What makes a successful superhero game?

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, you can ABSOLUTELY burn tons of build points in skills. But after a certain point, your result will feel less like Batman and more like someone who is best in the world at everything. This begs the question of why be a crimefighter instead of making the world better for EVERYONE with their inventions, etc.

That's a common argument about Batman, actually. But the issue still is Hero is fairly skill-splitty, and just talking about things Batman does pretty regularly is going to eat a lot of point; he's classically the best detective in the DC universe, at one time was considered the third best martial artist, is a world class acrobat (often within "normal human" cases only outmatched by Nightwing), shown to be a master of disguise when he wants to, and is a high end financier. And that's not even getting into how many languages he speaks.

He's just one of those characters who ties up a lot of points in a game that doesn't do significantly more skill lumping than Hero does. Like I said, in one without Skill Levels he'd probably be difficult to impossible even when built on the same point range as Supes.

(For a recent other example, I'm betting Mr. Terrific is just about as bad; anything he doesn't spend on some of the more wealth oriented things he probably makes up for on super tech).

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, I dunno. Too crunchy and trying to define every power isn't fun, but so is the Airy fairy narrative of FATE that had me work too hard to manage it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of not finding quite anything satisfactory here (though have you ever given the current edition of Prowlers and Paragons a look by chance? Still might be too crunchy for you, but its kind of a compromise system.)

 

[billd91]

So, I dunno. Too crunchy and trying to define every power isn't fun, but so is the Airy fairy narrative of FATE that had me work too hard to manage it.

I think you do need a bit of both to really make a superhero game work well without making it too hard to manage. This is one reason I do like Mutants and Masterminds. The characters get defined with points, but there's always the option of using extra effort to pull off a power stunt and push powers into accomplishing what the narrative of the scene needs the hero to do. By being largely defined, you're not constantly having to be extremely creative with your powers as you might with a 100% narrative system - sometimes you just wanna throw an energy blast, right? But by fairly radically being able to power stunt, you can do that "pull a power effect out of the writer's ass" narrative thing so common in the comics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

One of the factors that mitigated any tendency to just treat it as all super fights all the time (at least when it was actually paid attention to) was the Disadvantage system was essentially mandatory. Some of those were primarily combat related like Vulnerabilities and Susceptibilities, but Psych Limits, DNPCs and Hunteds tended to drag characters into setting and personal drama in a way that was otherwise often ignored in other kinds of games at the time.
(If anything, for years it perhaps demanded too many Disads, which had the side effect of making some of the ones with higher time and GM overhead to get ignored. But the principal was sound and when kept in hand, made the game play differently than a lot of other games at the time).

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.

As I've argued, its not like comics don't spend a lot of time focused on combat too. That might not be the parts some people like, but it was absolutely as distinctive as the soap opera parts.

(As an aside, it did have a boost type mechanic--pushing--but I agree the lack of a power stunting mechanic was a flaw. The one it has now still isn't very good).

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).

Is "most" accurate there though? I'll agree that degree of complexity has faded, but I'm not sure philosophically games like BASH UE or M&M were that different. You certainly do see more narrative centered games, but that's true outside the superhero genre, too.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As I've argued, its not like comics don't spend a lot of time focused on combat too.

Absolutely agree. But it's a very different kind of combat to what HERO delivered, for better or worse. I think actually HERO is really good for like, some kinds of battle fantasy, but like, for superheroes, I get that theoretically a speedster acts faster than other people, but that doesn't mean giving him more actions per round than other people, especially spaced out between their actions in an elaborate way is like, a good idea lol. Whereas I think for say, a sort of Malazan-ish game? That would have made complete sense (ironically AFAIK Malazan was based on an AD&D 1E game which then moved to GURPS Fantasy). Like, I mean this is my cheap go-to comment, but by that logic, y'know Flash should get like 4+ comic book panels for every one that Green Lantern gets lol. It's just not comic-book-like.

That doesn't mean it's worthless or unfun, just not exactly what a lot of people were actually looking for from that genre.

Some of those were primarily combat related like Vulnerabilities and Susceptibilities, but Psych Limits, DNPCs and Hunteds tended to drag characters into setting and personal drama in a way that was otherwise often ignored in other kinds of games at the time.

Yes this is a superb point and I think part of why HERO seemed to get so many people really RPing with it, earlier on than that seemed to be "normal" in TTRPGs (this is before my time, I didn't start RPGs until 1989, and didn't meet lots of other players until 1993 and later, I'm going from historical accounts, but I think they're probably true).

Is "most" accurate there though? I'll agree that degree of complexity has faded, but I'm not sure philosophically games like BASH UE or M&M were that different.

I would say so, but I wouldn't overstate the argument. Like, I don't think M&M's fundamental philosophy is the same as HERO re: powers and combat and so on. I think it HERO is going for this sort of "detailed tactical sim" (both gamist and simulationist, perhaps more gamist), whereas M&M just wants a reliable and smooth resolution mechanism that feels good and genre-appropriate and is thus positioned at a more gamist-narrativist point (if we accept the modern usage of "narrativist" to mean "interested in feeling like a specific genre even at the cost of potential 'realism'"). Oddly FASERIP, I think without any conscious intention, kind of ended up in a similar place much earlier on.

 

[dbolack]

Oddly FASERIP, I think without any conscious intention, kind of ended up in a similar place much earlier on.

I firmly feel Marvel Super Heroes ended up there because they didn't want you building characters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely agree. But it's a very different kind of combat to what HERO delivered, for better or worse.

I'm afraid I just don't see it that way, and I've certainly known a lot of comics fans that don't. I don't know this part of this argument can be anything but a question of taste and perception.

(The only think I might agree with is there's problems representing the movement speed of supers on a battlemap. That was clearly a tradeoff, since its the sort of thing that can be a failure state no matter how you represent such thing (while some characters zip around all the time, especially traditional speedsters, even others with high speeds just--don't. I've never actually seen a way of representing movement in supers games I thought entirely worked)

Like, I mean this is my cheap go-to comment, but by that logic, y'know Flash should get like 4+ comic book panels for every one that Green Lantern gets lol. It's just not comic-book-like.

Sometimes he sort-of does, as in they'll show him doing multiple things in the background while another character is acting. But true speedsters are often a problem to represent (as compared to characters who just have better overall reactions than others).

Note you rarely saw a speedster built with a radically higher speed than an extent skilled super combatant anyway; you might get an 8 to a 6, but the game didn't exactly encourage trying to do things like drop a 24 Speed on someone given price structures.

One of the real functions Speed served was to create a generic edge over mundane opponent like random crooks; it meant that a superhero was going to get earlier and more choices than a mook without making the latter completely pointless. You can argue there are modern methods that do this better, but it wasn't like it didn't work.

That doesn't mean it's worthless or unfun, just not exactly what a lot of people were actually looking for from that genre.

Well, as I noted, if you aren't at least moderately focused on the combat end, I'd suggest there's a number of supers games, both then and later that weren't going to work for you.

Yes this is a superb point and I think part of why HERO seemed to get so many people really RPing with it, earlier on than that seemed to be "normal" in TTRPGs (this is before my time, I didn't start RPGs until 1989, and didn't meet lots of other players until 1993 and later, I'm going from historical accounts, but I think they're probably true).

Well, I may be biased as I have some reason to believe I was effectively the first person to come up with the idea of Disadvantages in the predecessor to Hero, because it was obvious that a lot of RPG players, even ones that were superhero fans, were gamist enough they weren't going to take serious disadvantages as was common in the genre without a bribe. But it did seem to work that way when not ignored (and make no mistake, it was ignored all too often; you really wanted to roll more than a couple Hunteds into something like a larger Disadvantage called "Rogue's Gallery" or the like if you had that many seriously after you, and a similar problem could come up with DNPCs if you got carried away; that was one of the common problems with the fact the game had too low a base points and too high a maximum Disads.)

I would say so, but I wouldn't overstate the argument. Like, I don't think M&M's fundamental philosophy is the same as HERO re: powers and combat and so on. I think it HERO is going for this sort of "detailed tactical sim" (both gamist and simulationist, perhaps more gamist), whereas M&M just wants a reliable and smooth resolution mechanism that feels good and genre-appropriate and is thus positioned at a more gamist-narrativist point (if we accept the modern usage of "narrativist" to mean "interested in feeling like a specific genre even at the cost of potential 'realism'"). Oddly FASERIP, I think without any conscious intention, kind of ended up in a similar place much earlier on.

Its farther along than Hero in that direction I'd agree, but too much of the structure of the game still cares about fine distinction in and out of combat to not see it as of a piece. One argument for your point from my POV is after years of using it, one of the reasons I dropped it was I concluded too many combat choices were illusory, but I doubt seriously that was deliberate.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's a common argument about Batman, actually. But the issue still is Hero is fairly skill-splitty, and just talking about things Batman does pretty regularly is going to eat a lot of point; he's classically the best detective in the DC universe, at one time was considered the third best martial artist, is a world class acrobat (often within "normal human" cases only outmatched by Nightwing), shown to be a master of disguise when he wants to, and is a high end financier. And that's not even getting into how many languages he speaks.

He's just one of those characters who ties up a lot of points in a game that doesn't do significantly more skill lumping than Hero does. Like I said, in one without Skill Levels he'd probably be difficult to impossible even when built on the same point range as Supes.

(For a recent other example, I'm betting Mr. Terrific is just about as bad; anything he doesn't spend on some of the more wealth oriented things he probably makes up for on super tech).

I’m basing my assessment partially off of actual write ups of published DC, Marvel, and other companies’ superheroes in gaming magazines. I remember Teen Titans, the X-Men and Justice Machine all getting the treatment.

Villains like Dr. Doom & Magneto were over 1000point builds. I’m assuming Supes & Bats would be written with no fewer points than either of those.

And even giving Bats a bunch of skills (& talents) at pretty generous skill levels, you’d still run out of known skills (IOW, ones demonstrated in the comics) before you’d reach Supes’ point totals. And while he’s got a base with a supercomputer & some nifty vehicles, he doesn’t have a network of them like Doom or other arch villains.

And wealth has a pretty generous points to benefit ratio.

But modeling Batman’s insanely resourceful analysis of threats- and what he’d need to combat them- is an absolute build point sinkhole. It’s conceptually open-ended and amorphous; as powerful as you’d care to model it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One argument for your point from my POV is after years of using it, one of the reasons I dropped it was I concluded too many combat choices were illusory, but I doubt seriously that was deliberate.

Yeah I think that actually was kind of true of lot of 1980s and 1990s, if you really looked at the math, many choices in combat were just either:

A) Objectively a bad idea - i.e. simply does less damage than normal or is an obviously bad trade-off mechanically (like a big penalty to hit in a game where hitting is hard, for a small damage bonus).

or

B) Very nearly meaningless in practice (usually trade-offs that sounded like a big deal but almost no difference).

or the particularly hilarious

C) Obviously the best option, no comparison, and in certain combat situations people will just take it repeatedly, over and over

I remember C-type situations coming up in Rifts a lot. Indeed one should-have-been-titanic duel in Rifts rapidly became very boring because the player realized if he just picked "simultaneous strike" (or something like that), because their PC had slightly more MD than than the antagonist (or regened it or something, I forget), they'd mathematically definitely win, there was basically no way for them not to apart from really bad damage rolls (which was incredibly unlikely, and indeed, didn't happen). So we had like to sit there whilst essentially just rolled the same attack over and over. The DM initially tried some stuff, then realized his best chance was also spamming the same attack and just hoping he got slightly better damage rolls! (He didn't succeed).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But modeling Batman’s insanely resourceful analysis of threats- and what he’d need to combat them- is an absolute build point sinkhole. It’s conceptually open-ended and amorphous; as powerful as you’d care to model it.

Yeah that's extremely difficult to model outside of narrative situations because it's essentially a narrative ability even in the comics. JLA-tier Batman has a plan and methodology and potentially equipment to defeat basically every single superhero and supervillain in the setting. That's a hell of thing to try and model, but if you take a narrative approach it can become insanely easier.