What makes a successful superhero game?

[dbm]

It really isn’t. The basic unit of value is 1d6 damage which has a standardised point cost, and pretty much everything flows from that. It is extremely ‘gamist’ in my opinion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It really isn’t. The basic unit of value is 1d6 damage which has a standardised point cost, and pretty much everything flows from that. It is extremely ‘gamist’ in my opinion.

That, of course, it absolutely is. But in the context of trying to represent the way things work in the extent superhero comics of the time of its initial design (and I don't think they've changed that radically over time). What it doesn't do is consider the expression of characters abilities and traits unimportant outside of the story functions they serve, and that's a matter of taste, but I think when viewing the media its based on, to act like those aren't presented as interesting in and of themselves is unfounded and sometimes in this discussion treated as a given in ways I don't think is justified.

As I referenced in my first post in this thread, Masks is a legitimate handling of certain interests in the superhero sphere, but so is Champions, and there's a range of other positions in between that can be properly serving various compromise views in that.

(I do think there are some games that are not representing superheroes per se, but what I always think of as the "people with powers" genre, which I think is a slightly different beast, but its one of those distinctions that can be subtle and subjective).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

 

[overgeeked]

It really isn’t. The basic unit of value is 1d6 damage which has a standardised point cost, and pretty much everything flows from that. It is extremely ‘gamist’ in my opinion.

It is a game. What's wrong with it being a game?

 

[dbm]

Nothing, I was backing Thomas that Champion’s isn’t a physics emulator.

 

[Blue]

I played decades of Champions (now Hero System) when I was younger. Loved it. Super crunchy super-heroic world simulation. Loved it. My primary GM (played with many, but the most campaigns with one) published a number of Hero System supplements, both official and 3rd party.

Went to play the most recent edition recently, it felt meh. I've moved on from both playing and running super crunchy games as my RPG tastes have changed. Nothing about the system.

I loved Marvel Heroic Roleplay, as it was such a comic book game, which differs subtly from a superhero game. Also it did a fantastic job of heroes of different power levels.

Right now my favorite supers game is Masks: A New Generation. But it's slightly incorrect to call it a supers game, because like most PbtA games it's bespoke to a specific feel. In this case it's teen superteams, and all the drama, rivalry, and such that come from that. All mechanically supported in a game that still manages to run fast and be rules-light because you use the same Move to defend a civilian from a thrown schoolbus and your BFF from being trash talked by the Prom Queen. Heavily narrative like you'd generally expect from a PbtA.

 

[aramis erak]

Nothing, I was backing Thomas that Champion’s isn’t a physics emulator.

Agreed, it's not exactly a physics sim...
But it can be used as one, since the base assumptions of the core engine work relatively well as a physics sim.

There are more accurates ones. It's not quite off-label use, as the variety of spinoff games using the engine approach it as a physics engine, dropping the powers and replacing them with genre specific tweaks to the core engine.

Fantasy Hero was originally a standalone, like Danger International, Robot Warriors, Star Hero, and Justice, Inc. These titles, prior to the HSR4 unification, were adapted cores, with Star Hero and Fantasy Hero being reprised for 4th, and 5th, and 6th as splats.

Like a number of other games (Traveller, RQ, and others), MacDonald and Peterson intended it to be partially a sim...

Do not let the apparent complexity of these rules discourage you. The rules are designed to reflect real life (as seen in comic books) and they should enhance the interaction between the players and the Games Master. The rules are simply a tool so that everyone can understand the actions of the characters. After playing the game a few times the mechanics will seem second nature and everyone will be able to concentrate on role playing.

Simulation is in its roots... just not simulation of the real world as we live in it. "designed to reflect real life (as seen in comic books)" is the key element. Not all physics engines are our physics. (And, while the sheet can be told apart from later editions, it's instantly recognizable as the parent of the later editions' more streamlined sheets.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed, it's not exactly a physics sim...
But it can be used as one, since the base assumptions of the core engine work relatively well as a physics sim.

There are more accurates ones. It's not quite off-label use, as the variety of spinoff games using the engine approach it as a physics engine, dropping the powers and replacing them with genre specific tweaks to the core engine.

Fantasy Hero was originally a standalone, like Simulation is in its roots... just not simulation of the real world as we live in it. "designed to reflect real life (as seen in comic books)" is the key element. Not all physics engines are our physics. (And, while the sheet can be told apart from later editions, it's instantly recognizable as the parent of the later editions' more streamlined sheets.)

That's a good point. There are elements of that (to one degree or another) in all the superhero games I favor, and games that intentionally move away from that philosophy are less likely to draw my interest.

 

[dbolack]

So, what do you think? What makes a successful superhero game?

This might feel like a lazy way out of this question...

I think the most successful games communicate clearly what type of superhero game they are. Scope, style, and genre(s) expectations, comics brand and period ephemera. Afterwards, correctly executing that explanation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I played decades of Champions (now Hero System) when I was younger. Loved it. Super crunchy super-heroic world simulation. Loved it. My primary GM (played with many, but the most campaigns with one) published a number of Hero System supplements, both official and 3rd party.

Went to play the most recent edition recently, it felt meh. I've moved on from both playing and running super crunchy games as my RPG tastes have changed. Nothing about the system.

This is entirely legit. I'd somewhat moved on a bit myself for quite some time, going over to M&M because it had a lot of Champs elements but was a bit more lightweight. Unfortunately, at one point I realized a problem from my own POV about the system, and once I did I couldn't unsee it. I don't really have a superhero RPG I consider entirely satisfactory any more.