From: mfterman@dae.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: Re: marvel vs. Champions
Reply-To: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:19:03 GMT

In article <smf-d3+@engin.umich.edu>, jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey) writes:
>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")

All you're saying is that in Champions, the GM must carefully evaluate
character powers before allowing them into the campaign. "The price of
great power is great responsibility". There are few Champions  GMs who
would disagree with you, and even the book agrees with you on this
point, carefully pointing out to the inexperienced GM what powers
should be carefully handled.

If the GM doesn't like a power, he can toss it out. Period. Just
because its legal in the rules doesn't mean that the GM has to allow
it into the GM's campaign. In any game system, one can come up with
abusive characters. That its possible in Champions doesn't ruin it as
a system. For your example of the 9d6 RKA, in the book, in the
campaign design section, it recommends setting up point limits for the
number of active points in offensive, defensive and other types of
powers. Active points, not what you get after you apply the disads.

>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.)

The neat thing is that one can go all the way from a 50 pt 1930's
adventurer type campaign to a 1000 point space heroics campaign while
using the same system, and with a remarkable degree of success across
the spectrum. All the GM has to do is change the starting power
limits, something which is allowed and recommended in the game system.
Just increase the max points in power, defenses, etc and you're there.

>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.

Okay, so we have an OIF. Remember that its a non-combat action, which
means that Tony would have to be unconscious or compliant in order to
remove the armor. Assuming that the armor is locked on, one could
probably come up with some advantages to place on the focus
that would extend the period that it would take to remove the armor.
Don't have my rulebook handy, but I could probably do it. It would
increase the cost of the armor, but it makes it safer.

If you require that the armor can't come off except when Iron Man
wills it, then its not really a focus, since a focus comes from the
fact that its removable. The special effect is that its a suit of
armor, and in that case the GM might allow it to be loaned out to
other people, but if the powers can't be removed from a person, then
it doesn't make much effective difference that its electronic. You'd
simply buy all the powers "Only in Hero ID", which would simulate Iron
Man perfectly.

>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.)

Easily, actually. I just create a cosmic variable power pool, no time
needed to change powers, always able to change powers to whatever
wanted, and keep shoving up the active points in the pool if I don't
think the character is powerful enough. Remember that for omnipotent
characters, a point balance is a little silly anyway. You just let the
character do whatever the GM wants it to do, and don't worry about
powers or point balance.

>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.

Characters gain experiences points over time, eventually they have a
large base point total, part of which is the 100 point base they were
given, and part is this X point "experience bonus". Just consider that
some of these villains have been out in the field earning experience
as well, and so are more powerful. Also, some villains like mechnanon
start out with large point totals. I fail to see how a villain is
simply inexpressible because one has to add some points on to get it
to the determined power level.

All the Mechanon bonus does is make the creature far more powerful
than any of the characters who presumably are starting out with a
smaller point total. They could have simply added the bonus into the
base points for generating it. By leaving it separate, it allows the
GM to have a rough idea of how much more powerful it is than a
character starting out with a 100 point base.

As for the lack of disadvantages, remember that most of those
disadvantages fall into extremely broad categories like "psychological
limitation." There are dozens to hundreds of ways this limitation
works out in practice from paranoid to overconfident to lecherous.
GURPS has the problem that it has to express each and every one, and
still misses a lot that I'd like to see. In Champions the approach is
"come up with a mental problem for the character, determine how hard
its going to make life for the character, then assign points
appropriately". Much more flexible.

>  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?

I'd disagree with your point so far as you stay within the rules of
the system. When you start hacking rules, adding new powers and so
forth, you are going outside the system. The advantage in Champions is
that its far less common to go outside the system in terms of adding
new powers and advantages and disadvantages.
-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mad Scientist, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"