Superhero games

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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.

But with RPGs part of the fun is simulating a setting. Of course, you can always model a superhero camaign off of a TV show or film adaptation.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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 accept that too. When I was younger I ran a camapign where we had, of all things, a girl. At one point much of the campaign was fouced around some players "conquering" the girl (both in and out of character), than combat or any other aspect of the camapign. While role-playing was heavy, said group was far from mature. We were also 14.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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

Sure, lots of thing are. It isn't the combat that is exciting, its that combat is presented as a challenge, and has risks. If something is presented as a challenge and with risks and rewards, it can work effectively.

For example, many CoC adventures aren't focused around fighting Mythos nasties, but preventing such a conflict. Likewise PCs aboard a run away train, or trapped in a buring building can all be good alternatives to combat.

Its the conflict and elements of risk, danger and reward that are exciting.

[drohem]

When I used the term 'RPG maturity,' I wasn't refering to chronological age. The RPG hobby is at point now where new recruits didn't go through the whole dungeon crawl mapping, severely chart-based concepts, and wargame-esk era to finally break-on through to role-playing that didn't involve charts, dungeon crawls, or board-tied adventures.

I think that people that started playing RPGs in the 70's and 80's kind of went through phases or stages of role-playing.

This is only an opinion and severe generalization. Of course, there are always exceptions. Personally, I kind went through this type of catharsis in my role-playing style and tastes.

As a young role-player, I needed charts, pre-made adventures, and rulebooks in order to GM or play.

These days, I can take as little or as much from a rulebook and modify to my tastes. I can create senarios and campaign settings without any outside influence or reference. I can create adventures based upon roleplaying with no combat, or based upon non-combat skills. I can adapt, modify, or create completely new rules for an existing game, or none at all. If I have as little as BRP booklet, I can create a vibrant game and setting with no problem today. I can wing-it as a GM now and run my games with confident fluidity, whereas, twenty years ago I would have floundered.

[Atgxtg]

drohem,
Oh, I agree with you. As a long time RPGer, I went through most of the same phases. A few years ago I ran acorss one of my early scenaruios. Pure Room/Monster/Treasure, but it was something written a long time ago.

Today, many player can and do bypass a lot of that. It's been quite a long time since graph paper was a required tool. But, since most gamers play D&D, and D&D hasn't evolved at the same rate that other RPGs have (D&D is just now reaching the 80s), most gamers aren't much different.

[seneschal]

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by seneschal

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

Kudos for making me look up the word maven.

[TriOpticon]

Originally Posted by seneschal

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

I would definitely like to contribute to this project if it ever happens. I do not think I have the experience to lead the project, though.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But with RPGs part of the fun is simulating a setting. Of course, you can always model a superhero camaign off of a TV show or film adaptation.

I don't think that means it has to work out precisely like the setting to be effective; a set of PL 12 Mutants and Masterminds characters might not have as varied a power level as some versions of the JLA, but that's not going to change the feel of the setting materially. And frankly, some settings just make bad games for any number of reasons (the biggest being that they don't support group play, which I still maintain is a necessary component for most gaming groups).

I can accept that too. When I was younger I ran a camapign where we had, of all things, a girl. At one point much of the campaign was fouced around some players "conquering" the girl (both in and out of character), than combat or any other aspect of the camapign. While role-playing was heavy, said group was far from mature. We were also 14.

I was dancing around a bit, but that is sort of what I was refering to. Honestly, most of the time when I see someone talking about the "maturity" of their play style, it usually translates into an opportunity to look down their nose at styles they no longer play. To say that makes me roll my eyes a bit is--an understatement.

Sure, lots of thing are. It isn't the combat that is exciting, its that combat is presented as a challenge, and has risks. If something is presented as a challenge and with risks and rewards, it can work effectively.

For example, many CoC adventures aren't focused around fighting Mythos nasties, but preventing such a conflict. Likewise PCs aboard a run away train, or trapped in a buring building can all be good alternatives to combat.

Its the conflict and elements of risk, danger and reward that are exciting.

The problem is that most of those things when examined are one or two people doing anything that matter, and the rest trying not to get killed while they do. That sort of thing palls quite quickly for most people. Its actually very hard to find a useful activity where a group all actually _contribute_.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by seneschal

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

Well, honestly, there's two good game systems on the market that already serve the superhero needs pretty well, so I'd have to find a subset that would actually be _especially_ well served by a BRP version. Past that, it wouldn't be hard to spruce up the full fledged Superworld with some of the more refined systems from the upcoming combined BRP; I'm just not sure there's much of a market for it. The original, which was, in the end, not a bad game, failed, after all.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by seneschal

OK. After seven thread pages of sound and fury I just want to know one thing. Which of you RQ/CoC/Superworld mavens is going to write the NEXT great BRP superhero product? With the advent of GORE, you don't have to wait to put your decades of experience to good use.

More like if that who will.

Before anyone put their head on that chopping block, I think we need to actually have a copy of the BRP rules.

IMO opinion, it would probably be better for someone to update and revise Superworld than do a new BRP Superhero RPG.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I don't think that means it has to work out precisely like the setting to be effective; a set of PL 12 Mutants and Masterminds characters might not have as varied a power level as some versions of the JLA, but that's not going to change the feel of the setting materially. And frankly, some settings just make bad games for any number of reasons (the biggest being that they don't support group play, which I still maintain is a necessary component for most gaming groups).

Depends on what you are trying to model. If I was playing a game set in the Marvel or DC Universe, or any campaign based on an established setting. I would expect things to work like they do in that setting, and be disappointed if they did not. Few things ruin a supers game more that seeing Batman or Spiderman getting gunned down in the first fight.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I was dancing around a bit, but that is sort of what I was refering to. Honestly, most of the time when I see someone talking about the "maturity" of their play style, it usually translates into an opportunity to look down their nose at styles they no longer play. To say that makes me roll my eyes a bit is--an understatement.

I've seen some of that, too.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The problem is that most of those things when examined are one or two people doing anything that matter, and the rest trying not to get killed while they do. That sort of thing palls quite quickly for most people. Its actually very hard to find a useful activity where a group all actually _contribute_.

No more so than combat. Unless you are running a hack & slash campaign, the adventuring group usually has one or two characters who are doing things and the rest acting in a supporting role.

I'll also add that once you get past 4 or 5 players you get the same problems, only worse.

The reasons why combat is front and center isn't that it keeps everyone more involved, just that it is the easiest thing to run. Toss a half dozen expendables at the PCs and the job is done. And most GMs are lazy. Heck half of them can't even write their own adventures-one big reason why D&D is the most successful RPG; Brain optional.