Pulling a Punch & Code vs. Killing

[Vondy]

If you want to encourage players to use the Pulling a Punch maneuver, don't apply penalties to it.

 

If doing the "right thing" in the genre you are simulating includes codes vs. killing and pulling punches, don't penalize them for it!

 

I found my players -- whether their characters had a CVK or not -- tended to pull punches on weaker opponents once the penalties went away.

[Hyper-Man]

Here is what I did for my starting versions of Batman and Superman

 

Batman

Psychological Complication: Noblesse Oblige (Common; Strong) 15
Psychological Complication: Protective Of Innocents (Very Common; Strong) 20
Psychological Complication: Code Versus Killing (Common; Total) 20

 

 

Superman

Psychological Complication: Protective Of Innocents (Very Common; Strong) 20
Psychological Complication: Code Versus Killing (Very Common; Moderate*) 15

 

*This is a nod to the few deliberate exceptions in the source material (Post Crisis Pocket Universe Kryptonians, Man of Steel Movie General Zod, JLU:Animated Darkseid).

 

In the JLA/Avengers-Avengers/JLA crossover from a few years ago, the JLA visit Marvel Earth (what looked to be 616) and Batman was said to go out of his way to stop the Punisher (it was off panel) as from Bat's perspective he (Punisher) was just another dime-a-dozen gun nut like he's dealt with on numerous occasions back in Gotham.

 

edit - found it

 

referring to this scene earlier....

 

[Grailknight]

Even with the exceptions, I probably leave Superman at Very Common, Strong. He showed great mental anguish after Pocket Universe(nervous breakdown) and remorse over Zod. Plus, in the comics he didn't kill Manchester Black even after being subjected to Lois' death.(an illusion he truly believed was real)

[Hyper-Man]

If you want to encourage players to use the Pulling a Punch maneuver, don't apply penalties to it.

 

If doing the "right thing" in the genre you are simulating includes codes vs. killing and pulling punches, don't penalize them for it!

 

I found my players -- whether their characters had a CVK or not -- tended to pull punches on weaker opponents once the penalties went away.

 

100% Disagree with this.

 

Doing the right thing is never easy.  That's the backstory for hundreds of super-villains.  Spider-Man only snaps out of it when he realizes taking the 'easy' path directly resulted in the death of his uncle. Overcoming the added challenges of being the hero and always trying to do the right thing is part of the genre.

[phoenix240]

To me, new villains are not automatically "known quantities". How does the character know that cute chick in the skintight spandex can stand up to lethal force, rather than being just as vulnerable as Bald Scientist? For that matter, he doesn't know that Bald Scientist is not wearing a ForceBelt that gives him +30 rDEF. He has to guess. Guessing wrong may mean a combat disadvantage because he wastes an attack or two figuring out this target is actually pretty tough. Guessing wrong the other way means hosing the remains of that high DCV, low defense target (or non-persistent defense target, or vulnerable to those SFX target) off the wall. A CvK makes the choice of risks no choice at all.

 

Seems like your games are a lot more predictable. Well and good. I'd say CvK isn't nearly as disadvantageous in your games. 

 

Yeah, I think this is where the primary difference is perspective lies. I don't run my settings in a manner that characters can be so certain that anyone that face is built to specs to take an average attack. In a game where that was case, being cautious in combat would be less of a priority but I'd agree Cvk should probably worth less.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On reflection, I suggest that a game where very few opponents are in danger of death, or even serious injury, from full power PC attacks is one where a CvK would not reasonably be classified as "Common", as the potential for a death in game is simply not common.

 

I also think the biggest example of a "GM Trap" presented on this thread is not "you cannot tell whether any given character has substantial defenses" or even "gosh, he sure looked tough until you hit him and he turned into red mist", or even the Gilt Complex. It is a character presented with defenses high enough that campaign normal attacks have limited effect, and maximized attacks are in no danger of killing him - but **surprise** they have an activation roll and when that fails, any damage close to campaign standard will hospitalize or kill him.

 

To the Batman, what a surprise that a character appearing in a variety of media over 75+ years might not be portrayed 100% the same way in each and every interpretation. One movie Bats walks away and lets a villain die. What happened in the comics when Jean Paul Valley, temporarily acting as Batman, walked away and left a villain to die? Seems like two very different Bruce Waynes appeared in those comics and that movie...

[massey]

Potential for death still exists, even if virtually all opponents have enough defenses to survive a normal attack.

 

Let's say I am Energy Guy.  I have a 60 pt Multipower with a 12D6 EB, a 6D6 NND, a 4D6 RKA, and a 12D6 Flash vs Sight.  I shoot my 6D6 NND at Blaster Villain.  Blast Villain has 12/12 PD and ED, an 18/18 Force Field, 10 Body, and a 23 Con.  I roll slightly above average on my NND, getting 24 STUN.  Blaster Villain is Stunned, and his Force Field drops.  If I shoot him with my 4D6 RKA, I will likely put him to negative Body.  I have CvK, though, so I don't.

 

Perhaps this isn't "common" enough for you.

 

Looking at the comics, a surprising number of the X-Men seem to not have CvK.  While some may be reluctant to kill, a pretty large number of non-main character mutants seem to bite the dust on a regular basis.  We aren't just talking about Wolverine and the Punisher as characters who kill, there is an entire wing of Marvel's universe where the standard appears to be "bad guys die".  I could make the argument that you are trying to give characters a CvK for free, without giving them points for it, because it fits your idea of how characters should be played by default.

[esampson]

. . .

Oh, and overconfident doesn't necessarily mean fighting below your full capabilities.   If you've got superdefenses, perhaps.  Superman's version of overconfident means that he will stand there and take the hit.  Batman's version of overconfident means he doesn't tell the rest of the JLA what he's doing.  He takes it on by himself.  He jumps into a room full of thugs and attacks.  He still dodges, because he may be overconfident but he knows he's not bulletproof.

. . .

That is, in fact, a form of fighting below his abilities. He doesn't wait for backup, he doesn't just snipe them from darkness (in your example) until they are down to a level where he can easily handle them.

 

These are sub-obtimal choices as far as his health and well being go.

 

What it doesn't mean is that he becomes totally useless in fighting. It doesn't mean he tries to bounce bullets off his chest even though he lacks any rPD. It doesn't mean he has to tie a blindfold around his eyes before he goes into a fight (since Batman is not good enough to win under such circumstances). It just means that he will make decisions that do not maximize his abilities.

 

Interestingly enough you could also argue that 'Tactical Fighter' (or some variation) is a Psycological Complication for almost the exact opposite reason.

 

As an example, Batman stumbles across a crime being commited by half a dozen thugs. He is capable of defeating said thugs though it is not absolutely certain. Their numbers are large enough that if they fight together well and get some lucky rolls they might cause the caped crusader some injury, so rather than leaping in and stopping them he moves to a better position and waits until the bad guys cluster closer together so he can clobber several of them with his surprise attack, swinging the odds much more heavily in his favor.

 

In this case the choices he is making aren't sub-optimal as far as the fight is concerned but they may be sub-optimal toward being a hero. He's going to let the thugs continue to cause more damage or beat up their victim even worse before he acts.

 

Is it possible that without the limitation the player would make the same choice? Of course. He can leap right in and attack without Overconfidence because he thinks it is more important to shut down the bad guys than to get through without taking a scratch. Likewise he can sit and wait without Tactical Fighter because he thinks that if he attacks without waiting the odds of an injury really are too high.

 

The key is that when he has a Complication his choices are curtailed. If he's got Overconfident and he thinks he would be better off waiting he still has to jump in (making what he views as a sub-optimal choice). If he's got Tactical Fighter and thinks that the odds of an injury are so low that they don't warrant the waiting he still has to wait (again, making what he views as a sub-optimal choice).

 

A complication doesn't have to make a character completely ineffective, but if it never has any negative effect (and in the case of Psychological Complications the only negative effects are that the player may be forced to make a sub-optimal choice) then a complication isn't suppose to be worth any points.

[Vondy]

100% Disagree with this.

That's fine. You aren't in my game. Nor would I listen if you were.

 

None of your examples are built on points or operating with mechanical constraints. They get to "do the right thing" despite it being "the hard choice" ala authorial caveat. They don't have dice and rules to contend with, or penalties leveraging a curve against them.

 

You may be simulating a comic book, but an RPG is not a comic book -- and never will be. The culture of an RPG is directly informed by mechanics, dice, and math. And in Hero, a -3 penalty on the bell-curve is a significant disincentive.

 

Your wild-eyed sermon about comic book heroism fails basic math -- and context. Comic heroes always succeed because writers aren't random the way dice are. What's more, I've never seen Big Blue and Web-Head miss because they were pulling a punch.

 

Rather, they just aren't using their own strength, which is "stun only" or fewer damage classes -- not an OCV penalty. You are making an inference I don't regard as tenable based on the source material.

 

Why penalize the desired behavior -- especially when the penalty doesn't fit the trope?!

 

Its a self-sabotaging approach.

[massey]

That is, in fact, a form of fighting below his abilities. He doesn't wait for backup, he doesn't just snipe them from darkness (in your example) until they are down to a level where he can easily handle them.

 

These are sub-obtimal choices as far as his health and well being go.

 

What it doesn't mean is that he becomes totally useless in fighting. It doesn't mean he tries to bounce bullets off his chest even though he lacks any rPD. It doesn't mean he has to tie a blindfold around his eyes before he goes into a fight (since Batman is not good enough to win under such circumstances). It just means that he will make decisions that do not maximize his abilities.

 

Interestingly enough you could also argue that 'Tactical Fighter' (or some variation) is a Psycological Complication for almost the exact opposite reason.

 

As an example, Batman stumbles across a crime being commited by half a dozen thugs. He is capable of defeating said thugs though it is not absolutely certain. Their numbers are large enough that if they fight together well and get some lucky rolls they might cause the caped crusader some injury, so rather than leaping in and stopping them he moves to a better position and waits until the bad guys cluster closer together so he can clobber several of them with his surprise attack, swinging the odds much more heavily in his favor.

 

In this case the choices he is making aren't sub-optimal as far as the fight is concerned but they may be sub-optimal toward being a hero. He's going to let the thugs continue to cause more damage or beat up their victim even worse before he acts.

 

Is it possible that without the limitation the player would make the same choice? Of course. He can leap right in and attack without Overconfidence because he thinks it is more important to shut down the bad guys than to get through without taking a scratch. Likewise he can sit and wait without Tactical Fighter because he thinks that if he attacks without waiting the odds of an injury really are too high.

 

The key is that when he has a Complication his choices are curtailed. If he's got Overconfident and he thinks he would be better off waiting he still has to jump in (making what he views as a sub-optimal choice). If he's got Tactical Fighter and thinks that the odds of an injury are so low that they don't warrant the waiting he still has to wait (again, making what he views as a sub-optimal choice).

 

A complication doesn't have to make a character completely ineffective, but if it never has any negative effect (and in the case of Psychological Complications the only negative effects are that the player may be forced to make a sub-optimal choice) then a complication isn't suppose to be worth any points.

 

I'll agree with you on everything that you said.  My point on it was, Hugh Neilson's argument as of late has been "if killing is so infrequent, then the psych lim against it isn't worth many points".  And I'm saying that the reason is infrequent is because people are playing the psych lim appropriately.  Just because players who want to be in a superhero game tend to follow the superhero "rules", doesn't 1) mean they don't have a choice, and 2) mean that the psychological limitation isn't in force.

 

If I, as a player, love playing overconfident characters (and I do), and I will normally always charge into a fight (and I will), I should still get those points.  That's how my character is going to behave.  I don't need the GM to force me into that situation.  If killing is highly infrequent because we don't act in a manner that will kill, then that's appropriate use of the CvK.

[esampson]

I'll agree with you on everything that you said.  My point on it was, Hugh Neilson's argument as of late has been "if killing is so infrequent, then the psych lim against it isn't worth many points".  And I'm saying that the reason is infrequent is because people are playing the psych lim appropriately.  Just because players who want to be in a superhero game tend to follow the superhero "rules", doesn't 1) mean they don't have a choice, and 2) mean that the psychological limitation isn't in force.

 

If I, as a player, love playing overconfident characters (and I do), and I will normally always charge into a fight (and I will), I should still get those points.  That's how my character is going to behave.  I don't need the GM to force me into that situation.  If killing is highly infrequent because we don't act in a manner that will kill, then that's appropriate use of the CvK.

I pretty much agree with you. The only thing I would add is, I think, largely a semantic quibble. The last line pretty much sums things up, but I think needs to be changed to:

 

If killing is highly infrequent because we don't act in a manner that will kill, and this causes us to make sub-optimal decisions, then that's appropriate use of the CvK.

 

If players are appropriately limiting themselves due to their Complications I don't think that the GM needs to jump down on them and imply other penalties as well. I don't think a GM needs to declare 'No, you have CvK so you have to always pull your punches' if the players are already limiting themselves in various ways. Those limitations may not even be apparent in some fights. As an example if I have a 14d6 attack I can probably just haul off and fire it at Dr. Destroyer all I want, even pushing my attacks. He is known to be pretty much nigh-indestructible in his armor and while I might be able to eventually figure out some way to kill him despite his defenses the odds of that happening from 20d6 (pushed haymaker 14d6) is well known to be pretty much non-existent.

 

I think the areas we disagree are that I dislike being too 'meta' in deciding if my attacks might kill him. For me it is a simple matter that it is an ICly known fact that Dr. D has been hit with 20d6 (and heavier) attacks and survived. A character who can summon up that damage has some gauge of their strength and knows for a fact that Dr. D has been hit with things even worse, so they don't need to be concerned with killing him.

 

I don't like the idea of saying 'oh, my 12d6 attack will average 12 body. Since the only reason that anyone in spandex will have less than 10 body and probably 10 defense is because my GM is pulling a dirty trick on me I can cut loose'. That is just too 'metagame' for me. After I've seen Spandex man get thumped for 12d6 and not be seriously injured by it then yeah, I'm not going to be so worried about cutting loose on him, and if I've seen that it's not doing any body (and probably only moderate amounts of stun) then I'm not even going to worry about adding some extra dice from pushing, haymakers, and combat levels, but that's because I've already got good reason to believe this guy can take it.

 

I think the other thing we don't see completely eye to eye on is that I really do feel somewhat strongly that you have to be able to look at a Complication or Limitation and say 'yes, this is how it negatively impacts the character' for it to be worth points. Being in love with another character absolutely can fall into that category if it will make my character behave in a sub-optimal manner. If it means I am more likely to go after enemies that attack the other character, more likely to take actions to guard that character, etc. then it is absolutely a perfectly reasonable Complication. On the other hand if it is purely for 'flavor' then it isn't worth any points.

 

I suppose what my second point boils down to is this: While I do not think in a 'good game' the GM should be stepping in and saying 'no, you can't do that' or 'you have to do it this way' by taking any form of Complication I am accepting the possibility that the GM will do that. If I respond to a situation in a fashion that the GM feels is inappropriate to my Complication (I leave my love interest to fend for herself in a tough fight so I can help someone else beat up on the criminal mastermind) then yes, the GM has the right to step in and say 'no, you can't do that' (or at least 'make an ego roll'). This shouldn't happen a lot. In fact, it shouldn't really happen at all. Worst case scenario is that my GM should say 'are you forgeting about your psychological complication? It looks like Danger Girl is in a tough spot there' at which point either I go 'duh. I totally didn't think about that' or else I explain why my action really is in Danger Girl's best interest.

 

If the GM is forcing me to do something then there is something wrong. Either my GM is being too much of a control freak or I need to reevaluate my Complication (possibly buy it down to a lower level) because I don't seem to want to accept the Complication that I bought.

[Hugh Neilson]

Potential for death still exists, even if virtually all opponents have enough defenses to survive a normal attack.

 

Let's say I am Energy Guy.  I have a 60 pt Multipower with a 12D6 EB, a 6D6 NND, a 4D6 RKA, and a 12D6 Flash vs Sight.  I shoot my 6D6 NND at Blaster Villain.  Blast Villain has 12/12 PD and ED, an 18/18 Force Field, 10 Body, and a 23 Con.  I roll slightly above average on my NND, getting 24 STUN.  Blaster Villain is Stunned, and his Force Field drops.  If I shoot him with my 4D6 RKA, I will likely put him to negative Body.  I have CvK, though, so I don't.

 

Perhaps this isn't "common" enough for you.

So let's take this one step further. You have asserted it's OK for the guy with CvK to open combat against unknown opponents with that full-powered attack, as they can all safely be assumed to have campaign standard defenses. However, above, you tell me that the villain may be relying on a force field for a substantial portion of those campaign standard defenses. So how do I know the target I am firing on has those defenses up and running, such that I am at no risk of killing them with that first attack?

 

If I can safely assume my main attack, at full power, will not do any serious harm to any real opponent, then I think the frequency with which CvK has any impact is markedly reduced, and that mandates consideration of whether the CvK is actually Common or Very Common in this specific game.

 

Looking at the comics, a surprising number of the X-Men seem to not have CvK.  While some may be reluctant to kill, a pretty large number of non-main character mutants seem to bite the dust on a regular basis.  We aren't just talking about Wolverine and the Punisher as characters who kill, there is an entire wing of Marvel's universe where the standard appears to be "bad guys die".  I could make the argument that you are trying to give characters a CvK for free, without giving them points for it, because it fits your idea of how characters should be played by default.

I would agree that a lot of X-Men, and a lot of modern comics characters in general, do not have a CvK. The medium has strayed a lot from its four colour roots. Cyclops, for example, stands out precisely because he worries about the damage his full powered Optic Blast could inflict. Gambit lacks that concern - he tosses explosions with reckless abandon and if the guy who attacked him, or his friends, is seriously injured or killed, well that's the chance he took when he chose to inflict violence on others.

 

This is even more evident in the movies, where comic book genre conventions tend to be toned down or removed to better attract mainstream moviegoers, not just comics fans. So we get a Batman who mounts machine guns on the Batmobile, and is much more a Grim Avenger against Crime and much less a Comic Book Super who Would Never Take a Life.

 

BTW, if everyone knows that anyone in a costume can take a full-powered hit, why do the villains keep wearing costumes? Your logic seems to be that the heroes would be foolish to ignore the evidence that no one who can't take a major hit ever dons a costume. Why do the villains foolishly ignore the evidence that not wearing a costume keeps the heroes guessing, and can provide them with an advantage as the heroes will be less willing to use full force from the outset?

 

I'll agree with you on everything that you said.  My point on it was, Hugh Neilson's argument as of late has been "if killing is so infrequent, then the psych lim against it isn't worth many points".  And I'm saying that the reason is infrequent is because people are playing the psych lim appropriately.  Just because players who want to be in a superhero game tend to follow the superhero "rules", doesn't 1) mean they don't have a choice, and 2) mean that the psychological limitation isn't in force.

 

If I, as a player, love playing overconfident characters (and I do), and I will normally always charge into a fight (and I will), I should still get those points.  That's how my character is going to behave.  I don't need the GM to force me into that situation.  If killing is highly infrequent because we don't act in a manner that will kill, then that's appropriate use of the CvK.

If killing is highly infrequent because we make deliberate choices that minimize an otherwise existing risk of killing, I agree that the psych lim is being appropriately played. If killing is highly infrequent because there is never any risk that anyone will be killed, regardless of what choices the characters make, that is an outgrowth of the limited frequency with which the issue arises, not of play within the constraints of the limitation.

 

I can say that I have a Code against Killing Whales. I cannot recall any campaign where a whale was killed, but I suggest that is because whales were not common enough for this to merit any points, not because we have always all role played in perfect conformity with our Code against Killing Whales.

[Tech]

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.

 

Agreed phoenix240: talking to your players is a good way to let players know what is (and isn't) expected of them. It also prevents bad communication and upset players.

[esampson]

Agreed phoenix240: talking to your players is a good way to let players know what is (and isn't) expected of them. It also prevents bad communication and upset players.

Rule 1: When in doubt talk to your players.

 

RPGs are a form of cooperative story telling. There can be no cooperation if people aren't even communicating.

[Grailknight]

You need to set the expectations in and out of game.

 

Out of game, talk to your players and get a clear consensus on the genre. You don't want one side thinking DC:TAS while the other is thinking DC:HoV. ( trust me, you dont  )

 

In game, if you want them to Pull their Punches, there needs to be some non set-up villains they can beat while doing so.

 

If you establish that every scenario won't be a battle against their mirror images repackaged then they'll likely go easier on band of rowdy juvenile supers or the gang of B-List villains who team up for a job. Have the police take down one of those escaped genetic experiments and then get trashed by another, just to inject some uncertainty. If the PC's are amenable have some comedic villains.( be very careful here, CLOWN and Foxbat are not for every group )

 

You'll get more lighthearted players if everything isn't  a near death, end of the world situation.

[Ninja-Bear]

Was it me or did I get the vibe that so posters implied that they punished the players characters by withholding disadvantages points because said player already roleplayed it? I dislike this approach.

[phoenix240]

I didn't get that impression and its certainly not what I was saying. My issue was that the Disadvantage while being fairly hefty is, in some campaign styles, not really that disadvantageous. In that it doesn't really restrict the PCs actions to the degree that 20-15 points Disadvantage usually would if it mainly comes down to "My character won't go out of their way to kill even if its convenient or to their benefit" taking situations like self defense or defense of another. 

 

Speaking personally, in most of my games I consider that to be more or less the default of a psychologically healthy human being in modern Western Society so that wouldn't be worth any points. An actual Code vs Killing would have to create more of a issue, more often to be worth anything.

[Hugh Neilson]

Clipped all the talk to the players - it's dead on but I have nothing to add.

 

In game, if you want them to Pull their Punches, there needs to be some non set-up villains they can beat while doing so.

As well, we can set a line between "no penalty" and the penalty as written. Maybe give it some options. Perhaps you can choose to take a -1/5d6 to DCV instead. Maybe we make it a flat -1 OCV. Perhaps you can spend a Full Phase on this and take no other penalties. Or maybe we award the characters "bonus xp" which provides a penalty skill level with their main attack, only to pull their punch.

 

If you establish that every scenario won't be a battle against their mirror images repackaged then they'll likely go easier on band of rowdy juvenile supers or the gang of B-List villains who team up for a job. Have the police take down one of those escaped genetic experiments and then get trashed by another, just to inject some uncertainty. If the PC's are amenable have some comedic villains.( be very careful here, CLOWN and Foxbat are not for every group )

 

You'll get more lighthearted players if everything isn't  a near death, end of the world situation.

This alludes to a key issue - if the result of pulling their punch, or using less than full damage, or any other action, is always, or mostly, "Heroes get trashed and humiliated", the tactic will quickly fall from use. If, instead, they get respect from the media, the law enforcement agencies, etc. for their restraint - ie they actually get some benefits, in addition to not being "punished", you'll see it used a lot more often.

[esampson]

Clipped all the talk to the players - it's dead on but I have nothing to add.

 

 

As well, we can set a line between "no penalty" and the penalty as written. Maybe give it some options. Perhaps you can choose to take a -1/5d6 to DCV instead. Maybe we make it a flat -1 OCV. Perhaps you can spend a Full Phase on this and take no other penalties. Or maybe we award the characters "bonus xp" which provides a penalty skill level with their main attack, only to pull their punch.

 

 

This alludes to a key issue - if the result of pulling their punch, or using less than full damage, or any other action, is always, or mostly, "Heroes get trashed and humiliated", the tactic will quickly fall from use. If, instead, they get respect from the media, the law enforcement agencies, etc. for their restraint - ie they actually get some benefits, in addition to not being "punished", you'll see it used a lot more often.

Absolutely agree to this and it brings up something that perhaps I had missed.

 

One of the complaints was that if players started off with pulled punches or otherwise not using their full attacks then they would get pummeled into the ground. This right here is most likely the problem, not the penalty. Players certainly need to be challeneged, but if it's at the point of 'do everything exactly right or you will fail' then it may have gone a bit too far.

[Greywind]

I agree, Hugh. Which can garner a Reputation Perk for the players.

[Ninja-Bear]

Just a couple of thoughts. I finished reading Luke Cage the essentials vol. 1 and this what I perceived as it would apply to Champions. First they didnt use the pulling punch manuever just a lower DC. The only effect this had on combat was no immediate knock out. After several panels the characters said somerhing corney like " your real tough now I'm not going to hold back". Iron Man when he first fought Cage held back. Also Shades and Commanche were normals who wore costumes so no one would recognize them.

[pinecone]

Good examples, Yeah, I've always disliked "pulling" ..My personal preference is just plain do less damage. Like many things this comes down to "style". If people play in a game where absolute maximum damage is a constant requirement, then forbearance will be a "non-issue".

[Cassandra]

I was reconsidering a Superman build, with him basically having better then normal characteristics, and a multipower which had No END.  The Multipower would have +40 STR (to add to his normal 20 STR), and a HA +8d6, HTH Attack (-1/2), STUN Only.  This would allow the Man of Steel to hit someone without risk hurting them.  The Multipower would have a "Does Not Work During Kryptonite/Red Solar Radiation Exposure"  Limitiation of course.

 

This version would be based on the TV Superman.

[Cantriped]

In a campaign I run I have two players playing characters of note for this conversation. Whom in my mind exemplify roleplaying their psychological limitations right. I've never had to call on Ego Rolls to get them to act in character or in keeping with their Psych Lims.

 

One of whom was summoned from a storybook and has the Psychological complications "Overconfidance" and "Justice Is Black & White, And Evil Must Be Punished" and the social complication "Unfamiliar With The Real World"... Not to mention an insanely lethal magical sword which tells her what is and isn't evil (though not how evil they are or any other aspect of their personality), and neigh indestructible magical armor.

 

The other character is a Portaler who has a Moderate Code vs. Killing, and the ability to cut though space with the 2-dimensional edges of her portals (A Penetrating RKA vs. Power Defense with the SFX Side Effect that debris cut off end up in random locations), but not so much in the way of defenses, though she can take a hit pretty well, and is really good at avoiding being hit at all.

 

In combat against groups of criminal agents known as the Trojanmen (a group who wield unique blasters which fire seemingly endless supplies of corrosive white fluid/gas that can melt automobiles to slag in seconds), who mostly just rob banks and collect new members Fight Club style. The aforementioned magic sword-wielding character generally gave criminals who weren't actually evil a chance to surrender or rout before she unsealed the beatstick, but then she doesn't hold back at all, and once cut one of the Trojanmen in half with a single blow, and leapt in front of a Trojan Plasma Blast to protect her teammate (and survived because her magical armor makes her all but invincible). She also decked a super mystic and doctor upon entering a hospital "simply because he was Evil" (he then hospitalized her with one blow, knocking her to GM's Option (He was most definitely Evil by backstory, but he was also the most powerful and well known healer in the entire city and never dealt lethal damage because he too had CvK now). They were at the hospital because the Portaler was dropping off Trojanmen they (meaning mostly the sword-wielder) had injured after an unsuccessful bank heist.

 

The Portaler has never, ever used her oh-so-lethal RKA against a person... not even against supervillains (although she did use it against a giant green-skinned monster living underneath a children's park, kidnapping them, and turning them into it's goblin like bile-thralls, but that was a little different), instead the character usually chooses to use Presence Attacks and her Crowd-Control abilities to stop criminals from committing crimes. She has, on occasion, taken serious injury because she left an opponent alive but knocked out, only to have them fire on her when they came to a few phases later. Even when confronting the Trojan Mastermind (who wears a decent suit of powered armor in addition to using the same blaster he equips his henchmen with. The most lethal thing she did was slam him into the ceiling a few times and propel a brick towards his heavily protected head, all after the sword wielder had already been severely injured in the opening barrage of combat (even losing consciousness for a moment thanks to most of the Trojanmen involved in that fight making their Teamwork Rolls that phase), had failed to do lethal damage with her magical sword after impaling him, and then nearly had her sword pulled out of her hand by the Trojan Mastermind (who was a competent martial artist in addition to being a mad scientist who had invented a new form of High-Energy Weaponry). Knocking him out and forcing his Henchmen to scatter with a seriously well phrased Presence Attack (the loyalest of them trying to grab their heavily armored leader and fly him out through a hole they melted in the wall with their blasters). They only ended up getting a few buildings away before accidentally dislocating their master's arm trying to avoid a Portal Straight To Jail, and still ending up in Jail the next phase.

[pinecone]

Seems like a good option. "Back in the day" I used to put a NND slot in my "strength projectors" (Multi based bricks) Just call it "finger flick" or "shaken, not stirred" and it's all good.