Find Weakness

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

Do you think that the typical superhero team is workable in a Champions setting? Would you have fun playing Robin in a team with Superman, Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter on it? Would you play a character with a 8d6 attack in the same group as someone with a 20d6 attack?

 

Caps are there to ensure that everyone has fun and can contribute in a combat. You can have a sliding scale where someone who does more damage pays for it by having less CV or defenses, but I firmly believe that all characters on a team should be relatively equal.

I could have a lot of fun playing anyone in the Fantastic Four.

 

Actually, we played our own version of the Teen Titans in a Marvel/DC based campaign. I played Speedy and had a blast. There was a Superboy, Aquaboy (with water manipulation powers), and a few others that were all on that sort of level. I was the only trained hero and my big attacks were at the bottom of the pile. I had a blast though. ...and Superboy had something like a 20d6 attack while my big attacks were around 10d6.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

This sounds like you're saying that 99+% of campaigns would have a blanket ban on megascale movements usable as an attack.

 

The fact is that there are legal but highly abusive rules constructs that should have a blanket ban on them. Here are a couple off the top of my head:

 

1) Buy 1 googol plex charges that never recover. Not only do you never worry about end, but you get a net -1 limitation on every power you have.

 

2) If your character spends 20 end per phase or less, then buy 1 googleplex charges of 20 end reserve. Active cost of 2 with a +1 advantage for 4 total points and you never have to worry about end again. If you want to get even more abusive, buy 1 googolplex charges of 200 end reserve that never recovers. Net cost of 10 pts, and now you can slap on X10 end cost for a -4 limitation on every single power that you have.

 

I frankly wouldn't want to play in a campaign where the GM would consider allowing these constructs. I can't imagine any GM ever allowing stuff like this, and I wouldn't hesitate in putting a blanket ban on anything resembling these constructs. I consider stuff like rocket punch to be in the same category, since for 3 active points, you can wipe out virtually everybody.

 

If someone feels that FW is abusive, it's his right and I wouldn't think any less of him if he chose to not allow it for multiple attacks.

 

Everybody has some form of blanket ban. The only question is the degree.

 

 

 

Exactly. The GM has the final say, even though he has to work with the player. And if the player doesn't want to follow the GM's ground rules in building characters, maybe he shouldn't play in the campaign.

No. Everyone has the final say. If the GM has rules the player really doesn't like they don't have to play.

 

Gary, you are getting silly with these power constructions. None of my players try to build characters like that.

[MisterD]

One FW option I have is the character with FW also needs a related skill.

 

FW and and Anatomy skill (FW only vs people.)

 

FW and Architecture Skill (FW only vs buildings (Helps with demolition damage))

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

But he didn't refer to Robin with the JL. He referred to the F4, a team with variations but all around equivalent. Perhaps even built on the same points. Use the early X-Men if you prefer.

 

I can't speak for how AgentX feels about caps, but I don't think he was referring to that so much as varying constructs for which you have to apply some thought on how the powers work out (not to imply Gary that you don't want to apply that thought).

 

Personally, I don't even like caps. I think they inhibit character design and encourage players to play up to the cap. The points are as far as I'm willing to go.

That is why I bristled. I had a hard time understanding why someone would assume there is no credible reason, ever, to use a power that is designed in the book to be used that way. It was really surprising. I think some gamers get a little too caught up on how something could be abused and, frankly, it smacks of mistrust of players. I don't like to be in an adversarial position with my GM. If they don't trust me to use Find Weakness correctly from the get-go, I have a problem with that.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

But then you get players who are far better than other players in building characters. And you might even end up with Robin and Superman on the same team if you get a novice playing alongside an experienced player.

 

Anyway, how would caps inhibit character design? Why wouldn't someone with 60 pt powers be just as "conceptual" as someone with 90 pt powers?

This usually isn't a problem if the players give each other feedback before the game starts.

 

"Ummm, you know I'm playing a flying bullet-proof guy who can desolid and see through walls, right? I'm not sure you want to run a normal guy only with wings. You probably won't have much to do."

[Zan the Gamer]

AgentX Said:

This usually isn't a problem if the players give each other feedback before the game starts.

 

"Ummm, you know I'm playing a flying bullet-proof guy who can desolid and see through walls, right? I'm not sure you want to run a normal guy only with wings. You probably won't have much to do."

*******************************

But isn't that still limiting the winged character and not letting him have HIS concept? If you impose some sort of Point max in characters and a starting damamge cap that removes after gameplay starts, them your characters can start to branch out after they start very near each other in max damage.

 

Also it depends on the setting of the world they will be playing in. Your Brick concept may include a 100 Str, 20 D6 punch, but in a world most people (including villains) can only can take the damage of 12 -15 D6 attack, you will be over-powered.

 

I know some games where 20 D6 is the average attack, and I really wanted to avoid that. I scaled my world down so the characters are all just starting out in their careers. They don't know all their powers yet, they haven't reached the max potential in the powers they DO have, and the average attack is 8 D6. The rest of the world's heroes and villains are the same way. My problem is the character who decides his concept is to be the Superman among humans. That's fine for a more powerful game, but not for MY concept of the world they live in. Doesn't the GM get a concept as the storyteller?

[Killer Shrike]

Zan, of course you as the GM have the right to lay the ground rules, and if the players dont like it they dont have to play.

 

But specifically regarding FW, I suggest you collect more data before nerfing it. Were the "constructs" in the original scenario actually built as Automatons? If yes, temper your judgement of FW's effectiveness.

[KnightShade]

There are ways to avoid that without nerfing abilities you don't like. If everyone is based on say, 250 points, you're going to get people designing 150 point attacks because they won't have points left over enough to be effective.

 

Assuming everything is fitting to concept, as long as everyone is based on the same number of points, they will, more or less be balanced. That's the foundation of the Hero system, that 50 points spent in one place is equivalent to 50 points spent on somethign else. The GM has control of the world they live in, but if you take the only control the players have (character creation), then you might as well play something else. The GM has control over the environment and over the NPCs. Play to the character's disads, whether that means kidnapping their DNPCs, or forcing them into a situation where the powers they bought aren't effective (maybe they have to solve a puzzle instead of killing the bad guy).

 

The main problem is you're trying to balance something that's already balanced. Sure, it can be abused, and abuse should be stopped, but trying to make new rules to keep abuse from being possible limit everyone else. Cars can be abused, but we don't just take all the cars away from everyone, we just punish abuse of it. I say until a character abuses a power (or designs a power specifically for abuse, like 1 gazillion nonrecoverable charges, etc.) let them use it, with the knowledge that abuse will be punished.

 

If a character with FW uses it too much on one character, and splatters him with one hit, people will notice. Cops will arrest the character because he used way too much force, the villains cohorts will all gang-rape the character, etc. Be creative. Creative answers that stop things are better than the non-creative "GM says no."

 

The point it to have fun. Have fun with it.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Zan, of course you as the GM have the right to lay the ground rules, and if the players dont like it they dont have to play.

 

But specifically regarding FW, I suggest you collect more data before nerfing it. Were the "constructs" in the original scenario actually built as Automatons? If yes, temper your judgement of FW's effectiveness.

 

I'm still concerned about the coupling of that FW with the KA.

[Zan the Gamer]

Actually, no. They were telepathic alien rock monsters (kinda cool ). Not actual contructs.

 

I've seen 2 suggestions that look good for the campaign I would like to run...

 

1. FW -4 to the roll on the second attempt.

 

2. Once you've attacked after you've found their weakness, you must make you rolls again to hit the weak spot again.

 

Either way I'd limit it's use to only 2 times. 1/8 defenses on the villains in the world they'd be playing in would make them far too weak. And raising their defenses or LoW risks the villain being too tough (not good for the team) or making the FW roll too hard to hit at all (not good for the player).

 

Agent X brought up a good point that bans and nerfs basically suggest lack of trust in the player. But if the power is limiting aspects the trustworthy character would never use because of it being to powerful, why is there a problem? The fact that a player insists on those options being there says he wants to use that part as well.

[KnightShade]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

Actually, no. They were telepathic alien rock monsters (kinda cool ). Not actual contructs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agent X brought up a good point that bans and nerfs basically suggest lack of trust in the player. But if the power is limiting aspects the trustworthy character would never use because of it being to powerful, why is there a problem? The fact that a player insists on those options being there says he wants to use that part as well.

 

I'm still convinced they were constructs, but as for that last part, the abilities are necessarily being designed that way because they're powerful, they're being designed that way because it fits the concept.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

AgentX Said:

This usually isn't a problem if the players give each other feedback before the game starts.

 

"Ummm, you know I'm playing a flying bullet-proof guy who can desolid and see through walls, right? I'm not sure you want to run a normal guy only with wings. You probably won't have much to do."

*******************************

But isn't that still limiting the winged character and not letting him have HIS concept? If you impose some sort of Point max in characters and a starting damamge cap that removes after gameplay starts, them your characters can start to branch out after they start very near each other in max damage.

 

Also it depends on the setting of the world they will be playing in. Your Brick concept may include a 100 Str, 20 D6 punch, but in a world most people (including villains) can only can take the damage of 12 -15 D6 attack, you will be over-powered.

 

I know some games where 20 D6 is the average attack, and I really wanted to avoid that. I scaled my world down so the characters are all just starting out in their careers. They don't know all their powers yet, they haven't reached the max potential in the powers they DO have, and the average attack is 8 D6. The rest of the world's heroes and villains are the same way. My problem is the character who decides his concept is to be the Superman among humans. That's fine for a more powerful game, but not for MY concept of the world they live in. Doesn't the GM get a concept as the storyteller?

I haven't seen the need for a point cap or damage cap. We just build our characters and get feedback from one another.

 

On the winged guy - He can play the winged guy. It's just going to very hard for him to play a significant role when compared to your typical super. If he likes that then fine. If, like I would suspect for most players, he finds out it's not too fun then he can have a radiation accident or start up a new character.

 

Hey, if you got a theme going there are going to obvious limits. I just got the feeling some people have pet peeves that they impose on everyone else even when it isn't called for by the genre.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm still concerned about the coupling of that FW with the KA.

Why?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

Actually, no. They were telepathic alien rock monsters (kinda cool ). Not actual contructs.

 

I've seen 2 suggestions that look good for the campaign I would like to run...

 

1. FW -4 to the roll on the second attempt.

 

2. Once you've attacked after you've found their weakness, you must make you rolls again to hit the weak spot again.

 

Either way I'd limit it's use to only 2 times. 1/8 defenses on the villains in the world they'd be playing in would make them far too weak. And raising their defenses or LoW risks the villain being too tough (not good for the team) or making the FW roll too hard to hit at all (not good for the player).

 

Agent X brought up a good point that bans and nerfs basically suggest lack of trust in the player. But if the power is limiting aspects the trustworthy character would never use because of it being to powerful, why is there a problem? The fact that a player insists on those options being there says he wants to use that part as well.

I have used find weakness as a player and I didn't feel I was abusive. I have had players in game with find weakness when I gm and there was no harm to their use of find weakness. Find Weakness, is not in and of itself, an indication of an abusive player.

 

Limiting to 2 rolls is a moot point anyway concerning the diminishing returns. On a character with 25 pd he has 13 with the first roll and 6 with the second roll. A third roll knocks it down to 3. The third roll nets the find weakness 3 more stun! They would probably find better things to do with their 1/2 move, like find weakness on the next victim, rather than go a third time. I think you are also discounting the real limits of find weakness being a 1/2 action. It takes away the luxury of moving from most characters and moving is gooooood. If a character wants to be maneuverable they have to delay an attack to the next phase and that is a significant trade-off. And just wait till find weakness guy is outnumbered. It's difficult for find weakness to come in that handy when ganged up on buy a gaggle of lower powered supers.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Complete tangent, but what system(s) would you name that fit this description? Do they all fall into that sort of diceless or similarly determinist mode?

I think a classic example would be AD&D. They make it very hard to play a number of concepts because they want to maintain game balance to the exclusion of emulating many common character concepts from fiction.

[Killer Shrike]

Maybe we should start a not-for-profit organization, the Find Weakness Anti-Defamation Association (FWADA).

 

Agent X can be the President and Spokesperson. Ill be the treasurer, so just make all donations out to me (all my best friends call me "CASH").

 

Dont waste time, join now!

[KnightShade]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Maybe we should start a not-for-profit organization, the Find Weakness Anti-Defamation Association (FWADA).

 

Agent X can be the President and Spokesperson. Ill be the treasurer, so just make all donations out to me (all my best friends call me "CASH").

 

Dont waste time, join now!

 

lol, can I be chairman??

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

Why?

 

Just in the context of the original poster's campaign and how his supers/villains are constructed, it seems like the bigger issue may be the somewhat large killing attack wielded by a hero - he expressed concern that the hero would be killing bad guys. I think the issue isn't so much the FW then as the KA - and certainly the two combined.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

I think a classic example would be AD&D. They make it very hard to play a number of concepts because they want to maintain game balance to the exclusion of emulating many common character concepts from fiction.

 

Huh, I never thought of AD&D as particularly balanced. But I didn't play it more than maybe a dozen times or so.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by KnightShade

lol, can I be chairman??

 

Dibs on "that guy who barely shows up to board meetings".

 

Hey, I'm interested, just not that much!

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by KnightShade

lol, can I be chairman??

So long as you send a donation you can be anything you like (except treasurer).

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by zornwil

Dibs on "that guy who barely shows up to board meetings".

 

Hey, I'm interested, just not that much!

You'll fit right in. In fact, as the first order of business I nominate that we have no further meetings. All in favor?

 

Aye!

 

Since Im the only person here, the Aye's have it. Ah, the democratic process in operation, what an idealisticly appealing thing!

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Huh, I never thought of AD&D as particularly balanced. But I didn't play it more than maybe a dozen times or so.

I didn't say they succeeded. The class system and their decisions were obviously attempts to maintain balance. They said as much in those old Dragon Forums (and in some of the rulebooks) I used to read.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Because many people will design to the cap, rather than not worrying that their attack is lower than everyone else's.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the impact affects everyone, but I've seen many people react to caps that way. I don't like it. I want to see YOUR idea without knowing some ideal state (other than total points - and I've liked playing in some games where even the points aren't spelt out, though personally I haven't GMed that yet).

 

As they say, some conceptions are more equal than others. One player may have a conception where he has 100 pt powers and be good enough to design that conception. Another player may have a conception where 50 pt powers are good enough or be a poor enough character designer where he can't do better. If that's the case, then one of them will have to modify their conceptions.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

No. Everyone has the final say. If the GM has rules the player really doesn't like they don't have to play.

 

Gary, you are getting silly with these power constructions. None of my players try to build characters like that.

 

No player would try to get away with a construct like that because they know it would be immediately banned. At least in every campaign I've ever been in.