ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (07/08/85)
> > > .... One of the nice things about this > > >version of the game is that the superheros are kept "powered down" to > Please note, I said 250 ap and ~500 ap in my previous article. That is, > A character can be built up to the 500 - 600 active point range if you are > willing to spend about 250 - 300 real points, and put about 3 hours working > on the character, making all of the powers properly balanced, > and interrelating some of them. In some ways this is one of the biggest difficulties in GMing Champions. Certain players are interested in nothing more than putting together the most efficient character possible. To do this they they bend, tweak and skrunch rules with careful trick- ery. This is not bad, you might think, because the GM has the world at his disposal and if the GM wishes, the character will always be defeatable. While this is generally true, there is another problem and that is that other players, who might not have done this with their characters, will suffer from the high- powered villains and menaces they come against. In addition, if they ever happen to combat their fellows, they will be in bad shape. (Of course, the supers never fight each other in your campaign, do they?) In addition, building characters this way often tends to throw believability and good character conception right out the window. My question is, as GMs, do you have guide- lines for drawing the line between what is and isn't reasonable? For example, some people in my campaign are using the "Based on Another Power" limitation to buy 6 or more powers on the limita- tion, buy the END cost of the big power down to 0 and then buy off all their END characteristic. And the power is Telekinesis. Since there is no disadvantage to doing so, the Telekinesis is always on and thus the rest can be too. And it's not so easy to just say the "big" power must have larger than 0 END cost, since he might just buy it down to 1 and have almost as good an effect. Any suggestions? -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick)
blumberg@ihuxw.UUCP (Marc R Blumberg) (07/13/85)
> In some ways this is one of the biggest difficulties in GMing > Champions. Certain players are interested in nothing more than > putting together the most efficient character possible. To do > this they they bend, tweak and skrunch rules with careful trick- > ery. I run across this problem in my campaign all the time. While point crunching can be detrimental, it can also be used to EVERYONE's advantage. As the GM, have you thought about looking over other player's characters for ways to optimize them? Give them an EC if they have related powers and have been playing within character conception. Look over their skills, if they have more than one bought with plusses, replace the plusses with group levels. If you are not familiar with the various rules crocks (I'm currently compiling a list) or just don't have the time, how about asking the point-crunching player to look other the other characters for you? Some players are actually willing to help their poor overworked GM. I realize that this only brings the power level up across the board, but it is very hard to reject a new character on the grounds that it is 'too efficient.' Also, it is unfortunate if point-crunching is ALL your players are interested in. Depending on how much emphasis you put on role-playing in your campaign, a point-crunched character can be revised because it is "out of genre." Usually, point-crunching leads to a looser character conception. If you are hard-nosed about it, you can get the character changed without too many hard feelings. Another way to reject certain powers is too simply eliminate them from the campaign entirely. Let the player know that NOBODY can have the power, NPCs included. Some powers to think twice about: Telepathy (fully invisible effects), N-ray vision, Teleportation (extradimensional, usable on others, at range), Damage Reduction, Healing (reduced END), Anything (always on). > This is not bad, you might think, because the GM has the > world at his disposal and if the GM wishes, the character will > always be defeatable. While this is generally true, there is > another problem and that is that other players, who might not > have done this with their characters, will suffer from the high- > powered villains and menaces they come against. In addition, if > they ever happen to combat their fellows, they will be in bad > shape. (Of course, the supers never fight each other in your > campaign, do they?) Of course they do, Marvel promotes this every issue. I have a question: why can't said high-powered villain/menace be "fine-tuned" so that he/she/it is particularly effective ONLY against the point-crunched character? If you want to be nasty, find a power that only the point crunched character has/hasn't, and design a villain who has an NND attack! If the villain is created correctly (i.e., part of the hero's origin) the player can't yell foul. > In addition, building characters this way > often tends to throw believability and good character conception > right out the window. My question is, as GMs, do you have guide- > lines for drawing the line between what is and isn't reasonable? You've answered your own question. If you feel the character is not believable, or played according to conception/genre, DON'T ALLOW IT IN YOUR CAMPAIGN. Players generally need reasons for character rejection, however, so look over the character carefully and determine exactly what it is that you don't like. Remember, the character can be revised. > For example, some people in my campaign are using the "Based on > Another Power" limitation to buy 6 or more powers on the limita- > tion, buy the END cost of the big power down to 0 and then buy > off all their END characteristic. And the power is Telekinesis. > Since there is no disadvantage to doing so, the Telekinesis is > always on and thus the rest can be too. And it's not so easy to > just say the "big" power must have larger than 0 END cost, since > he might just buy it down to 1 and have almost as good an effect. > Any suggestions? > -- > --rick heli > (... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick) You bet!! First of all, take another look at the limitation "Based on Another Power." I think you'll find that it does not relieve the smaller power from paying END (what is the limitation in that?). With this correction, such characters will become huge END burners. Powers bought down to 0 END are frowned upon in my campaign. I have this fear that one day the player will try to tack on Uncontrollable Continuous, and blow balance to hell. If you think a limitation will not produce a disadvantage, don't allow it. We've all seen UV vision, only usable at night, or Swimming, only in liquid. I hope we've all rejected them. Ways to be nasty to characters with such powers: TK always on is indeed disadvantageous. Roll randomly for objects/characters around the person each phase, moving them in random directions. If the player objects, tell him that to avoid his "wandering TK" he must always declare where it is being directed (not that easy). Notice that if he is stunned or unconscious, the power still works! Play this up when he is being rescued/revived. Notice that no other player will investigate the edge of the cliff/acid vat/atomic reactor with this character, and very few rare china collectors will let him near their shops. If players have all their powers based on a single power, then that power should be the target of neutralization (very cheap at 3 pts. per die) or even worse, power destruction. They will think twice about tackling Stasis, with his TK-Neutralizing one-hex Damage Shield. (6 pts. per d6!) Finally, remember: villains can be point crunched, too.
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (07/14/85)
>For example, some people in my campaign are using the "Based on >Another Power" limitation to buy 6 or more powers on the limita- >tion, buy the END cost of the big power down to 0 and then buy >off all their END characteristic. And the power is Telekinesis. >Since there is no disadvantage to doing so, the Telekinesis is >always on and thus the rest can be too. And it's not so easy to Classic rule from Hero Games (quoted often in Adventurers' Club magazine): a disadvantage that does not disadvantage is worth no points. NEVER let your players abuse the letter of the law just to get cheap goodies. As GM, you simply say sorry, that would unbalance the game...and to keep things fair, make sure that you never create or use an opponent who similarly abuses the spirit of the law. In our Champions campaign we had one character who put a million things through a multi-power and through the whole campaign out of balance. Our GM did the only sane thing: he said, sorry, we're going to have to tame your character down. He set up the "taming" scenario and the player accepted it. If something is diminishing the fun of the game, IT HAS TO BE STOPPED one way or another. When it stops being fun, who cares if your characters win their fights? Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
cc1@ucla-cs.UUCP (07/17/85)
In article <336@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) writes: >For example, some people in my campaign are using the "Based on >Another Power" limitation to buy 6 or more powers on the limita- >tion, buy the END cost of the big power down to 0 and then buy >off all their END characteristic. And the power is Telekinesis. >Since there is no disadvantage to doing so, the Telekinesis is >always on and thus the rest can be too. And it's not so easy to >just say the "big" power must have larger than 0 END cost, since >he might just buy it down to 1 and have almost as good an effect. >Any suggestions? Charge them endurance for using the second power. If they have no END, they will knock themselves out in no time.