Orion

Re: When, if ever, would your character kill?

Re: When, if ever, would your character kill?

Re: When, if ever, would your character kill? I agree with most of what you have said. A properly run Stronghold can give a sense of permanence, but goes against the genre convention of easy escapes. How many genre conventions are upheld varies with every campaign, and this has always been one I can't decide whether I like or dislike. My world doesn't have a Stronghold (yet), so there really isn't anything that can hold many of the metahumans. Psionic alteration has been suggested, but the psionics don't want any part of that, and no one really trusts them anyway. In my experience, using lethal force on villains only happens after the villains start it. There may be some escalation of lethality after that, but the villains are already doing enough that it doesn't really matter. My Genocide, for example, is at least as violent as the Mexican drug cartels. Going lethal against them doesn't change how they operate, it just shifts their focus to a new target. But if the villains had not been lethal before, I agree that they would change quickly, and the heroes would get a wake-up call. This force and lethality escalation can make for a good combat-heavy campaign, but I'd want to be sure every player was on board before trying it out.

Re: When, if ever, would your character kill?

Re: 30 Years is a long time for a campaign A friend got Champions in 1983, but I was strictly an AD&D and Traveller guy then and ignored it. Besides, I didn't read comic books and couldn't even begin to figure out how to play the genre. In 1985 I was back visiting that part of the world and spent a week with the friend. We did a couple simple adventures, and I was forced to "role" play for the first time in my life. "What do you mean who am I - I'm the new guy in the group. Can't you see my PC halo?" "What's my name - it's Jon character!" Within a year I had the v3 boxed set, as well as the Champions II and III booklets, and started playing Fantasy Hero semi-regularly. Luckily, having more experienced players around helped me from making any bad mistakes on the rules. But even as a larval Champions player I thought the forced balancing of points was silly, and to be ignored whenever necessary.

Re: When, if ever, would your character kill? I don't have any PCs with total code vs killing, and it's doubtful I ever will. NPCs sure, but not PC. Orion is a vigilante targeting Genocide and criminals that would get the death penalty if convicted. Depending on the point of his story arc, and thus his mental stability, he has let most live, has killed everyone in sight, or has done nothing more than provide anonymous tips to other metahumans. Warhawk hunts down drug cartels, and so gun battles are a regular thing. While he has executed a few, he is just as happy with arresting them. Adamant is a former soldier and current secret agent. He'll kill if necessary for the mission, but that's a sign the mission has gone very wrong. Silhouette and Bombshell have killed while protecting innocents, but it greatly affected them. They'd never go into battle intending to do it.

Re: THE BOOK OF THE EMPRESS -- What Do *You* Want To See? I'm not the target audience for this product, so some of what I'd require to get interested may already have been covered in previous releases. Here's a shot list of the top of my head. First off, I'd need a detailed and logical explanation of how someone can rule multiple dimensions and have even a semblance of knowing anything about any of them. I have great difficulty with the idea of someone personally ruling 10,000 worlds in a scifi genre, and that's potentially just a small part of our galaxy. How does she rule multiple galaxies in multiple dimensions? I have to assume that she is just a titular figurehead, and actually has many underlings that each rule in her name. In fact, I'd say many of these dimensional rulers have never met her and have little clue what her goals are. Some probably rule in her name and yet have no connection to her. I cannot see the Empress as being anything more than a vague NPC construct, and see giving her stats/points as a waste of paper. If she has time to actually battle PCs, then she does not have the capability of personally ruling dimensions. If she does not battle PCs, then a general description is all that is needed. What is supposed to be her purpose in a campaign? This is far from clear to me. Define/describe what you mean by dimension. If every dimension contains many, many galaxies, and there are many, many sentient races of various power and technology levels in each, I am incapable of suspending belief enough to be interested in the empress of a billion dimensions. If, however, each dimension she rules really means she controls some area near the wormhole/gate/portal, and there are 5,000 of these gates in our Milky Way Galaxy alone, it gets better. If Empress of a Billion Dimensions is just a title she (or some underling) came up with, and it's really only 73 limited dimensions, then I can work with and use her. A couple paragraphs on how to downsize her to Empress of that Single Other Dimension would be very helpful for those planning to use her in a Pulp or Dark Champions setting. So she (or one of her minor underlings) wants Earth, and is thinking of invading. How does the rest of the CU response? All those alien races with their space cruisers, and the various dimensions already in contact with us - do they even get word in time to matter, and which side would they be on? Do she only attack at Earth, and leave the rest of the CU dimension alone?

Re: Postapocalytpic Antarctica (Problems/Questions)? Very interesting thread - I can easily see a novel with this setting. Just a little tidbit to add here: Jean Auel wrote a series of books set in the Ice Age. Clan of the Cave Bear (and the gawd awful movie rendition) are what most people remember, but there were six books. Great info on how people could have or did live back in that time. Unfortunately, it was equal parts anthropology and romance novel, and the romance drove me away after book 4. Book 3 is The Mammoth Hunters, and takes place on the Asian steppes near the edge of the glaciers. Lots of good info about living in a cold environment, although at a stone age level of technology. One of the interesting things I learned from that book is that bone can be burned as a fuel source, but that it takes lots of air. When constructing a permanent shelter, a small covered trench was made from the fire pit to outside. When the trench was unblocked, the constant winds would blow air in directly into the fire, which enabled the burning of bones. Doesn't help much if rabbit and such are the main food source, but if walrus and whale are regularly hunted, their could be enough bone to make this worthwhile, at least in coastal locations.

Re: Younger PCs; Older Players

Re: Golden Age: Past or Present? I've never really played in a world where either was happening - I've never had a GM that cared about world background, culture, and history, and this goes for every genre I've played in. My preference, both as GM and player, slightly leans towards the golden age being in the past. It gives better reasons for old ruins and forgotten knowledge to be laying about, and gives the players something to strive for - bring back the glory that was. I have one campaign in development that is based on this idea. I have another that had gods walking the earth and powerful magics and psionics being present in the dim past, but these were Cthulhoid gods, fell beasts, and non-human species. They have little effect other than ruins and very rare artifacts on the world now, so don't really matter. I usually don't pay too much attention to it either way. I'm more likely to assume that a fantasy world has changed little through time, and not much will change in the future. I guess this is because I try to emulate certain periods of history, and so am resistant to anything that could change that feel.

Re: Setting, really: Corporate Champions?

Re: shrinking characters I have just one character with shrinking, but it was rarely used, and I don't think I ever used the shrinking power. I can't remember anyone else ever using it either - I think shrinking is the least used power in the book.

Re: Societies forming around advanced/alien/forgotten purpose technology? Early Battletech had somewhat of this feel to it. Advanced tech that few understand anymore, and often can no longer be built.

Re: Setting, really: Corporate Champions? The immediate thing that comes to my mind is the lessened importance of law enforcement and possibly the military, as private corporations have started taking over many of their duties. If you get used to looking at Microsoft and their Captain Defender to take care of the problem, then traditional forces get marginalized. This could mean problems when they are forced to work together, or perhaps Microsoft now runs the local Redmond police department. Mercenaries are more common, and keeping track of who works for who at any given moment could be difficult. The bag guy you fought yesterday has now been hired to defend the city for 4 months, and could be given a pardon, or is untouchable during that time. Mind reading, clairvoyance, and precognition may or may not change law enforcement and spying. If corporations are running mutants, I'd assume that some are getting them to help the corporation out in some way other than just publicity. The hero's response is slower to break-ins at a rival corporation, or maybe just happens to have a majority of big battles around the rival's HQ. Some probably run secret ops of dubious legality. It may be easier for the corporation to influence local government. Create sport leagues, and maybe new sports, that require some sort of powers just to play. 3D football where flight is used instead of running. Wrestlers with superstrength. Certain jobs change - flying window washers, superstrength construction workers, deep-sea explorers.

Re: Setting, really: Corporate Champions? I'm unclear why the NRA would be apolitical in this world. My main campaign world has a lot in common with yours, but I have the NRA and gun issues being more important, not less. Many people, especially those living in urban areas, hate guns on principle, and I just don't see that changing. If your mutants are held responsible for damages, then I would think gun owners would also be held responsible, and thus restrictions on one would tend to be mirrored on the other eventually. If evil mutants cause problems, then some people are going to want personal weapons to defend themselves, and the NRA will get involved. At a certain level of problems, the kneejerk response from cities and law enforcement is to increase the limitations on weapons. The thinking will be that these limits will somehow impede criminals, and since they don't like the public to be armed anyway, they aren't going to worry about whether it actually works or not - they are finally able to remove weapons from the public. It's only when things get really, really bad that weapon ownership and use by the public will be accepted and encouraged, and I don't get the feeling your campaign is to that point.

Re: Space the final frontier I've had multiple characters as a player, but never as a GM. As a player, they were all of equal points/abilities/powers, so while I had a favorite character, none could have been said to be the main one. If/when I decide to be a GM again, I hope to have a group of players that can handle multiple characters. Important DNPC and rivals will be played by other characters, not me. I like the idea of one player being the Captain, while another is a pilot and a third is a generic red-shirt. As a player in the past, I wouldn't have been able to handle it well unless I was the combat dude in any group, but that's not so important now. I also like the idea of assigning certain NPCs to players. Not for them to play that character, but to determine the general direction of that person, and how they'd react to events. This can be very effective if the NPCs are not always working towards the same goal.

Re: Here's the scenario

Re: Dr. Destroyer or Mechanon? Mechanon, just because destroying robots is fun. No worry about code vs killing. No worry about public or law enforcement mistaking what is going on - hordes of robots are always evil. I don't have any AI serving Mechanon, but do let him control Borg-like cyborgs, and these could be used for moral quandries when needed.

Re: Golden Age Champions I think the code vs killing depends more on the enemy of the moment than anything else. Sure, some will always kill and some will never kill, but many seem to be in that gray area. When fighting Nazis and Japanese, killing was fine. Same goes for sentient aliens and robots. Homefront criminals got off a little easier. Spies and enemy agents may or may not be killed.

Re: Sniper

Re: Younger PCs; Older Players Never played a teen character in any genre. As a teen, I wanted to be an adult. Now that I'm theoretically an adult, I can't image playing a teen, to the point finding out there was a teen hero sourcebook was a shock. It literally never occurred to me that anyone would want to play a teen. I don't think I could play a teen effectively in a modern-age campaign for a long period of time. One of my grandmothers married at 14 or 15, and an aunt did at 13 or 14 as I remember. One of my high school classmates married at 16 (and she wasn't even preggers!) and is still married. Marrying at a young age used to be a lot more common than now, as people were expected to grow up and act like a responsible adult a lot sooner back then. What percentage of the population married before 18 I have no idea, but it was accepted in at least some places. And of course, back when it was common to not finish high school, many had full time jobs by the age of 14 or even before.

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP Forgetting all the pro/con arguments about points, balance, and judgement, here's how I'd handle this situation, and in the order I'd present the options to the players. 1. Tell the other players that this logical development of the character means he may potentially be more powerful in some situations. If they don't have a problem, I'd just give the player the points to build a VPP. It's a freebie from the GM - he just gets a lot more XP this session. Most of the players I've played with would have no problem with this, but a few would. 2. If the other players do have a problem, then offer to arrange minor radiation accidents in the future for each of them, and then give the teleporter the VPP. In short, the campaign point level jumps a bit. All players I've met would be okay with this. 3. Require the player to rework the teleporter to include a VPP. Doesn't have to be the same amount of points, but would be close. Drop the RKA, maybe reduce teleport distance a bit, increase the time required when teleporting. Get the player to define the concept as he has it now, and build on that, not the incorrect earlier concept. As a player, this would be my preferred option. Regardless of the option chosen, let the player know that suggestions in this thread about object breakage and minimum time to port back for the gear will be enforced. I'd think a phase each way, plus at least one phase to find and grab the item, would be the minimum time required, and could be much longer. Most players I've met would not want to be gone from combat that long, and so would only use this ability to redo their equipment list between combats. As for a base and/or group equipment, I'd just let him buy anything on the market and declare it as group property. If he has the money, he can blow it. Since it effectively belongs to the group, I wouldn't charge any points for it. If the base and the large equipment storehouse causes too many problems....well, that's what mindless powerhouses like Grond are useful for. Seriously, those things are like villain magnets - use them to your advantage.

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP I beg to differ - I think it is the best way for him to deal with the issue. And if he is indeed a beginning GM, maybe this advice, and trying this technique, can move him into the intermediate stage. Obviously, a lot of people dislike the idea, and it's not for everyone, but that doesn't make it a bad solution. And as I've tried to say in other posts, "get stuff for free" is a result of the mindset approach to the game. If looked at in other ways, it loses much of the bad connotations.

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP It completely depends on how you approach roleplaying and character design. To me, everything starts at the character conception and writeup. If the writeup says the power set is X, and X logically means Y and Z, then the character automatically has Y and Z. Points don't matter - he has them. If I (or the other players) are uncomfortable with the idea of Y and Z, then concept X is not allowed. Perhaps the slightly different concept W must be used, or maybe the concept has to be abandoned. To bring in a different thread, if the character is invulnerable to fire in the concept and description, then it is invulnerable to all fire. The implementation of this does not matter, and for me at least, doesn't not have to even be implemented within the rules - just write down Invuln to Fire on the character sheet and be done with it. Whether this is an unbalanced character for the campaign is a totally different issue, and is judged separately. If you start at the points, and go from there, I can accept your statement. I've never been in a campaign that does it that way, however. What can I do with 350 points vs what can I do. Equal points doesn't mean equal effectiveness, and characters of differing point levels is a goal, not a problem, to me. Given these, I don't worry if one character would cost more than another, just what they can do in concept.