What makes a successful superhero game?

[jian]

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.

Yes, that’s true, I hadn’t remembered that. Looking at the Advanced rules now, you make an Endurance check for both:

Stun

• White: Stunned for 1-10 rounds (potentially the rest of the fight)
• Green: Stunned for 1 round
• Y/R: No effect

Kill

• W: KO’d and losing 1 End rank a round until dead
• G: KO’d, losing 1 End rank only if Wolverine’d or Punished (shot or stabbed, I mean)
• Y/R: No effect

So Kills are marginally more effective as long as you have a paramedic with you. Which our old team basically did.

Yes, I assume Wolverine spends all his days on zero Karma. He mentioned the pooling Karma rules once and even Kitty gave him the stink eye until he gave up.

 

[Eric V]

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)

It WAS a trade-off if it was in a Slugfest; Dodging only worked against ranged and charge attacks, while evading worked against melee, and only one combatant at that. It also meant you could not make any attacks that round. Blocking also meant no other actions.

So the Daredevil vs. 5 thugs problem remains.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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).

For a more Watsonian explanation, its also extremely questionable that the tolerance for superheroic vigilantism would continue if they were regularly killing the people they were fighting against, especially when it isn't necessary. Most supers are perfectly capable of taking down opponents, even other supers, in a non-lethal fashion. So if they're doing it lethally, its because they want to and society isn't liable to tolerate that for very long.

(This is ignoring the very low-powered super end of things which is often operating in the genre space of covert vigilantes already, and where the question is thus moot).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

But if only some characters have to use it for survivability, as far as I'm concerned that's a design flaw.

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).

When they're entangled, I'm going to talk about them together. If that upsets you, feel free to ignore me.

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

You said most, but as far as I can tell it only follows if you accept that's actually true, which as you say, I don't. There are plenty of supervillains who are not notably murderous (because they have no need to be to do what they want to do).

 

[John R Davis]

I never played a SH campaign, but have played a variety of SH games at Cons. The key to me is the complicated lives the character has when they are not punching things. Whether they are a goody two shoes, a mum with childcare commitments, non-adult and all the other stuff that gets in the way of being a hero. The crash bang wallop stuff can get dull quite quickly IMLE.

 

[GrimCo]

For a more Watsonian explanation, its also extremely questionable that the tolerance for superheroic vigilantism would continue if they were regularly killing the people they were fighting against, especially when it isn't necessary. Most supers are perfectly capable of taking down opponents, even other supers, in a non-lethal fashion. So if they're doing it lethally, its because they want to and society isn't liable to tolerate that for very long.

(This is ignoring the very low-powered super end of things which is often operating in the genre space of covert vigilantes already, and where the question is thus moot).

Well, if i was citizen of Gotham, i would be pretty pissed at Batman not snuffing out Joker ( and couple of others) once and for all since he escapes every time and does more damage. Red Hood on the other hand has more pragmatic approach. (Golden Era Batman did use guns and lethal force though, same as Captain America). But i get it. It's about continuing stories with recognizable rogues gallery. Good superhero stories need good villains. If you kill them, you run out of them. Also, it's better image for product aimed at kids.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, if i was citizen of Gotham, i would be pretty pissed at Batman not snuffing out Joker

The classic answer to that is "If you want him dead, talk to the legal system. Complaining Batman isn't doing it is about like complaining that the cops aren't functioning as judge, jury and executioner."

( and couple of others) once and for all since he escapes every time and does more damage. Red Hood on the other hand has more pragmatic approach. (Golden Era Batman did use guns and lethal force though, same as Captain America). But i get it. It's about continuing stories with recognizable rogues gallery. Good superhero stories need good villains. If you kill them, you run out of them. Also, it's better image for product aimed at kids.

Trying to return to that when there are also perfectly good in-setting reasons it doesn't happen (among other things, Batman didn't even lean into killing when he did use guns, and other than Frank Miller's version, has done so even less for about 75 years now). Like I said, nothing would make superheroes public tolerance look less likely than if they started routinely playing executioner.

 

[overgeeked]

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).

Which, to me, is a clear indicator that the game is poorly designed. If it's meant to emulate superhero fiction, it shouldn't be a struggle to use the game to create superhero stories.

 

[jian]

Well, if i was citizen of Gotham, i would be pretty pissed at Batman not snuffing out Joker ( and couple of others) once and for all since he escapes every time and does more damage. Red Hood on the other hand has more pragmatic approach. (Golden Era Batman did use guns and lethal force though, same as Captain America). But i get it. It's about continuing stories with recognizable rogues gallery. Good superhero stories need good villains. If you kill them, you run out of them. Also, it's better image for product aimed at kids.

Batman is honestly his own superhero genre and sometimes a very depressing one. If it turned out (probably in an expy series) that Bruce and all his enemies are trapped in some version of Sisyphus’ Tartarus, constantly rolling the boulder uphill before watching it roll down again and crush a few dozen innocent citizens each time, never making anything at all better, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

 

[overgeeked]

Batman is honestly his own superhero genre and sometimes a very depressing one. If it turned out (probably in an expy series) that Bruce and all his enemies are trapped in some version of Sisyphus’ Tartarus, constantly rolling the boulder uphill before watching it roll down again and crush a few dozen innocent citizens each time, never making anything at all better, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

I mean...it's serialized superhero fiction. I doesn't make logical real-world sense. It's not supposed to. It's the whole "why doesn't Gandalf use the Eagles to fly the ring to Mount Doom on page 5 of Lord of the Rings" problem, i.e. it's a story and follows story logic. It's not a game, it doesn't follow gamer logic. To me that's a feature not a bug. The closer games can get to working like actual stories work, the better.