Friday, April 16, 2021

Fast and Loose

Ran the current version of DMI (superheroes) again yesterday. It worked fine...worked well, in fact...and gave us a session that reached a satisfying conclusion, not much different from what one might expect in a single, standalone issue of your favorite comic book. 

At least, a comic book from "back in the day" (something from my own past: the 70s and early 80s). 

Which, unfortunately, isn't quite what I want. I was hoping for something more cinematic (or serial) in nature, but the only thing "cinematic" was the gusto of violence my players brought to the thing...which isn't terribly unexpected seeing as how that's what they see in cinema hero films. 

In the hands of more serious role-players could this game be turned into something more than a beer-and-pretzels one-off? Mmm...I don't know. The thing worked best running fast-and-loose, with me using my card power (as the GM) to keep a firm hand on the direction we were steering the game. Even so, the narrative control allowed the players had us going in unexpected directions that required a lot of "rolling with it." That might end up being the same even with older, more experienced gamers and is a general pitfall (or feature) of games that share narrative responsibility.

Of course, that's how I designed it to run. Maybe I just don't dig that style of play as much as I thought I did.

The kids DID enjoy the game (which isn't nothing) and they DO like it, but they also told me (unsolicited) that they still prefer D&D. Which, absurdly, still makes me happy for some reason. I guess because it goes to show that AD&D is still "king," and (for me) I like having some consistency in this ever-changing world of ours. Makes me feel comfortable.

So anyway...I think it's time to put down the hero design for a little bit. I'll still tinker with the text/system on the side, but I think it's time I got back to some more "serious" gaming.

It was a nice interlude.
; )


  1. It's hard for me to see the long-term campaign viability of a superhero RPG. I have little to no experience with those sorts of games (I've barely even looked at a rulebook, much less actually played), so I won't posit a criticism. However, I'd like to ask a pertinent question.

    Accumulation of material is, I think, a critical element of campaign games. I'm not speaking of systems designed to upgrade the characters, but the collection of simple, solid material wealth. What do superheroes collect? From the comics and the movies, they don't need money, they don't need equipment (they always seem to already have everything, or they don't use equipment at all) ... what exactly is a superhero's success measure?

    1. If you work from the premise that accumulation of material is critical to a campaign game, then your only real option for the genre is to establish a “meta-“ currency to take its place: experience points, good karma, heroic reputation, etc. Most of the older hero RPGs went this route, and gives players a means of measuring success, i.e. “here’s how I am doing” in the game. One of the brilliant parts of the original Marvel Superhero Game was that these points could be turned around and used to help create comic book conceits (like having a non-powered Hawkeye fight effectively against the same foes as a Thor or Hulk).

      [of course, the MSH game falls down in its system for distributing these points...on of its main/major failings]

      However, there are plenty of super RPGs that don’t buy that premise: they say the point of play IS play and figure people will be satisfied just being able to “tell neat stories” or something. I have a hard time buying this idea myself...too easy for long term play to grow stale without goals or objectives...and yet I probably have NOT stressed this accumulation as much myself...something I’ll need to think about if/when I return to the concept.

      However, I don’t plan on doing that for a bit.

    2. I'm with Alexis on this. I haven't played many supers games, and none has gone on for more than a handful of sessions. And I think it's exactly the lack of accumulation that leads to this. Well, that and the previously discussed reactive nature of the "capes" medium.

      I've tinkered with "community" points for post-apocalyptic gaming. Gather enough junk from the wastelands and ruins of the ancients, and your home base improves materially, granting more and more reliable access to goods and services in the home base community.

      Maybe something similar would work in a supers campaign? There's a...I hate to say it because of the real world connotations it brings...crime index for the neighborhood, the district, the city, the state/province, the nation, and the world. Hell, the star system, local cluster of systems, arm of the galaxy, galaxy, galactic cluster...

      Whatever sort of XP are earned can be spent to buy down that crime index. Once the neighborhood becomes friendly, you can move on to the district, and so on. Every now and then events happen that raise the crime index in an area again. Or if the heroes rest on their laurels for too long, it creeps back up.

    3. There are so many problems with just “crime busting.” Humans, criminals or not, are not orcs, and just punching them out (or blasting them with lasers) is far from the realm of decency, even if it wasn’t already dead boring after the first time or two of foiling a mugging (or whatever). The vigilante actions of Spider-Man, Batman, etc. seem more like backdrop or “color” to (whatever happens to be) the main story of the least in the good ones.

      It’s interesting you bring up the post-apocalyptic genre. I’ve been thinking a lot about Rifts the last couple days, and it suffers from a lot of the same issue. Gamma World (the first couple editions) had, at least, the idea of earning “renown” points, similar to what you’re describing, but Rifts doesn’t, instead simply being pointless wandering from one fight to another. Is “new D&D” (5E) the same?

    4. Oh, I didn't intend to endlessly beat up muggers. There should be some sort of criminal organization that needs to be defeated, similar to the Netflix Marvel shows. First deal with Kingpin/Cottonmouth/Purple Man/uh, corporate shenanigans?, then after that's done, deal with a city-wide threat like The Hand.

      Or how Agents of SHIELD went from investigate some rogue powered people to battle Hydra to deal with an alien invasion to travel to the future to run around outer space to saving multiple timelines.

    5. I'd like to stress that with "accumulation," I'm definitely not talking about XP, which would be the example I gave of an "upgrade" mechanic.

      I'm actually talking about material wealth; things; homes; status with the community; this kind of thing. What does Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, Iron Man, Batman, do with MORE material wealth? Either they have all they need or its useless. They either have all the gadgets they need; they already have rocking homes or they don't care about homes; and how exactly does a superhero get MORE status with a community? I understand how they can lose it (ie., ep.4 of Falcon/Winter Soldier, as depicted above), but how do you measure people having MORE respect for Superman?

      I like to watch superhero movies, when they're good; and I get the esoteric pleasure-model from BEING one; but in a game structure, I can't actually fly, I only pretend to fly. I don't see what there is the structured sense of making progress that enables me to look at what I've achieved over the space of 12 months gaming and say, "Wow; I'm really getting somewhere!"

    6. @ Alexis:

      No, I get it. That is, I understand that character development (upgrading through x.p. for example) isn't true "accumulation." But I think some designers are using it In PLACE OF other types of see this in Heroes Unlimited (and most Palladium games: Rifts, etc.), Villains & Vigilantes, another couple. "Karma" as a mechanic (in the original Marvel Superheroes RPG) APPEARS similar but is actually quite different, measuring multiple concepts at once.

      However, all of these games have in common an attempt to reward particular behavior types (i.e. "heroic behavior") for the carrot of points. And these tend to be OLDER games...newer hero games are VERY unconcerned with accumulation of any sort. Which means unless you really, really like "pretending to fly" (or whatever) chances are the game won't hold much long term interest at all.

      Doesn't mean it can't be a fun time in the short term. But short term definitely lacks the juice of the long game.

  2. I have the same issues with suprehero games in that they feel like they need to be very story driven versus sandbox.

    Basically you react to the threat of the week and thats that.

  3. Weird.

    My experience is not surprisingly quite different but I may also define sandbox in way you guys don't mean.

    I've been in two separate Superheroes games that each lasted about 3 1/2 to 4 years. The first and definitely longer of the two was in my high school and early college years and the second was about 3 years ago (maybe less).

    The first one used the Champions / HERO System and while I was only in it for 4 years, the entire thing was made up of several interconnecting campaigns and latest about 10 year of real time in total.

    The drive to play in the game was the same drive I have for all the games I run or play in: Create and portray interesting characters, interact with other interesting characters, achieve the characters' personal goal, uphold the general goals and premise of the setting (in this case, Protect the Innocent, Fight Villains, Keep the World/Universe Safe from Evil), World Build, explore the World Building, and enjoy the stories created as a result.

    There are also XP which you can use to increase your powers, skills, influence, etc., but that is a side note.

    In addition, I find with a good GM, it is a proactive game in a way D&D can never be. You don't 'react to the threat of the week' and more or less than you 'hear about a dungeon near by' or 'get hired by a wizard'.

    A lot of times our games would open with the GM asking us what we were up to. You'd get...

    Night Force (our Batman-like Detective): I'm investigating a murder Downtown. Looks like Mr. Morlock is behind it but I can't be sure.

    Starguard (me - Alien Superman-type): Know you this! I, Starguard, hast traveled into orbit above the Earth to deflect a meteor. Have at thee!

    Pulse (Super-Speedster with a Spiderman-like relationship with New York): Well, I was on my way to work at the Physics Lab when, wouldn't you know it, Black Diamond and Streamline both showed up to make trouble on the highway. I got it under control - kinda - but I think it's just a distraction.

    The GM would then weave some of these events together into a mystery we'd need to resolve but there might also be something else going on. Do we purse our investigation or save a sinking Cruise Ship? Are there other heroes who can help? Do we split the team? Etc.

    I ran a long one myself in the same world/setting but we only played once a month for about 2 and a half years, maybe 3, so not quite so impressive.

    1. @ Adam:

      Sounds like the players had a lot of narrative authority in play. Is that standard in a HERO system game?

      While the kind of game you describe may have appealed to me “once upon a time,” I can’t say I’m a big fan of this style now. I prefer something more cooperative, “narcissistic” (hmm...don’t mean that to sound so negative. “Self-focused?”).

      Of course, your group probably worked in cooperation with regard to the GM’s designed mystery (or whatever)...but boy that meteor situation sounds pretty imperative, and Mr. Morlock is a pretty dangerous dude, and maybe Black Diamond and Streamline are NOT “just a distraction” and need a bit more handling...

      That sounds like a lot of interesting things being done by interesting individuals without much mutual cooperation or interaction.

  4. "Sounds like the players had a lot of narrative authority in play. Is that standard in a HERO system game?"

    I don't know if it is typical of HERO System games but it is quite common in games I run and play.

    As for as 'narcissistic' and 'self-focused', I am not sure I follow. The GM asked the individual players what their PCs were doing and the players told him.

    We see that in team comics all the time; issues opening with the team members in different places and doing different things. Then all the seemingly separate events merge and the team works together.

    We cooperated and interacted constantly; also bickered, romanced, dealt with secret identities, game world politics, and a host of other situations. Not sure how I gave the impression we didn't.

    1. You did not give that impression at all.

      As I said, I used to run games with more independent action on the parts of players...this was especially true back when I played games like Vampire or Ars Magica which provide PCs a lot of latitude for action. With small groups (2-3 players) it's not too cumbersome, but it's not what I want from an RPG these days.

  5. I'm not convinced at all that there's a big difference in the accumulation in a supers game and a fantasy game.

    Other than the mechanical effect (XP for spending if that's how you roll, hiring henchmen, equipment), who is really that interested in the bag of gold vs say, (particularly in a low magic setting), even a vanilla +1 sword?

    I ran a ton of V&V and TMNT back in the day and defeated adversaries were ruthlessly removed of their gadgets, hideouts (and probably lives because it was the bad old gritty late 80s).

    The mentioned superheroes in the comics are accumulating trophies all the time. Think the Batcave. What chainmailed adventurer wouldn't want a GIANT FREAKING PENNY?