attached a file (I hope it worked, anyway) which is (very) loosely models a friend of mine when he is on active duty. I haven't tried to duplicate his exact characteristics, skills, or etc, this is stuff straight out of the package deals in Dark Champions - specifically Police Officer, Basic Military, and Ranger (yes, he did go to Ranger school while he was in the Army). Add in some basic body armor and the M-249 he usually has in the field and he's at 188 points.

 

I rather suspect his actual point total is rather a bit higher, he also swordfights as a hobby so I imagine his physical characteristics are a bit higher...

 

So how does the 125 point 'super' handle a squad (that is what, 7 or so?) guys like this, much less a platoon (around 30) or a company (120ish)? What do they do against military vehicles (aside from surrender or die)?

 

I'm not saying that you can't play at that level (you can, and I imagine it can be a lot of fun if handled properly), but it's not very super when you're out-pointed by a common soldier.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A question of power level

 

Anyway my question was misdirected by venom and tempered by power gamer poison' date=' thanks for you collective calm.[/quote']If you've been playing since 1st Edition Champions, then you ought to know by now power gamers can ruin a campaign at any level of character points. It's not the number of points, it's the mindset.

 

I solved it by flatly refusing to play with power gamers. Our Champions campaign has been running since 1992 and we haven't had one yet.

[megaplayboy]

Re: A question of power level

 

"Power gaming" has, in my experience, absolutely nothing to do with how many points players have to work with. Roleplaying has nothing to do with how many points they have to work with, either.

 

One thing to consider about a campaign with even a low starting point level like 125 points: experience progression. Assuming the PCs gain 2-3 points per session, and game once a week, they will double their point totals within the first year of the campaign. After 3 years, they'd actually be at or near that "500 point mega hero" level.

 

My point? In any campaign that's going to last a while, sooner or later the characters are going to be a lot more powerful and capable than when they started out. Both the GM and the players have to decide how they're going to handle that. In my unfortunate experience as a player and GM, I've known more than a few GMs and players who simply decided, after a couple years of a successful campaign, that they had lost interest and/or that the game had gotten "too powerful" for them (and in one instance, this happened when I agreed to the lower initial level with the understanding that we'd eventually be gaming at a higher level for a while). Flexibility and adaptability has to be a two-way street. The players accustomed to higher level games should try to be adaptable enough to find a way to enjoy the setting, and the players who prefer the lower level games should find a way to be adaptable enough to enjoy "leveling" or "filling out" their PCs to a higher level than they possibly envisioned them reaching.