Vagaries of the rule of X

[WhiteShark]

@Doc Democracy I think your method looks useful, and I don't think it would be hard at all to encode that in a spreadsheet. You said that you run the strawman fight three times for each character, but I'm not sure I see the point in that. Speak not the averages for themselves? E.g., if the offense strawman does an average of 8.5 STUN per attack (50% hit chance * 17 STUN average), then you know that he will KO his opponent after 4.7 (opponent STUN of 40 / 8.5 STUN) attacks on average.
 

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I know the kind of combat I want in my game, if players go toe to toe, fights will be brutal and short, I want the character builds to effect that.

I'm of a similar mind, but I'm curious how short is short to you. If you had two perfectly well-rounded characters fighting against each other, how many hits do you think it should take for one to down the other? What about two offense-focused combatants? I realize that you said you picked the numbers off the top of your head, but supposing I placed two of your offense strawmen against each other, one would KO the other after 2.3 hits / 3.6 attacks—so in reality, four attacks. That seems high to me for two characters that are supposed to be offensively oriented.

That's actually the key thing I'm considering right now: what average hits to KO etc. should the baseline values promote? Unfortunately I think this may vary based on setting assumptions. For example, I'm a big fan of guns being deadly, so in my military sci-fi game, I want to keep that average pretty low. Even more so, if two glass cannons went toe to toe, I'd want them to be nearly, perhaps actually, taking each other out with one of their (very powerful) average hits.

P.S.: if you'd like to learn very basic coding, spreadsheets are a fine way to start. There is a lot of easy to understand documentation out there and generally it's only as complex as using some math functions and possibly a few if statements. I'm not a coding expert by any means but encoding this sort of math on a spreadsheet is pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

 

@sentry0 would you prefer that we henceforth continued discussion here or in the file thread? I see that it is possible to upload files in both places, so I don't mind either way. I'm going to ponder the average attacks/hits to KO/dying question some more today before I personally make another revision.

[sentry0]

59 minutes ago, WhiteShark said:

@sentry0 would you prefer that we henceforth continued discussion here or in the file thread? I see that it is possible to upload files in both places, so I don't mind either way. I'm going to ponder the average attacks/hits to KO/dying question some more today before I personally make another revision.

I have just ported the spreadsheet from Excel to Google Sheets for faster collaboration.

 

Here is a link - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_g56HAAm67LRC8u0T5KO-NCryRnBWFyu-aVBNqgip0U/edit?usp=sharing

 

You will have to make a copy for now unless you (or anyone else who wants to collaborate) send me your email.  I'll add you as an editor if you do.

 

Let's keep the convo rolling here... I think it's a better place to collaborate for now.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, WhiteShark said:

I'm of a similar mind, but I'm curious how short is short to you. If you had two perfectly well-rounded characters fighting against each other, how many hits do you think it should take for one to down the other?

 

You are in my headspace!  That is indeed the question I am asking myself.  I set up the campaign for specific things. If they want a toe to toe fight, I want it over in a turn or thereabouts.  Simply working down stats is not interesting.

 

If they go for a more interesting, rolling fight, then that can be fun over a few combat turns as they seek a situation to achieve a KO blow.

 

I do it three times to reflect offensive versus offensive, offensive versus defensive and defensive versus defensive.

 

I reckon I know enough to sort out a spreadsheet but it would be even more useful to be able to upload an hdc file and test it three ways at the click of a button.  😁😇

[sentry0]

I just cut a version called v0.0.1-alpha of the spreadsheet this morning...

• I reweighted the base percentages on the baseline table
  • I think they're tighter and a little better, I dunno... you tell me
• I added some general statistics to the document
• I added a chart for people who like visuals (like me)
  • The closer the character is to 0 the closer they are to the Rule of X
• The first character on the sheet is now used to run calculations on the subsequent characters
• I added the TTU and TTK columns to the character entries
  • TTU is "Time To Unconscious" and it uses your STUN calc from the table you added
  • TTK is "Time To Kill" and it uses the killing damage calc

I did a pass through the 400 and 225-point characters we have on hand while messing around.  225pt has some egregious outliers like a 94 velocity on the Cheetah and 0 stats on the egoist.  I added the "Standard Deviation" entry to the stats to try and shine a light on datasets with potential issues.  These types of characters definitely will skew the calculations and one needs to be careful.  The living brain things could be a very deadly fight for the players unless your campaign includes psychics to the point of it being common for Mental Defense, I wouldn't recommend pitting a group of egoists against a group of unprepared (low ego, no MD) players.

 

[Doc Democracy]

On 4/7/2018 at 10:23 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

She can always Spread her blast to trade DCs for OCV, so she can have a higher OCV if she wants  one.  That's extreme, but adding 4 OCV to hit Green Dragon's 11 DCV reliably with 14 DCs instead of trying to hit him with OCV 8 in the hopes of a full 18 DC hit seems at least as valid a tactical choice as using a Defensive Strike to boost DCV instead of an Offensive Strike to boost DCs, or moving CSLs around.

 

I have not sought to take this into consideration with the straw man system because, to me, it is part of the tactics of the game.  My system is about what would happen in a closed room, toe to toe, ignores the effects of knock back.

 

The system is so complex.

 

I am however going to do a bit of a play with Shrinker and Green Dragon to see if she has an optimal point.

 

[Doc Democracy]

Interesting, spreading works so much better.  With average rolls, over 2 turns, Shrinker can expect to generate 135 STUN damage using an 18D6 attack; 168 STUN using 17D6; 190 STUN using 16D6; 210 STUN using 15D6; 217 STUN using 14D6; 224 STUN using 13D6; 216 STUN using 12D6, 210 STUN using 11D6.

 

So, against Green Dragon, for pure damage output using 5D6 to spread is most efficient. 

 

The problem for Green Dragon is that EVERY attack Shrinker throws, even down to 11D6 would likely STUN him.  Using only 3 dice to spread there is 41% chance to take Green Dragon to 0 STUN  and a 99.9% chance of stunning him.

 

Even if GD martial dodges on 2 and 4, hoping to attack on 6, Shrinker still has a 40%+ chance of hitting and being stunned...

[WhiteShark]

On 8/11/2023 at 4:04 AM, sentry0 said:

I think they're tighter and a little better, I dunno... you tell me

I'm still working through the changes, but I'm curious why the weightings have shifted toward defenses (and EGO). It does seem like it's easier now to make a zippy glass cannon without deviating much from X, something which subjectively pleases me. I definitely agree with the reduction to BODY.

I spent some time this morning checking out example stats for NPCs in the Normal tier to see if I could extrapolate a smooth progression of characteristic values from the character creation base values to the ones we've (mostly) settled on, but alas, it may be more difficult than I had hoped. While a smooth progression would have a 0 point character start with 20 STUN and gain 1.1 STUN per 25 points until reaching 30 STUN at 225 character points (our chosen value), the example "Skilled Normal" 50 point character from the book jumps straight to 24 STUN, and the example "Competent Normal" 100 point character... goes back down to 22 STUN. 

My goal for today is to create a regular progression for DC, STUN, and DEF based on example characters from the various books. I'll be entering their characteristic values onto a spreadsheet and then averaging the ratio of characteristic increase from base to total character points. Ideally I am able to find a progression in which Hits to KO remains at approximately 2.5 across all character point values, like it currently does with the 400 point baselines. I've concluded that 2.5 HtKO is my preferred level of (non)lethality for a mirror match of balanced characters, and I find a pretty similar opinion among my friends and users on other forums. After that I'll think about BODY and rDEF.

By the way, the new additions to the sheet look really good. I didn't even know you could make graphs like that on a spreadsheet. Very cool. Hopefully I have something to contribute of my own later today.

Edited August 12, 2023 by WhiteShark

[sentry0]

Quote

I'm still working through the changes, but I'm curious why the weightings have shifted toward defenses (and EGO). It does seem like it's easier now to make a zippy glass cannon without deviating much from X, something which subjectively pleases me. I definitely agree with the reduction to BODY.

I was messing around, and I felt that that whole weighting disproportionally favored offense and had been weighted some time ago by myself before certain additions were made to the sheet, like BODY.  The main pivot points remain the most expensive, SPD and DCs are what I try to horsetrade at about a 1:2 ratio.  I'm also rethinking the statement that you should keep things between +/-5% at character creation.  I think doubling it to +/-10% adds much more flexibility for players to get those outliers (Bricks and Speedsters) squeezed into the game.

EGO is at 5% partially because I had 2 points left over 😁 Seriously though, many EGO powers like MC are directly tied to how high your ego is, so I think I think if anything perhaps it is still undervalued.  It really all depends on the campaign and the commonality of psychic powers, also: pushing... it's all very subjective at the end of the day.

[GoldenAge]

Are you even considering Multiple Power Attacks? It's similar to Spreading but much more dangerous. Heck, "multiple" everything is available to all characters - Rapid Attack and a simple skill level purchased to offset Multiple Attack penalties can turn an average Martial Artist into a spinning whirlwind of awesome! 😄
(See my villain: Dervish)

How do you factor maneuvers into the Rule of X when complimentary Skills can create huge power shifts? Impossible? Anyone ever have a player pony up and Multiple Attack an Area Effect, Autofire EB???
I have. I'm still shook.

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by GoldenAge

[sentry0]

38 minutes ago, GoldenAge said:

Are you even considering Multiple Power Attacks? It's similar to Spreading but much more dangerous. Heck, "multiple" everything is available to all characters - Rapid Attack and a simple skill level purchased to offset Multiple Attack penalties can turn an average Martial Artist into a spinning whirlwind of awesome! 😄
(See my villain: Dervish)

How do you factor maneuvers into the Rule of X when complimentary Skills can create huge power shifts? Impossible? Anyone ever have a player pony up and Multiple Attack an Area Effect, Autofire EB???
I have. I'm still shook.

 

From the file itself (emphasis mine)...

Quote

This tool is one of many tools and techniques GMs have to bring some hard and fast rules in to balance their campaign. This spreadsheet is not a substitute for a GM's critical character analysis

 

And further in...

Quote

Do not factor in standard or optional combat maneuvers into the variables

 

So because it doesn't work in some scenarios we should toss it?  Is that the argument?

[GoldenAge]

Oh no, don't toss it. I'm going to USE it!

Unfortunately, there's no "Rule of Player Competence", which accounts for a lot. 🤣

[WhiteShark]

Book NPCs are... not really helpful, it seems. Some seem in line with our progression, some invest nothing in combat stats. Some are meant to have equipment and thus have little built-in DC. Some are villains built with thousands of points but do proportionally far less DC than the 400 point heroes do. If I threw out all the """outliers""" like a statistician with an agenda all I would be left with are the ones that mostly fit the characteristics progression I already have in mind. At this point I think we have no choice but to be somewhat arbitrary. It may also be the case that different genres will necessitate modifiers to the baselines, but I hope not.

Anyway, that's all from me today. Haven't had much opportunity to work on this the last couple days but hopefully I will get more done this week.

[WhiteShark]

Ok, I've worked out a ratio. I wasn't sure where to put it on the Google sheet or whether it even belonged there so I'm uploading it here. In actual play you'll have to round the values but going into decimals was the only way to make the progression regular. The rDEF ends up much lower than your suggested 40-50%, (edit: I miscalculated, the growth rate is exactly 40%) but I think that's ok; the way the 400 point characters are built makes BODY damage a rarity, which seems more like a genre convention for superheroes than a real baseline. The starting row doesn't quite match a 0 point character because that wouldn't produce the desired Hits to KO and Hits to Dying ratios; that said, it's only a little off.

Let me know what you think. I believe this will be a useful tool for working out baselines at other point values.

DamageDefenseProgressionTable.xlsx

Edited August 13, 2023 by WhiteShark

[sentry0]

3 hours ago, WhiteShark said:

Ok, I've worked out a ratio. I wasn't sure where to put it on the Google sheet or whether it even belonged there so I'm uploading it here. In actual play you'll have to round the values but going into decimals was the only way to make the progression regular. The rDEF ends up much lower than your suggested 40-50%, (edit: I miscalculated, the growth rate is exactly 40%) but I think that's ok; the way the 400 point characters are built makes BODY damage a rarity, which seems more like a genre convention for superheroes than a real baseline. The starting row doesn't quite match a 0 point character because that wouldn't produce the desired Hits to KO and Hits to Dying ratios; that said, it's only a little off.

Let me know what you think. I believe this will be a useful tool for working out baselines at other point values.

DamageDefenseProgressionTable.xlsx 7.11 kB · 1 download

Again, this is super cool.  I already have a few ideas percolating about what to do with this information that may be useful.  I'm thinking something simple like a set of cells that suggest the 'optimal', i.e., calculated value for when someone sets the campaign baseline DC value.  People can safely ignore it that way 😁

[sentry0]

19 hours ago, WhiteShark said:

Book NPCs are... not really helpful, it seems. Some seem in line with our progression, some invest nothing in combat stats. Some are meant to have equipment and thus have little built-in DC. Some are villains built with thousands of points but do proportionally far less DC than the 400 point heroes do. If I threw out all the """outliers""" like a statistician with an agenda all I would be left with are the ones that mostly fit the characteristics progression I already have in mind

I doubt anyone in the writers' pen ever built an NPC as we build our personal characters we play.  Honestly, I'm less inclined to worry about the historical data so much as a point of curiosity.  When I build NPCs, I don't care too much about point values and whatnot. They'll just be what they need to be.

 

Quote

At this point I think we have no choice but to be somewhat arbitrary. It may also be the case that different genres will necessitate modifiers to the baselines, but I hope not.

That's why I favor not going too much on the automation side because that's really a question the GM should decide anyway.

 

[sentry0]

I updated the spreadsheet.  I did some custom scripting so that the values you calculated show up as tooltips for the user.  Now when you edit the DC column the tooltips will automatically update for you.  I think it's unobtrusive this way, people can choose to ignore it and adjust things however they see fit.

 

I ditched the dropdown pickers... they actually didn't allow for editing after the fact which is exactly what I don't want 😁

 

I cut a new version of the sheet at v0.0.3-alpha.

[WhiteShark]

Hm... I've realized a flaw in my average STUN/BODY damage formula. With Normal Damage, for example, I was doing DC * 3.5 - DEF. At first glance that looks alright, but then I realized a problem: average damage shouldn't actually be zero if DEF is higher than DC * 3.5. Even if DEF is higher than the mean roll, there's still a chance of rolling higher than DEF, and a proper damage average would take that into consideration. Therefore, the proper calculation should be:

SUM(MAX(each possible damage roll - DEF,0) * probability of that roll)

But that requires knowing the probability of each possible roll on Xd6... and the formula for finding that requires expanding a polynomial, something I don't think is possible on a spreadsheet. Applying this by hand, I found that, for example, the average STUN of DC 2 vs DEF 6 is actually 1.56, not 1.

My plan is tomorrow to try and code something to find the real averages for any given DC since I don't think it's possible on a spreadsheet without entering a bunch of tables by hand. The current averages on the progression table I gave you probably aren't off by too much, but they will tend to be low.

[sentry0]

7 minutes ago, WhiteShark said:

Hm... I've realized a flaw in my average STUN/BODY damage formula. With Normal Damage, for example, I was doing DC * 3.5 - DEF. At first glance that looks alright, but then I realized a problem: average damage shouldn't actually be zero if DEF is higher than DC * 3.5. Even if DEF is higher than the mean roll, there's still a chance of rolling higher than DEF, and a proper damage average would take that into consideration. Therefore, the proper calculation should be:

SUM(MAX(each possible damage roll - DEF,0) * probability of that roll)

But that requires knowing the probability of each possible roll on Xd6... and the formula for finding that requires expanding a polynomial, something I don't think is possible on a spreadsheet. Applying this by hand, I found that, for example, the average STUN of DC 2 vs DEF 6 is actually 1.56, not 1.

My plan is tomorrow to try and code something to find the real averages for any given DC since I don't think it's possible on a spreadsheet without entering a bunch of tables by hand. The current averages on the progression table I gave you probably aren't off by too much, but they will tend to be low.

I'm playing around with something myself.  The calcs are kind of low, but I think with a little bit of tweaking they will be fine.  

 

[unclevlad]

Actually, there is a closed-form solution to the problem P(X=R) where R =  the sum of N 6-sided dice.  It's just...pretty messy, as it gets into combinatorics.  Scroll down about halfway to point 6, which gives the form:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/dice

 

With a larger number of dice, another approach that'd be accurate enough would be to use the normal distribution;  as the number of dice grows, the sum of them gets closer and closer to being normally distributed.  The mean and standard deviation on Nd6 is easy.  The mean is N * 3.5;  the standard deviation is SQRT( [N * (6^2 -1) / 12] )  or SQRT(N*35/12).  Then, Google Sheets has a NORMDIST function:

NORMDIST(R, Mean, SD, Cumulative)

R is the number to roll

Mean and SD are the distribution mean and standard deviation from above

Cumulative is False here, we want the probability of rolling exactly R.  Cumulative would be, I believe, < = to R.  

 

So
=normdist(D6, 3.5*$E$5, sqrt($E$5*35/12), false)

 

Where E5 has my # of dice to roll, then in my test sheet, column D has R values.  

To cross-check?  AnyDice.com has a great calculator that does it exactly.  The differences were small on my 12d6 test;  they'd be somewhat higher on, say, 8d6, and probably excessive if you drop down to something like 6d6.

 

Note that in a loop?  You can save some time by starting the loop at DEF+1.  At DEF or lower, the stun is gonna be 0.  Plus, for a reasonably large number of dice...say, 8 or more...the probability of reaching 5*N is TINY...that's 40+ on 8 dice.  Even 4.5*N, 36, is a pretty extreme outlier...AnyDice says 36+ on 8d6 is only about 6%.  In most cases, what you're looking at isn't how this adds to being KO'd...it's the risk of getting stunned.  But this should be fast enough that you can run the loop from DEF+1 to full max N*6 readily enough.  (Best rolls I EVER saw...11d6.  19 BODY, 58 STUN.  And once, a perfecto on 6 dice...all 6's.  The latter is pretty obviously 1 in 46,656;  the 11d6 roll is about 0.01%, or roughly 1 in 10,000.)

 

A rough gauge for this, tho, might be to say how many strikes before KO, using 4 per die as the average?  That's what I use for my personal estimations.  The low damage rolls, as you note, do nothing.  The VERY high damage rolls, I'll worry about Probability of Being Stunned...which you can also estimate here.  

Given DEF D, and CON C, then it should be

 

1 - (D+C+1, Mean, SD, true)

 

 

[sentry0]

I added configuration parameters to the table you provided and rejigged a few things @WhiteShark

 

Everything in column U is used to calculate the values in V3 to AD30.

 

• rDEF % - What percentage of your PD should be resistant
• Mitigation %- The desired amount of damage you want players to mitigate (on average).
• TTU - The desired TTU you want your defenses to reflect (you may not get this exact number)
• TTK - The desired TTK you want your defenses to reflect (you may not get this exact number)
• Min BODY - The minimum amount of BODY you'll allow on the low end
• Min STUN - The minimum amount of STUN you'll allow on the low end

 

Things get weird on the low end so I added in the Min STUN/BODY columns

 

See the screenshot for what it looks like.  Everything is configurable so I hope it is versatile enough for different GMs and styles of play.  Theoretically, you should be able to adjust those parameters and have a more/less lethal game.

 

 

[sentry0]

I feel obligated to say upfront that I'm not a mathematician.  Please take what I'm offering as is. This is just a fun exercise for me.  I can't offer any warranties or guarantees of any sort.
 

[sentry0]

On 8/14/2023 at 1:21 PM, unclevlad said:

Actually, there is a closed-form solution to the problem P(X=R) where R =  the sum of N 6-sided dice.  It's just...pretty messy, as it gets into combinatorics.  Scroll down about halfway to point 6, which gives the form:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/dice

 

With a larger number of dice, another approach that'd be accurate enough would be to use the normal distribution;  as the number of dice grows, the sum of them gets closer and closer to being normally distributed.  The mean and standard deviation on Nd6 is easy.  The mean is N * 3.5;  the standard deviation is SQRT( [N * (6^2 -1) / 12] )  or SQRT(N*35/12).  Then, Google Sheets has a NORMDIST function:

NORMDIST(R, Mean, SD, Cumulative)

R is the number to roll

Mean and SD are the distribution mean and standard deviation from above

Cumulative is False here, we want the probability of rolling exactly R.  Cumulative would be, I believe, < = to R.  

 

So
=normdist(D6, 3.5*$E$5, sqrt($E$5*35/12), false)

 

Where E5 has my # of dice to roll, then in my test sheet, column D has R values.  

To cross-check?  AnyDice.com has a great calculator that does it exactly.  The differences were small on my 12d6 test;  they'd be somewhat higher on, say, 8d6, and probably excessive if you drop down to something like 6d6.

 

Note that in a loop?  You can save some time by starting the loop at DEF+1.  At DEF or lower, the stun is gonna be 0.  Plus, for a reasonably large number of dice...say, 8 or more...the probability of reaching 5*N is TINY...that's 40+ on 8 dice.  Even 4.5*N, 36, is a pretty extreme outlier...AnyDice says 36+ on 8d6 is only about 6%.  In most cases, what you're looking at isn't how this adds to being KO'd...it's the risk of getting stunned.  But this should be fast enough that you can run the loop from DEF+1 to full max N*6 readily enough.  (Best rolls I EVER saw...11d6.  19 BODY, 58 STUN.  And once, a perfecto on 6 dice...all 6's.  The latter is pretty obviously 1 in 46,656;  the 11d6 roll is about 0.01%, or roughly 1 in 10,000.)

 

A rough gauge for this, tho, might be to say how many strikes before KO, using 4 per die as the average?  That's what I use for my personal estimations.  The low damage rolls, as you note, do nothing.  The VERY high damage rolls, I'll worry about Probability of Being Stunned...which you can also estimate here.  

Given DEF D, and CON C, then it should be

 

1 - (D+C+1, Mean, SD, true)

 

 

Very useful information Vlad... I will certainly incorporate your suggestion. 

[sentry0]

I put in a column with the formula you gave me @unclevlad.  

 

I think the formula is ok but I would appreciate your eyes on it to make sure it's done correctly.

[Duke Bushido]

On 8/10/2023 at 6:23 AM, WhiteShark said:

what average hits to KO etc. should the baseline values promote?

 

I have no dog in this fight, but have enjoyed the discussion immensely; my thanks to everyone who had something to say on the subject.

 

I did want to visit that comment above for a moment.  First, I would like to mention that before you can decide that, you must first decide if the hit location chart is going to be in play.  If it is, remember that depending on how well you roll there, a normal can one-shot a normal, and a super can accidentally kill one.

 

If you are using the hit location chart, you may want to put a little extra thought into what defenses and what levels of them are acceptable.

 

 

I also wanted to comment that when that epiphany hit me--  "Rule of X means how many hits before they drop," I walked away from HERO for almost a decade.  All that I had percieved as a precise, detailed system for resolving combat, etc, all boiled down to "how many times do I want them to roll to hit before it is over?"

 

At that moment, I became a narrator telling exactly the story I wanted to tell and they had no idea that everything they did was futile:  I could pre-determine the outcome of every battle by setting the villains such they could absorb one more hit than could the heroes, or that they could "Typically" drop an opponent with one less strike, or reverse those, and the heroes were nearly gauranteed victory.

 

Not by their actions, so much, but because I could decide on Thursday who was going to fall or reign supreme on Saturday, and because everything was built within the required campaign limits, no one ever doubted that it was all on the turn of the now-almost-pointless dice.

 

So I walked away.  I went back to Traveller, some Space Opera, some Space Master, lots of Car Wars and a few other things, but it was almost ten years before I thought about going back to Champions / HERO.  Eventually we slid a then-in-progress Traveller game onto the Champions wheels, and it worked out well enough, plus allowed for a lot of creative freedom.

 

We used it for a couple of short fantasy games, and that was working great until I felt myself matching characters and their equipment do campaign limits and realized that I could again simply replace everything with odd-or-even and three hit points.

 

Anyway, I obviously did come back, but in the examples set by Superman and Batman or Wonder Woman and some guy with a wingsuit and a club or pretty much _anyone_ and the Flash, I have pretty much ignored forcing any limits on characters or the game.

 

If the writers can find something for Batman to do that really does contribute to what Superman is doing, then I can find a way to make a team up between Ultra-God and the Bohemian Bedazzler work out as reasonable, too.

 

I wont pretend that it isnt hard or that everyone should try it, but it has brought back to me the fun I used to have with HERO before I realized it was "knock three times for victory!"  when using campaign limits.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

4 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I have no dog in this fight, but have enjoyed the discussion immensely; my thanks to everyone who had something to say on the subject.

 

I did want to visit that comment above for a moment.  First, I would like to mention that before you can decide that, you must first decide if the hit location chart is going to be in play.  If it is, remember that depending on how well you roll there, a normal can one-shot a normal, and a super can accidentally kill one.

 

If you are using the hit location chart, you may want to put a little extra thought into what defenses and what levels of them are acceptable.

 

 

I also wanted to comment that when that epiphany hit me--  "Rule of X means how many hits before they drop," I walked away from HERO for almost a decade.  All that I had percieved as a precise, detailed system for resolving combat, etc, all boiled down to "how many times do I want them to roll to hit before it is over?"

 

At that moment, I became a narrator telling exactly the story I wanted to tell and they had no idea that everything they did was futile:  I could pre-determine the outcome of every battle by setting the villains such they could absorb one more hit than could the heroes, or that they could "Typically" drop an opponent with one less strike, or reverse those, and the heroes were nearly gauranteed victory.

 

Not by their actions, so much, but because I could decide on Thursday who was going to fall or reign supreme on Saturday, and because everything was built within the required campaign limits, no one ever doubted that it was all on the turn of the now-almost-pointless dice.

 

So I walked away.  I went back to Traveller, some Space Opera, some Space Master, lots of Car Wars and a few other things, but it was almost ten years before I thought about going back to Champions / HERO.  Eventually we slid a then-in-progress Traveller game onto the Champions wheels, and it worked out well enough, plus allowed for a lot of creative freedom.

 

We used it for a couple of short fantasy games, and that was working great until I felt myself matching characters and their equipment do campaign limits and realized that I could again simply replace everything with odd-or-even and three hit points.

 

Anyway, I obviously did come back, but in the examples set by Superman and Batman or Wonder Woman and some guy with a wingsuit and a club or pretty much _anyone_ and the Flash, I have pretty much ignored forcing any limits on characters or the game.

 

If the writers can find something for Batman to do that really does contribute to what Superman is doing, then I can find a way to make a team up between Ultra-God and the Bohemian Bedazzler work out as reasonable, too.

 

I wont pretend that it isnt hard or that everyone should try it, but it has brought back to me the fun I used to have with HERO before I realized it was "knock three times for victory!"  when using campaign limits.

 

 

Funny thing about perception. I see the opposite of you. Campaign limits are to help layout game expectations. If the fame world agents should be one hit wonders then they are built that way because that is the expectation (and fun). If I plan to be Super then I want my Super to be Super. And through my years of playing, adjusted numbers still seems to be no match for players skill or probably more importantly luck.