#7 is a very good point. #12 is a dumb one.

Though it might have been a system issue. With ICONS, fights are great.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1019166#7 is a very good point. #12 is a dumb one.

Though it might have been a system issue. With ICONS, fights are great.

I've had no problems with Mutants and Masterminds, especially 3e.  I think it's his gaming style.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1019390I've had no problems with Mutants and Masterminds, especially 3e.  I think it's his gaming style.

yeah, Style and how well everyone gets the system have a big impact on combat.

Quote from: Nexus;1019400yeah, Style and how well everyone gets the system have a big impact on combat.

I think it might be more what we've internalized as systems of choice, or just how much we've played X game and adapted it to our tastes.  You've adapted HERO, I've adapted D20 and it's various derivatives, for example.  And as such, I find HERO too complex and ocerly fiddly, but you know how to make the system sing.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1019390I've had no problems with Mutants and Masterminds, especially 3e.  I think it's his gaming style.

Well, I never played M&M specifically, but in my experience the way combat works in a D20 system just doesn't lend itself very well to emulating the superhero genre. It's designed for fights where people will usually do straightforward attacks until the opponent is dead/dropped.

Quote from: AsenRG;1018330I was agreeing with the first 10 points, sometimes with an added "that's how you do games, period". ...

Well, though for #7: YOUR MAIN JOB WHILE RUNNING THE GAME IS DENIAL, I tend to think my job is to fairly consider the situation and assess and apply appropriate odds there is a difficulty or not, which for most normal things means most competent people can do most things, but sometimes (depending on the thing and the situation, and occasionally bad luck) there is an obstacle or complication.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1019876Well, I never played M&M specifically, but in my experience the way combat works in a D20 system just doesn't lend itself very well to emulating the superhero genre. It's designed for fights where people will usually do straightforward attacks until the opponent is dead/dropped.

It's got much more than that, in my experience.  I've had equal power characters (PC and NPC) being dropped in one strike, I've had drag out knuckle busters.  I use an optional rule for knock backs, I've had players throw cars and dropped buildings.  It's been very superheroic.

Supers! does a great job of emulating the feel of the genre. It's not a crunch system, which is really what you need in a superhero campaign. Hell, even Pundit admits that, with his comments on ICONS, that satanic, story-based system based on FATE.:-)

Quote from: Skarg;1019896Well, though for #7: YOUR MAIN JOB WHILE RUNNING THE GAME IS DENIAL, I tend to think my job is to fairly consider the situation and assess and apply appropriate odds there is a difficulty or not, which for most normal things means most competent people can do most things, but sometimes (depending on the thing and the situation, and occasionally bad luck) there is an obstacle or complication.

Understandable point of disagreement .My impression was that he was writing more from a drama and genre emulation point of view rather a simulation POV which I have gotten the idea is not your cuppa from some of your previous posts.

Quote from: cranebump;1020036Supers! does a great job of emulating the feel of the genre. It's not a crunch system, which is really what you need in a superhero campaign. Hell, even Pundit admits that, with his comments on ICONS, that satanic, story-based system based on FATE.:-)

I'm in the oddball minority tastes on this (the dip my fries in a milkshake, put grape jelly on a sausage biscuit crowd of the rpg set, I guess. ). I likes me some crunch for supers games when the general trend seems to be towards light mechanics.

I tried ICON for a while, but eventually got tired of vagueness of the system, and eventually moved on to M&M.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1019913It's got much more than that, in my experience.  I've had equal power characters (PC and NPC) being dropped in one strike, I've had drag out knuckle busters.  I use an optional rule for knock backs, I've had players throw cars and dropped buildings.  It's been very superheroic.

M&M (really, most traditional based supers RPGs) does rely on the GM to keep things fresh. If you run every fight as a slugfest, it gets dull. But M&M has enough tools like complications, challenges, and power stunts, to build fun, complex encounters.

Another supers RPG I have taken a shine to lately is Masks: A New Generation because it's structured in a way that leads the players to make complex characters with interesting interactions and behaviors, which doesn't always happen in more traditional supers RPGs. Sadly, it has some of ICONS hand-wavy-ness when it comes to powers.

Quote from: Nexus;1020038Understandable point of disagreement .My impression was that he was writing more from a drama and genre emulation point of view rather a simulation POV which I have gotten the idea is not your cuppa from some of your previous posts.

Yes, though what isn't my "cuppa" is the method used to generate drama, and the part where genre emulation extends to emulating how some genres force outcomes that don't make sense to me. If I set up a situation with a lot of drama, I want it to arise naturally from the drama the NPCs and situation bring to it. And if I want to game out a super-hero battling against incredible odds and having a good chance of defeating seemingly incredible odds, I want to do that by giving the hero abilities that make that possible, and then have the player running him responsible for finding ways to use those abilities in a way that is likely to get a good result, and then I want the excitement, tension, dynamically unpredictable outcomes, and general interestingness (to me) of actually playing that out straight without fudging results.

Quote from: Skarg;1020093Yes, though what isn't my "cuppa" is the method used to generate drama, and the part where genre emulation extends to emulating how some genres force outcomes that don't make sense to me. If I set up a situation with a lot of drama, I want it to arise naturally from the drama the NPCs and situation bring to it. And if I want to game out a super-hero battling against incredible odds and having a good chance of defeating seemingly incredible odds, I want to do that by giving the hero abilities that make that possible, and then have the player running him responsible for finding ways to use those abilities in a way that is likely to get a good result, and then I want the excitement, tension, dynamically unpredictable outcomes, and general interestingness (to me) of actually playing that out straight without fudging results.

I didn't mean cuppa as disparing just a cup of tea, your preference.

And I wasn't saying you were wrong but have a different outlook. I think I mentioned before that super comics genre is one that doesn't work well with a simulate reality outlook.  To me  you end up with results that look nothing like the source material which isn't interesting or fun for me. Arguably the entire genre isn't 'realistic'. If I'm playing a super game, I want it to feel like a superhero story. But that's me. You prefer something different. No harm in that as long as everyone is having fun. End of the day, we're all playing Let's Pretend anyway.

Ideally fudging shouldn't required. The system mechanics should produce whats expected and replicate the play experience desired but unfortunately that's often not the case thought, more often then not it more interpreting the result in a manner that suits the game/mood/genre desired and what the players involved will find enjoyable. Though sometimes fudging is needed or makes things better, at least better than some thing that feels anticlimactic or a Let down.

But that is my groups, it does't speak for all of them.

Quote from: Skarg;1019896Well, though for #7: YOUR MAIN JOB WHILE RUNNING THE GAME IS DENIAL, I tend to think my job is to fairly consider the situation and assess and apply appropriate odds there is a difficulty or not, which for most normal things means most competent people can do most things, but sometimes (depending on the thing and the situation, and occasionally bad luck) there is an obstacle or complication.

Yeah, but it's the same thing with different words;). If there's no difficulty, you just have them do it, and look for the next point where they're outside of their competences or there's a chance for failure for another reason.

Quote from: Nexus;1020103Arguably the entire genre isn't 'realistic'.

Arguably not realistic? It seems pretty difficult to argue that any pretense of reality is intended to be more than a surface facade.