pawsplay

I started this thread, and I'm going to make a gentle, general request not to have people try to explain to me what roleplaying is or why failure is important. I've been playing for 37 years, I've played literally dozens of RPGs, and I have played Champions since 4th edition. This is not about smooshing Champions (or any other game) into a three-act play. In fact, I am generally a a very active critic of trying to make a game match the characteristics of other media, particularly films and literature. This is not about spending bennies all the time to avoid failure. My point is that Champions does not excel at genre emulation in some particular ares: - Heroes fighting "above their weight." In the cold, hard logic of Champions, heroes against a superior foe are generally just going get their butts kicked. - Making that clutch shot. The Green Arrow makes that one shot, Batman uses his superior tactics to feint Lady Shiva, Magneto fends off multiple Sentinel attacks for just a moment, Tony Stark delivers a bomb into the maw of an invading alien. - Champions is basically a tactical game, whereas comic book heroes are often affected by pathos as much as sound tactics. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on how to deal with those challenges. I am a little more skeptical of people claiming those aren't actually relative weakness of the Champions system.

In superhero stories, the good guys do consistently win.

I have Fantasy Hero Complete. What material is in Fantasy Hero for 6th edition that I would be missing out on?

I'm working from a fundamental assumption that the fight against Darkseid is winnable. So either the heroes need to be able to "beat the odds," or the odds need to actually be in their favor. Let's say you wanted to put your PCs up against Mechanon. However, after squinting at the numbers, you see he will make short work of them. So, now you have to sit there and shave numbers off his attacks and defenses until you get where you need to be.

You said that you don't want to use HAPs. You said they complicate the GM's job of balancing encounters. You said it was the GM's job to manage the numbers so the challenge is appropriate. If the good guys are to consistently win, that necessarily implies the bad guys are weaker or played worse.

So what I'm hearing is that bad guys just need to be weak most of the time.

p.153 "Club Weapon (1/2 Phase, +0 OCV, +2 DC)" I don't think that's right. I mean, Club Weapon seems super easy as it is (for basically a free Multipower) but I'm pretty sure it's +0/+0.

It's not at all the same problem. The problem is if you run the fight five times in a row in Hero System, you are going to have dead heroes a lot of the time. The Marvel Cinematic universe can rewind all that and resurrect everybody and run a completely different, winnable battle. But in your home game, people are just dead. You wouldn't need HAP or anything like that if the game were simply baked in such a way that the odds are stacked in favor of the heroes. But Champions isn't like that. It's a nuts-and-bolts simulation of superheroes. It doesn't know who is good or who is evil, who is a flawed protagonist or who is a goon. And if you run those scenarios, over and over again, and run them fairly, the result is not a superheroic epic. The last refuge of the overpowered fight, the heroes get captured, is spelled out as something you should not do because the players hate it. Death and failure are a possibility in DC Heroes (Mayfair Games), but Hero Points substantially mitigate the likelihood things will go that way. Further, the currency is based on fighting threats, rescuing innocents, resolving subplots, and generally roleplaying -- in short, pathos. HAPs give you a little edge but they aren't really a "fair" currency in any sense, your powergamer's murder character could have twice as many as the flawed but interesting telepathic exile. But on the other hand, DC Heroes is a lot harder to build a versatile energy attack power in, and doesn't have meaningful rules for martial arts styles at all.

I'm not opposed to investing in Hero Designer but I am thinking about human readable character sheets.

I'm not against randomness in the game. The question I have is how the Justice League go up against Darkseid and have a chance. Champions is challenging because the math doesn't always work in such a scenario.

Who is saying something against failure?

Any tricks or tips for posting characters? Is there software or a sheet you use? Or do you just type it all up?

I don't really understand, on the one hand, embracing failure as a natural consequence of failure, while on the other, saying spending points is somehow cheating or trivial. Does it matter or not if you succeed or fail?

the Champions Now barrier when I click on the Champions forum is huge. Could that not be so obtrusive?

Well, that was rude.

What is the upside of that experience?

Is that supposed to sound awesome? Because it doesn't. Maybe as an occasional thing, abject failure makes sense, but if someone is trying to playing a Batman-type, they probably want to be competent. The big problem is that in a "fair scenario," it's going to be 50/50 for the so-called heroes. For the superheroes to come out on top most of the time, you have to stack the deck in their favor. Whereas if you look at the comic books, usually the deck is stacked against them. Grim failure and slapstick failure are fine for Watchmen or Mystery Men inspired games. But if you are running Justice League: when the Green Arrow lines up that one-in-a-thousand shot, you know he'll make it.

DC Heroes (1985) I don't take any serious issues with some of the points. I guess the question I have is: what is the point of a tactical superhero RPG that doesn't support superhero stories? As much as I love Champions, I also find it a weird tool set for trying to run campaigns. For me it's a tradeoff between the flexibility of Champions versus some of the narrative support of other systems.

You need Defensive Maneuver IV for your levels to be persistent.

The basic Prayer of Healing spell in Fantasy Hero would heal most of that damage in one go.

Semi-serious attempt to build a ring of regeneration: Healing, 1d6 BODY; Always On, Constant, Decreased Re-Use Duration (1 Turn), OIF (magic ring), Persistent, Standard Effect. Real Cost: 16 points (32 Active Points). Anyone want to check my math? Every turn, on your Phase, the ring heals someone 3 cp of BODY, maxing out on your second Phase until next turn.

How would you buy such an item as UBO? What does routinely mean? How is this restriction enforced? If I bought an item with Regeneration in one slot and Healing in the other, if I had the right to the other person am I using the healing slot or can they access Regeneration? This clause is mercifully missing from Fantasy Hero Complete.

Universal Focus clearly covers this. Not being UBO is a restriction on constructs, not a generally applicable rule in fantasy that rings of regeneration cannot be shared (!).

Champions is one of my all-time favorite games. I love the way it models superheroes. But that's the thing: it models them. Having cut my teeth on Marvel Super Heroes (TSR) and DC Heroes (Mayfair), I've always found that games that allow you to price in "heroism" work a lot better in some ways than a game like Champions that grimly documents the damage a giant robot does to a kung fu detective. Heroic Action Points are a nice innovation. Still, I think they lack a dynamic connection to the characters's actions. Even Mutants & Masterminds Hero Points, which are are a bit weak mechanically, contribute to the ebb and flow, the ups and downs of dramatic action. What are your thoughts?

Being able to shift between offense, defense, and damage is more efficient than the numbers would suggest, due to the adaptability, but it is high cost point sink. They might be overcosted but probably not by much.