[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

That is more of a issue of limited time to teel the story. In the comics, you can split off with such characters for a subplot. With 22 minutes and 6 main characters, you can't do that. Also, for a Super TV show, things revolve around fights. The same is true with comics in general.

The first isn't really relevant; it'd explain why you don't see them _all_ at the same time, but it wouldn't stop them from having an episode where you'd see, say, the Shining Knight and Wonder Woman as the starts. But you don't see much of that; but you see very little of that. Most of it is people in the same approximate weight class operating together. When the founders show up with others, its almost always types in the higher power class, like Captain Atom. You do get the occasional exception (Supergirl in the episode where she was with Green Arrow and the Question) but they're distinctly the unusual cases, and even there you usually see that the gap is not as large as you'd expect.

[qutoe]


I still say crisis. Pretty much every film and TV version of Supers since the 70s is bothered by such things. Supers now has to strain to stop a train or falling 747.

[/quote]

Yes, but you don't seem him bothered by autocannon shots (albiet mildly) the way he was in the time travel to WW2 episode or a few others. In fact, in the most recent movie using him, you see the exact opposite. He's now not clearly that much power powerful than, say, the Martial Manhunter, which is not apparently the case in the comics even now.

As for "compression", you can do that a bit more with characters like Superman because they are so powerful, that they can be scaled down quite a bit without most people noticing a difference. For instance, only comics fans are aware of Crisis and how post-crisis Superman is significantly weaker that pre-crisis. As long as he is bullet proof, can fly, has X-Ray and HEat vision, can crash through wall, and can pick up a car or truck, it is enough for most people to say, "That's Superman!".

But at that point given the coarseness of the genre, you can push all kinds of things together and make that work. That was my point.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Well, yes, but that's a genre convention, not an issue of power per se; superhero comics are intrinsically unrealistic in their handling of physics and biology.
[./quote]
Yes, but from the RPG standpoint, a comics based RPG needs to mirror that paradigm.

Sure. I just don't think its directly related to what we're talking about.

We disagree here. I'd like to see some of your gaming groups, since in my experience the best way to whack a group is to take out the front rank fighters. Generally the first rank fighters are better than the typical monster, but the second rank fighters aren't.

Depending on how you define "typical" I'd say the second rankers are typically better too. They may not be better than the above average one, but the gap isn't usually so pronounced as to be an insurmountable problem. Even the third stringers can usually handle rank and file minion types (though not necessarily in large numbers). Its clearly a matter of degree rather than kind.

No, it depends on genre and style. It is just that most RPGs emphasis combat. If other skills aren't that important is is becuase that is what the GM/style is encouraging.

And as to the first (genre) I don't really agree, within the range of adventure fiction genres. I don't think use going back and forth on that is doing anything that repeating ourselves; do you?

Again, style. Fist off, most of your casualties in RPGs are based on player competence rather than character competence. In most of the groups I've played in, it's the same people getting killed each week, regardless of characters.

Not in mine. It makes some difference, of course, but I've seen capable players lose characters in unforgiving systems just because they weren't up for what they got into, and I've seen somewhat lackluster players get by fine because their characters were up to the job as long as run with just basic competence.

Yes we can. How long someone has been doing something doesn't necessarily mean that someone is skilled or experienced. As I pointed out earlier,. I know

Skilled, perhaps. Experienced, on the other hand, I disagree with too; by definition if you've been doing it steadily and for a long time, you're experience. It may favor bredth or depth over the other, but its one or the other.

a group that's been playing the same crummy way for over 25 years. They make all the same mistakes, the same people keep dying, and they have the same complaints week after week.

And I'd argue they are experienced. They just haven't chosen to act on that.

Playing the same way for a long time, doesn't validate your argument. It is the diversity of your RPG experience that would apply here. I've played and run RPGs that don't revolve around combat. They work. If you haven't, that doesn't mean that they don't. Just that either that you haven't done so, or that it didn't work for you.

And it didn't work for reasons I have every reason to beleive won't work for most people. You don't agree. What is it you're expecting here?

Of course they are in the minority. Anyone who isn't playing Room/Monster/Treasure D&D is in the minority. But if all you want to do is fight, why not play D&D. Or just play a wargame. I know a lot of people who

I don't consider anything wrong with D&D for that sort of high-heroic adventure, actually. As to the other--that's an old saw and frankly, playing the dozens; a wargame without RPG is not the same as an RPG, even with the same amount of combat going on. I'd expect better of you.

play computer "role-playing" games. Most of them have no actual "role-playing" experience whatsoever. It just a first person shooter with customizable character. Not role playing.

And nothing about non-combat games makes them more roleplaying. In fact, all they do is move the focus to a different area that can be just as mechanical. And combat is not, by its nature, anti-roleplaying. That's a trite assumption.

It is that most people don't bother to try anything other than what they have been told is "they way" that such is the minority. Its the same reason why RQ/BRP is in the minority, and will stay there. Same reason why D&Ders who "know" how to game, keep getting slaughtered whenever they try RQ.

And I've seen plenty of people who did try games with less combat with exactly the results I mention. You can believe me or not as you like.