Heroic Narratives, Or I Love Champions But...

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

What are the odds these are "legacy players," from the old editions?  The 2e rules for pushing, in their entirety:

 

"Occasionally a character may need to exceed the normal limits of his Powers to perform a heroic action. A character may push the limits of his Power by up to 10 pts. A character must expend 1 extra END for every 1 pt. he Pushes his Power.

 

            [EXAMPLE NOT INCLUDED]

 

Only Powers (and STR) which normally cost END may be pushed. The GM may allow greater pushes than 10 pts. in unusual circumstances, such as saving the universe, etc."

 

That's pretty much it.  All three sentences of it.  There's nothing that says it's especially rare, and even the word "occasionally" could be an acknowledgement that the END rules for early editions were pretty brutal, and would likely impose Pushing restrictions all by themselves.

 

Emphasis added.  "Occasionally...to perform a heroic action" is not "Routinely...to gain a combat advantage".  Most characters had enough END and REC to last a few turns, so once we had "combat starts on Ph 12", you had only one segment of action followed by a full recovery.  An extra 10 END?  No big deal.

 

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I _am_, however, saying "build the character you want to play."  I am _continuing that line of thought by adding "But understand that if that character is an idiot, or is incompetent, or is brash and short-sighted, then _by God_ be prepared to deal with the results of that!  Understand that if you build a character with no real ability to fight that you've upped the odds of getting your clock cleaned.  _Understand_ that if your character can't solve a mystery stolen from the pages of Encyclopedia Brown or Jigsaw Jones that-- well, he probably isn't going to solve this one, either.  _Understand_ that when you play a character who does stupid things, that-- well, stupid _hurts_, and rightfully so!

 

There seems to be this undercurrent of "if I use Heroic Action Points, they will be used for every action, especially the ones the heroes sucked at to begin with". The player wanted to play The Man of Steel, but every KA fired on him seems to roll a 6 Stun Multiple.  So, in our 12DC game, do we tell him "just buy defenses of 100 and enough STUN to weather a couple of 20 point hits past defenses"?  KA makes for a poor example since 6e sought to fix that issue, but then several of those most opposed to HAP on this thread also dislike 6e.

 

We have a lot of comments on this thread about the players designing and executing a brilliant plan.  But we don't have the "and then someone who should easily succeed with his element of that plan rolls an 18.  Too bad, game over, you lose, world destroyed".  That's the kind of result that I think some would suggest should be "fudged", or for which Hero Points are a valid fix.

 

But I agree I don't want them to become the equivalent of "I always open combat with a Pushed attack.  Why not?  I get all the END back immediately."  hmmm...maybe one use of Hero Points is to even be ALLOWED to push. 

 

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Want to play Batmunch?  Then toss on things like tactics, and _don't_ take on things like "charges headlong into battle;" don't forget to buy some skills and some levels with INT-skills.

 

And bring fixed dice so you don't roll an 18 trying to find a simple clue, only to watch the dullard with an Everyman roll score a 3.

 

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Would we be having this discussion _at all_ if the complaint was "every time I got attacked, I got knocked unconscious?"

 

No; of course we wouldn't.  We would all be sitting here saying things like "look at your defenses.  Are they appropriate for the average attacks in your game?  How about your Con?  Will it soak an average amount of damage to make sure you're not con-stunned?"  Things like that.  We would be explicitly telling people that the character they built is not suited for the game they have stuck him in, wouldn't we?

 

See Superman example above.

 

Would we allow him his 100 defenses, so he can reduce the odds of getting instant KOd by one lucky killing attack roll?  Random chance has random results, and you can only "stack the odds" so much.

 

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Yet "my odds on the dice aren't good enough" is enough to say "then we should add some sort of way to negate the dice rolls!" as opposed to "the character you built isn't suited for what you're trying to do."

 

The difference is _what_, now?  The idea that we can throw a a haystack over the dice and make it all safey-safe for the guy with the six-or-less "Juggle Chainsaws" skill?  I've got 8 or less on Detective Work, but the dice keep rolling 11.5 on average!  

 

Have you considered spending some XP and raising that score a bit?

 

Why can't I just change the dice rolls?!  My character concept is to not be good at Detective Work, but I keep sucking at it!

 

When my character concept IS to be good at detective work, but the dice never come up lower than 15 when I attempt it, should I buy 23- so I can offset some penalties and still succeed, as I would expect from The World's Greatest Detective?  If my character concept is not to be good at detective work, why would I not stand back and let the detective do his thing?  Waste a precious Hero Point on that?  WHY?  I will use a Hero Point most of the time, and he will only need one on a roll of 15+.

 

Hawkeye, who has lurked in the background waiting for that moment when the team's plan momentarily drops the Force Shield, fires that crucial shot for the team's plan, with his 21 OCV, against the DCV 6 Bullseye and ...18...misses.  The Shield goes back up, and Galactus eats the earth.  Wow, what a great game that was, huh?

 

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I have made a couple of in-character jokes on this board over the years as "Koloth, the Virile."

 

That was my third D&D character.  He was a barbarian I rolled up just before we decided to use Champions for pretty much every game idea we liked (we liked the system better, and at the time-- well, there was just the one book.  D&D couldn't say that).  Koloth rolled up an INT 4 and a WIS 16.  The GM at the time ruled, when we did the conversion, that this would be a Champions INT 3, with some bonuses to his INT roll and his PER rolls.  (he just kind of "got" certain things, even if he didn't fully understand them).  I played that character just like he was-- no; that's not heroic or great or wonderful, or anything else.  I played that character because I was already invested in that character.  And yes, lots of really awful things happened to him, but at no time did I even consider that I was being treated unfairly by the dice when anything that had to do with INT skills came around:  I knew that I was not the optimal character for doing INT-based things.

 

Let's assume, for the moment, that this concept is "dumb as a post but very perceptive".  Poor INT skills, but a 17- PER roll.  Yet he keeps rolling a 15 when there is a -3 penalty, and Olaf the Average keeps rolling 8's.  You keep tossing out examples of players trying to do things their characters are ill-suited to do.  In my view, a decent Hero Point system will not give the characters enough Hero Points to make that work consistently, and may even penalize non-dramatically appropriate uses (like going right against the grain of the character concept).

 

The reality is that, sometimes, players ARE treated unfairly by the dice. 

 

The Hero Point need not be Autosuccess either.  Make it "you get a reroll", or perhaps "you can spend 1 point per point you modify the roll by".  Now we have Batman or Hawkeye spending 1 point to change that "one chance in 216" roll from an 18 to a 17 in a critical/dramatically appropriate situation.  But Koloth needs to spend 5 to turn his decent roll of 8 roll into the 3 he needs to beat the Master Strategist at chess.  Maybe he has 5 - will he blow them all on that trivial task, or save them for when he needs them for that poor attack roll against the Dragon later?

 

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

What are they, other than Luck?  How many different mechanics over the years have been suggested for Luck?  How many of these result into "affect die rolls" or "ignore die rolls"?

 

So if we called them Luck Points and made them a different mechanic for luck, instead of Hero Points for Heroic Action, all would be well?

 

In the comment about xp for Hero Points, my initial thought was an old Adventurers Club "Extra Life" power.  It was a fixed cost, use as desired, one shot ability that gave you 3d6 of Luck, all 6's.  Basically the same thing.

 

14 hours ago, pawsplay said:

The problem is if you run the fight five times in a row in Hero System, you are going to have dead heroes a lot of the time.  The Marvel Cinematic universe can rewind all that and resurrect everybody and run a completely different, winnable battle. But in your home game, people are just dead.

You wouldn't need HAP or anything like that if the game were simply baked in such a way that the odds are stacked in favor of the heroes.

But Champions isn't like that. It's a nuts-and-bolts simulation of superheroes. It doesn't know who is good or who is evil, who is a flawed protagonist or who is a goon. And if you run those scenarios, over and over again, and run them fairly, the result is not a superheroic epic. The last refuge of the overpowered fight, the heroes get captured, is spelled out as something you should not do because the players hate it.

Death and failure are a possibility in DC Heroes (Mayfair Games), but Hero Points substantially mitigate the likelihood things will go that way. Further, the currency is based on fighting threats, rescuing innocents, resolving subplots, and generally roleplaying -- in short, pathos. HAPs give you a little edge but they aren't really a "fair" currency in any sense, your powergamer's murder character could have twice as many as the flawed but interesting telepathic exile.

But on the other hand, DC Heroes is a lot harder to build a versatile energy attack power in, and doesn't have meaningful rules for martial arts styles at all.

 

Even when the heroes have taken every step to maximize their odds, when the writers would not have Green Arrow roll an 18 for his role, the dice will.

 

I recall a comment in the original DC Heroes about lethal vs non-lethal combat and how it seemed odd to have guns default to non-lethal.  It was not the original plan.  But watching three lucky shots turn Batman into Batstain changed their minds.  The mechanics have to support the desired game.  Hero Points, at their best, are a mechanic designed to blunt the worst results of in-game random chance.  They can have other uses as well, of course.

 

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I honesty don’t know when the to hit two people same phase became illegal. I’m guessing more in 5th. So I won’t blame the edition until I know for sure.  And I’ll have to check about the barrier cause I’m at work but I do know that you have to buy barriers dimensions and body separate, I think you need to spend more points than 1 to get more to stop one DC.

 

I think there is some question whether it was ever legal.  Grab always required an attack roll, so it ends your phase.  It allowed you to "throw the target", but at no point did the rules say "at someone else with full OCV".  Whether "you can toss them away or slam them to the ground as part of the Grab, but accurately targeting someone else requires a second attack" was a rule change or a rule clarification is certainly debatable.

 

7 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

1 point will get you +1 BODY.  So sink, say, 28 points into BODY, 9 into 3 PD/ED and 3 into a big-enough-to-englobe-me barrier and throw on One-Way Transparent (To Your SFX) +1/2 and turn a Half-Phase Action and 6 END into three totally negated 12DC attacks.  And you can still shoot out! 

 

OK, 6 points for the desired size to Englobe (you left out the three base points), 28 for BOD, and let's make it 6 for Defenses is 40 x 1.5 = 60 points.  That +1/2 is a Yield Sign, so the GM should be paying careful attention.

 

I note you cannot move, nor can attacks of your SFX (or is it just YOUR attacks) cannot harm the barrier.  How do you get out later?  Maybe I'll just move away.  Or I'll put up a Darkness field.  An Indirect attack, Mental Attack, Telekinesis, Flash, gas attack and some area effects find it pretty easy to target you (and it's not like you can dive for cover!).  What a great place to lob a Tear Gas grenade!

 

The Hamster Ball of Doom is hardly unbeatable.

 

7 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Why do the good guys consistently have to win? And by what metric does losing inherently mean dead?

 

If the fate of the world is at stake (Supers), or you are fighting a dragon (Fantasy), losing pretty clearly means dead.  Or maybe you live and the world dies.  Or **snap** half the life in the Universe is snuffed out (even AFTER Thor used that Hero Point to lodge his axe in the Bad Guy's chest!).

 

7 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

No, they don't. They get their clocks cleaned. The villain gets away. The heroes have to deal with their injuries, whether physical or to their egos, figure out what they did wrong and what they can do in the rematch to make sure they do win.

 

And they can start by not rolling any more "18s" or getting hit by lucky attacks that roll 40+ on 8d6 (I rolled that the other day - as it was a Channel Energy to heal the group in Pathfinder, the group was pretty pleased; average of over 5 on 8d6 is pretty unusual).

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, the above will be tl;dr

 

Some key points:

 

Why do we assume any Hero Point system is so generous that the PCs can never miss a roll again.  Most provide a pretty scarce resource.

 

Why do we assume they will be used to succeed when you should suck, rather than to shave the edge off really bad rolls?

 

How do great tactics and stellar planning by the players equate into an 18 at a crucial stage, or a super-lucky roll by an opponent, becoming impossible?

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry, Hugh; I'm on a phone, making complex quoting and such a non-starter,  but I would like to take a moment to ask you and the audience in general where and in what edition a "heroic action" is defined. 

 

Barring that, I have the same request for an official from-the-book example of something defined as heroic and one defined as non-heroic. 

 

Without that, I am going to default to analysis of the English language, where heroic is an adjective meaning "pertaining to heroes or heroism," which renders a result of "actions taken by a hero" or "actions performed for the purposes of heroism." 

 

Sketchy at best. 

[Scott Ruggels]

On 2/16/2020 at 8:05 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

A series of bad die rolls resulting in a TPK despite good play, bringing a campaign to a premature end, is not considered the peak of gaming enjoyment by all gamers.  "And the dragon fed well that day" is not the closer to a great game session, much less a great campaign.

She or happens it happens. One can either use that as the beginning motivation or an new campaign , or a a chance to allow the GM to take a break and for the group to maybe play someone else’s campaign. 
 

TPK happenes, which makes the value of a victory all that

mich sweeter. 
 

In Champions it usually ends up with most of not all the team captured, so the next adventure is the break out, or rescue. That being said, Bob Simpson made capture so unpleasant, our heroes always has a bug out plan if the situation went wrong. One should ever always expect to win b

[zslane]

A game like Champions lets you feel like a superhero because your powers provide you opportunities to do great things. The game doesn't guarantee success, that's why dice are involved.

 

That's why there's a G in RPG after all. Part of the challenge intrinsic to conventional TTRPGs is trying to be heroic despite knowing the dice could lead to failure; it's struggling to overcome bad odds with good planning and smart in-situ decision making; it's finding ways to turn adversity/failure into (eventual) victory. Notice how for every element of success/victory there is a counter-balancing element of challenge/struggle/failure. I think if you are going to introduce a mechanic that lets players mitigate the bitter taste of failure, then there must also be a reciprocal mechanic that can make matters worse for players during the game. Otherwise the game ceases to be a game and simply becomes an exercise in pure wish-fulfillment. (And BTW, the HERO System already has an implementation of this idea; they're called dice.)

[PeterLind]

I would have no problem with the concept of Heroic Action Points so long as the current Experience Point system is unchanged and the points are awarded by GMs to the group as a whole.  So a kind of group reward, maybe call them Campaign Points, for example.  They could be saved up and spent on things that the group wants to invest in, such as a base, vehicles, etc.  During a game session, a player could spend one (or more) Campaign Point(s) as a metacurrency, but how this would work I would leave up to your discussion, thanks. . . .

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

3 minutes ago, PeterLind said:

I would have no problem with the concept of Heroic Action Points so long as the current Experience Point system is unchanged and the points are awarded by GMs to the group as a whole.  So a kind of group reward, maybe call them Campaign Points, for example.  They could be saved up and spent on things that the group wants to invest in, such as a base, vehicles, etc.  During a game session, a player could spend one (or more) Campaign Point(s) as a metacurrency, but how this would work I would leave up to your discussion, thanks. . . .

 

Ugh, not group metacurrency please.  The thrifty players rarely get a chance to benefit because the spendthrifts rip through it.  Or you require group consensus to spend and things grind to a screeching halt every time somebody wants to talk it out. 

 

16 minutes ago, zslane said:

A game like Champions lets you feel like a superhero because your powers provide you opportunities to do great things. The game doesn't guarantee success, that's why dice are involved.

 

That's why there's a G in RPG after all. Part of the challenge intrinsic to conventional TTRPGs is trying to be heroic despite knowing the dice could lead to failure; it's struggling to overcome bad odds with good planning and smart in-situ decision making; it's finding ways to turn adversity/failure into (eventual) victory. Notice how for every element of success/victory there is a counter-balancing element of challenge/struggle/failure. I think if you are going to introduce a mechanic that lets players mitigate the bitter taste of failure, then there must also be a reciprocal mechanic that can make matters worse for players during the game. Otherwise the game ceases to be a game and simply becomes an exercise in pure wish-fulfillment. (And BTW, the HERO System already has an implementation of this idea; they're called dice.)

Sure, but Role-Playing puts the RP in RPG.  An RPG is more than a game, [...] and this argument has already been posted in this thread. 

[Scott Ruggels]

13 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Why do the good guys consistently have to win? And by what metric does losing inherently mean dead?

Exactly.   Also I believe that is also the GMs job to not provide adventures with a single point of failure. The quest for narratively significant climaxes, and too closely following writers techniques have resulted in many single point failures of adventures that demand some relief from dice dictated results to turn that single point of failure to a “dramatic” player success. I also think it’s a desire for tight genre emulation which compromises player options, and limits GM imagination for alternative solution to the scenario presented.  If you try to force a Champions game into a three act play structure, it is going far beyond what the rules intend. 
 

The problem with meta currency, is not that it will be used at every situation. But that it will be used in dramatically significant situations to insure a “Win”’ for the good guys.  To me this means that in the back of the player’s mind, the good guys will win, and the GM won’t plan or fight as hard. To me, this is the antithesis of role play.   For me, the uncertainty of the outcome and the randomness of the dice align player and character ‘s emotions to the situation at hand.  My best moments have been in those uncertain combat situations, where things are going wrong, and we may have to plan for evacuation, and my heart is pounding, and no one’s attention is wavering, and every moment Is diamond focused. Will  we retreat in good order?, will we lose a gem member to capture or serious injury, or will a one last lucky die roll stun the big bad to allow the rest of the team to pile on and end the fight?  I have been in all those situations with various characters,  and the level of RP immersion has been a sweet,

sweet wine I would never trade for an assured victory.  In comparison,  meta currency just cheapens my experience. 
 

It may be advantageous to turn to the scripture of St. Aaron Allston, either from his Lands or Mystery, where Aaron explained how to run a pulp adventure with good genre flavor without resorting to meta currency,or from Strike Force V. 2  on how to avoid single point of failure adventure design. Besides he was an experienced GM for decades, as well as a successful author, and new the difference between a game and a story, while never sacrificing role play. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

19 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Exactly.   Also I believe that is also the GMs job to not provide adventures with a single point of failure. The quest for narratively significant climaxes, and too closely following writers techniques have resulted in many single point failures of adventures that demand some relief from dice dictated results to turn that single point of failure to a “dramatic” player success. I also think it’s a desire for tight genre emulation which compromises player options, and limits GM imagination for alternative solution to the scenario presented.  If you try to force a Champions game into a three act play structure, it is going far beyond what the rules intend.

I think it's critical to distinguish between acceptable failure and unacceptable failure. 

If Aquatronic is attacking a ship to steal a crate of diamonds, an obvious single point of failure is "Aquatronic jumps overboard with the crate and sinks to the safety of the ocean floor".  But that's fine, because that's an acceptable failure since the game keeps going.  The heroes might conduct an underwater raid to take it back, or it might not come up for another few adventures until Aquatronic uses that diamond-money to launch a super-scheme. 

But if Mechanon is building a kill-all-humans machine, he can't succeed.  Or well, he can but that ends the campaign.  Any failure to stop Mechanon is unacceptable. 

 

I fully agree RE genre emulation.  It just don't work unless you get the players to help make it work. 

 

19 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

The problem with meta currency, is not that it will be used at every situation. But that it will be used in dramatically significant situations to insure a “Win”’ for the good guys.  To me this means that in the back of the player’s mind, the good guys will win, and the GM won’t plan or fight as hard. To me, this is the antithesis of role play.   For me, the uncertainty of the outcome and the randomness of the dice align player and character ‘s emotions to the situation at hand.  My best moments have been in those uncertain combat situations, where things are going wrong, and we may have to plan for evacuation, and my heart is pounding, and no one’s attention is wavering, and every moment Is diamond focused. Will  we retreat in good order?, will we lose a gem member to capture or serious injury, or will a one last lucky die roll stun the big bad to allow the rest of the team to pile on and end the fight?  I have been in all those situations with various characters,  and the level of RP immersion has been a sweet,

sweet wine I would never trade for an assured victory.  In comparison,  meta currency just cheapens my experience.

I have had this exact experience, going into a last-thing-of-the-session fight with full metacurrency and realizing that I can make awful decisions and win anyways.  It was pretty awful. 

I have also had the exact opposite of this experience, going into a big fight with full metacurrency and watching the tension tick up as the metacurrency ticks down.  It was pretty neat. 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

That's why there's a G in RPG after all.

 

A lot of game design is based on how one balances the "G" and the "RP".  A randomly rolled character gives you the chance to be great, the chance to be average and the chance to be a substandard loser.  That's a lot more "G" then "Build the character you want to play".

[Scott Ruggels]

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

 

But if Mechanon is building a kill-all-humans machine, he can't succeed.  Or well, he can but that ends the campaign.  Any failure to stop Mechanon is unacceptable. 

 

I have been in that exact same scenario, but the adventure had multiple points of failure. 
 

1.). The hero’s could attack the machine. 
2.)The Heroes could attack Mechanon preventing him from activating the machine. (Not a high success chance)

3.) The Heroes could attack the broad cast antenna, and/ or the hijacked microwave antenna next to it. 
4.) One of the Heroes with a high computer programming skill could prevent the command to execute properly. 
The Heroes could destroy the hidden drone fabrication plants one by one before the command is issued (but that would take ages. )

5.) Solve the problem in a way the GM hadn’t thought of. 
 

The trick was none of those points of failure of Mechanon’s plan was made obvious, but took sessions of detective work,

and observation, until they came up with a plan, and even then, Mechanon could shut down one or two of the efforts. 
 

What we are need up doing was a mixture of one and three with two being a distraction, so Mechanon’s efforts were spent defending himself and his machine, while the rest of the Heroes toppled the antenna.  So the lesson is the higher the stakes, the more points of failure the GM should put into the villains plans. This does not make them “weaker”, and you shouldn’t, but it is classic hubris to make a plan so “fool proof”’that there is no way it is would fail, except the opposition is determined. 

Quote

I fully agree RE genre emulation.  It just don't work unless you get the players to help make it work. 
 

In my experience, the more “artificial “ constraints applied to player actions, especially if they conflict with lived experience and common sense, the less successful the game is. Let’s just say that playing with RL police officers changes our perceptions of how the justice system actually works, as well  as the legal limits of Citizens Arrest and evidentiary rules. Good bye to any thoughts of a 12 cent Silver Age comic. 

Quote

 

I have had this exact experience, going into a last-thing-of-the-session fight with full metacurrency and realizing that I can make awful decisions and win anyways.  It was pretty awful. 
 

That would be FATE, and most of the other “Theater of the Mind”” Theater of the mind for me works very well for non combat situations, but not when the combat starts.  At all. FATE was an awful experience for me. 

Quote

I have also had the exact opposite of this experience, going into a big fight with full metacurrency and watching the tension tick up as the metacurrency ticks down.  It was pretty neat. 
 

My experience with Savage Worlds shows that it can satisfactorily work, but it was designed that way. Also there is automatic failure, where you cannot use your meta-currency at all. You lose, you lose, or die, so the real drama can still exist. 

[PeterLind]

Scott has raised some very good points, IMO.  If there was some kind of metacurrency, I would suggest being careful in implementation.

 

> I have been in that exact same scenario, but the adventure had multiple points of failure. <

 

Using the Mechanon narrative above, suppose the heroes fail all of their rolls, which would ordinarily be interpreted as "failure" according to the rules.  How would you as a GM handle it?  Would you treat the heroes as having failed in the scenario?   Would you take some narrative license?  If a kind of metacurrency was available and used by the players, would this enhance the play experience at the table?  Or be more trouble that it is worth?  

[pawsplay]

I started this thread, and I'm going to make a gentle, general request not to have people try to explain to me what roleplaying is or why failure is important. I've been playing for 37 years, I've played literally dozens of RPGs, and I have played Champions since 4th edition.

This is not about smooshing Champions (or any other game) into a three-act play. In fact, I am generally a a very active critic of trying to make a game match the characteristics of other media, particularly films and literature.

This is not about spending bennies all the time to avoid failure.

 

My point is that Champions does not excel at genre emulation in some particular ares:

- Heroes fighting "above their weight." In the cold, hard logic of Champions, heroes against a superior foe are generally just going get their butts kicked.

- Making that clutch shot. The Green Arrow makes that one shot, Batman uses his superior tactics to feint Lady Shiva, Magneto fends off multiple Sentinel attacks for just a moment, Tony Stark delivers a bomb into the maw of an invading alien.

- Champions is basically a tactical game, whereas comic book heroes are often affected by pathos as much as sound tactics.

 

I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how to deal with those challenges. I am a little more skeptical of people claiming those aren't actually relative weakness of the Champions system.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

12 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

I started this thread, and I'm going to make a gentle, general request not to have people try to explain to me what roleplaying is or why failure is important. I've been playing for 37 years, I've played literally dozens of RPGs, and I have played Champions since 4th edition.

This is not about smooshing Champions (or any other game) into a three-act play. In fact, I am generally a a very active critic of trying to make a game match the characteristics of other media, particularly films and literature.

This is not about spending bennies all the time to avoid failure.

A thread has a life of its own. 

 

13 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

My point is that Champions does not excel at genre emulation in some particular ares:

- Heroes fighting "above their weight." In the cold, hard logic of Champions, heroes against a superior foe are generally just going get their butts kicked.

- Making that clutch shot. The Green Arrow makes that one shot, Batman uses his superior tactics to feint Lady Shiva, Magneto fends off multiple Sentinel attacks for just a moment, Tony Stark delivers a bomb into the maw of an invading alien.

- Champions is basically a tactical game, whereas comic book heroes are often affected by pathos as much as sound tactics.

 

I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how to deal with those challenges. I am a little more skeptical of people claiming those aren't actually relative weakness of the Champions system.

Punching up just requires a restructuring of the scenario.  For example!  Bad-Man shows up, does something nefarious, wins the fight while the heroes minimize the damage or thwart his scheme before retreating.  Heroes research Bad-Man, figure out his weaknesses.  Heroes apply weaknesses to Bad-Man, Bad-Man loses the fight and goes to jail.  Rinse and repeat.  Omit first step or roll it into the second if desired. 

Champions already has the tools to make this work beautifully.  Limitations, Vulnerabilities, Susceptibilities, Dependencies, etc all work great to make a villain whose threat level plummets once you know how to handle them.  It's just a matter of using the tools the system already gives you. 

 

Pushing exists.  All that needs to be done is permit Pushing to add points to more things. 

 

So ask "How do you build pathos" and see how many good ideas come flying at you. 

[PeterLind]

Speaking of "pushing", Champions Now has some expanded options available to characters who want to push their Strength or a power.  In addition to being able to add to their Strength or power, a character may also push to add a small area effect or to add a specific power advantage to make the attack somewhat more effective.  This does not cross-over into a metacurrency but is something . . .

 

Heroic Action Points as a way to help with genre emulation:  From a player's perspective, my general response is that I do not need the help of a metacurrency, particularly if the purpose is to help me with my die rolls.  I can already build a character to my specifications and am willing to live with however the dice may fall.  From a gamemaster's perspective, however, my response is that I would be open to anything that enhances the play experience at the game table.  This is one reason why I suggested a HAP as a  kind of group award.  One thing I have found is that some players may hesitate before contributing their hard-earned experience towards group projects such as bases or vehicles.  So I thought maybe something like this could work if it promoted more of a group dynamic at the table.  How this would work out in practice though . . . I am open to what you might have in mind along the lines of genre emulation . . .thanks

[Duke Bushido]

Don't get me wrong--  

 

I totally get what you're saying.  I ask only that you hear out a very short reply to one thought:

47 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

I am a little more skeptical of people claiming those aren't actually relative weakness of the Champions system.

 

They are weaknesses of the genre.

 

 

Hi; Duke Oliver.  I don't believe we've met.

 

I'm the guy who doesn't know much about superheroes because he didn't read a lot of comics.  For the record, it was things like are being used as examples throughout this thread that kept me constantly turned off to comics, even as a kid:

 

Darksied, Thanos, Mechanon---   all the "Godlike and beyond" villains, being stymied and even brought down by some schmuck with a boxing glove on the end of an arrow....

 

 

I mean.....    It just......

 

 

Dude, with all the love and respect I can muster, it's just _stupid_.  Moreover, it's impossible.   It's impossible in Champions, too, which I am remarkably okay with: I have to deal with way fewer GMPCs when I play HERO because there is tacit understanding between the players and the GM that such a matchup is more than just lopsided in this game:  the "hero" is only going to win---

 

well, it's just like in the comics:  the heroes only beat the universe-gargling wipes-his-butt-with-the-Andromeda Cluster bad guy because of flat-out writer say so and plot chicanery:  the author rigs things so that the hero wins.

 

So you get that same bit of comic book emulation:  try it in Champions, Boomerang Lad only manages to take down SuperGod (much more powerful than regular God) because the GM flat-out makes it happen that way.

 

 

Seems like a reasonable emulation of the source material to me.   

 

 

 

Gotta run:  I'm trying this new thing where I don't do walls of text just because I can type extremely quickly.

 

 

You are ALL _welcome_!  

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how to deal with those challenges. I am a little more skeptical of people claiming those aren't actually relative weakness of the Champions system.

I took a long walk to think about this. To my mind, Champions is not designed for it. I would not call it a weakness, as more of and a design oversight.  No, Champions does not support absolutes nor was it intended as a narrative system.  I am afraid as designed, Champions will not support what you are looking

for. I am unfamiliar neither your definition of pathos, and out on the street, resting ai cannot look it up while typing this out on my phone, but perhaps some flavor of Savage Worlds May serve your needs satisfactorily.  

[Spence]

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

My point is that Champions does not excel at genre emulation in some particular ares:

- Heroes fighting "above their weight." In the cold, hard logic of Champions, heroes against a superior foe are generally just going get their butts kicked.

- Making that clutch shot. The Green Arrow makes that one shot, Batman uses his superior tactics to feint Lady Shiva, Magneto fends off multiple Sentinel attacks for just a moment, Tony Stark delivers a bomb into the maw of an invading alien.

- Champions is basically a tactical game, whereas comic book heroes are often affected by pathos as much as sound tactics.

 

I haven't put in my two cents because I don't have a working solution.  I have used various Hero/Action Point systems across multiple games and have had a lot of fun both as GM and Player.  They all have their pluses and minuses.

 

I totally agree with you that Champs/Hero, being the detailed game it is, misses on some of the very things that make superheroics heroic.

This has really been a major issue for me over the years because no other game comes close in doing a superbattle.

 

Take Knockback, no other game really allows you the not only do knockback distance that is directly proportionate to the hit as well reducing that distance as you bang through obstacles.   I can remember many times where a hero being knocked back through a building became almost an event all it's own with players laughing and groaning as the Brick becomes a human pinata. Good times.

 

Back to Points.  Heroes HAP's and other types of points just don't work for me.  There is always something missing.  Modiphius' game uses Fortune/Momentum/Doom (Conan) or Determination/Momentum/Threat (STA) which is a really great mechanism to drive both the action and roleplaying for the players.  I have been messing around with them to see if something similar might work.

 

If Pushing wasn't so meh, I might not be looking.  But the current Pushing rules are anti-heroic in any setting except a real world setting.  A ten point increase is impressive to a normal, but a whimpering meh for pretty much anything else. 

 

But I am beginning to ramble.

Thank you for starting the topic, it has been an interesting read

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pawsplay]

1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Champions already has the tools to make this work beautifully.  Limitations, Vulnerabilities, Susceptibilities, Dependencies, etc all work great to make a villain whose threat level plummets once you know how to handle them.  It's just a matter of using the tools the system already gives you. 

 

 

 

That works fine for werewolves.  What other "tools" are you thinking of? Does pushing work for the heroes in a better than it does the villains?

[Scott Ruggels]

3 hours ago, PeterLind said:

Scott has raised some very good points, IMO.  If there was some kind of metacurrency, I would suggest being careful in implementation.

Thank you. Though I am still not thinking that meta-currency will

work, as anything more than a house rule depending on very much on the composition of ones local group. 

3 hours ago, PeterLind said:

 

> I have been in that exact same scenario, but the adventure had multiple points of failure. <

 

Using the Mechanon narrative above, suppose the heroes fail all of their rolls, which would ordinarily be interpreted as "failure" according to the rules.  How would you as a GM handle it?  Would you treat the heroes as having failed in the scenario?   Would you take some narrative license?  If a kind of metacurrency was available and used by the players, would this enhance the play experience at the table?  Or be more trouble that it is worth?  

If I was the GM?  I would Ask the players what sort of campaign they want for next time, or if any one else wants to run. Then shelve the campaign on my book shelf when I get home. 

[Scott Ruggels]

2 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

 

That works fine for werewolves.  What other "tools" are you thinking of? Does pushing work for the heroes in a better than it does the villains?

I have known of GMs that do not allow NPCs to push. 

[zslane]

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

My point is that Champions does not excel at genre emulation in some particular ares:

- Heroes fighting "above their weight." In the cold, hard logic of Champions, heroes against a superior foe are generally just going get their butts kicked.

- Making that clutch shot. The Green Arrow makes that one shot, Batman uses his superior tactics to feint Lady Shiva, Magneto fends off multiple Sentinel attacks for just a moment, Tony Stark delivers a bomb into the maw of an invading alien.

- Champions is basically a tactical game, whereas comic book heroes are often affected by pathos as much as sound tactics.

 

Right. All of those things are examples of writer's fiat, imposed on the story to maximize pre-determined, desired dramatic outcomes. Comics are the inspiration and model for the game, they aren't what the game is attempting to reconstruct in every respect. The closest tool for imposing these sorts of outcomes onto the game is GM fiat, and I think we are all quite familiar with it in practice. Sometimes it works out okay, and other times it just cheapens the struggle and undermines the sense of there being consequences in the game world.

 

Steve Peterson always used to say that comics make for lousy RPG adventures (too narratively restrictive), and that RPG play makes for lousy comics (too much unpredictable character agency). That's because, ultimately, RPGs and their source material are fundamentally different things, and they are not meant to be experienced in even remotely the same way. In order to experience the genre as a game, you may have to sacrifice those conventions that force outcomes and that would strip players of agency (and the consequences that would and should logically follow from it).

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Just now, pawsplay said:

That works fine for werewolves. 

I agree!  It also works fine for supervillains. 

 

1 minute ago, pawsplay said:

Does pushing work for the heroes in a better than it does the villains?

Yes, actually.  One team times 10AP is greater than one villain times 10AP. 

Also, FREDp427 and 6E1p134 say

Quote

characters can only use Pushing for crucial, heroic, or life-saving actions

 

[pawsplay]

To be clear, I have played a number of mostly tactical superhero games that do handle all three of those issues fairly elegantly. Not through fiat.

[pawsplay]

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

Also, FREDp427 and 6E1p134 say

 

 

"Pushing is for heroes and important NPCs (including enemies."