Making superhero gear make sense (mostly Marvel related)

[Piratecat]

But genre being everything only works if you have buy-in to that genre. If you have players who don't buy a particular aspect of a genre, then you either need new players, or you need to avoid the issues of the genre that annoy them.

We agree here. I wouldn't want to run a 4-color campaign for anyone who didn't have buy-in. If I did have someone who preferred modern commandos, I'd set him up so that his schtick was being the best damn super-commando around. The goal is to make sure the players are all having fun.

Wizardru really makes my point beautifully. If you want to play Supers, that's great, but if you prefer a different game style there may be a game system with fewer implied expectations about setting and tone.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think another part of this is that no encumbrance system will ever truly reflect the pain-in-the ass that is carrying around this laundry list of useful things.

And that's really the only cost to carrying this stuff around.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Saying you want to play Superheroes without capes is one thing. Saying you want to play a supers game with the characters as part of highly trained realistic paramilitary force with a full military kit using advanced warfighting tactics....well, you're not really playing the supers genre any longer.

Well in that case, I should say that I'm trying to GM a superhero game instead of saying that I will GM a superhero game, because the game will start with the assumption that players have colorful (or black) thights and they only rely on their superpowers. However, if the players want, they can go with the paramilitary style. I think from that moment on I can't call my game any longer a superherogame?

Maybe it's a good idea to little bit shed light on my game, maybe that would clear up more why I'm asking the OP question? (or then again, it might only make it more unclear...)
My game will be near-free-form superherogame, with a very light rule system which I've designed myself. I decided to go down this route, because my players are hopeless with D&D rules, so I think they'd kill themselves if I tried something like M&M. They won't study any rules, and they get nervous with rules. Period.

In my game I'll not punish the players for using heavy armor or equipment, but I will insist that you can't use superhuman physical abilities without something skin-thight. Just look at weightlifters and runners. Even if you can lift a few hundred pounds up in the air, wearing jeans or camo-pants will bother your performance (yeah righ...)

So far one of the players has promised to make MacGyver/Forge, so gadgets are going to be important part of the game. But whether the players will buy into the thights-scheme, remains to be seen.

If it's not too OT, I'd love to tell more about the game and game system.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Well in that case, I should say that I'm trying to GM a superhero game instead of saying that I will GM a superhero game, because the game will start with the assumption that players have colorful (or black) thights and they only rely on their superpowers. However, if the players want, they can go with the paramilitary style. I think from that moment on I can't call my game any longer a superherogame?

Maybe it's a good idea to little bit shed light on my game, maybe that would clear up more why I'm asking the OP question? (or then again, it might only make it more unclear...)
My game will be near-free-form superherogame, with a very light rule system which I've designed myself. I decided to go down this route, because my players are hopeless with D&D rules, so I think they'd kill themselves if I tried something like M&M. They won't study any rules, and they get nervous with rules. Period.

In my game I'll not punish the players for using heavy armor or equipment, but I will insist that you can't use superhuman physical abilities without something skin-thight. Just look at weightlifters and runners. Even if you can lift a few hundred pounds up in the air, wearing jeans or camo-pants will bother your performance (yeah righ...)

So far one of the players has promised to make MacGyver/Forge, so gadgets are going to be important part of the game. But whether the players will buy into the thights-scheme, remains to be seen.

If it's not too OT, I'd love to tell more about the game and game system.

If I'm reading you correctly, I think you can manage this just fine, but it will depend upon the mix of your players, and yours and your players' flexibility. If all your players want to skip the tights-scheme, then you could adapt your game world to be more like "No Ordinary Family" (only hopefully more interesting), where the "mundanes" of the world are not aware of the supers among them. As a result, the heroes will be less flashy. Commando-type gear might actually make sense as a way to fit in on scene of an event.

If your players are a mix between four-color comics and something more realistic, the players who don't want the flashy, comics-style will hopefully be willing to let the others shine and have their fun, while making their own character concept fit their low profile, such as a former special forces sniper who develops super-powers, but the need to remain unseen or unnoticed is so strong he just cannot bring himself to put on spandex.

Things to remember:

The PCs should be defined by their powers, not by their gear, with the exception of gadgeteers where their gear is their power.

For the gadgeteer, while you say the game is a rules-light system, you need to have some framework for how their power works. You can limit the power by requiring them to have the materials on hand, but that leads to the problem of carrying everything around and having a huge inventory to track. Alternatively you limit the power by its effects or strength and always assume the materials to build anything allowed are available.

Remember that most of their challenges should be on the "super" level.

1. A normal item like a screwdriver should never be an obstacle or the solution.
2. Items like body armor should be part of the design of the PC: PCs who wear it are vulnerable without it. PCs designed to not need it don't get any sginificant benefit by adding it.
3. Similarly, wearing camouflage might give PCs an edge against normal guards or agents, but not much versus your true challenges. A PC such as the above mentioned sniper can be stealthy at the super-level not because he's wearing a camo suit he bought at the PX, but because he has super-level skills in stealth and the suit is just a tiny part of that.

 

[Piratecat]

I was just thinking that for a gadgeteer or tech guy in a supers game, I'd probably allow a bag of endless stuff that allowed him to whip out whatever tool he needed when he needed it. Lets face it, something that defines most supers games is scope. Adventures usually revolve around the hyperintelligent gorilla whose proton ray is dragging the moon into the earth, not whether you have the phillips head screwdriver you need.

Jon, what power level are you shooting for? Are these guys going to be lower power street-level gritty heroes (in which case most of my advice is flawed), "regular" powered silver age heroes like members of the Justice League, or ultra-powerful majestic class heroes who can single-handedly stop wars? It's a little like heroic, paragon and epic tiers in 4e D&D. That has a massive impact on the scope and feel of the game.

While I often prefer a more defined set of rules, I'd love to see your system if you want to share. You could also look at RISUS (free, just google it), which is the best flexible rules-extra-light system I know.

 

[ValhallaGH]

If it's not too OT, I'd love to tell more about the game and game system.

It's pretty central to the topic.

The rules dictate the game-world reality, and that dictates what players are going to do.
"I got shot! It's bad!" leads to the lesson of "wear Dragonscale and other high-end modern body armors".
In a super-heroes game that's a sign that either guns are too mean or your supers are too fragile; maybe both. Either way, something needs to change; the low-effort change is to admit that you're playing a modern action game with special effects, not a super-heroes game.

 

[Umbran]

In which case, I won't need rope. But Umbran said "The glee of having all the right tools so that you've got little to no risk is cool once or twice, but as a regular game it quickly gets boring." So apparently in Umbran's game, lacking those tools is a big deal.

Look a little more closely - I was talking about having ALL the right tools, always on hand. If you want to carry a rope around, that's cool. If you want to carry half a bazillion things and your superpower isn't "unlimited gear" then we have a problem.

Generally speaking, if you need a rope, in an urban or suburban environment (where most 4-color stuff takes place), one can be found. SuperGigundoMan just happened to break a hardware store window, and if you need to borrow something to help restrain him.

When it is "stupid stuff", I'm not sweating it as a GM.

If you have a player that that's not sold on Supers...

If I had someone who wanted to play the guy with a big pack of modern tools in a pseudo-medieval fantasy game, and I didn't allow it, would you say the problem was the fault of the way I run fantasy?

Why am I playing a game with someone who isn't on board with the kind of game I'm trying to run? Really, the offense of not allowing this person to carry around a True Value on their back is secondary to having someone who doesn't want to play the kind of game I'm trying to run.

 

[Janx]

It's pretty central to the topic.

The rules dictate the game-world reality, and that dictates what players are going to do.
"I got shot! It's bad!" leads to the lesson of "wear Dragonscale and other high-end modern body armors".
In a super-heroes game that's a sign that either guns are too mean or your supers are too fragile; maybe both. Either way, something needs to change; the low-effort change is to admit that you're playing a modern action game with special effects, not a super-heroes game.

thats a good point about combat in a supers game. Go read some comics. Look at all the weapons. Look at all the injuries. look at the recovery from those injuries.

Most of the combat knocks people out, rather than being lethal. Drop a building on Rogue, she disappears for a few rounds.

No one gets seriously hurt, unless its dramatically important (like because they couldn't make that session). No one dies, (unless they're leaving the campaign). And then they get better, when it is handy to have them do so (the player came back).


So, bad guy goons need to shoot like Storm Troopers (or good guys need high dodge skills). To ensure they're a threat to mundanes, but not a lethal threat to heroes.

Villains highly dangerous powers need to stun, disable, or knock-back our heroes, not kill them.

This is all probably best accomplished by being hard to hit, and having a higher resilliance to injury.


On another topic, when the PCs come up with a clever solution to use their powers, the GM needs to say yes. This rewards clever use of powers, rather than punishing them for not carrying the right gear. If there's a concern of abuse, then consider adding a cumulative 5% chance of failure for each consecutive use. Always roll the success chance behind a screen (especially the first time, where there's 0%).

This represents that it was a crazy idea only a desperate hero would try. Which is why it worked the first time.

What you don't want happening, is for them to find a highly effective combo that makes everything easy from then on out. Then you've got the inverse of the Kitchen Sink problem, you've got the One Trick Pony problem.

You don't want One Trick Ponyism, as this is another form of arms race. To make anything challenging, you'll always have to thwart their trick, and after awhile, it becomes blatantly unrealistic that every bad guy just happens to have the means to be prepared for it.

 

[pawsplay]

amen.

the more powerful the hero, the less gadgets he carries. Superman carries none. batman had to carry a ton of stuff. He has no superpower, only having extraordinary training, conditioning and problem solving.

That's just not true. The more versatile a hero is, sure. Doctor Strange, Superman, Green Lantern... each has about one to three gadgets on their person at any given point in time. But powerful? Wonder Woman is as powerful as Superman, or nearly so, and she has a tiara, bracers, a magic lasso, and an invisible jet. Mister Fantastic is nigh-invulnerable, and carries around a ridiculous number of items, ranging from super-costumes to underwater breathing bills to whatever else he thinks he will need. Iron Man's superpower basically is having gadgets. The Legion of Super-heroes actually are a paramilitary team of ridiculously powered individuals, and they carry flight and communication rings and use futuretech spacesuits with invisible helmets.

Any hero that has his or her own solo book has some ability to be versatile, through some combination of equipment and powers. Superman does not carry a microtorch, not because he never torches anything but because he has heat vision; a non-Superman character could and would make use of such an item. Batman and Mister Fantastic certainly have access to microtorches.

"Superheroes are all about genre," "A superhero uses his powers, not equipment" is a bunch of reducionistic silliness. In fact, during the Silver Age, at the height of four-color decadence, characters used a ton of gadgets. Even, actually, especially Superman! Superman had Super-robots who looked him, robots that looked like robots, a spaceship and spacesuit for deep space flying and to protect him from kryptonite, a Kryptonian supercomputer, a cape compartment in his belt, heat vision resistant glasses to wear as Clark, and some kind of matter manipulating ray he would use for stuff like shrinking himself to visit Krondor.

Heroes without gear are just poorly prepared. Because of genre conventions they are likely to get away with it, but it still creates hassles for them. Heroes in four color books are often written from a child-like standpoint, and further, are not necessarily role models in all particulars. The best known heroes are versatile and do make use of special equipment; Superman and Green Lantern are standouts for not using lots of specialized equipment because of the versatility of their abilities. They are the exceptions, not the norm. If I had a GM who told me my hero could not carry a utility belt or have a science lab, because it's not in genre, I would laugh in his or her face. Some Golden Age supers and some Silver Age second-stringers get away with just using their powers, without specialized equipment or martial training, but it's explicitly because they are amateur crime-fighters. They are the superhero equivalent of Nancy Drew.

 

[Asmor]

Note, for example, that you mention a "microtorch" instead of a "lighter." The former is genre-appropriate, because it is itself rather fantastic. The latter, not so much (although it might still make sense in certain context).

The gadgets have to make sense for the character. The issue isn't heroes carrying around a bunch of superscience gadgets, it's the heroes carrying around the adventurer's kit from the D&D Player's Handbook.

Getting back to the microtorch, that's totally something I could see Batman or Mr. Fantastic using. Spiderman, not so much. If Spidey needed to set something on fire, he'd probably use some kind of flaming web fluid.

And some characters just *don't* use gadgets, as a general rule. Take wolverine. There are exceptions, of course (I seem to recall Wolverine using Iron Man's armor to fight the hulk at some point), but for the most part he doesn't use gadgets. If he has to fight in space, he'll put on a space suit that won't be destroyed by his claws, but for all intents and purposes he's still just Wolvie in space, just with a different costume.

Nobody's saying heroes shouldn't use tools. Just that heroes shouldn't use tools that don't fit them.