BRP Superheroes Projects?

[RosenMcStern]

I'll be the odd duck in the room here but I disagree with those who say that narrative systems like HQ are better at simulating four-color supers than simulationist systems. Sure, as written HQ is better than BRP simply because BRP is not really developped on that front. HQ, like most narrativist systems has it a bit easier because by its nature, it is very rule light (the "one rule to rule them all" approach) and for a game like this to work properly, it requests that GM and players alike very well know the genre played and fully collaborate to tell the tale.

Yes, and no. It is a bit more complex than you state.

First of all, it is true that narration-based systems like HeroQuest require players to have a good knowledge of what they play/simulate. The game as written does not provide natural hooks for the insertion of your narrative: it all comes from your imagination. HeroQuest is fed by your imagination, whereas BRP somehow feeds it.

And this is exactly why I do not buy the narrative systems are better at simulating please insert than simulationist systems. In essence, my opinion is this, take the GM and players needed to successfully tell a tale in a good narrative system and put them in a good simulationist system and they will succeed as well.

This is not necessarily true. You may have a narration-based game that feeds your imagination, thus helping you to imagine what you are going to narrate. Sophisticated techniques are needed for this, but it can be done.

The problem lies in the nature of 4-colour comic books. Actually, they do not contain any world-related objective truths about what you can expect from a story. As stated, Spiderman can beat Galactus in the comics, if the narration dictates so. This means that all world-related variables are bent to obey story-dictated exigences. Well, the point is that the mechanics in HeroQuest aim exactly at this: what happens is what is good for the story's sake (pass-fail cycle).

This is why HeroQuest fits the genre better. Apart from the obvious point of power level - but you might have noticed that the difference between masteries is less evident in HQ2 - in fact, everything is about the story and telling it, not about recreating the exact stats of Galactus.

[DreadDomain]

First of all, it is true that narration-based systems like HeroQuest require players to have a good knowledge of what they play/simulate. The game as written does not provide natural hooks for the insertion of your narrative: it all comes from your imagination. HeroQuest is fed by your imagination, whereas BRP somehow feeds it.

Emphasis mine. In what sense? I honestly don't see how the mechanics of HQ interact with my imagination differently the BRP's? In both cases, the GM and players have a story to tell and they use a set of rules to deliver it.

This is not necessarily true. You may have a narration-based game that feeds your imagination, thus helping you to imagine what you are going to narrate. Sophisticated techniques are needed for this, but it can be done.

Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Would you mind elaborating?

The problem lies in the nature of 4-colour comic books. Actually, they do not contain any world-related objective truths about what you can expect from a story. As stated, Spiderman can beat Galactus in the comics, if the narration dictates so. This means that all world-related variables are bent to obey story-dictated exigences.

I totally agree... but this is equally true in HQ or BRP or HERO or GURPS or any RPG. If the story needs Spidey to beat Galactus, as a GM I'll make sure all the conditions are present so that it happens (bonuses because Mary-Jane is in direct danger, Galactus is already weakened by the hordes of aliens he had to decimate, Spidey put his hands on the specifically tuned alien weapon...).

Well, the point is that the mechanics in HeroQuest aim exactly at this: what happens is what is good for the story's sake (pass-fail cycle).

And there we totally disagree as I find the Pass-Fail Cycle to be an annoyance to me as a GM. I don't need a mechanic to tell me that the players are having it to easy and that I have to spike the game a bit. If I feel I should bring tougher challenges, I bring them without having a need for the system to trump the card. And as long as the game is great and that we are having fun, I might even be totally cool with it and decide not to bring tougher opponents/situations.

This is why HeroQuest fits the genre better. Apart from the obvious point of power level - but you might have noticed that the difference between masteries is less evident in HQ2 - in fact, everything is about the story and telling it, not about recreating the exact stats of Galactus.

Galactus might not be the best example because he is a walking plot device but this is another weak point of HQ for me. As a GM, I want to choose the opposition according to what the story needs and I want that opposition to be coherently represented from one scene to the other. In HQ (second edition), from one scene to another, depending how well or badly the players are doing lately, the resistance offered by the same opponent might differ widly. To maintain common sense, the GM has to find story rationales explaining the discrepencies. For me, this is working backward. Sure I could just ignore the pass-fail cycle but then I am left with undefined opponents. The genre is all about who is stronger than who and who is faster or tougher or has the most range with his telepathy and yes, the genre is also about incoherence about power levels from writers to writers! But generally speaking, everybody knows that Doomsday is stronger than Solomon Grundy and that Lady Shiva is a better martial artist than Deadshot but cannot compare with his marksmanship skills. HQ decided to more or less ignore that and this is another reason in my book why HQ sure doesn't fit the genre better.

Note : Just quickly read my post. It may read rantish but this is not what I was trying to convey.

Edited February 6, 2012 by DreadDomain

[RosenMcStern]

Emphasis mine. In what sense? I honestly don't see how the mechanics of HQ interact with my imagination differently the BRP's? In both cases, the GM and players have a story to tell and they use a set of rules to deliver it.

Not exactly. In HeroQuest, you narrate a story and then find a way to apply the rules to what you narrated, picking up the appropriate bonuses and abilities. Narration first, rule application second.

In BRP, it is more frequent that you extract a story from the mechanical effects of rule application. Think of what happens in a RuneQuest combat: you roll the dice, you pick a combat manoeuver and then narrate the scene based on the mechanical effects dictated. Rule application first, narration second.

Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Would you mind elaborating?

It would be too long to explain it now. Let us go back to it later.

I totally agree... but this is equally true in HQ or BRP or HERO or GURPS or any RPG. If the story needs Spidey to beat Galactus, as a GM I'll make sure all the conditions are present so that it happens

This is exactly the point. ALL systems work this way, if you rely on the GM. Please note that the rules in BRP do not allow you to give bonuses because a relationship is in danger, so you are discussing your GM-ing style here, not BRP.

The little trick here is "rules" as opposed to "rulings". This is the difference.

As a GM, I want to choose the opposition according to what the story needs and I want that opposition to be coherently represented from one scene to the other. In HQ (second edition), from one scene to another, depending how well or badly the players are doing lately, the resistance offered by the same opponent might differ widly. To maintain common sense, the GM has to find story rationales explaining the discrepencies. For me, this is working backward. Sure I could just ignore the pass-fail cycle but then I am left with undefined opponents. The genre is all about who is stronger than who and who is faster or tougher or has the most range with his telepathy and yes, the genre is also about incoherence about power levels from writers to writers! But generally speaking, everybody knows that Doomsday is stronger than Solomon Grundy and that Lady Shiva is a better martial artist than Deadshot but cannot compare with his marksmanship skills. HQ decided to more or less ignore that and this is another reason in my book why HQ sure doesn't fit the genre better.

The point is that the relative scale in power level is true and fixed in stone only in the annual hero catalogs that illustrate how cool and powerful that hero is. I remember those splash pages with Spidey and the Thing and the Hulk and the exact weight they are able to lift, from the sixties, and everything looks like there is a set hierarchy of powers - and then, in the stories, things happen very differently and you have Captain America fighting against the Cosmic Cube (!).

HeroQuest 2 works this way, too: it gives you a tool to discriminate between Spiderman (Strong 10w2), The Thing (Strong 10w3) and The Hulk (Strong 10w4), and then tells you to ignore these values while the story unfolds, and set the difficulty according to what can make the story exciting. Well, this sounds exactly like what happens in the comics.

Note - I am not saying it is the best way to handle things. I often pre-calculate resistances in HeroQuest, instead of using relative values and the pass-fail cycle. I am only saying that it does fit the way things are narrated in the comics rather well. In other genres, I would rather use different techniques.

[seneschal]

Dunno, I never had trouble running super hero games with Champions (Hero System). Narrative? Not so much. My players only wanted to bash stuff (and people). It was hard to get a good soap opera plot going or launch a mystery. Give 'em goons to pummel? They were golden. But Hero's effects-based powers enabled them to build any character they could imagine. BRP (and Superworld) took the opposite approach, trying to anticipate and list every possible power.. You can build a lot of the same characters in both systems (see my Aurochs example upthread). But with Hero's flexibility, you could make almost any goofball character concept work. In BRP it would be tougher.

A big difference, of course, is that Hero began as a cinematic supers system, while BRP began as a gritty fantasy system. Both can be tweaked, but their default assumptions are different. Champions superheroes rarely die and can engage in lengthy battles without suffering serious harm. Even your basic masked detective is more durable than most people and will tend to be more agile and have a better movement rate as well. In BRP, superheros are normal folks who happen to have powers. They might be faster than a speeding bullet or be able to crush a bus with their minds, but their ability to take damage is not much better than that of a typical human PC with good armor. A kid with a slingshot (or a thug with a blackjack -- see other thread) could take them out, especially since all damage is lethal damage. Now, if you're modeling Batman or Gatchaman, where the heroes are expected to have armored costumes to protect themselves, that's OK. If you're wanting Captain Marvel or Superman, things are more difficult. You'll have to spend an inordinate amount of build points to get that high strength. The points left over will enable you to be about as tough as a knight in full plate armor without the encumbrance problems. So your hero will be more durable than the average Joe but not Superman "I laugh because those bazooka rounds are tickling me" tough.

[SDLeary]

Not exactly. In HeroQuest, you narrate a story and then find a way to apply the rules to what you narrated, picking up the appropriate bonuses and abilities. Narration first, rule application second.

In BRP, it is more frequent that you extract a story from the mechanical effects of rule application. Think of what happens in a RuneQuest combat: you roll the dice, you pick a combat manoeuver and then narrate the scene based on the mechanical effects dictated. Rule application first, narration second.

Hmmm, I've never really seen it that way. "I swing my sword at the Evil Wizard..." would seem to work in either sense. Now what you describe can be mitigated somewhat by removing the extra bits, like Combat Maneuvers, and going back to a straight roll and success level round, narrating the actual effects in accordance with your vision of what your character was trying to do (note that this is the way most variants of BRP seem to be written). The only difference at this point would be that there will be the damage roll, as "Damage" is factored differently between the two systems.

I honestly do not see one as being potentially less narrative than the other. Now, I'm not saying that some people don't play them that way, just that most BRP games I've been in have simply had a ton of narration... ESPECIALLY in ages past when I played Superworld.

The point is that the relative scale in power level is true and fixed in stone only in the annual hero catalogs that illustrate how cool and powerful that hero is. I remember those splash pages with Spidey and the Thing and the Hulk and the exact weight they are able to lift, from the sixties, and everything looks like there is a set hierarchy of powers - and then, in the stories, things happen very differently and you have Captain America fighting against the Cosmic Cube (!).

HeroQuest 2 works this way, too: it gives you a tool to discriminate between Spiderman (Strong 10w2), The Thing (Strong 10w3) and The Hulk (Strong 10w4), and then tells you to ignore these values while the story unfolds, and set the difficulty according to what can make the story exciting. Well, this sounds exactly like what happens in the comics.

Note - I am not saying it is the best way to handle things. I often pre-calculate resistances in HeroQuest, instead of using relative values and the pass-fail cycle. I am only saying that it does fit the way things are narrated in the comics rather well. In other genres, I would rather use different techniques.

Now this I really do agree with. That is the main issue, scaling. HQ as written, scales much better and is in my mind superior for super heroic games, especially those that incorporate wide swaths of abilities, from the lowly Street Urchin to the most powerful Deity or Superhero, allowing them all to participate in the events that unfold. I do prefer fixed resistances and the use of higher Masteries for many things, as written in HQ1, but have no problem with the sliding scale in highly cinematic situations.

Superworld did prove that BRP can scale quite a ways, but as written it became very cumbersome above a certain level.

SDLeary

Edited February 6, 2012 by SDLeary
Misread a paragraph in Rosens post

[SDLeary]

Dunno, I never had trouble running super hero games with Champions (Hero System). Narrative? Not so much. My players only wanted to bash stuff (and people). It was hard to get a good soap opera plot going or launch a mystery. Give 'em goons to pummel? They were golden. But Hero's effects-based powers enabled them to build any character they could imagine. BRP (and Superworld) took the opposite approach, trying to anticipate and list every possible power.. You can build a lot of the same characters in both systems (see my Aurochs example upthread). But with Hero's flexibility, you could make almost any goofball character concept work. In BRP it would be tougher.

Yes. And if someone were to write a good effects based powers system for BPR, it would become less tough. Superworld could create some amazingly powerful and resilient characters IME, but the higher the power level, the more cumbersome things became.

A big difference, of course, is that Hero began as a cinematic supers system, while BRP began as a gritty fantasy system. Both can be tweaked, but their default assumptions are different. Champions superheroes rarely die and can engage in lengthy battles without suffering serious harm. Even your basic masked detective is more durable than most people and will tend to be more agile and have a better movement rate as well. In BRP, superheros are normal folks who happen to have powers. They might be faster than a speeding bullet or be able to crush a bus with their minds, but their ability to take damage is not much better than that of a typical human PC with good armor. A kid with a slingshot (or a thug with a blackjack -- see other thread) could take them out, especially since all damage is lethal damage. Now, if you're modeling Batman or Gatchaman, where the heroes are expected to have armored costumes to protect themselves, that's OK. If you're wanting Captain Marvel or Superman, things are more difficult. You'll have to spend an inordinate amount of build points to get that high strength. The points left over will enable you to be about as tough as a knight in full plate armor without the encumbrance problems. So your hero will be more durable than the average Joe but not Superman "I laugh because those bazooka rounds are tickling me" tough.

BRP, at its core is a Street Level system. I think its power level can go a bit higher than what you've outlined, but not much; say to X-Men (sans Phoenix), Avengers (sans Thor)... oddly mostly things on the Marvel side come to mind. Most DC hero's are the ones I'd have trouble with.

SDLeary

[seneschal]

But it isn't just the powers or power levels themselves. It is the basic assumptions about how damage works. In BRP, attacks -- fist, H-bomb, sharpened wax crayon -- do lethal damage, period. And unless a character has some sort of armor, he'll take eventually fatal damage from those attacks. Theoretically, a character could kill an opponent with a fresh ream of paper, one paper cut at a time (ouch!) -- unless the opponent's clothes gave him at least AP 1.

Hero System, on the other hand, assumes that attacks mostly do stun (fatigue in BRP terms) damage unless specifically designed to kill (guns, knives, laser pistols, etc.). So an attack by fist or club has a chance to do some killing damage, but it will tend to do much more stun damage. Another Hero System assumption is that characters have some basic resistance to damage, based on STR and CON. So not only do normal attacks do less killing damage (the kind that affects hit points), a character has a bit of "armor" by default.

Another Hero convention that affects the superhero genre is how energy defense is handled. Just as characters have a basic resistance to physical attacks, they also have a basic resistance to energy attacks. And all energy is considered the same mechanically. So if a character has 8 points of armor vs. energy attacks, it protects regardless of what type of energy he's being blasted with. In BRP, a character has to buy separate defenses against multiple types of energy, making a well-protected character much more expensive.

[SDLeary]

But it isn't just the powers or power levels themselves. It is the basic assumptions about how damage works. In BRP, attacks -- fist, H-bomb, sharpened wax crayon -- do lethal damage, period. And unless a character has some sort of armor, he'll take eventually fatal damage from those attacks. Theoretically, a character could kill an opponent with a fresh ream of paper, one paper cut at a time (ouch!) -- unless the opponent's clothes gave him at least AP 1.

I agree with this. In fact, take a look at the Less Lethal thread. I tailored the questions based on the discussion on Blackjack damage, but there is no reason it can't be expanded to include this.

Another Hero convention that affects the superhero genre is how energy defense is handled. Just as characters have a basic resistance to physical attacks, they also have a basic resistance to energy attacks. And all energy is considered the same mechanically. So if a character has 8 points of armor vs. energy attacks, it protects regardless of what type of energy he's being blasted with. In BRP, a character has to buy separate defenses against multiple types of energy, making a well-protected character much more expensive.

All energy being the same OTOH I actually find as fault. Photonic, electric, and decay (radiation) energies all react in the world a bit differently. Even in the comic books, hero's will be able to withstand one form of energy but not another. And Physical attack IS just another form of energy... Kinetic.

It should cost a lot to make a character that is heavily resistant to all types of energy!

SDLeary

[DreadDomain]

Not exactly. In HeroQuest, you narrate a story and then find a way to apply the rules to what you narrated, picking up the appropriate bonuses and abilities. Narration first, rule application second.

This is exactly how I have been playing for decades in RQ, BRP, KAP, GURPS or HERO

In BRP, it is more frequent that you extract a story from the mechanical effects of rule application. Think of what happens in a RuneQuest combat: you roll the dice, you pick a combat manoeuver and then narrate the scene based on the mechanical effects dictated. Rule application first, narration second.

I agree except for the last sentence. It is true that you might extract a story element from a rule. When the system is good, it does it fact enhance the story. It is a feature, not a bug.

This is exactly the point. ALL systems work this way, if you rely on the GM.

That's why I don't see a direct gain of HQ over say HERO to play a super game. The great asset of HQ (narration), can be reproduced in HERO. I'd like to point out that we have been playing in very crunchy systems (a Champions campaign in HERO and a GURPS Warhammer campaign) and narration and roleplaying was a very heavy portion of our play time. Even in crunch time (mainly combat) in depth description of intent and colorful results supported by the rules and outcomes where the norm. The GURPS Warhammer game was very brutal and graphic, the Champions game was very high-flying and high-octane. HQ would have given us nothing more on both account and would have taken out all the tactical options and the precise depiction of powers (and yes, HERO and GURPS do support improvisational powers so contrary to popular belief, not everything has to be written on the sheet).

Note though that I prefer crunchy games so obviously someone favoring rule light games might be put off by HERO or GURPS. Note also that as written, HERO, HQ and GURPS are all better suited for a super game because well BRP is underdevelopped on that front. If it was, BRP would in my opinion be better than HQ (playstyle preference) or GURPS (BRP just scale so much better than GURPS for high level supers). I am not sure it could acheive HERO's customization power though.

Please note that the rules in BRP do not allow you to give bonuses because a relationship is in danger, so you are discussing your GM-ing style here, not BRP.

The little trick here is "rules" as opposed to "rulings". This is the difference.

I'd like to dispute that on two accounts. First, one can use the Circumstantial Action Modifiers in BGB. Sure it doesn't specifically talk about relationship but it is a very good mechanic to take it into account. Second, other BRP family games have Passions and Personality mechanics.

The point is that the relative scale in power level is true and fixed in stone only in the annual hero catalogs that illustrate how cool and powerful that hero is. I remember those splash pages with Spidey and the Thing and the Hulk and the exact weight they are able to lift, from the sixties, and everything looks like there is a set hierarchy of powers - and then, in the stories, things happen very differently and you have Captain America fighting against the Cosmic Cube (!).

Yes and no. The relative scale of power is almost always true. Hulk is stronger than the Thing who is stronger than Spider-Man. Mr.Fantastic is always the brightest of the 4 and Captain America is always the most charismatic leader. The only time it is not true, it's when there are special circumstances and plot devices. These can be dealt equally in BRP or HQ

HeroQuest 2 works this way, too: it gives you a tool to discriminate between Spiderman (Strong 10w2), The Thing (Strong 10w3) and The Hulk (Strong 10w4), and then tells you to ignore these values while the story unfolds, and set the difficulty according to what can make the story exciting. Well, this sounds exactly like what happens in the comics.

First, this is not what happens is comics, and second that is part of my problem with HQ. I don't want a game to tell me to ignore values just because it suits the story. If, as a GM, I need an element as important as Hulk's strength to be tempered, I will alsolutely make it a strong element of the story (what? Hulk has lost his strength!) and introduce the plot element and corresponding modifier to suite the purpose instead of looking at the pass-fail cycle and realizing that oh, well, Hulk is not so tough this time around so let's work my story around that rule mechanic. The second thing is that as we can rate Spidey, Thing and Hulk's strength, so can we rate Doomsday, Black Adam and Darkseid but not in HQ since thy are treated as mere resistance.

Note - I am not saying it is the best way to handle things. I often pre-calculate resistances in HeroQuest, instead of using relative values and the pass-fail cycle. I am only saying that it does fit the way things are narrated in the comics rather well. In other genres, I would rather use different techniques.

HQ has huge advantages on other games and these are low prep time and the lack of need of define power sets or NPC stats. The pass and fail cycle can also help a GM guide the story. I don't see it as the best fit for the genre but it can emulate it if the playstyle it provides suite your needs. It just doesn't suite mine.

Edited February 8, 2012 by DreadDomain

[Chaot]

BRP is very lethal for superhero play unless you institute some sort of survival mechanism... Perhaps 0 HP being unconscious rather than dead, with perhaps a 24 hr recovery period back to full HP.

But it isn't just the powers or power levels themselves. It is the basic assumptions about how damage works.

This is the crux right here, I think, but I don't think it's insurmountable at all. In my head, it's not so an issue of the rules falling down so much as in how they're framed and scaled. Part of it certainly is re-figuring what HP mean in game terms and adjusting to an heroic scale. Then you need to get the mix of special abilities right and provide a mechanism to allow for advantage due to story elements.

I think a key could lie in Dragon Lines and it's section of genre awareness. Hell, mix Dragon Lines with it's mook rules and special abilities in with Elric! with it's sleek combat system and scale and you're halfway there.

Yes, I think Jason Durrall did a great job with BRP BGB, and I like how he collated many different Chaosium games to bring us a great generic rules toolkit. If another edition is ever published, however, I would prefer a revision based upon input from the gamer population; this would be much better than just putting a new cover on the same rules.

In the first draft Jason actually did have a unified Powers system that was to be used to build one's own magic system or faith system or psionic system or what have you. It was through the feedback of the playtesters, myself included, that Jason decided to go with integrating the old systems into the main rules. I think that was the right call, especially at the time, as it showed the breadth of options that you could take BRP in, and because many of the rules were out of print at the time. I'm not sure how many of us predicted the wealth of material that would come out later. I certainly didn't.