What Makes A Successful Superhero CAMPAIGN

[DrunkonDuty]

Eh. The players should have just as much control over the setting as the referee has control over the characters.

I think getting buy-in from the players is important to everyone having a fun game. And one way to get that is to ask players to contribute to the setting. Exactly what this looks like varies depending on the game and the players.

e.g.: for a no holds barred supers game I'd expect more contribution to the setting:

a player comes to me with a character concept like "an alien, part of a secret invasion force, but has repudiated their people's conquering ways and wants to help humanity" it'll turn out not only do I have aliens, but they're doing a secret invasion. I certainly wouldn't refuse their character suggestion.

Another player comes to me with a concept for their PC's nemesis and it's the ghost of Dracula... suddenly I got vampires and ghosts too.

On the other hand if I wanted to run an L5R game focussed on courtly intrigue I'd knock back both the above suggestions. But someone who wanted to play a self-serving, ambitious samurai who'll stop at nothing for power - that would be ok as long as the rest of the players were ok with it and we could find a way for everyone to be on board with it. (This particular example runs the risk of taking over the whole campaign so it requires broader agreement than my supers examples.)

 

[overgeeked]

I think getting buy-in from the players is important to everyone having a fun game. And one way to get that is to ask players to contribute to the setting. Exactly what this looks like varies depending on the game and the players.

Absolutely. Buy in is key regardless of the genre. And yes, contributing to the setting is one way among many to get that buy in. It's not the only one and it's not even that common of one.

e.g.: for a no holds barred supers game I'd expect more contribution to the setting:

a player comes to me with a character concept like "an alien, part of a secret invasion force, but has repudiated their people's conquering ways and wants to help humanity" it'll turn out not only do I have aliens, but they're doing a secret invasion. I certainly wouldn't refuse their character suggestion.

Another player comes to me with a concept for their PC's nemesis and it's the ghost of Dracula... suddenly I got vampires and ghosts too.

To me, that's fantastic. As presented, the suggestion was the players should have veto power over setting elements. Veto meaning prevent things from being in the setting. It's a superhero setting. For me that's the ultimate kitchen sink. Anything goes. I'm 100% on board with players adding whatever they want. My concern is them trying to remove or prevent elements from existing in the setting, i.e. a veto. That's simply a non-starter from my perspective.

On the other hand if I wanted to run an L5R game focussed on courtly intrigue I'd knock back both the above suggestions. But someone who wanted to play a self-serving, ambitious samurai who'll stop at nothing for power - that would be ok as long as the rest of the players were ok with it and we could find a way for everyone to be on board with it. (This particular example runs the risk of taking over the whole campaign so it requires broader agreement than my supers examples.)

As long as it fits the setting the referee wants to run the game in, it's fine. If it doesn't fit the setting, it's a no go. The only reason the other players should have any say in a player's character is if their concept would be disruptive to the game or group.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'm okay with players vetoing some things. Like my example with secret id...

(was that this thread or the other one?)

... if it turns out that I, as GM, have grossly misunderstood what a player was thinking... Odds are I'm going to change to meet the player.

 

[overgeeked]

(was that this thread or the other one?)

I don't know. They're blending together.

I'm okay with players vetoing some things. Like my example with secret id...

... if it turns out that I, as GM, have grossly misunderstood what a player was thinking... Odds are I'm going to change to meet the player.

That's one thing I think DC Heroes nails with subplots. Messing with someone's secret ID is an example of a subplot. The PC can nope out at any time, even after the subplot has already started. That's the kind of veto power I'm cool with. In regards to your PC. Not other players' characters. It also neatly explains all the dropped subplots in comics over the decades. The player noped out.

Stuff like redefining a player's character? That player has veto.

Stuff like bank robbers having alien tech? Sorry, that's up to the referee.

Stuff like someone stole* or copied the tech-based character's tech? I can sort of see an argument for that player having a say, but to me that's still 100% up to the referee.

* Stole as in found old, unused versions or scavenged battle sites, etc. Not stole as in preventing the PC from using their own tech. See any one of a 1000 Iron Man stories for reference.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Ahhh. Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

Yeah, I'm not gonna rewrite an adventure that doesn't come up against a PC's, um, narrative edges*. Or if I feel I'm making a legitimate riff on a PC's story, that doesn't go against the tone of the game, I'll push back against pushback. Coz, I might just have good reason. It might be that the bank robbers have alien tech coz they're pasties for the secret alien invasion. Dum dum DAAH.

But equally I have to recognise in myself if I'm clutching onto something just because. I need to be able to let those ones go.


*Sorry, that's a terrible phrase. But I'm tired.