Thoughts on new "house rule"

[JmOz]

More a campeign rule than a house rule.

 

It is a 300 point supers campeign (6th edition), and it comes in 2 parts

 

1) all characters are only allowed to spend 100 points on powers (including gear, and Super skills) & Talents

 

2) NCM is a ground rule, however a character can spend power points to go up to 1.5xNCM. These are at normal cost, but take from the 100 point power limit

 

I would like some feedback

[esampson]

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule"

 

First question would be 'what is the intent of this rule?'

 

It looks like you're trying to go for a street level feel but it would help if you could specify.

[JmOz]

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule"

 

Yes street level, I want to emphasise skills, and a gritty feel without being true Iron Age. I am hoping that characters are more than a collection of powers. I am going for a Batman/daredevil/spiderman/Moon Knight feel. I am hoping that a group of street thugs will be a decent challange, but one they should walk away from unscathed (as long as they don't get to recklace)

[esampson]

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule"

 

Well, my first impression is that setting a point limit is a bad idea. This is based on my own personal experiences. All it really does is reward people who min-max while doing little to actually limit the amount of power that characters have.

 

I think you'll be better off setting things such as DC, Defense, movement and characteristic ranges. If you're worried about people loading up too much on power and not having enough in skills you might want to institute some minimum requirements but I would probably stay away from a point cap.

[psyber624]

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule"

 

I have to agree with esampson on this. Saying you can only spend 100 points on powers only tends to encourage people to stick on limitations, power frameworks, etc to get their character the way they want him (not to mention that some gamers will flat out take that as a challenge).

 

Requiring a mandatory amount be spent on skills is one way to do it, other ways include reducing the cost of skills (or especially skill modifiers like jack of all trades), allowing "package" skills, giving every character the "Expert" skill modifier for free (but each one has to be a different type of expert). All of these ways encourage players to spend points on skills which tends to be better received than trying to force your players to do something.

 

NCM, AP caps for attacks, CV and DEF caps are all fairly standard in campaigns, setting them slightly lower than normal for this point breakdown would FURTHER emphasize the skill based nature of your campaign (instead of a combat oriented campaign).

 

In general trying to FORCE players to do things one way is less effective than encouraging them to play the way your campaign is being run. And if someone ignores all this and builds a character with no skills, politely inform them that the majority of game play will be involving skills and with this character s/he will likely be unable to participate in most of the "action". If they still insist I would let them go for it, but give them the option to "reroll" at a later date. If you are using caps for attacks and defenses the "combat whore" will not be significantly more powerful than the other characters in combat (as long as your checking their builds to prevent abuses). Hopefully they will get on board with your goals before too long.

[esampson]

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule"

 

You should also probably houserule things like no Megascale and No Range Modifiers only in limited circumstances (such as a missile which can correct itself in flight).