Should Villains Be More Powerful Than Heroes?

[Greywind]

Stacking is fine.

 

So long as it goes in line with the character's conception...

[massey]

24 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Stacking is fine.

 

So long as it goes in line with the character's conception...

 

Then GMs shouldn’t push characters to stray outside their concept to be effective in the game.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

59 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

One of the main things that causes players to build things that make GM's cringe is GM malfeasance.  If you keep throwing enemies at the players that their characters have a hard time hitting, they're going to stack OCV.  If you keep throwing villains at players that their characters have a hard time hurting, they're going to stack damage or get attacks that bypass defenses.  Players don't like to feel weak or worthless, they want to feel like... champions.  

 

That doesn't mean nobody should ever have a challenge, but it does mean you should watch how your players react and what they do, to make sure you aren't annoying or frustrating them.

To tangent off this, one of the best ways to make a player feel like they made good character creation decisions is to build a competent villain with a critical weakness to one particular PC.  Put the Invisible Man against a party containing a blind hero, or The Human Lantern against a party containing Fireproof Man.  They'll react like it's Christmas. 

[Durzan Malakim]

I feel for GMs who have to find that sweet spot between cake-walk and flip-the-table-in-frustration combats. HERO System has many rock-paper-scissors power interactions that over time can promote the creation of characters with adaptable power builds over static ones. For example, most of the villains mentioned in this thread have high DCVs and high resistant defenses. Such opponents will be a challenge (or nightmare) to characters with static powers who have no choice but to overcome these defenses. However, characters with adaptable powers may find this same opponent a pushover if/when they can find the weak spot in their opponent's defenses. Suddenly these hard-to-hit and hard-to-damage opponents face attacks built specifically to negate defenses such as area of effect, attack versus alternate defense, and penetrating.

 

The large number of possible attack/defense combinations is why a simple point-total comparison does not accurately describe someone's overall power level and combat effectiveness. Generally, the fewer points you have to spend, the more choices you have to make between attack/defense combinations. My 400 point villain might be great at defending against targeted physical and energy attacks, but not have any Flash or Mental defenses. Such a villain will be stronger versus characters whose attacks match those defenses and weaker versus those whose attacks are met with little to no defense. Given that most games have multiple players, chances are someone has a character build that will  be effectively stronger versus any given opponent. That is unless and until the villain has an unlimited budget or the GM chooses to only use villains who have appropriate defenses versus the player's available attacks.

 

One thing I haven't seen in my Champions games lately is the recurring villain who you eventually beat because you learn over time how to best deal with them. The first fight you lose or the villain gets away because you don't know what to expect. The second fight might be more of a draw. You adjust your attacks, and the villain adjusts their defenses.  Then you "think outside the box," spend some XP, or train to specifically defeat this opponent. If/when you win you feel a sense of accomplishment. I don't know if that story arc depends on point totals. It may just depend on an eventual mismatch in attack/defense combinations. Maybe my GMs have been trying to introduce such arcs and the clue-by-four has yet to penetrate my skull.

[Greywind]

1 hour ago, massey said:

 

Then GMs shouldn’t push characters to stray outside their concept to be effective in the game.

 

Find an answer within your concept.

[Durzan Malakim]

4 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

Find an answer within your concept.

 

This reads so much better when I imagine it being said in Yoda's voice. Although he might actually say, "Within your concept, an answer find."

[Greywind]

Yeah. Be creative with what you do have at your disposal. Batman isn't going to start running around with a machine gun to deal with mooks, except maybe in the movies.

[massey]

7 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

Find an answer within your concept.

 

What you'll actually get with this mentality are very open-ended concepts.  You don't get Batman.  You get Professor Iron-Bat X.

[PamelaIsley]

This should be a separate topic, but one thing that comes out when I read over the answers in the thread is that, wow, a lot of people really like the tactical combat angle of PnP a lot more than I do.

 

I can just remember so many DnD 3.5 games when the instant the DM said "Roll for initiative", there was nothing but collective groans around the table.  DnD, M&M, and Hero combat is just so . . . tedious.  

 

But as I've said repeatedly, everyone has their own definition of fun.

[Greywind]

19 minutes ago, massey said:

 

What you'll actually get with this mentality are very open-ended concepts.  You don't get Batman.  You get Professor Iron-Bat X.

 

Concept is how you originally created your character. If your concept is Daredevil, at no point do you get to start looking like Superman.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

44 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Concept is how you originally created your character. If your concept is Daredevil, at no point do you get to start looking like Superman.

Yes, which means that the guy playing Metal Rhino the man-with-superpowers-and-a-few-gadgets has strictly more options than the guy playing Rhino Man the man-with-same-superpowers-but-no-gadgets.  The former can say "I turned my Rhino Boots into rocket-rollerblades so I can skate and fly!", the latter can't fly ever.  It's blatant concept superiority. 

[massey]

1 hour ago, Greywind said:

 

Concept is how you originally created your character. If your concept is Daredevil, at no point do you get to start looking like Superman.

 

Do you ever play more than one campaign with the same players?  Restrictions like that will only work the first time.  After that, players will learn.

[Greywind]

47 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Yes, which means that the guy playing Metal Rhino the man-with-superpowers-and-a-few-gadgets has strictly more options than the guy playing Rhino Man the man-with-same-superpowers-but-no-gadgets.  The former can say "I turned my Rhino Boots into rocket-rollerblades so I can skate and fly!", the latter can't fly ever.  It's blatant concept superiority. 

 

Should have thought about that before committing to character.

 

20 minutes ago, massey said:

 

Do you ever play more than one campaign with the same players?  Restrictions like that will only work the first time.  After that, players will learn.

 

Yes, I have. There is a reason the GM has the ability to veto any character changes that occur. Especially if the changes will greatly veer away from concept.

[megaplayboy]

4 hours ago, massey said:

 

Then GMs shouldn’t push characters to stray outside their concept to be effective in the game.

Characters whose conception puts them in a certain "range" could still be extremely effective out of combat, and moderately effective in combat via a variety of means(having an attack that will at least do some damage to most opponents, having a variety of non-damage attacks that help other PCs(throws and grabs, flashes, entangles,distracting via images or somesuch, etc.).  

[Scott Ruggels]

9 hours ago, PamelaIsley said:

This should be a separate topic, but one thing that comes out when I read over the answers in the thread is that, wow, a lot of people really like the tactical combat angle of PnP a lot more than I do.

 

I can just remember so many DnD 3.5 games when the instant the DM said "Roll for initiative", there was nothing but collective groans around the table.  DnD, M&M, and Hero combat is just so . . . tedious.  

 

But as I've said repeatedly, everyone has their own definition of fun.

 

I am one of those Tactical qaction junkies. Remember long long ago, I came at this from War Gaming, and with Wargaming I still identify with (Up to and including WW2 Infantry simulators on PC like "Post Scriptum".) For Champions  my joy was how flexiple the tactical puzzles were, and even more so When we players fell into smooth , teamwork, and while a villain might get away, No hero stayed down very long, or got captured in a team fight. That was glorious.  For me, I do enjoy a good amount of roleplay, but will become unsatisfied in a game without explosions, after a while. 

 

[EDIT]  As an aside though, I am not a fan of D&D combat, though it has gotten more streamlined in 5th Edition, but it is very different than the tense glee one often gets in a Hero combat. I think it may be that Champions, especially the earlier editions were a much better miniatures War Game rules set than D&D ever was. I don't know Mutants and Masterminds all that well other than it is a D-20 system. 

[Scott Ruggels]

11 hours ago, Greywind said:

Stacking is fine.

 

So long as it goes in line with the character's conception...

 

 

Concepts , like people, can and do change over time. I allow experience to dictate where points are allocated.  Hell it happens in real life.  The French Army started the First World War wearing dark blue tunics, jaunty Kepis,  and scarlet trousers. That changed in 6 months to Horizon Blue, and Adrian Helmets.  In WW2 All armies went through the same progression, due to shifting tactics and changing materiel costs and manufacturing capabilities, But those are armies>  For characters, the struggle between good and evil can, and does take many forms, but the conflict will force changes in tactics and weapons over time. batman Originally dealt out Justice with a pair of .45's, He now doesn't kill, and he's become more strategic in his thinking than he used to be.  He may look the same, but he doesn't fight the same. In my game I expect the characters to shift and change their tactics and equipment based on their experience with the enemies they have faced. Change also keep things from being too frustrating or boring. We are supposed to be having fun, yes?

[Greywind]

As long as the changes are reasonable and fit within the character. As I said above, there is no way, if your concept is Daredevil that you will become Superman.

[Ninja-Bear]

On topic, the nice thing about 6E is that you can have different OCV & DCV. So perhaps each of the villains are at least 1 less DCV than their write ups perhaps even two. I’m thinking trying to keep them in the same Benchmark bracket but at the lowest end of it unless background dictates otherwise. For example say Benchmark is 7-9 CV. Green Dragon is starting out at 9, you could lower it to 7 but since he is a Master Martial Artist, perhaps only lower it to 8. 

[archer]

16 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

 

Concepts , like people, can and do change over time. I allow experience to dictate where points are allocated.  Hell it happens in real life.  The French Army started the First World War wearing dark blue tunics, jaunty Kepis,  and scarlet trousers. That changed in 6 months to Horizon Blue, and Adrian Helmets.  In WW2 All armies went through the same progression, due to shifting tactics and changing materiel costs and manufacturing capabilities, But those are armies>

 

I'm reminded of some accounts in WWII, the Marines in the Pacific were given camouflage green uniforms. After a couple of months in the sun and rain, the green washed out and there were a bunch of tough-as-nails Marines running around the jungle in what looked like white PJ's.

[massey]

17 hours ago, Greywind said:

As long as the changes are reasonable and fit within the character. As I said above, there is no way, if your concept is Daredevil that you will become Superman.

 

And as I said, after the first campaign, people will no longer play Daredevil.  Everyone’s concept will be as flexible as they can make it.

[Scott Ruggels]

8 hours ago, archer said:

 

I'm reminded of some accounts in WWII, the Marines in the Pacific were given camouflage green uniforms. After a couple of months in the sun and rain, the green washed out and there were a bunch of tough-as-nails Marines running around the jungle in what looked like white PJ's.

 Oh it's true, and I( have seen the photos}.  Even that "frog skin" helmet cover all the marines wore in WW2, bleached out to nearly featureless.

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, massey said:

 

And as I said, after the first campaign, people will no longer play Daredevil.  Everyone’s concept will be as flexible as they can make it.

 

Then the GM has failed to sell his original campaign idea.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 3/2/2019 at 4:24 AM, Greywind said:

As long as the changes are reasonable and fit within the character. As I said above, there is no way, if your concept is Daredevil that you will become Superman.

Yeah I agree with this. I used to be, no martial arts for non martial artists martial arts as in Hero system definition Now I’ve relaxed that to be true martial artists can have a higher level of it than non martial artists. The same thing with I do with skills. I don’t use a skill cap per se but Ninja and other sneaky types can have a high say 16- Stealth whereas others may only have 13- tops.

[Ninja-Bear]

I think Pamelaisley that you should set the Agents to Skilled as 3/3 CV +1 CSL and Competent to 4/3 CV & +2 CSL.. 

[PamelaIsley]

43 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I think Pamelaisley that you should set the Agents to Skilled as 3/3 CV +1 CSL and Competent to 4/3 CV & +2 CSL.. 

 

VIPER agents in CU are 5 OCV +2 with their blasters. UNTIL are similar, but just have +1 in skills.