What makes a successful superhero game?

I know I'm weird but I'm someone who likes to play the BW-type character
Not weird. In first post on this topic, i said my own preference are street level heroes. Hell, my favorite "hero" was and still is Punisher (and i like to play that type of characters). So power levels around peak human to low level superhuman (fe WW2 era Cap in First avenger as upper limit power wise). Guys and gals that can still be taken out by more capable regular Joe human criminals. I only implied that, at least in my personal experience, in games, teams of heroes with vastly different power levels just don't mesh well, specially in more action oriented games. And from GM perspective, for that kind of team, it's hard finding suitable challenge where everyone can contribute in a fight. Throw regular human criminals, big guns walk over them. Throw superpowered mooks that can challenge big guns, they stomp low level heroes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Problem with big name mainstream supers is that they are inconsistent with their portrayal when it comes to their abilities. Some of them are very old and went trough numerous changes over the years and different writers.
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.
Another thing is that some stuff that works in comics or movies, doesn't work in ttrpgs. Avengers work in comics/movies. But in tttrpgs, it falls apart cause no one want's to play Hawkeye or BW when playing big guns is much more fun, specially if it's more action oriented game.
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.
 
Last edited:

Not weird. In first post on this topic, i said my own preference are street level heroes. Hell, my favorite "hero" was and still is Punisher (and i like to play that type of characters). So power levels around peak human to low level superhuman (fe WW2 era Cap in First avenger as upper limit power wise). Guys and gals that can still be taken out by more capable regular Joe human criminals. I only implied that, at least in my personal experience, in games, teams of heroes with vastly different power levels just don't mesh well, specially in more action oriented games. And from GM perspective, for that kind of team, it's hard finding suitable challenge where everyone can contribute in a fight. Throw regular human criminals, big guns walk over them. Throw superpowered mooks that can challenge big guns, they stomp low level heroes.
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.
 

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.
Your character can fight a tank but can they track down Carmen Sandeigo? And yes, I literally did throw a "where in the world is Carmen Sandeigo?" type adventure at my M&M group.
 

Just because the comics do have characters who should be able to trivially outperform their colleagues at almost everything doesn’t mean that’s something you want to emulate in a game where hopefully everyone is supposed to be having fun and enjoying being able to work together with equal spotlight and usefulness. If the game allows great variations in character utility (not power level, that’s a different thing), that is a mechanical problem first and foremost.
Well. I've played, ran and read most of the superhero ttrpgs ever created because I enjoy the genre. Most of them allow for characters that vastly outperform others, either via random-rolled creation or point-buy creation. You're suggesting that gap in capability is a flaw, but again, that gap matches how the genre works. It's like saying ttrpgs emulating gunslingers of the 'Old West' is broken because some characters are faster on the draw than others. It's perfect genre emulation. Now, if a group wants all the characters to be the same, go for it.
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).
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".

Just because the comics do have characters who should be able to trivially outperform their colleagues at almost everything doesn’t mean that’s something you want to emulate in a game where hopefully everyone is supposed to be having fun and enjoying being able to work together with equal spotlight and usefulness. If the game allows great variations in character utility (not power level, that’s a different thing), that is a mechanical problem first and foremost.
Well. I've played, ran and read most of the superhero ttrpgs ever created because I enjoy the genre. Most of them allow for characters that vastly outperform others, either via random-rolled creation or point-buy creation. You're suggesting that gap in capability is a flaw, but again, that gap matches how the genre works. It's like saying ttrpgs emulating gunslingers of the 'Old West' is broken because some characters are faster on the draw than others. It's perfect genre emulation. Now, if a group wants all the characters to be the same, go for it.
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).
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".
Notice I said "passive", as in, "not taking up actions."
Noted. I was just noting that the option was actually in the game.
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).
Well YMMV. IF a player farmed enough Karma, their character could almost do anything they wanted with that system.
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.
I wasn't assuming or even mentioning player reactions. I was commenting on the genre and attempts at "balance" in the games.
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.
Well. Sometimes you get both burglar and mass-murderer (most of Batman's villains). If the group wants a lethal gameplay experience, they should pick a system that best allows for that. But all systems don't need to perform exactly the same.

Sure, but that took their action for the round, no? DD is no closer to defeating the thugs if he does this.
I played mostly the Advanced edition, and with it players could perform multiple actions per turn (with a penalty). You also had Pre-Actions as part of the initiative sequence allowing a character to use Dodging, Evading or Blocking FEATs against (upcoming) opponent attacks.
 

I played mostly the Advanced edition, and with it players could perform multiple actions per turn (with a penalty). You also had Pre-Actions as part of the initiative sequence allowing a character to use Dodging, Evading or Blocking FEATs against (upcoming) opponent attacks.
I remember that one could make extra attacks, but I don't remember extra actions...
 

in what category? I don't see how helicarriers vs space stations has anything to do with genre as I look at Moonraker...

I'm being conservative; usually spy stories try to stick somewhere near but just a bit beyond the extent technologies and the helicarriers were a bit beyond that, so I was qualifying in case someone jumped on them.
 

For me, like any other genre, it takes many things. I just got home from work and it's late so I'll just give a couple examples I personally like:

1) the old Marvel FASERIP system. I don't think it worked as well as intended, but one thing they had that made it 'feel Marvel' was the Karma system. Karma was XP, and I believe also could be used to add to your dice rolls and buy new power stunts. For all the love people have for Wolverine, in the system he was Bad News - you gain Karma for heroism and lose Karma for doing bad deeds. Killing cost you ALL YOUR KARMA - unless it could be later proved you didn't kill Doctor Doom, but a Doombot for example.

2) Brave New World. My understanding is BNW was Savage Worlds before SW. But what I love about BNW was the setting. Each hero only had one power type, you chose if you were known (and under the thumb of Delta Prime) or unknown and at risk of being caught being unregistered. But the setting! Wow. The supervillain caused the Bicentennial Battle in Chicago, threatening to set off a horrific weapon, the alphas (the highest powered supers around) went to stop him... and the villain literally CRATERED Chicago by setting his device off (which was eventually revealed years after the game line died to have been a way to 1) remove all the high powered beings and 2) move them to their own setting)
 

Noted. I was just noting that the option was actually in the game.

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.

Well YMMV. IF a player farmed enough Karma, their character could almost do anything they wanted with that system.

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.

I wasn't assuming or even mentioning player reactions. I was commenting on the genre and attempts at "balance" in the games.

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

Well. Sometimes you get both burglar and mass-murderer (most of Batman's villains). If the group wants a lethal gameplay experience, they should pick a system that best allows for that. But all systems don't need to perform exactly the same.

"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.

I played mostly the Advanced edition, and with it players could perform multiple actions per turn (with a penalty). You also had Pre-Actions as part of the initiative sequence allowing a character to use Dodging, Evading or Blocking FEATs against (upcoming) opponent attacks.

I won't comment about this but leave it to someone who's done something with the system more recently than four decades ago.
 

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.

Though that requires everyone to be disciplined enough to stick to their lane.
 

Remove ads

Top