[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'd argue that the animated JLA compressed the power level of the characters in the comics considerably, but people didn't seem to have a problem with it. Similarly, I've never seen people have a big deal over the fact their team doesn't have wide variations in power. In the end, unless you're just an incredible authenticity-uber-alles junky, why would you? You care if it has the right feel, and that's not a necessity for that.

JLA didn't compress things much. Especially once you got to the expanded roster with different heroes guest starring every other episode. The major "compression" of power in the DC universe was Crisis. Compared to that, everything else is minor.
Where comics and comics RPGs work is in enfircung the reality of comics. For instance,m when superstrong character hits human strength character he sends him flying or unconscious rather than snapping his neck, spine, crushing his skull, collasing a ribcage, or any of the more realstic effects that go with it.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I've never seen that to be the case. Some characters might be superior combatants, but they couldn't handle the job by themselves. That's not true of the guys disarming the bomb, the guys climbing up to take control of the computer system, or any number of other things. That's because combat normally has multiple problems that are needed to be handled _in parallel_, where other sorts of things, even if they're multi-step, are handled _in serial_.

Really. I've see a lot of it. I've also seen a lot of bad players who bite off more than they can chew. The typical adventuring group tends to hanve a couple of tough melee fighters, a support fighter or two, and some characters whose strengths are elsewhere. Typically take out the two frontline fighters and the group becomes vulnerable.

I once screwed up a D&D campaign (D&D being the best example of such, since the class structure spells it all out) by messing around with party duities and putting the second string fighters up front.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Again, never seen it; most combats can't be handled by only the combat specialists; they may be the spearhead, but the rest is necessary, and necessary at the time.

I'd like to see some of your groups. It sounds like you are doing a lot of fighting (hard to pull off with RQ/BRP) or you have a unsual group.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

And I'm afraid I simply disagree. I think, and nothing in my history in the hobby has shown me otherwise, that it _does_ keep everyone more involved. And its not like I haven't been at it a while.

I've probably been gaming as long as you have, so we can take "time in hobby" out of the picture. It just seems that we have different experiences in gaming. I'll disagree with you, and there are many RPGs that can back up the non-combat approach, since it has been done, and it does work. I ran a Star Trek campaign for over three years with very little combat (a combination of no one in the group being good at it, combined with weapons that can disintegrate). As long as there is some worthwhile goal, and consequences for failure the game can be fun and exciting for all. I've run adventures where uncovering a plot or story goal (like who assassinated the ambassador) was far more interesting and exciting than the fight to capture the guy responsible.

It is all in just what you write and how interesting you make it, and how involved you can get the PCs.