Superhero games

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I'm not surprised at your stance. Basically it is the same argument as the one over Mages potentially overshadowing warriors.

I'll still say that the problem is more stylistic than system. The reason why there is a problem is because many systems and GMs run a combat oriented style of play, so any combat advantage will "unbalance" the campaign. The classic expample would be D&D, where everything is set up around the level of the characters. Toss in a 10th level PC with a 5th level D&D group and there goes the campaign.

But, if you use a differernt apporach, and make the non-combat skills as useful, fun and interesting as combat, the problem disappears. One thing that

The problem is that on the whole, in the sort of adventure settings that are usually being represented, I don't think those other abilities _are_ as important, when viewed in terms of screen time and the like. That doesn't mean they have no importance. In addition, I don't think most other aspects of the game are usually well suited to group activity. For the most part, investigation, intrusion, research and other aspects tend to be individual, or perhaps small subsets of groups doing them. This can mean quite large periods with most of a group twiddling their thumbs. So even if you deliberately downplay the common combat elements in most genres, you still have problems.

One thing that most RPGs do is that they put tons and tons of detail into combat, while glossing over most other actions with a single "success/fail" skill roll. A fight with a thug could take a few minutes, have lots of give & take as the characters punch, kick, dodge, duck, and grapple. On the other hand, scaling a 30 story building usually means-make a climb roll.

While I don't entirely disagree, I think that's largely to address the above issue. You usually don't have the whole group scaling the building, so spending too much time on it can easily be seen as counterproductive. One of the interesting things in the freeware game JAGS is the idea of Dramatic Systems; basically turning pass-fail rolls into little subgames like combat. I think that works when you've got a whole group that will be involved in those subsystems (as, for example, a whole group of spies doing an intrusion operation) but I don't think its actually benign when you have a bunch of seperate specialties.

SO it really is a lot about playing style.

While I don't _entirely_ disagree, I think there's some issues of degree I can't agree with this on.

[Atgxtg]

I think we are reaching a common ground.

I for one will say that I think the stress on combat has less to do with it being more sutiable as a group activity then the fact that RPGs grew out of wargames.

Many RPGs tend to treat combat as interesting and exciting, and everything else as a distraction. In fact, other activities are often penalized by the way such games award experience. For example, negotiating a peace treaty, or saving someone's life on the operating table aren't rewarded as well as knocking off a half dozen goblins.

It is all about challenges, an consequnces for failure. Often combat is exciting because the stakes are high (in many games, if you loose, you loose your character). Tension can build, the situation can escalate, and so on. If we add other forms of conflict, and give them rewards and consequences then they can be exciting, too.

I thing the major obstacle is that such an approach is relatively new, and many GMs just don't consider it. That one reason why STR and DEX are so important in RPGs, while INT and APP aren't. In the real world a high INT and APP can do a lot for you (or get other to do a lot for you). In most RPGs an 18 APP/CHA isn't nearly as good an an 18 STR.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think we are reaching a common ground.

I for one will say that I think the stress on combat has less to do with it being more sutiable as a group activity then the fact that RPGs grew out of wargames.

I'd argue that its basis on adventure fiction has at least as much to do with that, but whether that was a choice first is a chicken-and-egg argument.

Many RPGs tend to treat combat as interesting and exciting, and everything else as a distraction. In fact, other activities are often penalized by the way such games award experience. For example, negotiating a peace treaty, or saving someone's life on the operating table aren't rewarded as well as knocking off a half dozen goblins.

I think its bad to extend that arguement too far; that's been an element of D&D, but even D&D itself moved somewhat away from that with 3e (where you can get every bit as much negotiating with the goblins as killing them, if that will also solve your problem) and few other game systems even pay attention to what you're fighting as such. In fact, short of directly D&D derived systems (such as Palladium), I'm not sure I can think of one that does. Can you (as you seem fairly knowledgable in the field)? Certainly none of the other big name systems (GURPS, Hero, Storyteller) do.

It is all about challenges, an consequnces for failure. Often combat is exciting because the stakes are high (in many games, if you loose, you loose your character). Tension can build, the situation can escalate, and so on. If we add other forms of conflict, and give them rewards and consequences then they can be exciting, too.

But again, that doesn't solve the individual-involvement problem, and I don't think that's at all trivial.

I thing the major obstacle is that such an approach is relatively new, and many GMs just don't consider it. That one reason why STR and DEX are so important in RPGs, while INT and APP aren't. In the real world a high INT and APP can do a lot for you (or get other to do a lot for you). In most RPGs an 18 APP/CHA isn't nearly as good an an 18 STR.

But in the real world, you aren't concerned about keeping a whole group of players involved, either.

[drohem]

It has to do with group dynamics and GM styles. Our group does enjoy combat and it's a major part of most adventures. However, we do reward for roleplaying, creative thinking, and non-combat solutions.

I don't want to sound agist, but I think it's also a function rpg maturity.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

It has to do with group dynamics and GM styles. Our group does enjoy combat and it's a major part of most adventures. However, we do reward for roleplaying, creative thinking, and non-combat solutions.

I don't want to sound agist, but I think it's also a function rpg maturity.

I'm not sure that really has that much to do with it, honestly, though combat oriented adventures are likely to be what most people start with; but they're also often what some of the longest running groups I've ever heard of still mostly focus on.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm not sure that really has that much to do with it, honestly, though combat oriented adventures are likely to be what most people start with; but they're also often what some of the longest running groups I've ever heard of still mostly focus on.

Probably because some group never mature. I know one group that has played D&D for 30 years. The current GM has been removing all the 3.0 and 3.5 rule changes and is running it more and more like the way he ran AD&D 20 years ago. 95-99% of any XP awards are for combat, and character interaction and role-playing is viewed as slowing the game down.

Sadly, most other D&D player's I've seen aren't any better. All pay lip service to role-playing, and acting in character, but most adventures are little more than the old "Room/Monster/Treasure". Most "role-players" simply add a reason why the group is going through lotting the dungeon but the rest is the same.

I see this with most non-D&Ders too. Many claim they are roleplaying, but most are fighting.

I think its bad to extend that arguement too far; that's been an element of D&D, but even D&D itself moved somewhat away from that with 3e (where you can get every bit as much negotiating with the goblins as killing them, if that will also solve your problem) and few other game systems even pay attention to what you're fighting as such. In fact, short of directly D&D derived systems (such as Palladium), I'm not sure I can think of one that does. Can you (as you seem fairly knowledgable in the field)? Certainly none of the other big name systems (GURPS, Hero, Storyteller) do.

I can think of several that do, but most have chose to simply the advancement. I don't think it was a move towards roleplaying as much as a move away from calculators. For example, even D&D derived games like Palladium don't calaculate XP per monster, but simply by encounter.

But most groups I see focus on the combat. Not so much by choice, but becuase that's the only thing that is presented as exciting.

[soltakss]

Look at the comics. Many of them are combat-intensive, or the ones I used to read were. Ditto the films. Spiderman getting lumops whacked out of him, batman cracking heads, even Daredevil liked to mix it.

Combat has always been a big part of SuperHero comics and should be a big part of SuperHero games.

There are, of course, other things that are good fun. If you play The Nerd then you will be good with computers and science stuff; if you play The Whizz then you will be good at travelling quickly; if you play The Brain you will be good at problem solving and planning.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to taking out SuperVillains and that may well involve combat.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

Look at the comics. Many of them are combat-intensive, or the ones I used to read were. Ditto the films. Spiderman getting lumops whacked out of him, batman cracking heads, even Daredevil liked to mix it.

Combat has always been a big part of SuperHero comics and should be a big part of SuperHero games.

There are, of course, other things that are good fun. If you play The Nerd then you will be good with computers and science stuff; if you play The Whizz then you will be good at travelling quickly; if you play The Brain you will be good at problem solving and planning.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to taking out SuperVillains and that may well involve combat.

Oh, sure. But with team comics, things are presented so that each of the heroes contributes. The reason are pretty simple. Each fan has his or her own favorites, and expects to see them strut their stuff in a team.

If Superman were to take out all the villains in a couple pages at superspeed, it might be very logical, but not very satisfying to the Batman and Wonder Woman fans. Nor would it be very dramatic.

I think to play in a particular setting or genre, the GM needs to use rules that mirror the game reality rather than adjust the reality to fit the rules.
The comics can do a lot of things to keep the group of heroes working as a group, and many of those ides would would well for gamers. The trick is getting a more powerful PC to go along.


But heroes in the comics do thing other that combat too, and that is something that is often lacking with RPG groups.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Probably because some group never mature. I know one group that has played D&D for 30 years. The current GM has been removing all the 3.0 and 3.5 rule changes and is running it more and more like the way he ran AD&D 20 years ago. 95-99% of any XP awards are for combat, and character interaction and role-playing is viewed as slowing the game down.

Sadly, most other D&D player's I've seen aren't any better. All pay lip service to role-playing, and acting in character, but most adventures are little more than the old "Room/Monster/Treasure". Most "role-players" simply add a reason why the group is going through lotting the dungeon but the rest is the same.

I think what I'm doing is delicately suggesting that this is less an issue of maturity than whether one's tastes change over time. Some of the most role-playing intensive groups I've ever seen were fairly young, but I'd hardly have qualified them all as "mature"; they were simply focused on a different part of the game. Its quite easy to have a roleplaying adventure that's not combat oriented but still pretty immature in any general meaning of the term.

I can think of several that do, but most have chose to simply the advancement. I don't think it was a move towards roleplaying as much as a move away from calculators. For example, even D&D derived games like Palladium don't calaculate XP per monster, but simply by encounter.

But most groups I see focus on the combat. Not so much by choice, but becuase that's the only thing that is presented as exciting.

I'm still unconvinced that for _group_ participation, much else is.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think to play in a particular setting or genre, the GM needs to use rules that mirror the game reality rather than adjust the reality to fit the rules.

While I don't entirely disagree, I think that both medium and genre matter; TV superhero shows don't look entirely like comic ones, nor do movies, so making some adjustments for games to not look entirely like their genres in other medium is no greater evil.