Dealing With The Problem Of Character Growth & The Arms Race

Well, what kind of limits have you placed on the Active points that powers can have? Break limits down for various power types or by category; offensive powers can have a maximum Active point value of X where defensive powers only up to Y, mental powers that aren't attacks up to Z, and so on. It's arbitrary, but it forces your characters to stop at an upper limit consistent with the campaign's setting. If you don't want to have to throw cosmic-level villains every session, then don't let your PCs get to that level of power. There are plenty of in-game reasons why they can't just keep ramping the powers higher and higher without end; just set and enforce limits on power. It'll force the combat monsters to branch out, either into skills or into new powers at the very least. Meanwhile, they won't be outpowering the RPers in combat situations.

Well, what kind of limits have you placed on the Active points that powers can have? Break limits down for various power types or by category; offensive powers can have a maximum Active point value of X where defensive powers only up to Y, mental powers that aren't attacks up to Z, and so on. It's arbitrary, but it forces your characters to stop at an upper limit consistent with the campaign's setting. If you don't want to have to throw cosmic-level villains every session, then don't let your PCs get to that level of power. There are plenty of in-game reasons why they can't just keep ramping the powers higher and higher without end; just set and enforce limits on power. It'll force the combat monsters to branch out, either into skills or into new powers at the very least. Meanwhile, they won't be outpowering the RPers in combat situations.

Sorry by the way, that anon poster was me by mistake.

The problem is that most of the GMs I know locally, and thus it is generally accepted practice by the players I know, consider Active Point Limits to be pretty much for the starting of a campaign and to not 1) Apply To character growth 2) Apply to GM characters.

Because 1 is true, 2 is accepted. If not then 2 is unacceptable to the players (except for Bases, Vehicles and Minions).

Additionally Champions supplement books encourage this attitude, with their examples and NPCs, and this means convincing players to accept what they consider unacceptable limits.

And, of course, the Starting point limits 'by the book' are not balanced. The problem of Defenses generally being cheaper than offenses is a constant in the setting, as is the advantage of Bricks over other characters (in regards to point costs). The high cost of some advantages and certain powers make many standard magic systems unplayable under the active limits as well.

Generally the players won't put up with it as the only solution and without justification that meets their approval (difficult). And a game without players is a damn quiet game. Rather pointless, don't you think?

Well, you know something? A game that can't continue because of the player-run arms race is just as quiet in the end as a game with no players at all. You're the GM for that game. Doesn't matter what other GMs or even HERO Games does. (shrug) Player approval is important... to a point. Players have to understand why things are the way they are, but they don't necessarily get a say in it. If they don't like it, let them play somewhere else.

Find a balance that works for you and works for the game. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons in-fiction for having point caps and power limits. If they don't like those reasons, well... tough.

Reasons for point caps in fiction? I'd love to see a recent example of that. I don't know how much 'modern fantasy' and 'modern fantasy/horror' you've read recently, but escalating power is common many of the popular books in the genre (ex: Kim Harrison's series books, Laurell Hamilton's various series books, etc.) The same is true with Tv series in a similar Vein (Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Charmed, etc.)

I guess I'm trying to decide if it is inevitable that a campaign will reach a 'jump the shark' point of power where in Hero the GM just has to say time to end it and design a new campain, there is nowhere left to go.

My GM places a 75 Active Point limit on all powers and requires that at least 10% of EPs be spent on non-combat powers and skills. The game has been going on for over 10 years and although the characters who have been in the game since the beginning are among the more powerful supers on the planet, they aren't cosmic level by any means. You can also split up the team to give less combat-oriented characters a chance to shine in fights.

There's no reason why a combat-oriented character has to be the focus of the story. If anything, I would think the characters plowing their points into contacts and such would be the more natural focus because they are actually *doing* stuff as opposed to just beating the bad guys over the heads. These characters have lives aside from fighting villains, right? Exploit that for story potential. DNPCs are particularly useful in this respect. There are any number of personal problems that won't be solved by powers.

If anything, I would think the characters plowing their points into contacts and such would be the more natural focus

While some see this as heavy-handed, you can award pre-spent XP in the form of new powers skills or contacts. After all, unless the character is a gadgeteer or a geneticist, few supers actually decide what their new powers are - the writer does, and that's you. Plus, in comics, character-directed self / other improvement often goes awry or simply doesn't work: Witness the Hulk or Reed Richard's attempts to help Ben Grim.

Actually in a the genre I'm running the characters don't have a lot of lives outside of their jobs - they're agents of a covert rogue government agency that deals with supernatural and alien threats, not some bunch of vigilante superhero types. They have cover lives, but which do not include families or stable job environments outside the agency. (This is bureau 13, you're on call 24/7 as threats arise, and spend much of your non-field time dealing with training exercises, research, investigative work etc.)

None of the PCs have living family members (having lost family members in a hostile supernatural or alien threat situation that fails to kill them is often why they are recruited... think 'men in black').

One PC has a DNPC, related to her cover job (she's a marine biologist and has an assistant). No other DNPCs. Their only huntreds, with one character that's the exception, are job related and gained in game without getting points for them, of course. (The one with a hunted has an underworld supernatural enemy that she double crossed when a pro thief before becoming an agent).

A 75 point active limit doesn't cut it when you look at the values of real world gear by the books that hero publishes (like military field weapons and vehicles). It certainly doesn't meet the limits of spells in the grimoire books.

Obviously the game you're in has either converted with the rule set changes or is still running under one of the older sets, which one is true can affect the power levels of a party since the rules have changed considerably over time. I'm curious to know if you're under v5 rules.

10 years worth of eps, at the number of runs and point rewards we've done would place characters in the 800 point range, which is cosmic level according to the 5th edition rule scale.

How often is your group running? Weekly? B-weekly? Monthly? And what kind of point rewards are you seeing? Generally players around here expect anywhere from 1-7 points a session, and I'm considered on the thin side as I tend to award between 1-3 points in a session. Thinner than that and you tend to lose players as they want to see some result from their actions and become bored, and are a lot less likely to buy things like contacts if they only see 10 points from a 6 session storyline.

(A lot of Ex-D20 & D&D players abound, as well as White Wolf players, hero players are not as common as they were in this area a 15 or so years ago. This means they expect growth and growth points comprable in the games they run and play in. It's not uncommon, in D&D games, to see a character to go from 1st to 20th level in a class over a period of a year to a year and half of weekly long term game sessions in the games that they've played in.)

The game runs once a month these days. Once upon a time it was bi-weekly but as people have acquired partners/spouses, children, careers and the like, the group has cut back. The GM typically gives out 3 EPs per session. If we get 4, we know we've done some extraordinary roleplaying. Once I got 5 (5!) points for one session, and I was stunned and extremely flattered. We get EPs every session since there are multiple storylines going concurrently that rarely if ever resolve at the same time. Most people have more than one character that they rotate in and out of the game, so no character has gotten the whole 10 years worth of EPs. My primary character has 580 points currently (150 from Disads). We converted to 5th Edition when it came out.

You're right that the 75 point limit doesn't cover a lot of the examples from the book, but it's always the GMs choice to impose a point limit if he or she chooses. It's easier to do at the start of the campaign rather than 2 years in, though. Our GM imposed the point limit to avoid just the sort of power inflation you're dealing with. It does rule out certain powers and styles of play, but I think it's one of the main reasons the game has been able to survive so long. Personally, I prefer it to the unlimited Champions games I've played in.

There are a few other game requirements that I forgot to mention in my first post. Every character has to have 20 points of Vulnerabilities (player's choice) and at least 25 points of Mystery Disadvantage (GM's choice).

If the characters don't already have DNPCs you could always encourage them to acquire some by fostering in-character romances. Everybody has a libido. ;)

There's already a 3 character triangle involved in the party that's causing some interesting character development friction, but the libido thing actually doesn't apply to all the PCs (one of my PCs is an AI in Robot bodies, for example, another is a Yeti with zero interest in cross species involvement, so that leaves the one character who already has a DNPC who might be lured into such).

We have the bane rule in place, anyone playing a magic using or magical being or non-human must have a bane (Susceptability or vulnerability for 20 points or more), and Psi's have some special disadvantages that come with being a Psi. Mages also have a physical limitation as they have problems with electronic technology working for them - all tech gets a 15 or less activation roll when in the same hex as they are, or worsens their activation roll if they already have one my one level. Means no mage's with cell phones, driving cars, etc.

We had one character with a Mystery Disadvantage, which is actually what the current plot I'm running right now is centered around, but that's not one I forced on characters at start.

2 years into the game I really can't do any major rules mods without getting a ton of grief from the players... that's why I'm considering a shut down at the end of the storyline and designing a new campaign (but that takes a lot of ideas and work).

I find it interesting that you're up in the 580 point range and your GM isn't having these problems.... I presume it's a superhero game rather than one of the other genre possibilities?

Yeah, it's a superhero game, but I don't think the genre is the primary explanation. All of the characters have well-developed lives outside of their super duties. Despite the characters' best efforts, these personal lives inevitably become caught up in game events and provide endless plot opportunities. It is not at all uncommon for us to go through several games with no combat because the characters are busy trying to manage their real lives, and those are honestly my favorite games. It also changes the way the characters deal with the general public. It's a lot harder to dismiss the innocent civilians as collateral damage when Grandpa is one of the innocents.

After 2 years, your players would understandably be pissed if you suddenly changed the ground rules. Changing the rules mid-game is not fair. There's no reason why you can't do things differently in the next game you run, though. Explain to the players that you want to try something new to try to build a different atmosphere. I really don't see why you have to GM exactly the way your friends do. I enjoy playing with different GMs specifically because they run their games differently and create such different flavors.

I also don't see why one player leaving your game would necessarily mean that both you and your spouse would have to leave that person's game, particularly if you really are true friends. I have dropped out of friends' games before because I didn't like the way they were being run without it affecting the underlying friendship at all. Different people have different tastes in gaming. Any experienced gamer should be able to recognize that and not take it too personally if your game is not to their taste or vice versa. You seem to be extremely sensitive to the idea that your friends might not like what you do, but a longstanding friendship ought to be able to withstand a little disagreement and still survive.

And by the way, I do understand the difficulty in finding compatible players post-college. I'm a thirty-something mom who has spent many games nursing a baby through the combat scenes. I'm definitely not going to be running down to the student lounge for new players. That's no reason, though, why the GM can't set down some ground rules to control the direction of the game. That's exactly what the GM is supposed to do, after all.

the Power gamers overwhelmingly become the focus of the stories and the extreme roleplayers end up getting squashed when a fight breaks out by things that are meant to be a combat challenge for the power gamers...

Set some hard and fast limits. Crack down on the rules lawyers who squeeze the points 'till they bleed and twist the rules into nigh-unrecognizability. In my part of the country power gamers are a dime a dozen; the ones interested in genuine role-playing and character development are more difficult to come by.

Practice saying, "Yes, the rules allow you do to X, but this is MY game and you're not doing it here."

First, this is definitely a potential problem with the Hero System. Here's how I handle it:

1) Basic rule: all experience point expenditures must be approved by the GM. However, unless the person violates 2 (below), or does something that he hasn't laid the groundwork for (I want to spend to 10 EPs for Blockhead to become one of the world's leading physicists), I allow the expenditure.

2) I set power limits at the beginning of the campaign, and then slowly raise them as the campaign goes on. This forces the combat monsters to develop their characters in other ways, yet still allows characters to grow more powerful and combat effective as time goes on.

3) I make it understood that villains and NPCs will be as powerful (or as weak) as needed for dramatic effect. There will always be a way for the player characters to win the scenario (which may take several play sessions) - but it won't always involve defeating the villains in straight combat (at least initially).

4) Imaginative tactics and well-designed, cooperative villain teams are your friend. I built a villain team on 100 less points per character than a team of player characters once, just to show them the value of teamwork. The PCs won the fight, but it went three full rounds.

You can do the same. Your PCs form wedges to break through enemy groups. Nice. So have the enemy bricks up front and have them use a grab and throw maneuver. Once the wedge characters have been tossed to the sides of the map, all the villains go after the lower-defense characters, take them down, and then deal with the higher defense characters when they make it back to combat.

Flight and teleport as attack powers are wonderful neutralizers. Foci were meant to be disabled or stolen occasionally. Disads are there to be exploited. Invisible enemies can be wonderful.

A nasty idea - use a villain based on the movie Fallen. Got to stop him without killing the innocents he possesses; beat his host senseless or even kill him, and he just moves to another host.

If magic works in your world, hit them with a curse that drains them down, and make removing the curse the storyline for a while. Relocate them temporarily to a different time, planet or dimension, where they have to restrain the use of their powers.

Start paying attention to their collateral damage. If they blast a villain through a wall into a building, have civilians get in the way, as hostages or casualties. Normals are only speed 2, after all. They can't get way very fast. If they are playing characters with consciences, this will restrain them (especially if they collapse a building or two full of innocents). And if the group is mixed...roleplaying! :-)

It's up to you to set the rules and expectations for the game. Be up front about the rules, and the reasons for them, and good players will not be put off.

You know how much strength you need to pull off a grab and throw on a character that has 75 strength (base)? Quite a bit. Now add in enough martial skill to pull it off.. and a really good die roll. It's not effective in most situations as a tactic to use.

Flight Cannot be used as an attack power under 5th edition rules. You'd need to move them as TK and that is even more expensive that strength.

Foci that are bought as IIF and OIF require you to be able to get a turn to remove them from the character. Generally not possible unless you've knocked them out and have time to search the body. Not going to happen during a combat. Can't sit and strip the body armor from them while someone else pounds on you.

Invisibility is useless against area effect attacks and most mentalists. Especially if you have enough characters in a party that every sensory category is covered (one party member alone has every sensory option possible except for mystic and mental senses.... and those can be found in the other party members. These are folks who are sufficient paranoid in their character design to do these things.)

Innocents? Sorry these are government rogue black ops agents dealing with supernatural threats. They've killed off innocent civillians accidentally with no problems and are ususally capable of cleaning up after themselves so nothing shows they've been there. If they can't kill an opponent as it will just jump they just drag himsomeplace where there's no one to jump to (middle of the ocean for example, or antarctica, or into orbit) and kill them there... or encase the target in an entangle with more DEF than anyone can break. Entangles last until broken....

Drains are useless against enough power defense, and very expensive. Again the defenses are CHEAPER than the offenses and this is a mechanics problem.

Dimensional travel, not done lightly in the setting (it is one of the few places where I did put restraints on things with no problems from the other player gms as they also limit it considerably.... and that means the villains can't do it a whole lot either. Current plotline deals with a villain trying to get enough power to open a gate, thru transforming others into creatures to provide AID to boost their power to open a gate because it's so difficult to do.)

Time travel is not possible in the setting.

Again, dead norms are not a big issue, unless they have a whole lot of them. Current case has a body count of nearly 50 people already who were either in the wrong place at the wrong time or were being mind controlled by the villains as cannon fodder. Party policy - if it fights us or gets in the way it's collateral damage and not our fault. They are very good at cleanup and placing the blame on other sources, since they are trying to keep the normal world from knowing that there is a supernatural war going on. They cover stuff up as religious fanaticism, drug cartel infighting, street crime, tong wars, Yakuza hits, accidents, terrorists making bombs, etc. whatever is handy.

I have not had this escalation problem with other game systems that I've run, maybe because the other systems I've used have had better balances or more limited character growth or more limits on what could be done or developed. Hero seems to inevitably do this. There also seems to be an imbeded concept of powergaming in the system and in the playing style it inspires in people. I've seen folks who under another system would never become power gamers become such under the system. The way the skill system is designed may have something to do with it (most people will buy powers or stats instead of skills whenever possible because it is far more cost effective to dump points into their INT or DEX or PRE than into raising an existing skill).

You know how much strength you need to pull off a grab and throw on a character that has 75 strength (base)? Quite a bit. Now add in enough martial skill to pull it off.. and a really good die roll. It's not effective in most situations as a tactic to use.

You're the GM, it's IRRELEVANT. It's not like you have limits on how many points you spend on your villains!

Flight Cannot be used as an attack power under 5th edition rules. You'd need to move them as TK and that is even more expensive that strength.

You're the GM, it's IRRELEVANT. It's not like you have limits on how many points you spend on your villains!

Drains are useless against enough power defense, and very expensive.

Again, see above. You're the GM. You're GOD in this world. Who frickkin' cares how many points you spend on your villains?

We're trying to offer you options here and you're just saying "can't, won't, isn't possible." If you didn't want suggestions, why did you ask?

There also seems to be an imbeded concept of powergaming in the system and in the playing style it inspires in people.

I beg to differ, or at least state that that's not been my experience. IME, a munchkin will be a munchkin, regardless of the game system, and a good role-player will likewise be a good role-player, regardless of game mechanics.

most people will buy powers or stats instead of skills whenever possible because it is far more cost effective to dump points into their INT or DEX or PRE than into raising an existing skill

Not the gamers I know. We're interested in building well-rounded characters, not min-maxed combat monsters.

Again, YMMV, and obviously does.

Wrong Answer

GM is not God. GM is Game Manager or General Manager. This means I have some heirachal power, not absolute power. This isn't D&D, this is cooperative gaming. The GM has only a limited amount of power, must work withing the rules, and does not have unlimited resources. The same is true of the NPCs in use.

If I set a 75 point active limit, I'm bound by it. If I say no time travel powers in setting, then my villains can't be from the future. If I say no clairvoyance precognative abilities, then there are none and that means for the villains too.

The GM as God is an old school (late 70s early 80s) misconception that falls into the illusionist theory of gaming. That's not a style I run nor that I play in. Players have choice, effect and partial control of the game. This is standard basist concept of gaming.

In other words, we don't play chess with me suddenly deciding that I get three queens instead of three of my pawns at start to make the game more interesting to the other player. We have rules and we both agree that the game runs according to the rules. My job as GM is that they have fun in the game and that the game is run according to the rules.

The GM is god is a munchkin behavior.

Again my players expect me to use the Hero books and their examples and information as a guideline for building characters. It's part of the social contract that goes along with running the game.

As for the skill system, you can be well rounded AND realize that the skill system is broken. I playing PC can buy 20 INT based skills at the base level for them to work off my INT. Now, in play, which is more cost effective for those 20 non-combat INT skills, to raise each of them individually, or to buy up my INT? I can buy 5 points of INT and get an increase of +1 to each of those non combat skills, or I can spent 40 points for a +1 in each (or 20 points if they are something like science skills). Or I can spent 10 points for 1 Overall Skill level which can be applied to any one of those skills whenever I go to use it (If I can't raise my INT cheaply because of human Maxima limits).

That's a problem mechanically, since I also, if I can buy up INT, improve my PERC rolls, thus getting even more of a bargain for buy INT.

*bzzt* thankyouforplaying

The GM is god is a munchkin behavior.

Wrong answer, thankyouforplaying. It's a means of not being a doormat for every power gamer and rules lawyer who walks in the door.

Players have choice, effect and partial control of the game. This is standard basist concept of gaming.

I assume you meant to say "standard BASIC concept of gaming."

And I agree that gaming is a *cooperative effort*. In my husband paulcory's game, he is the GM -- or as I call it, God. That does not mean that he's an overbearing, tinplated dictator with deslusions of godhood. It means he sets the limits and we as players respect those. Within those limits we explore our world, take the game in directions he didn't forsee and do unexpected things with our characters.

It's not a straightjacket; it's recognition of the simple fact that while it IS a group effort, someone has to be in charge.

Again my players expect me to use the Hero books and their examples and information as a guideline for building characters.

What, so they can nitpick you to death if you so much as deviate a hair from what's in the book? The book isn't a holy text; it's a set of guidelines. You're perfectly within your rights to set house rules and limits, though you seem unwilling to do so for reasons you've stated elsewhere.

General Manager vs. Game Master

I really think the GM is something more than a General Manager. Traditionally, GM has stood for Game *Master*, as in the person in ultimate control. If the "God" terminology seems too dictatorial for you, think of it more like a storyteller or world builder. You have complete control over building the setting within which the characters then operate freely. It's your responsibility to make sure that setting includes the elements necessary for compelling gaming, including obstacles that that can't be easily (or maybe ever) fully conquered.

If the opponents are always matched point-wise with the characters, the characters are always going to be able to eventually defeat them. The PCs always have an innate advantage over NPCs -- you can't foresee every tactic or twist they'll throw at your villains because they don't think the same way you do. If you want them to be challenged, you're going to need to throw something more at them. As the GM it is your perogative *and your responsibility* to do whatever you need to to accomplish this.

The players should not be looking at the villains' character sheets. Whether the villains "follow the rules" should not be their first priority. Immersing themselves in the game and enjoying the scenario should be their focus. If an "unbalanced" NPCs makes the game more fun, then it's a good thing, not a violation. If you were just another player, you would be bound by the same restrictions as the PCs, but you're not and to do your job well you need a wider range of tools. Refusing to use them will not make you a better GM.

One thing the GM did in our campaign was to add in-game reasons for any point expenditure. For example, my mentalist missed a PER roll and didn't see an enemy. He was stitched by autofire and nearly died. After that, he developed a mind scan that would him to know the locations of humans in the vicinity so that he target them with mental illusions without them being in his line of sight. This power was "unlocked" over several gaming sessions, after the character was discovered and mentored by a more powerful mentalist.

Another character, who was a technomage and stereotypical 98 pound weakling, was able to spend points on the Dirty Infighting style of martial arts after he had been in a few scraps.

Our GM's other house rule was that we couldn't change our characteristics without and in-game explanation. One character in the campaign was a weight lifter. The GM let him add points of STR after a certain amount of time to represent his dedication to to bodybuilding. An intellectual character gained more INT after he paid for a KS that represented a college degree.

As far as plots are concerned, they needn't all be about the big strong superheroes pummeling the evil evildoers that do bad evil. Many comics go behind the scenes and show the non-supers and how their lives are affected by their super-husband/nephew/brother etc. Other stories are about how the super gets along in the real world as his secret "normal" identity.

Most of the characters in our campaign have day jobs. One is a banker, one is a research scientist, and mine tries to run a security company. One character is a reluctant vampire who does computer security for my characters company (at night of course), and the only one that doesn't have a real job is the body-builder. However, he is a ghoul who has to run errands for a rival vampire.

The unique background and interaction of the characters is great grist for the GM to put in his mill. Except for the vampire and ghoul, we all run around sleep deprived, trying to deal with dark evil forces and keep our day lives running smoothly at the same time. It has led to some interesting in-game happenings. My character essentially had to use CPs to hire a business manager so that he could adventure and keep his business from going under, and the banker and scientist have had to make rolls with sleep deprivation minuses on daily skills. The scientist was fired from a prestigious job after botching a roll on an experiment that he was doing for that very reason.

Since the campaign revolves around cosmic forces and conspiracy on the par with the X-Files, we've been thrown into the deep ends on several occasions and felt lucky to make it back alive. The main reason the enemies work so well is that no one PC can defeat them and it takes real teamwork to accomplish defeating them. They're not always all-powerful either, sometimes they are just built to be diametrically opposed to us, so that we MUST outwit them not just find a bigger hammer to obliterate them with.

Those are just of the few things I can think of off the top of my head that have made this campaign so interesting, even though we are all well above 400 points.

Not Just Hero

It's a common problem in pretty much any gaming system, but it's a lot easier to quantify in Hero. I had to deal with this in my World of Darkness games as well. My approach? I just accepted it and turned the stories of the individual characters into a larger part of a world story. When the characters became too powerful for the "villain of the week" to present much of a challenge, we retired them from play and started another game in the setting. The old characters were still around in the setting, but they were no longer PCs. We moved on with new characters in new locations. This helped the players and I see these characters as part of a single story arc, or maybe a set of arcs. Still not the permanent playing fixture that players expect in other campaigns.

Over time, this happened enough times that their new characters started bumping into their old characters, providing a whole new aspect of play. They got to see their favorite old characters from the perspective of somebody who was fresh and young, trying to make their own mark. Occasionally these old characters were the villains of the story! Suddenly old story arcs started coming back to bite the players in the rear. Certain suburbs of Chicago still hadn't recovered from that massive battle between Evil and Sorta-Evil-But-Fun-At-Parties (this *was* World of Darkness). Our new characters, who just happened to be trying to make a living in these suburbs, had a completely different view of that super-powerful vampire wizard they'd played a couple of years ago. Now their normal, run of the mill mortal characters were going to have to find a way to defeat the characters that the players had spent months or years building up towards incomprehensible power.

Oh man, that was a fun story.

So yeah, my perspective is not to worry about capping out a game and starting over. It may even give you more ideas for new story arcs!

Something we instituted to curb runaway XP was an active point cap of 60 for combat powers and a cap of 70 for non-combat powers, but which could be increased by 5 points for every 50 XP total earned. That way, it's a reward for being an active player. Also, many of the scenarios we run are skills-dependent. The "Get Them" strategy won't always work, and you can't always find the "them" to "get" unless you have the proper skills for doing so. As a result, we've seen a lot more increase in usage of XP to bring up existing non-combat skills or buy new skills.

Also, we award 1 XP per plot for "being there", an extra 1 XP for good investigation, and extra XP for great work, capping at 5 XP per character per plot. So again, it's weighted towards a "If you do really good work, you get more XP. Just being there and eating Cheetos will get you 1."

It's worked for us, so far.

Except that the point levels you are using doesn't reflect what most Champions characters reward. Usuually it's not awarded 'per plot' since complex multi-level plots and sub-plots are so common in storylines around here, it's a minimum of 1 ep per session (and a story may take anywhere from 1 session to a dozen or more to come to completion) and usually 3-7 per session being more common if a major storyline event, fight etc has occured.

If I trim down eps to a per plot level or fail to award for each session (since since there is a high probability of a player missing one or more sessions in a plot) the players will decide to shut down the game themselves, as I award what they expect based upon what other GMs use who run the game in the area.

Peer pressure, when it comes to gaming, does apply. A skinflint GM when it comes to eps is likely to lose players regularly. Same with a GM who doesn't allow growth, or who does keep his players entertained. Players do compare you with the other GMs.

These folks are friends, but they won't let friends walk all over them. Cutting the eps awards, would in their mind be doing just that.

These folks are friends, but they won't let friends walk all over them.

And yet they're walking all over YOU.

No, they are insisting I use the same rules and award expectations that they are in their games.

I think you're in a Kobyashi Maru situation, then. No way to win, so just accept that all your Hero games are going to die by out-of-control power escalation.

Best of luck to you and your players; I really don't think I can add anything else useful to the conversation. Though if you work out a solution, I think we'd all be interested to know what it is.