Rule of X

[Uthanar]

Hi all, so I'm trying to figure out exactly how I'm going to do my campaign limits on powers. Rule of X system seems to be the most appealing to me to come up with a variety of characters that aren't pushing the power cap in each of X given fields. Instead, this seems to me like it would allow individual characters to specialize as they wanted to.

 

I'm doing a low powered Champions game where the heroes are just discovering their powers and learning about them. I have am hoping to see a lot of limitations on the characters as I translate them from the creative thoughts that players have had into the Hero System. What I am wondering about is what are some good Rule of X guidelines that people use.

 

ATM I'm thinking that the points are going to be like 100 to 150 points of normal points and then Complication points on top of that. However, I know that there will be times when the players will advance by leaps and bounds, this won't always be a jump in their power but a jump in their control over the power as they buy down some of the limitations (Think of Cannonball learning to turn from the New Mutants comics).

 

Thoughts on the Rule of X and guidelines/advice on where I should place the Rule of X would be appreciated. Other thoughts relating are always welcome.

 

Happy gaming.

Uthanar

[Trebuchet]

Re: Rule of X

 

Our group uses a very simple guideline: Speed + Damage Classes <= 20 rather than a formal and complicated Rule of X.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: Rule of X

 

Our group uses a very simple guideline: Speed + Damage Classes <= 20 rather than a formal and complicated Rule of X.

 

So..6 SPD is allowed 14d6 attacks? Powerful campaign I guess.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Rule of X

 

So..6 SPD is allowed 14d6 attacks? Powerful campaign I guess.

We abandoned official damage caps years ago. Our brick has a SPD 4 and she does 16d6 (without Pushing, Haymakering, etc.). Our fastest character has a SPD 9 and does 10d6. Everyone else falls somewhere in between; in fact most of our PCs are at 18 or 19 by our formula. It seems to work out very well in practice, and obviously the number could be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on the campaign. I think a pretty good "mainstream" Champions campaign (60 -70 AP caps) could be achieved by substituting 16 or 18 for the 20.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: Rule of X

 

We abandoned official damage caps years ago. Our brick has a SPD 4 and she does 16d6 (without Pushing' date=' Haymakering, etc.). Our fastest character has a SPD 9 and does 10d6. Everyone else falls somewhere in between; in fact most of our PCs are at 18 or 19 by our formula. It seems to work out very well in practice, and obviously the number could be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on the campaign. I think a pretty good "mainstream" Champions campaign (60 -70 AP caps) could be achieved by substituting 16 or 18 for the 20.[/quote']

 

I'm just used to having lower power caps..cause of bad experiences with power gamers in other games. My current group could probably handle the higher cap if I went to it, but they've never really complained that their characters are too weak....so never changed it.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Rule of X

 

I'm just used to having lower power caps..cause of bad experiences with power gamers in other games. My current group could probably handle the higher cap if I went to it' date=' but they've never really complained that their characters are too weak....so never changed it.[/quote']It really is group dependent. We even agreed that a PC could exceed the number 20 a couple years ago, but as of now no one has seen the need to yet. Our characters' growth has been lateral rather than upward; we go for new Skills or broadened capabilities rather than an increase in raw power.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rule of X

 

When I set up a campaign I tend to use 75 Active Points and 12 Damage Classes as a cap.

 

Defenses I set towards 20-30 Normal and 10-15 Resistant. With CVs in the 5-10 Range (including Combat Skill Levels, Maneuvers, and the like). I don't have a Speed Limit.

 

That was what I used the last time I set up a campaign at least, many aeons ago.

 

A friend of mine recently came up with the following set of parameters that I think might work really well, these are for a 6E Game:

 

Characters are low-powered supers. That’s 300 point characters with 60 points in complications.

 

Characters may possess one 90-active point power (no more than 95 active points), one 60-active point power (no more than 65 active points) and as many 45-active point powers (no more than 50 active points) as they can afford. VPPs are not available and Multipowers can only be in the 45-active point range.

 

Equipment does not cost CP, in general. Technology is modern. If you have anything that deviates from modern-normal you must pay CP for all of it. Having a bullet-proof vest (rPD 6) isn’t going to be a problem, but if you want a bullet-proof vest that can resist lasers (rED 6), you’ll have to buy the whole vest as a Focus.

[Uthanar]

Re: Rule of X

 

Thanks for the answers in regards to the questions so far.

 

Ghost Angel - in the books it mentions that if you simply go with point caps a lot of the characters potential seems similar to others potential. Are you feeling that with a set up like that or not? Having a max of X points in each of these defined things would seem to say to a lot of players that their powers should be hitting those caps to remain campaign viable. That is something that I am wanting to avoid, allowing each person to develop where they are interested in...or is that more a recipe for disaster than it sounds like?

Uthanar

[BNakagawa]

Re: Rule of X

 

The alternate approach to the algebraic solve for X approach is this:

 

Define a baseline opponent. Figure out the average badguy DEF, DCV, STUN, etc.

 

Assuming regular combat conditions, figure out how many seconds it would take for any given PC to take out the baseline badguy.

 

If anyone is significantly faster or slower than the norm, then take a look at them and see about nerfing/buffing them appropriately.

 

If you have a little more time, do the same tests for a baseline agent and a baseline master villain.

 

Then work out the baseline badguy's OCV, damaging power, SPD, etc and see how many seconds it would take for the baseline badguy to take down a PC...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rule of X

 

Thanks for the answers in regards to the questions so far.

 

Ghost Angel - in the books it mentions that if you simply go with point caps a lot of the characters potential seems similar to others potential. Are you feeling that with a set up like that or not? Having a max of X points in each of these defined things would seem to say to a lot of players that their powers should be hitting those caps to remain campaign viable. That is something that I am wanting to avoid, allowing each person to develop where they are interested in...or is that more a recipe for disaster than it sounds like?

Uthanar

 

I always made it clear that the Cap was the top end. Many Attacks would fall in a range of 6-10 DCs. I never really had a problem with it, but the last time I ran a Supers campaign was years ago.

 

It never came up as "must reach top to be viable" because it was always clear that the top end was the Top End. Not "And you're going to want to cap out everything to compete"

 

It just a quick way to prevent anything from spinning to far out of control. I certainly never held anything as an absolute. If a player came to me with an 82 Active Point Power that I felt wouldn't hurt my game I'd consider letting it in for sure.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Rule of X

 

Thanks for the answers in regards to the questions so far.

 

Ghost Angel - in the books it mentions that if you simply go with point caps a lot of the characters potential seems similar to others potential. Are you feeling that with a set up like that or not? Having a max of X points in each of these defined things would seem to say to a lot of players that their powers should be hitting those caps to remain campaign viable. That is something that I am wanting to avoid, allowing each person to develop where they are interested in...or is that more a recipe for disaster than it sounds like?

This is exactly the tendency our formula was designed to counter. When we did have a formal Rule of X in our campaign, every character tended to hit or closely approach the caps. When we dumped them in favor of the formula, we got a much better spread of SPD, damage, and defenses. Several characters actually decreased abilities that had previously been maxed out.

 

One thing to remember is that once a character hits a hard cap, then he's got to go spend the remaining character points on something else, and as often as not that will end up being another capped item.

[Uthanar]

Re: Rule of X

 

Maybe I didn't make my intentions clear on what Rule of X meant...maybe I did. As presented in the books I have seen the Rule of X being similar to what you have in your games Trebuchet. Figure out the things that you want to track under the rule of X and set a max for them all to add up to. Rule of X offense would account for OCV, DCs, and Speed frequently; while one dealing with Defense would account for Speed, DCV, and damage reducing abilities.

 

So the system that your group seems to be dealing with is similar to a Rule of X set up instead of what GC dealt with in the past. I like the concept of the Rule of X since it allows people to develop characters in different ways while still have an effectiveness guideline.

 

Thanks for the replies so far and happy gaming.

Uthanar

[Trebuchet]

Re: Rule of X

 

Maybe I didn't make my intentions clear on what Rule of X meant...maybe I did. As presented in the books I have seen the Rule of X being similar to what you have in your games Trebuchet. Figure out the things that you want to track under the rule of X and set a max for them all to add up to. Rule of X offense would account for OCV, DCs, and Speed frequently; while one dealing with Defense would account for Speed, DCV, and damage reducing abilities.

 

So the system that your group seems to be dealing with is similar to a Rule of X set up instead of what GC dealt with in the past. I like the concept of the Rule of X since it allows people to develop characters in different ways while still have an effectiveness guideline.

In the nearly 27 years I've been playing Champions/Hero, I've seen literally dozens of Rule of X variants; including monsters designed by rocket scientists to run on spreadsheets. None of them are perfect, and it doesn't seem to matter how complicated or detailed they are, it still takes decisions by the GM to provide something approaching balance. Since we saw no real advantage to using a complex formula, we just went the other way and adopted the simplest possible version of Rule of X we could come up with (although we consider it a guideline rather than a hard rule).

[Uthanar]

Re: Rule of X

 

Yep, no need to get complex or anything. I have just read it out of the books, and seemed like a better feel than going with specific point caps. Just trying to get a good feel for where I might want to go.

 

Happy gaming.

Uthanar

[Certified]

Re: Rule of X

 

Our group uses a very simple guideline: Speed + Damage Classes <= 20 rather than a formal and complicated Rule of X.

 

How does this Alternative Rule of X account for things like Auro-Fire, Penetrating and other advantages?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Rule of X

 

How does this Alternative Rule of X account for things like Auto-Fire' date=' Penetrating and other advantages?[/quote']The Advantage is applied to the Damage Classes, so (for example) an 8d6 AP EB is treated as a 12d6 attack for purposes of the formula.

 

I'm not claiming this is the Ultimate Rule of X; only that we've used it for years and it seems to work as well or better than more complicated methods. That being the case, the simplest method would seem to be the most player and GM friendly. It's also really easy to take a quick look at a character and immediately see if they're within the guidelines; as opposed to pulling out a calculator or spreadsheet program to run a more complicated system.