From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: marvel vs. Champions
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:03:17 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <smf-d3+@engin.umich.edu> jlb@engin.umich.edu writes:

> For the sarcasm at the end, I was trying to lighten what would inevitably
> produce some flames.

You'll have to excuse me, but I only have detect sarcasm on an 8- roll.  :)

> 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")

OK, in Marvel we model characters after a concept then.  And in Champions, you
have the same ability or lack of ability to do the same thing.  In fact, Champs
talks about concept a lot more than Marvel does.  Further, concept is the whole
reason for the existance of the Elemental Control: to start encouraging players
who would not have otherwise attempted a concept to think of one.  It is true
that Champions powers can be made that are totally unbalancing, but this is why
GM guidance is as important in Marvel as it is in Champions.  You assume that
in Champs we're supposed to let the points fly at will, but that in Marvel it's
OK not to let the dice fly at will.  This is a double standard.  If you apply
the same kind of guidance to Champs that you do to Marvel, Champs becomes a 
much stronger game by a longshot.  Just use the same kind of common sense in
Champs that you do in Marvel and your complaint doesn't seem to make much sense.

> 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.)

My complaint wasn't really with your estimation, rather, with your saying that
the game couldn't handle it just becuase high numbers are involved.  As a person
who has examined the high-point game, I'll tell you right now you can pretty
much do it if you get rid of damage reduction (it has a straight cost).  As to
the comment about 'all that armor, ....', it works the same way in Marvel.  The
cosmic beings have big powers, to match spaceship's big guns and shields.  I
really don't see how this is a problem of Champs.  Especially since Marvel, the
game you tell us is superior, is *exactly the same way* in this regard.

> 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.

Yes, Champs is flexibility incarnate.  First, when talking about Iron Man, you
forget that Champs has the "Limited Power" Limitation.  This is the ultimate
in flexibility.  If you don't like how focus works, you can create your own
limitation to simulate that character.  Thus, *every* aspect of your character's
development can be customized completely.  As to Leech against Iron Man, you
are *completely* wrong.  Leech has a Continuous, Always on, Drain, Area of
Effect (etc) against all *Mutant* powers.  It will not effect Iron Man's armor
in the slightest.  (Minor nit: you can't remove an OIF in a non-combat *action*,
but in a turn.  Or, as a GM, substitiute 'GM special' for turn, and you have
it.)  In either example you cite, I can get the *exact* comic effect without
much thought about it.  And the Iron Man thing isn't really that different,
Leech is just a use of the rules.

> 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.)

Champs never came up with mechanics for the 'dues ex machina' character becuase
mechanics like that are irrlevant.  It's 'dues ex machina', and that's it.  No
mechanics will help you with that.  Like I said before, "silly rabbit, points
are for players."  I meant it.  NPCs don't need to worry about points in the
slightest, so long as they are helping the GM do the primary goal: entertain
the players.  If you must have the Beyonder in Champs, let me help you:

Characteristics: googleplex
Powers: all, with all special effect, at googleplex level
Disads: as appropriate, with 'dues ex machina' bonus

You ask, why should I bother then, it's so simple.  Right, it's 'dues ex
machina,' there are no real mechanics for that!
 
> 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.

This makes no sense.  A powerful character should be built on a lot of points.
Having a bonus doesn't mean that it's out of the game's capabilities.  The only
reason Marvel doesn't have this concept is becuase it has a total lack of 
concern about play balance.  However, let's take your arguement and turn it
on Marvel.  Let me see if I get this right: any character that is more powerful
than a beginning PC violates the system and invalidates the game, no?  Thus,
Mechanon invalidates Champions.  Fine, and the Beyonder, whom you're so proud
of in Marvel, likewise invalidates Marvel.  And, continuing along, we find out
all RPGs are invalid.  Proving, thus, that the only thing invalid is your 
complaint.

Really, like I said before, "Silly rabbit, points are for players!"  No game
on the market doesn't fall prey to this critism.  Once again, you are applying
critisms to Champs that you are not applying to Marvel in a like manner.

>   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?

That is all it takes?  Checkers qualifies for this.  In fact, it doesn't even
need a GM!  There are more than just this.  And, even in the world of RPGs,
then, Marvel is falling flat on it's face.  BURPS is the game for you, not
Marvel.  Marvel has far too much complexity compared to BURPS, which has only
the bare essentials of role-playing.

My point?  There are lots of qualities that I look for in a RPG.  To date,
the only point you've made about Champs that was fair (not a double standard)
was that it is a bit daunting.  Agreed.  However, the power you get out of
it is incredible.  Total flexibility, no wasted money on someone else's world,
and a strong, comic feel.  It plays well, and *you* decide important parameters
in your game, like lethality, genre, etc.  And, it's not as complex as it
appears, keep in mind that most of the 'complexity' is in character generation
and doesn't appear in play, but before 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.

Actually, over 1/3 and almost 1/2 of the group started on Hero.  The group
was not 'well-functioning' to begin with.  Good GM guidance made it possible.
And having a good system didn't hurt.

> 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.

Hardly a flame war, I am just a little irratated about your harping on numbers
of points, becuase in of themselves that really are irrelevant.  Please apply
your critisms to Marvel in a likewise fashion if you want to have intelligent
debate.  So far, you haven't proven but one thing, that Champs is harder to
learn.  We all know that already.  If it is the only thing you are looking for,
then that is your personal qualifiers.  Most people are looking for more.

-james