Superhero games

[drohem]

/lastword

There!

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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.

I think you are missing the point. Your whole argument in this thread and in the Kepping MAgic from overpowered fighters thread is that balanced power levels are needed to make an RPG work. THey are not.

Everything should not be power balanced just because SOME people only want to fight. That is them forcing their style of play upon everyone else, including game designers.


I never said that people should, or have to play one way, only that there are other ways to address problems outside of keeping everything balanced. Play balance is an illusion, anyway.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think you are missing the point. Your whole argument in this thread and in the Kepping MAgic from overpowered fighters thread is that balanced power levels are needed to make an RPG work. THey are not.

Everything should not be power balanced just because SOME people only want to fight. That is them forcing their style of play upon everyone else, including game designers.

And I think game designs that don't pay attention to that are serving most of their end users badly. What more do you want out of me?

I never said that people should, or have to play one way, only that there are other ways to address problems outside of keeping everything balanced. Play balance is an illusion, anyway.

And I disagree with that, too, or that the other ways on the whole are good ideas. That's the bottom line here--I say what I do because I think its the case. I explain why. Repeating your disagreement doesn't change my opinion, because I've heard the reasons before. Its not new to me. Its not a surprise. And bluntly, it frequently sounds just like telling someone that the only reason they don't know this is because they haven't been exposed to it. Its perfectly possible to have seen these sorts of thing in operation and conclude that for most players they don't work. And when the response to that is to suggest that most players are immature, I know no way to read it _but_ to be setting the speaker's style above others. If that's not what you're intending, then I have to suggest in this thread you have done a poor job of what you are intending.

[Atgxtg]

You are the one who is setting your style above others.

You kept stating that combat is the primary goal and that not focusing on it (youtr style, apparently) does a disservice to most "end users".I'm saying that there are other ways to approach situations in gaming besides fighting. You're the one saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat, and that any other way is some sort of exception that won't work for most people.

If that's what you think, why don't you just play D&D? Sounds to me like it has everything you desire. A game that based around combat, and play flows from one fight to the next, and better still is supported by the majority of gamers.

From what you have been stating, I don't see why you would want to play a game like RQ/BRP that wastes so much time and pages on things like skills, cults, and cultures, all of which detract from the thing that you hold above everything else, combat. Just think how much more fighting you'd get in an RPG with with a lot more "encounters" each session.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

You are the one who is setting your style above others.

Actually, no, he is not. He is saying that a lot of people enjoy the tactical or mechanical side of RPGs and that it is no better or worse than the Role-Playing aspect.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

You kept stating that combat is the primary goal and that not focusing on it (youtr style, apparently) does a disservice to most "end users".

Again, no, he did not say that combat was the primary goal, he said that "game designs that don't pay attention to that (combat) are serving most of their end users badly". Saying that you should not ignore combat is far different than saying that it is the primary goal.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I'm saying that there are other ways to approach situations in gaming besides fighting.

And as far as I can tell Nightshade is saying that it is perfectly fine to do so if that is what you want to do.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

You're the one saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat, and that any other way is some sort of exception that won't work for most people.

He didn't say that RPGs should be devoted to combat. Where did he say that? He did say that RPGs that didn't focus on combat don't work for most people (but not all). Again that is different than saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

If that's what you think, why don't you just play D&D? Sounds to me like it has everything you desire. A game that based around combat, and play flows from one fight to the next, and better still is supported by the majority of gamers.

From what you have been stating, I don't see why you would want to play a game like RQ/BRP that wastes so much time and pages on things like skills, cults, and cultures, all of which detract from the thing that you hold above everything else, combat. Just think how much more fighting you'd get in an RPG with with a lot more "encounters" each session.

This is just being rude.

First, there is nothing wrong with D&D. I never liked AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, but found the update to 3rd to be a vast improvement. Others would disagree, that doesn't make anyone wrong. It just means we have different tastes.

Second, it seems you are implying that he should go play an inferior game (D&D) because he is not advanced enough to play RQ or BRP. Please correct me if I am wrong! But the tone I am getting from your post is not very polite.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

You are the one who is setting your style above others.

Nonsense. I'm saying something that _resembles_ my style is the majority, and designers that ignore that have decided their game is only going to cater to a subset (IMO not a huge one) of the hobby.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of this because Lord Twig expressed it as well as I could, and doing so would be repetitive. The fact someone else understood my points perfectly suggests to me that you should perhaps read them without the filters of your biases here. Come back and talk to me if you actually want to engage with my points rather than what you're projecting onto them.

(Though as an aside, in regard to superhero gaming _specifically_, I think a game that ignores or downplays combat significantly is largely a failure to emulate its source material. That doesn't mean every superhero story is all about fights, but I'd bet if you grabbed any random 20, 19 of them would have a combat of some nature in them. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with games like Capes that are emulating this structurally rather than with literalist resolution; but I doubt seriously that would be satisfying to the majority of people wanting to play a superhero game, no matter how much better it emulates some parts of the experience).

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

This is just being rude.

First, there is nothing wrong with D&D. I never liked AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, but found the update to 3rd to be a vast improvement. Others would disagree, that doesn't make anyone wrong. It just means we have different tastes.

Second, it seems you are implying that he should go play an inferior game (D&D) because he is not advanced enough to play RQ or BRP. Please correct me if I am wrong! But the tone I am getting from your post is not very polite.

And that's why I was objecting to it. I defy anyone to find me badmouthing any of the indie games that take a different tact from the rather gamist mainstream; all I've ever said is that they don't serve that mainstream, and that the mainstream is not "immature" because its tastes don't happen to fit a subset that prefers a different focus.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

(Though as an aside, in regard to superhero gaming _specifically_, I think a game that ignores or downplays combat significantly is largely a failure to emulate its source material. That doesn't mean every superhero story is all about fights, but I'd bet if you grabbed any random 20, 19 of them would have a combat of some nature in them. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with games like Capes that are emulating this structurally rather than with literalist resolution; but I doubt seriously that would be satisfying to the majority of people wanting to play a superhero game, no matter how much better it emulates some parts of the experience).

But the key difference is that comice don't take a reasaltic approach to handling combat. Fights are as often as not, unbalanced, and heroes rotutinely beat more powerful adversaries through wits or luck.

BRP doesn't model that well. A PC hero who goes up against a much stronger foe is going to get smashed. In the comics such heroes either don't get hit, or if they do, they only take relatively minor injuries. In some cases (like being hit by an angry Hulk or Solomon Grundy), even a broken arm can be considered a minor injury.

Balancing off the encounters isn't the best way to handle things. It's better to be true to the material that to the system.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But the key difference is that comice don't take a reasaltic approach to handling combat. Fights are as often as not, unbalanced, and heroes rotutinely beat more powerful adversaries through wits or luck.

I don't see that as any different than most adventure fiction.

BRP doesn't model that well. A PC hero who goes up against a much stronger foe is going to get smashed. In the comics such heroes either don't get hit, or if they do, they only take relatively minor injuries. In some cases (like being hit by an angry Hulk or Solomon Grundy), even a broken arm can be considered a minor injury.

I don't recall saying that BRP was a particularly good choice by itself for superhero game. However, there are ways to tweak the system to make it a better one.

Balancing off the encounters isn't the best way to handle things. It's better to be true to the material that to the system.

And that's entirely a matter of taste and expectations.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Actually, no, he is not. He is saying that a lot of people enjoy the tactical or mechanical side of RPGs and that it is no better or worse than the Role-Playing aspect.


Again, no, he did not say that combat was the primary goal, he said that "game designs that don't pay attention to that (combat) are serving most of their end users badly". Saying that you should not ignore combat is far different than saying that it is the primary goal.

And as far as I can tell Nightshade is saying that it is perfectly fine to do so if that is what you want to do.

Yeah, Twig. He has been writing that combat is the most important thing. Look.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

He didn't say that RPGs should be devoted to combat. Where did he say that? He did say that RPGs that didn't focus on combat don't work for most people (but not all). Again that is different than saying that RPGs should be devoted to combat.

When he says that it doesn't work for most people and that game companies that ignore that are not serving the end users, he is strongly implying it.
Even the "most people" line is inaccurate. Most people don't play RPGs. Among gamers, "most people" translates to a fairly spefic age group of teen to college age males, most of whom are playing D&D.

But they are not the only people who game. One reason why women are sort of rare in this hobby is because most of the groups they see are just doing the fighting thing.

There are whole communities of RPGing where people do other things though. RQ was one of them.

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

This is just being rude.

How so? If there is nothing wrong with D&D them what is there to be insulted about? If balanced fights are so important, then D&D is THE system to go to, since that is a major desgin concept of the game. And combat has always been the priamry focus of the game too. Not much chance of WotC changing that anytime soon, either.

Really, what's the point of playing a game like RQ/BRP? It takes a completely different approach. Just look a Call of Cthulhu. You don't think that combat is a primary factor in that RPG? Avoiding combat is more the point. CoC is also about the most popular RPG in the horror genre, too.

But why take all the "baggage" that goes along with RQ, BRP or whatever if combat is the priamry goal? You'll get a lot more of it in d20 games.

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

First, there is nothing wrong with D&D. I never liked AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, but found the update to 3rd to be a vast improvement. Others would disagree, that doesn't make anyone wrong. It just means we have different tastes.

Second, it seems you are implying that he should go play an inferior game (D&D) because he is not advanced enough to play RQ or BRP. Please correct me if I am wrong! But the tone I am getting from your post is not very polite.

ead my post. I never made a quality judgment about D&D, or claimed that one system was better than another. No, What I'm saying is, if he believes fighting to bo so improtant to a RPG, then why isn't he playing a game that is designed to support that view?

Lots of fighting in BRp/RQ is counterproductive. One big reason why RQ wan't as combat fouced as D&D is that the critical hits will wipe out any group fairly quickly. If the game sessions were near constant combat, I doubt any group would last a month or two.

So what I really want to know is, just what is it that Nighshade likes about RQ/BRP? What are his reasons for preferring it over a more combat oriented game?


As for being rude and impolite. I've found many of his statements to be condescending ("his 30s years of experience. So what? Virtually all BRP fans are old fogies who have games since the 70s or 80s. That doesn't make his experience any less anecdotal. Time is simply not enough informational to go on. I've know people who have games for as many years. Some are good, some still don't know what dice to roll half the time. I've also known people who have been driving for 30 years, but aren't any better at it than people who haven't) and rude (he doesn't just not respond, he "Won't bother to").