Superhero games

[Simlasa]

I don't know how relevant it is but...
The old Whispering Vault game sometimes gets described as being an odd sort of superhero game...
In the game the heroes each had powers and alliances that could help with the overall goal... but there were also powers that only functioned for the group as a whole... some of those were automatic... others required active participation to pull off. There was also something of a building up of group experience... as they worked together, and got to know each other better, new powers for the group became available.

I don't know that I've seen that sort of thing in other games... or maybe it's common and I just keep missing it.

[drohem]

d20 Deeds Not Words has a similiar mechanic. As a team functions together, they gain bonuses that apply only when the majority of the team is present. The Team bonuses are tiered as well. The longer a team operates together, the better the bonuses. They call it a Team Bond.

Also, Deeds Not Words has the concept of the Omega characters (i.e. villians); whereas, it would take a whole supers team or several to stand toe-to-toe with a villian of this magnatude. This is something similiar Galactus.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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.

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.

I've seen some of that, too.

But I try not to put that as an accusation where it may not be warrented. I note there's been one member of this board who's been pretty blunt about that being the case in his case in the past, and I haven't hesitated to bust his chops about it, but I don't care to jump to conclusions regarding others on it.

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'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_.

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

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.

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

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.

[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.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

JLA didn't compress things much. Especially once you

I can't agree; the difference in power between, say, Superman or Green Lantern and the other founding members in the comics is quite a bit more pronounced than it is in the cartoon; I'll give you there's a bigger gap with the expanded roster members, but its not a coincidence that most of those signficiantly weaker than the founders don't appear in episondes with them very often; when you see them, its normally with each other (other than a few like Captain Atom who are clearly in the same weight class as the originals)

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.

While I won't disagree that Crises lopped off the top of the power curve, I stand by my opinon above about the cartoon. You see the cartoon Superman bothered by things that no version of Superman since the 50's would be.

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.

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.

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.

Vulnerable perhaps, but not hopeless. That's not true in most other areas of specialty. And it doesn't change the fact that the specialists in combat can't handle the problem by themselves in the majority of cases, while the specialists in intrusion don't usually need anyone else (in fact, you usually don't even need more than one).

This is no different than most other adventure-fiction genres; in almost all of them, whatever else anyone can do, they're at least competent fighters. Barring specialized subgenres (mecha or fighter jock environments for example) you can't say that about virtually any other field of endevor; some will be completely hopeless, and its unusual for more than one or two to be more than at best competent. Even the occasional exception tends to change over time when it comes to the random noncombatant.

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.

Given I've seen the same pattern in a dozen groups, some with no overlapping members over the years, I don't have any sign its unsual. And _all_ the local RQ groups did this back when RQ was a going concern. Its not at all hard to pull off with BRP or RQ; you just take a fair bit of casualties until characters get to a certain level of competence, and then you take the occasional one thereafter.

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

No, we really can't. Even if we'd done it the same time, what that does is eliminate the idea that my experience is aberrational. That's why I brought it up, not as an appeal to authority. Short durations in the hobby can sometimes lead to insular experiences; longer periods with a variety of other players makes it a much less convincing explanation.

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

No, it works for some people. My claim is that those people are in the minority, and I'm afraid its going to be next to impossible to convince me otherwise, for reasons I indicate above; it goes against more than 30 years of experience in the hobby. You're welcome to disagree, but at that point I think we have a fundamentally irreconcilable difference of premise.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I can't agree; the difference in power between, say, Superman or Green Lantern and the other founding members in the comics is quite a bit more pronounced than it is in the cartoon; I'll give you there's a bigger gap with the expanded roster members, but its not a coincidence that most of those signficiantly weaker than the founders don't appear in episondes with them very often; when you see them, its normally with each other (other than a few like Captain Atom who are clearly in the same weight class as the originals)

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.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

While I won't disagree that Crises lopped off the top of the power curve, I stand by my opinon above about the cartoon. You see the cartoon Superman bothered by things that no version of Superman since the 50's would be.

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.
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!".



[quote=Nightshade;3344]
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.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Vulnerable perhaps, but not hopeless. That's not true in most other areas of specialty. And it doesn't change the fact that the specialists in combat can't handle the problem by themselves in the majority of cases, while the specialists in intrusion don't usually need anyone else (in fact, you usually don't even need more than one).

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.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

This is no different than most other adventure-fiction genres; in almost all of them, whatever else anyone can do, they're at least competent fighters. Barring specialized subgenres (mecha or fighter jock environments for example) you can't say that about virtually any other field of endevor; some will be completely hopeless, and its unusual for more than one or two to be more than at best competent. Even the occasional exception tends to change over time when it comes to the random noncombatant.

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.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Given I've seen the same pattern in a dozen groups, some with no overlapping members over the years, I don't have any sign its unsual. And _all_ the local RQ groups did this back when RQ was a going concern. Its not at all hard to pull off with BRP or RQ; you just take a fair bit of casualties until characters get to a certain level of competence, and then you take the occasional one thereafter.

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.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

No, we really can't. Even if we'd done it the same time, what that does is eliminate the idea that my experience is aberrational. That's why I brought it up, not as an appeal to authority. Short durations in the hobby can sometimes lead to insular experiences; longer periods with a variety of other players makes it a much less convincing explanation.

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 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.

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.

On a similar tact, most gamers I've talked to think that classes, levels, increasing hit points, and lots of magic items are the only way to game, and that other methods "don't work.".

Originally Posted by Nightshade

No, it works for some people. My claim is that those people are in the minority, and I'm afraid its going to be next to impossible to convince me otherwise, for reasons I indicate above; it goes against more than 30 years of experience in the hobby. You're welcome to disagree, but at that point I think we have a fundamentally irreconcilable difference of premise.

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 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.

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.

[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.

[soltakss]

You can have cavern-crawls in different kinds of games with no problem whatsoever. In Sci-Fi games they are Bug Hunts, in SuperHero games they involve hitting the Super Villain's Secret Complex and so on.

The old-style Dungeon Crawls are a bit different in that you had vastly different creatures in close proximity with no logical reasons why they'd be there. Hopefully, people put more thought into the reasons why things are in complexes. But, there's nothing inherently wrong with going through a complex like a dose of salts.

I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.

The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.

Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.

It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.

[TRose]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.

The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.

Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.

It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.

And I agree with that 100% I played at times in scenarios that could be only called silly( Such as the time whe had to deal with the purple people eater)
to ones that where highly complex espinage ones. the important things is to have fun.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.

The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.

Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.

It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.

That was really part of my point above; groups that don't do much roleplaying amidst their combat aren't going to do so just because there's less combat; they'll just focus on the mechanical/game parts of whatever's being done instead. Conflating combat/non-roleplaying and noncombat/roleplaying not only doesn't match reality, I think it misses the point.

And the point is that people get different things out of roleplaying games. For some, they _are_ primarily games with a patima of roleplaying on them and some characterization to give the game context. For some they're essentially just a dollop of resolution mechanics on top of a largely roleplaying and interactive experience. And spaces in between. But to refer to one or the other as "more mature" or "more sophisticated" is to confuse one's own taste with a universal value, and I really think the hobby would be better if people got over that.