Are Champions battles to predictable?

[phydaux]

I was reviewing my list of PCs, NPCs and home made CU villains. I'd say at least HALF of them have the same colection of attacks - the "FYB" attacks: 4D6 Flash vs. Sight AOE Cone, 6D6 Entangle & 6D6 NND.

 

Not only that, but those attacks are such a staple of all the Champs games I've played that all my PCs and all my villains have Flash Defense and some form of self contained breathing.

 

Does anyone else find this to be the case?

[Monolith]

I do not have those problems because I make players buy things for there character that are within concept. I just do not let them buy random attack and defense powers just because they are available.

 

Design characters around concept instead of efficiency and you will never find attacks to be too predictable.

[Hermit]

I have to go with Monolith. Concept and In character reasons for things are the way to go. Very few of my Players' characters have entangle for example, because it doesn't suit many of them. Yes, sometimes they get flash defense, or enhanced senses to deal with blindness but it's just as amazing how many of them don't have it.

 

I try to balance this by having the villains stick to their concepts as well. Joe Brick is not typically going to have Flash Defense, not the first time he battles the heroes anyways. Besides, too many villains with, using an example here: No need to breathe would have my players who DID buy that NND wonder why they bothered to pay points for a power they never get to use.

 

Maybe it's me, but traditionaly, heroes in the comics seem more versitile than their villainous counterparts. I try to respect that, even if I sometimes give the bad guys an edge in raw power.

[death tribble]

certainly true oh Monolith.

 

I had an Energy Blaster who got some of the stuff only as he became more powerful and experienced and had radiation accidents.

 

And there was the Unicorn who was a brick. Low ego and no flash def or ego def so Ego blasts and flashes could take him down but not all the villains had these.

[Kristopher]

I might be the wrong guy to ask. I'm the guy our Champions GMs (there were two back in my college days who ran alternating campaigns) called "Dr. Dink Defense." This refered to my habit of making characters who had Power Defense, Mental Defense, Flash Defense, scads of Life Support, Regen, high REC, etc, and could justify it. They couldn't go toe-to-toe with every villain, but man were they hard to take out.

 

I think this little neurosis was inspired by the first guy I saw running Champs, who seemed to delight in using special attack powers every week. And buy the plethora of special attacks in some of the Champions products.

[BishopofB&W]

Originally posted by Hermit

I have to go with Monolith. Concept and In character reasons for things are the way to go. Very few of my Players' characters have entangle for example, because it doesn't suit many of them. Yes, sometimes they get flash defense, or enhanced senses to deal with blindness but it's just as amazing how many of them don't have it.

 

I try to balance this by having the villains stick to their concepts as well. Joe Brick is not typically going to have Flash Defense, not the first time he battles the heroes anyways. Besides, too many villains with, using an example here: No need to breathe would have my players who DID buy that NND wonder why they bothered to pay points for a power they never get to use.

 

Maybe it's me, but traditionaly, heroes in the comics seem more versitile than their villainous counterparts. I try to respect that, even if I sometimes give the bad guys an edge in raw power.

 

It's at home so I can't refer to it, but in one of the JLA comics Batman said something like "There are only a few kinds of Good, so Evil gets sloppy and lazy. On the other hand, there is an infinite variety of Evil to fight. So Good always develops more ways to win.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Kristopher

 

I think this little neurosis was inspired by the first guy I saw running Champs, who seemed to delight in using special attack powers every week. And buy the plethora of special attacks in some of the Champions products.

 

I met that guy! He inspired me to run my own game. I never looked back - and neither did four of his five other players who followed me out the door.

 

"Pharoh! Let my people go!"

[drrushing]

Predictability?

 

I would have to agree with almost all of the posts on this thread. Making your characters stick to concept, instead of efficiency, is very important. I had a brick character once, now retired, called "Rock". He was a middling brick (40 STR, 5 SPD w/ Professional Wrestling MA). The one redeeming quality of this character is that he had absurd defenses. I designed the character to be the last one standing.............no matter how long the fight took. As a strange irony, this character survived 4 superteams, enduring the deaths or disappearances of at least 15 other heroes. This added immensely to the characters depth(his disads), the insane lengths he would go to protect the innocent and his friends and family. I would have to stress again concept and substance over efficiency.

[Tech]

It's warming to see these posts. As I've said before (and will continue to when it comes up in a post): build your character around a concept. I've clashed with others in this matter but a character built around a concept can expand the starting concept out much farther and longer than those that aren't. A character built with a personality isn't just a 'bag o points' and is fun to play; they continue to be fun to play after hundreds of experience points later. By then, the characters are experienced, developed and balanced because they have a central concept. Other characters drop to the sidelines because they didn't have a personality base in the first place.

 

In short, way to go Monolith and everyone else.

[Tech]

It's warming to see these posts. As I've said before (and will continue to when it comes up in a post): build your character around a concept. I've clashed with others in this matter but a character built around a concept can expand the starting concept out much farther and longer than those that aren't. A character built with a personality isn't just a 'bag o points' and is fun to play; they continue to be fun to play after hundreds of experience points later. By then, the characters are experienced, developed and balanced because they have a central concept. Other characters drop to the sidelines because they didn't have a personality base in the first place. One of my oldest characters started with a 40 STR and 22 DEX. 500+ Exp pts later, he still has a 40 STR and 22 DEX - he also has 3 Combat Levels and 1 Overall now and yes, he's still fun to play.

 

In short, way to go Monolith and everyone else.

[phydaux]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I think this little neurosis was inspired by the first guy I saw running Champs, who seemed to delight in using special attack powers every week.

 

Yeah. My old Champs GM back around '84 used to load up EVERY villain with NNDs, Flash, Entangle, Missile Deflect, PD&ED in the 40's...

 

It got me into buying all the wierdo defenses for my heros, and wierdo attacks for my villains.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by phydaux

It got me into buying all the wierdo defenses for my heros, and wierdo attacks for my villains.

Well you can break the habit, son. Just take one step back from that Flash Defense and just say "No!"

[Kristopher]

Re: Predictability?

 

Originally posted by drrushing

I would have to agree with almost all of the posts on this thread. Making your characters stick to concept, instead of efficiency, is very important. I had a brick character once, now retired, called "Rock". He was a middling brick (40 STR, 5 SPD w/ Professional Wrestling MA). The one redeeming quality of this character is that he had absurd defenses. I designed the character to be the last one standing.............no matter how long the fight took. As a strange irony, this character survived 4 superteams, enduring the deaths or disappearances of at least 15 other heroes. This added immensely to the characters depth(his disads), the insane lengths he would go to protect the innocent and his friends and family. I would have to stress again concept and substance over efficiency.

 

That's the role that T'Shenk Kennet filled. He didn't hit as hard as a full brick, and didn't have the insane CVs of a lot of martial artists, and had no ranged attacks. However, no matter how bad, how crazy, how messed up things got, his teammates could count on him to still be standing.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Tech

It's warming to see these posts. As I've said before (and will continue to when it comes up in a post): build your character around a concept. I've clashed with others in this matter but a character built around a concept can expand the starting concept out much farther and longer than those that aren't. A character built with a personality isn't just a 'bag o points' and is fun to play; they continue to be fun to play after hundreds of experience points later. By then, the characters are experienced, developed and balanced because they have a central concept. Other characters drop to the sidelines because they didn't have a personality base in the first place.

 

In short, way to go Monolith and everyone else.

 

I consider it a personal challenge, sometimes, to have my cake and eat it too when it comes to creating characters that are concept & personality based, and effecient, at the same time.

[Killer Shrike]

Sounds like you are stuck in a rut, and are far too "meta" in your design. I have a player like this actually; unerringly seeking out any exploitable loophole rather than defining a concept and then fleshing it out.

 

I would recommend reevaluating the characters in a question and eliminating any power or ability which cant be expressed directly as part of their primary schtick.

[Supreme Serpent]

From a comic-based standpoint and GM-ing standpoint, I like everyone to have at least one relatively easy off-switch. Exceptions being master villains and folks whose main schtick is being invulnerable. As a GM, I like having that option, and thinks it opens more dramatic possibilities. As a player who has GM'd, I like giving my GM's that option.

 

High DCV guy should have middle-low defenses. Super PD guy should likely have much lower ED. Super PD/ED guy shouldn't have lots of LS/common NND defenses. Guy with all that shouldn't be mentalist proof. Vulnerabilities and Susc are good things. Etc. There should be interesting ways to handle people by avoiding their strengths and attacking their weaknesses, instead of always playing day-long fights where the leak-through damage may or may not exceed the guy's post-seg 12 recovery, and you're desperate to get the super move-through or haymaker so you might stun the guy, if you roll really well and combine successfully. That being said, when you have those sorts of setups, it makes it even more fun when you get into situations that play to your strengths - EnergyMan fighting a bunch of poor sap agents with laser blasters, or straight up slugfest like Thing/Hulk, or Colossus/Juggernaught, etc.

[Trebuchet]

My fast martial artist Zl'f (SPD 9, DEX 43) with her insane CV (14 CV before martial maneuver bonuses and single HtH Skill level) deliberately has no oddball defenses. No Flash Defense, no Power Defense, no Mental Defense. While she does have a few Life Support powers (Extended Breathing, Longevity 800 years, Reduced Sleep, Immunity to Cold), none of these are likely to provide defenses except against very unusual attack SFX. I feel that since she's difficult to hit, she should not be difficult to bring down if she does get hit. Her fragility is as important a part of her concept as her amazing agility and speed.

 

In the 11+ years I've been playing her, I can only recall her being successfully Flashed once. If it starts happening regularly, I'll buy her tinted glasses with XP. I can't ever see her buying Power Defense, and probably never Mental Defense either. I've carefully avoided buying her higher or new defenses with XP even though higher defenses and/or CON would undoubtably make her more "efficient." I don't think Champions should be about efficient character design; it's not a wargame. I want to role-play, not roll-play.

[phydaux]

Yeah. The guys who taught me to play Champs were ALL weedy min/maxing gits. They all had just one character - THEM, and all they cared about was that the character sheet in front of them could trump the other PLAYERS character sheets.

 

It's taken me a LONG time to get over that as a role player. However, I find that when I play Champs I fall into the old patterns.

 

Thing is, I have about 3-4 characters that I've been playing off and on since the days of second edition back in '84. They started out as 100+150 characters, and have grown to 250+100 characters. These characters have been there, done that, got the skull fracture and bought the flash defense with XPs.

 

I guess I've also grown my villains along with my favorite PCs.

 

Bad GM, no pizza...

[Supreme Serpent]

One "Omni-Man" character who can do a little of everything, has a little of every defense in a group won't be a problem. Would even be kind of cool to have. When the group is full of them, and the people they face are the same, it could easily get boring.

 

If built on the same points as the other characters, Omni-Man HAS a weakness built in - by spending points to cover all his bases, he loses out in the power department. Sure, his defenses are hardened, but they're only 18, when Wonder Dude's are 30. And unless you spend LOTS of points on the fancy defenses, you can still be affected, just not as severely. 8pts mental defense helps against, but won't stop, that 6d6 ego attack, etc.

 

As far as min-maxing, using limitations and such - only really works to create uber-characters when GM's don't USE the limitations. Focus guy should have it taken away/neutralized sometimes. Mr. DWIIMF should fight Magneto from time-to-time. 14-Activation man should be forced to use the GM's dice .

[megaplayboy]

I think as a GM, that what I dislike is that often players just go for tactical efficiency rather than genre convention:

 

1. going for the mismatch foe rather than the nemesis(the egoist blasts the brick, the brick drops a car on their gadgeteer, etc.)

2. "halve DCV, double or triple team, repeat on other opponents"

3. everyone seems to "instinctively" do this stuff, even when it's out of character--players have sometimes been criticized for doing something not "combat efficient".

4. everyone delays, to wait for the optimal opportunity to do 1 and 2 above.

God forbid the PC team actually starts losing the battle, then it just gets worse, I have a few players who will exploit every loophole and facet of the rules to maximize the destruction they inflict.

 

I think I'll just start penalizing players for "combat monstering out of conception"

[Hermit]

Originally posted by megaplayboy

I think as a GM, that what I dislike is that often players just go for tactical efficiency rather than genre convention:

 

1. going for the mismatch foe rather than the nemesis(the egoist blasts the brick, the brick drops a car on their gadgeteer, etc.)

 

Okay, both I, and my players have slipped into this trap more than once. I need to work on that a tad.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by D-Man

I met that guy! He inspired me to run my own game. I never looked back - and neither did four of his five other players who followed me out the door.

 

"Pharoh! Let my people go!"

 

Me, too, same basic scenario.

 

Edit - oh and that was the only seriously negative experience I really had in a Champions game, but I liked the game so much and knew the GM's deal so obviously it didn't prejudice me against Champions

[zornwil]

Originally posted by megaplayboy

I think as a GM, that what I dislike is that often players just go for tactical efficiency rather than genre convention:

 

1. going for the mismatch foe rather than the nemesis(the egoist blasts the brick, the brick drops a car on their gadgeteer, etc.)

2. "halve DCV, double or triple team, repeat on other opponents"

3. everyone seems to "instinctively" do this stuff, even when it's out of character--players have sometimes been criticized for doing something not "combat efficient".

4. everyone delays, to wait for the optimal opportunity to do 1 and 2 above.

God forbid the PC team actually starts losing the battle, then it just gets worse, I have a few players who will exploit every loophole and facet of the rules to maximize the destruction they inflict.

 

I think I'll just start penalizing players for "combat monstering out of conception"

 

Although I think it's OOC for some characters, I don't like the idea of supers fighting in the 4-color genre convention, even if the game is more 4-color-like. That's one of the genre conventions i don't like as it defies reality too much, beyond my suspension of disbelief.

[zornwil]

As to the original thread notion, I can't think of too much that I do or see all the time EXCEPT NNDs. Seems like those ALWAYS crop up. I'll have to be more attentive. Well, that and special senses, but not any one sense, although mostly in the sight group. Those have seemed to fit character concepts pretty well though, jsut the NNDs seem too coincidental upon reflection.

 

Neither I nor my players seem to have unrealistic defenses on the whole. Maybe unreasonably high in a case or two, sure, but not unreasonably broad. Mmmm, I take that back re one player, but it really did/does fit his particular concept, and beyond that character he's playing in my game now, I don't think he does this as a rule (though he is a bit of a power-gamer, and, no, it's not lemming).

 

Of course now that the PCs in my current game are attaining a certain level of super-hero maturity, asserting themselves after a year of real-time play as real world-class superheroes, they will get broader and/or deeper depending on the character, but that's just part of the growth cycle.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Sounds like you are stuck in a rut, and are far too "meta" in your design. I have a player like this actually; unerringly seeking out any exploitable loophole rather than defining a concept and then fleshing it out.

 

I would recommend reevaluating the characters in a question and eliminating any power or ability which cant be expressed directly as part of their primary schtick.

 

Me? I've only had three characters I've had a chance to actually play in Champions:

 

The afore-mentioned T'Shenk Kennet, a demon of an odd sort, which kinda justifies almost anything and still stays in concept.

 

A power-armor based character. Again, at least a wide assortment of powers was within the concept, and not just weasely min-maxing.

 

A classic flying brick, who actually was lacking in some of the Dink Defenses, because of his concept.

 

I always concerned myself more with keeping within the character's personality and concept during the role-playing, than on the character sheet.

 

As for finding loopholes, no, not at all my style. I was more concerned with being loophole proof. In one group I played in, we had two VPP-based maxefficienators (with a bunch of quick-change prefab powers to speed things up), one guy in Power Armor with a Multipower, and little old T'Shenk Kennet. Funny thing is, T'Shenk was the steadfast, the rock, the pro, the one you could break but not bend. When the three hotshots had made a string of fatal mistakes in shuffling their powers around, the simplest character of the bunch was still standing. OK, OK, enough with that rant...

 

I'm not the guy who wants to do 8 BODY on a pair of linked RKAs with both Penetrating and Reduced Penetration. I'm not the guy hoping to destroy my opponent's foci with an attack that costs 3 points per die (see also, "Dispel.") I'm not the guy boosting his EGO to 30 in order to take on the villain-team's mentalist, a turn after using an esoteric twist on AVLD to drop the other team's brick and the turn before misjuding the something and getting creamed for it.

 

OK, maybe part of this is a limitation of my gaming breadth, but at least I've never lacked depth. At least it makes sense for my PCs to have every single power they have -- it's believable, logical, and within the concept and personality.