Jump to content

Superhero games


Trifletraxor

Recommended Posts

The game system really does affect the "feel" of your campaign. That's why I enjoy Hero System for superheroing (although I realize not everyone here is a fan). Especially with 3rd edition, it was hard for your character to get killed, encouraging cinematic brawls and outrageous stunts. And the system really does allow you to create nearly any character you've seen in comics or can imagine.

...

Completely agree here. That's also one of the reason i like Champions.

...

Villians & Vigilantes was also fun but you were limited to the predefined (and randomly selected) powers. Also, since you were playing yourself with powers, that's how the game system felt: "normals with powers." You might have awesome cosmic energies at your command, but you'd still huff and puff climbing the stairs -- and a kid with a pea shooter might be able to take you out.

...

Agreed.

...

Palladium's superhero game, Heroes Unlimited, had a feel similar to V&V. Combat was surprisingly lethal to a Champions player. Unless you had the power Invulnerability you'd better have ducked when the bad guys started shooting. And the random power assignment could lead to some kooky character concepts. That's OK as long as you didn't have a particular character type in mind, but if you'd wanted to play an homage to your favorite scarlet speedster it could be disconcerting to roll up a Robocop clone with pink horns and a prehensile tail. One thing I did like was the scads of skills every Heroes Unlimited character was required to pick. Before 5th edtion, a Hero System character practically had to choose between having powers or having skills. It was nice, in Palladium, to be able to do something other than melt brick walls with your breath.

...

Yup. Apart from the system (Palladium is probably the most outdated system in production), lethality of the combat system and the random creation and attribution of powers are the weakest points. Your exemples are not the supidest ones we've rolled up.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you've seen Truth & Justice from Atomic Sock Monkey, the author explicitly tries to reproduce these sort of plot-dependent powers. Not to delve too deeply into the rules (what there is of them), every use of power is a roll against that power's rating. So, you can pit Superman's "Kryptonian Physique" +6 against Batman's "Gadgeteer" +6 directly, and the odds would be 50/50; if Supes won, he'd knock Bats for a loop (but not actually drive his fist through Bats' body, as he might in real life); if Bats won, he'd have some secret weapon in his utility belt that hurt Supes for that round.

Yeah, that's sort of what I think soltakss was hinting at with HeroQeust. A few other RPGs doe the same (I'll risk mention SotC again).

But, the thing with Superman is that his Physique is a lot higher than Batman's Gadgeteer, so it's still a non-contest.

THe comics can pull this stuff off by putting in challenges that are geared towards Batman's strengths. For instance, Batman can hack into a network to find a vital clue, Superman can't. THat is something that RPGs can mimic easily, with a good adventure and GM.

What RPGs have problems doing, on the other hand, is dumbing down, or restricting Superman from doing something else that would make Batman superfluous to the adventure. For instance, using X-Ray vision or telescopic vision to look through the building and read the info right off the villain's screen.

One reason why the Flash got iced in the DC universe was that he is hard to work in a team environment. Basically, he could zip off to the problem, and fix everything at superspeed, before the others arrive.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way around this is to make certain tasks harder.

In HeroQuest terms:

Look through underwear or look through a normal wall - resistance 14.

Look through a lead-lined box - resistance 10M.

Look through something far away 20M

Look through several walls at once 20M

Search a building from outside and read something stored in a cupboard 20M2

or whatever.

In BRP terms, you'd assign a penalty depending on how difficult the task was.

Look through underwear or look through a normal wall -0%

Look through a lead-lined box -40%

Look through something far away -40%

Look through several walls at once -60%

Search a building from outside and read something stored in a cupboard -100%

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way around this is to make certain tasks harder.

In HeroQuest terms:

Look through underwear or look through a normal wall - resistance 14.

Look through a lead-lined box - resistance 10M.

Look through something far away 20M

Look through several walls at once 20M

Search a building from outside and read something stored in a cupboard 20M2

or whatever.

In BRP terms, you'd assign a penalty depending on how difficult the task was.

Look through underwear or look through a normal wall -0%

Look through a lead-lined box -40%

Look through something far away -40%

Look through several walls at once -60%

Search a building from outside and read something stored in a cupboard -100%

That's only a facor if power levels are equal. While that is typical of RPGs, it isn't typical of four color comics. Some characters can do things like that. So if you are running in a preexisting setting, then you have to accept that some characterscan do stuff like that. Changing the difficulty doesn't help, since all that happens is that the hero's stats get upped to account for what he can do. If Superman can see through a building, then he needs a stat score high enough to allow for it. In the comics, Superman can act stupid around the JSA and JLA, and let other characters shine. With an RPG, there is little to keep Superman from flying off at superspeed, taking out all the bad guys, and solving the adventure by the RPG equivalent to page 2.

Some hero RPGs address this sort of thing, and it is where RPG theory concepts help. But for the "simulationist" approach it is a big problem. A "nuts & bolts" approach doesn't hold up well for the genre.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, the thing with Superman is that his Physique is a lot higher than Batman's Gadgeteer, so it's still a non-contest.

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.

Frank

"Welcome to the hottest and fastest-growing hobby of, er, 1977." -- The Laundry RPG
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Frank

"Welcome to the hottest and fastest-growing hobby of, er, 1977." -- The Laundry RPG
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Frank

"Welcome to the hottest and fastest-growing hobby of, er, 1977." -- The Laundry RPG
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

While I don't entirely disagree, I think that's largely to address the above issue. You usually don't have the whole group scaling the building, so spending too much time on it can easily be seen as counterproductive. One of the interesting things in the freeware game JAGS is the idea of Dramatic Systems; basically turning pass-fail rolls into little subgames like combat. I think that works when you've got a whole group that will be involved in those subsystems (as, for example, a whole group of spies doing an intrusion operation) but I don't think its actually benign when you have a bunch of seperate specialties.

SO it really is a lot about playing style.

While I don't _entirely_ disagree, I think there's some issues of degree I can't agree with this on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are reaching a common ground.

I for one will say that I think the stress on combat has less to do with it being more sutiable as a group activity then the fact that RPGs grew out of wargames.

Many RPGs tend to treat combat as interesting and exciting, and everything else as a distraction. In fact, other activities are often penalized by the way such games award experience. For example, negotiating a peace treaty, or saving someone's life on the operating table aren't rewarded as well as knocking off a half dozen goblins.

It is all about challenges, an consequnces for failure. Often combat is exciting because the stakes are high (in many games, if you loose, you loose your character). Tension can build, the situation can escalate, and so on. If we add other forms of conflict, and give them rewards and consequences then they can be exciting, too.

I thing the major obstacle is that such an approach is relatively new, and many GMs just don't consider it. That one reason why STR and DEX are so important in RPGs, while INT and APP aren't. In the real world a high INT and APP can do a lot for you (or get other to do a lot for you). In most RPGs an 18 APP/CHA isn't nearly as good an an 18 STR.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are reaching a common ground.

I for one will say that I think the stress on combat has less to do with it being more sutiable as a group activity then the fact that RPGs grew out of wargames.

I'd argue that its basis on adventure fiction has at least as much to do with that, but whether that was a choice first is a chicken-and-egg argument.

Many RPGs tend to treat combat as interesting and exciting, and everything else as a distraction. In fact, other activities are often penalized by the way such games award experience. For example, negotiating a peace treaty, or saving someone's life on the operating table aren't rewarded as well as knocking off a half dozen goblins.

I think its bad to extend that arguement too far; that's been an element of D&D, but even D&D itself moved somewhat away from that with 3e (where you can get every bit as much negotiating with the goblins as killing them, if that will also solve your problem) and few other game systems even pay attention to what you're fighting as such. In fact, short of directly D&D derived systems (such as Palladium), I'm not sure I can think of one that does. Can you (as you seem fairly knowledgable in the field)? Certainly none of the other big name systems (GURPS, Hero, Storyteller) do.

It is all about challenges, an consequnces for failure. Often combat is exciting because the stakes are high (in many games, if you loose, you loose your character). Tension can build, the situation can escalate, and so on. If we add other forms of conflict, and give them rewards and consequences then they can be exciting, too.

But again, that doesn't solve the individual-involvement problem, and I don't think that's at all trivial.

I thing the major obstacle is that such an approach is relatively new, and many GMs just don't consider it. That one reason why STR and DEX are so important in RPGs, while INT and APP aren't. In the real world a high INT and APP can do a lot for you (or get other to do a lot for you). In most RPGs an 18 APP/CHA isn't nearly as good an an 18 STR.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to do with group dynamics and GM styles. Our group does enjoy combat and it's a major part of most adventures. However, we do reward for roleplaying, creative thinking, and non-combat solutions.

I don't want to sound agist, but I think it's also a function rpg maturity.

BRP Ze 32/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to do with group dynamics and GM styles. Our group does enjoy combat and it's a major part of most adventures. However, we do reward for roleplaying, creative thinking, and non-combat solutions.

I don't want to sound agist, but I think it's also a function rpg maturity.

I'm not sure that really has that much to do with it, honestly, though combat oriented adventures are likely to be what most people start with; but they're also often what some of the longest running groups I've ever heard of still mostly focus on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that really has that much to do with it, honestly, though combat oriented adventures are likely to be what most people start with; but they're also often what some of the longest running groups I've ever heard of still mostly focus on.

Probably because some group never mature. I know one group that has played D&D for 30 years. The current GM has been removing all the 3.0 and 3.5 rule changes and is running it more and more like the way he ran AD&D 20 years ago. 95-99% of any XP awards are for combat, and character interaction and role-playing is viewed as slowing the game down.

Sadly, most other D&D player's I've seen aren't any better. All pay lip service to role-playing, and acting in character, but most adventures are little more than the old "Room/Monster/Treasure". Most "role-players" simply add a reason why the group is going through lotting the dungeon but the rest is the same.

I see this with most non-D&Ders too. Many claim they are roleplaying, but most are fighting.

I think its bad to extend that arguement too far; that's been an element of D&D, but even D&D itself moved somewhat away from that with 3e (where you can get every bit as much negotiating with the goblins as killing them, if that will also solve your problem) and few other game systems even pay attention to what you're fighting as such. In fact, short of directly D&D derived systems (such as Palladium), I'm not sure I can think of one that does. Can you (as you seem fairly knowledgable in the field)? Certainly none of the other big name systems (GURPS, Hero, Storyteller) do.

I can think of several that do, but most have chose to simply the advancement. I don't think it was a move towards roleplaying as much as a move away from calculators. For example, even D&D derived games like Palladium don't calaculate XP per monster, but simply by encounter.

But most groups I see focus on the combat. Not so much by choice, but becuase that's the only thing that is presented as exciting.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the comics. Many of them are combat-intensive, or the ones I used to read were. Ditto the films. Spiderman getting lumops whacked out of him, batman cracking heads, even Daredevil liked to mix it.

Combat has always been a big part of SuperHero comics and should be a big part of SuperHero games.

There are, of course, other things that are good fun. If you play The Nerd then you will be good with computers and science stuff; if you play The Whizz then you will be good at travelling quickly; if you play The Brain you will be good at problem solving and planning.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to taking out SuperVillains and that may well involve combat.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the comics. Many of them are combat-intensive, or the ones I used to read were. Ditto the films. Spiderman getting lumops whacked out of him, batman cracking heads, even Daredevil liked to mix it.

Combat has always been a big part of SuperHero comics and should be a big part of SuperHero games.

There are, of course, other things that are good fun. If you play The Nerd then you will be good with computers and science stuff; if you play The Whizz then you will be good at travelling quickly; if you play The Brain you will be good at problem solving and planning.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to taking out SuperVillains and that may well involve combat.

Oh, sure. But with team comics, things are presented so that each of the heroes contributes. The reason are pretty simple. Each fan has his or her own favorites, and expects to see them strut their stuff in a team.

If Superman were to take out all the villains in a couple pages at superspeed, it might be very logical, but not very satisfying to the Batman and Wonder Woman fans. Nor would it be very dramatic.

I think to play in a particular setting or genre, the GM needs to use rules that mirror the game reality rather than adjust the reality to fit the rules.

The comics can do a lot of things to keep the group of heroes working as a group, and many of those ides would would well for gamers. The trick is getting a more powerful PC to go along.

But heroes in the comics do thing other that combat too, and that is something that is often lacking with RPG groups.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because some group never mature. I know one group that has played D&D for 30 years. The current GM has been removing all the 3.0 and 3.5 rule changes and is running it more and more like the way he ran AD&D 20 years ago. 95-99% of any XP awards are for combat, and character interaction and role-playing is viewed as slowing the game down.

Sadly, most other D&D player's I've seen aren't any better. All pay lip service to role-playing, and acting in character, but most adventures are little more than the old "Room/Monster/Treasure". Most "role-players" simply add a reason why the group is going through lotting the dungeon but the rest is the same.

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 think of several that do, but most have chose to simply the advancement. I don't think it was a move towards roleplaying as much as a move away from calculators. For example, even D&D derived games like Palladium don't calaculate XP per monster, but simply by encounter.

But most groups I see focus on the combat. Not so much by choice, but becuase that's the only thing that is presented as exciting.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to play in a particular setting or genre, the GM needs to use rules that mirror the game reality rather than adjust the reality to fit the rules.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...