From: jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey)
Subject: Re: marvel vs. Champions
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 12:32:12 EDT
Organization: Campus Computing Sites, University of Michigan

For the sarcasm at the end, I was trying to lighten what would inevitably
produce some flames.  Champs is the choice of many college students who
enjoy scheduling.  But let's address the comments in turn --

1. GM-moderated character development is what makes Marvel.  _PLEASE_ don't
   think I was talking rolling them up.  Modelling them after a concept is
   much more effective.  I happen to know several ways to make powers in
   Champions that are totally campaign-destroying (a contagious BODY-reducing
   attack that doesn't go away unless, for example, they are exposed to the
   vacuum of space.  This should wipe out a great majority of the world pop)
   and the GM has little recourse against "But the points work!".  For Marvel,
   the GM can attach weaknesses and limit powers without point constraints.
   ("I'm going to limit your 9d6 RKA to 10 feet."  "I spent my Disads al-
   ready")

2. When I mentioned the proverbial '5000-point characters', I was naturally
   estimating-exaggerating.  I was just pointing out that Champs has a much
   harder time simulating high-power action.  You have to literally go to the
   edge of the system, where you're rolling upwards of 30d6 for a good attack.
   (All that Armor, Damage Reduction, Healing, and PD/ED.)

3. Again, I'm terribly sorry that I assumed that it is totally silly to let
   characters be randomly rolled up in Marvel.  Please refer to 1.

4. Champs and flexibility?  I'm afraid you've got a contradiction in terms.
   For example, Iron Man _clearly_ wears armor.  Yet Champs has no way of
   expressing this as a focus to be removed, because even as an OIF a character
   could take a non-combat action to remove the armor, clearly impossible given
   the character.  But since the focus has been tampered with and used by
   others, it's equally clear that that's what it is.  Leech (from New Mutants)
   would clearly have no effect on Iron Man, but in Champs he would.  The
   definitions you're so proud of limit characters to _exactly_ what those
   definitions say.

5. To discuss DC, GURPS, Heroes Unlimited, and V&V further, DC is clearly a
   little unbalanced, but then again they have to deal with Superman.  In
   Marvel they had to put an extra end on the chart for the Beyonder.  (Note
   that Champs never, _NEVER_ lets you make an enemy with power like this.)
   When I mention Heroes U as being a combo of good parts of Marvel and Champs,
   I meant the openness of Marvel and the power definition of Champs.  That
   would be the one large complaint I have against Marvel, that they never
   really define powers in concrete terms.  (Not well, anyway.)  GURPS has
   put in so many darn supplements that the GM has no choice but to define the
   possible areas of character development, by buying only those supplements
   he wants to deal with.

6. The Mechanon bonus bothers me because it means that any hero or villain
   in inexpressible in regular Champs terms.  They supplied around 15-25
   Disads, and that's it.  It's not that it affects game _play_ that much,
   it's just that Marvel looks more elegant in comparison.  And elegance
   translates into fewer hours spent looking at and deciphering the rules.
   That's a point; I forgot to mention that Champs, like AD&D, has far too
   many tables, considering what the average roll is for.

  The basic theme I'd like to express is that for an experienced, well-formed,
cooperating group, any campaign idea is expressible by any system.  Therefore,
the only real issues when examining a game are:
  A) Is the game open to newcomers and inexperienced players and GMs?
  B) Is the game overly-burdened with rules that hinder fast play?
The responder clearly has a well-formed and well-functioning group, and it
doesn't matter what gaming system such a group uses, because _ANY_ system
would work well.  The group has defined the game.  It's the lesser groups
that rely on the specific system more, and this is the true testing ground of
a game.

Once more, and this time better expressed, intelligent debate is stimulating
and broadens the mind.  A flame war is petty, tedious, narrow-minded, and
irritating.  Let's try to avoid it.
-- 
Jeff Bailey, jlb@ccs.itd.umich.edu (Open 24 Hours a Day!)
Standard disclaimer - If you wanted U/M's views, you came to the wrong place. 
"The owner of the game deals and plays first." -- Nuclear War/Escalation