BarryB

My group converted experienced 4th edition characters based on 250 to 5th edition characters by simply giving everyone 100 points. Since these were not the first characters we'd ever made, all of us had pretty powerful characters in mind. We were already pretty differentiated to start with, but the extra 100 points allowed us to really make characters that lived up to some of our powerful expectations. Our speedster is now a real speedster (Ah, megascale!), for example. Of course, each of us, with the possible exception of the brick, wishes we had another 100 - 200 points. Since our group enjoys character growth and development, this gives us a *lot* of room for growth and development.

I agree. Adaptation is a good thing. After all, GMs encourage players to use teamwork by trashing the group and hoping that they learn from the experience. I did not mean to imply that characters should be static. That was the crux of my comment. There are good justifications, bad justifications, and no justifications at all. I encourage my players to try to stay true to their character concepts as they spend XP. Sometimes the player tries to stretch the character concept like silly putty to allow for any and every power that he or she can think might be somehow useful. It is possible to justify practically any power. However, acquire too many and pretty soon you've lost the original character concept. But I am aware that it's a gray area. An energy blaster get hit with a 1d6K bullet and so starts wearing a kevlar costume. Sounds good. She gets hit with a 3d6K laser beam and decides on heavy armor. She gets pummelled by Grond and decides she needs something in the armor to pump up STN and DEF and STR. Now she's Iron Woman. Has she lost the original character conception? I tend to think she has, but it is an arguable point. It's a slippery slope that tempts the unwary.

Thank you. I agree with your point about the use of the term "psionics." I find it interesting that so many role-playing genres include a functional equivalent of magic. The only one that I think doesn't do that is modern mercenary/special ops role-playing. Even then, there might be high-tech devices (James Bond gadgets) that are the functional equivalent of magic. In some Champions games like my own, scientists are the equivalent of magicians. It would probably be possible to write a Ph.D. dissertation about the psychology of the need/desire for magic in role-playing games. I suspect that there are two reasons for it. The first and primary one is a desire for escapism, specifically the constraints of laws of physics/chemistry/etc. This allows a player to make unfettered use of his or her imagination and makes possible any desire that the player may wish to live out. The second is a desire for superior firepower.

I have a problem with this statement. The problem is this: what is magical? For a magician/wizard/mystic who understands what he/she/it is doing, can make predictions of the effect that will occur, magic is, well, engineering. Now if you want to say that magic is based on godly or demonic or infernal intervention and that all magic involves some form of summoning that power, then you may be right. But I don't think you want to go that far.

One problem that can occur in some campaigns is players reacting to the last combat. "Oh, I really wished that I had Flash Defense in the last battle. I'll use the 10 points I've saved up to buy that." You can ask for rationales for buying the Flash Defense, but any reasonably intelligent player can come up with one. Rationalizing is one of the things at which we human beings are very good. Most of us have resistant defense of one sort or another because many of us enjoy having bullets bouncing off our chests. Others enjoy simply not being there when the shots are fired.

The term used in my current Champions campaign isn't really transferrable. Since superhuman powers were triggered in people at midnight on New Year's Eve 1999, superhumans are called Millennials.

My current Champions campaign uses a unified origin. It's a twist on the "Earth entering a mysterious energy field" template, only the field is being generated by an alien race who created humanity with the intent of harvesting them a couple of million years down the road. Their energy field activates latent genetic codes that result in superhuman powers. The aliens knew this would happen because they made us that way. They find superhumans a particular delicacy. The approach of the aliens results in a diaspora of alien races that are fleeing. Their flight just happens to take them past Earth. So now we have aliens. There are those with vast superhuman powers. They seem to have once been human. Are they humans who are deluded and think they are gods or demons? Are they really gods or demons? I leave the question open for the moment. There are those who use powers that they claim are magical. Perhaps they are "ordinary" superhuman powers. Perhaps they are something more. Again, I leave open the question. The characters in the campaign are, for the most part, people whose powers were triggered by the alien energy field. At least one now claims that he is an avatar of a god. Another claims he is an elemental being. Really, it's such a shame that gaining superpowers goes hand in hand with madness. *tsk tsk*

Oh, Supreme's post reminded me of something. Roleplay the sleuthing. Don't let Brain-man make a skill roll on Conversation and say "So what do I learn from the conversation?" or make a Deduction roll and say "What clues do I find?" I find the technique of asking players to make a skill roll and telling me how much they made it by to be an effective tool to keep them in the dark as to whether the skill actually worked or not. "I examine the bookcase closely." "Make your Perception roll and tell me how much you made it by." "I made it by five." "Nothing you notice strikes you as out of the ordinary." Of course, KS: Bookcases might be a complementary skill.

Re: Mega-Intelligence characters I suggest OCV and DCV levels to simulate the ability to figure out an opponent's moves: "You're just too, too predictable." I suggest Find Weakness, though you may find that too powerful. Analyze Combat Styles might also be in order as well as the ability to use skills like Mechanics or Electronics in combat on an opponent's focus to disable it. All players should be able to change the course of scenarios; how much is up to the GM. But your remark makes me think that the player wants the scenarios to center on his character's ability to figure out anything. I consider this to be a big no-no. The occasional scenario can center on the character, but not all or even most. Something else to consider is the effect of the high intelligence on puzzles, traps, and mysteries. It sounds to me that the player is going to push hard to know every secret in a scenario "because I made my Deduction roll by 10 points."

Your PCs might be overpowered if... ...the universe is threatened with eternal expansion and a gradual cooling down to maximum entropy and your PCs say "What, again?"

I like the JLA cartoon, though I find Superman woefully underpowered. Any hints on what the upcoming season will feature?

I'm with you on the signature, Law Dog.

Re: Magic in a Champions game? It appears rarely. I can't speak for those who run scenarios in the current campaign, but I don't run many magic scenarios because it just doesn't fit with the campaign origin/theme/background. Incidentally, the campaign is a four-color one with some realism. Just another sfx.

As I see it, Omega Man and Starman are real obstacles to "new" character concepts. I'm guessing that they had cosmic VPPs or very nearly so. That means that you could do pretty much what you wanted and so have plumbed the heights (or depths) of "neat things to do with Hero system powers." I also see that thread possibly running through several other characters you listed. It seems to me that any particular combination of powers and skills won't be interesting to you. I think it would be helpful in terms of suggesting possible characters to know your tolerance for angst. "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood" (with apologies to the late Fred Rogers or Spider Man-level "I kill everyone I love." It may be that you need some soap opera with your characters. Changing player groups can sometimes be helpful as well. My group has been together for almost 13 years now and we have a pretty good idea of the types of characters we each want to play and how we'll play them (Though I still can't seem to come up with a good roleplay-oriented scenario worth a gosh-darn.). Your dilemma reminds of the ennui felt by those who are seeking something else, something beyond. They are ripe for...Enlightenment. *cue the beams of light, choirs of angels, and harp music* Though I can't imagine what that would look like in terms of gaming.

Okay, I'll comment. I love them! Your generosity is most appreciated. I've always enjoyed Storn's work. I think the Dreyyog, Marie, and Scallion(?. The faceless guy) are going to have to appear in some form in my campaign.