Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

It is amazing how quickly people develop Codes vs. Killing when Superman' date=' etc is standing right over there.[/quote']

 

I don't think Supes would have had a problem with my coastie, any more than he ever had a problem with any 'normal' law enforcement officer. Because that's what my character was: a normal law enforcement officer (albiet highly trained and exqusitely well-equipped).

[Arkham]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

I don't think Supes would have had a problem with my coastie' date=' any more than he ever had a problem with any 'normal' law enforcement officer. Because that's what my character was: a normal law enforcement officer (albiet highly trained and exqusitely well-equipped).[/quote']

 

No, but if you are teamed with him and he is standing (hovering) just a few meters away, I don't think he would let you shoot to kill. And I doubt most similar characters would risk being the one to 'make big blue snap' by shooting someone in the face right in front of him. I put that in quotes because you and I know that via writer fiat, Superman would intervene, stop anyone from getting shot, and might even give a disapproving glare or reprimand the shooter, but he would never snap and tear someone's head off... But the character present don't know that.

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

No' date=' but if you are teamed with him and he is standing (hovering) just a few meters away, I don't think he would let you shoot to kill. And I doubt most similar characters would risk being the one to 'make big blue snap' by shooting someone in the face right in front of him. I put that in quotes because you and I know that via writer fiat, Superman would intervene, stop anyone from getting shot, and might even give a disapproving glare or reprimand the shooter, but he would never snap and tear someone's head off... But the character present don't know that.[/quote']

 

True, but with Supes standing behind me, there's no need for me to shoot at all, is there?

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Characters pigeonholed into just one archetype.

 

I'd love to play Martian Manhunter in a game just because he fits into so many.

 

Actually, the problemn is that some 'archetypes' have several differing powersets. Like the Gadgeteer and Power Armour. Most Gadgeteers have several items that can mimic anything from Blasters to Bricks to Mentalists.

 

While most Power Armours are usually flying Bricks and Blasters.

 

I tend to dislike Energy Projectors. I find them somewhat staid and boring.

 

"I blast it"

"I blast it with a different slot"

"I blast it with a third slot in my MP"

 

When you are up close you have movement, attacks, choosing dcv over ocv... when you are range, you just sit and shoot.

 

I had one rather fun time with an energy projector recently, but that was partial because the GM (who tends to favor them) helped me get into versatility (A big MP and ranged martial maneuvers so I could do tricky things like disarm or trip at range).

 

I agree, most Blasters just don't... Do it for me. They are my least favourite archetype. I just can't play them 'right' I guess.

 

Or the various characters that use swords and other "realistically" lethal weapons...

 

I'm remembering an old issue of Green Arrow (Before his marriage with Black Canary) where Ollie was missing an eye, and was shooting a perp. He even mentioned that he was AIMING TO KILL but his depth perception was too damaged, and ended up in the guys leg or arm. It's been a while.

 

But if you HAVE a lethal weapon, I expect you to use it as such. I'm sorry but if you carry a SHARP SWORD to stun people with, expect me to laugh at you, hard.

[Arkham]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

True' date=' but with Supes standing behind me, there's no need for me to shoot [i']at all, [/i]is there?

 

And this is how the rest of the Justice League feels.... Every Day.

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

But if you HAVE a lethal weapon' date=' I expect you to use it as such. I'm sorry but if you carry a SHARP SWORD to stun people with, expect me to laugh at you, hard.[/quote']

 

That's what pommel strikes are for. Or blunt arrows, or rubber bullets. Or gas grenades for my coastie...

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

True' date=' but with Supes standing behind me, there's no need for me to shoot [i']at all, [/i]is there?

 

I wanted to expand upon this a little bit here, to illustrate to CC how a gun-character doens't have to be the Punisher.

 

Let's say my Coast Guard character - call him Chief, because he's a chief petty officer - is involved in a supers battle at the docks. His role in the fight is not that different than that of the police officers in the Superman Animated series - although the Champions rules allows the Chief to be a bit more directly involved.

 

So, from a position of cover behind a vehicle, he lays down supression fire to keep the bad guy's head down while his teammates advance. He launches tear gas (or knockout gas, or flashbang, or concussive) grenades from his M-203 to either flush out or incapacitate the bad guys without hurting them. If he must fire directly, he usually start with one of his four clips of rubber bullets, switching to more lethal rounds (copper alloy frangible, RKA-Reduced PEN) only if the rubber bullets bounce.

 

If the frangible rounds don't work, and the bad guys won't surrender, and the situation warrents a lethal response, then he sighs and gets out the (single) clip of AP rounds... or the (again single) frag grenade.

 

Only had to use the AP rounds once. They did the trick on the target. Everyone else surrenedered after that, which was exactly the way I (and the Chief) wanted it.

[Egyptoid]

- - -

 

>>> Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

the Enforcer, especially the later models from the mid-80s.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

That's what pommel strikes are for. Or blunt arrows' date=' or rubber bullets. Or gas grenades for my coastie...[/quote']

 

The problem with constant Pommel Strikes is that there's a point where it's easier to just put on some 'sap' gloves (They have a set of 'brass knuckle' like wieghts around the knuckles for extra power) and just PUNCH people.

 

Seriously, a pommel strike, pistol whip or similar move SHOULD give one a penalty because that's NOT how the weapon is supposed to be used constantly.

 

If you DON'T want to kill, then don't carry a lethal weapon.

 

This has been my opinion, nothing more.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

 

If you DON'T want to kill, then don't carry a lethal weapon.

 

This has been my opinion, nothing more.

 

So what about a martial artist character who knows the Knife Hand (killing attack) maneuver?

 

What's different about his lethal attack and another character that has a lethal attack purchased with a focus limitation.

 

Special Effects alone should not make a difference.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

If you DON'T want to kill, then don't carry a lethal weapon.

 

This has been my opinion, nothing more.

 

Not trying to pick on you, you were just the most recent to voice this opinion. What about characters who are lethal weapons? I mean, come on. Look at Human Torch. There is no conceivable reason his attacks should be non-lethal. What’s he do? Emit just enough heat to knock a person out without giving them at least 1st degree burns? Heck, anyone with 40+ STR has the potential to kill a normal with one hit. If the “normal” guy can’t walk around with a sword then why can Superman walk around with Lasers and enough STR to kill someone with his pinky?

As far as not considering “trained normals” superheroes, that’s a perfectly fine opinion, and a distinction you can use in your games, but I think it is completely inaccurate to the source material. Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Mockingbird, Blue Beetle (who’s only super power is being “smarter than Batman”), and Barbara Gordon, are all “normal” people who have served or at least been connected to the strongest teams of “superheroes” in their respective universes. Ask any 10 people to name a superhero; one of them will say Batman. Besides, if Green Arrow and Hawkeye, who both have unnaturally, ridiculously good aim, are not considered “super” heroes than why are Ironman or Green Lantern, both of which have no powers without their respective foci?

Also, just for clarification; are those of you saying people who don’t want to kill shouldn’t carry lethal weapons referring only to ‘supers’ or to heroes in general? If you are specifically referring to supers, I guess it may be a legitimate argument, but if you are talking about heroism and killing or not killing in general, then I have to point out Zorro, The Shadow, and many other Pulp/early Supers who have used swords, guns, bows, and such without killing (at least in many of their incarnations).

[Bloodstone]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

If you DON'T want to kill' date=' then don't carry a lethal weapon.[/quote']

 

Cops carry guns and don't necessarily want to kill. Heck I don't want to kill anyone at the moment and I have two lethal weapons on my person as a type this post. I'd have more, but these pants are short on pockets and my coat is hung up...

 

Of course, I'm trained to use my knives in a variety of ways, not just to take lives.

 

Ignoring all the ways I can use them as tools and focusing just on combat, I also know how to use the knife while closed as an impact tool, for pain compliance, to enhance pressure point manipulation and to aid in disarms or even joint locking techniques. In addition, know how and where to cut so as to disable an opponent without necessarily killing him. Even without using the knife, displaying it can function as a deterrent. And I know that latter lesson first hand...

 

All that said, if I pull out a knife in a fight I'm generally doing it with the intent to kill. I have no illusions about this and am well aware of the potential repercussions, be they moral or legal. But I'm not a character in a work of fiction, protected by writer, editor or game master

 

There are many examples of such characters that carry knives, swords, bows, guns and other types of Killing Attacks that never (or rarely) take a life with them. You don't necessarily have to like this fact, but you can't really be at all surprised if someone tries to emulate it.

 

I will stress again, I played a archer in a game that had an assortment of killing attacks. He had normal arrows, armor piercing ones, exploding fragmentation grenade ones, arrows that dowsed targets in Greek fire. He had a big Bowie knife and a pair of six shooters (with silver bullets) that had been in the family for generations.

 

He never killed anyone in almost a year of play. We play every Thursday night. That's probably 30-40 opportunities to use his lethal attacks to take lives and he never did it. There were even two occasion where he lost all of his fancy trick arrows, so he had no option but to use normal arrows and his knife to fight.

 

All this from a character that didn't have a CvK. He was prepared to kill if he needed to. But he was skilled enough that he didn't have to

[nexus]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

I think what Nagisawa might have meant was more like if you're going to use a lethal weapon be willing to accept the possibility of killing someone, not that you have to intend to do so. That's a fair statement but it really applies to fighting at all. Even bare hands can kill accidentally in the real world and if you throw in things like superhuman strength… And fire bolts, lasers, mountain shattering "optic blasts", smacking people in the skull with unbreakable manhole covers and other superhuman powers would be lethal weapons too.

 

Hero System game mechanics downplay lethality in the general. It's hard to kill opponents that are "balanced" for the campaign even with killing attacks but looking at things from a "real world" perspective firing beams that can blow holes in brick walls and destroy cars and claiming they are "non lethal" but the guy with a pistol is a dangerous killer would get you funny looks at least. There are no character sheets and game mechanics to distinguish "lethal" from "non lethal". Even weapons designed to minimize lethality can kill under the right (or wrong) circumstances.

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

The problem with constant Pommel Strikes is that there's a point where it's easier to just put on some 'sap' gloves (They have a set of 'brass knuckle' like wieghts around the knuckles for extra power) and just PUNCH people.

 

Seriously, a pommel strike, pistol whip or similar move SHOULD give one a penalty because that's NOT how the weapon is supposed to be used constantly.

 

If you DON'T want to kill, then don't carry a lethal weapon.

 

This has been my opinion, nothing more.

 

SO: No Hawkeye, Green Arrow, Black Knight, Human Torch (fire is every but as lethal as a manmade weapon), Batman (you don't think those pointed batarangs could be dangerous, do you?)... or for that matter, any attack in Champions that does 11d6 Normal damage or better (which in one hit will reduce an average person to -1 BODY and bleeding to death).

 

So once we stiplutate that, what's left? Oh yeah, a bunch of guys who will be completely ineffective against Grond, much less an epic villian like Dr.D!

 

Having a potentially lethal attack DOES NOT equal using said attack to kill.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Alrighty! Time to get on top of this pile up! Dogpile!

 

So what about a martial artist character who knows the Knife Hand (killing attack) maneuver?

 

What's different about his lethal attack and another character that has a lethal attack purchased with a focus limitation.

 

Special Effects alone should not make a difference.

 

For the EVENTUALITY that HE MIGHT HAVE TO. A lot of styles use lethal force as 'advanced manuevers' for when the occasion occurs where you have no other choice, it's you or him, and hopefully you can do it right, and you're the man (or woman) walking out.

 

Notice I didn't say ''win".

 

But if you're not going to kill ever, in a comic setting for your game, which is completely viable with a GOOD GM, then you can still be a 'Black Belt' as per the rule in UMA by just buying 10 points worth of the manuevers, and a KS: in the appropriate style. It's simple, and you don't even need to buy the killing strike. And with enough DCs, you can put down Grond with a punch.

 

Not trying to pick on you, you were just the most recent to voice this opinion. What about characters who are lethal weapons? I mean, come on. Look at Human Torch. There is no conceivable reason his attacks should be non-lethal. What’s he do? Emit just enough heat to knock a person out without giving them at least 1st degree burns? Heck, anyone with 40+ STR has the potential to kill a normal with one hit. If the “normal” guy can’t walk around with a sword then why can Superman walk around with Lasers and enough STR to kill someone with his pinky?

As far as not considering “trained normals” superheroes, that’s a perfectly fine opinion, and a distinction you can use in your games, but I think it is completely inaccurate to the source material. Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Mockingbird, Blue Beetle (who’s only super power is being “smarter than Batman”), and Barbara Gordon, are all “normal” people who have served or at least been connected to the strongest teams of “superheroes” in their respective universes. Ask any 10 people to name a superhero; one of them will say Batman. Besides, if Green Arrow and Hawkeye, who both have unnaturally, ridiculously good aim, are not considered “super” heroes than why are Ironman or Green Lantern, both of which have no powers without their respective foci?

Also, just for clarification; are those of you saying people who don’t want to kill shouldn’t carry lethal weapons referring only to ‘supers’ or to heroes in general? If you are specifically referring to supers, I guess it may be a legitimate argument, but if you are talking about heroism and killing or not killing in general, then I have to point out Zorro, The Shadow, and many other Pulp/early Supers who have used swords, guns, bows, and such without killing (at least in many of their incarnations).

 

The thing with characters like the Human Torch and Cyclops, who ARE the lethal weapons, you have to consider that technically they have no 'choice' (This is assuming you're pretending a 'what if they were real' moment and not going on how the writers were idiots.)

 

They can't go home and unload their 'weapon' and store it safely. If they don't want to kill (But sometimes, it might happen...) then they should pick ways that minimize harm. Some may not even have that choice, and thus keep their powers off no matter what, or at least, should.

 

Cops carry guns and don't necessarily want to kill. Heck I don't want to kill anyone at the moment and I have two lethal weapons on my person as a type this post. I'd have more' date=' but these pants are short on pockets and my coat is hung up... [/quote']

 

Unlike Superheroes, Cops don't DRAW THEIR GUNS AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, they will usually try to talk their way out of a situation. But IF THEY DO DRAW then they WILL (IF THEY HAVE TO) fire to kill. And even if the bullets are rubber or some non-lethal solution, there's still a chance of a death occuring, and they DO take this into consideration. No matter how much CNN and local news channels whine and moan about it. *Beep* Happens, deal with it.

 

Superheroes are usually defined by a schtick, and if that schtick is a lethal weapon, like a Bow with broadhead or armour piercing arrows, then I expect that at some point in the story that he or she will end up killing someone.

 

If, however, all that they ever carry (In terms of ammunition) are 'trick' arrows or whatever, then fine, I have no complaints.

 

But some types of weapons, like a STEEL SWORD? There is not 'stun' ammo for a blade, you go in a fight with one, you intend to CUT someone, if not then you are a DANGER to yourself and anyone you're protecting.

 

Again, if the weapon you've built around your Super ID is like an energy blade that doesn't cut, but shocks the nervous system JUST enough to paralyze temporarily? Yeah, I'll buy it, and I've even wanted to play an 'ex-Ninja-VIPER' who carried a pair of blades like that. He even had non-lethal taser shuriken, a pair of escrima sticks and gadgets!

 

SO: No Hawkeye' date=' Green Arrow, Black Knight, Human Torch (fire is every but as lethal as a manmade weapon), Batman (you don't think those [i']pointed batarangs[/i] could be dangerous, do you?)... or for that matter, any attack in Champions that does 11d6 Normal damage or better (which in one hit will reduce an average person to -1 BODY and bleeding to death).

 

So once we stiplutate that, what's left? Oh yeah, a bunch of guys who will be completely ineffective against Grond, much less an epic villian like Dr.D!

 

Having a potentially lethal attack DOES NOT equal using said attack to kill.

 

Maybe not, but you'll note that the bladed Bat-arangs are NEVER used at a living target, at least in the older versions of the Bat. Hawkeye used to mostly use trick arrows, and the Green Arrow has killed on a couple of occasions that were retconned out of existence. And the Black Knight has a MAGIC SWORD which doesn't follow the laws of regular physics, so is exempt in my opinion. It's not like he carries a KATANA or has Razor Sharp claws built into his cybermetically enhanced/metal plated skeleton.

 

Ammunition counts, if all you use are non-lethal ones, that's fine, but otherwise, man up and accept that sometimes, you may have to put the other guy/gal/thing down like the raging, rabid beast it may be. Permanently.

 

But, then, this is just MY opinion, I could be wrong.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Amusingly, I not-too-long-ago played a character with a 20pt CvK who also had a pretty damned huge HKA; a brick who could do the 'tear you limb from limb' sort of thing. He went for quite a while without using it, then we ran into an honest-to-badness dude in a super-vehicle.

 

*DISMANTLE*

 

Anyway, long story short (TOO LATE!) a character with a CvK can mostly certainly have potentially lethal attacks, whether KAs or not. They'll simply use them *wisely* and it shouldn't be their only form of offense.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Amusingly, I not-too-long-ago played a character with a 20pt CvK who also had a pretty damned huge HKA; a brick who could do the 'tear you limb from limb' sort of thing. He went for quite a while without using it, then we ran into an honest-to-badness dude in a super-vehicle.

 

*DISMANTLE*

 

Anyway, long story short (TOO LATE!) a character with a CvK can mostly certainly have potentially lethal attacks, whether KAs or not. They'll simply use them *wisely* and it shouldn't be their only form of offense.

 

I don't think anyone here was advocating that. I wasn't, I was saying that if your main mode of combat is a lethal weapon (And that includes any appropriate ammunition required) then I'm going to assume you're going to want (As a player) to be put into situations where you're going to need to use them as intended.

 

Otherwise, in a gaming situation, do not bother with any sort of HKA if you don't plan on killing, ever.

 

A CvK is as much a philosophy that details your whole power set (Assuming you're a trained 'paranormal operative' type, like a Gadgeteer, Martial Artist, Power Armour or Weapon Master) as the way you operate.

 

If you're a Brick, Blaster, Mentalist or whatever else, I'm a little more forgiving, because odds are we're going to be talking about your character and what the goal is with his or her concept. If you're a dude who got irradiated and can throw nuclear blasts around but have a Cvk? Odds are you've learned or are learning to minimize the damage you cause to people.

 

Again, my opinion, nothing more.

[bubba smith]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

I never got into playing Martial Artists. I've had Bricks and Gadgeteers who had martial arts skills, but never played a straight up Martial Artist (Chi-powered or not) and I have no plans to ever play one.

 

i wouldn't mind playing one in real life i coildn't outfight my own shadow for me it'd be wish fulfilment as to what type i WOULDENT care to play i'd say sniper /assassin

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Amusingly, I not-too-long-ago played a character with a 20pt CvK who also had a pretty damned huge HKA; a brick who could do the 'tear you limb from limb' sort of thing. He went for quite a while without using it, then we ran into an honest-to-badness dude in a super-vehicle.

 

*DISMANTLE*

 

Anyway, long story short (TOO LATE!) a character with a CvK can mostly certainly have potentially lethal attacks, whether KAs or not. They'll simply use them *wisely* and it shouldn't be their only form of offense.

 

We're totally agreed there. In Champions, a Hero should never be totally dependant upon a killing attack, except in the darkest of Iron Age games. He should always have less-than-lethal options.

 

And since the player is the one building the character, it is his responsability to make sure of that.

 

Bringing up another character of mine: Mist Dragon. Japanese martial artist with a ridiculously sharp ancestral blade (2d6 AP, Pen...) in a scabbard vaguely reminiscent of 'Blind Fury' - for those who haven't seen the movie, it was basically concelaed in a short staff/walking stick. I believe 'zatoichi' is the japanese name for it...

 

His first attacks were usually unarmed (8d6 Defensive Strike), then moved up to the staff (+4d6) as needed. When the sword came out, well, someone's going to die, but it's not because I didn't try less lethal options first.

 

(BTW, that was a Bronze age, fairly high powered game...)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Why can't the character lack non-lethal options? Is there some compelling reason that a character whose powers are dangerous to those they hit cannot be a Hero? Sugar-coating violence by pretending no one ever gets hurt when problems are solved with fists and firepower seems less than a perfect solution.

 

Is it more heroic to just cut loose with full power, knowing the game is structured so the character can do no lasting harm, or to have dangerous, even lethal, abilities which must be used sparingly and only as a last resort?

 

A 15d6 Energy Blast and a 5d6 RKA are equally capable of killing a target. Why is one mechanic "less heroic" than the other? If that 15d6 EB is always fired at unknown opponents at full power because "they's the bad guys and I paid my 75 points" while the RKA is used sparingly, often at reduced power, and only when non-violent approaches have failed, which character is really the heroic one?

 

I don't want to play the murderous "end justifies the means - rack up the body count" character. But that's not automatically the character who lacks a killing attack.

[nexus]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Why can't the character lack non-lethal options? Is there some compelling reason that a character whose powers are dangerous to those they hit cannot be a Hero? Sugar-coating violence by pretending no one ever gets hurt when problems are solved with fists and firepower seems less than a perfect solution.

 

Is it more heroic to just cut loose with full power, knowing the game is structured so the character can do no lasting harm, or to have dangerous, even lethal, abilities which must be used sparingly and only as a last resort?

 

A 15d6 Energy Blast and a 5d6 RKA are equally capable of killing a target. Why is one mechanic "less heroic" than the other? If that 15d6 EB is always fired at unknown opponents at full power because "they's the bad guys and I paid my 75 points" while the RKA is used sparingly, often at reduced power, and only when non-violent approaches have failed, which character is really the heroic one?

 

I don't want to play the murderous "end justifies the means - rack up the body count" character. But that's not automatically the character who lacks a killing attack.

 

Repped.

 

I've very rarely seen CAK characters ever pull their punches or even just use a few less dice even against totally unknown opponents since they can act on metagame knowledge that the game system makes it difficult for those attacks to kill someone. So firing bolts of energy that can wreck a car at agents that are wearing essentially fancy bulletproof vests or supers that you never encountered is fine. (they'll be "balanced" defense wise, of course or the GM is "setting us up"). Shouldn't Total CaK characters strive to avoid violence at all if they can? Not in a pacifist sense but because there isn't some innately "non lethal" kind of violence they can use. CaK often comes across as basically free points in many campaigns since it really doesn't limit the character's actions or options very much except in very structured and scripted situations. At least it doesn't seem worth the 20 points a Total CaK nets compared to other 20 point disads as its more of a genre convention particularly in those games which are so four color that if the choice is A Use lethal force and B Don't there will -always- be a C.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

I've very rarely seen CAK characters ever pull their punches or even just use a few less dice even against totally unknown opponents since they can act on metagame knowledge that the game system makes it difficult for those attacks to kill someone. So firing bolts of energy that can wreck a car at agents that are wearing essentially fancy bulletproof vests or supers that you never encountered is fine. (they'll be "balanced" defense wise' date=' of course or the GM is "setting us up"). Shouldn't Total CaK characters strive to avoid violence at all if they can? Not in a pacifist sense but because there isn't some innately "non lethal" kind of violence they can use. CaK often comes across as basically free points in many campaigns since it really doesn't limit the character's actions or options very much except in very structured and scripted situations. At least it doesn't seem worth the 20 points a Total CaK nets compared to other 20 point disads as its more of a genre convention particularly in those games which are so four color that if the choice is A Use lethal force and B Don't there will -always- be a C.[/quote']

 

Sometimes, you need to see someone REALLY PLAY the disadvantage to see the weaknesses in most players' play. We had a character many years ago with Overconfidence at the 20 point level. And he PLAYED it.

 

GM: "What's your DCV?"

 

Pl1: "Three".

 

Pl2: "THREE?? What's your DEX?"

 

Pl1: "Well, my DCV WOULD BE 8 - if I thought this unknown clown was any kind of a serious threat. But how much harm can he possibly do against someone as powerful as ME? The rest of you are welcome to dodge if you see fit, though."

 

The same character challenged Firewing to single combat, distracting him from the rest of the group. At one point, he threw 3d6 and said "I made my Ego roll by 5 - I'll Dodge this attack." Had he not made the Ego roll, he would have stood there and taken the attack he knew would KO him. As the GM, I would not have forced him to roll - this was entirely voluntary.

 

The fact that our group remembers these exchanges something like 15 - 20 years later stands to the quality - and rarity - of this kind of role playing.

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Why can't the character lack non-lethal options? Is there some compelling reason that a character whose powers are dangerous to those they hit cannot be a Hero? Sugar-coating violence by pretending no one ever gets hurt when problems are solved with fists and firepower seems less than a perfect solution.

 

Is it more heroic to just cut loose with full power, knowing the game is structured so the character can do no lasting harm, or to have dangerous, even lethal, abilities which must be used sparingly and only as a last resort?

 

A 15d6 Energy Blast and a 5d6 RKA are equally capable of killing a target. Why is one mechanic "less heroic" than the other? If that 15d6 EB is always fired at unknown opponents at full power because "they's the bad guys and I paid my 75 points" while the RKA is used sparingly, often at reduced power, and only when non-violent approaches have failed, which character is really the heroic one?

 

I don't want to play the murderous "end justifies the means - rack up the body count" character. But that's not automatically the character who lacks a killing attack.

 

Fair enough; I hadn't taken that into consideration. Thanks for pointing that out!

[Blue]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

In Champions, Mentalists would be my least favorite because it's too difficult to get the result you want within the mechanics.

 

In general though I like playing everything.

[Altasmurf]

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

 

Why can't the character lack non-lethal options? Is there some compelling reason that a character whose powers are dangerous to those they hit cannot be a Hero? Sugar-coating violence by pretending no one ever gets hurt when problems are solved with fists and firepower seems less than a perfect solution.

 

Is it more heroic to just cut loose with full power, knowing the game is structured so the character can do no lasting harm, or to have dangerous, even lethal, abilities which must be used sparingly and only as a last resort?

 

A 15d6 Energy Blast and a 5d6 RKA are equally capable of killing a target. Why is one mechanic "less heroic" than the other? If that 15d6 EB is always fired at unknown opponents at full power because "they's the bad guys and I paid my 75 points" while the RKA is used sparingly, often at reduced power, and only when non-violent approaches have failed, which character is really the heroic one?

 

I don't want to play the murderous "end justifies the means - rack up the body count" character. But that's not automatically the character who lacks a killing attack.

 

I just wanted to chime in on this post. In one of my champions games (back in 4th with 250 point characters) I remember getting in a fight with an ex-super villainess (she was in her late 50's) with my Brick with 50 str and a 20 point CaK. She had been firing off some 50 to 60 point entangles and EB's so I decided to haymaker her in an attempt to stop her. Turns out she had no real defenses, so between the hit and the knock back I had killed her. It was odd, I just assumed she had defenses, I never even checked. Out of game it kind of shocked all of our players who had assumed the same thing I had, just I was the first one to land a blow. So yeah some hero I was, killing old woman. There was some RPing to deal with a trail and I had to put the character on hiatus while he spent time in Jail.

 

Although I'm going on, the real point of this post is that a super is either deadly to those who have no defenses, or not versus those who do have defenses (baring attacks that do no body). The whole event now has me asking more questions during battle and learning when to pull my punches.

 

*Edit*

Oh and to stay on topic, I could never get into mentalists. But I've also never had a good mentalist concept