Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

If nothing else, this thread has certainly opened my eyes to the problems with "reward up front" style disadvantages. I used to be a pretty proponent for them but maybe the alternative method is better or at least less antagonistic.

 

I can see that too. There were a lot of "tacked on" disads in my games (guilty myself) that rarely came to play. Particularly psych quirks and disads.

 

And I'm sorry if I've been insulting to you, wasn't my intent. I do disagree with you on the game effect/roleplay effect "requirement" (for lack of a better word), but I think I could easily play in one of your games and hope you'd feel welcome in one of mine.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

And a player with a character with CvK can (and have) role played the choice in a similar fashion and not gotten 20 character points allegedly having limited choice in the matter. That's where it doesn't click for me.

 

I'm not dumping on other people's style. I'm not talking down to anyone. I've been running and playing Champions for decades, have had dozens of happy players. I'm not some Noob that you have to talk down too. I've tried not to be insulting. If I've failed in that, please show me where I'll apologize but I would appreciate similar courtesy.

 

I see Psychological Disadvantages as being just like any other Limitation. If they are not limiting then they are worth nothing. The guy with a Vulnerability to Fire doesn't get to ignore it because he role played his fear of Fire well neither should someone with a Total psych lim. You didn't have to take it, you were rewarded for it. I didn't say they were to "punish" the player but the violating them should carry some sort of penalty otherwise their basically pointless. All too often Psych lims are the ones that players try to weasel out of the instant the become inconvenient. They're considered "free points" in allot of games, thus the name Psych Crocks (as in Crock of (****), at least that's been my experience.

 

In 6e Complications don't give you extra points. They are something that are mandated by the GM be added to the character for depth. You can have less than the amount mandated by campaign guidelines, but you have to spend points to do so. What I am saying is that while it's good to use the Complications to create a good story. It's not part of the game that you have to hit players over the head about them. They don't give you points, they give you character depth and a roleplaying aid. Again they are called Complications and not Disadvantages.

 

Oh and I have been playing and running Hero system games since 2nd edition Champions. I have been around the block some.

 

I really don't think you understand what Disads and Complications are really about. They are about storytelling and Roleplaying. They don't "Give" points anymore. What they give is the basis of what the character is all about. A GM can look at a character and start to get a handle on what the character's story will be like and also parts of the Hero's personality.

 

The PC with CvK had to spend time agonizing about their choice. the PC without could have just pulled the trigger and been done with it. The PC with CvK couldn't casually just pull the trigger, in fact if they couldn't make their EGO roll they wouldn't have been able to muster the strength to do so. They would have had to allow the Universe to go boom. If that isn't a complication/Disadvantage I don't know what is.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I sincerely apologize if I've come off an insulting or short tempered. I try to respect other people's way of playing even if I don't agree with it. I think its really not as big a disparity between most of the opinions expressed in this thread as it might seem. But online communication is more conducive to arguing that discussion much of the time. Again, I apologize if I've caused any hard feelings.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

In 6e Complications don't give you extra points. They are something that are mandated by the GM be added to the character for depth. You can have less than the amount mandated by campaign guidelines, but you have to spend points to do so. What I am saying is that while it's good to use the Complications to create a good story. It's not part of the game that you have to hit players over the head about them. They don't give you points, they give you character depth and a roleplaying aid. Again they are called Complications and not Disadvantages.

 

Oh and I have been playing and running Hero system games since 2nd edition Champions. I have been around the block some.

 

I have no doubts but I didn't question abilities as a GM because I don't agree with how you'd handle something.

 

 

I really don't think you understand what Disads and Complications are really about. They are about storytelling and Roleplaying. They don't "Give" points anymore. What they give is the basis of what the character is all about. A GM can look at a character and start to get a handle on what the character's story will be like and also parts of the Hero's personality.

 

The PC with CvK had to spend time agonizing about their choice. the PC without could have just pulled the trigger and been done with it. The PC with CvK couldn't casually just pull the trigger, in fact if they couldn't make their EGO roll they wouldn't have been able to muster the strength to do so. They would have had to allow the Universe to go boom. If that isn't a complication/Disadvantage I don't know what is.

 

FYI: I'm using 5th edition.

 

Just in case I've drastically misunderstood something. If you take no Complications your character has the same amount of points as those that start with their allotment of Complication? They're entirely optional?

 

But you can role play a character without something written down. I feel that if you get a mechanical reward for it there should be some repercussions for ignoring it. As for the example stated we actually don't know what happened aside from he violated his CvK "without hesitation" but was "traumatized" by it. If the was satisfactory for the GM's game, good for them. I would have handled it differently in my games. But I don't think any minds are going to be changed here and I'd rather let it drop.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I can see that too. There were a lot of "tacked on" disads in my games (guilty myself) that rarely came to play. Particularly psych quirks and disads.

 

And I'm sorry if I've been insulting to you, wasn't my intent. I do disagree with you on the game effect/roleplay effect "requirement" (for lack of a better word), but I think I could easily play in one of your games and hope you'd feel welcome in one of mine.

 

I've been rolling around an idea about trying to get the best of both worlds and splitting flaws into two categories, call them Soft and Hard (for lack of a better term). "Hard" flaws would be mechanical, things like Vulnerabilities, Susceptibilities, etc. Generally in the hands of the GM. "Soft" Flaws would be more RP based, Psych Lims, Social problems, Hunted, phsyical handicaps, etc. Hard flaws would give points up front, Soft flaws would be rewarded if/when they come up in play as a hinderance. The player could forgo the bennie and ignore them if they wished.

 

But that's getting off topic

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Not really off topic, I don't think and an interesting idea

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I have no doubts but I didn't question abilities as a GM because I don't agree with how you'd handle something.

 

FYI: I'm using 5th edition.

 

Just in case I've drastically misunderstood something. If you take no Complications your character has the same amount of points as those that start with their allotment of Complication? They're entirely optional?

 

But you can role play a character without something written down. I feel that if you get a mechanical reward for it there should be some repercussions for ignoring it. As for the example stated we actually don't know what happened aside from he violated his CvK "without hesitation" but was "traumatized" by it. If the was satisfactory for the GM's game, good for them. I would have handled it differently in my games. But I don't think any minds are going to be changed here and I'd rather let it drop.

 

While you are a 400pt character you either take the 75pts in Complications or pay out of your Point budget the points you come up short. I don't see many people doing that seeing as a 400pt character only has to come up with 75 pts in disadvantages. While a 5th ed 350pt character has to come up with 150pts. Different edition aside. My point is that the rule changed because Disads were always meant to be seen in the same way as 6e. The name change and different way of looking at character point budget proves it. IMHO people are way to dogmatic about the rules and have really gotten very inflexible in the way they approach things. I think that this idea that people must pay for their limits and complications has really hurt the game. Taken it away from the story telling system that I really love.

 

Hero is the storytelling system for people who want a strong rules set to back up their storytelling and roleplaying. The Disad/Complications really force people to look at their characters as more than just a pile of words and points. Just coming up with Hunteds, Watched, Psych Comps, etc changes the way you look at the character. It forces you to see Flaming person as more than the flame bolt and flight. It also makes you remember that Flaming P doesn't kill people, that they are protective of innocents, That they cheezed Eurostar off and are being hunted by them.

 

Of all of the Disads Psychs and Socials are the most nebulous. Just about everything else either has a dice amount, roll for frequence, or a multiplier. As a GM you have to trust that a Player is using their Psychs. Social Complications are a bit more GM/story driven. As a GM you should know the PC's psychs just in case you need to nudge the player into taking it into account (heck everyone forgets stuff from time to time). Properly played they are the strongest part of the character. They shape a character's attitude about everything. Yeah someone without "Protects Innocents" will sometimes jump in front of attacks to save a bystander. If someone has the Disad/complication it's nearly guaranteed. They shouldn't just get an ego roll to ignore the car about to kill the bystanders, they don't have a choice besides how they are going to save the normal. IMHO you get the roll only if what they are doing is just as important to the Psych. You have asked me time and again how this disadvantages the character. Ask, the character that jumps in front of the 6d6 killing attack when they have 10 resistant defenses how CvK is not a disad. I think that anything that makes PC's do something beside what the player would be normally inclined to do is worth some points. esp since in combat things like that can cause real combat and scenario disadvantage. These things adding difficulties that wouldn't be there if the character didn't have said Disad.

 

The CvK character vs the Guy that going to destroy the universe is really bad storytelling. Anytime you have a situation with only one way out is not good GMing. There should have been some other way for CvK person to defeat the scenario. Otherwise you as GM are relying on ONE roll being made at -5 or your campaign is destroyed. Not a great way to deal with a final encounter. That the CvK guy made his roll is a plain miracle, but I have known players that would have not killed the bad guy no matter what. They would have allowed the Universe to die hoping they could come up with a different answer (This would have included sacrificing their character to save everything)

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I've been rolling around an idea about trying to get the best of both worlds and splitting flaws into two categories, call them Soft and Hard (for lack of a better term). "Hard" flaws would be mechanical, things like Vulnerabilities, Susceptibilities, etc. Generally in the hands of the GM. "Soft" Flaws would be more RP based, Psych Lims, Social problems, Hunted, phsyical handicaps, etc. Hard flaws would give points up front, Soft flaws would be rewarded if/when they come up in play as a hinderance. The player could forgo the bennie and ignore them if they wished.

 

But that's getting off topic

 

So you punish the Players that come up with RP sets of Complications while rewarding those that come up with the combat complications?

 

It's so easy to come up with situations that those so called "Soft" Disads come into play. Most of the Soft Disads depend on the GM actually working them into a story. Also psychs can subtly change the way that Player approaches part of an adventure. So would you have someone make a big deal out of being stuck in an elevator but not have access to the points of the disad till the 3rd adventure when you the GM decides to have the game in an underground base with small elevators? That doesn't sound real fair.

 

Perhaps our difference is that you run scenarios for people with powers, kind of a hack and slash version of the game. While I have been in games that try to have stories that work in the character's disads. I kind of doubt that you are that kind of GM, but I am trying to understand your point of view.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

While you are a 400pt character you either take the 75pts in Complications or pay out of your Point budget the points you come up short. I don't see many people doing that seeing as a 400pt character only has to come up with 75 pts in disadvantages. While a 5th ed 350pt character has to come up with 150pts.

 

We've lowered the Disadvantage total required for quite awhile so its really not that different.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

While you are a 400pt character you either take the 75pts in Complications or pay out of your Point budget the points you come up short. I don't see many people doing that seeing as a 400pt character only has to come up with 75 pts in disadvantages. While a 5th ed 350pt character has to come up with 150pts. Different edition aside. My point is that the rule changed because Disads were always meant to be seen in the same way as 6e. The name change and different way of looking at character point budget proves it. IMHO people are way to dogmatic about the rules and have really gotten very inflexible in the way they approach things. I think that this idea that people must pay for their limits and complications has really hurt the game. Taken it away from the story telling system that I really love.

 

Hero is the storytelling system for people who want a strong rules set to back up their storytelling and roleplaying. The Disad/Complications really force people to look at their characters as more than just a pile of words and points. Just coming up with Hunteds, Watched, Psych Comps, etc changes the way you look at the character. It forces you to see Flaming person as more than the flame bolt and flight. It also makes you remember that Flaming P doesn't kill people, that they are protective of innocents, That they cheezed Eurostar off and are being hunted by them.

 

Of all of the Disads Psychs and Socials are the most nebulous. Just about everything else either has a dice amount, roll for frequence, or a multiplier. As a GM you have to trust that a Player is using their Psychs. Social Complications are a bit more GM/story driven. As a GM you should know the PC's psychs just in case you need to nudge the player into taking it into account (heck everyone forgets stuff from time to time). Properly played they are the strongest part of the character. They shape a character's attitude about everything. Yeah someone without "Protects Innocents" will sometimes jump in front of attacks to save a bystander. If someone has the Disad/complication it's nearly guaranteed. They shouldn't just get an ego roll to ignore the car about to kill the bystanders, they don't have a choice besides how they are going to save the normal. IMHO you get the roll only if what they are doing is just as important to the Psych. You have asked me time and again how this disadvantages the character. Ask, the character that jumps in front of the 6d6 killing attack when they have 10 resistant defenses how CvK is not a disad. I think that anything that makes PC's do something beside what the player would be normally inclined to do is worth some points. esp since in combat things like that can cause real combat and scenario disadvantage. These things adding difficulties that wouldn't be there if the character didn't have said Disad.

 

The CvK character vs the Guy that going to destroy the universe is really bad storytelling. Anytime you have a situation with only one way out is not good GMing. There should have been some other way for CvK person to defeat the scenario. Otherwise you as GM are relying on ONE roll being made at -5 or your campaign is destroyed. Not a great way to deal with a final encounter. That the CvK guy made his roll is a plain miracle, but I have known players that would have not killed the bad guy no matter what. They would have allowed the Universe to die hoping they could come up with a different answer (This would have included sacrificing their character to save everything)

 

Well, I'm sorry you feel that I am poor GM. The people I play with seem to be enjoying themselves so its all good.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Not really off topic' date=' I don't think and an interesting idea[/quote']

 

Thank you. Its obviously not perfect (some Disadvantages are in middle is one problem) but I want to see if I hammer the whole thing into shape in time for a fresh campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Thanks' date=' I couldn't remember the team name/scenario name. Always thought that was some of the worst advice I'd ever seen ...[/quote']

 

Well it was one of the ways to give a "actions have consequences" lesson.

Honestly, there's a lot more made of enforcing genre rules for Supers Games than any other genre, IMO.

Apparently the assumption is that Gamers never leave the "Kill them and take their stuff" mode regardless of genre.

 

The problem with the Gilt Complex scenario is that it's so blatant and heavy-handed that it doesn't teach anybody anything. It's like when a movie beats you over the head with the message. "Message' date=' here's the MESSAGE, make sure you don't miss the [b']MESSAAAAAAGE![/b]" and just results in you not caring. The 'Takes body from Ego attacks' thing is especially egregious (*drink*).

 

In defense not of the Gilt Complex, but of the author, reading the entire article puts them into context. The writer notes that this approach should be a last resort, and discussion with the players should be undertaken long before matters get to this state. But really, the Gilt Complex is only an extreme of putting a villain with limited defenses into play. Should the Supers never encounter a highly skilled, extreme DCV martial artist or speedster who has human-level defenses and will be seriously injured by a 12 DC attack? To me, communication is the key - after years of all opponents having 20+ defenses, and PC's never facing issues when they use full power attacks, tossing in a bunch of fragile opponents seems like dirty pool. If, however, the GM has made players aware that there are no guarantees in this regard, he's not out of line tossing in a villain or two with defenses of 4.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I'm talking about making the Disad/Complication worth the points it granted the character. Players role play just fine without an accompanying Psychological Limitation. But if you want full control over your character regarding something I don't think you should take a Limitation for it' date=' at least not one that gives you points. Over the years most of the time when playing the "role playing" generated by Psych lims has been trying to get out of them the moment actually become limiting and worth the points you got for them so I've gotten pretty hard on them. My new group is pretty good though. [/quote']

 

The CvK character vs the Guy that going to destroy the universe is really bad storytelling. Anytime you have a situation with only one way out is not good GMing. There should have been some other way for CvK person to defeat the scenario. Otherwise you as GM are relying on ONE roll being made at -5 or your campaign is destroyed. Not a great way to deal with a final encounter. That the CvK guy made his roll is a plain miracle' date=' but I have known players that would have not killed the bad guy no matter what. They would have allowed the Universe to die hoping they could come up with a different answer (This would have included sacrificing their character to save everything)[/quote']

 

There are bad examples on both sides - players who just discard their psych limits when they become mildly inconvenient are out there. So are GM's who will throw in challenges that can only be solved if the character violates his psych limits, and will then beat him up however he handles it. "Oh, the world is destroyed because you couldn't get over your aversion to killing" or "you violated your Psych Lim, so you get no xp/are now an NPC/have 15d6 Unluck" are the only possible results. This is no better than the player just discarding their limitations.

 

Sometimes, the story is about the hero overcoming his limitations. My players don't often ask to roll to overcome their psych's - they play them out. On occasion, they see a situation where the character would, through good role playing, seek to overcome a Psych. In those cases, they may ask to make a roll - and the GM could say "no", could allow the roll (perhaps with circumstantial bonuses or penalties) or could waive the roll entirely. It depends entirely on the situation.

 

Good role playing? We had a character with high Overconfidence. On one occasion, asked his DCV, he replied "4". Another player looked across the table and said "What's your DEX?". The answer was "23. But I've never heard of this clown - he can't be a threat to ME. So I'm not making any real effort to avoid his attack." The same character, faced with Firewing, challenged him to duel one on one. As Ph 12 of the first full turn rolled in, Firewing launched an attack, the player said "I made an Ego roll by 7 - can I dodge?" I really don't think I would have required the Ego roll given the circumstances (his reasoning was that he could stay in the fight a few more phases if he got to PS 12 - and turn things around, of course). The character lost the battle, but he delayed and impressed Firewing enough that the rest of the team could accomplish the main goal, a scenario the players remember well over a dozen years later. Didi he "just discard" his psych lim, or did he role play the character?

 

By contrast, I'd say any player asking for an Ego roll every time a Psych comes up should be asked to buy it off.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

In defense not of the Gilt Complex' date=' but of the author, reading the entire article puts them into context. The writer notes that this approach should be a last resort, and discussion with the players should be undertaken long before matters get to this state. But really, the Gilt Complex is only an extreme of putting a villain with limited defenses into play. Should the Supers never encounter a highly skilled, extreme DCV martial artist or speedster who has human-level defenses and will be seriously injured by a 12 DC attack? To me, communication is the key - after years of all opponents having 20+ defenses, and PC's never facing issues when they use full power attacks, tossing in a bunch of fragile opponents seems like dirty pool. If, however, the GM has made players aware that there are no guarantees in this regard, he's not out of line tossing in a villain or two with defenses of 4.[/quote']

 

If you tried discussion, and it didn't work, then IMHO the correct response is to cash in the game; let the problem player(s) go, or just stop running the game if they're all problems. Abusing the characters for the actions of the players is meaningless; you're just treating the symptoms and not the disease, and you're just lowering yourself to their level. One shouldn't respond to bad playing with bad GMing.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

In defense not of the Gilt Complex' date=' but of the author, reading the entire article puts them into context. The writer notes that this approach should be a last resort, and discussion with the players should be undertaken long before matters get to this state. But really, the Gilt Complex is only an extreme of putting a villain with limited defenses into play. Should the Supers never encounter a highly skilled, extreme DCV martial artist or speedster who has human-level defenses and will be seriously injured by a 12 DC attack? To me, communication is the key - after years of all opponents having 20+ defenses, and PC's never facing issues when they use full power attacks, tossing in a bunch of fragile opponents seems like dirty pool. If, however, the GM has made players aware that there are no guarantees in this regard, he's not out of line tossing in a villain or two with defenses of 4.[/quote']

 

I agree that if the GM has been up front about it as one of the challanges that will be faced its fair play. It actually helps with versilmilutude to have a range of antagonists that aren't "balanced' to the PCs. It maked things feel more like an open world and not so artificial, IMO.

[Orion]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

There seems to be a general assumption among most Hero players and GMs that every villain has high defenses. I've never understood this, as it does not conform to the genre. Most genre tropes seem to be written in stone, but not this one. Requiring every superhuman to have either a force field or high inherent defenses can be done, but just seems off to me. And if every super has a spandex outfit that gives 20PD, I'm going to expect it to be common for every cop, agent, and mook as well. Lord knows every overprotective soccer mom is not going to let her precious child wear anything less protective if it is available.

 

In my current campaign setting, at least half the bad guys do not have high defenses. If the villain has super strength, it's a very safe bet that he'll have enhanced defenses as well, but projectors, mentalists, and mages often do not, and it's very rare for martial artists to have more than 5 or 6 PD. Getting decent body armor is a key concern in the early storyline of the hero group. For any established villain there is general knowledge of their defenses, but for anyone new, the defense or lack thereof is a concern of the players. If players don't want to have to deal with this, I'll bump up the defenses or only use those with high defenses, but it's not the default.

 

This said, I expect villains to be killed, and the heroes definitely expect the villains to try and kill them. Players are strongly encouraged to have some type of resistant defenses. Mooks and agents carry guns, and they aren't afraid to use them. Cops typically shoot first, ask questions later, when powers are being used in a threatening manner. To a cop, holding a gun to a hostage and holding a glowing fist to the hostage is the same thing, and gets the same response. Players don't have to react in the same manner, but I don't mind if they do. They aren't heroes - they are super-powered cops that may or may not have a badge. I would discourage a strong CvK, but would not disallow it out of hand. I would disallow the crazy killer archetype, but a vigilante that targets certain individuals is fine.

 

In many cops shows, the bad guy gets shot at the end of the episode. It's almost always justified, of course. The cop never shows signs of remorse or mental problems - it was just another day on the job. The cop also rarely gets suspended, you never hear about an investigation, and no one seems to mind that the cop shoots 10 people a year. This would never fly in real life, of course, but it's a widely used trope. This is how I handle killing by default. Not at all realistic, but I have little interest in dealing with the bad press, investigations, court cases, etc. We can do all of this if the players wish, but I won't bother unless they ask for a storyline to include it in part of the campaign setup.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

There seems to be a general assumption among most Hero players and GMs that every villain has high defenses. I've never understood this' date=' as it does not conform to the genre. [/quote']

 

I tend to think of it was one of those things were a game just can't duplicate the source material. In the comics, the author has total creative control over the events of the story; he doesn't roll dice, doesn't have to worry about a player being annoyed at having to sit out the fight because he got waylaid by a lucky shot early. Guys like Spider-Man and Nightcrawler can dodge bullets all day long without having to sweat about a lucky 3. He doesn't have to worry about balance; if he needs Ant-Man to be the big hero while Thor goes out like a chump, that's what happens. That works fine in the fiction, but is harder if not impossible to deal with at a game table where every player deserves the chance to participate.

 

Genre emulation is secondary to the needs of the game table, IMNSHO.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I tend to think of it was one of those things were a game just can't duplicate the source material. In the comics, the author has total creative control over the events of the story; he doesn't roll dice, doesn't have to worry about a player being annoyed at having to sit out the fight because he got waylaid by a lucky shot early. Guys like Spider-Man and Nightcrawler can dodge bullets all day long without having to sweat about a lucky 3. He doesn't have to worry about balance; if he needs Ant-Man to be the big hero while Thor goes out like a chump, that's what happens. That works fine in the fiction, but is harder if not impossible to deal with at a game table where every player deserves the chance to participate.

 

Genre emulation is secondary to the needs of the game table, IMNSHO.

 

I agree completely, well said. I'd rep you but I seem to have given you rep too recently to allow that

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Well' date=' I'm sorry you feel that I am poor GM. The people I play with seem to be enjoying themselves so its all good.[/quote']

 

I didn't say that you were a poor GM, and I am sorry that you think that I was implying that.

 

The only thing I said was bad GMing was the Make an ego roll at -5 or allow the universe to die.

 

I was trying to make a point about how Psych Limits are probably one of the few Disads that effect the character most of the time. In ways that sometimes are not readily apparent to someone not playing the character.

 

Yes there are people who don't play their disads, but heck those are the same people who don't fess up to having Vulnerabilities and suceptabilities. That's why it's really up to the GM to know the PC's decently well enough to know when Disads/Complications come up.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I didn't say that you were a poor GM, and I am sorry that you think that I was implying that.

 

The only thing I said was bad GMing was the Make an ego roll at -5 or allow the universe to die.

 

I'm always amazed how many scenarios, home made or published, create a situation where a single roll determines whether the heroes succeed or fail. I find the dice will rarely perform to averages and expectations on that one, singularly important roll.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I tend to think of it was one of those things were a game just can't duplicate the source material. In the comics, the author has total creative control over the events of the story; he doesn't roll dice, doesn't have to worry about a player being annoyed at having to sit out the fight because he got waylaid by a lucky shot early. Guys like Spider-Man and Nightcrawler can dodge bullets all day long without having to sweat about a lucky 3. He doesn't have to worry about balance; if he needs Ant-Man to be the big hero while Thor goes out like a chump, that's what happens. That works fine in the fiction, but is harder if not impossible to deal with at a game table where every player deserves the chance to participate.

 

Genre emulation is secondary to the needs of the game table, IMNSHO.

 

Very well put.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I'm always amazed how many scenarios' date=' home made or published, create a situation where a single roll determines whether the heroes succeed or fail. I find the dice will rarely perform to averages and expectations on that one, singularly important roll.[/quote']

 

Yeah it's really easy to fall into that trap. Having the whole scenario hinging on the PC's making that one roll, and no backup plan for when they Miss the roll. I find myself sometimes doing that without thinking about it (ie they need to make a Charm or Persuasion skill roll to find the info that leads to the next part of the investigation). I usually catch it before it becomes an issue, but it sure is one easy trap to put yourself into.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I dislike CvK and avoid it for all my characters unless the GM absolutely requires it, at which point I take it at the minimum possible level that the GM will allow... probably grumbling and gnashing my teeth the whole time.

 

I still roleplay most of my characters as if they had a CvK to one degree or another. I don't go for casual killer types unless the game is very dark in tone. Even my assassins have personal moral codes about who they will and will not kill. I have a two major D&D characters that have very strict CvK's and my upcoming Star Wars character is something of a pacifist as well, despite the fact he's probably going to have a lightsaber in the not so distant future. We'll just have to see how he reacts to the Jedi Code...

 

To kill or not to kill is just too big a decision for me to trust anyone else with making it for me... and that especially includes the luck of the damn dice.

 

However, some of this may also be my own personal experiences as they relate to violence as well as the limits of my suspension of disbelief. I can deal with Superman and Batman's total CvK in the comics so long as I don't think about it too much, but I really don't think I could deal with the hypocrisy of it all as a player.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I see total CVK's to be a genre trope, primarily. It works well with the vanilla ruleset because the original Champions rules were designed to mimic this particular genre, coming from the late Silver/early Bronze view of comics in 1980. I generally dislike CVK's because I'm not fond of the Silver Age or it's sensibilities, being the result of what was left to the Comics after the repression and censorship of the McCarthy era. I can cope with CVK's in a bronze game where there are logical consequences to such an extreme POV, but even there I prefer lower levels than Total. The "Kill or let the world be destroyed" example is just one of the many possible paradoxes a total CVK can find themselves in, and the "logic" applied to these beliefs are usually full of contradictions.

 

I guess, in summary, I see many if not most Total psych's as something close to irrational/aberrant mental states, as they can over-ride the brains survival imperative, which is usually the sign of something that has it's roots in a place of fear. Fear of being labeled a monster, fear of the damage you can do, fear of what killing will let you become... I've seen all these in bronze treatments of Supes & Bats. They are, IMO, a valid way to approach a CVK realistically, but the conditions to create such an abberant state should make those characters with CVKs noteworthy rather than commonjplace.

 

My Champs games are usually pretty close to Orion's methods above

[Tech]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

In the campaign I'm in, almost all the heroes have CvK. As for killers, there are few in the campaign. Those that are in the campaign generally involve plots where the heroes become aware of the killers plan to kill a target and they stop said plan. Sometimes, the hero(s) themselves are the target.