Re: [New Product] Champions Complete
The solution to power variance is probably to define some campaign types and suggest variation for each. The problem is, some folks seem to get off on being smug and self-righteous about what's written on the main sheet, and completely ignore any tailoring advice, or the fact that the author offers tailoring advice in the first place.*
That said, I think we can offer better advice, by defining the baseline scores for a recommended campaign in the front, how many turns/attacks that villain is expected to last (if not outright win), and how to adjust the character for campaign levels and numbers of characters.
eg.
Assuming a base of four PCs with an average of 10d6 attacks, 5 SPD, and 25 DEF for "medium" campaign.
----------
Master-class villains (such as Firewing, Dr. Destroyer, etc.), should have -8 DEF for light campaigns (40 active point attacks), +8 DEF for medium-heavy campaigns (60 active point attacks), +15 DEF for heavy campaigns (70 active point attacks), and +25 DEF (or +15 DEF and 1/2 Damage Reduction) for super-heavy campaigns (80 active point campaigns).
Their OCV and DCV should, except where inappropriate to the concept, never be lower than the highest base OCV and DCV of the team, and never higher than two above the highest base OCV and DCV, unless one character has a OCV or DCV well above the rest of his team.
For every member of the team above 4, add +20 STUN to the villain's base STUN, except when inappropriate to their concept.
-----------
This could be defined at the start of the volume, saving some space in the writeups. Hopefully, that section would actually get read and acknowledged. But with this arrangement, we can better define what campaign the villain's expected to exist in, and offer more usable advice for the GM. We could also poll our player base to determine what campaign power levels the base writeups should aim for.
*The easiest way to piss off a writer is to ignore what he writes when it doesn't fit into your agenda.