Zed-F

Re: Superhero Apprentice Soulbarb hates publicity and would not do it voluntarily. If she were to get on the show regardless, she is generally smart and charismatic enough to put up a good showing, but business skills are not her forte and if anyone on the team had real business knowhow, they would be able to out-do her. She would actually be relieved (not having wanted to be there in the first place) and might have even gone so far as to set up her own exit from the show deliberately. Sylph has a PRE of 11, and is generally shy and unprepossessing. She could in theory be roped into it, and if so would do her best, but would get the boot very early. Her charity of choice would be the local hospitals in her city.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign True, and things would no doubt start out that way in a people with powers game. But if one has a lot of power, I'd tend to think that the goals one chooses to accomplish with that power would tend to become more grandiose as one realizes just how much power of various types one has access to -- or at least that some of the other powerful people one associates with would have such grandiose goals, and ask for one's support. And grandiose goals have a way of being incompatible with other people's goals, or stepping on toes from time to time. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to suppose that superhumans in a people with powers world would tend to become politically important, whether they want to be or not. I don't think it's much of one, though, considering the power they represent. The existing power structure will do it's best to draw them in, if nothing else. In a superheroes game, the superheroes generally don't have to worry too much about problems along these lines, so it's a non-issue there. Good for a few laughs at least. You could probably fit in some serious undertones if you tried. Oh? Alright, I defer to your superior knowledge of the source material on that score. That's fair enough. Hopefully the discussion has been at least interesting.

Re: Superheroes and lethal force Well, that depends a lot on the game. Generally, I try to be as upfront on the tone of the game I am trying to run as I can, and expect players to abide by that tone. This is generally sufficient. Sometimes there are hiccups. I usually address these by (a) talking with the players and ( applying real world consequences, or at least consequences as close to the real world as I can manage. If a player is playing a character with a Silver Age ethic in my Dark Champions game, and comes across situations that (rightly) don't belong in a Silver Age game, yet insists on keeping the kid gloves on when dealing with a serious and deadly threat... that will have consequences if he fails to contain said threat adequately. By the same token, my Dark Champions game is not a Rusty Iron gorefest, and PCs that go too far in the other direction will get called to task for it by the authorities, and they'd better be able and prepared to justify their actions. With proof to back it up. If I were running a more traditional comics game, I'd probably do the same, except I wouldn't even bother to include situations where imposing the death penalty would be a reasonable course of action in real world terms. Any repeat offenders would be strictly non-deadly, and potentially deadly foes would be non-human, if they were present at all.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign That was supposed to be the point. Apparently the players in the game in question didn't take the hint until quite late in the game.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign The difficulty I have with this argument is that there is ample evidence (to my mind) that power does indeed corrupt, and we hear about it constantly in the news every day, especially as concerns those with political power -- whether we are talking about governmental politics, or corporate politics, or cheerleader group politics. Now it's true that you'll tend hear a lot more about the cases where evidence of corruption comes to light, than where such evidence doesn't exist in the first place. But all you have to do is look at all the red in the picture here to realize that, worldwide, corruption of those in power is widespread and a serious problem. Lincoln said, if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Simply put, I think most people rarely acquire enough power to be truly put to the test. Sure, you may have absolute power over your cats, but what benefit do you gain from abusing that power? None. You might have power over your children, but there is little benefit to be obtained from abusing them in most cases as well. Moreover, there is always the risk of getting caught, and at least in most developed countries that sort of behaviour is heavily frowned upon. Social pressures of various sorts, as you described, tend to help keep people from abusing what power they do have. Even so, I've seen plenty of evidence that otherwise regular people can and will abuse those under them if it gives them sufficient benefit -- for instance, I've known more than one family wherein money provided by an outside party for the education of children was used instead to further the parents' vices. Naturally, what constitutes 'sufficient benefit' to incite temptation to abuse power will vary from case to case. Nevertheless, I'm sure I wouldn't have to look hard to find worse examples, or to discover that such examples are commonplace among certain subsets of society. Moreover, as one acquires power, and as one associates more and more with those in the pursuit of power, the powerful tend to lose touch with those social pressures. They tend to start to consider themselves immune. And the company they keep assures them of having ample opportunities to be tested and tempted. Over time, lines drawn in the sand tend to blur, and behaviour once deemed unacceptable might become acceptable, if those one associates with indulge in it regularly. Such is the fate of most politicians, it seems, who aspire to high offices, or the most plush corporate boardrooms. It isn't necessarily a fast process, and those with sufficient moral fiber may be able to resist it for a while -- perhaps even a lifetime. But given the number of scandals that plague the corporate and government world, it seems that those able to resist such corruptive influences indefinitely are few and far between. People might aim to get into government in order to do the right thing, and some may succeed. But the seeking of power, and the association with others who seek power, seems to offer progressively more and more tempting opportunities for certain values to fall by the wayside, as more power is obtained. So given this as a starting point, what happens when we throw supers into the mix? One answer is we simply don't worry about it, because we want to tell stories about superheroes, and superheroes are by definition immune to these considerations. That's certainly one valid approach, and there is nothing wrong with those sorts of stories. They've been a staple of comic books for a long time, and can be quite entertaining to read or participate in. But if you want to run a People with Powers game, what happens to a person's ethics when that person is suddenly handed power overwhelming on a silver platter, is an interesting question. Will they succumb to corruption immediately? Unlikely, unless they were already inclined that way to start with. But over time, as they associate more and more with others who are similarly powerful, and with those who seek to acquire still more power -- even if the latter's goals may not align with their own -- won't they be increasingly tempted to use their power to further their own ends, rather than just defend the status quo? Won't they be increasingly be tempted to work to reshape the world the way they think it ought to be? And we all know how easy it is to get a bunch of people to agree on how the world ought to be -- especially people with egos swelled because they really are special. So long as all those people with great power can act as an effective check on themselves, everything ought to be more or less ok. After all, our world isn't a complete disaster area just because we read about political corruption on a daily basis (or could if we were so inclined.) But there's always the possibility that power blocks might start to form that are larger than the 'me and my 4 friends on the team' level, and start pursuing various agendas... and there's always the chance that those agendas might start to gain popularity in the super community... and there's always the risk that, as time goes on, those agendas might start to show more evidence of self-interest on the part of the powered, and less interest in the plight of the unpowered, just as politicians tend to grow less in touch with common folk over time, with the acquisition of power and the association of those who likewise have and/or seek power. In fact, one could argue that the temptation would be greater for the superhuman than for the politician, because many politicians depend on the common people to get elected and retain their power, whereas the superhuman doesn't. Similarly, if the superhuman is effectively immune to reprisal, that lowers some of the barriers against corruption (the fear of getting caught) that society has thrown up to keep corruption in check. Hence why I think the common trope that superhumans are immune to anything the common man could do against them -- including the military -- is a bad idea, at least in a People with Powers-styled game. If your superheroes are incorruptible, it can work... but otherwise I feel there needs to be some possibility of normals being able to defend their interests, should the superhumans start considering their own interests first and those of others second, as most people do. This isn't an original line of thinking, I admit. It's been explored before, and I generally am not interested in going all the way down this path. I just use it to establish a few ground rules -- such as the military having the ability to combat supers, should they need to -- that make it so that I don't feel I have to go all the way down the line.

Re: Talk of a base... In most cases, the fact that they are superheroes is probably all the qualification they need. Realistic? Not so much. But then while seeing the supers working on their base for a panel or two worth of downtime is fine as a backdrop for conversation, it's obviously not going to be a main plot element in the story. Besides, who said anything about realism applying to comics in which supers have more than an apartment or an old warehouse to use for a base?

Re: Talk of a base... Usually it's the heroes themselves that build it, when they aren't otherwise occupied. Usually there is someone like Reed Richards or Bruce Wayne who takes care of the whole thing off camera. Failing that, the whole team probably pitches in and does the grunt work themselves.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns It looks like a good skilled normal 25+25 character to me. I would make some tweaks (starting with making the tactics a familiarity -- regular grunts out of basic don't get to have that yet) but use something similar for a trained regular forces soldier. Now veteran troops and special forces at 50+50 do get tactics... and use it. They also get teamwork, and use that. The biggest difference in the quality of the troops is not their stats. It's how smart I run them relative to the regular GIs.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign The problem is that we are having multiple concurrent discussions in this thread, and a lot of us are talking past one another.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign I'd be willing to bet the Special Forces would be willing to take it on, if they had to. And would stand at least some chance of being able to pull it off. Whether you believe in things like coordinated multiple attacker bonus, AP ammunition, anti-vehicular ordinance, deliberate killshots, surprise attacks, researching an opponent's weaknesses, tactics, etc... or not, and provide the special forces with ultratech weapons instead.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns I agree that it generally helps to make a distinction between a heroic or superheroic character with 'intense training' SFX and what most people think of when we talk about a normal. Like some others here, I'm generally against skill inflation when it comes to background skills and other things 'normals' have. I try to adopt a minimalist approach in that regard, for normals as well as for supers; I don't think everything a character has ever done necessarily needs to be on the sheet, but only those things that are important to the essence of the character, and should expect to see regular use. An 11- in a skill is good enough to base a career off it in my books, most folks are 0+0 or 0+25 or 25+25, and even elite special forces guys are built on 50+50. For me, if you have 75+75 or more, you're an action hero star, not someone you might expect to meet walking down the street. Joe Cool, built as a PC? He's not a normal, he's an action hero star at least, if not an outright super ala Batman or the Punisher.

There are relatively more military than there are supers in most supers games, and soldiers are relatively closer to civilians than supers are. If the government/military goes off the reservation, it's theoretically possible for the civilian population to arm themselves and deal with the problem... aka revolution. Not easy, not cheap, and not lightly undertaken, but possible. Similarly, I feel that if the supers as a group go off the reservation, it must be possible for the non-super population to have some recourse, even if it is similarly not easy, cheap, or lightly undertaken. My approach would be similar, as far as making a distinction between regular forces and special forces go, though instead of emphasizing a technological advantage for the special forces, I would emphasize a training and tactics advantage for the special forces, relative to common mooks and regular forces soldiers. (I know there are regular forces soldiers dedicated to their careers, but for simplicity's sake I assume dedicated soldiers join the special forces or are in otherwise elite units, while the regular forces are not all that well-trained.) Carbines with armour-piercing ammunition are, in fact sufficient, given sufficient coordinated attacker bonus and/or haymakers or ranged martial attacks (e.g. representing headshots.) Besides, there are plenty of real-world weapons that will do the job just fine against most supers, even if those weapons are generally employed to attack vehicles rather than people in the real world.

Re: Breadth instead of depth I always wonder, though, why do we need to spend lots of points on all this background stuff, given that there's limited scope in most GM plotlines to work it all in? Sure you can incorporate one or two things per character into any given story arc, but if you're spending huge wads of points on all kinds of diverse skills and specializations... how much of it is really going to be worth it? I tend to think it would be better to adopt a more minimalist approach to the question of background skills, perks, and other things that may be only occasionally useful. If I see it on your sheet, and spent points on it (or got points in the case of a disad) then I want it to be meaningful to your character and you should have some expectation that I'm going to at least make an attempt to bring it into play somehow. If all it is is background fluff... write it down in the background, and call that good. I would rather have the PCs spend a modest number of points to be good at a few background skills, which I can reasonably manage to work into the story arc, than dozens of skills, which I will never have time to bring into play.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign Agreed. In a game world where one is telling a People with Powers story, folks in general should be about as likely or as unlikely to do the right thing as they would be without powers, taken as an average. I might throw in a little extra seasoning of 'power corrupts' because there is more personal power available to corrupt with -- and because the heroes do need bad guys to fight, after all -- but too much spoils the recipe. Definitely there are plenty of people around who continue to try to do the best they can, even in altered circumstances.

Re: A Common Origin Story For An Entire Team ? I have another one of those 'every super has a common origin' universes, where the PCs started off as normal folks. I let them design their super-characters in advance though, and just told them they would be playing out their origins in game, so there were no surprises in that regard. I had no problems with it and neither did the players.

Heh, maybe I'm being a bit cynical here, but I tend to believe that power corrupts far more often than it doesn't, though it certainly can take time to do its work. I also tend to believe that supers are fallible human beings (for the most part) first, and supers second. With great power comes great responsibility makes a great catch phrase, but with a few exceptions, RL people who have great power tend to be less than perfectly responsible with it. To err is human, and to be human is to err. One way to take a person's measure is to examine how they deal with their imperfections and the consequences thereof, and I find it interesting to tell those sorts of stories. There are other interesting, lighter-toned stories that can also be told, and I enjoy the occasional lighter-toned story as well; I just prefer to let others do the telling of those stories. That said, one of the themes I've always considered exploring is a game where superheroes really are infallible, or as close to it as makes no difference -- where they all believe that with great power comes great responsibility, and it actually sticks -- and then examine in the context of the game why that is the case.

Re: (really) Super Tuesday Soulbarb is too young. She's also not interested in wielding political power, so much as making sure others don't abuse it. She also hates the limelight with a passion, especially when in Hero ID, and avoids publicity when at all possible. So, not a chance. Sylph is also too young. Moreover, she's far too shy to be at all comfortable with the idea, normally speaking. Besides, you really don't want someone who periodically and spontaneously becomes a Maenad, in slavish devotion to the god Dionysius, to be the President. Trust me on this. Sandy Garibaldi might be about the right age; I hadn't actually decided how old he is, though I had envisioned him in his early thirties. On the other hand, given that he's known to associate with the mafia... I don't see anyone offering him the job anytime soon.

Re: Characteristics in an EC Definitely open to abuse. But then, what isn't. Still, I wouldn't allow characteristics in an EC without a very compelling reason. Characteristics in a MP or VPP I have a bit less trouble with but it still bears watching.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign I'd agree, superheroes that are not corrupted are a fantasy, but an entertaining one and perfectly fine to tell stories about. I often prefer to participate in such stories/games as a player, though, rather than as the person who has to come up with the story. My own stories often don't have the right feel for a truly comic book universe, since I have had limited exposure to the medium. Thus they sometimes tend to be more about people with powers, than about true-blue superheroes.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign I am not a fan of the 'supers are absolutely required to deal with supers' trope. If you have that trope in force, then the entire basis on which global socio-political power is generated and wielded shifts. In my game worlds, you will likely never see a situation in which the military is rendered obsolete by superheroes, because I'm just not interested in exploring the ramifications of concentrating all the world's 'might makes right' into the hands of a few hundreds or thousands of individuals. Superheroes have to be accountable, and that accountability has to be enforceable, without necessarily relying on other supers to do it, in my view. Otherwise... power corrupts, and normals eventually become thralls in the supernormal oligarchy. One could make an interesting game out of that, I suppose, but I'm not the guy to do it. So... in most of my games, yes, the military does have ways of at least in theory dealing with supers. They aren't perfect. They hope they never have to be put to the test. And they certainly aren't undertaken easily or lightly. The military cannot and will not replace superheroes as the first line of defense against supervillains. They can't do the job as neatly or efficiently, and they don't have nearly the reaction time. If the military does get involved, things are going to be bloody and messy and very possibly draconian. But if push came to shove, and the military were called in fight a super or supers endangering the security of their country, they would have available the tools and the training needed to do the job. That said, different games run with different tones. And that's fine. In my Childhood's End game, all supers have a common origin and almost all of them are low-enough powered that the military can deal with supers on an individual basis. But roughly one person in 1000 is empowered now -- over 6 million worldwide -- spread completely at random across the face of a world that has no experience at all with supers. Moreover, an extradimensional invasion is in its initial stages, and these guys use tactics and powers the military has never seen before. Conventional military will not be able to stop them, not by themselves. If the world's supers can discover themselves, find or make their place in society, and rally to fight a common foe in time, though, they might have the strength to beat back the invaders. Even so, it would be a mistake to assume that the established military won't have their own role to play in the coming conflict.