You are here

Champions Now! Questions outpost

Hello to backers and to interested parties! Here's a place for asking questions and sharing notions about Champions Now, in Kickstarter crazy stage at the time of this posting.

I'm currently playing a couple of games of it myself, one to continue the game set in St. Louis, which is mostly 3rd-edition as written, and another set in San Antonio, which is very much the playtest document. I'm editing the prep and first session for the latter game right now and will be posting them as their own series. Any questions or comments are welcome on those posts too.

It may sound scary, but I also invite you to click on the green hand at the top right and start your own post. All it needs is any mention of your experience playing and reading Champions, with even the briefest description, and you can ask or comment about Champions Now in it too.

Thanks again for being here and I am looking forward to our collective madness!

Department: 
Actual Play
Games: 
Champions

Comments

How hard a stance to you envision taking on the Ratio?  Every hero in the PC group being low the chose value, or the average for the PC group being below it?  

I ask becuse it seems like characters built around very high STR (the classic Bricks) will have a perculiar impact on the Ration concept.  Every five points of Real Cost spent on STR gives you five Active points of STR, one Active Point of PD, one Active Point of REC, and two and half Active Points of STUN.  

Since it's not uncommon for a Brick-type character to have very few powers other than high STR, and those powers often have no Limitations at all, I could easily see such a character with a Ratio well below 100 - basically busting the grade curve for everyone else.

JD

Ron Edwards's picture

Hi John, and welcome! Loving the Ratio talk.

Let’s review one thing before getting into the question: it’s impossible to have a ratio below 100. The number on top is the total character cost without Limitations; so a character with no Limitations is going to have the same number on top and on bottom, for a result of 100. If you want, link to a character sheet you’ve made up and we’ll go through how to calculate it (people tend to make it harder than it is).

OK! Your question is a good one, whether the ratios I mention are rules, as in, “the rules say do it this way.” As I see it, the recommended range can’t really be that hard and fast – any group can settle on whatever ratios they like, and it’s not like I can stop them, or should. And part of the fun of Champions is working with the Modifiers, although you can probably see that I think that should be aimed toward the fun of use-in-play, not as an isolated puzzle. People are going to mess with them, no way to stop that or to want to.

The only thing I can say in the rules as a rule, is that the group should at least understand that their fun can be at risk if someone at the table is using ratios in a different way from the others. It’s not equality that matters (“everyone needs to be at 110”), but rather skew – if someone is at 129 when everyone else is at a much lower value.

And hypothetically, even that might be fine if other variables are taken into account, e.g. the outlier character is simply so interesting because of the Limitations. I say hypothetically because I saw a lot of games with an outlier like this and that wasn’t the case, it was a fun-killer instead.

The range I suggest in the playtest document for player-characters is 100-115. In my experience, that whole range works fine together; you can have characters at either end or whatever.  I definitely do not recommend specifying a single value that every player-character is supposed to hit or be very near, or for which they average.

That’s also why I wouldn’t be too concerned about your specific question, which I’ll re-phrase a little bit … we’re talking about a very strong character, so most of his or her figured characteristics are high based on Strength. But that variable isn’t important for our purpose of discussion; all that matters for the ratio is whether Limitations are involved. I’m pretty sure the character you have in mind has few or no Limitations, perhaps even all the way at minimum ratio, 100. That’s fine. My initial version of Miasma is like that, in the playtest document.

Since there’s no need to consider the average ratio across the group, merely the permitted range (in my case, 100-115), it’s kind of non-issue. That character and the others will do fine.

Let me know if that helps or at least makes sense.

Started a new topic. I think I was just supposed to ask here? Feel free to move it if needed.

Ron Edwards's picture

Hi Allen, that’s no problem!

Having a group/whatever post helps people who are a little shy, so they can add in, but having individual posts like yours will keep this one from getting clogged. So I’ll hop over there for your questions.

johnpowell6's picture

If Disadvanatges are your character then I think they should be at the beginning of character generation rules and at the top of the character sheet, rather than the bottom. Thoughts?

alanb's picture

My ideal character sheet would look like a splash page, with a picture in the top left, a bit of origin/descriptive text on the right, and the mechanical bits of the sheet at the bottom.

Unfortunately splash pages of this type seem to have mainly been a Golden Age phenomenon.

Add new comment