What makes a successful superhero game?

[billd91]

3) In MHR, Ben gets a PP for playing up his Man or Monster Distinction; he can later spend that PP on a variety of bonuses, such as the Clobbering Time FX (attack an entire crowd of mooks with one swing). The player is incentivised to at least think about having a rampage when it’s dramatically appropriate.

The three options result in different incentives and thus sometimes different player choices. Different tables will have different opinions about the three options and their play styles.

Personallly, I rather like 3) for superhero games because it tends to model what happens in comics better. There’s a mechanical reason Ben gets into a self-loathing funk, or Johnny is such a hothead, or Reed loses himself in his work, or Sue always tries to protect everyone. Sure, you can do all that with just roleplaying, but in my experience you get better and more dramatic results with 3).

Yeah, I'd say he's incentivized to having a rampage. Knowing how players like to be fully powered up, would it incentivize the rampage to the point of being treated as a requirement for a player who wants to be as prepared as he can be for the big bad? I'd argue that might be as distorting as not incentivizing it at all - after all, Ben doesn't rampage or even get into a funk all the time. Does he have to do so in order to get that benefit? Can he, for example, actually have a good mental health day and still fight at his best?

 

[Thomas Shey]

As part of MSH's combat sequence, players were allowed to make a defensive FEAT roll that could make it harder for foes to hit them. The real issue is that most rpg players consider defensive options anathema to the extent that they will put their characters in terrible positions tactically just so they can constantly attack.

Notice I said "passive", as in, "not taking up actions."

Also as I recall, it didn't work a lot even for characters avowedly good at it, and only helped so much even when they did (I will again note it has been a very long time though, so there could be something I'm forgetting).

No it isn't. That's the system emulating exactly what happens in comic books with certain superheroes being are far more powerful than their teammates. Superman is the JLA's big gun; Phoenix was the X-Men's big gun; Thor is the Avenger's big gun; Dr. Strange is ridiculously powerful. That's most of comic books/films. There's no "balance" in the genre and thus there shouldn't be some forced "balance" in the ttrpgs.

This assumes that players in a game will have the same reactions to their characters being overshadowed as writers in other fiction who are writing all the characters. Medium matters; games are not comics nor movies nor TV shows and all those have different demands.

That looks like a forced example. I can't think of any superhero ttrpg that encourages murderous combat. Usually it's heroic characters fighting dangerous criminals.

Not all opponents are created equal; a super powered burgler is not the same as a metahuman mass murderer . And its still poor genre matching when combat counter selects against less lethal attacks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn’t something I’ve seen up close & personal. The players “probably” not playing their PC’s established personality without mechanical reinforcement, that is.

I think there's matters of degree there, especially with people who have any lean into "play to win" at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, for me, any successful supers game needs strong genre buy in from the players, and ideally some kind of mechanical reinforcement of that fact.

Yeah, as I commented when the I made my original Disadvantage system, I knew there were people I played with that, even though they were long time superhero fans, were probably not going to build characters with significant weaknesses "just because"; they needed mechanical encouragement. Yet, even that wouldn't have worked without at least some buy in.

Some years ago I ran a short superhero campaign for my wife and three of our friends; the latter three did not have any fondness for superheroes, but were interested in seeing what a game and setting not afraid of that power level would be like.

It did not go well. One of the three struggled but tried to engage with it while clearly not having any intuitive sense for how it worked, and the other two were quickly obviously hostile to it. They'd have been much better off with a people-with-powers game that didn't carry significant superhero setting genre assumptions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are quite a few game systems where lethal attacks are explicitly more effective than non lethal attacks and it’s not hard to imagine a superhero game doing the same. A good example might be MSH, where being able to get a Kill result (as you can with guns and swords) with a Red is mechanically better than almost any other outcome in combat, especially if there’s discussion about whether getting a Kill result costs you Karma in and of itself (we generally ruled not, because you couldn’t help the result with an energy blast or similar, you only lost the Karma if the person actually died).

There were actually some problems for prior editions of Hero in this regard. The killing damage system could produce very low stun, but it also gusted higher than not only you expected from "normal" damage but higher than was possible for it. Given it had a damage absorbing system, this usually meant that you could expect sometime through a combat against a superhuman foe that you'd get what was sometimes called a "stun explosion" that would put them out flat in a way you'd likely not get using normal damage. It was one of those cases where the intuition of how that would work (because of the fairly common low end result) was not actually how it tended to work out in play. My suspicion is that high end killing attacks were rare enough on the PCs part in the early playtesting that this dynamic was not seen during play much, and then it had sort of established itself as the way it was done and took another five editions before it was addressed (and then arguable over-fixed).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Generally in such games it’s not a requirement to generate Plot Points via role playing (or getting yourself in trouble, rather) but since it’s an option it’s one players are encouraged to take.

Let’s take three examples of the Thing in different systems:

1) In many traditional RPGs, Ben derives no benefit from going on a brief self-loathing rampage in Yancy Street, but does derive narrative and reputational disbenefit from property damage etc. The player is discouraged from doing so unless it’s something he feels is important to do.

2) In MSH, Ben is penalised 50 Karma for going on a rampage (it’s actually one of the key examples in the book) as well as all the problems from 1) above. The player definitely isn’t doing that unless he really feels he has to.

3) In MHR, Ben gets a PP for playing up his Man or Monster Distinction; he can later spend that PP on a variety of bonuses, such as the Clobbering Time FX (attack an entire crowd of mooks with one swing). The player is incentivised to at least think about having a rampage when it’s dramatically appropriate.

The three options result in different incentives and thus sometimes different player choices. Different tables will have different opinions about the three options and their play styles.

Personallly, I rather like 3) for superhero games because it tends to model what happens in comics better. There’s a mechanical reason Ben gets into a self-loathing funk, or Johnny is such a hothead, or Reed loses himself in his work, or Sue always tries to protect everyone. Sure, you can do all that with just roleplaying, but in my experience you get better and more dramatic results with 3).

I do have to note you've ignored one traditional case in games for this genre: Ben's player is paid upfront with extra character build resources for having occasionally going on the rampage, and then when the situation triggering it occurs, he's not given a choice about the matter as a player. The player chooses whether to take it or not, but once he does the result is mandated.

I think there's a defensible argument that "pay as you do it" is superior in some ways (though it has the issue its harder to do intensity differences there, to the point I don't know of one that does so) but its not the only way to produce this result.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, no one would say Cap, Bucky, or Black Widow aren't superheroes. But I could see running a Winter Soldier type game in Godlike/Wild Talents.

They stretch across at least two genres, same way the Punisher does. Note that the distinction between the Black Widow and and some spy characters is almost invisible, and the difference between Cap or the Winter Soldier is sometimes little other than the fact they're superhuman in attributes when being used in certain ways. If you pulled the helicarriers out of it and subbed in something like a set of weaponized space stations Captain America: The Winter Soldier would have been in that category.

 

[overgeeked]

I think there's a defensible argument that "pay as you do it" is superior in some ways (though it has the issue its harder to do intensity differences there, to the point I don't know of one that does so) but its not the only way to produce this result.

This is where things like shuffling damage off on emotions or relationships could come in. To avoid damage in a fight, you shift that to emotional damage which you need to process later to clear it. Say 3-5 preselected ways to do so. Thing is regularly but not always moping on Yancy Street. Regularly but not always arguing with Johnny. Etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Generally in such games it’s not a requirement to generate Plot Points via role playing (or getting yourself in trouble, rather) but since it’s an option it’s one players are encouraged to take.

Let’s take three examples of the Thing in different systems:

1) In many traditional RPGs, Ben derives no benefit from going on a brief self-loathing rampage in Yancy Street, but does derive narrative and reputational disbenefit from property damage etc. The player is discouraged from doing so unless it’s something he feels is important to do.

2) In MSH, Ben is penalised 50 Karma for going on a rampage (it’s actually one of the key examples in the book) as well as all the problems from 1) above. The player definitely isn’t doing that unless he really feels he has to.

3) In MHR, Ben gets a PP for playing up his Man or Monster Distinction; he can later spend that PP on a variety of bonuses, such as the Clobbering Time FX (attack an entire crowd of mooks with one swing). The player is incentivised to at least think about having a rampage when it’s dramatically appropriate.

The three options result in different incentives and thus sometimes different player choices. Different tables will have different opinions about the three options and their play styles.

Personallly, I rather like 3) for superhero games because it tends to model what happens in comics better. There’s a mechanical reason Ben gets into a self-loathing funk, or Johnny is such a hothead, or Reed loses himself in his work, or Sue always tries to protect everyone. Sure, you can do all that with just roleplaying, but in my experience you get better and more dramatic results with 3).

I prefer 2, coupled with a solid session 0 where expectations of play are agreed upon. Option 3 leads IME to gamist actions where players look for ways to mechanically advantage disruptive behavior, and come up with a fictional excuse after the fact. Fortunately, my current crop of players are more interested in playing their PC in a way consistent with their personalities and the fictional circumstances than they are pushing for mechanical advantage.

I know other folks have different feelings about this, but IMO the carrot, the stick, and a good open conversation before play begins is better than just a bigger carrot.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do have to note you've ignored one traditional case in games for this genre: Ben's player is paid upfront with extra character build resources for having occasionally going on the rampage, and then when the situation triggering it occurs, he's not given a choice about the matter as a player. The player chooses whether to take it or not, but once he does the result is mandated.

I think there's a defensible argument that "pay as you do it" is superior in some ways (though it has the issue its harder to do intensity differences there, to the point I don't know of one that does so) but its not the only way to produce this result.

Yeah, sounds like a "talents & flaws" style system, a la many beloved (by me) RPGs of the '90s.