Opal

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign The old saw about 'power corrupts' really is talking about political power. That kind of power is gained and wielded through complex relationships with others. The kind of personal power wielded by superheroes just doesn't exist IRL, but, I'd speculate that it would 'corrupt' in a very different way, having much more to do with the person, a much more internal struggle than that faced by those who much make moral and ethical compromises to gain and retain political power. Or, more suscinctly: superpowers are pure fantasy, so heros with the moral fiber to resist corruption, who are also pure fantasy, are perfectly apropriate.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns When they were first introduced as 'background skills' a basic KS was supposed to represent a college education in the subject, yes. But we've had a lot of skill inflation since then. I'll accept that it's justified when the sorts of skill in question are a meaningful focus of the game, but, if it really is /just/ a background skill that'll only rarely be important, the old way works just fine, IMHO. There's nothing remotely incompetent about a 25 point character. He won't be that competent in combat, which is expensive, but he could be quite talented in a less point-intensive aplication. For instance, Holmesian deduction of 18- is well within his reach (8 points of INT, Deduction +5 = 21 pts, add Disads and KS - need more points, drop some physical stats to 8). Actually, even in combat, 25 pts would be quite sufficient to mop the floor with a 'normal' (straight 10's, no combat training), it'll get you a martial arts package (11 to 13 points or so) and 4 points of DEX, for instance - add the 25 in disads, take a 15 STR, 13 CON, 3 SPD and some levels, and you could easily handle several normals in a fight. I so agree. I just have a more cheritable threshold of competence, I suppose - perhaps because, personally, I'd be well below /your/ threashold of competence. I guess I'm stuck in the past. I was pretty happy with the game when supers were 100+disads and 'incompetent DNPC' were -20. So, if you take the max Disads, you prettymuch have to take exactly the max in everything else? And you can't be a 'basic marine' as part of your background because it breaks the skill cap? That's not actually such a bad way of looking at it. Supers have powers - mechanically, powers are expensive, but psychologically, they're also that really big hammer that makes all your problems look like nails. Normals don't, so they have more practical (and emotional) reasons for acquiring skills.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics I thought I already acknowledged that. If you buy up your DEX by 3 or more points, chances are you'll buy up your SPD, as well, rather than sell it back. I do. And stunning is far from trivial.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns Larger than life heros is definitely one very valid aproach to gaming, and one that Hero does quite well. (D&D really does it pretty well, too, when, y'know, you don't have 20th level bartenders.) It is entirely possible to have game, though, where the heros - the PCs - are only exceptional in what they are willing to undertake, not what can do in terms of power. That usually works better in the sense of 'heros' being built at a low power level, than having the whole world built at a high power level, of course, but it is a perfectly valid sort of game. Horror games, for instance, are often of that type.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign I'd have no problem with statting what I do as PS: data analyst.... 8- but then I'm feeling under-utilized. I mean, there really are a lot of niggly little things that I've learned to be able to do this job. I just don't think they each need be dignified with thier own line on my hypothetical character sheet.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns Heck no. (OK, one Karate class when I was a kid, but I swear I learned nothing in it.) I did read UMA quite a while ago, though, and I seem to remember 10 points in manuevers and an 8- in the skill being the 'black belt' equivalent. That gives you quite a substantial advantage over a non-martial artist - 3 manuevers or two really badass manuvers. That's the way you want to go. Think about the clumsiest guy you knew as a marine when you think of DEX, and the one that complained the most about his pack when you're doing END, and so forth. With a 'basic' build, as with a package, you want to lay out the minimums you'd find - at most, the 'average' or 'typical' values. Thing about knowledge skills is how fine you want to break them down is prettymuch up to you, in how you focus your campaign. All six of those could be 1 skill, or even folded into 1 PS, if the military wasn't particularly the focus of the game. Throwing a crisp salute, for instance, is more PS than KS. 'Use it or lose it' does aply. I'd have a heck of a time writing a COBOL program today, though I got pretty good at it in junior college. 'Modeling yourself' in game stats is always a tricky thing. You have some who complain they run out of points, others who wonder what all the points are for. Some of it, of course, is different life experiences (a game like hero makes combat skills more expensive and important than COBOL programing, for obvious reasons) but part of it is also how you concieve of what the game models, and what your self-image is like. Not agreeing on how to stat out Elrik of Melnibone is one thing, but arguing about how someone /like you/ should be statted out, that's personal.

Re: Speculation on Hero Releases in 2099 Hey, I said 'witness' not 'cause.' And, yes, I remember the 'impending ice age' hype - and the movie 'Quintet.'

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns

Re: Speculation on Hero Releases in 2099 Hey, no problem, the thread begs for that kinda thing. I still think what you're worrying about is no different then the monks who were convinced they had absolute biblical proof that the world was scheduled to end in the year 1000 (never mind Y2K), though. Biblical evidence was deeply respected at the time, afterall. Personally, I'd love to witness the end of the world, I understand the impulse, it's the ultimate form of closure.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign I think part of the superhero genre is the flip side of that. Not 'power corrupts,' but 'great power brings great responsibility.' There are superheros and supervillains because both are true. The villains and heros might have the same powers, but the villains were corrupted by them, while the heros accepted the responsibilty of wielding them for good. When the responsibility that comes with power is enforced by political structures, it's conformity vs definance, instead.

Re: Speculation on Hero Releases in 2099 And I thought I was being less than up beat. Climate change is a slow process, even assuming it's a real, human-caused process. Even if it were going to turn the Earth into another Venus, it'd take a reaallly long time. I think bits like this come more from a natural apocalyptic obssession than from any real evidence they're likely. Every generation has heard predictions that they'd be the last. Judgement day for the christians, for instance, is always just about at hand according to some corner preacher or other. Every religion has an 'end of times' legend. It's just a way we humans deal with our mortality - by fantasizing that even though we're definitely going to die, the rest of the world might not be any better off.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns It's an active defense. It can work fine for a brick who only wants it for grandstanding, though. Rather like the Houdini trick of tensing to recieve a blow. If you're not 'ready for it,' it can hurt.

I almost went into that, yeah. Some anti-vehicle weapons should have little chance of hitting or even targeting (some require 'lock on' before they'll fire at all), a human-sized target. Yeah, the TOW missle or whatever does absurd amounts of damage, but if you're not at least as big as - and no more manueverable than - a tank, you'll only ever be taking the peripheral explosion effects. But, Hero does do the 'bullet dodging' superhero pretty well. An 8 CV advantage over the attacker means he needs that natural 3, and that happens what, less than half a percent of the time. A '5' STNx, OTOH, gets you one time in 6. You litterally can't bounce machine gun bullets off your chest because you're virtually gauranteed one or more will hit the STN lotto. At least, not without a total PD that would break any reasonable campaign guideline. So forget the classic Superman, let alone the one in the last movie who bounced a bullet of his /eye/. That's why I like gimping KAs by aplying the STNx only to the BOD that gets through. It doesn't change costs, doesn't have to chang how guns are statted out, but it makes bullet-bouncing easy (though never a sure thing vs supers' KAs that might have AP or penetrating or find weakness), and leaves guns devestating to normals. GloryFox: I aplaud the obvious deep respect you have for our soldiers, and I'm aware that the military has taken on more of a quality over quantity philosphy. Gone are the days of barely-trained conscripts, that's true. Still, I'd suspect those characteristics (particularly the SPD) model at least a veteran, rather than being minimums for anyone coming out of training. And, as is currently modish, you go way overboard on skills. A standard martial arts package - 10 or 12 points, plus the KS and a weapon element or two - is probably more than adequate, you don't have to have every manuever in an art to have 'mastered' it. Similarly, while I'm sure each of the skills you list is reasonable for some marine to have, I doubt that many would really have /all/ of them - and most would have quite a few as familiarities if they did have them. You also have to think about what you're trying to model in the game. If a group of agents or soldiers are there as cannon fodder, it doesn't matter if they have survival. If it comes up, you could go, "oh yeah, I guess he should have survival," but the combat stats and equipment are all that really matters. If they're an honor gaurd for the president when he's about to be assassinated, all that really matters is thier ability to intercept a snipers bullet in mid-air - which none of them can do, but Ctp Americlone can...

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

Re: Breadth instead of depth

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns The question isn't are they a threat, but /should they be/. Massive killing-dice conventional weapons may be 'realistic' and apropriate for high-lethality genres like Dark Champions, but I think they're undesireable for traditional supers along the lines of the Silver Age, 4-color, or, for that matter, saturday-morning cartoon tropes. In some genres, mercilessly random death just isn't called for, and consistent bullet-bouncing is.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics Neither am I, but it has been mentioned, so I thought I'd point it out.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics That's the stereotype, but bricks can break that stereotype if they want. Can't argue with that. But that is on the scale of things that would have to be dropped to make up for 30 points of free stats the Brick would still have remaining after selling back all that STN. If 10 PD and 10 REC is really worth 6 OCV or DCV, as the 30 pts they cost would imply... The brick as big dumb lunk who doesn't do much when it's not "clobber'n time" isn't any less common or hallowed a stereotype than the Brick that's not as quick as his other teammates and gets hit more often.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics Except for the technicality that you have to 'distribute' them at the top of each phase, a 5-pt 'all OCV' level and a 5pt 'DCV level' might as well be OCV and DCV. Of course they're 'levels' not 'figured characteristics,' - but, since they /are/ figured from a primary characteristic, and can be improved by spending points, it's a distinction without much of a difference. You could, if you were trying to get to an "all stats cost 1:1" ideal, break out the kind of DEX that gives you OCV and the kind that gives you DCV (precision vs agility, perhaps).

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns I don't make /everyone/ pay for /all/ thier equipment even in Champs. Normal equipment is OK if you have the wealth for it, or are issued it, and it's 'normal' for you to have such equipment most of the time. Thus, for instance, since my game is set in CA, if you're not a cop, you prettymuch have to pay points for a gun, if you want that gun generally available for shooting people (just try getting concealed carry in CA). Soldiers are issued thier weapons (and, IIRC, ammo to go with it only when required), so I certainly wouldn't make them pay for them. That's just me though, I like the concept of wealth, and consider something just anyone can have easily (like a cellphone, these days) to be mere baseline. As far as stats go, I think they're easy to overestimate. A 10 is actually pretty darn good. A 10 STR, 10 CON, 2 SPD normal with 6 running can run until the GM realizes he should use LTE (2 END/turn, 4 REC). You'd have to buy down REC or have a STR & CON below 8 to 'get winded easily' while running. STR 10 lifts 220 lbs. DEX 11 and a single skill level lets you punch or block an untrained person about 90% of the time. In Hero, it really doesn't take much to be good, thanks to the bell-curve of the dice rolling convention.

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns Thanks. I just had the compulsion to clarify /exactly/ what I was talking about when I said 'normal.' On-line OCD, maybe.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

Re: Homo Sapiens and their guns Karate Kid lacks powers and super-tech, but can go HTH with Superman. In Champions! speak, a 'normal' is an ordinary person - a little old lady, a bank guard, a taxi driver, a blowhard army general, a coniving lawyer, a helpful doctor, a restentful detective, whatever. Ordinary people with ordinary weapons should be a minimal threat to supers. They might make a big difference in how the action goes down, though, if they threaten a hostage, save a wounded bystander, or remove a Kryptonite necklace. But a 'normal' - in the sense of not having powers or magic items or super-tech - can /be/ a superhero, if he's got the preternatural skills and stats for it. You can skate the edge of human maximum on all stats, add some martial arts, DCs, skill levels, and a little kevlar, and you're competative in a super-powered battle. I think there's been some 'inflation' when it comes to stating out normals. In the olden days, most normals were just people with 0 points, and a few stats moved around, maybe a minor disad, and a few skill points. Competent ones might have been built of 20 or 50 points. And, if you looked at the 1E skill list, that wasn't a problem. You wanted a Dectecive: give him 'Detective Work' for 5 points, that's all he needs, he's now a detective. Buy up his INT and he's a good one. No PS, no KS, no perks. Nice and simple. When Champs merged with the other games that did other-genre Heros in much more detail, I think it started a trend towards statting out ordinary NPCs like genre Heros. I don't think that was a good thing.

Re: how do you deal with guns and superheroes in your campaign I don't hear anything unbuildable for 75 points (with a few disads) in that list. I know the trend for a long time now has been to build professional packages in agonizing detail. Gone are the good old days when PS: Lawyer 11- made you a lawyer, and 14- made you a good one. But, I don't like it, and I don't see the need for it. If you're not playing Paper Chase Hero, there's no need to have 90 points of lawyer skills, because they just won't be worth that much in play. Once in a blue moon, you'll make your Lawyer skill roll to tell the party whether a search is legal, and maybe someday make a contested roll for a jury trial or something. The same goes for any other profession or interesting life experiences and skills that aren't really of any interest or importance in the campaign in question. In a supers game, a competent normal is someone who might make a difference in the action. 150 points of stats and combat skills can certainly do that - make a difference, not be competative. If the plot swings around to defusing a bomb or translating an ancient scroll or making with some scientific gobbledygook to advance the plot, not a whole lot more than the single skill involved is really /needed/. You don't need to trick the 'compentent' scientist out with a KS on everything covered in every book he ever cracked in college, as long as he has the skills needed to play his part, and you have him statted out should he become a hostage or something.