Are Champions battles to predictable?

[BoloOfEarth]

One of the player characters in my game (a gadgeteer) has gravity grenades -- a linked TK / NND (both 3" radius), continuing for a turn. (This kinda fits the Entangle + NND thing.) While neither is incredibly powerful, they have been highly effective against many foes.

 

Unfortunately, as AOE attacks they've also affected his teammates on occasion (he, of course, has the defense to his own attack). So now, the other players want him to build them similar defenses. Since it doesn't go outside his concept (and they're willing to pay the actual points for these defenses), it doesn't seem wrong by the rules. But is it just, well, *wrong*?

 

Actually, in my campaign I have an organization (called Moriarty) that is gathering lots of intel on supers and selling it to any interested party. The heroes have recently discovered this (the best part was their walk down a corridor with holograms of superheroes and supervillains, with computer screens displaying info on powers, defenses, and especially weaknesses). I think that, if the gadgeteer does give them all the defense for his grenades, I'll have Moriarty put a major bounty on that gadget, then sell copies to all comers. What's good for the goose...

[Kristopher]

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.)

 

You call that "violating convention."

 

I call that very, very SMART.

 

The solution isn't to slam the players for not doing what works a lot better in the convoluted world of comics than a real fight. It's to make the villains smart too.

 

Example: Lure the PCs into a fight. Then, villain team's mentalist, hiding nearby, slaps a massive Mind Control of the hero brick and forces him to start puttin a whoopin on the other heroes out of the blue. Mess their strategy all up big time, it will it will.

 

Seriously, though, nothing ruins my suspension of disbelief and my enjoyment of a game faster than the expectation that a character should avoid blatantly obvious, simple, and intelligent actions to "maintain genre."

 

[Trebuchet]

I guess our froup must be unusual in that we've both targeted the obvious nemesis and paired up against a different type of villain. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for it; we tend to go for the "obvious" opponent but events seemn to alter that theory pretty often.

 

For instance, in the three clashes we've had with The Master of the World and his villain team, our brick Silhouette and their brick Fezzik have clashed all three times. Results: 1-1-1 (in the third fight both opponents swung at each other multiple times without connecting before being separated by events). Silhouette is itching to beat Fezzik once and for all, but in the meantime we have a great "Hulk vs Thing" rivalry going. On the other hand, Fezzik has managed to hit my martial artist Zl'f in all three fights, once when she was doing a Martial Dodge at DCV 20. She's decided she doesn't want to fight him anymore.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by BoloOfEarth

(snip)

Actually, in my campaign I have an organization (called Moriarty) that is gathering lots of intel on supers and selling it to any interested party. The heroes have recently discovered this (the best part was their walk down a corridor with holograms of superheroes and supervillains, with computer screens displaying info on powers, defenses, and especially weaknesses). I think that, if the gadgeteer does give them all the defense for his grenades, I'll have Moriarty put a major bounty on that gadget, then sell copies to all comers. What's good for the goose...

 

Fox Force Five sort of does this in my game, they don't sell to the highest bidder but they will do research for employment, being mercenaries, and through that have amassed a storehouse of info on supers. They sit in the wings, though, and don't really try to use it against anybody unless needed or market it. The PCs are aware of this and have mixed feelings about FF5 but have grown to respect them as they've found that, after a fashion, FF5 is very honorable in their own way and operates within strict self-imposed guidelines.

[Vondy]

I have no issues with players becoming "tactically engaged" when dangerous situations pop-up. I consider it realistic. Unless you are tactically inept or prone to passing out, the presence of danger tends to do that to you - at least - in my experience it does. My skin covers my body. I like to keep it in tact.

 

And when a player says: "I'm armed" I don't worry insofar as its concealable and reasonable (after all, I carry in real life so telling my players... "gosh, I don't think you'd have a gun when your just walking going to 7-11" would be hipocritical).

 

I do object to players who insist their characters are going to show up at a romantic dinner at a five star resturaunt with a Class III balistic vest with the metal inserts, a load of grenades, and several hand-guns strapped on (DND mentality), but lets face it: if you are going to storm the bastille you are going to come fully equipped AND with a plan. To do otherwise would be...

 

REALLY FREAKING STUPID

[Kristopher]

OK, that I pretty much agree with, D-Man.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by D-Man

I do object to players who insist their characters are going to show up at a romantic dinner at a five star resturaunt with a Class III balistic vest with the metal inserts, a load of grenades, and several hand-guns strapped on (DND mentality), but lets face it: if you are going to storm the bastille you are going to come fully equipped AND with a plan. To do otherwise would be...

 

REALLY FREAKING STUPID

Going armed and armored to a five-star restaurant is generally more of a threat to one's Secret ID than anything else. And it would be almost impossible for most female characters; LBDs (Little Black Dresses) can barely conceal a lipstick, much less a firearm and body armor.

 

That happened once many years ago to one of my characters, Spirit Ninja. She worked in her Secret ID, Nadja Poulos, as a supermodel (She was loosely based on Paulina Porizkova), and went to a fancy restaurant with her date (One of the Sentinels, Patriot. She was considered a superhero groupie by most of the team, even though she'd only slept with Patriot to infiltrate the Sentinels.) and several of his Sentinels teammates in their hero IDs. Spirit Ninja's Secret ID was unknown to the Sentinels, so none of the other characters realized Spirit Ninja was with them at the restaurant. Bad guys attacked (VIPER, I think), so the team all swung into action. Well, except for Spirit Ninja, who without her body armor and ninja weapons was severely hampered (She had 3 shuriken concealed in her purse). She had to settle for hanging around the edges of the fight and finishing off any stunned VIPER agents which came her way in order to conceal her Secret ID. Fortunately nobody thought anything was strange about a supermodel knowing tae kwon do, so her Secret ID remained secret.

 

Best line from the fight: "Great. I'm in a $5000 dress with no underwear!"

[zornwil]

Every so often some PCs try to get away with "always in HERO ID", basically, where their excuse for being fully suited up is that they are still in HERO ID and dating as such, which you can't complain about if they have no ID disads and their date is a super. But they have to go to the bathroom sometime!

 

And more seriously, yes, of course, there's plenty of other issues as appropriate to the character. Of course there are a few who are just legitimately always with their powers and gadgets and not possessing any secret ID.

[lemming]

Originally posted by zornwil

Every so often some PCs try to get away with "always in HERO ID", basically, where their excuse for being fully suited up is that they are still in HERO ID and dating as such, which you can't complain about if they have no ID disads and their date is a super. But they have to go to the bathroom sometime!

I'm starting to think "Pink Panther" style.

 

Not now Kato!

[BlackSword]

Originally posted by 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.

This reminded me of a theme that I became more familar with on these boards, GM-Player trust. As players have disadvantages the GM can use, DNPC little Timmy won't be the Boy Hostage every game. As a player, you have to trust that your GM won't take every opportunity to screw your weaknesses. If your character doesn't have good flash defense, the GM won't use flash against that PC every fight, but from time to time the weakness will come up.

 

In our current game I don't think a single PC has mental defenses, we've only come upon one NPC with mental attacks so it works out. When/if we face him in a fight it will be a challenge as to how we deal with him, and that challenge should make the combat more enjoyable.

[tesuji]

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

 

If you are talking "in character design" thats one thing. if you are talking "in play" thats another.

 

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

 

Well first i would argue that for some comics, those which frequently stress teamwork over individual elements (XMen comes to mind) this is genre.

 

However, if it is NOT genre for a given game, it is not a player problem but a system problem. If you want to make or urge your players to make "in genre" decisions in PLAY, then the system needs to make those choices reasonable. If the system rewards going after the mismatch, then the system is failing the genre of your game, not the players. (Note that scenario design plays a key role.)

 

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

 

Again, if that is non-genre (and i agree for many comics) then the system is what is failing you here. Make the system play more in line with your genre and your players will make "smart decisions" in genre. So, if you don't want the "knocked prone half dcv so now i fire multishots" etc... don't have the knocked prone half your DCv or put in a "successive attacks take penalties" rule so that its more "tactical" to hit multiple targets. if all the first hit does is lower stun and DCV then you have to expect sentient people to gang fire that guy after the first shot takes his DCV down.

 

Use a system that fits the genre then see your players start having their characters acting in genre BECAUSE THE SYSTEM MAKES THAT THEREASONABLE CHOICE.

 

No brow beating required if the system fits.

 

"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"."

 

Ok, people, even players and their characters, tend to try to get things that work and to do them. They also try to avoid things that dont work.

 

Why in the world would a Gm want his players to not try and do things right?

 

if the things they are doing are non-genre and dont work, they will stop doing them.

 

if the things they are doing are non-genre and they work, they will keep doing them.

 

So run a system which makes the genre things WORK and makes the non-genre things fail and you end up with players playing the genre.

 

Doing things that don't work even when you know they don't should be looked upon as a disadvantage, possibly a psych lim.

 

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 have seen those types and I have also seen those who make use of good tactics... using cover, reasonable fire choices, etc.

 

As an example, it makea a lot of sense in HERO5 to have one guy hit the enemy with an entangle (preferrably one that provides no defense) and his waiting buddy to use rapid fire to then pop him at 0 DCV with three or more shots at hefty minuses but still which easily hit the 0 DCV. This gets much better if the attack is STUN ONLY so it doesn't bust the entangle.

 

This is probably not genre for many 4 color style comics games, and so the Gm in those games should not use the rapid fire, or maybe should not have entangles drop DCV to 0.

 

IMO, bashing the players for making reasonable decisions based on the world (mechanics) you approved is missing the mark.

 

Saying "this is a four color genre game" (or any genre) is much more than just deciding whether the villains are nazis or not... its also picking a ruleset that makes the world fit the genre .

 

Another example: In HERO games i have seen, the recovery rules often make a villain who has just be knocked out fairly quick to get back up. It is common for just felled NPCs to be in the recover per phase or recover per turn then phase range and thus be able to pop back up IN the fight.

 

However, one more hit while unconscious (double stun irrc for unconscious) takes the villain into Gm discretion.

 

This is particularly true of supers.

 

Unfortunately, this means its *smart* for the average super fight to include "heroes" popping "keep him down" follow up shots into just0dropped bad guys. Shotting the unconscious guys is very non-genre in many comics.

 

So, if you want to fix it, you have several possibilities...

1. Change the recovery so that a KOed villain is a KOed villain and a follow up shot is simply wasted fire.

2. Change the double stun vs unconscious surprised guys rule

to something that causes much more risk of killing or at least eliminates the extra stun.

 

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

 

Instead, i think you should look at your rules (they define your world and what works and what doesn't) and how well your rules and your world match your genre.

 

Are you in fact running a "four color world with four color rules" or are you perhaps running a "world thats four color in name only but which players by harsher more realistic rules"?

 

Make your genre part of your mechanics, make system subservient to genre, and you wont be needing to complain about the players making non-genre choices.

 

 

[Kevin]

Happy to see these posts.

 

I have always stuck to concept driven characters, and go insane when another player or GM gives, for instance, a martial artist 35 PD "just because" or suddenly every villain has scads of mental defense because a telepath joined the team.

 

Yeah, the brick with a 5 intelligence has a 20 EGO and 10 Mental Defense.

 

Sure he does.

[Kevin]

Tactics and role playing are another matter all together.

 

I am all for going against type in role-playing and attack decisions.

 

That is fun and adds spice.

 

Just don't be giving every villain on the planet protective ear coverings because Howler's NND attack is so good in combat.

 

And don't let every player buy 20 points of power defense because Leech scared them all last week when he beat up on the team.

[Caveman]

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. 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.

 

Hear, hear!!! I have a character(my namesake) that I have played for over 8 years. This was possible mainly because I used him strictly at cons. He was a very playable 60 STR leaping brick with a club(Missle deflection, not extra damage though I could strike with it). I did more with him in solving riddles than a majority of people I played with. It was a mixture of roleplaying, good use of KS:Library Use, and appropriate applications of chaotic stupidness thrown in. He was\is lots of fun and continues to be so. He is so much fun I am reluctant to award him xp's I get from cons. Maybe I should retire him but...

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by BlackSword

This reminded me of a theme that I became more familar with on these boards, GM-Player trust. As players have disadvantages the GM can use, DNPC little Timmy won't be the Boy Hostage every game. As a player, you have to trust that your GM won't take every opportunity to screw your weaknesses. If your character doesn't have good flash defense, the GM won't use flash against that PC every fight, but from time to time the weakness will come up.

This is a concept that just can't be stressed enough. If the players trust the GM and the GM trusts the players then the game is more fun for everyone. That is why we do this, isn't it?

 

Not only should the GM not exploit weaknesses every game, but it's occasionally useful to make a supervillain who is vulnerable to one character's attack. That way a particular character gets to feel special. In our campaign we make a concerted effort to highlight a single character each adventure. It may not even be in combat, it might well involve one of that character's non-combat skills or Contacts. It pays to reward players for buying things that flesh out their characters, for not only does good character development enhance player enjoyment but it also gives the GM more plot hooks.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

This is a concept that just can't be stressed enough. If the players trust the GM and the GM trusts the players then the game is more fun for everyone. That is why we do this, isn't it?

 

Not only should the GM not exploit weaknesses every game, but it's occasionally useful to make a supervillain who is vulnerable to one character's attack. That way a particular character gets to feel special. In our campaign we make a concerted effort to highlight a single character each adventure. It may not even be in combat, it might well involve one of that character's non-combat skills or Contacts. It pays to reward players for buying things that flesh out their characters, for not only does good character development enhance player enjoyment but it also gives the GM more plot hooks.

 

As a player, I never cared if my character was the center of attention. Just because of my personality, my characters tend to become the default tacticians, even when they're not the leaders. I just don't attempt to play ignorant, slow, or naive characters, because I know my limits as a gamer.

 

My long-player Champs character, T'Shenk Kennet, was almost impossible to put down and keep down in a fight -- that's how he was built. It didn't matter if there were never villains specifically tossed in for him to beat on, he got his licks in all on his own. I let other PCs get the spotlight most of the time, and had fun watching them shine.

 

Don't get me wrong, he had plot hooks aplenty, and multiple conflicting PsychLims. And he could do more than fight, being the only PC with any clue about magic and the supernatural.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

As a player, I never cared if my character was the center of attention. Just because of my personality, my characters tend to become the default tacticians, even when they're not the leaders. I just don't attempt to play ignorant, slow, or naive characters, because I know my limits as a gamer.

 

My long-player Champs character, T'Shenk Kennet, was almost impossible to put down and keep down in a fight -- that's how he was built. It didn't matter if there were never villains specifically tossed in for him to beat on, he got his licks in all on his own. I let other PCs get the spotlight most of the time, and had fun watching them shine.

Actually, I really enjoy watching another player having a glorious time running their character. My own character often has to play a supporting role because she doesn't dish out much in the damage department compared to the rest of our team, not does she have much in the way of plot-furthering skills like Deduction or Sciences. But if she gets to be glorious once in a while then I'm OK.

[BNakagawa]

Let's see, every week we're going to have a non-lethal combat between extremely well built, extremely garishly dressed, larger than life personalities.

 

Are we talking about pro wrestling or Champions? I dunno. Well, how does pro wrestling keep it from being boring and repetitive?

 

Well, you can argue reasonably enough that they don't. But that doesn't stop it from being extremely popular.

 

So what makes it tick? Well, storylines are part of the equation. You've got to build up rivalries. You've got to establish alliances, use them long enough to make them seem unstoppable and then have somebody backstab their partner. Young blood arrives on the scene and gets whomped, gets trained by established veterans and end up betraying them only to find out that the old guy still has a trick or two up his sleeve. Love triangles? Sure, why not. Especially fun when DNPCs or followers are involved. Villains turned heroes, Hero turned heel. It's all been done before. And it doesn't matter.

 

Don't forget the screaming fans. I figure that pro wrestling is only big because in the real world, we don't have costumed heroes flying through the sky and blasting villains. In a world with supers, you gotta figure there would be fan clubs. You gotta figure there would be online betting on typical matchups. You gotta figure there would be some format for fantasy hero team (draft 2 EB, 1 brick, 1 other; 1 point for an agent, 3 points for a villain, 8 for a master villain) This is all great feedback to get PCs to play more for style and less for tactical efficiency. (assuming that the survival of the world isn't on the line every damn week)

 

$0.02