What makes a successful superhero game?

[kermit4karate]

I fell for HERO hard when it first hit shelves as Champions. Every supers game I’ve purchased since then has had merits, but falls short for me. The closest contender has been Mutants & Masterminds.

What they have in common is they both have incredible flexibility in character creation.

The other games are all more limited in that regard, BUT they usually do a very good job of modeling a certain subgenre or underlying intellectual property.

Champions rocked my world for a few years. The concept of disadvantages was just incredible and changed everything for me. What a cool way to create superheroes while simultaneously adding the vulnerability that makes the best of them so great.

 

[kermit4karate]

People throw around Superman but let's be real: most ttrpgs don't let you create anyone as powerful as Kal-El. He can literally move planets around the galaxy Most superhero ttrpgs have a "glass ceiling" that allows you to create powerful characters, but not that Superman-Green Lantern-Dr. Strange-Phoenix level that can break the fictional setting into pieces.

Which comes to what I think makes a great superhero ttrpg: rules for character limitations and weaknesses. If a system doesn't have rules designed to give a character a weakness or handicap, it's flawed. One consistent aspect of superheroes and supervillains is they ALL have a weakness of some kind. Something that stops them in their tracks and forces them to rethink their tactics. Superman can get wasted by kryptonite and magic. Green Lantern is useless vs. the color yellow. Dr. Strange has the normal casting limitations of a wizard. Phoenix couldn't fully control her powers.

The more powerful the character, the more simple yet devastating the weakness. If a superhero ttrpg has this baked into the rules, it has potential.

Bingo! The disadvantages are key.

 

[kermit4karate]

I can't stand physics engines in rpgs so any superhero game that does NOT focus on how far the hero can throw or how much weight the bad guy can pick up or how much falling damage the PCs get from Height X, interests me more than otherwise.

Hero and Champions convinced multiple generations of gamers that superhero games should be physics engines and nothing more. It's awful.

The original Champions, the soft cover book that came out in 1981, was something like 64 pages long. It really didn't get too far into physics or anything else by today's standards. It would be considered rules light these days.

And what a great, flexible, extensible, creativity-inspiring game that was epic to the extreme! Still have my original copy in a box around here somewhere.

 

[kermit4karate]

I also should note that the question of detail and complexity can muddy this discussion; Champions is extremely detailed and definitely on the heavy crunch side, and that's probably one of the reasons its less popular these days. But Mutants and Masterminds, while significantly less detailed and crunchy, is not different in philosophy of design, and is still fairly popular. So one can't draw too much significance in Champions slow fade from view in terms of what people want on the divide there.

I feel like Champions has suffered from not being directly associated with Marvel or DC.

 

[kermit4karate]

Because HERO/Champions specifically mechanically feels like a game in a way that's very perceptible to a lot of people, not like a superhero anything.

Specifically in combat it feels like a very detailed squad-level skirmish wargame, that just happens to be superhero-themed.

It got in early, and has a lot of extremely clever system design (some of it years ahead of its time), and at least some of the groups that played it in the 1980s (from accounts I've read, which were detailed and interesting, and sadly seem gone from the internet now) were very much not playing it as a skirmish wargame, but focusing on RPing the social and so on aspects of being superheroes, which I presume mitigated this factor a lot, but it is an issue.

Like, it's fine to have a gamist game, I've enjoyed a lot of them - 4E D&D for example (5E is pretty gamist too). The trouble is when it gets in the way, and the complex turn structure, detailed hex-based movement and range, precision (and quite difficult for a lot of people) character building of HERO/Champions, lack of in-built stunt/boost-type stuff, lack of support indeed for a lot of supers combat tropes (at least in 1980s and 1990s versions of HERO, maybe it changed?) but strong support for playing tactically made it quite... distinctive.

There's a reason why most supers games after that tend to lean increasingly focused on genre emulation (and later on, increasingly by being "narrative"). Because that was what people were finding they wanted after playing HERO/Champions (which isn't to say it's a bad game, it just doesn't strongly support the genre/vibes it's theoretically about - a very common issue in 1970s through 1990s games and even not uncommon with 2000s games, albeit a rare one now).

I got into Champions in the '80s. Coming from AD&D at the time, it shook me and my gamer cohort of nascent RPG fanatic fiends to our cores.

I can attest to the observation you mentioned regarding most people not playing it skirmish or squad based. It was plain and simple comic book superhero/villain stuff.

Standout features that still come to mind were the character sheets with the mannequin mockups so you could draw your own character over the top of them. That was the first I'd seen anything like that. You could use the sharp tip of a mechanical pencil to scrape off the photocopy ink to enhance your drawings.

And then, of course, the usage of disadvantage to boost your point pools to overpower your characters just as long as you were willing to take on some "vulnerability debt."

 

[GrimCo]

To me that’s a feature not a bug. Don’t like one version of the character? Wait 12-18 months. A new version will arrive.

I do and I have. I literally played a Green Arrow clone in M&M 2E when some of the other PCs were Superman and Batman clones.

And for me, that's irritating and one of the reasons i dropped most DC/Marvel comics ages ago. To each it's own.

As I said up thread, it’s not hard at all. You have a mixed group of PCs so throw a mixed challenge at them. Put things in that only Batman can handle alongside things only Superman can handle alongside things only Plastic Man can handle, etc. This is also why superheroes have a nemesis and why those villains so often team up. The Joker isn’t a challenge to Superman, but is to Batman. Mongol isn’t someone Batman has any hope of facing, but he’s a challenge to Superman, etc.

All it takes is thinking like a comic book writer instead of a wargame player.

Yes, but i'm running a game, not writing a comic. Stuff that works in comics doesn't always work in games. And even in comics, it doesn't always make sense and requires massive suspension of disbelief on readers parts. Also, it depends on type of game you want to run. For more action and combat oriented games, massive power difference make combat encounters challenging. Let's be honest. In battle for NY in Avengers movie, Hawkeye and Black Widow are superfluous. Their contribution is marginal at best, they are there as named extras. It works in movie, cause it's movie. In game, Hawkie and BW player would be confined to dealing with mooks and barley contributing anything meaningful. Not fun experience (at least for people i play with, your group might be different).

"Most" is a key word there. Your argument would make the appropriate way to treat Catwoman no different than the Joker. Yeah, no. And that's over and above most superheroes not being executioners.

Most heroes aren't executioners cause of few reasons that have very little with heroes themselves. First is - mainstream DC/Marvel comics are for kids. Second is - some villains are as iconic as heroes. Audience loves them. Killing them off permanently is bad for business, specially when you sell serialized comics. That's why no one important, be it hero or villain, dies permanently. Only side characters die and stay dead (sorry Uncle Ben).

 

[jian]

Well, as usual, terms like "better" and "more effective" are super-subjective. Also, in MSH (Advanced) killing results in a superhero PC losing ALL of their Karma, even if the death is accidental or done when the character was under the control of another character. So no, I wouldn't define that as "mechanically better".

We all have our opinions, of course, but in a MSH game focused on combat (it was the 90s and we were heavily influenced in our teen years by X-Force and Image) where the rule was that you didn’t lose Karma unless the person actually died (and if they were a robot etc it didn’t count anyway) then Kill results are objectively the most effective outcome for defeating opponents as long as your team medic gets to them before the end of the fight.

(Again, it was the 90s, but one of the PCs in our MSH game was a demon (slightly based on Crawley from Good Omens but obviously a lot more fighty) and as the GM I thought it a cool and in-genre thing to declare as part of the ongoing plot that he had been Longinus, the centurion whose spear pierced Christ at the Crucifixion. The character later found his spear, which was now the Dolorous Spear (AKA the Spear of Destiny) and, as per Arthurian myth, automatically inflicted a Kill with every strike.

I foolishly thought this would discourage him from using it on most enemies. Dear reader, I was very naive.)

(Specifically about the rule interpretation re Kill results - the rules didn’t specify when you lose Karma after a Kill and whether someone who takes a Kill dies at once. Since you can get a Kill on a Red with all non-blunt ranged weapons (including all superhero energy blasts unless they specify otherwise - you’re a coward, Cyclops) as well as with guns, swords, spears, and Wolverine claws, we ruled that you didn’t lose Karma until the person actually dies, which could be prevented if they received medical attention. Of course, I think the rules were written to imply that you should spend Karma to lower your result from a Red to a Yellow when you were throwing energy blasts around, but that would have implied that you always had to declare that you would spend Karma before every time you fired, which was quite prohibitive. Or you could use Groundstrike, which almost nobody actually does in the comics since it’s a fix put in for the RPG, so we never did it.)

 

[Theory of Games]

We all have our opinions, of course, but in a MSH game focused on combat (it was the 90s and we were heavily influenced in our teen years by X-Force and Image) where the rule was that you didn’t lose Karma unless the person actually died (and if they were a robot etc it didn’t count anyway) then Kill results are objectively the most effective outcome for defeating opponents as long as your team medic gets to them before the end of the fight.

Yeah but STUN results incapacitate the threat just the same, but without the need for CPR

(Again, it was the 90s, but one of the PCs in our MSH game was a demon (slightly based on Crawley from Good Omens but obviously a lot more fighty) and as the GM I thought it a cool and in-genre thing to declare as part of the ongoing plot that he had been Longinus, the centurion whose spear pierced Christ at the Crucifixion. The character later found his spear, which was now the Dolorous Spear (AKA the Spear of Destiny) and, as per Arthurian myth, automatically inflicted a Kill with every strike.

I foolishly thought this would discourage him from using it on most enemies. Dear reader, I was very naive.)

(Specifically about the rule interpretation re Kill results - the rules didn’t specify when you lose Karma after a Kill and whether someone who takes a Kill dies at once. Since you can get a Kill on a Red with all non-blunt ranged weapons (including all superhero energy blasts unless they specify otherwise - you’re a coward, Cyclops) as well as with guns, swords, spears, and Wolverine claws, we ruled that you didn’t lose Karma until the person actually dies, which could be prevented if they received medical attention. Of course, I think the rules were written to imply that you should spend Karma to lower your result from a Red to a Yellow when you were throwing energy blasts around, but that would have implied that you always had to declare that you would spend Karma before every time you fired, which was quite prohibitive. Or you could use Groundstrike, which almost nobody actually does in the comics since it’s a fix put in for the RPG, so we never did it.)

I'm not certain which edition you used, but in Advanced MSH:

"Death: Almost all heroes have a code against killing, and this is reflected by the fact that if a hero kills an opponent, or through his actions allows a person to die, all Karma for the character is reduced to 0. Karma that has been spent for advancement, building things, or influencing die rolls previous to the death is unaffected, but with the death, all current Karma is reduced to 0. New Karma may be earned from this point, but the Karma is lost, even if the character slain is later returned to life. Accidental deaths and deaths resulting from the hero not being in control of his actions do not mitigate this effect." - MSH Advanced Players Handbook, pg. 35

I liked this aspect of the system because it created a systematic penalty for unheroic behavior. But, the great thing about these games is we can play them however we like, ultimately

An option that requires people to trade off their whole offensive is effectively useless most of the time; as I noted, it--at best--leaves the opponent to try again the next round, so it did--what?

Its possible to construct that sort of thing so it sets up a counter strike or the like, but MSH didn't do that.

But it wasn't a trade-off; the defensive actions were allowed in addition to offensive actions as part of the initiative sequence. It's in the Advanced set (Players Handbook, pg. 14)

I don't think "you can make this particular character type survivable by throwing tons of karma at it that others don't need to" is the counter you think it is here.

Again, YMMV. IME Karma gave PCs extensive capability (mainly for Power Stunts, which were a very effective way of overcoming near impossible challenges).

When talking about games player reactions are an intrinsic part of the equation. They don't play themselves.

We also can't assume points to make points: if someone is discussing systems, we can't assume that person is automatically discussing playstyles. Two different discussions (that often get confused and conflated).

"Most" is a key word there. Your argument would make the appropriate way to treat Catwoman no different than the Joker. Yeah, no. And that's over and above most superheroes not being executioners.

You can assume that, but no. You pointed out I used "most" then went on to ignore what "most" means I think we can agree that we don't share the same viewpoint here

 

[jian]

Yeah but STUN results incapacitate the threat just the same, but without the need for CPR

I'm not certain which edition you used, but in Advanced MSH:

"Death: Almost all heroes have a code against killing, and this is reflected by the fact that if a hero kills an opponent, or through his actions allows a person to die, all Karma for the character is reduced to 0. Karma that has been spent for advancement, building things, or influencing die rolls previous to the death is unaffected, but with the death, all current Karma is reduced to 0. New Karma may be earned from this point, but the Karma is lost, even if the character slain is later returned to life. Accidental deaths and deaths resulting from the hero not being in control of his actions do not mitigate this effect." - MSH Advanced Players Handbook, pg. 35

I liked this aspect of the system because it created a systematic penalty for unheroic behavior. But, the great thing about these games is we can play them however we like, ultimately

Stuns could be resisted or mitigated with a successful Endurance check so they weren’t considered as effective. And yes, we used those rules as written, so the Kill result didn’t result in Karma loss until the person was actually dead.

I too was perfectly happy with the Karma loss with killing, but the existence of the Kill result is what caused problems. I think replacing it with a Stun would have been fine.

 

[Theory of Games]

Stuns could be resisted or mitigated with a successful Endurance check so they weren’t considered as effective. And yes, we used those rules as written, so the Kill result didn’t result in Karma loss until the person was actually dead.

I too was perfectly happy with the Karma loss with killing, but the existence of the Kill result is what caused problems. I think replacing it with a Stun would have been fine.

Well. KILL results can also be resisted with a successful Endurance FEAT roll. I liked having the KILL results for the NPC villains and the occasional "dark & gritty" style adventures. It was always funny to me thinking that every time Wolverine shanked a villain, he lost his Karma - like, Logan would literally NEVER have Karma because all he did was people.

Looking at what makes a good superhero ttrpg, players and their PCs being penalized for doing villainous things should be in the rules somewhere. There needs to be a "line in the sand" IMO.