bwdemon

Re: If You Had To Play a DC Character… Look no further than the avatar: Booster Gold! Why? I like how he shamelessly promoted himself. Why wouldn't a superhero promote themselves as thoroughly as any star actor or athlete? I always liked battlesuit-type characters, too.

Re: If You Had To Play a Marvel Character… One character?? Wow... so many to choose from... I'd probably have to say... Iron Man Why? I like the idea that my character can face normal everyday challenges from a normal perspective and face superhuman challenges from a superhuman perspective. Plus, I like Tony Stark as a character. Runners Up: Daredevil (really close second), Spider-Man, and Thor EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm talking about Iron Man before War Machine (I took a long break from comics right around that time). I looked into some of the things that have been done to/with the character since then and I'm wondering who's running that particular asylum? I'm afraid to look into Daredevil. However, I do enjoy the "Ultimate" line from Marvel, so maybe there's hope for the less-Ultimate lines now, too.

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!" Heroism, to me, applies to both the means used and the ends achieved. It's more heroic to do things out of your desire to do good than to do so for monetary or other personal gain. It's more heroic to pummel someone senseless, face-to-face, than to sneak up behind them and run a yard of steel through their heart. It's more heroic to incarcerate than to kill, in most cases. Not all characters are capable of, or even designed for, heroic gameplay. If you want a heroic game, then make sure you have characters that fit the heroic mold. Moody-Loner-Kills-a-Lot probably isn't a good idea for a heroic game, nor are Glass-Jawed-Mentalist and Cowers-in-the-Corner-Invisikid. If your players want to play something less-than-heroic, then there are two good options and one bad option. The bad option is to throw the character into a heroic game. This is bad, because they're immediately an outcast and they'll make some things too easy (boring for everyone else) while not contributing at all to others (boring to them). This can add conflict and drama to a game, so it isn't entirely bad, but the cost is usually too great, AFAIC. The first good option is to make a game so they can get this out of their system. Fill it with all the sneaks and killers your characters care to play and tailor the game appropriately. My experience here is that the game doesn't hold a lasting appeal for players, but your experiences may vary. However, single-PC games actually fare very well under these conditions, so that may be an option if you've got the time and inclination. The second good option, especially good if only one player wants a non-hero, is to let them GM so they can play non-heroic villains. This way, they can get the sneaky non-heroic stuff out of their system and the GM can enjoy the PC side of things on occasion.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? WhammeWhamme, a problem with your comparison is that what you present as an option (DEX+INT+PRE) is a concept-breaker and threatens NCM. An OSL doesn't break concept or threaten NCM. Also, even though that example adds up to 20pts, it doesn't give the full benefits of an OSL, which can impact any roll not based on a disadvantage or limitation. Multipowers are still not supposed to be used for skills, due to the abuse inherent in such a construct, so why bother using them as a basis for comparison? I put it up there as a worst case argument for 10pt OSLs, but it isn't a valid construct anyway. It's ridiculous, so arguing it as a justification for a bad price is equally ridiculous. If you're really willing to consider such a construct in your game (and I seriously doubt more than a small percentage of us would) then you might as well take a Cosmic VPP (only for levels) and just multiply that by as many levels as you want. Make it a 20pt VPP with a 30pt control cost and you can get some really horrible combinations, especially once you start using 2pt levels. That's 50pts before applying any sort of reduction for the "only for levels" limitation. Again, the result is ridiculous and disallowed, so it shouldn't be the basis for judging OSLs. If an 8pt CSL is considered overpowered by so many, how could a 10pt CSL that can also be used for any skill or attribute roll any less overpowered?

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? The book does warn against multipowers. Just look them up and you'll see a warning. The "other inappropriately cheap items" specifically refers to multipower examples. Speaking of which, WhammeWhamme's multipower example (which is still flawed for putting skills into it and further flawed due to the multipower cost structure) was flawed. It should've been... 40pt base 8pt flexible slot: +5 CSL 8pt flexible slot: +5 SL That's 56pt total cost for the equivalent of 5 OSLs, which only cost 50pts. You have to use flexible slots once you attempt to represent more than one OSL, because you need to represent the ability of each level to be used for different things in a single round. So, even under a broken multipower construct, you're still getting off cheaper with OSLs. If you can say "its a great value" then what you're saying is that the benefit exceeds the cost.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? I'm just not seeing how a 10pt OSL is better than an 8pt SL for skills-based characters. Nor am I seeing how an 8pt CSL is unbalanced, but a 10pt CSL that can also be used for any other roll (outside of disadvantage-based rolls) is somehow balanced.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? 1. Skills, including levels, shouldn't ever be put in multipowers, due to the unbalancing effect. This has always been clear with the HERO System. 2. I also believe that the multipower concept is broken, providing too much benefit for not enough cost when used solely as a framework to hide multiple attacks rather than as a partially-defined VPP. This is one of the reasons it has a warning sign. So, I believe that you get more than 6pts of benefit (very few people would use flexible slots for a flash in that situation) from 6pts of cost incurred to add Flash to your character. I believe you get more than 12 points of benefit for that matter. Is the benefit greater than the cost? That's the simple analysis. You can compare it to other inappropriately cheap items, certainly, but it won't make it any better.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? While any of those things may be useful, they are not universally useful (SPD being the closest). A single OSL can aid any roll outside of disadvantage-based rolls (e.g. burnout, activation, enraged, berserk, etc.). The OSL also is not a concept-breaker like many of the examples you just provided and it won't push a character out of the "Rule of X" for a game or its active point maximums. Just ask yourself the simple question, what's it really worth to add the entirety of an 8pt CSL's functionality to an 8pt SL? Would you honestly expect to pay no more than 2pts for such a massive increase in functionality? IMO, you're gaining a far wider range of ability than a mere 2pt bump in price should confer.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? Nope. 40 active points in a power equates to an 8D6 EB, which is the damage for an UNTIL agent's backup weapon. What can you do with that EB? Well... you can attack with it. You don't get free vision powers if the EB is based on eye-beams. You don't get free flash defense, either. You can't use it to fly or to pick locks. All it does is cause damage, maybe knockback. An OSL, though, can be used to help anything. It's the skill equivalent to a VPP and it helps you in combat. If I have the skill, each OSL makes that skill's use better. If I'm in combat, then I can turn my ability to do math, remember where the nearest pizza place is, perform acrobatics, hold out against torture, gamble, talk to strangers, etc... into the ability to hit more easily or to make it harder for my opponent to hit. For a meager 2pts, I can turn a wide-reaching 8pt SL or 8pt CSL into so much more. The bargain is too good, the cost is too low.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? It isn't often that any character uses SLs and CSLs at the same time (dodge that attack and think about where the nearest pizza place is...). Acrobatics and Breakfall rolls are where you're most likely to have this crop up and you can get a 3pt skill level to cover both of those. That's still a discount of 1pt. I'm not saying you should spend 16pts for a CSL. I'm saying it should be more than 10pts. My reasons are that you should get some benefit for stepping up and that you can only use one at a time. Both of those are minimal, however, and a 37.5% price drop is not minimal.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? With an OSL, you get two 8pt levels (one in non-combat skills and characteristic rolls, one in combat) for only 10pts. It's an incredible bargain, saving 6pts (37.5% discount). When something is that good of a bargain, it's broken. When making broken characters was a hobby of mine (waybackinnaday) OSLs were a great way to go. Why bother increasing skills when you can pay the minimum and tack on your OSLs whenever needed? Four OSLs is a great investment in any character. For most characters, this can represent a 50% swing in OCV or DCV during combat, plus it'll turn any 13- skill roll into a 17- "gimme" roll. Even a weak 11- skill suddenly becomes a 15- roll that's all but guaranteed. On the "pro" side of the argument, an OSL costs the same as if you put the 8pt CSL and 8pt SL in a multipower. That's an 8pt base with two "ultra" slots at 1pt each for a total cost of 10pts. An OSL works exactly in that manner, too (you can only have one or the other active at any time). However, this ignores the questionable nature of putting skill levels in a multipower framework. I still say it should cost more. Making it 12pts would probably be sufficient. Is 2pts really that big of a deal, though? When you start stacking them up, which is where they tend to cause the most trouble, yes. And how many of us have fought with costs and concepts to shave a single point, let alone two? It should cost more and 12pts sounds fair cost-wise.

Re: Champions Jargon Tool: a character who can do just about anything on a moment's notice (e.g. huge multipower, variable power pool, etc.). Also, a pejorative for those players who want to play such a character.

Re: Overall Levels are they too good or not good enough? The pricing of skill levels takes both superhero and normal games into account. So while it may only be another 6 points for a superhero to get +3 DEX for +1 OCV/DCV, a bump up on the action order list, and maybe a +1 to DEX-based skills; it could mean up to another 15 points more for a normal to get the same benefit (not to mention GM permission). In that case, the lower cost of a level makes it a smart buy Generally, I discourage overall skill levels. I prefer to keep levels separated into combat, penalty, and skill categories. The overall skill level seems to offer too much benefit for not enough cost.

Re: 1 Speed Never as a PC, but yes as an NPC "monster" villain (e.g. Godzilla). Lots of defense, horrifying offense, but slow as dirt. PCs had to take him down before he got into the city. I honestly wouldn't play a SPD 1 character as a PC. SPD in most of my superhero games has had an unofficial floor of 4. Years of Champions gameplay instilled a mindset of "the 'average' superhero SPD is 5 and anything below 4 is unheard of" in me and many other players. The stock characters are and always have been set up on the basis that the average character SPD will be around 5 (though few go below that). The game just works out better with such a floor in mind for superhero games. The slowest PC I ever used in a superhero game was a SPD 3 brick built on 250pts. He hit hard and was hard to hurt, but agents usually went before him and any character with SPD 6+ could pull a hit-and-run on him at will. That led to me holding actions, which led to inaction, which led me to drop the character shortly thereafter. With more points, I could've probably kept him viable, but not in that game at 250pts.

Re: Champions Jargon Frogger: the target of multiple move-through or move-by attacks in a single turn. (also Froggering and Froggered as appropriate)

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? Mazzy Star, "So Tonight That I Might See"

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... After a long weekend at Origins (a few years back), my wife and I returned home with a couple friends to enjoy a little Golden Age Champions. We were all a little slaphappy, so a few entertaining tidbits were sure to creep up. My wife was new to the game, though she'd seen us play several times before. Upon seeing her character, she began to ask me about the things on the character sheet and I explained them in detail. Eventually, she started looking very intently at the sheet, even turning it over to look on the back for something... Me: "What are you looking for?" Wife: "Does my character have super vision?" Me: "Nope." Wife (without missing a beat): "Sweet! I'm unsupervised!"

Re: How to handle RKA? How about, instead of using (1d6 - 1) as the base for the stun multiplier, use (1d6 - 2)? That gives you these results... 50% of the time, Stun = Body 16.7% of the time, Stun = Body x 2 16.7% of the time, Stun = Body x 3 16.7% of the time, Stun = Body x 4 The average ends up at Stun = Body x 2 It's a simple solution that doesn't require any more accounting than KAs do now and you don't have to rewrite any character sheets. An RKA can still do more damage than an equal DC in EB, but it's toned down considerably. Alternately, pump up the defenses a little bit. Now that the villain in question knows the character is a killer, there's no reason for that villain to continue on like the threat isn't there. Missile Deflection/Reflection is a great way to go, as are increased resistant defenses in general. If the whole story arc or game hinges on one villain, then that villain needs the means to survive to the end. Finally, you should create contingency villains just in case the dice fall poorly at a future date. I don't care if you use clones, androids, a bigger "Mr. Big", a son/daughter/sibling/parent, a partner, an experiment gone awry, or whatever else you can think of, just make sure you have the means to keep the storyline going. You don't have to be blatant about it or immediately put the contingency into effect, but make sure you have something in mind in case the worst case scenario plays out.

Re: WWYCD: The Friendly Neighbourhood CERT Generally, my character would ignore them as a civilian, but encourage them (not join them) as a hero. I wouldn't want people looking around wondering where Bill was when Bill was the guy actually fighting the Villain-of-the-Day, so you couldn't viably support the CERT in your civilian ID. It's a good idea to have a CERT; if nothing else, they help bring the community together. However, you'd need a pretty good reason to keep suspicion off of you (traveling for work, 24hrs on-call, etc.) or else the community might start to wonder why you haven't joined up. Maybe get a second place to stay for a few days at a time so you're at home a little less often. As for the PBF... I'd probably ignore it as a typical charitable organization unless given reason to look into it. There are so many charitable trusts out there looking for places to donate money that this would hardly raise an eyebrow. Well, the name might raise an eyebrow or two...

Re: GM's "rights" I'm pro-GM pretty much across the board. If a GM says "this game is about X in Y setting without any Z's for the PCs", then so be it. If the GM says "take your 350pts and show me what you can do with them", that's fine too. For me, I typically go from the basis that the PCs have to fit the game, both in background and in numbers, and no PC should outshine the others or imbalance the game. GMing takes a lot more time and energy than playing, so I'm willing to pay huge deference to the GM's wishes. If the GM is willing to work so I can enjoy a game, then I'm willing to do what's needed so the GM and my fellow players can enjoy the game. It's only fair.

Re: DEX Averages Over a variety of games, including point values ranging from 200-350: Brick = 15-24 Martial Artist = 20-30 Speedster = 26-36 Energy Projector = 18-27 We've had occasional upward spikes in "tweener" characters (e.g. martial artist/brick) or high-powered types (shamelessly unjustifiable powergaming) and a couple of numbers that would fall off of the low end, but those ranges are fairly typical.

Re: Favorite Rules of "X" Here's the thing... if you just set benchmarks such as a max DC and a max DEF and a max SPD and whatever, then everyone builds everything to the max. This may not be the case with your group of gamers, but that's the way things are in my area. In the past and with other groups, this wasn't usually an issue. It is now, so I'm trying to set rules to prevent the abuses before beginning a new game. With my equations, characters don't step up out of the boundaries at all and if they want to be better in one area, then they have to give up others. The first rule of DC & SPD is but one of three intended. The second operates chiefly on DCV & DEF and the third operates chiefly on OCV & DC. Considered separately, each allows for problems. Taken together, the trio will plug the key loopholes that I worry about. See, I have a problem with a game that says "12DC is the max", because it allows high-dex, high-spd characters the ability to do the same damage as low-dex, low-spd characters. Due to the cheapness of martial arts, this becomes a major problem. Would I be fine with a 20d6 attack and a 3 spd? Sure, because it fits the first test. Can it pass the second and third, though? Not under Hugh Neilson's terms (OCV would be too high), so the character fails and a rebuild is required. So why not allow the glass-jaw brawler or the tough-as-nails wuss? Because they aren't good heroes, that's why. They're boring, one-dimensional, and best reserved for minor villain roles. IIRC, one of the books for Champions even cautions against allowing all-offense or all-defense characters. All-or-nothing characters also force the issue of competition in that you need to have opponents who can challenge the entire group. If I'm stuck waylaying the group with ego attacks all day because Steel Stu is invulnerable to all other sorts of harm, then I'm not being fair to the other characters and, once characters get some experience, you better believe that mental defense will be high on the list of purchases. Then what? I just start adding more DC to villain attacks so I can one-shot-kill everyone but Steel Stu, just so I can hurt him? Likewise, if you prepare a villain's defenses to handle a one-shot-kill attack, then nobody else will be able to do anything and, again, that would be unfair to everyone else. You can't just let the players go during character creation UNLESS they have a strong compulsion toward game balance. If even one of them goes outside the boundaries, then the whole game suffers. So you set firm, fair rules and let people work within them. Some end up with more SPD and some end up with more DC and some end up with higher CVs. You get a good mix of characters and avoid game-breaking imbalances. As for the additional math, any Champions player should be able to look at a character sheet and answer a Rule of X within a matter of seconds. This isn't higher math, people, this is grade school stuff.

Re: HEROic aberrants I'm a big fan of Aberrant, but for the setting, not the rules. The Aberrant setting is among my favorite RPG settings and presents an interesting and more likely view on the impact of superhumans on society. The rules are a combination of overly-simplified Champions and Aeon/Trinity, which will work for a lot of people, but not for too many HERO fans. I've also thought of developing a campaign based on the Aberrant setting and may well yet do so.

I've been toying around with some Rules of X that I think might be good, but I'd like to see what other people are using or have considered, too. I'm interested in different power levels, exploits, and anything else you want to add on the subject. DC(best) * SPD = 60 (350pt game) I really like this one as it captures how often any given character could be doing their damage. You end up with a 5spd/12dc or 6spd/10dc base, which is fine and promotes a lot of secondary powers. I could also see an "X" value of 65 or 70 in a 350pt game, if more players are involved, in order to encourage specialization. What I don't have is a good Rule of X to take defense into account. Maybe some combination of best DCV, SPD (to account for the "I hit you and then I run to where you can't hit me" types), and active points in best defense? I'm not too interested in a blanket "SPD + AP (attack) + AP (defense) + OCV + DCV + Levels" kind of rule, because I don't think it does a good job of limiting the factors involved. In fact, I'd rather have separate rules of X for both offense and defense, so players can't steal too heavily from one to pump up the other. Anyway, let me know what you've used and how it's worked out, as well as other Rules of X that you've yet to try, but think may be good.

I'm not sure how the rest of character would end up, but I know I'd begin with 15 points in "Money"... heh.