Superhero games

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

Truth & Justice conflicts are very abstract, with only a limited number of values that a "Quality" can take. The base PDQ system has only five levels: Poor, Average, Good, Expert, and Master. T&J adds "normal scale" and "super scale" to the mix, where a "normal scale" Master quality can sometimes compete with a "super scale" Average quality.

So, according to the rules, Batman can have a "super scale" Gadgeteering that's the same as Superman's "super scale" Kryptonian Physique. If the GM buys the argument that they compete on an equal footing -- e.g. Batman prepared a few anti-Superman gadgets, or has an "undefined" gadget to play -- then the odds are 50/50.

T&J, and the base PDQ system, resemble HeroQuest with far more radical simplification. PDQ Qualities are more like HeroQuest Keywords than abilities.

Sounds sorta FUDGE based. Much like FATE and SOtC.

But with those games, while the character creation rules would put them on the same footing, a write up of the characters wouldn't. Supermans Physqiue would probably, in FATE/SotC terms be beyond the normal +5 cap.

Of course, he is the definitive extreme example. The smaller the degree of difference, the easier is is to make it work.

But FATE/SotC is more narrative/storydriven than number cruching anyway, so such a spread isn't as big a factor. In BRP a +8d6 damage bonus is hard for someone without super hero type armor to handle.

[fmitchell]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But FATE/SotC is more narrative/storydriven than number cruching anyway, so such a spread isn't as big a factor. In BRP a +8d6 damage bonus is hard for someone without super hero type armor to handle.

Which I guess goes back to an earlier point, that PDQ, FATE, and HeroQuest primarily attempt to "simulate" stories, while BRP (among other systems) tries to model the real world in some way. (Didn't RuneQuest get a thumbs up from the SCA for their combat system.)

One way I can see making BRP supers work is to restrict either the level or kind of powers the PCs and powered NPCs have. For example:

• All PCs have the same number of Hero Points to buy powers, and gain additional Hero Points at more-or-less the same rate. Super-powered NPCs are all comparable to the PCs, except perhaps for a Big Bad.
  
• All the PCs could strain at the limits of realistic human achievements, aided by slightly implausible technology, a la most pulp heroes or the Watchmen (minus Doctor Manhattan). NPCs could be ordinary humans, extraordinary humans, or low-powered superhumans.
  
• Only certain types of powers exist, e.g. psionics, elemental control, power rings, Superman-like abilities.
  
• All powers have a rating like T&J Super Qualities or HeroQuest Abilities, perhaps on a percentile scale; roll against a fixed difficulty to perform miracles with normals, or opposed against supers who have comparable or diametrically opposed powers.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

Which I guess goes back to an earlier point, that PDQ, FATE, and HeroQuest primarily attempt to "simulate" stories, while BRP (among other systems) tries to model the real world in some way. (Didn't RuneQuest get a thumbs up from the SCA for their combat system.)

RQ was written by SCA members-some in high standing. So it's no wonder it good a thumbs up. RQ also suffers a bit becuase of it's SCA roots, too. In some ways it is combat by and for "weekend warriors" rather than by skilled combatants.

Originally Posted by fmitchell

One way I can see making BRP supers work is to restrict either the level or kind of powers the PCs and powered NPCs have. For example:

• All PCs have the same number of Hero Points to buy powers, and gain additional Hero Points at more-or-less the same rate. Super-powered NPCs are all comparable to the PCs, except perhaps for a Big Bad.
  
• All the PCs could strain at the limits of realistic human achievements, aided by slightly implausible technology, a la most pulp heroes or the Watchmen (minus Doctor Manhattan). NPCs could be ordinary humans, extraordinary humans, or low-powered superhumans.
  
• Only certain types of powers exist, e.g. psionics, elemental control, power rings, Superman-like abilities.
  
• All powers have a rating like T&J Super Qualities or HeroQuest Abilities, perhaps on a percentile scale; roll against a fixed difficulty to perform miracles with normals, or opposed against supers who have comparable or diametrically opposed powers.

You could do that, but IMO it is the wrong way to go. I think that a RPG rules should work in an appropriate fashion to mimic the genre or setting that it is being used for. THe setting should not be shoehorned to fit the system.

One good thing about Chaosium games like Strombringer, ElfQuest and CoC, was that Chaosium would always tweak the rules to fit the setting. Rather than forcing the Multiverse or Lovecraftian Horror into the RQ mold, with battlemagic, rune magic, cult writeups etc, each setting has it own rules designed to reflect its own reality. THat is the right way to go.

By contrast, most D&D settings shoehorn the setting so that it works with the standard D&D rules. Each world has the same classes, Tolkien (token) elves, dwarves and orc, the same magic systems, and the same magic items.

That's one reason why setting books for D&D don't wow people. With D&D one 5th level fighter has a lot in common with any other 5th level fighter. It all becomes interchangeable, and bland.

I think the way to handle things, is to mirror the comics. The GM should make sure that there are challenges for each hero, and that some things require multiple heroes to resolve.

[Simlasa]

RQ also suffers a bit becuase of it's SCA roots, too. In some ways it is combat by and for "weekend warriors" rather than by skilled combatants.

In what ways specifically?
Just curious... not arguing...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Perhaps the biggest challenge has less to do with game mechanics but with game style. For instance many RPGs need to work some sort of balance of power between characters, or at least between the PCs and their opponents.

Supers games don't. Batman just isn't in the same league as Superman (okay,

I actually mostly disagree here. Things occur in the comics that are not well served in games, and one of those is having characters with vastly different levels of power, especially combat power. You can do that in a comic for the same reason you can do it most non-game media; the characters aren't being played by individual players, can as such can be underutilized and jerked around by the writers and editors at will. Do that in a game and generally bad things result.

This isn't really any different than problems with literalist transcription of situations from most non-game media; the discrepencies are just more obvious because of the power levels involved.

[fmitchell]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think that a RPG rules should work in an appropriate fashion to mimic the genre or setting that it is being used for. THe setting should not be shoehorned to fit the system. ... I think the way to handle things, is to mirror the comics. The GM should make sure that there are challenges for each hero, and that some things require multiple heroes to resolve.

The last bullet point was porting the Truth & Justice method of handling powers to BRP. That is, rate powers on their narrative effect, rather than their practical effect. Tossing around buildings is easy; hurting another super is hard. (The tricky bit is interfacing normals and supers. I haven't really worked that out.)

Since T&J, I think, does the best job of handling wildly different power levels of any superhero game I've seen, that might be the way to go.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

In what ways specifically?
Just curious... not arguing...

Well, in the fumble rules. I suspect that real warriors probably don't drop their swords or have pieces of armor come flying off, or hit their allies quite as much as people playing in the SCA do.

Likewise, block and parry are lumped into the same category, something that makes sense for inexperienced fighters, who would be happy to block, and wouldn't try for a true parry.

Not to bash Steve or anything. It's not like we have a lot of master swordsmen walking around these days to learn from. Sword & Shield hasn't been a front line fighting skill for quite some time.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

The last bullet point was porting the Truth & Justice method of handling powers to BRP. That is, rate powers on their narrative effect, rather than their practical effect. Tossing around buildings is easy; hurting another super is hard. (The tricky bit is interfacing normals and supers. I haven't really worked that out.)

Since T&J, I think, does the best job of handling wildly different power levels of any superhero game I've seen, that might be the way to go.

I just got the free Sprit of the Season supplment that works for both SotC/and T&J. From what I've read, the two games have the same approach.

So, I'll accept bullet #4 as an option.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I actually mostly disagree here. Things occur in the comics that are not well served in games, and one of those is having characters with vastly different levels of power, especially combat power. You can do that in a comic for the same reason you can do it most non-game media; the characters aren't being played by individual players, can as such can be underutilized and jerked around by the writers and editors at will. Do that in a game and generally bad things result.

This isn't really any different than problems with literalist transcription of situations from most non-game media; the discrepencies are just more obvious because of the power levels involved.

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 is nice about SotC is that each skill is useful and has stunts that make them as powerful as a high weapon skill. In SotC, Batman COULD intimadate the man of Steel, trick him, or come up with a gadget that could level the playing field (Kyrptonite gas greandes?).

Using my example, Batman has skills and abilities that allow him to do things that Superman can't. So a good GM would write an adventure that has things that require Batman to use those abilities. One example would be if some sort of virus was released. Superman might be immune, but that won't help Lois, Jimmy, or anyone else. So in that situation Batman could work on finding a cure to the virus, making his chemistry skills important.


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.

The trick to making non-combat actions interesting is to give them the same sort of staged success and detail that combat gets. This can be handled in a few ways, for instance breaking down a task into multiple rolls. Then add in benefits from accomplishing various parts of the task.


I used to love RQ becuase you could run mixed groups. You could have a girzzled old veteran fighting alongside a novice. Becuase the game wasn't all about the fighting, there were a lot of things you could do that you can't in D&D. The inherient lethality of the game meant that a GM didn't have to pump up the monsters just to keep the veteran challenged.

SO it really is a lot about playing style.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

The last bullet point was porting the Truth & Justice method of handling powers to BRP. That is, rate powers on their narrative effect, rather than their practical effect. Tossing around buildings is easy; hurting another super is hard. (The tricky bit is interfacing normals and supers. I haven't really worked that out.)

Since T&J, I think, does the best job of handling wildly different power levels of any superhero game I've seen, that might be the way to go.

I can't help but wonder if trying to port a subsystem from a game that's fundamentally different in design philosophy that way is--well advised. BRP and RQ are, at their root, pretty simulationist systems; they're in fact about as far away from dramatist systems as you can get, as they're set up with little built in recourse to make the game in that direction.

Naturally, one should do what you want, but I can't help but think if one wants a strongly non-simulationist experience that starting with BRP is just not ideal, and porting over a powers system designed for that isn't going to help but a limited amount.