Jump to content

BRP Supers vs Other Supers RPGs


Kairos

Recommended Posts

MEGS was the game engine for DC Heroes then later Blood of Heroes, and in terms of point buy systems my favourite simply due to its mechanical elegance. Its weakness was similar to that of Hero: high end functionality was fine, but gradation at low levels was minimal.

I know there has been several DC games. The only one I have (and have played) is the one from Mayfair, with it's pure logarythmic system (+1 equals a doubling in efficiency).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know there has been several DC games. The only one I have (and have played) is the one from Mayfair, with it's pure logarythmic system (+1 equals a doubling in efficiency).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

That's the one. It is also known as the Mayfair Exponential Game System (hence MEGS), and current ownership is now a somewhat murky issue I believe.

Very slowly working towards completing my monograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Those spot rules can come close, but I see 2 problems:

- In All Golden and silver age, and most bronze age comics, the non lethal combat is the rule, not the exception, and if you want to model those genre, the rules should show this.

- As Nightshade explained, players tend to stay simple and will probably NOT use those spot rules...

Whilst it makes some sense to mechanically make non-lethal the default condition for a supers game, if playing in a 'with great powers comes great responsibility' style, then arguably making the players think and make choices is very much in keeping with the silver age onwards.

This is an issue I have with the likes of Hero, M&M and MEGS - that since the default is pretty non-lethal to a greater or lesser extent in each case, then there is litlte impetus to recognise the need to act responsibly since the mechanics save the characters from serious repercussions, instead of the characters saving themselves by acting responsibly.

In essence the rules allow the players/PC's to abdicate any responsibility since there is no need to have any mechanically.

Very slowly working towards completing my monograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst it makes some sense to mechanically make non-lethal the default condition for a supers game, if playing in a 'with great powers comes great responsibility' style, then arguably making the players think and make choices is very much in keeping with the silver age onwards.

This is an issue I have with the likes of Hero, M&M and MEGS - that since the default is pretty non-lethal to a greater or lesser extent in each case, then there is litlte impetus to recognise the need to act responsibly since the mechanics save the characters from serious repercussions, instead of the characters saving themselves by acting responsibly.

In essence the rules allow the players/PC's to abdicate any responsibility since there is no need to have any mechanically.

I would say not (completely) true for Champions/Hero, because characters (with their hit points and armor) can almost be killed only by killing attacks, but standard humans are killed in 1 shot by the average result of a beginning character standard attack.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a long-standing BRP fan and love the new integrated system, but I think it is not a great choice for a Supers game. One thing I've noticed about long-term campaigns in BRP-related systems is they start to drag once the characters get very powerful. The characters get more complex as they get more powerful (think of all the crap that fills the character sheet of a really experienced Runelord-Priest in RQ), and the bloat of magic, spirits, bound stuff, etc., etc. just overwhelms the action. It sort of stops feeling like BRP at that point. I've actually seen players just decide to go into really dangerous encounters with none of their magic or items 'turned on' so they can have a tighter resolution. My sense is that a Supers game would be much the same.

Now, one thing I do intend to use the Supers section for is to have a mechanism for creating players and NPCs who have native abilities beyond what is humanly possible. I.e., Beowulf, played straight up as a fantastic hero with all of the abilities he had in the saga, needs to be a 'Super', even though his setting is not the Marvel universe. Handled right, this might actually let you have a high-powered classic fantasy setting without each character having gobs and gobs of hard-to-follow abilities. "My ST is 50! I don't need no stinking Bladesharp!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MEGS was the game engine for DC Heroes then later Blood of Heroes, and in terms of point buy systems my favourite simply due to its mechanical elegance. Its weakness was similar to that of Hero: high end functionality was fine, but gradation at low levels was minimal.

A bit worse, actually, as the coarseness was higher (and I say that as someone who considers MEGS one of the 3-5 best superhero games ever written).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I don't think I'd even try to use anything but the powers system in a full-blown supers game; with expansion it could emulate the other systems, and you'd be far less likely to have weird discrepencies (this was another issue with GURPS Supers in fact; the Psionics system didn't really integrate very well with the Supers power systems, but they still really wanted you to use it for supers mentalists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I don't think I'd even try to use anything but the powers system in a full-blown supers game; with expansion it could emulate the other systems, and you'd be far less likely to have weird discrepencies (this was another issue with GURPS Supers in fact; the Psionics system didn't really integrate very well with the Supers power systems, but they still really wanted you to use it for supers mentalists).

Except that first edition GURPS Supers (GURPS third edition) meshed well with Psionics since the design approach to powers and psionics was the same. They broke that with second edition GURPS Supers (GURPS third edition)...

Back on topic - does there need to full and indisputable balance for a game to work effectively?

I suggest this since I question how truly balanced any point buy system really is. At the end of the day points costs and gains are arbitrary values that have (hopefully) been play-tested to a state of finesse, yet such systems fall down in the 'meta-game' in some ways - the default and/or baseline chocies that are made on a local gaming level, as well as cost breaks that get thrown in. As soon as modifiers apply they are a further arbitrary cost change that is based on perceived utility, again affected by the meta-game choices.

I don't see the potential imbalance of the power systems as a problem. I see it as a feature. But once again I offer the caveat that I may change my mind once my next campaign (with BRP supers) is actually underway... :thumb:

Edited by leonmallett

Very slowly working towards completing my monograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that first edition GURPS Supers (GURPS third edition) meshed well with Psionics since the design approach to powers and psionics was the same. They broke that with second edition GURPS Supers (GURPS third edition)...

I'm not convinced; there were some really radical differences in what progression on power level meant on Psionics, which wasn't present on much else in Supers (there were other problems, but not that one). Which is only to be expected as even the Psionics themselves weren't consistent there; some were pretty linear, some anything but.

Back on topic - does there need to full and indisputable balance for a game to work effectively?

I think in a freely buildable supers game, it needs to be as close as you can get it; otherwise you end up with utility issues distorting people's character designs too much in a way that doesn't make any sense for setting.

I suggest this since I question how truly balanced any point buy system really is. At the end of the day points costs and gains are arbitrary values that have (hopefully) been play-tested to a state of finesse, yet such systems fall down in the 'meta-game' in some ways - the default and/or baseline chocies that are made on a local gaming level, as well as cost breaks that get thrown in. As soon as modifiers apply they are a further arbitrary cost change that is based on perceived utility, again affected by the meta-game choices.

No, you're never going to get perfection here, but I don't believe in allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic - does there need to full and indisputable balance for a game to work effectively?

Hmm, an interesting question.

While, game balance is a good thing, I don't think it is a "necessary" component. After all, if total game balance were the goal, every PC would end up being pretty unimpressive. Sort of an egalitarian RPG...

When looking at the source material, balance isn't really an issue either...Spider Man, Iron Man and Jean Grey all inhabit the same universe...as do the Ray, Batman and Superman inhabit another. While their power levels differ massively, they are each able to operate with and compliment each other.

Also, as I alluded to in the BRP popularity thread, BRP requires GM input for the game to work, especially in character creation.

There were some insanely fun games that had no game balance at all, such as Paranoia (although everyone was balanced with regard to dying a lot), RIFTS and Battlelords of the 23rd Century. The HUGE range of characters available in the last two games ensured that even the non-balanced characters were still pretty cool, such as a Cizerack Ranger or a City Rat gun runner....sure they weren't as badass as a Powered Armor pilot or a Mind Melter, but they were unique enough to still be useful and fun to play...

So, short answer...no game balance is not a requisite, but is usually nice to have.

-STS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think in a freely buildable supers game, it needs to be as close as you can get it; otherwise you end up with utility issues distorting people's character designs too much in a way that doesn't make any sense for setting.

'No brainer' type options are present in pretty much all point-buy systems, as well as non-points based ones that allow selectivity, at least in my experience. There is a potentially a line of thought that by not worrying about balance but rather about character design, then the utility issue can side-stepped.

For example a recent high-powered GURPS campaign I ran benefitted from the players having little munchkin-knowledge of the current edition: it led to a party of quite varied power, yet within the context of the campaign it was fitting and I felt enjoyment was had as everyone had ther chance to shine.

The reason I felt it worked despite arguably imbalanced characters (I purposely applied no character limits other than starting points - no maxima were in effect: this was made clear to the players at the outset), was because the players were encouraged to focus on niches for their characters: that is to say I think that niche protection ois the best form of balance, but I am probably rambling.

...No, you're never going to get perfection here, but I don't believe in allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sometimes 'good enough' is plenty in my view. :)

Very slowly working towards completing my monograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, an interesting question.

While, game balance is a good thing, I don't think it is a "necessary" component. After all, if total game balance were the goal, every PC would end up being pretty unimpressive. Sort of an egalitarian RPG...

When looking at the source material, balance isn't really an issue either...Spider Man, Iron Man and Jean Grey all inhabit the same universe...as do the Ray, Batman and Superman inhabit another. While their power levels differ massively, they are each able to operate with and compliment each other.

Medium matters. Vast differences in power work in the source material for two reasons:

1. The characters are being essentially played by one player, so there's no issue with players feeling overshadowed;

2. And since that one player is also effectively the GM, they're allowed to rampantly underutilize their abilities when it would overshadow other characters.

Neither of these can be counted on in the case of a RPG; in particular, expecting players not to use their character's abilities to the fullest is a very bad bet.

There were some insanely fun games that had no game balance at all, such as Paranoia (although everyone was balanced with regard to dying a lot), RIFTS and Battlelords of the 23rd Century. The HUGE range of characters

I've also seen people either be seriously annoyed by Rifts for just that reason, or to simply avoid taking the weaker OCCs when the stronger were in play.

So, short answer...no game balance is not a requisite, but is usually nice to have.

-STS

I think for most groups some semblance of it _is_ a requisite if you want to get a game that's actually fun for all involved. Like most things in gaming, there are always exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Neither of these can be counted on in the case of a RPG; in particular, expecting players not to use their character's abilities to the fullest is a very bad bet.

...

Complete agreement here.

...

I've also seen people either be seriously annoyed by Rifts for just that reason, or to simply avoid taking the weaker OCCs when the stronger were in play.

...

I think for most groups some semblance of it _is_ a requisite if you want to get a game that's actually fun for all involved. Like most things in gaming, there are always exceptions.

Ditto.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

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...