Experience purchases done through role play

[Doc Democracy]

I prefer to leave villains at a fixed power level, no growth as that emphasises the growth of the heroes. I like to introduce new, more powerful villains to provide challenge.

 

If the heroes talk lovingly of an old opponent, only then might I level them up, radiation accident style. The old villain then leapfrogs the heroes and comes back for a while.

 

Doc

[Tasha]

As a player I tend to amass a ton of experience as I forget to spend it or I don't want to bother the GM that week etc. There's nothing worse than finally figuring out how I want to spend my points (and I don't buy 6 Skill levels at a time or any such nonsense, because my GM's all have pretty clear guidelines as to CV, damage etc). There's nothing worse than being told that I will have to wait 4 or 5 sessions because my character must "train" or other such BS. If I want to buy off a Hunted or watched it's probably because it feels appropriate to do so. What the OP described is one of my frustrations with playing with some GM's. I am not unreasonable, but why should I be penalized for not spending my exp as I get it?

 

My read is that the OP had a Player who tried to buy 6 skill levels and the OP wanted to come up with an excuse to not allow the game breaking purchase. An excuse beyond the obvious one of "sorry, that many Combat skill levels is unbalancing to the campaign. How about we do X or Y. Perhaps I can help you figure out how to do that thing you thought wasn't possible with the rules.

[massey]

I have saved up over 100 XPs for characters on the understandings with the GMs that there would be a 'radiation accident' and that the character would be changed as a result. Doing that you can then increase STR, DEX, CON, BODY, SPD and PRE usually as well as making radical changes to power sets i.e. Entangle affects desolid. But you have to keep things in proportion. The Energy projector went from DEX 20 to 33, STR 10 to 20 but this was as a result of background on the charact6er and what he was doing between missions.

 

But TheDarkness has a point with XP expenditure. You can't just add the points in overnight. 'Can't hit you ? Fine I'm buying enough CSLs until I can.'

On the other hand if you go to the GM and say you are practicing continually and add in the levels one at a time over a period then there should be no trouble unless the levels become excessive.

 

 

I disagree entirely.  Saving up 100 XP, and then increasing your Str, Dex, etc, doesn't require a radiation accident.  You can just build up those stats gradually without saving XP.  A radiation accident allows you to change from Professor X and become the Incredible Hulk.  Ditch those mental powers and get your rage strength.  It allows for a complete re-write.

 

 

 

The old rule was XP expenditure had to be agreed with the GM and had to be related to what the character was doing. So City Knowledges could increase through patrolling, martial arts could be learned through exposure to a teacher and continued training etc 

 

I don't remember this "rule" at all.

[Lucius]

Not to be a rules lawyer, but I'm going to quote selected passages from Hero System 6th Vol 2, Combat and Adventuring, specifically from the section on Experience.

 

 

“Some Skills may require a fair amount of time in the campaign to learn; for others, a character may need training under an instructor. A character may have to go off the beaten path to find someone who can teach him some of the more esoteric Skills or Talents.”

 

“In a Superheroic campaign, you should take special care to manage how the characters spend their Experience points.”

 

“...examine any new Powers or Talents....as carefully as you would for a starting character.”

 

“..a character should usually have a good rationale for spending his Experience Points”

 

“Wherever possible, you should try to structure adventures so that characters can buy off Limitations and Complications.”

 

And of course the famous

 

“ ...a character with a Focus couldn't put the item in a milkshake and drink it – there would have to be a better explanation for losing the Focus Limitation.”

 

I suspect this may be a case where despite the apparent disagreement, the actual disagreement in PRACTICAL terms is smaller than it appears. For example, Tasha, if I were in your game and declared I was buying off a Focus Limitation by putting it in a milkshake, would you let that pass, or raise an objection?

 

On the other hand, a Game Operations Director can be TOO controlling of how players spend experience. I remember playing a character with a DEX of 17 and making a point of practicing gymnastics, taking up juggling, etc. to try to get permission to raise my DEX, but I was up against a Game Operations Director who thought 17 was the perfect DEX for the character I was playing.

 

 

To lay out my own opinion:

 

Letting a power armor character lose the Focus and get Inherent Always On Defenses by grinding the armor into a really big milkshake and drinking it down is too permissive (although a "radiation accident" that's more "reasonable" in comic book terms might be okay.) I could play in that game, but might have a hard time taking it too seriously.

 

Not letting a brick with DEX 17 buy it up when the character is going out of their way to practice agility and coordination is too restricted (although forcing them to buy it point by point instead of going to 23 DEX in one session might be okay.) I could play in that game, but might feel a littles stifled.

 

Letting a frail old wizard go from STR 8 to 13 over the course of several months because adventuring is a lot of exercise and he's no longer leading a sedentary lifestyle, or letting a character get Mental Defense after encountering a mentalist with the justification "He's strong willed and 'always' had it and was just having an off day mentally that day" - I could accept a ruling either way, I suppose.

 

Pretty much everyone in my circle of gamers agrees that experience spent should be justified somehow and is subject to veto, and I think we all pretty much agree that it should be very easy to justify and that if a player wants something for their character, the Game Operations Director should try to make it happen unless it's somehow game-breaking or unbalancing.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Spending five points to double the reifier of palindromedaries again

[steriaca]

 

 

I don't remember this "rule" at all.

That is because the GM assigning the XPs is an option, not a rule.

[Lucius]

That is because the GM assigning the XPs is an option, not a rule.

"Assigned XP" is something different than what we're talking about in this thread. That's when the characters are assigned extra XP that is earmarked for something specific, usually in ADDITION to regular XP not INSTEAD of regular XP.

 

Examples:

 

"You've been fighting VIPER a lot, everyone gain 2 pts in a KS: Viper Skill."

 

or

 

"You've been in France for months, everyone gains 1 pt in the French Language or if you're at 4 pts in French already gain a point in an Area or Culture Knowledge."

 

What the Original Poster saying, as I read it, is NOT "I tell the player how to spend XP," it's "The player says how they want to spend XP and I okay it, or veto it and explain way, or suggest ways to justify it - exactly the same as my role in character creation when we start the game."

 

Basically, in a system like Hero, character creation is not a one time thing but an ongoing process, and the person running the game has a role in that process.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has no role in that process, usually.

[Tasha]

I would try to explain it. If PA suit person wants their powers inherent. I would allow them to undergo surgery to implant tech that would give the PC the same abilities as the PA suit. I would explain that it's highly likely that the PC has been working on implants that give the same powers and now is the time they get implanted. If the PA suit person has a benefactor that has given them the suit, perhaps it's that person who has done the surgery.

 

If Lightning God Hammer person wants their hammer to not be stolen quite as often or have it knocked away so often (Going from OAF Hammer to OIAID and buying off Accidental Change back into person when hammer is away for more than 6 phases), they could have gained a better rapport with their magical weapon. Or the God(ess) that gave them the weapon thinks they have proven themselves better and has decided that they should gain control over their change. 

 

I would try to give the Player enough RP to make the change fun, but I wouldn't ordinarily make them wait to spend the exp.

 

All of this stuff is about the GM being flexable and not rigid. If it feels like it might be fun to have an adventure around the PC's change. I'll ask the player if that is something they want or if they just want to change off screen. (ie Introducing in this issue of Champions, the All new Defender). The character shows up with their new powers and a quick flashback to them working on stuff. If the player wants somethihng more, then depending on what is going on, I will try to add their reorigin story to the current storyline or at the end of the storyline (ie Marvel Girl pilots the shuttle containing new and old X-Men, gets irradiated by Cosmic Rays, and Becomes Phoenix in the next issue).

 

Our job as GM is to make a FUN game. Putting barriers to spending XP (ex when there are balance issues) is not fun. Even balance issues can be dealt with by saying Yes, but... (ie Yes, but 6 skill levels are way too powerful. How about you go with 2 skill levels for now and we talk about where you want your character to go XP wise)

[massey]

If power armor suit guy wants to remove the focus limitation, no problem.  He will just never get caught without his suit.  His suit won't break.  Dr Destroyer doesn't have OIF on anything either.  Even when the character is walking around without the suit on, it can teleport onto him or something.

 

As far as the milkshake however, sometimes that's perfectly appropriate.  I'm reminded of when Drax the Destroyer thought the Power Gem was a jellybean, and he ate it.  Still worked, but he couldn't lose it after that.

 

The issue isn't "come up with a good explanation".  That's not what the OP was talking about.  The issue is "you have this many experience saved up, now when you want to spend them I'm going to make you spend time training, like in 1st edition D&D".

[TheDarkness]

How the hell does a player "greedily" spend XP? Maybe if you think every player in every game ever is being greedy they are really just playing the game normally and the problem is with you putting some weird value judgement on participating in a normal part of the game...

The comment was clearly a joke, we all enjoy spending experience, myself included.

[TheDarkness]

Our job as GM is to make a FUN game. Putting barriers to spending XP (ex when there are balance issues) is not fun. Even balance issues can be dealt with by saying Yes, but... (ie Yes, but 6 skill levels are way too powerful. How about you go with 2 skill levels for now and we talk about where you want your character to go XP wise)

Funny, I said I do this exact thing as part of my process at least three times. It is exactly what most often will come up. And it is the GM telling the player how to spend experience.

 

And no, while it may be fun to decide I'm bitter about a character who tried to pass off a bunch of CSLs, that was an example made off of the cuff while wearing my evil svengali costume, not my bitter forum member costume, that one's at the cleaners.

[TheDarkness]

Just throwing this out there: if the characters totally get themselves captured, and the players insist on no captures, this is attempted railroading on the players' parts.

 

[Grins evilly, twirling his beard]

[TheDarkness]

It was not my intention to denigrate his manner of GMing XP, and if it came across that way I apologize for any misunderstanding.  I was just giving my experience (pun intended) in the matter. 

No need to apologize, your posts stated your point quite clearly on why you take a different view. Good posts.

[TheDarkness]

To further illustrate:

 

Gadgeteers and armor making characters, in most cases, would normally have an advantage, as no other type of character can explain as easily the acquisition of new powers(and skills, in many cases). A gadgeteer can pretty much build any power and it probably fits in with the narrative.

 

However, in my game, I now require gadgets to have a CID(causal influence diagram) that shows the major parts and how they relate. I also require them to actually build it, make the appropriate rolls, etc.

 

Ultimately, they will have a suit they payed for. but there will probably be beta versions(unless they roll well the first time). They may not realize that one particular function, they actually failed the roll by one, and so it may fail occasionally until it is replaced by a fully functioning version. However, they may also test the suit, and from the results, figure out if there are any issues.

 

The CID is nice, because in case of a failure, or if a focus is targeted and damaged, they can look at what's happening, see "ah, these two systems are down, and power comes to both of them from this part, so if I can rig the power to bypass that part, I should be able to activate the beam in time. Cover me, everyone, I'm on it."

 

Conversely, this means gadgets of NPCs and machines that have game relevance require me to make a CID for them, or be able to cobble one together quickly if asked.

[Lucius]

 

 

Our job as GM is to make a FUN game. Putting barriers to spending XP (ex when there are balance issues) is not fun. Even balance issues can be dealt with by saying Yes, but... (ie Yes, but 6 skill levels are way too powerful. How about you go with 2 skill levels for now and we talk about where you want your character to go XP wise)

 

"Yes but" is what I thought I heard the Darkness saying, but I may have misheard them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary heard something about a milkshake

[TheDarkness]

"Yes but" is what I thought I heard the Darkness saying, but I may have misheard them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary heard something about a milkshake

You heard me right, "Yes, but..." and "milkshake". There are no good milkshakes near me. I'm often muttering it.

[Tasha]

I read through the OP again it still reads like "Preplan how you are going to spend experience or I am going to make you spend weeks justifying how you spend your character's XP. I will do this by making you tell me the minutae of how they are training for this skill or that stat" 
 
"1. It makes for more consistent story and narrative(and smoother game play)"
Not in may experience. You assume so but there are many posters here that have shown that isn't the case at all.
 
"2. It avoids a lot of munchkin silliness without me having to look at the way someone spent it, and tell them no"
You really think that preplanning xp expenditures somehow makes it so you don't have to look at new power builds and if those Combat Skill levels (which you bring up in 3 of your examples in our OP alone). No matter how you allow PC's to spend XP. The GM still has to look at the expenditure and make sure that it makes sense for the campaign. Questions about HOW the PC gained the ability is up to the player and GM to work out. You talk time and time again about how your OP will prevent campaign power creep, when just a good positive dialog with players will do just that.
 
"3. It tends to produce much more interesting characters for me and the players, with more nuanced expenditure and better thought out mechanics."
This is another assumption that you really can't back up. Players are all different. What works for one player won't work for another. People grow in response to things that happen to them. It's very natural for someone who keeps getting owned by mentalists to want to have more Ego, DMCV, and Ego Defense. Their experiences keep teaching them that they are lacking in the mental defenses arena. Just like someone who keeps getting beat down by bricks might want to increase their DCV and or PD somewhat. Esp if they keep getting buried by the same kind of attacks. They may also need some other tactics. It all depends on the character and what the Player thinks is right for their character. 
 
"4. It creates scenarios"
Not always, and the player may not always want a big scenario when they buy IR vision or when they buy some Combat Skill levels. Sometimes they just want to spend their XP and get on with the game.
 
"5. Gives a chance to test things before major scenarios"
That assumes that the heroes even have a danger room or other scrimage facility. Sometimes no matter what you do, powers will synergise in unforeseen ways. You can't catch everything, sometimes you just have to go into a scenario and go with the flow. If something is proving to be overpowered you as GM deal with it after the game. As GM it is up to you to understand how the powers basically work and to ask the player what they expect the power will do. Sometimes an otherwise benign power will start to be used in a way that is unbalanced. ie my PC had a 8d6 HTH attack with a lot of flight and 20 strength. Right at campaign average. during combat I figured out that she could do nasty damage with movebys on low DCV targets. We could have skirmished the character all day, and missed how effective she was with Movebys esp after the team Martial Artist started to martial throw targets to the ground to make it easier for her to do those Movebys.

 

I didn't see ANY "Yes, but..."'s in the OP. It still sounds like you have had or do have an out of control campaign that you want to put the brakes on. So this is what you think will fix your issues. I don't think you are a bad GM or that your games are bad. Just things you talk about in your OP would really cheese me off if I was one of your players. Esp if it was as "my way or the highway" as it seems when I read though it. (your final disclaimer not withstanding). It cheeses me off, because I have had GM's do just the things that you have talked about above. Eventually I learned that the GM really didn't want the Players to spend XP. So I stopped trying, which made me not want to play (esp since the GM in question tended to be stingy on starting points and always promised that we could grow into a better character).

 

GM's should always talk to the players about everything. They should be asking what the players thought of the game. Who their favorite Villain was, who was the most annoying Villain and why to both. They should ALWAYS dialog with the player for any change to the character and be ready to give guidance. Good dialog with players is the Panacea to all gaming issues.

[TheDarkness]

EDIT:[deleting grumpy post]

 

The first post was written while I was stuck working and skipping sleep because a coworker didn't finish their work, and people who would have suffered if the work didn't get done needed it done, so I did it. As such, the tone on the first post is a bit terse.

 

That said, I wrote a lot more posts trying to clarify. I've clarified. And had a lot of bad motivations ascribed to me based on straw man arguments. So, while my tone didn't help, I was hardly alone in that, and I've been trying to clarify.

 

So, hope everyone has a wonderful day.

[薔薇語]

You heard me right, "Yes, but..." and "milkshake". There are no good milkshakes near me. I'm often muttering it.

Ya know what: My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard and they're like its better than yours. Damn right its better than yours. I could teach you but I'd have to write a very long post about it and delve into tons of overly critical responses. So I wont. But my milkshake does bring all the boys to the yard.

 

Soar.

[Lucius]

Well, that escalated quickly.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks if we need reservations at that waterfront hotel in Scotland again.

[BoloOfEarth]

In general, I'm of the school that "what works for me may not work for you, and vice versa."  That works for character creation, NPC use, Complication implementation, XP expenditure, snacks brought to the game, etc. 

 

I'm going to take one point above and give my views on it.

 

 

 

"3. It tends to produce much more interesting characters for me and the players, with more nuanced expenditure and better thought out mechanics."

 

First, I appreciate the "tends to" above, acknowledging that one size does not fit all.

 

As a counterpoint to Tasha's statement, I think that en mass XP expenditure, especially done in reaction to a recent event, may miss other less drastic character needs or desires from prior adventures.  A player whose character gets curb-stomped by mentalists a few times may decide to spend a good chunk of XP on EGO and Mental Defense, ignoring his previous desire for a particular noncombat skill that would be useful in play. 

 

As a GM, I'm just as guilty.  I often bring out a villain group that's been dormant for a few months, figure out how much XP they've earned since last used, and then make some chunka-changes on the character sheets.  I need to (and sometimes fail to) remind myself to maybe add a noncombat skill that fits the character, or buy down (but not completely remove) a Complication, instead of just adding a few new slots to the Multipower that would be useful against the PC heroes and/or adding Hardened to defenses because the martial artist's AP punch took the villain out too fast last time.

 

That's not to say reacting to in-play events shouldn't be done.  If the players find a way to quickly and easily shut a villain down, that villain would set aside other wants in order to ensure that doesn't happen again.  Likewise, if a villain figures out how to one-shot a PC hero, that hero would likely set aside other plans to find a way to protect himself in the future.

 

I just think there should be a balance in there.  Purely reactionary XP expenditure makes Jack a dull PC.  Sticking blindly to a long-term experience plan may make Jack a dead PC. 

 

- - - -

 

In relation to thinking out XP use more completely, I'd point out that many people have very busy lives outside gaming and may not have either the desire or ability to put that much thought into their characters' "career paths."  As a GM, you may be lucky if some players can take the time to spend a chunk of XP once every few months.  Yeah, it would be nice if they put more thought into it along the way, but that dreaded "Real Life" gets in the way more often than not. 

 

While GMing, I try and remind myself that this is all a game, and we're all there to have fun.  If that means I have to bite my tongue or hand-wave things a few times along the way (as long as doing so wouldn't break the game), then I'll do that for a better time overall.

[Hugh Neilson]

OOF - Long posts.

 

This is a straw man fallacy. I have repeatedly stated I do not choose what people spend their experience on. If the player, given the opportunity and asked what he is training/working on, observed in what his character is actually doing most commonly, communicates his or her intentions, which they almost always do, I try to accommodate them. However, and again, it sticks out like a sore thumb if you have a milquetoast turn into a competent hth combatant over the weekend with no warning. Or suddenly, the day after one encounter with their first mentalist opponent, they are buying a ton of mental defense, the narrative and the balance almost always suffer for this. Problems soon become more often solved with builds than role plays.

It does not matter how many times you say it. When the player says “I want to spend my xp on combat skill levels” and you say “no, that does not match my vision of your character”, you are choosing what players may, and may not, spend their xp on. Some oversight in this regard is needed. 6 CSL’s may break campaign guidelines. Tiger Man should reasonably spend xp on Tiger Powers, not on a flamethrower. Even characters who can justify almost any ability (Gadgeteer and Master Mage come to mind) should avoid stepping on the other PC’s niches.

 

I also have no problem with requiring xp generally be spent in “down time” - you don’t develop mental defense while recovering from being Stunned. But maybe you DO develop it from being hit with mental attacks a few times, just as regular intensive exercise (like fighting for your life) builds up your endurance.

 

These players may certainly buy some mental defense after such a situation. But if every buy is a drastic re-imagining of the character, it becomes tedious for everyone.

A “drastic reimagining of the character”, to me, requires a pretty significant xp spend. It doesn’t mean “the character has learned to be stealthy” and spent 3 points on the Stealth skill. Earning that substantial xp means that “drastic reimaginings” wont be all that common even if they are the only xp spends.

 

More to the point, if every xp spend is really a “drastic reimagining of the character”, it seems like the payers aren’t too happy with their characters. Maybe they should just get rid of their current character and bring in the new one they actually want to play.

 

developing skills requires time or it feels incredibly corny.

I recall Colossus in an old X-Men demonstrating acrobatic skills out of the blue. “Practice offscreen” was the very simple explanation. Do the PC’s spend every waking hour together, or could that character have been practicing of-screen without the knowledge of the other players? The game is not in any way improved, to me, because the player tells you “I plan to spend my next 3 xp on Acrobatics so my character is taking gymnastics classes when he’s away from the team” rather than “I spent my 3 xp on acrobatics – my character has been taking gymnastics classes when he’s away from the team”.

 

Their vision doesn't have to match mine, nor has a single thing I said supported that statement. It has to fit in the story that player and the rest have been making, it has to fit the character the way he has been playing it, if he's trying to branch out, he needs to do so in-game, or figure out how to do so, and I'm happy to accommodate that.

First off, if your vision of the story we have been making does not match that of the player’s, you are either preventing or delaying his ability to spend his xp. The whole system requires the player use their xp in a manner that fits your vision.

 

Frankly, I don’t want to waste my precious game time role playing how Psychic Fred locates a teacher who can instruct him in how to speak Spanish, or playing out endless training routines so we can accept that TigerMan gains a couple of skill levels. That’s all background noise that can stay in the background. I want to spend my game play time playing the game.

 

If he wants to learn how to maintain galactic hyperdrives, the question of how the heck he learns that makes some sense. If he wants his Leaping to develop into Flight, or he feels that he’s become more cool under pressure and reacts faster when surprised from his constant exposure to such issues during combat/game play, he buys up his PRE. Get on with the game.

 

But they, and I, all find it odd if every third week people have remarkable abilities that are in no way explainable by any narrative the player has taken part in or provided.

 

'Deserve' is just a way to muddy the water.

First off, they must gain xp pretty fast if they can afford remarkable new abilities every third week. Second, the need to explain and justify their xp spends is the manner in which they show they “deserve” to spend their xp on that new ability, so I don’t think it muddies the water at all.

 

Do the work to your own character's story to explain things, or don't get into a heavy role playing game is more like it.

Justifying my character build and xp spend is very different from role playing my character.

 

And caps are a flat out command that you cannot spend your points, that you earned, the way you want if it means you want to go over that cap.

 

It's the same.

It is not the same. Caps are needed for game balance, and apply to all the characters. The Powered Armor guy who designed his own powers does not get to exceed the caps because he provided you a better explanation of the new devices he was researching six weeks before he earned the xp to buy them.

 

In one case, all players have to, where necessary, using group consensus and common sense, slip in buys in a way that works with the narrative, letting some be big and dramatic, some, especially those that that character can come up with no better rationale for than "I'm a genius, so five CSLs is totally something I can do over the weekend", may need phasing in, because they sound stupid to everyone, usually even the player attempting them when you go "Really, Saturday you got beat up by a possessed little girl with 6 STR, today you're a master of the peekaboo style, because you're a genius?"

How many xp did this character save up? 25 points? 40 points? 50 points? Why didn’t he just buy one skill level at a time rather than letting his xp build up that much without being spent? More to the point, if everyone including the player in question thinks it’s stupid, why would it be presented as a spend, rather than the player buying one level at a time?

 

More to the point, why does the player see the need for 5 combat skill levels? Because he misread the campaign guidelines and his CV is simply not competitive in the game, so he’s having no fun? Well, clearly the solution is to make him continue to be useless and lag behind all the other players, and have no fun, rather than suspend our disbelief and let him spend his xp.

 

You seem to deal with very different players than I do (quite possible) if you constantly get xp spends that seem ridiculous in game context. However, I suggest that, to constantly get xp spends that seem ridiculous in game context, you must be getting them from a lot, if not all, of your players – maybe that indicates the spends don’t seem ridiculous to everyone.

 

If someone chooses to play in a story heavy game, and makes silly builds that are inexplicable even by their standards and stick out in the story, and it has been explained that's how the game is, no one is being hypnotized and having their rights taken away if people go, "Bob, don't be stupid."

The build is not the story. I can play in a story heavy game that expects the characters to have silly builds. And a silly build that results in a group eyeroll is not one that’s going to become “unsilly” by requiring the player spend extra time to spend the xp. That’s a matter of campaign guidelines. I have not seen you identify a “silly build”, rather than an ability you don’t like being added all at once, so far.

 

A character, we'll say this is a gadgeteer, has stockpiled points for a while, thinking to do something with it, then finds out his original idea is not a legal build. He's got the points, but no plan at the moment. Then, during a busy week, he is in a combat and gets tired of having problems when opponents get close to him. Right then and there, he decides he wants to use his stockpile to buy those CSLs.

If he’s told you in advance how he wanted to spend the points, so he could be researching this new device and justify spending the points when he accumulates them, how did he suddenly discover that the build is illegal after building up 25 – 40 xp to make the purchase (or to buy 5 CSLs)?

 

And, again, I have no issue with saying “you can’t spend xp during the adventure”. I do take issue with "no, I think you have to spend weeks of real time and many hours of game time to justify that xp spend. Charlie got to spend his xp immediately because he told me he was taking night school classes three months ago. Next time, play more like Charlie."

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, incorporating an XP expenditure into your "character narrative" or whatever you want to call it, is perfectly fine. Trying to enforce that is difficult, because it becomes a game of "guess what number I'm thinking of" At that point, your players have to explain things to you in a way that makes you happy, so their character fits your vision of what their character should be.

Exactly. I would add that a lot of character narrative is background, and need not be shared with the rest of the players. Not a fan of a player saying “My character is a brooding loner who has difficulty opening up to people because his parents were killed when he was young and he shuffled through a bunch of uncaring foster homes for many years before entering a life of petty crime, then being recruited by VIPER, a period of his life that he is deeply ashamed of, so he’s even more secretive about that specifically. That’s why he won’t tell you he gained his powers from genetic manipulation by VIPER scientists during that dark time of his life.” He’s a brooding loner. He won’t tell me. Either the history comes out in actual game play, or it doesn’t.

 

TheDarkness uses a lot of pretty extreme examples, of people spending 10, or 20, or more character points in one go. I doubt that's too much of a problem for his group. It's more an example of his fear of what would happen without GM restrictions. I seriously doubt people have enough XP saved up to buy 5 combat skill levels at once, unless maybe they're 2 point levels. I don't see anyone saving up 25 or 30 points at once, and then doing that multiple times throughout the game. Not enough to make "drastic re-imaginings of the character" multiple times in one campaign.

You and I share that belief, but that doesn’t seem like what he is saying.

 

I would try to explain it. If PA suit person wants their powers inherent. I would allow them to undergo surgery to implant tech that would give the PC the same abilities as the PA suit. I would explain that it's highly likely that the PC has been working on implants that give the same powers and now is the time they get implanted. If the PA suit person has a benefactor that has given them the suit, perhaps it's that person who has done the surgery.

To highlight a key point, it does not matter whether the player mentioned this months ago, reminds the GM (and/or the whole group) of this research every game session for six months, then finally saves up the xp and makes the change, or whether it’s all retconned into the backstory. Frankly, the latter is more common than the former in the source material.

 

If Lightning God Hammer person wants their hammer to not be stolen quite as often or have it knocked away so often (Going from OAF Hammer to OIAID and buying off Accidental Change back into person when hammer is away for more than 6 phases), they could have gained a better rapport with their magical weapon. Or the God(ess) that gave them the weapon thinks they have proven themselves better and has decided that they should gain control over their change.

OAF to OIAID could be as simple as “people don’t take the hammer away any more”.

 

All of this stuff is about the GM being flexable and not rigid. If it feels like it might be fun to have an adventure around the PC's change. I'll ask the player if that is something they want or if they just want to change off screen. (ie Introducing in this issue of Champions, the All new Defender). The character shows up with their new powers and a quick flashback to them working on stuff. If the player wants somethihng more, then depending on what is going on, I will try to add their reorigin story to the current storyline or at the end of the storyline (ie Marvel Girl pilots the shuttle containing new and old X-Men, gets irradiated by Cosmic Rays, and Becomes Phoenix in the next issue).

This is the key I think no one has actually stated. Whatever approach is used is a good approach, as long as all of the players are all enjoying it. A lot of the comments, in my opinion, start with the unstated “here is what I see this doing, or possibly doing, which I as a player would not enjoy”.

 

Even balance issues are intended to preserve the fun by keeping it fun for all the players. I’d add “and challenging for the group as a whole”, but if every PC adds 6 skill levels, they will still get challenged – the opposition will get enough abilities to compensate. The problem is where one PC clearly outshines the rest.

 

Gadgeteers and armor making characters, in most cases, would normally have an advantage, as no other type of character can explain as easily the acquisition of new powers(and skills, in many cases).

A wizard who researches new spells constantly.

 

A bioengineer who reconfigures his own DNA in the lab.

 

Lots of characters can justify changing their own power sets.

 

A gadgeteer can pretty much build any power and it probably fits in with the narrative.

 

However, in my game, I now require gadgets to have a CID(causal influence diagram) that shows the major parts and how they relate. I also require them to actually build it, make the appropriate rolls, etc.

So, basically, I will further restrict how this character uses his xp because he has found a way to circumvent my usual “it has to fit the narrative” requirement.

 

Ultimately, they will have a suit they payed for. but there will probably be beta versions(unless they roll well the first time). They may not realize that one particular function, they actually failed the roll by one, and so it may fail occasionally until it is replaced by a fully functioning version. However, they may also test the suit, and from the results, figure out if there are any issues.

 

The CID is nice, because in case of a failure, or if a focus is targeted and damaged, they can look at what's happening, see "ah, these two systems are down, and power comes to both of them from this part, so if I can rig the power to bypass that part, I should be able to activate the beam in time. Cover me, everyone, I'm on it."

Or not fun, because the player envisioned tech that works, not tech that regularly malfunctions. If I want my powers to regularly malfunction, I’ll put an Activation Roll or some similar limitation on them. If I don’t add those limitations, then I paid the points to have the reliable power I wanted.

 

If my character is a bit reckless and likes to test his cutting edge inventions in the field, I might routinely have new powers with a failure chance. In this case, I’ll build them that way.

 

But maybe my character is cautious, methodical and conservative, so he doesn’t bring a new device into the field until it has been fully tested. In this case, your model violates my vision of my character.

 

Conversely, this means gadgets of NPCs and machines that have game relevance require me to make a CID for them, or be able to cobble one together quickly if asked.

Why? How does my character know how long Captain Cold has had his FreezeGun, or how well-tested and reliable it is? I’d rather role play the story than play out some extended flowchart of new power development, thanks.

[TheDarkness]

Where, exactly, did I say that I even had a substantial number of players who present problem builds?

[TheDarkness]

The CIDs were added FOR the gadgeteers as a means to make their related skills more useful and meaningful and frequently used in gametime, based on a thread here on the topic. The one player to make a gadgeteer loved making them and the idea for their use.

 

The gadgeteer who is cautious and methodical would just test the item more.

 

More than a few have commented that its really not that uncommon to stockpile experience.

 

Yes, there are a number of types that can develop new powers without anyone blinking and eye, and a larger number of types that really can't. You seem to be just arguing to argue on this one.

 

As for why the villains may need CIDs, if Kaiser Mayhem uses a bomb to sabotage his teleporter before the characters arrive, and the characters get trapped in the teleporter room by others who have come to take a shot at the villain, while the rest of the group might be holding off the threat, the gadgeteer may be figuring out what is damaged, and how to bypass it, and his skills come into dramatic play in a way beyond "roll twice to get it going", a way that is more tactile, just as the combat system is more tactile than the skills system in general.

 

Seriously, ad hominem and strawman arguments are all through your post. It's getting a bit tiring how personally some people have to take this. My players are good, I try to do a good job, lay off the personal assumptions.

[TheDarkness]

Ya know what: My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard and they're like its better than yours. Damn right its better than yours. I could teach you but I'd have to write a very long post about it and delve into tons of overly critical responses. So I wont. But my milkshake does bring all the boys to the yard.

 

Soar.

If you write about it, I will totally click the problem solved button on that post. Then we can talk about peaceful things, like how some characters are just begging for capture, and which is better than fifth edition, 6th, or 6th.