In general, I agreed with the answers and advice, but I have an alternative view on one thing:
On 1/11/07, Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes_at_...> wrote:
> One thing to think about, however, is that the rules supplied for creating a
> character create a character who, though not incompetent, is on the low
> level of the power spectrum. There's no particularly good reason to start at
> this level. If you want veterans, use higher levels as indicated in the
> section on "advanced experience." You may find that characters don't get
> much more powerful in play (that's been my observation), even if you throw
> hundreds of Hero Points at them over dozens of sessions.
>
> If you want powerful characters, start with powerful characters.
My experiences have differed on this point. I have always introduced HW/HQ to the players (meaning that I have never run a game for a person who already knew the game(s)), and I have always started games with the list method, with beginning levels of power. This has not resulted in lower-powered PCs.
Though I started with standard HW power levels and advancement, I'm developing a rapid, directed advancement scheme that ignores the costs in the book (and the use of HP for advancement). Instead, we advance the PC abilities that are used prominently (successfully or not), as well as the abilities that the player (or the GM) most wants to advance.
This has most recently resulted in PCs approaching two masteries in a few abilities (even affinities) after a six or so sessions. That's plenty powerful to me, but my most powerful "encounterable and vulnerable to the PCs" NPCs are not much higher than the low three masteries in an ability, so our definitions of "powerful" may vary.
I also have a group wherein the majority doesn't favor the "player augmentation scan" approach to play, and I've rarely (maybe never) narrated for a group wherein more than half of the players want to take the time to do this (even at conventions). This results in many rolls against a single ability with a couple of augments at most, de-emphasizing the importance of augmentation break points. Also, I'm trying to encourage post-rolling augmentation. Adding in majority player reluctance to add numbers or manage points for character advancement, you might be able to understand why I've adapted by scrapping the standard advancement rules that seem to favor slow advancement.
Thanks,
Andy
Powered by hypermail