Superhero games

[Nightshade]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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").

[Nightshade]

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

Context, A. Its important. Not how I qualified "in terms of screen time". Not what that was in response to. Read for context, or you're going to misinterpet me, and as far as that goes, lots of other people.

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.

I'm doing no such thing.

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.

Context. Context. Context. We're not talking about non-gamers here.

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.

Funny, since White Wolf, which has been commonly credited as the company that brought more women into the hobby has pretty much as much emphasis on combat as anyone else. The only difference is the context in which it occurs.

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

Bluntly, nonsense. Most RQ games I ever saw, including those of the designer, spent just as much time on combat as D&D. The only differences were twofold: The combat felt more authentic, and the support for non-combat was more consistent (you didn't have the bizarreness of early D&D that people were lockstepped into class roles and doing something outside your class role was either forbidden or simply not addressed.

As an aside, somehow you've interpeted "combat is important in the vast majority of RPG groups" as "nothing else matters". This is an incredibly bizarre reading of anything I've said.

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.

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Its not either/or; somewhat balanced combat is an important element; that doesn't make it the only thing that matters though.

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

The point is that it permits a variety of character designs that aren't lockstepped into one mold, that the combat has more direct engagement, and that character growth is freeform including going into areas you didn't start in, combat or non. Support for non-combat options _is_ important. Its just equally important that it handle combat decently, because that's what most people are going to be dealing with in most games frequently.

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.

CoC is an exception that proves (that is to say, tests) the rule. You're correct that combat is deemphasized there, because it is in the sourceworks. That said, the "battle the cultists" meme isn't exactly uncommon in CoC scenarios.

However, that's because pure horror is not, in the end, an adventure fiction genre (any more than pure detective stories are); I also don't have much evidence that its all that popular as a genre in general in gaming for just that reason. It wouldn't suprise me that CoC is the most popular among those, but that's partly because its a small pool in the first place, but in that context CoC is pretty pure quill.

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.

But not better. As I said, you're making the error of assuming that only one element is relevant. D&D has (at least at lower to mid levels) relatively balanced combat. Its also, barring use of tactics fed off feat chains, boring. That's partly a price of its relative simplicity. Its also not very authentic feeling; it tries so hard to make sure that the overall structure of fights fit a certain high-heroic mold that it makes things very vague. None of this is attractive if you want combat to actually be _interesting_. For that you have to go to something like Hero, GURPS or RQ.

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?

I _do_ happen to consider RQ to support that. In fact I consider it to on the whole do a better job than D&D unless you're specifically trying for a high heroic game.

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.

I saw extended campaigns run here a two decades ago that had easily as much combat as most D&D games that had proceeded them. Most of those campaigns lasted for years. Once significant protective and healing magic becomes present, as it does by moderate level of experience, even crits aren't an automatic kill (in fact, the hit location system ensures that; half the rolled locations are in non-lethal locations. No one likes getting an arm sliced off, it it still leaves you with a character, and there's things you can do about it after the fact). In games with heavy runic focus, its not that hard for someone to pull a Divine Intervention out if worst comes to worse, and as of RQ there was an (albiet expensive) Resurrection divine spell (possibly before too; its just been too long for me to remember). There's nothing about RQ that makes a fair bit of combat undoable, and I can speak firmly on this because I've seen plenty of games that did so.

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?

Well, for starters, I don't see it as a "less combat oriented game". I see no sign that BRP people (outside the aforementioned CoC players) run less combat oriented games than anyone else. Certainly Steve Perrin ran as much combat in his last SPQR game as in any of his other games, and I don't recall any of the ones he ran back in the RQ1 days when I occasionally played with him differing from this. All it is that combat is more serious, requires more attention, and somewhat more has serious consequences. But that's true in a lot of combat oriented games; they aren't all D20.

Past that, I've explained it above as best I can.

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

Sigh. As I explained at the time, but apparently you chose to ignore, I simply wanted to forstall any attempts (as I've seen people do in this style of discussion before) to claim I "just haven't seen enough". I have. I wanted to make that clear up front. You really need to lose the chip here.

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").

At a certain point, responding is pointless, because the argument is doing nothing but circling. In other cases, someone else has made the statements I'd make (as Twig did earlier) better than I would, so what's the point?

I'll be really blunt here: I've not seen any sign here you want to actually engage with my argument. What I've seen is you taking offense at my position, taking offense at being called on essentially suggesting that those who don't share yours are immature, and ignoring points (such as my pointing out the limits of participation of multiple characters in many non-combat endevors) when you didn't seem to have, or at least want, to respond to them.

At that point, what's the point in my continuing to talk to you? The only reason I responded to this one was you (whether deliberately or not) seem to be misrepresenting my position in some areas.

Basically, if you're unwilling to assume my tastes are legitimate and I've come by my opinion that they're the common one, and with reason legitimately, then what's the use of talking to you about it? Anything else turns into essentially an exercise in trying to convince someone on the Net you're not a liar, and that's a loser's game.

[drohem]

Ok, you guys have beaten this horse to death. Can't this just be dropped? Why does someone have to have the last word?

"It's dead Jim."

[Nightshade]

Ok, you guys have beaten this horse to death. Can't this just be dropped? Why does someone have to have the last word?

"It's dead Jim."

Fair enough. I'm done.

[Lord Twig]

:focus:

I think BRP would do a good job of supporting a more grim and gritty or street-level superheros, and that could be pretty cool.

That kind of goes along with Atgxtg's point of not forcing the genre to fit the system, but fit the system to the genre. So, don't try to force High Fantasy or High Superheroics to fit with BRP, focus on what BRP does well. Think of heroes like Batman, Daredevil or the Punisher. Marvel's Cloak and Dagger would fit pretty well too. I'm sure there are more examples out there.

[Atgxtg]

:focus:

I think BRP would do a good job of supporting a more grim and gritty or street-level superheros, and that could be pretty cool.

That kind of goes along with Atgxtg's point of not forcing the genre to fit the system, but fit the system to the genre. So, don't try to force High Fantasy or High Superheroics to fit with BRP, focus on what BRP does well. Think of heroes like Batman, Daredevil or the Punisher. Marvel's Cloak and Dagger would fit pretty well too. I'm sure there are more examples out there.

I think that concept was raised 6 or 7 pages ago. Yeah, that would work with BRP. Characters like Captain America, and Batman are the easiest.

Generally as the characters get more powerful the problems lie in BRPs all lethal combat system. Even a Batman level punch for 1D3+1D6 is a bit hard to swallow in BRP. I think even a "grim and gritty" Supers campaign needs to address the "killer punch" issue.

Superworld (full version) had Energy points and a few other ways to tone down the lethality of the game. Personally, I'd be in favor of making punches, etc. non-lethal damage that gets taken off of general HP, and causing unconsciousness, with only a little (if any) real HP damage.

[Simlasa]

I think BRP would do a good job of supporting a more grim and gritty or street-level superheros, and that could be pretty cool.

And that's the kind of superhero game I'd want to play.

I agree that punches could stand to be less lethal... even though, as a high schooler, I attended the court trial of a man who killed a guy in a bar fight with a punch to the neck.

[Atgxtg]

And that's the kind of superhero game I'd want to play.

I agree that punches could stand to be less lethal... even though, as a high schooler, I attended the court trial of a man who killed a guy in a bar fight with a punch to the neck.

Yeah, that's just it. People do occasionally die from punches, but then more people probably die from slipping in the bathtub (more people die from accidents at the home than from gunshot wounds). I still wouldn't want to kill off a character that way, though.

The idea of running a WWII Captain America or a Batman or Moon Knight, along with a group of normal characters interests me. BRP could just about pull it off.

[Nightshade]

Superworld (full version) had Energy points and a few other ways to tone down the lethality of the game. Personally, I'd be in favor of making punches, etc. non-lethal damage that gets taken off of general HP, and causing unconsciousness, with only a little (if any) real HP damage.

Because of the way death was treated (it only happened when you blew through from your hits to negative Con, and then you got a luck roll based on how much past that) I actually rarely saw anyone die in it; Con is a wide enough number that it was pretty likely you'd go negative but not negative enough.

[Atgxtg]

Because of the way death was treated (it only happened when you blew through from your hits to negative Con, and then you got a luck roll based on how much past that) I actually rarely saw anyone die in it; Con is a wide enough number that it was pretty likely you'd go negative but not negative enough.

Yeah, but that mirrors the comics. Otherwise all those superpowers characters would have killed lots of people by now. If Batman got hit just ONCE by one of those high STR guys, it would be all over.

Old superworld (WoW) didn't use energy the same way, though. I wonder if there is a nerf rule for fists? I'm really not keen on a martial artist, Superhero or not, kicking for 1D6+1D4 or even 2D6+1D6.

[Nightshade]

Yeah, but that mirrors the comics. Otherwise all those superpowers characters would have killed lots of people by now. If Batman got hit just ONCE by one of those high STR guys, it would be all over.

No argument; almost all superhero games have one or more generic, genre supporting mechanisms of that nature. I wasn't objecting to it, just noting that you didn't have as much a problem with lethality for characters who were built the way the game expected them to be than some people seemed to thing.

Old superworld (WoW) didn't use energy the same way, though. I wonder if there is a nerf rule for fists? I'm really not keen on a martial artist, Superhero or not, kicking for 1D6+1D4 or even 2D6+1D6.

Watch super martial artists in the comics some time; you'll see them do far more than that. And that's not even getting into the more mystical flavored ones. You pretty much have to have them do so, or its simply not viable in that environment.

Now you could treat unarmed attacks as Stun effects in Superworld+ if you wanted to, but there's no obvious place to stop doing so with bricks and other super-strong types.

[Atgxtg]

No argument; almost all superhero games have one or more generic, genre supporting mechanisms of that nature. I wasn't objecting to it, just noting that you didn't have as much a problem with lethality for characters who were built the way the game expected them to be than some people seemed to thing.

Note quite sure what you mean here. Please clarify. :confused:

Watch super martial artists in the comics some time; you'll see them do far more than that. And that's not even getting into the more mystical flavored ones. You pretty much have to have them do so, or its simply not viable in that environment.

Oh yeah, I don't have a problem with the damage per say, in a Supers RPG (I do have a problem with it in most other settings), where martial arts can and do smash through brick walls and iron safes.

But I do have a problem with Batman or Captian America breaking bones, smashing skulls and such with every other punch. Basically it's a combination of the laws of comic reality (blunt weapons beat people up, knock them out, instead of inflicting serious injury-at least most of the time), combined with one of the gaps/weakness of BRP than stems form its age. IE. lack on non lethal combat.

Now you could treat unarmed attacks as Stun effects in Superworld+ if you wanted to, but there's no obvious place to stop doing so with bricks and other super-strong types.

For a supers campaign, I don't think you'd need an obvious place to stop. Personally, I'd probably go with something like damage past a certain amount (say a mutiple of HP) could be lethal. Or maybe swipe a rule from another RPG and give characters who take lethal damage from blunt attack the option of getting KO's instead for one round or minute per point of damage.

[Nightshade]

Note quite sure what you mean here. Please clarify. :confused:

Some people seemed to think that BRP was intrinsically too lethal for non-gritty supers; I was just noting that with the Superworld options in play, it really wasn't.

Oh yeah, I don't have a problem with the damage per say, in a Supers RPG (I do have a problem with it in most other settings), where martial arts can and do smash through brick walls and iron safes.

But I do have a problem with Batman or Captian America breaking bones, smashing skulls and such with every other punch. Basically it's a combination

That's only a problem of implimentation, though; the Superworld damage rules didn't even seem to treat the positive damage (i.e. the part above your unconsciousness threshold) as being anything more than bruising.

For a supers campaign, I don't think you'd need an obvious place to stop. Personally, I'd probably go with something like damage past a certain amount (say a mutiple of HP) could be lethal. Or maybe swipe a rule from another RPG and give characters who take lethal damage from blunt attack the option of getting KO's instead for one round or minute per point of damage.

Sorry, I thought you wanted some to be lethal and some not. My error.

[Atgxtg]

Some people seemed to think that BRP was intrinsically too lethal for non-gritty supers; I was just noting that with the Superworld options in play, it really wasn't.

I think BRP wasn't well suited towards Supers. That sort goes with it being more realistic. With the Sperworld options it worked, but was a bit clunky. Sort of like an overcomplicated HERO system.

That's only a problem of implimentation, though; the Superworld damage rules didn't even seem to treat the positive damage (i.e. the part above your unconsciousness threshold) as being anything more than bruising.

Yeah, but them most game system problems are. You can get any sort of result from nearly any RPG with a little tweaking. It depends on how much work you want to do to get the desired results. Superworld works to a point, but would not be my first choice to run a Supers campaign. Probably not even for a "street level" "reality with powers" campaign, although the latter would be easier.

Sorry, I thought you wanted some to be lethal and some not. My error.

Yes and No.

For a comic style super campaing, I think the rule is:

Blunt weapons bach, knock out, edged, pointed weapons injure/kill.

Massive overkill from blunt trauma (falling off a cliff, being beaten after the point of unconsciousness) MAY inflict lethal damage depedning on who is being hit and how much damage is being soaked at once.

For a standard BRP RPG setting, pretty much anything without Superheores, then I think some sort of non-lethal damage system would make sense to handle brawls and fistfights. Even something as simple as making a "stun check" when hit, and fumbling means a KO result would work. Maybe add 1d3 real damage after the fight?

[Steve Mitchell]

Does anyone know if the new BRP rules will have any provisions for super-powers? (Possibly someone who has seen the proof copy version?)

Or is anyone planning a licensed or authorized superhero supplement for the new BRP rules?

[Trifletraxor]

Yes and no as far as I know. (That is yes, there is rules for superpowers in the new book, but to my current knowledge, no-one is currently writing a supers supplement).

SGL.

[Rurik]

Super Powers are absolutely in main core release.

[NickMiddleton]

Does anyone know if the new BRP rules will have any provisions for super-powers? (Possibly someone who has seen the proof copy version?)

Yes. The powers chapter contains five different systems of "powers" - two magic systems (based on 'MagicWorld' from Worlds of Wonder and Stormbringer 5th edition) , a psychic powers system (developed from the system in ElfQuest), a mutations system (elaborated from Hawkmoon) and a super powers system (based on the two versions of SuperWorld).

All five power systems are based on previous BRP games, but re-written to integrate with the revised core rules and to provide the same degree of "genre functionality": that is any one of them can function as the system of choice in a campaign (none of them are incomplete) but all of them have potential for expansions (none of them, given the available space, could be exhaustive).

Or is anyone planning a licensed or authorised super-hero supplement for the new BRP rules?

Not that I've heard of as yet - albeit several people here and in the play-testing group are keen super-hero gamers so I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Steve Mitchell]

Thanks, everyone. Just another reason to buy the new BRP rules!

[GreatBear]

Sort of like an overcomplicated HERO system.

Brain...Shutting down. Impossible to imagine...Mind ... can not grasp ...

[drohem]

Brain...Shutting down. Impossible to imagine...Mind ... can not grasp ...

ROFLH!!!!!

I'm right there with you.