Jump to content

Pulling a Punch & Code vs. Killing


Hyper-Man

Recommended Posts

My favorite character, Merlin, does not have CvK, (in fact, he had a license to kill at one time) but knows innately that killing has consequences, and would never do so lightly. He's seen too much death in WWII and in the course of his earlier career to really want to kill, and he would only do it in self-defense. If he did so, however, he wouldn't have express too much regret over it, although he sometimes subconsciously lets the guilt get to him. So he's neither a Casual Killer nor a true-blue four-color guy.

 

So far, in our campaign, he's only killed twice - one was a demon (who wasn't technically alive to begin with) and one was a space pirate, slaver, and known mentalist who was accidentally killed by Merlin when her force shield failed to activate, and who couldn't be reached in time to give first aid of Healing. He drank for a couple of nights pretty heavily after that, even though her death wasn't really mourned by anyone and he wasn't charged with any crime (as she was caught red-handed on the moon trying to enslave Selenites). So it's possible to have a character without a CvK but still have a conscience about such things. On the other hand, if given the means and opportunity he'd kill Doctor Destroyer without a second thought. Having faced Nazis in the war, he'd probably cack him so fast the evil Doctor's head would take separate Knockback from the rest of his body.

 

My other favorite, Casey, however, does have a CvK. He's a sentient automobile who follows the "rules of the road" to the letter of the law. He has the awareness that his mass and speed can do a lot of damage to even a super-powered villain. (He basically has increased OCV for Move-By and -Through attacks, even at NCM. Not to mention AoE for such attacks.) It would take a lot for him to be provoked to kill somebody - maybe threaten his "owner" or do something truly world-threatening. Otherwise, he's a pretty gentle soul, if not actually naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But we aren't really talking about shooting at normals, are we?

 

Let's say you have two different campaign styles.  In the first campaign, people develop Wildcard-style abilities.  It is very possible for a person to have a 5D6 RKA and nothing else.  He's a 75 point character, with baseline human abilities.  2 PD and ED, 10 Dex, etc.  In the second campaign people develop sets of powers, like they do in basically every single published Champions book.  In this world, if you have superpowers, you have a decent amount of defense.

 

In the first situation, it's appropriate for a CvK character to pull his punches when he first encounters a villain.  Given that there are probably numerous examples of guys with powers getting hit by someone else and popping like a zit, your character should be careful.

 

In the second situation, it's not appropriate to require a CvK character to pull his punches.  He doesn't know anything about "PD" or "ED".  Those are game terms, and he can't see his character sheet.  What he does know is that every single time he's shot someone in costume with his cosmic blast, the worst that's ever happened is that the guy fell down unconscious.  Oh sure, a totally normal person (not in a costume) might be killed.  But even when he shot that guy who just had wings and flew around, that guy turned out okay too.  He didn't have a force field, he didn't wear obvious armor, he just had a yellow bodysuit, an ugly bird mask, and some wings that he strapped on his arms.  Cosmic blast knocked him out cold, but he just had some bumps and bruises.

 

It's all about the expected level of harm.  If your character has good reason to believe that his blast could kill a supervillain (good reason meaning seeing the effects of his blast in battle, or seeing great harm coming to villains from the actions of other heroes), then sure he should hold back.  If every combat with supervillains involves your character barely winning the fight by the skin of his teeth, then he should haymaker and push on his opening attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adventurer's Club #4: The Gilt Complex by Dennis Mallonee

 

 

Do you, as GM, have players in your campaign who don't know the meaning of the word Restraint? Bearing in mind that any character who can be expected to leave a normal person dying with a single blow (12d6 normal, 3d6 killing) should be considered extremely dangerous, are there characters in your campaign who nevertheless insist on tossing around 20 dice of normal damage or 6 dice of killing? Do you want to do something about it? Would you care to give your players an object lesson in Game Reality?

 

Three extremely powerful villains that are equally as fragile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A subtle effect of having PC's with some form of CVK is that if they ever come under the effects of a powerful Mind Control ability their apparent power level will appear to jump up a rank or 2 just because they are no longer holding back.

 

The best examples of this was the series finale of Superman:TAS "Legacy":

(I couldn't find a video example but I remember the beginning of part 1 showing Superman killing aliens with his Heat Vision.)

 

and "Grudge Match" in Justice League Unlimited:

Wonder Woman WAS using deadly force in this fight.  Everyone else was following "the plan" (try to stay alive!).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, depends on the game world I suppose...I don't see why psychotic episodes would not inspire a costume ...what about Evil Genius dude who likes to brainwash innocent people into wearing his costume. It hoses Heroes, And makes sure they pull a punch or two.

 

I'd expect a responsible person in general to be real careful about uncorking lethal amounts of force, let alone a CVK person. And 8D or more Is lethal force. "What do mean "Criminal Negligence", all I did was throw a bus down the street!"  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adventurer's Club #4: The Gilt Complex by Dennis Mallonee

 

 

Three extremely powerful villains that are equally as fragile.

 

I haven't read it.  Are you sure it's not guilt?

 

Well, depends on the game world I suppose...I don't see why psychotic episodes would not inspire a costume ...what about Evil Genius dude who likes to brainwash innocent people into wearing his costume. It hoses Heroes, And makes sure they pull a punch or two.

 

I'd expect a responsible person in general to be real careful about uncorking lethal amounts of force, let alone a CVK person. And 8D or more Is lethal force. "What do mean "Criminal Negligence", all I did was throw a bus down the street!"  :)

 

Throwing a bus down the street is more than 8D6.  And if Takofanes is rampaging through the city, throwing buses is entirely appropriate.

 

The evil genius who brainwashes the innocent is not in the 4 color genre.  It's a screw you move that jerk GMs pull on players.  Years ago, I'd start making characters with no CvK and just kill the bad guy.  Nowadays I'd just quit the game.

 

IIRC, The Gilt Complex was pretty controversial at the time. Some players thought it was too much of a set up since it didn't adhere to the assumption that NPC will be balanced for the campaign guidelines.

 

I haven't seen the adventure, but I would agree.  It makes the campaign adversarial between the players and GM.

 

You can talk about this stuff in the abstract all you want, but this really comes down to a relationship between players and GMs.  I can tell you 100% that if any GM ever introduced Professor Executioner, floating down on the battlefield glowing with ominous power, who turns his gaze towards a nearby building and causes it to disintegrate, and I shoot that guy with my 12D6 EB and he dies, and the GM tries to make me feel bad about violating a CvK, then I'm quitting the game right then.  I would never play in another one of his hairbrained games again.

 

 

I don't understand the problem with this.  Sure, the source material has plenty of villains that can 'match up' with the heroes in a straight on fight but there are plenty more that don't even try (Lex Luthor being a prime example).

 

And those characters who don't match up physically are clearly defined.  When Lex is wearing a business suit, everyone knows he's a normal with single-digit PD.  Superman, with his 100+ STR, knows that he could kill Lex casually.  The GM isn't hiding the ball with that character.  When Lex puts on his green battlesuit, it's also clear that he's now in Supes' weight class, or at least close to it.

 

--

 

Completely honestly, I'm getting a very strong "screw the players" vibe from this thread.  Too many people are talking about ways to make the players "pay" for taking a CvK and trying to behave in genre.  I wouldn't play in a game like that.  Using a player's desire to stay in genre as a way to get in some cheap shots and beat him up is pretty dirty.

 

The characters who are known for holding back in comics are the ones who are usually far more powerful than their opposition.  Superman holds back because he's much more powerful than 99% of the villains he encounters.  Despite being a "normal human", Batman can do BODY damage to guys like the Riddler and the Joker, and he knows it.  Those villains aren't combat opponents, they're scheme opponents.  It's about solving the Riddler's puzzles, not whether you can break his jaw, and that is clear to Batman (and his player) from the beginning.  Occasionally you might get the Condiment King, but even then it's clear that the guy is a nutcase and not really dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely honestly, I'm getting a very strong "screw the players" vibe from this thread.  Too many people are talking about ways to make the players "pay" for taking a CvK and trying to behave in genre.  I wouldn't play in a game like that.  Using a player's desire to stay in genre as a way to get in some cheap shots and beat him up is pretty dirty.

 

There's no clear line between, "screw the player" and, "examine the implications of this Psych Comp in-game," is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no clear line between, "screw the player" and, "examine the implications of this Psych Comp in-game," is there?

 

Exactly where the line is drawn may be questionable, but certain things are definitely on one side or the other.

 

CvK is obviously a complication.  Batman's life would be a lot easier if he just beat the Joker to death.  But even Batman's CvK is subject to interpretation.  It didn't exist at all in the Tim Burton movies (the Batmobile had machine guns on it).  In Batman Begins he explicitely tells Liam Neeson that he doesn't have to save him.  Sometimes he'll go out of his way to save a villain who is about to get killed by some bomb or something.  So not every CvK is the same.

 

Again, if you punish players for taking genre-appropriate disadvantages, they won't take them.  If you make CvK too extreme, then you'll get guys taking "reckless" and "overconfident" instead.  Or maybe "underconfident".  "This guy looks really tough.  I'd better hit him with my full power."  Or you'll just get players who quit.

 

My basic rule of thumb is that if you're wearing a costume, then you're someone the police can't handle (that's why we need superheroes).  If you're someone the police can't handle, then they can take a campaign standard attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly where the line is drawn may be questionable, but certain things are definitely on one side or the other.

 

CvK is obviously a complication.  Batman's life would be a lot easier if he just beat the Joker to death.  But even Batman's CvK is subject to interpretation.  It didn't exist at all in the Tim Burton movies (the Batmobile had machine guns on it).  In Batman Begins he explicitely tells Liam Neeson that he doesn't have to save him.  Sometimes he'll go out of his way to save a villain who is about to get killed by some bomb or something.  So not every CvK is the same.

 

Again, if you punish players for taking genre-appropriate disadvantages, they won't take them.  If you make CvK too extreme, then you'll get guys taking "reckless" and "overconfident" instead.  Or maybe "underconfident".  "This guy looks really tough.  I'd better hit him with my full power."  Or you'll just get players who quit.

 

My basic rule of thumb is that if you're wearing a costume, then you're someone the police can't handle (that's why we need superheroes).  If you're someone the police can't handle, then they can take a campaign standard attack.

 

And yet some can't. Like I said before, in my world scores are all over the place. I'd really hate to see what your character would do at a costume ball where everyone is in a costume.

 

The only thing the mgs on the Batmobile did was open up a hole in the bay door. The bombs that came out from the wheel hubs were a whole other matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet some can't. Like I said before, in my world scores are all over the place. I'd really hate to see what your character would do at a costume ball where everyone is in a costume.

 

The only thing the mgs on the Batmobile did was open up a hole in the bay door. The bombs that came out from the wheel hubs were a whole other matter.

 

Costume party is different.

 

Don't forget when he strapped that bomb to the circus strongman in Batman Returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the adventure, but I would agree.  It makes the campaign adversarial between the players and GM.

 

 

In fairness to GC, it did suggest DISCUSSING the matter with the players before tossing in a few villains with enough DCV to avoid most normals' attacks, defenses at about Normal Human level, 2x BOD from just about everything and Takes BOD from Mental Attacks, placing this extreme in the "Last Resort" category. [but how do we know that unknown villain does not take 2x BOD from your SFX?]

 

You can talk about this stuff in the abstract all you want, but this really comes down to a relationship between players and GMs.  I can tell you 100% that if any GM ever introduced Professor Executioner, floating down on the battlefield glowing with ominous power, who turns his gaze towards a nearby building and causes it to disintegrate, and I shoot that guy with my 12D6 EB and he dies, and the GM tries to make me feel bad about violating a CvK, then I'm quitting the game right then.  I would never play in another one of his hairbrained games again.

Can you also describe a few scenes that justify this being a Common, Total Commitment complication? Show me how this is actually problematic for the character to the same extent as, say, Overconfident or Never Tells a Lie. To me, if you take a Total Commitment, Common complication, you are telling me you WANT this to be an issue for your character fairly often - otherwise, why would you select that complication?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In fairness to GC, it did suggest DISCUSSING the matter with the players before tossing in a few villains with enough DCV to avoid most normals' attacks, defenses at about Normal Human level, 2x BOD from just about everything and Takes BOD from Mental Attacks, placing this extreme in the "Last Resort" category. [but how do we know that unknown villain does not take 2x BOD from your SFX?]

 

 

Can you also describe a few scenes that justify this being a Common, Total Commitment complication? Show me how this is actually problematic for the character to the same extent as, say, Overconfident or Never Tells a Lie. To me, if you take a Total Commitment, Common complication, you are telling me you WANT this to be an issue for your character fairly often - otherwise, why would you select that complication?

 

Exactly. Its 15-20 points of Disadvantage/Complication that rarely comes up. Not being able to commit premeditated murder to make your life easier just hasn't been a common enough issue in any games I've played to be worth that much of a complication. No you can't beat your Hunted to death but you're rarely in the position to do that and not be known as a murderer, few characters have that kind of personality in the first place and finally it doesn't "solve" anything. Either some one else will take their place or there will be other challenges...or the game ends.

 

I don't believe in "Screwing the players" but I do think if you get a Disad/Complication it should be tested and to some degree (based on its value) limit the character's behavior. I generally haven't found that to be the case with really high end CvK at the Superhero level. Its' "genre appropriate" in the sense several characters in the source material appear to have it but then they also face situations where it actually means something and take pains to curb their behavior. IME, that's not been true as the rpg venue, not as much as player assume automatically the opponents are "balanced" and thus hard to kill.

 

I'd go so far to say that in a truly 4 color cartoon violence only campaign Cvk is worth nothing. Its a Everyman Disadvantage that's rarely going to come up or be tested.

 

That's perfectly fine but I'd lower the reward for CvK to something that better reflects how hindering it is or, yes, its coming to come up more than once in a blue moon. Actually, I have character without much resistance defence or sub par defenses across the board anyway. Not every one is built to campaign specs. It feels more believable to me. MMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it a different way, the characters I've mostly seen with CvK aren't "playing in genre". It means more then writing CvK on your disadvantages list then proceeding to blast away at full strength any and all targets with the certainty they can take it regardless of if they are an armored behemoth or a slender girl in a body stocking, going all out with autofire and explosive attacks because no bystanders will be hurt (or that doesn't count because you're not "deliberately" trying to kill anyone) or the ever popular "They'll live."

 

i wouldn't suggest just spring something like the Gilt Complex (I do think its heavy handed) but you should definitely talk with your players and let them know how you feel CvK should be played and will be handled AND that not all opponents are going to be built to PC specs. Some will be more vulnerable, some will be tougher and you can't rest assured on the game mechanics to shield you from consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In fairness to GC, it did suggest DISCUSSING the matter with the players before tossing in a few villains with enough DCV to avoid most normals' attacks, defenses at about Normal Human level, 2x BOD from just about everything and Takes BOD from Mental Attacks, placing this extreme in the "Last Resort" category. [but how do we know that unknown villain does not take 2x BOD from your SFX?]

 

 

Can you also describe a few scenes that justify this being a Common, Total Commitment complication? Show me how this is actually problematic for the character to the same extent as, say, Overconfident or Never Tells a Lie. To me, if you take a Total Commitment, Common complication, you are telling me you WANT this to be an issue for your character fairly often - otherwise, why would you select that complication?

 

 

How do you know he won't take x8 BODY from your sfx?

 

Chernabog.jpg

 

"Better go easy on this guy.  I might accidentally kill him."

 

--

 

So you're saying the only way to make CvK worth 20 points is to bring in villains who both you, and the players, know can really take the attack, but require the characters to act as if it's otherwise?

 

Because really, that's the only thing any of you have described.  It's the only thing that is really a drawback, according to you.  Batman using 3D6 normal attacks against the Condiment King because he's afraid of hurting him, that's not a drawback.  The Condiment King is a 50 point character, at most.  Superman not using full power against some 12D6 villain isn't a drawback, because he's got 50 Defense and 50% Damage Reduction.  He can't be hurt by the guy.

 

The only thing you guys have suggested, the only thing, is to make characters hold back when they're fighting a new villain so that they will be at a combat penalty against villains who are actually tough enough to really endanger them.  That's just bad gamemastering, I'm sorry.  If you want players with a CvK to hold back, don't play these stupid surprise games.  Let them know, make it clear.  "This guy is a weakling. He can't take your full hit."  Be honest about it and don't screw them over.  You'll see CvK players hold back a lot more if you do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet some can't. Like I said before, in my world scores are all over the place. I'd really hate to see what your character would do at a costume ball where everyone is in a costume.

 

The only thing the mgs on the Batmobile did was open up a hole in the bay door. The bombs that came out from the wheel hubs were a whole other matter.

True. Not every depiction of a character is going to be the same. Because Comic Book Batman has a CvK doesn't mean every movie Batman will have one or at the same level.

 

That's really my point if you take something Common, Total Commitment then its going to be extreme by definition. There's only so many "Buts" and exceptions you can layer on before it should be reduced to a lower value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know he won't take x8 BODY from your sfx?

 

Chernabog.jpg

 

"Better go easy on this guy.  I might accidentally kill him."

 

--

 

So you're saying the only way to make CvK worth 20 points is to bring in villains who both you, and the players, know can really take the attack, but require the characters to act as if it's otherwise?

 

Because really, that's the only thing any of you have described.  It's the only thing that is really a drawback, according to you.  Batman using 3D6 normal attacks against the Condiment King because he's afraid of hurting him, that's not a drawback.  The Condiment King is a 50 point character, at most.  Superman not using full power against some 12D6 villain isn't a drawback, because he's got 50 Defense and 50% Damage Reduction.  He can't be hurt by the guy.

 

The only thing you guys have suggested, the only thing, is to make characters hold back when they're fighting a new villain so that they will be at a combat penalty against villains who are actually tough enough to really endanger them.  That's just bad gamemastering, I'm sorry.  If you want players with a CvK to hold back, don't play these stupid surprise games.  Let them know, make it clear.  "This guy is a weakling. He can't take your full hit."  Be honest about it and don't screw them over.  You'll see CvK players hold back a lot more if you do that.

 

No. Don't tell the players unless their characters see something to indicate. The characters need to figure it out. There is a reason a lot of hero teams keep databases on known villains, how they operate, and battle reports involving them.

 

"Bitz Blastum cut loose with what he described as his full power. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get a statement from the target without a ouija board."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...