Managing Challenge via a metaphor.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Hey, it's been a long while since I last posted, and I'm hopefully gearing up to run another campaign for my local group soon. However, upon taking a look back at the forums, and talking to my players (new and old) I've noticed an old familiar concern cropping up:

"Wizards are so powerful! How are we supposed to manage that sort of thing in comparison to other characters? What do we do when one person wants to play a Wizard blasting things all over the place, and the other wants to play a White Court Virgin, full of angst and terrible possibilities?"

I feel like this is a very valid concern for people to have. It's come up so often though, that I have an answer ready, that I would like to share here. Hopefully, some of you will find a use for it, or have some interesting commentary:

"Superman, Batman, and Lois Lane are fighting Darkseid. Superman flies towards him, and Darkseid punches him away through several skyscrapers, causing chaos and scattering debris to the crowd below, and stunning Superman. Meanwhile, Batman is trying to distract Darkseid, mostly with flashbangs, smoke bombs, and other such things to throw him off his game, all while concocting a plan to take him out, relaying his ideas to Superman, dodging like crazy. All this time, Lois, who is being held hostage, is bantering back and forth with Darkseid, who is monologuing in return. Lois is pointing out how Superman and the Justice League have beaten him every time, while Darkseid is responding in kind, attempting to cow this human woman into silence with his intimidating presence."

Now, we all know that Darkseid would have no issue if he decided to punch a hole through Lois, or drop a whole building on Batman's head. However, he doesn't ever do this. Why?

Because it would make for a bad story.

Louis obviously isn't able to take the hit, so it would be boring if she just died randomly, with no chance to affect the story. Likewise Batman can engage the enemy, but not the same way that Superman can. They are both helping defeat him, by distracting him, throwing him off his game, and coordinating their efforts. Superman meanwhile, can take the hits, so Darkseid doesn't hold back with him.

When a player makes a character able to deal out massive punishment in my games, I always make sure they know that they are sending up a signal that they are ok having that kind of conflict directed back at them. I tell my players a very similar thing about picking Trouble Aspects: "Pick something that you think would be interesting for you, but complicating or difficult for your character. Don't pick something that will annoy you as a player."

Last, here's a quick example from a game I ran a little while ago.

One of my players asked if he could make a very "Crow-ish" character. Someone effectively undead, more or less un-killable, and hell-bent on vengeance. I said sure, because even though the rest of the group was made up of nothing more crazy than a Focused Practitioner and a Champion of God, I knew that all it meant was that every really, really nasty hit could be directed at our nearly invulnerable party member. I mean, what better way to show how scary something is than have it maul that dude?

In one game session he: Got blasted with a wave of force that threw him a football field, Got scorched and full of shrapnel by an exploding fan boat in a swamp (a fan blade had to be pulled from his sternum before he could be stitched back up), got eaten by a zombie gator (had to cut his way out, then it tried to eat him again), and almost got pinned under a huge falling tree.

And you know what? He loved it, and so did everyone else (all of whom had other things to worry about, as well).

I don't know if I've explained my point perfectly, and I apologize if I'm repeating something present elsewhere, but I'm of the opinion that more points of view are never a bad thing, anyway. I hope some of you find this interesting, and feel free to ask for clarification, if I was unclear.

[Sanctaphrax]

I dunno. I feel like this is a pretty good way to handle varying levels of optimization in a group, but I don't think it works so well for differing character types.

Because really, mortals are supposed to be able to hang with Wizards on an even level. A mortal alongside a wizard isn't Lois Lane. They're more like Batman or Lex Luthor. Not as "powerful" in-story, but just as capable of accomplishing things and "winning" at the game.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

I dunno. I feel like this is a pretty good way to handle varying levels of optimization in a group, but I don't think it works so well for differing character types.

Because really, mortals are supposed to be able to hang with Wizards on an even level. A mortal alongside a wizard isn't Lois Lane. They're more like Batman or Lex Luthor. Not as "powerful" in-story, but just as capable of accomplishing things and "winning" at the game.

I don't disagree with you, and my example was, intentionally, an extreme one.

I think vanilla mortals can and absolutely should be able to hang with wizards. My intention was to say that different characters necessitate (some might say request) different types (not necessarily different levels) of challenge.

If I make a character that is a changeling socialite, descended from the High Sidhe of Summer, that should signal to the GM that I am interested in scenes, conflicts, and storyline focused around those things (hence aspects, of course). If my buddy makes a character that is a Warden of the Council who is a very "kill em all and let god sort em out" type of character, he's obviously signaling a very different interest.

All I'm trying to say is that those two types of characters aren't incongruous in a game. Heck, they can even exist in the same conflict, but as a GM, it's my responsibility to direct the hardest, nastiest hits to the character that "asked" for them, if that makes sense. They both have a role to play, just different ones.

By that same token, you can have two characters who are both combat junkies, and the rule still applies. I ran a game a couple of years ago where one player was a relatively young wizard, just out of his apprenticeship, and the other was a mercenary of Kincaid-esque ability. The wizard was usually much more about blasting things to death and blocking attacks and managing zones of the battlefield, whereas the merc would do things like creep up to the roof of the warehouse, open a skylight and carefully snipe the most dangerous members of the opposition with a high powered rifle, before dropping incendiary and frag grenades on clusters of resistance.

I've just seen a lot of GMs concerned with how to deal with one person in a group being able to deal so much more damage than the rest, and I hadn't ever thought of it that way, since my reaction was always just "well if they hit the hardest, then they have to be ok taking what they are dishing out in terms of threat." Hence Harry is fighting Necromancers on a zombie T-Rex, and Murphy or Michael isn't. It's not that they aren't dangerous (cause they obviously are).

[Amelia Crane]

"Superman, Batman, and Lois Lane are fighting Darkseid. Superman flies towards him, and Darkseid punches him away through several skyscrapers, causing chaos and scattering debris to the crowd below, and stunning Superman. Meanwhile, Batman is trying to distract Darkseid, mostly with flashbangs, smoke bombs, and other such things to throw him off his game, all while concocting a plan to take him out, relaying his ideas to Superman, dodging like crazy. All this time, Lois, who is being held hostage, is bantering back and forth with Darkseid, who is monologuing in return. Lois is pointing out how Superman and the Justice League have beaten him every time, while Darkseid is responding in kind, attempting to cow this human woman into silence with his intimidating presence."

For some reason when I read this I immediately parsed it as:
Superman is in a physical combat with Darkseid.  He is using Athletics, Fists and Might to punch his enemy into the ground.
Lois is in a social combat with Darkseid.  She is using Empathy and Rapport to demoralize him.
Batman is in a mental contest with Darkseid.  He is using Intimidate,  Stealth, and Resources to keep him confused and off-balance.
Lois and Batman are not foolish enough to engage in a physical combat with Darkseid where they would get flattened.  Nor would Lois and Superman be able to stand up to him in a mental combat.  I don't know if Batman and Superman would be able to help out in Social combat, but they're pretty undeniably better at the type of combat they chose to engage in.
Darkseid just replies to each of these attacks in kind.  Because the GM knows what MyNinjaH8sU said about crushing the players out-of-hand not making for a good story.

The problem I have with the situation is there is significant incentive to coordinate to a single stress track, so you only have to do enough stress to fill that one up before you start dealing consequences.  If you split up the attacks like that then you have to fill up all three stress tracks.  I suppose it might make sense if all three are tanking Darkseid's attacks in their respective arenas.  (Lois is preventing Superman from being attacked socially where he could not take as much punishment).

Is that a crazy way to think about it?

[MyNinjaH8sU]

For some reason when I read this I immediately parsed it as:
Superman is in a physical combat with Darkseid.  He is using Athletics, Fists and Might to punch his enemy into the ground.
Lois is in a social combat with Darkseid.  She is using Empathy and Rapport to demoralize him.
Batman is in a mental contest with Darkseid.  He is using Intimidate,  Stealth, and Resources to keep him confused and off-balance.
Lois and Batman are not foolish enough to engage in a physical combat with Darkseid where they would get flattened.  Nor would Lois and Superman be able to stand up to him in a mental combat.  I don't know if Batman and Superman would be able to help out in Social combat, but they're pretty undeniably better at the type of combat they chose to engage in.
Darkseid just replies to each of these attacks in kind.  Because the GM knows what MyNinjaH8sU said about crushing the players out-of-hand not making for a good story.

The problem I have with the situation is there is significant incentive to coordinate to a single stress track, so you only have to do enough stress to fill that one up before you start dealing consequences.  If you split up the attacks like that then you have to fill up all three stress tracks.  I suppose it might make sense if all three are tanking Darkseid's attacks in their respective arenas.  (Lois is preventing Superman from being attacked socially where he could not take as much punishment).

Is that a crazy way to think about it?

Not at all. I think that's a fine way to think about it, actually. Though I don't think you have to combine stress tracks, since you can normally only take one Consequence of each type* (Mild, Moderate, Severe, Extreme) anyway.

Here's another way to look at it. Lois is a Pulitzer winning investigative journalist. She might just be trying to keep him off balance with questions and pointing out weaknesses, while Batman is the world's greatest detective, and is probably running everything from his mask back through the Bat-Cave's computer in real time, while employing his own prodigious intellect to identify patterns and weak spots in Darkseid's defense. Together, they are stacking up some epic bonuses via Declarations/Maneuvers so that when Superman comes back, it's going to be one hell of a punch...

(Preferably accompanied by a "World of Cardboard" speech!)


*Yes, of course Darkseid has extra Consequences, but that's beside the point.

[gojj]

While this doesn't fit the running example, another way to balance character types is Catches.

Say the PC group is made of Superman, Batman, and Lois. Normally, Superman is the heavy hitter of the group. But you want to create an encounter that will allow Batman to shine. So you create a villain who has the Catch "Immune only to physical blows". Superman is severely handicapped in what he can do, allowing Batman to throw Bat-Gas and other gadgets to take out the villain.

Basically, you can allow different characters to take the spotlight with clever catch use and/or length of scenes. Evocation focused Wizards do well in short spurts while Shapeshifters with Strength and Recovery powers would shine in long, drawn out scenes. You can also find ways to split up your party with compels. Superman fights Darkseid while Batman and Lois deal with armed thugs with hostages. While I do think it is important to try and make sure the group is balanced as possible (two characters focused on physical combat should be roughly equal in what they bring to the table), there are certainly in-game ways to make sure that one character doesn't hog the spotlight.

Hmm, kind of got lost in my own thoughts. Basically I am saying that there are very good mechanical methods of balancing the group in-game as well as story methods, both have their place. In my opinion it is almost impossible to perfectly balance a group of players during character creation, especially if some are optimizing characters for a specific role while others are not.