What SuperHero RPG do you play ?

[Aramax]

accept ONLY Villians & Vigilanties! relitivly simple,lite rules that do an excelant job of doing street level to Xmen types.Character generation is very random and it really can't do Superman or Wonder Woman well.
Monkey House Games has just launched the 2.1 rules and looking to bring it back.

I usually skip the randon power generation and make the characters myself.It has done a fine job of simulating some of the weaker JLA types that are in my game.

 

[jaerdaph]

The biggest problem was there is no balance between powers and a game can have two characters of vastly different power levels due to the randomness of the default character creation method.

In other words, you end up with a team of PC characters just like in the comics or cartoons, when you compare Superman to Robin for instance, yet they are still both members of the team. And both can shine and steal the scene with what they got in different ways.

Unfortunately, D&D is so ingrained in our gamer culture (whether we admit it or not) that "levels" and "balance" and "start on equal footing" like in a video or board game have become straight jackets even when they don't serve the genre. I know it took me many years to break free from that and start thinking outside the box. Plus, I think the random character generation element is in it's own right the "balance" because nobody knows who's going to get to be the Superman analog and who's going to get to be Robin analog at the start of the game. If you want equal footing, give everyone 45 or so points and let them point buy characters.

As for the powers in ICONS not being "balanced", again I disagree with this being a problem. You don't need to "balance" Wall Climbing with Alter Ego, or Super Speed with ESP (not without making the game far more complex than the rules lite entity it is now anyway). They're super powers drawn from a list of common super power themes - you either have it, or you don't.

 

[billd91]

In other words, you end up with a team of PC characters just like in the comics or cartoons, when you compare Superman to Robin for instance, yet they are still both members of the team. And both can shine and steal the scene with what they got in different ways.

Unfortunately, D&D is so ingrained in our gamer culture (whether we admit it or not) that "levels" and "balance" and "start on equal footing" like in a video or board game have become straight jackets even when they don't serve the genre. I know it took me many years to break free from that and start thinking outside the box. Plus, I think the random character generation element is in it's own right the "balance" because nobody knows who's going to get to be the Superman analog and who's going to get to be Robin analog at the start of the game. If you want equal footing, give everyone 45 or so points and let them point buy characters.

As for the powers in ICONS not being "balanced", again I disagree with this being a problem. You don't need to "balance" Wall Climbing with Alter Ego, or Super Speed with ESP (not without making the game far more complex than the rules lite entity it is now anyway). They're super powers drawn from a list of common super power themes - you either have it, or you don't.

I'm largely in agreement though I would add the caveats that large disparities do make additional work for the GM and players need to buy into the genre to make it work really well. Of course, lack of genre buy-in kills any game.

 

[jaerdaph]

I'm largely in agreement though I would add the caveats that large disparities do make additional work for the GM and players need to buy into the genre to make it work really well. Of course, lack of genre buy-in kills any game.

True, but I'd also add that it's not much different than the challenge a GM faces in keeping a diverse party of bards, paladins, halfling thieves, clerics, dwarven fighters, elven wizards etc... challenged and spotlighted throughout an adventure and a campaign. A challenge, yes, but not an insurmountable one.

As for buy in, yeah, you definitely need group buy in to get a game going and keep it going. Fortunately (as this thread demonstrates), the supers genre is well-served and blessed with a plethora of different high quality games that appeal to different people and play styles.

 

[billd91]

Fortunately (as this thread demonstrates), the supers genre is well-served and blessed with a plethora of different high quality games that appeal to different people and play styles.

Indeed. For many years V&V was my favorite. We rolled powers and had some power level varieties. I think M&M/DC Adventures may have finally supplanted it at the top. Close thing though. I'd still play or run either happily.

 

[Walking Dad]

M&M 3e/DC Adventures (they are the same system) is by far my first choice. HERO is cool, but the system is complex. Still, I own every HERO 5e book published except for a couple and they are easy to convert for use in an M&M game and make fantastic reference material.

ICONS is intriguing because its written by Steve Kenson, but I hate the FATE system and I hate random elements in character generation.

You don't have to follow random generation, by any means. There's even a rule in the book for how to create a character with point buy.

I can understand that FATE isn't to everyone's liking, and ICONS is clearly inspired by the FATE mechanics, but I think it works for this game where I don't think it always works in some other games I've tried out.

The random creation rules are far from balanced. Wall-crawling 9 isn't more powerful than flight 5, but weaker.

The FATE mechanics work, but I like the more free-form Hero Ponts of M&M more.

 

[Mercutio01]

The random creation rules are far from balanced. Wall-crawling 9 isn't more powerful than flight 5, but weaker.

True, but that's also true of Mutants and Masterminds.

I'm also a fan of M&M, and I also visit ATT regularly, but had I my druthers, I'd play/run ICONS because I like that it's rules-light. Not that I don't enjoy the heck out of M&M, but it takes decidedly, unquestionably, longer to make a character, plan a campaign, and, in general, do everything. Even including the GM Kit quick creation rules for M&M (which are absolutely awesome), it still takes longer to do.

Ultimately, it's a preference thing, and the two games are made to satisfy two separate niches and two separate styles of gaming. I like them both for entirely different reasons, but there's something about the simplicity of ICONS that scratches my super-hero itch just a little bit better.

 

[Walking Dad]

In other words, you end up with a team of PC characters just like in the comics or cartoons, when you compare Superman to Robin for instance, yet they are still both members of the team. And both can shine and steal the scene with what they got in different ways.

Actually, Superman and Robin were never members of the same team ...

And no, Robin cannot steal the scene where they are fighting suneaters near a black hole...

Mind I like comics for the action and suspense, no teen drama, like Smallville (no bashing, just clarifying my personal taste).

There is a reason, why the JLA comic Batman, who teams up with Superman, seems so much more powerful than the Batman in the dynamic duo situations, getting sometimes punched out by some thugs.

Unfortunately, D&D is so ingrained in our gamer culture (whether we admit it or not) that "levels" and "balance" and "start on equal footing" like in a video or board game have become straight jackets even when they don't serve the genre. I know it took me many years to break free from that and start thinking outside the box. Plus, I think the random character generation element is in it's own right the "balance" because nobody knows who's going to get to be the Superman analog and who's going to get to be Robin analog at the start of the game. If you want equal footing, give everyone 45 or so points and let them point buy characters.

Balancing through randomness may work for games where you don't play the same character for long (I personally play mostly PbP, where an adventure (not campaign) can take a year+). And don't use the "GM can bring any character to the spotlight" thing. Ever seen Superfriends and how often they artificially included scenes that made Aquaman look useful? The players will notice, too.
I sometimes like to play a power-wise underdog, but I want this to be my decision, not of the dice.

As for the powers in ICONS not being "balanced", again I disagree with this being a problem. You don't need to "balance" Wall Climbing with Alter Ego, or Super Speed with ESP (not without making the game far more complex than the rules lite entity it is now anyway). They're super powers drawn from a list of common super power themes - you either have it, or you don't.

And I disagree with you. Feeling useful is a very important part for my enjoyment of a game. And there are some powers that are simply better than others (Flight / Wall Climbing).

And for rules lite, I just declared some powers to only count as a half power for determination and other relevant things.

Three tiers of powers (double, normal, half) are just the minimum granularity I needed

 

[Walking Dad]

True, but that's also true of Mutants and Masterminds.

...

Ultimately, it's a preference thing, and the two games are made to satisfy two separate niches and two separate styles of gaming. I like them both for entirely different reasons, but there's something about the simplicity of ICONS that scratches my super-hero itch just a little bit better.

But M&M's rules don't pretend they are worth the same.

I also like both systems, but I need a little extra bit of complexity as I explained in the post above. I like rules-lite, but not at the cost of balance (I also use a slightly modified method to determine Determination (including the ranks of powers and a slight 'cost break' for super attributes).

 

[Mercutio01]

But M&M's rules don't pretend they are worth the same.

I also like both systems, but I need a little extra bit of complexity as I explained in the post above. I like rules-lite, but not at the cost of balance (I also use a slightly modified method to determine Determination (including the ranks of powers and a slight 'cost break' for super attributes).

I'd like to hear more of your house rules. You could PM so as to not clutter thread. I also have my own little house rule ideas although I've not been able to play as much as I'd have liked.

For me, I'd rather add a little complexity to the rules-light than try to remove complexity from the rules-heavy. I do enjoy just kind of building characters in both systems or trying to build specific characters in both just to see how they'd look for the different systems, but since I'm usually a GM for whatever I play, I prefer the games that take the least amount of work in prep.