Echo3Niner

As for post #31, never mind it here, I decided to start a new thread so the title of this one stays on topic and I put the question about complications in a thread it belongs in. http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/89851-how-do-you-balance-complications-with-storyline/

I decided to pull this question from my other thread, to try to stay on point and get answers to this question: A GM could decide that 400 CP, but only 50 or 30 points in Complications is appropriate for his game; correct? I do not want to have my players have 100 points in complications, but then never have time to really use them. I'd much rather only have an appropriate amount, that I will actually use in the campaign, even if that's lower than recommended for that scale. I understand the concept of complications, but it appears to me that they are designed to go up in lock-step with CP, and that may not make sense to a game I'm planning. If every character has 100 points in complications, it appears to me they would make up a large portion of a game (if given the appropriate level of emphasis from the GM's perspective), and I'm not sure that I want that much "disruption" to my storyline. Basically, I'm trying to understand what your opinions are on good balance between say 4-6 players complication levels, and still being able to have a campaign focus on the main storyline? I don't want the Complications to mean nothing, because as a GM I don't put enough effort into them, but I also will have little time in my game to be able to focus on them. If they get the points, I should use them; so I'm concerned that I should only have the players have the amount of complications I can actually use in a game. Let's say you have an in-depth storyline, which will leave only 10-15% of the time in a game session (e.g. out of a 6 hour game session that's +/- 45 minutes spread over the session) for EVERYONE's complications. What level of Complications for say 6 players (using the above example, that's all of ~8 minutes per player), do GM's find you are able to actually use appropriately in play, while NOT impacting your overall story?

Long series of related adventures was my vote, but a close second would be Global adventures with lots of exotic locations; which to me are very much a like...

This is degenerating into a DC vs. Marvel "geek fight" (so I'm going to jump in). In my opinion, Batman and Daredevil would be fairly close, but Batman would win (fairly easily even), cause of all his armor and other goodies. Now, if they met in a gym, with no goodies, DD's super abilities (which according to the Frank Miller era DD, aren't even super abilities) would allow him to destroy The Batman. As a one time owner of all the Marvel RPG books, who had stats for just about every one of their characters, I will tell you Shang Chi is actually the best pure fighter in all of Marvel period (that's fact, based on the game stats; and defeated The Thing in a fight once - I have the comic), and taking powers/gadgets aside, would stomp both of them. AND, just to make this more fun; Longshot would beat them all, because he has luck (one of the most powerful powers in Marvel RPG), and everything would simply go his way... But that's besides the point... Back to our regular programming; please see post #31 for my outstanding question...

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm new to the forum, and just coming back to Champions after a long time away. I also have an issue with the "everyone in costume can take my hit" logic. There are far too many power levels represented in most games, to have this logic make sense to me. At one point you may be fighting a powered battle armor villain, who can take your shot; but later (or even in the same group of villains) you're fighting a Cat Woman/Black Window, who could not. All costumed, all fight with others that may be far physically stronger, but just because of that, shouldn't be hit with something that could kill them. IMNSHO What about the magic or mental powered villain? They're in costume, and have powers to rival the heroes, but likely can't take a full powered direct shot from a powerful energy blast or punch from a powerful tank. I would say a Super with CvK would have to hold something back on a villain until they know what they can take. They shouldn't miss on purpose, but should hold back on the damage, until they know what they're facing. In case they could kill them accidentally. This to me is the point of CvK. (Sorry, don't know the CC rules well enough to tell you how to do this mechanically.) Now, I also agree this should not cause the heroes to lose automatically, because the two phases they held back was “all the villain needed” to destroy them. But for 20 points, you knew the type of business you were in when you decided to be a hero, and maybe sometimes one or two of the group gets hurt worse because everyone is holding back at the beginning; so be it. Trust me, I understand Rules of Engagement, and how they put you at risk; it’s the difference between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in my opinion… I'm also a Marvel guy, so don't know the DC references as well... So, I would say that in general, someone with the ethics of Spiderman or Daredevil, would not run around in a group with Wolverine or the Punisher. Both of these have actually been covered in Marvel comics (back in my comic's day – late 70's to late 90's); with specific cross-overs where these points are an issue and discussed (to the point of the two "heroes" working contrary to each other in fights with villains). As an example of what I'm talking about; in this Wolverine/Spiderman crossover: after a woman Wolverine cares for dies, a platoon of "agents" comes after him. There are three panels in silhouette, of blood and body parts going 30 foot in the air. Spiderman finally arrives, and fights Wolverine, allowing surviving "bad guy agents" to escape, because Wolverine's behavior is as bad as the bad guys to Spidey. This is classic "ends-justify-the-means" vs. "the-means-matter"; or anti-hero vs. hero, respectively. So even if you're not running a "four color" style campaign, the concept of the "type" of heroes the players are going to run should be discussed ahead of time. Because a group of "heroes" and "anti-heroes" shouldn't be comfortable in the same room, let alone working together (unless forced to for a short period of time by circumstances). This is characterized (as someone else mentioned), by Cyclops and Wolverine not getting along (beyond the Jean Grey issue). Cyclops has a very low CvK (IMO), and thus even though it's low, still has an issue with Wolvie's "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" ethics. I think that in order for CvK to be worth the 20 points, it needs to play into the way they are playing their characters (now, if they are "just doing it anyway" or are being "forced to" is a different question I'll address in a sec.). So, taking the two points above together; the "type" of heroes being played should be discussed ahead of time, and if everyone says they're playing heroes (as opposed to "anti-heroes"), then they could all take CvK at 20 points, "and just play their character that way", because that's the type of campaign they chose to play. If one of the players is really an "anti-hero" at heart (and can't have fun as a "goody two shoes"), and plays his character that way; this should be addressed by talking about it with the GM/group, and the group should discuss if the campaign they thought they were going to play, really fits the players. So also IMO, a player should never “be forced” to pull their punches to adhere to the CvK they have; but it should be discussed and a group enjoyable compromise found (up to and including not playing a Super Hero game). As I stated is illustrated in the comics above; a "hero" (with strong CvK) would actually fight/oppose an "anti-hero" who is blasé about killing. Conversely, a group who wants to play a party of anti-heroes, shouldn't be allowed to take the CvK points at all IMO. I also feel that someone with CvK should take into account "collateral damage", and fret that pounding the bad guy through a building might cause innocent deaths... Anyway, just some thoughts.

All this talk about Superman; I have a great example of this: He actually says what you're saying...

And what about the second part of the question? I don't want the Complications to mean nothing, because as a GM I don't put enough effort into them, but I also will have little time in my game to be able to focus on them. Let's say you have an in-depth storyline, which will leave only 10-15% of the time in a game session (e.g. out of a 6 hour game session that's +/- 45 minutes spread over the session) for EVERYONE's complications. What level of Complications for say 6 players (using the above example, that's all of ~8 minutes per player), do GM's find you are able to actually use appropriately in play, while NOT impacting your overall story?

Ah! So Complications are part of the CP total, in that you are "credited" the Complications in your CP? So, 200CP + 50 complications IS NOT 250 total CP to build with; it is assumed that 50 OF THE 200 are complications (150 "build points" + 50 complications = 200 CP for character creation)?

And a question I think I know the answer to, but while I'm typing I might as well ask the n00b question; Complications do not ADD to your point total to build with, they are NOT part of a slide rule scale; they are ADDITIONAL things you have to buy, to "complicate" the awesomely powered super hero, right? To say it another way, 200CP PLUS 100 points in complications, DOES NOT make a 300 point character in "build points"? So, a GM could decide that 400 CP, but only 50 or 30 points in Complications is appropriate for his game; correct? I do not want to have my players have 100 points in complications, but then never have time to really use them. I'd much rather only have an appropriate amount, that I will actually use in the campaign, even if that's lower than recommended for that scale. I understand the concept of complications, but it appears to me that they are designed to go up in lock-step with CP, and that may not make sense to a game I'm planning. If every character has 100 points in complications, it appears to me they would make up a large portion of a game (if given the appropriate level of emphasis from the GM's perspective), and I'm not sure that I want that much "disruption" to my storyline. Basically, I'm trying to understand what your opinions are on good balance between say 4-6 players complication levels, and still being able to have a campaign focus on the main storyline?

Ah, "punching above your weight division", there is a reference I can understand. And yes, after finding the Marvel characters on that site, I was much better able to understand a proper power curve. So based on that; with a starting CP of 400, you get a good starting hero, like a "standard mutant" or Daredevil (street crime) level in Marvel. Once you get to the 600 point range, you are starting to get to the Avenger/Fantanstic 4 or "advanced mutant" (e.g. Adamantite Wolverine, Magneto) level of superhero. When you get to the 1000 point range, you are getting into the "Other worldly"/cosmic level (e.g. Dr. Banner Hulk [1400]) superheros. When you get near the 2000 point range, you are at the pinnacle of superhero power (e.g. Silver Surfer). Anything beyond 2000'ish is getting into the "World-eater" (i.e Galactus) level. This is more granular (for me, from a Marvel prospective). I appreciate the "level chart" on page 9 of the CC, but without character I understand to go with the numbers, it is difficult for me to place. This works much better (for me). Thank you for all the help.

So, going down further on that site, I found some Marvel characters; much better for me: Colossus = only 344 total points (mildly surprised by that) Daredevil = 408 Iron Man = 598 (though it doesn't say which Mark suit, which is important) Adamantite Wolverine = 600 Capt. America = 648 Now I'm starting to get a better idea. Are the write-ups on this site accurate in the 5e/6e/CC era? As I said, I'm trying to get back into Champions; I think I last played 2nd Ed. (it would have been between '90-'95), although it might have been as late as 4th Ed.; it was a huge blue hard cover (which I seem to have lost), with a terrible binding and pages falling out all over the place, if that makes sense?

Oh man, I forgot all about VPP's... Likely someone, say Silver Surfer would simply have like a 750 point VPP right? I mean on top of say like 200 points of super flight, as an example?

OK, that other site is more like it! Though it's all DC, here are some point totals that make more sense to me, and give me an idea of what I'm talking about: Dr. Manhattan = 1144 total points. Rorschach = 240 Full power Superman = 2070 total points. So, now we're getting to a curve that makes sense to me... First, thank you for that site, helps a lot. Second, anyone know a site like that, that has full powered built representatives of Marvel heroes? That was exactly what I was looking for here, if anyone has examples they'd like to share. And thank you all for your help getting me back up to speed.

Exactly; I understand that, and am good with it. What I'm trying to understand, is some character examples of where powerful characters fit in the point totals, so I get a good understanding of the levels. Example; perhaps the Green Hulk I describe above, Phoenix, Silver Surfer, maybe they're a 1000 points, or 5000 points. Maybe Thor, and Red Hulk are 800 points. Maybe Adamantite Wolverine, is 500 points. Maybe modern Capt. America and Daredevil are 300 points. These are examples of point power curves, not what I think they should be. This is what I'm trying to get at. If I had an understanding of this, I'd have a better understanding of where characters fit, and could quickly come up with a villain appropriate, once I know the power point curve scale. To use a DC equivalent (and extremes to make my point), at their mature state; surely Dr. Manhattan is not the same point total as Rorschach, right? The full powered Superman, has to be several magnitudes above Deathstroke?

So to start, let me clarify, I do absolutely mean an actual write-up of the characters as represented by modern comics; so not their "starter self", but with all the juice they have today. So, I'm far more a Marvel guy than DC, and this is exactly what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Let's use a little of what you've put here, and then I'm going to give some examples of some of the extreme powers of some of these characters, to illustrate what I'm talking about. You have Thor, Cap, Green Arrow, Hawkeye and Spiderman on the same point total group as Hulk and "The X-Men" (which I assume includes the Phoenix). So, during The Secret Wars, I have two examples of how "off the scale" the Hulk and the Phoenix's powers are. So, the green Hulk's strength continued to rise, the more angry he got. It had no end point. Reed Richards used this during Secret Wars, as Hulk held up A MOUNTAIN RANGE long enough for the heroes to escape, by insulting him and making him angrier. So even 100 STR in Champions wouldn't be the limit. The Phoenix (and we're talking the "little Phoenix" - Rachael here, not even the full, Jean Grey possessed Dark Phoenix) got angry enough that she was about to suck-up all the life-force in our universe, to kill the Beyonder, until Storm talked her out of it... I don't know how you would represent this with points exactly... This leads to the concept of the old Marvel game, and having the "class" categories, as well as a Beyond category, for these types of powers. Example; Silver Surfer used his Class 5000 (one step below Beyond) flight to go backward in time, then forward in time, to show Nova how a planet was going to evolve... So my point here is that there is NO WAY, Hulk, Phoenix, Silver Surfer, etc. are on the same power point curve as some other characters in the Spiderman, Capt. America, Daredevil line. I'm not clear if you can even point total these types of characters... And that's kinda why I'm asking these questions. Actually another issue is not identifying which timeline of the character we're speaking about; for instance, the Hulk has gone thru so many iterations you cannot simply say "this represents the Hulk", without first identifying which Hulk you're talking about. Mr. Fixit vs. old Dumb Hulk vs. the Banner/"talking Hulk", would have three wildly different point totals. Anyway, this is what I'm trying to understand. I'm guessing you could make Wolverine (as known today, not "starter" Wolverine) for something in the 400-500 total point range (we're talking complete Adamantite Skeleton, completely unbreakable bones here, before you even get into the HUGE healing factor), but someone like Silver Surfer, or Green Hulk, or Phoenix? I'd guess more in the thousands of points... So, I'll go check out that site referenced earlier, but wanted thoughts here.

Cassandra has done a great job of showing what can be done with templates and making workable facsimiles of classic comic book characters fitting within curtain point totals (templates). I was wondering if anyone had any "definitive" (or as accurate as they think can be) builds of commonly known comic book characters, without trying to limit the build cost? Just letting it rip so to speak, and see what the point totals end up? Given the incredible (in some cases galaxy or universe altering) powers shown by characters like Superman, Hulk, Phoenix and Silver Surfer (for instance), when compared to a more "normal" Spiderman, Daredevil, or Batman, I would think if everything were accurately portrayed, there would be huge differences in point totals of these characters, more than simply 100 or even 150 points. Anyway, I'm new here, and only coming back to Champions after about 10-15 years (just purchased CC); so if this is old news or has been beaten to death, just let me know. I'm just trying to get a feel for the new system and point totals for "classes of heroes" (if you will).