Forums of the Megaverse®

That if someone mentions that they have a character with what is concieved as an unconventional number of powers then people always cry munchkin?
For instance someone says they have a character that has eight minors then a lot of people scream munchkin loudly to anyone who will listen. I think if a character has say, Advance Sight, Nightvision, Heightened Sense: Smell, Heightened Sense: Hearing, Ext PP,Ext PS and Ext PE and healing Factor then he is not munchkin. Heck he can in no way wreak havoc or unbalance a game.
Why is there an automatic need from some to lable a character a munchkin just because of power numbers? The character above for instance is basically a beefed up street fighter with good senses.
If a character has Invulnerability, Supernatural PS, Rocket Fist, Ext.PP, Radar and Lightning Reflexes then I can see how totally unbalincing he could be but just because he has a number of powers then he is not automatically munchkin.
This is aimed at no one or no incidence in particular. I am just curious why is all.

It's more about the "munchkin potential." I agree with you 100% - it's more about what each individual sharacter can do. But then, that's the norm with HU;

You can have Mutant Animals, Stage Magicians and Enchanted Object PCs alongside 20ft tall Robot Vehicles bristling with machineguns and rocket launchers, and an invulnerable flying mega-mutant who can throw small busses around and gains more powers as he increases in level.

But you know what? They can all work together! That's the beauty of the HU system - everyone is effective (unlike some other super hero games out there where if the players aren't around the same level of power it can screw up the game).

I agree it is the player but the last couple of years the term seems to be applied to anything even remotely powerful regardless of how good or bad a player is at playing in character.
As for my above examples the guy with eight minors while he could be a good fighter he could just as well be a safe cracker or a wilderness tracker as much as he is a combat oriented.
It is just frustrating how sometimes a person will have a great concept bring it here to share and people say hey that character has a lot of powers, specially not knowing how well the person playing him is at role play. Again no particular event or person. Just in general.

I don't know the bonuses for each of these powers off the top of my head, but look at it this way:

You have a guy who can see an opponent coming quite a distance away (even at night), he has impressive hearing and sense of smell (identify sounds and smells as well as tracking), he has a relatively high P.P. and auto-dodge (and all of the bonuses that go with that), and an extar attack, he can lift/carry a lot more weight than most other heroes, and he has a very nice bonus to his P.E. (which of course adds to his starting Hit Points), and he heals damage pretty quickly.

Now, you have to assume that the guy is going to have some kind of ranged weapon since most of his powers aren't offensive in nature (heck...aside from his bonus to damage, his punch is still 1D4), so he'll have that.

And of course you have to remember that he has his skill (programs and secondary). So there will be more bonuses to add.

Hard to surprise, hard to hit, hard to damage significantly when you do, and when you do, he heals quickly.......



Maybe not munchkin.......but munchkin-esque.




This character could create a nightmare for a GM. As it is, a GM has to create opponents who are matched well with the heroes. A character like this is hard to compete with. Sounds kinda havoc-y to me.

And it could absolutely unbalance a game when the other players see that you have allowed 8 minors. They might want more minors....or majors.....or powers to go with a non-powered category.


As I am sure folks have said before and will say again, it is your game. But it seems to me that the rules as they appear in the books in regards to powers work pretty well on their own.

I am not sure what you mean by this as the eight minors are canon material. I will also say that in your game with your players and GM you can also play however you want but I also say that if that character above gives your GM trouble then he needs to quit GMing.



[/b]

If the charaters imbued then hes perfectly book legal with the druge issue to deal
with he also becomes perfectly ballanced

Little harsh there Preach?

Seriously, when it comes down to mulitple powers, what are you really looking for?

I can think of a few characters that I'd like to tack on another power or two just because I think it would be nice (like my Shadow character with all the Shadow/Darkness powers). Munchkin? Maybe. But the idea behind the character is what matters. And no, using this character to overt death or smite heroes (or villains) quickly and effortlessly is not the intended use for the character.

Really, its a combination of Alignment, Powers, and Player attitude that should constitute Munchkin. After all, the alignment is the restriction that keeps the player from abusing his powers. When the hero abuses his powers, he is no longer a hero.

Side Note/Rant:
I am personally sick of this Munchkin-isms by everyone. So a character has a lot of power, its not the characters fault, its the player who abuses him. A Cosmo-Knight (I know, wrong forum) is a super powerful character, but it has a big restriction (Alignment & Chivilrious Code) that allows them to keep their powers. Overt from letting players 'do what they will' and hold them to their alignments (and limiting the alignments avaliable for them).

Agreed.

It seems that some GMs have control issues. Either their players have none or the GMs feel the need to control every variable.

I played an ancient master who was out-gunned by the rest of the group, sometimes litterally. The power player had a hardware: weapons. The non-power player had a magic weapon giving supernatural strength, extraordinary PP and extraordinary speed. We even has a superspy and a wizard at some point.

Guess which one was the most disruptive? Yup, hardware : weapons. We had to make sure he wouldn't gun everything down. The PLAYER was the problem.

Rant warning...

Players:
If you're in a superhero game... act like it! You'll notice, thematically, that heroes who tend to kick ass more often are actually the least powerful ones. Examples: Wolverine, Punisher, Daredevil, Batman etc. while the more powerful ones have greater moral restrictions: Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder woman, Charles Xavier, Doctor Strange...

Note that I speak here of absolute power levels. Yes, I know that the lower-powered ones could "out-think" a more powerful opponent, etc... but let's face it: Pit Superman w/bad player vs Lex Luthor, Lex would be stain, or a french fry...


GMs:
Relax! Please! Trust your players! Get rid of them if they can't behave! Remember: it's just a game. Take a good look at the combo suggested. Is the player likely to abuse it? How? And what is abuse? Will it steal the fun from the other players? Good playing involves imagination. Don't penalize your players for thinking of new ways to use powers, or even "llegal" combos. They could have great potential. Worry about playing all your NPCs, not the other people's PCs. Ask for input. What would they like as a storyline, don't just dictate! Ask them what could challenge their character. Remember also that in a hero game, the players SUPPOSED to win in the end.

End rant

The 8 minors you listed aren't that bad, but what about when it's Wingless Flight, Ex Speed, Power Chanelling, Lightning Reflexes, Healing Factor, EE-Plasma, Radar, & Increased Durability. Depending on what everyone else is playing this combo could be pretty good, to weak still, or increadibly overpowering. It honestly depends on the game that the GM is running, and the fact that there are reasons why we have limits on how many powers a hero can pick from in attempt to keep some sort of balance going on in the game.

My gut reaction to a character like this would be ''heck no!" but if the player had a really good story and I knew he wouldn't mess up the game to much I'd probably let it in.



Daniel Stoker

I agree with you on "Depends on the player" completely for those or any powers really. I admit as I was reading the powers you mentioned I thought if this player was disruptive to my game then about three pounds of C-4 under a piece of plywood in an abandoned building would make him calm down.

So you think a "beefed up street fighter" would have the following bonuses at first level?

P.S.: 22 to 39
P.P.: +2 to 8
P.E.: +8 to 19
H.P.: P.E. + 18 to 53
S.D.C.: +65 to 185
Attacks per melee: +1
Initiative: + 7
Parry: +2
Dodge: +2
Auto-dodge: +3 (and it doesn't chew up an attack!)
save vs. Magic: +3
save vs. Psionics: +3
save vs. coma/death: +20%
cold and fire do half damage
poisons/toxins are only 33% effective
he doesn't get fatigued
he heals very quickly (18 S.D.C. and 4 H.P. per hour)
can instantly regenerate 4-24 H.P. twice a day
everything heals properly (never has to worry about lasting injuries from the optional tables)
PLUS he can see clearly for over two miles even in total darkness.

And remember, there are no hand-to-hand, skill or attribute bonuses figured in (except on the H.P. bonus from Extr. P.E.).

I don't know about the rest of you, but this seems like a bit more than a "beefed up street fighter".......



I TOTALLY disagree with you. It is the PLAYER who needs to get some imagination. It is NOT all about the stats, its about the story.

This character/player makes giving villains an edge VERY difficult (you can't drug/gas him, hard to surprise him given the Initiative bonus, heck, even beating the crap out of him will take a bit of time), and sometimes giving villains the edge is integral to the story.

...and just for the record...... I AM[b] the GM and I don't appreciate you telling me that I suck. Also, I have tried numerous times to "go back to playing," but anyone who has tried to take over has felt that it was "too hard...."

Preacher wrote:

OK so the players are munchkins and not the character which is just a piece of paper with writing on it. This character is in no way unbalancing to any group with the least bit of experience or a GM worth squat. If you disagree then it is your right but you must be one of those people who misunderstand the term munchkin and actually apply it to a character instead of the player who plays it.

The whole player/character thing is a distinction without a difference. Aren't the players the ones who create the characters?

Preacher wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by this as the eight minors are canon material. [/b]

I have never picked up on that, which book is that in? I don't have PU2 yet.

Preacher wrote:

I will also say that in your game with your players and GM you can also play however you want but I also say that if that character above gives your GM trouble then he needs to quit GMing. [/b]

Honestly, if I had a player like you, I probably would.

Here is something you may want to keep in mind Preacher, YOU solicited other's opinions. I gave mine to you. Then you were extremely rude.

It is definitely possible that I wasn't clear enough in my response (and hopefully this one has made my opinion clearer), but that doesn't excuse telling someone that they suck as a GM and that they have no imagination (true, you may not have known that I was a GM, but then you would have been insulting one of my friends, and that isn't cool either).

I appreciated and respected your opinion enough to give you mine, it is too bad you couldn't do the same.


This is just another example of what is wrong with online interaction.......

Yes




So in your estimation a character that you as a GM cannot easily sneak up on or kill with impunity is a Munchkin just because you would have to actually put in a little effort and imagination to get this guy? Yes he is just a beefed up street fighter. Most of his powers are geared towards surviving and not anything resembling overpowered.








So you have no players who can role play a well rounder suvivor character without acting like a munchkin player. That is what it seems like you are saying.



Ok so use any of the ones from Gramercy Island or Century Station that could easily wipe the floor with this guy. Plus this character is way easy to ambush with explosives or any area affect power. Again it seems like the problem is not a player with these powers but the GM not wanting to put the least little bit of effort into giving him a challenge. Just like every challenge a character faces should not be easy the same goes for a GM. As a GM you have to put in a little effort. These guys are super-beings, they are not suppose to be knock overs for a bad guy. I as my groups GM can think of a thousand ways to stop this guy cold. I can also think of a thousand ways to stop a guy with Invulnerability, Supernatural PS and Sonic Speed. It is easy as a GM to lay traps for any character including Teleport. Bad guys with Teleport as a matter of fact are freat for nailing hard to hit characters as is forcefield, create force constructs and gravity manipulation and those are just off the top of my head. It just takes some creativity. If you hate the effort it takes to be a GM and want it easy then quit GMing for a while.



OK this one I give you. I was wrong to say you suck and I apologize for that remark. I was wrong.





No No No No and NO!!!!! A Character is just a piece of paper with writing on it. The player is what breathes life into the character. A Player is munchkin NOT the character. The character is only munchkin if the player is that way.





Yes it is in PU2





You don't know me. You have no idea what kind of role player I am. Even with the cool new levels of power in PU2 if you go and look at the Favorite New OCC from PU2 thread then you will see mine is the Bow Master which even you would probably admit was not munchkin.



With the exception of the suck comment I was not rude and for that I say I am sorry again. I think if you do think that the above character is too overpowered and Munchkin then you are wrong and your GMing needs to evolve to handle it so players can diversify in your game without being labled Munchkin. OH and yes I did solicit opinions but I also was chastising those who cry Munchkin over a low powered character like I mentioned.



Again I apologize for the suck comment but I do think if you limit a character like the one I listed because you think he is too powerful or as you put it above too hard to sneak up on or hurt then the character is not the problem but the person who can't easily outdo him as the GM no matter who it is.



OK again I am sincerly sorry for saying you suck but the rest of the post I stand by because a character cannot be munchkin only a player who plays him can. Just like you said made the comment about me as a player then I would not play for a GM who could not easily handle a character with any eight minors because he is too limiting specially in a game called Heroes Unlimited.




That and some people take other people too seriously. I just see this as a debate from two people who see it differently nothing more nothing less.
Look I was not out to upset you. I just think you are wrong but do realize you have every right to run your game as you see fit at the end of the day. No harm is disagreeing.

First off, I am not going to try and define what is munchkin. But munchkin does have a lot more to do with the player, the group, and the GM.

Second, I agree almost completely with all of Preachers points.

Third, there is a difference between a GM not being able to handle and a GM not wanting that type of PC (8 minor powers) in a game. That being said, I think it does show weakness as a GM to not be able to handle the example PC. A character with Alter Physical Structure: Metal, Sonic Speed, and Invulnerability would be another story. Although, I think a good GM could even handle even that type of super character. Sorry, SkyStreak, and I don't mean to offend you. Neither did Preacher.

HEY! We have a guy like that! The Silver Bullet. Posterboy for the Coors company too.

I fully conceed this point. If a GM says to the players I am gonna start a campaign and you are allowed only three or four minors because it is a low powered game then that is the right of the GM. Like you said there is a difference in not doing it and not being able to do it.

I Might address a few points.

1) as for munchkinesque/munckin/whatever. While I understand that it's supposed to be the player that's munchkin, not the character, it's the player who often builds these really powerful characters, and then claims he's being judged a munchkin before anyone's given him a chance. I Really don't think anyone who has the gall to claim that a good player can play a powerful character amongst lower powered ones, really should be BE a good player and match the power levels of the group or the campaign. Unless he's getting off at being some smug schmuck with a power trip. To Me, the 'but i'm a good player' and the 'you got to trust your players' excuses are the product of some sleezy attempt to slide some poorly thought out excuse for a combat hog into an otherwise normal and controlled game.

2) GM's. Trust is not a luxury you can afford with players. Every one of them beleives whole heartedly that he's a good roleplayer and deserves trust. especially the ones that aren't and don't. Nipping problems BEFORE they become problems is part of your Job (TM).

3) That said, there is nothing wrong with powerfull characters in a powerfull game. I urge GM's to encourage characters to be at least near an equal playing field. a little power diversity and range is OK. But a mutant wolf with average stats should not be in a group with a mega hero, an immortal and a mineral alien/High gravity/mystically bestowed combo.

4) GM's should also learn the tricks of the players. Radar doesn't sound very powerful, but it is. and some powers in combination make absurdly, and yet discretely, powerful beings. when in doubt, compare final character sheets.

5) Players. If you don't play nice, your GM's will get fed up and screw you through your weakness. I Have unleashed invisible psychic assasins before. I have plugged annoying PC's through the head with especially designed 'Meta-killer' Sniper rounds. and I have trapped at least two invulnerable or heat resistant abuses of power at the bottom of volcanoes. I'm sure there are GM's out there not as nice as me. You have been warned.

In summary. A Good player can play anything. So they shouldn't be worried about power for power's sake. If you are gloating about the powers you have then you are probably munchkin. If you wern't, then you'd have a little concern for your fellow players at the gaming table.


Batts. Expecting flames any minute now.

Feh. As a GM I generally feel comfortable enough with my abilities that I'll allow extremely powerful characters into a group of otherwise weaker characters provided 1) I know and trust the player not to abuse his status and power and 2) That the other characters will still have the opportunity to shine. I remember one campaign quite fondly where only one player had chosen to be a "Super" hero. With Super Energy Expulsion: Electricity, Extraordinary Physical Endurance and Flight: Winged, she had a fair advantage over the other characters that included a Stage Magician with Tae Kwon Do, a Physical Training Character, and a Hunter/Vigilante. It worked out because despite her superior movement and combat options the characters with special training could do A LOT of stuff that she couldn't. Had she asked for Invulnerability and Supernatural Strength, or Intangibility & Invisibility, I wouldn't have even blinked before saying no. Power is fine, power that makes everyone else in the group useless is not. Super powerful players are fine in most of my HU games unless I specifically mean for the game to be low-powered, but as that normally isn't an issue my only concern in regards to "balance" is whether the player group will be able to participate on a fairly equal level.

Sanity at last.
THank you, Kittenstomp

Whether or not a character is munchkin depends on what the rest of the group is like and what they are up against.
The character you describe is certainly pretty powerful, but I wouldn't call it munchkin (assuming it's legal) unless it was blatantly more powerful than any of its friends or enemies.

Actually, even power doesn't always matter..
A character with Invulnerability, APS: Plasma, Magnetism, and Multiple Lives would be a munchkin character in most games, but I'd probably allow on if I was going to be running all mystery type games where brute force doesn't really matter much.

Hey all, lets not confuse the term Munchkin with Power Gamer.
A Munchkin is just a royal pain no matter what super powers the character has, whereas a Power Gamer is the one who will probably refuse to play anything less than a maxed out uber character that is just in it for the kill count.
I know many self professed Power Gamers, and they can talk for hours on the absolute meanest possible legal character combination you can imagine.. but they usually side line role playing and most importantly, their characters don't make any sense!
My general rule of thumb is that you test the water with new players.. give them something relatively simple and moderately powered, see how they go, and then consider how well they can handle a high powered character based on how they have been playing the game.
That's really all it boils down to, and aside from your own predispositions, there is no hard and fast rule on what is and is not ok in your own game.
If somebody posts a character combo here that goes way off your personal power scale.. why not just sit back and think about what that group must be like and what their games involve.
There is no need or call for taunts and snide comments here.
HU is a diverse game that has a lot of inherant flexibility.. I have run low powered games, I have also enjoyed an all-mega-hero game.. there is a way to handle anything.
In fact, the next game I'm running is a tournament style game, with premade characters handed out at the start of the game, and all of the characters are villains.
They are going to be tough as nails.. I mean a big bad bunch of real nasty dudes.. which is perfectly balanced when you consider what they are going to be up against. Cops, military, super heroes, secret agents.. They are going to have a hard time accomplishing their pre-game objectives, thats for sure!
No if I posted one of those characters here, without giving the background info for the game.. it would cause some of you to cry foul.
But thats because you are judging things based on some idea of game balance that simply is not a hard and fast rule in HU.
You are basing your judgements on your own comfort level, and when you do that, you are bound to put your foot in your mouth and say something unreasonable, or just plain rude.

So consider this next time, and lets all stop and take a deep breath

even better, limit the game to minor heroes...

munchkinize me now, cap'n!

Unfortunately, I think alot of gamers are accountants at heart, and number crunching is their religion.

On another message board, for a game system in a galaxy far, far away I made a skill point modification suggestion, because you just didn't get enough. My idea was for a skill point bonus of four when you gained your character level feat. Well, you'd think I'd shattered the flow of linear time and offered a blood sacrifice to the dark powers to see those board members flip their lid. At which time I pointed out that what amounted to a whopping 1.45336644 extra point per level, it was hardly a game unbalancing change.

To thy numbers be true.

Its the nature of the gamer, I suppose.

Hmm, to fix the fact that having several sense enhancing powers soaks up too many minor power slots I suggest--

Wait, I want my own thread!!!

----------zoom-------------->

I just want to point out that it isn't that one character that would make the GM's job difficult, it is the fact that there are a number of other characters in most campaigns (and, I don't do 1 player/1GM games, the has to be a least 2 characters and a GM).

PCs need to be challenged by their opponents, yet combat has to move quickly so no one gets bored. When you have 4 or 5 PCs, you usually need to have either one or two extra-powerful villains or the same number of equally powerful villains for that challenge. But when one of the characters on the hero group is Denfenso-Man like the one in Preacher's example, combat is NOT going to go quickly.

Then boredom sets in........



Also, I want to point out that there was a time in HU history (HU Revised) where a player was only allowed to pick 1 Major and 1 Minor power, otherwise they were expected to roll for the number of powers and what powers they would get. So the odds of rolling Defenso-man would be next to impossible. I may be wrong, but I believe that this was an attempt to prevent min/max style behavior when players were creating their characters.

Heck, even before that (in HU 1st edition) you only got ONE power! There were no major or minor powers, just a list of powers, and you only got ONE!

Things have changed, some for the better, some for the worse. I like the fact that the rules are more open to allowing more Marvel/DC level characters (because, lets face it, that is what we are all essentially trying to emulate), but I disagree with the idea that a character with eight powers isn't VERY powerful. The rules may allow it, but it regardless of the powers he seems pretty darn powerful to me.



As for the whole comparison to Gramercy Island and Century Station comparison.......

I absolutely LOVE these books. They are a ton of fun to read.

But a lot of the characters were not created using the rules as they are presented in the game. They were written. Physical Strengths are off the charts, powers that aren't supposed to work together do, duplicate powers stacking, multiple Power Categories, etc., etc. Very cool books, but not exactly following the rules......

Also, take a look at the experience level on most of the CS and GI characters....I believe the average level is around 6th.

To try to argue that a character created with 8 minor powers (which up until a month ago wasn't considered "canon") is weak because it doesn't compare to a character from these books is a little off. The bar has been set WAY too high.

I just want to point out that I stand by my opinion that any experienced GM should be able to handle that character with ease.






If boredom sets in then again it is the GM not some powers combo that stalls his game. If a GM can't come up with a decent challenge relatively easy then again maybe he should return to playing. Also Defenso-Man should only pose a problem to an inexperienced GM.





OK so go read the forword to HU2 and you will see that lots of players want to actually be able to duplicate comic book type heroes instead of only being able to playing limited characters like you can in the original. HU Revised evolved to a better game from unrevised, HU2 evolved to a better game from Revised and now PU2 has made it even better so that people like myself can have more of a variety and not be so limited like some players and inexperienced GM's want the game to be.



Yes Powerful he is with his rampaging power of destructing of Ext. PS.
Good doge bonuses and a healing factor does not a munchkin make.





But yet you said that the eight powered character is too hard to stop but then point out that the chgaracters in those books are extremely powerful. Hint, use those characters for what they were intended for, as NPC's.



So now experienced characters even NPC's are too powerful.




The bar is not set too high. That is rediculous. You should know that as a GM you can run a low level campaign no matter what options there are in the books. It is as simple as saying to the players, roll up a character with two or three minors only and we will do a nice low level street level campaign.

As for the eight minors being canon why would it matter when it was made canon? It is canon so your arguement is invalid about it being canon. You stand corrected and thats all.
Also just to correct you on one more point. You could make a character with your choice of both which and the number of powers from the onset of HU2 rules.
Here is the direct quote.



Pg.226 if you don't believe me.



Note:



Yep there is is black and white.

I am an experienced GM, and I could "handle" that character with ease. It is the combination of that character with the rest of the characters in the campaign that would make the GM's job more difficult (Didn't you READ my post?).






While I have never had much of a problem with this system running too slow, combat can get bogged down if you play straight by the rules. I am not above "fudging the rules" to make things run quicker, but there actually are GMs who like to play by the rules, and a character like this has the potential of making combat run long.

Also, your overstating of "the GM should return to playing" is getting pretty old. You made the point in a previous post, your opinion was noted, if you cannot come up with anything new, then don't bother posting it again.

Just in case it isn't clear to everyone here: PREACHER THINKS I AM AN INEXPERIENCED/LOUSY/SUCKY GM AND THAT I SHOULD RETURN TO PLAYING!!!!!!!

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, there is no need for you to post it again.




Where in my post did I dispute any of that?





So obviously, you only consider a character's offensive abilities what makes them powerful. OK fine, we disagree on that.

I am of the opinion that has extensive defensive abilities is powerful.

Evidently for you, the only thing that makes Wolverine powerful is his claws. Indestructible Bones and a Healing Factor don' make him powerful.




Regardless of the fact that I like the book and the characters within, I would/will never use most of those characters as NPCs because they are not examples of what the system is capable of without any tweaking.

Essentially, those books contain Bill Coffin's house rules for HU (not that this is a bad thing......). I don't have a problem with the fact that the book was published, but I simply wouldn't use those characters in my game.




No, you completely miss my point (I am very shocked by that too, as you have been sooooooo open minded up till now.).

You compared Defenso-Man to characters from GI and CS. I pointed out that those characters weren't rolled, that they were written. I also pointed out that those characters were of a higher level than Defenso-Man, so it is not a viable comparison.





If the rules weren't followed for creating a lot of characters in GI and CS, and you are using GI and CS as your bar, then said bar is too high.




I never said it wasn't "canon." I said I didn't have PU2, and if that is where it is from let me know. You did. Thank you.

What I was saying (and I actually thought this one was pretty clear....) was that eight minor powers makes a pretty powerful character. It seemed that you were of the opinion that the example character you gave wasn't powerful, I don't agree.




I am quite aware of that. Here is a direct quote from my first post:



I probably wasn't clear enough (because this is the standard response some people give when people don't agree with a rule as it is published in the game, I didn't see the need to flesh out the point better). What I meant was that anyone playing the game has the right to cut rules/powers/aspects of the game that don't work for them. There is no Palladium police who will arrest you for tweaking the rules, so do as you wish......




I just want to point out that this is the question you asked for other's opinions on:



I gave you one possible answer.

Your response to my answer was to be dismissive ("Ridiculous"), insulting ("sucks"), and sarcastic ("rols eyes"). A good way of encouraging an adult dialogue.


So here is the real question:

If you only wanted to hear from people who agree with you, why did you even bother posting?



"If you don't want my answers, then stop asking questions!"

....in a game based on super hero's , some of wich can toss truck's at each other, fly faster then a speeding bullit, turn themselves into armord tanks of destruction, bend the very laws of gravity and physics to theire will and control the very elements themselves, we have an argument about munchkinesim? I dont get it...

Yup. and "level" comparision which is made almost meaningless by the type of game.

It's not just HU it's the entire gaming community in regards to powerful characters and personally I just laugh at it. I've been talking about it for a while in regards to "storytellers" vs. "real gamers" irregardless of the Jyhads I start.

For the most part I run what most people would consider very high powered games and laugh at people who miss the point of heroic fantasy (of whatever type).

As far as the number of powers go, check out PU2. While it's not a bad thing I do tend to notice a bit of a power creep between it and the HU2 main book.


>>>----Therumancer--->

Yes I read your post. I guess I would have to view your GMing skills to be convinced how good you are. Going by you repeating how the low powered example character I gave would be umbalancing is where I got the idea that you might not be as experienced as you clain.



Well the game should not always revolve around combat and the combat bogging down should not matter if someone wants to make a cool theme hero or a low powered street fighter(like the one I presented). Players should be able to make a good character to their likes and dislikes within the GM's guidlines. I have said in this debate that a GM can allow and disallow what is in their game, if you would calm down and read the post and try to hear what I am actually saying instead of getting all upset and defensive then you would see that.
As for restating the point then I will post what I like as long as it stays within the rules. Calm down and get past it.







See this one of those things you where you need to not get so agitated and try to see the counterpoint. You mentioned that the original HU only let you have one power(like that was a good thing) and my counterpoint to this was that the reason this stupid rule was changed was that MOST gamers like to have more creativity and options in designing their characters which is why I pointed to the opening of the book where Kevin mentions how he makes it so more people have options. It is called Heroes Unlimited and not Heroes Limited to one power.





No and again you need to relax it is just a debate.
Yes I think a character can have powerful defensive abilities. None of the abilities mentioned on defenso-man could save him from hidden explosives or any ONE of several area effect powers and or magic. None of his abilities would be anything but escape related if he went up against a powerful Bad guy NPC with just a couple of good Majors.
Oh mentioning comics, cool been collecting for 26 years and have had litterally thousands of conversations discussions and debates on comics. NO Wolverine is not POWERFUL, he is tenatious, he is resiliant and he has an I won't quit attitude but is he naturally powerful? NO he is not. I like him a great deal but he is not powerful by comic book standards nor would he be munchkin by RPG standards.








You pointed how *gasp* they averaged 6th level. Oh and you want to limit everything your players do and I am not open minded?



Actually after going back and rereading my post it looks more to me that I was saying defenso-man wouldn't last a minute to the CANON material in those books as opposed to a direct comparison but either way is fine since it is canon.




Well I disagree with you on this point. No biggie. My main beef as was stated in the original post is that it is annoying when people who simply like low powered games cry munchkin over someone who has as many as eight powers even if they are not powerful and defenso man is not.



You made a point of how until two weeks ago it wasn't canon. I was rebutting that.
A lot of what you are saying is not coming off all that clear because you seem so defensive and angry.
I disagree with your assesment that he is a powerful character. I don't think being able to regenerate and having good dodge bonuses which can allow you to survive just to run away because you lack great offensive capabilities is powerful.




Well you might want to consider that even though I posted the topic in a question format that it still was laden with my views. So even though I was looking for answers from both sides I did not put a disclaimer in that said I preclude myself from debating any answers to my topic. I will also not stop asking questions nor will I stop debating people whom I disagree with.

Keep it civil, fellas.

Gaius

Yes Sir.

As I see the problem it that it comes down to gamers vs. storytellers. Storytellers are those who believe that an RPG should tell a story and the GM sits down with a story in mind and tries to present an illusion of freedom towards the eventual resolution of the story as he sees it, which is supposed to end pretty much the way he decided.

Real gamers are those who do games based as scenarios, while there is a storyline; the future is not definate and the idea is the play until the scenario is resolved, whether that is in the first 15 minutes of the game, or after three weeks of gaming. The ending (how things work out) is undetermined as the scenario could end in a virtually limitless number of ways (although some possibilities are more likely than others).

It is usually Storytellers who are concerned about powerful characters, because it's harder to present an illusion of freedom to the characters while actually railroading them if the characters have a lot of control over the things that are going on.

For example in a Storyteller's plan it might be nessicary for the heroes to be defeated and dumped into a deathtrap by the villains. If a couple of heroes are really tough this might not be viable given the villains he picked. In a real "gaming" scenario the deathtrap would only exist as a possibility *IF* the PCs lose as opposed to being something they *WILL* find themselves in.

For the most part I tend to agree with the assumption that those who have trouble with powerful characters tend to be either novice GMs, or those who never learned how to game properly to begin with (being a *real* GM for gamers takes a lot of effort, and it's not something everyone can do). This opinion is one that leads to a lot of arguements but it is one that I stand by. To me the term "Storyteller" is almost as much of a curse when it comes to gaming as "Liberal" is in my political rants. Although I will admit that this specific topic does come up less frequently.

That said, HU does produce characters with greatly divergent power levels. The GM should set a theme for the game before he starts, including the power level. In general if you sit down and say "let's play HU" and have everyone generate a character willy-nilly there are likely
to be problems. The guy with the powerful character is not any more responsoble for them, than the guy who generated the weakling.

In many cases it's a good idea to choose a central theme for the game. For example with The X-men all the characters are mutants, in Gen-13 all the characters are genetic experiments with no flashy physically warping side effects (except one chick who has a natural lock of violet hair).

More eclectic teams like The JLA, and The Avengers tend not to be very condusive to gaming (although you can try it) simply because of the differant power levels. In a story it's easy to write characters out whenever it becomes conveinent. In an RPG players tend to not like having their hero written out.

Look back to the whole "Imperiax" thing. While primarly a superman storyarc you have the JLA fighting the guy's duplicates in space, and Batman is being a moron back in Gotham trying to (of all things) lift a jet with a grappling hook. Making some lame excuse about being needed in Gotham simply because there was nothing much he could do to fight space-travelling entity class beings that explode when defeated.

Being able to mix power catagories and keep a game running is the mark of a veteran GM. Odds are if you can't do it; you need more experience, and I recommend "theme parties" as mentioned above.

>>>----Therumancer--->

Is it just me or did this thread take a segue from the original question?

As I recall, the Original Question was: "Why is it that if someone mentions that they have a character with what is concieved as an unconventional number of powers then people always cry munchkin?"

True or false?

Assuming it is true, it would seem that the entire conversation has devolved into defining whether or not the example character should be considered "munchkin." This in and of itself seems to have led to the kind of conversation that Preacher was asking about and seems to get frustrated with, at least in my opinion.

So I would like to try to answer the original question.

Everyone seems to be fairly intelligent and have given a lot of thought to their gaming styles. This has led to a set of beliefs and opinions that serve to define "munchkin". Then someone presents something out of context on these boards. It doesn't matter how much you describe the other characters, GM's or game setting, there isn't enough information that can be given to suit everyone to put it into context. It is only natural to insert the presented character into our own gaming groups and apply our own opinions based on that constructed context. Everyone views the world by their own "world map" and it serves to define everything we see or do. When something contradicts that "world map", it is natural for people to attack, lash out and fight tooth and nail to protect their view of the world. By defining something as "munchkin" people are just saying "it's too powerful for me" by putting a label on it.

If you don't believe me, go back and read what was written in this thread.

Everyone needs to remember two things:

1. Everything here is presented out of context to a certain degree.
2. Every response is one person's opinion.

I, for one, avoid using the term "munchkin" to describe a player character most of the time, even in my group.

I hope this has answered the original question. But I refuse to impose my "world map" onto the examples given.

How dare you imply that the topic went astray on the Palladium Message boards. Thats not possible.

Okay. I'll go back to just lurking again.

So having Extraordinary Sense of Smell wouldn't allow him to detect the scent of explosives? Dogs can do that.........

He also has (at least) a +3 to save vs. magic, which gives him a pretty good edge against a magic user based on his/her level. For that matter, he has (at least) a +3 to save vs. psionics, which helps against those attacks as well.

So, while he may have some vulnerability to these attacks, he still has an edge.





I think a lot of comic fans would disagree with you on wether Wolverine is a powerful character or not, or whether he would be a "munchkin" character or not.



[quote+"Preacher"]It's canon reguardless of your or my views on it.[/quote]

I don't view most of it as "canon." At best it is "expanded universe." How can something be "canon" when it violates the rules it is supposed to be based on? There are plenty of "officially licensed" novels, comics, etc. for a lot of different sources, why should HU be any different?




What, in anything that I have written, gives you that idea?

And what does "me controlling everything my players do" have to do with experience levels?



Again, how can something be "canon" when it violates the rules it is supposed to be based on?




So you really didn't want other people's opinions, you wanted to tear them down.

You never indicated that you wanted to "debate" the issue. You asked for an answer to a question, and you got one person's possible answer.

You are like one of those people at a party who asks you who you are planning on voting for, and when they tell you the "wrong" candidate, you proceed to berate them for having "ridiculous" opinions.

Don't do that. Stay a while. Heck muddy the pond with the rest of the bottom dwellers.


As for the original question it was two-fold. One was to admonish those who do that and the other was an honest attempt to open debate and get understanding on why they think like that.
Heck I know everyone just represents their own view and would not feel compelled to chastise anyone for playing their own way if some did not feel the need to belittle and label those who play a way that is different than theirs with the whole Munchkin thing.


Nearly every time someone post a character or power combo they have to put a disclaimer in to acknowledge that it is munchkin and I know that is not how they all feel but they do it or at least a lot of them do because they know the small minded little Munchkin screamers will come out of the wood work and tell them how Munchkin their creation is. They can't say it is more powerful than they like to play or too powerful for the level of play that they usually engage. No they have to try to belittle someone and dance to the old drumhead beat of labelling it munchkin. It is all I can do not to go in behind every single one of them and throw in the statement like well maybe they or their character ain't munchkin but you might be a "Candylander" and can't handle a game with a little excitement. Since the mods would have to slap me around if I did that then I won't. Don't want to incur their wrath.


Another aspect that bugs me is when someone who says that they are the GM and they don't let their players play that no matter how much they want too. Or I don't allow that and I have made it clear to my players that that is unacceptable. I find this to be a GM being one sided and selfish. The game should be fun for players as well as for the GM. If the GM runs half the games to his style and half for his players to enjoy then that is fine but I have seen too many GM's on this board saying things like "I NEVER ever let my players play anything that MUNCHKIN ever." That bugs the hell out of me. Where do GM's like that get off? It is suppose to be about the players having a good time and playing characters as much as it is the GM having it all him way.


In my group I have been the GM exclusively for nearly 14 years now and I frequently ask my players if they would like to try new characters( been running the same ones for nearly five years now with no end in sight) from different settings or different power levels. They rarely do because either have characters they like that are ones they have developed from their likes and desires without too many limitations from me because I can handle it and they know it. I honestly believe that they have not complained in all these years because either ge a say in the characters they play. Back when I got to play I know I hated it when a GM was so limited that me and the players just had to suck it up and not get a character to our liking because of a poor GM who yelled "too powerful" at the time because the term munchkin was not used around here anyways. It is frustrating as a player to not have a GM that can run a good game because he likes it one way and the players like it another.


GM's need to take into account all the players and know the game is just as much theirs as it is a GM's. I think the good ones do this and the bad ones yell too powerful or munchkin. The only answer is for players to find a well rounded and experienced GM that can run a game for himself and for the players.

Put them in coffee cans. Masks the scent. Infrared beams after he is in the middle of the building wired to explosives.



I was under the impression that as "Super Heroes" that they were suppose to have an edge that is unless they have a killer GM.



Thats fine for them to disagree. I have read dozens of his comics where he himself states his main power is the fact that he is too dense to know when to quit. His stength is only somewhat above upper human levels. He has great senses and his bones allow him to sustain damage without dieing but even his skin is not much better than Joe Average human. No he is not too powerful. He uses his wits, aggresiveness and attitude more than his powers to keep on coming.




Thats fine but it is canon as it is not the Rifter which is optional so a disagreement with people outside your group you have to use canon material as a guideline.




All the post above where you said it is too unbalancing. I figured you were using your gaming group as your basis of reference.



Why are you asking me? Earlier in the thread you mentioned how the average NPC in CS and GI were of 6th level like it was too much. I was just pointing out how silly it is to even bring up NPC's level as though it were bad. That and the fact that the books are filled with Heroes and Villains that could wipe the floor with Defenso-Man.



Because whether you like it or not or allow it in your games or not it is CANON material. I know it is easy to argue things the way you would like them to be but again when dealing with people outside your own group you have to acknowledge canon material. Thats just the way it is because most people on here don't acknowledge mine or your house rules as a valid point to argue with.



I know you are trying to be insulting but I told Gaius that I will be civil so I will just explain how it works on most boards that I have been too. You go in and either ask a question or put forth a post expressing your views and then someone comes in and disagrees with you then you have what is called a debate. Nowhere is it written that if you ask a question (specially the way I did where anyone that reads it should see that I was also slamming people who lable others) and then after getting an answer that you can't retort or argue the point or any of the tangent points as it may be.

For future reference if people ask a question and admonish people in the same thread then they might disagree with you even though it comes off as a question and more than that they might actually take you to task on it and or defend their point of view which runs counter to yours. If you don't like debating then you really should not put yourself out there on Gaming Message Boards specially because at least half are gonna have ideas that you won't like and if you are a defensive person then you might be upset a lot because Gamers are nothing if not opinionated and passionate about their games.



Actually No I am not and I must remind you that Gaius ask us to be civil. I am more of a person that ask a person what canidate they like and if it is someone I hate then I tell them my views and why then if they want we discuss and or debate it.

I really don't understand why you got so upset? Just because I ask a question does not preclude me from responding to your post and if I disagree, tell you so?

Doesn't sound that bad. I've done worse, and that in canon. Supernatural PS, Invulnerability, Slow Motion Control. Now THAT'S 'munchkinesque'

This got me thinking and I want to direct a question to Preacher (but I do not mind anyone else chiming in on the subject). It just seems like you are tired of people limiting Heroes Unlimited. I have thought about my own personal rules I have (really just one) and I am wondering if you would have a problem with the matter.

I do NOT allow anyone to take the Major Power Invulnerability.

Reason: I do not want the game to become either A.) Hide behind the Invulnerable guy or B.) Work at everything to stop the Invulnerable guy. Basically, everything tends to revolve around the Invulnerable guy (combat wise of course).

Yes, I do understand the way to stop it and such. I just eliminate it to stop it from being a headache every session (because I am to make the game enjoyable to all, not the one). I will say that I do allow villains to have the power though (it does make an interesting game to have them stop him).

Would you classify this as Inexperienced GMing?
How about a reasonable limitation?


And to continue to added to the topic:

I really hate how Munchkin is tossed around so loosely. I do see (and am sick of) people rearing their ugly heads to spit Munchkin everytime someone posts a character. Yes, there are the super munch type combos and such, but it goes beyond the fact of power.

A normal human with a gun can be munchkin if done right. (More evident in Rifts, another time, another board)

Same here. I'm another one of those who hold to the notion that it's the attitude of the player that determines munchkinism. I don't have a problem with characters of different power levels playing together in a campaign, as all things are NOT equal in life and therefore doesn't have to be in RPGs. I've played both the high-power and the low-power hero, and as long as all players had an opportunity to shine I've enjoyed both roles.

Granted, this can be a challenge for the GM to make sure and provide those opportunities for all the PCs to shine... but it's also up to the PCs to seize those opportunities. I've had PCs in my campaigns that were basically handed those opportunities on a silver platter yet didn't take advantage of them and gripe later that they were feeling 'left out.' Even as a player, I tend to try and get other players involved by intiating teamwork and/or interaction. It doesn't always work, but hey I try.

There are still plenty of ways you can thwart even an invulnerable character (it's not always necessary to kill a character); my sweetest memory comes from an old HU campaign many moons ago with an outright munchkin who would have made Preacher's 'uber street fighter' look like Steve Urkel by comparison. In the middle of one combat, a weakling teleported in right next to the character, grabbed the munchkin, and teleported 5 miles away. On his next action, the weakling teleported away -- effectively removing the munchkin from the battle and leaving him with no clue as to where he was (the battle was taking place out in the desert). He eventually made his way back to the group, but by then the battle was over.

But as with a lot of things, this has only been my experience. Your mileage may vary.

Man, I honestly believe that a GM and his players should be able to run his or her game the way that is fun for them. If there are no complaints from the players then the GM is doing fine. The limiting of Heroes Unlimited statement was spouted by me out of anger to a Palladium Freelancer who let it be known that players should not be what he termed in my direction Munch. I don't like anyone that likes the players being low powered cracking on someone who likes the heroes that can go toe to toe with big uber-Badguys. If they like that style of game then fine but I take exception when they start calling me munch specially when it is a Freelancer who even though they are not Palladium Employee will be accepted as speaking for Palladium by the board in general.



Thats fine if there are no complaints by your players.



Again thats fine if you and your players agree that is is not for your game. Myself I have never had a problem with this. I always tend to throw things at my players that would make even an Invulnerable guy run and if they are facing a team of baddies then he can't be everywhere and protect everyone so if the passengers on the City Bus need protecting at the same time the school field trip bus does then what is he gonna do? Stand and protect his friends that are hiding behind him or go try to save someone?



I disagree with letting the bad guys have "POWERS" that the players don't have but thats just me. When it comes to uber-tech then the bad guys can have it but not powers.




I would classify you as someone who runs his game to his taste and style.
My problem is with people that like low leveled adventures and games that honestly believe they are playing a superior form of Role Play and futher feel the need to tell people who like high powered games how they must be munchkin because they have always found true "ROLE" play in less powered games which is why I usually question a GM's experience if they say this because I have ran games with low and no powered characters that was explosive and high powered and I have also ran games with powerful (sometimes blatently illegally powered) characters where they had to go three to five scessions without combat of any type.





I agree about players being munchkin solely and that how anyone with an IQ over 75 could apply the term to a piece of paper with game notes on it is beyond me.
I just take exception to anyone who feels justified with slamming me if I decide to run a high powered game. Who the hell is anyone to judge me and my players no matter the type of game I play.
I don't care who you are whether you are like me and just a regular Joe Schmoe board member like you and me or a Freelancer, you have no right to slam anyones style of play as long as they are having a good time which is why I am getting fed up and confrontational whenever people bandy about throwing out insults to anyone playing a guy with more than two minors. They have no more right to call me munchkin than I do for calling them "Candylander."

We have a new term!

Candylander

Thanks Preacher!

Let's define it:

Candylander: (candy-lander); from the HU message boards; 1) Any gamer who believes that the only way to be a ROLE-player is to have everything "low powered" 2) Any gamer who believes that all the PCs in a group must be at the same "power level" to have a balanced game. 3) Any gamer who doesn't understand the fun in playing a HU character with 5 major powers 4) A GM who can't handle "powerful characters".

Let's face it power level is always relative to the situation. A character with 5 major powers probably won't be able to hack into the FBI mainframe to compare the finger prints of the super-villain they just encountered. He's helpless. He can't defeat what he can't find. The computer nerd, who has a hard time killing a fly, is at that moment the most important/powerful character in the group.

I like it! Can we make it French in origin? Or get Willy Wonka as the national Candylander spokeman?

I don't know though... with all the Atkins-friendly items popping up in the market like zits on a teenager's face, using a name that implies such a high sugar content may be a little too non-trendy. Can we call 'em "Low-Carbers" instead?



In all seriousness though... if you like high-powered games, play/run high-powered games and enjoy 'em. If you like low-powered games, play/run low-powered games and enjoy 'em. If you like four-color games, play/run four-color games and enjoy 'em. If you like grim and gritty games, play/run grim and gritty games and enjoy 'em. They're your games, and if you're having fun that's the whole point.

However, at least have the common sense to understand that there are people out there who prefer campaigns different from yours and show some common courtesy by respecting their opinions. It's okay to disagree and debate, but keep it free of the venomous malice. I'm not just referring to this particular thread; we see it much too often in just about every thread in every forum on these boards (which is one reason I'm not coming close to Sound Off during an election year ).

Munchkin or Candylander, Boy Scout or Anti-Hero, everyone's got some valid views at one point or another.

*looks around and notices the soapbox underneath him* Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy there... we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

In a strange way, I can see how my post my have came over as a little bit harsh. Sorry about that.

Basically, I just wanted to get your view on how you were feeling about Limiting certain things. I think the Munchkin aspect has been covered.

Now, for a little defense on my behalf, I chose to limit Invulnerability for several game happiness issues. (And it really isn't a problem with my players since I let them know upfront that its on the touchy side. I will allow it if the character concept is drawn out for me very well.) And you gave me a great example to use (the save friends or innocents). See, I don't want to have to rely on the same old thing to keep him busy. Teleporting, Negate, bizarre situation, etc. I like to keep things working for the entire group, and not singling out alot of major work with one character. (Call it laziness) I do understand the need for individual attention, but an Invulnerable character seems to take attention entirely too often. Of course, this is all combat wise, normally, he'd have to have some skills keeping him going truthfully.

Another reason I limit Invulnerability is for abuse. I tend to attract people who would like to abuse this power in too many ways. But I know, GMing is never easy. (Besides, I've been stuck with Rifts for too long. Just getting back into the HU thing again.)

I apologize to you if my responce to you sounded as though I thought you were being harsh. Your post came off as civil to me.

As for limiting the powers you give to your players that is completely fine and I have no right to judge you in any way if you choose to do that. If you know your players and sometimes have to reign them in to keep it from getting out of hand then I fully acknowledge you know your players better than I.

Again I want to stress I have no real problems with any GM running his/her game as they see fit. I think the majority of GM try to be fair to the players and if the player wants a power that the GM does not allow then most GM probably have a reason for not allowing it.

As for Invulnerability itself. Like I said I don't have a problem with it. I understand by your mentioning it above that you don't like to have to come up with special ways to deal with it every time and thats fine and completely understandable. Heck I could see the arguement that by making all the Heroes Vunerable then it keeps the Players on their toes and more aware of their Characters likelyhood of dieing if they act stupid often. I have no problem with that in the least.

My way of dealing with Invulnerability is that in my Games the really tough guys and the really powerful guys always get a reputation and therefore have a larger share of problems. Attention focused on a IL guy allows the not so tough but otherwise skilled or sneaky oriented characters to be effective in other areas. You know what I mean? The Invulnerable guy will draw more fire so the group sneak can sneak into the building and rescue the hostages and things like that.

As for one of the earlier points about the eight minors not being too powerful, thats just me. I don't equate a character having good dodge bonuses and healing factor as over powered specially when the only offensive damage giving power is Ext. P.S. By the same token if a GM is starting a new game and tells the players to roll up new characters with a limit of four minors or two majors or one major and two minors then that is just good GMing. He is establishing the adventure guidelines beforehand so the players should not be Munchkin and want more powers for the character.
Sorry about the long windedness. I was trying to be through.

Behold the power of debate. (a civil one at that).

I was just trying to see where some people stood on various opinions. When it comes to HU, I think of a few people to talk to about certain ideas.

Um, faulty logic there- ANY game system allows for characters of different power levels to interact with one another. What games do you think HU is better for differning power levels than? When one character can have a flying supernaturally strong, invulnerable mutant while another plays a private detective, I think that there is actually HIGHER likelihood of uneven play then a system where, say all players get a certain number of points to build their character. Sure, both are open to abuse, but I would say HU's rolling for stats and powers makes it more open to such abuse than less, but YMMV.

I'm just curious...

How do you abuse Invulnerability? Apart from not getting hurt, which is the point of the power, it really doesn't do much. Granted, you can get hit with explosions & bullets & laugh them off, but...

Typically comboing it with other powers. And the worse part is Invulnerable with Magic and Psionic dampening powers and attributes. It tends to make the guy care nothing about their characters (both in good ways and bad, since nothing hurts them).

Other than that, just using it to disrupt the game much, and as I know, it is a player thing. I just tend to pull Invulnerable out unless someone can convince me to let them have it. (As of now, none of my players have yet to convince me, yet I have never had a conversation like this with them.)

Basically, I'd allow it if you told me why you should have it. (Using it in character references, showing how it would have been obtained due to mutantion/experiment, I'd need a good story for it. Although, I tend to want a good story no matter what.)

And now that I see this, I think I may know why some of games tend to suck a little. I have great vision, and yet my players have none (or so it seems). Ah well, I will just have to see what the first session of my HU game brings me. (starts April 9th)