Riffing off this post by mcbobbo over at some 5e thread or other:

Quote from: mcbobbo;763793Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

Excellent point and one that betrays one of my weaknesses with supers games: four-color superheroic settings, by dint of being constrained by editorial and market demands, do not operate by the same rules as "our world, plus superpowers and Spandex-clad vigilantes" would.

I mean, you can run fantasy as "our world in the Middle Ages plus magic and monsters" or SF as "our world in the future, spread over a bunch of planets, plus supertech and aliens" – meaning that people will respond logically and believably to the illogical and impossible elements of the setting. But if you do that to a supers setting, it's not really going to resemble a comic book world in the vein of the Marvel or DC universes.

It's been my experience as a player in a couple of abortive supers campaigns, that most people in my gaming groups (not only players, but in one instance, the GM himself) are not really on board with that. They have very little regard for four-color comic book conventions and yet some are dissatisfied when the result diverges from their expectations.

Anyone with experience on running long-term supers games wanna pitch in?

I run four-color, silver age campaigns, usually short arc, switching PCs after an arc is done. I use the SUPERS! RPG, which is very freeform. I reward playing the silver age tropes with free Competency Dice (sort of like SW "Bennies"). Acting heroically (saving innocents, for example), or in character for the time (spouting cheesy lines), and generally being a fine, upstanding citizen gets players onboard. We embrace all the tropes -- no one ever dies [you get "knocked out"], villains always get away. The battle never fully ends. It's simplistic, but, for RPG play, I think works very well. Supers play is not a serious thing for us. The system we use rewards being very creative with your powers. There won't be a campaign issue about putting a bad guy to death because we accept that that's how four-color supes work. Trying to enforce logic on Supers is worse than when people try to enforce logic on D&D mechanics. Accept the trope, or play a darker era of Supers play (90s era?).

I ran MSH (FASERIP version) for a good while and the first thing you need to do it set the tone and make sure the players are on board for it.

Indiscriminant killing is going to get you put down.
Killing may land you in trouble. It is at the very least going to cost you karma.

And most importantly. Repercussions. Cause and effect.

If you start offing villains just because you can. Then the villains are going to do the same. and so may the law. Most villains dont use lethal force becase the heroes dont. They see what happens to villains who kill and they do NOT want to get planted. Especially in Marvel where getting dead has a higher probability of making you stay dead. (Someone may take up your name. But thats not the same.)

Everyone has different levels of lethality and retribution. Work with it when you can. But if the player is just there to play essentially a villain in disguise. Then its likely going to get disruptive sooner or later unless you the GM and especially the rest of the group is ok with that.

Players are more likely to get on board for a "no kill" supers game when the villains are playing by the same rules. If the villains are killing people then the PCs are likely going to legitimately feel responsible if they busted this maniac and he escaped to kill again. I HATE that.

Quote from: The Butcher;763816Riffing off this post by mcbobbo over at some 5e thread or other:



Excellent point and one that betrays one of my weaknesses with supers games: four-color superheroic settings, by dint of being constrained by editorial and market demands, do not operate by the same rules as "our world, plus superpowers and Spandex-clad vigilantes" would.

I mean, you can run fantasy as "our world in the Middle Ages plus magic and monsters" or SF as "our world in the future, spread over a bunch of planets, plus supertech and aliens" – meaning that people will respond logically and believably to the illogical and impossible elements of the setting. But if you do that to a supers setting, it's not really going to resemble a comic book world in the vein of the Marvel or DC universes.

It's been my experience as a player in a couple of abortive supers campaigns, that most people in my gaming groups (not only players, but in one instance, the GM himself) are not really on board with that. They have very little regard for four-color comic book conventions and yet some are dissatisfied when the result diverges from their expectations.

Anyone with experience on running long-term supers games wanna pitch in?

It depends on the players.

Either they understand and want to play 'good guys' or they don't.

I have seen players that love the super hero genre, but as players, just can't be 'good'

Quote from: Bill;763833It depends on the players.

Either they understand and want to play 'good guys' or they don't.

I have seen players that love the super hero genre, but as players, just can't be 'good'

Totally.

Incidentally, I'm grappling with this myself, not for a supers game but for comics I'm writing...answering the "why", when my main hero's whole creed is "Heroes Don't Kill", and wanting to provide an answer other than "because comic books".

(Essentially, his reason is because he doesn't want the world to descend into super powered anarchy. Sure, he might know this guy is completely irredeemable and a complete menace, but that 16 year old that just gained flame powers might not have the same kind of judgement if there's not a super powered standard bearer demonstrating what's write and what's wrong.)

Regarding the Batman should kill Joker because he always escapes anyway. That's nonsense.

First of all this is an artifact of serial storytelling. You have a series that have been running since before World War II. You cannot keep count of the number of times Joker got out of Arkham in this time. The same logic would lead you to conclude that Batman is over 90 years old.  Anyone so literally minded who cannot deal with this sort of fluid continuity should restrict themselves to one-shot graphic novels and stay away from any long running legacy character because when you put it altogether it won't all add up.

More to the point, when it comes to roleplaying games, it is up to the GM to determine if and when previously captured villains escape from prison. If the GM doesn't want his players to feel their work is in vain or tempt them to become judge, jury and executioner the solution seems pretty simple to me.
Don't blame the genre for what is just bad GMing.

Finally, just for the sake of argument, say Batman does capture the Joker who them get's off and goes off to kill again. The responsibility is not on Batman, it's on those you let him go. You can extend this even further and as the responsibility is ultimately of the electorate to voted in the corrupt or incompetent authorities that let Joker go.  Who came up with the stupid idea that this is somehow Batman's fault?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;763841Totally.

Incidentally, I'm grappling with this myself, not for a supers game but for comics I'm writing...answering the "why", when my main hero's whole creed is "Heroes Don't Kill", and wanting to provide an answer other than "because comic books".

(Essentially, his reason is because he doesn't want the world to descend into super powered anarchy. Sure, he might know this guy is completely irredeemable and a complete menace, but that 16 year old that just gained flame powers might not have the same kind of judgement if there's not a super powered standard bearer demonstrating what's write and what's wrong.)

There can be quite a few reason not to kill

Setting a good example is huge.

Not wanting to kill because each time you do it, becomes easier and more familiar. You risk becoming what you oppose.

Ending a life is a big deal; not something you do for convenience or as a casual act.

You might be wrong about the innocence or guilt of the alleged criminal.

A superhero may feel they apprehend criminals, but society judges them.

Compassion; some people, superhuman or not, can't bring themselves to kill

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;763841Totally.

Incidentally, I'm grappling with this myself, not for a supers game but for comics I'm writing...answering the "why", when my main hero's whole creed is "Heroes Don't Kill", and wanting to provide an answer other than "because comic books".

(Essentially, his reason is because he doesn't want the world to descend into super powered anarchy. Sure, he might know this guy is completely irredeemable and a complete menace, but that 16 year old that just gained flame powers might not have the same kind of judgement if there's not a super powered standard bearer demonstrating what's write and what's wrong.)

I think it was a thread here, but one of the best reasons I've read for why superheros don't kill (in 4 color anyway) is the idea that heroes don't kill and villains don't go after the hero's loved ones (sort of a cold war).  And any villain who violates this ends up with other villains helping out the heroes to take down the violator.

Doesn't work so well with villains like Joker, but he's often portrayed as just as nasty to other villains as he is to heroes, so it might make him the exception that proves the rule.

Sort of like the "just business" aspect of the Mafia in movies--there are some lines you don't cross.

On the whole Batman/Joke aspect, if you use the Alan Moore concept of the two being reflections of each other, then Batman could see himself in the Joker somehow. Each has a different, and perhaps equally ludicrous response to the injustices of life, the "joke," if you will. Think of the quote from Capote, where he speaks of the condemned killer he writes about in terms of them being raised in the same household, but one of them went out the back door, and the other went out the front. It isn't logical, of course, but it's epic storytelling.

In my current Look! Up In the Sky! game, the PCs are comically inept supervillains - the Incompitint Basterds* - who accidentally killed the heroes - they had just trapped them when a meteorite hit exactly on them, leaving nothing but a crater. Now they have taken over the City (NOLA) and are defending it from all the other supervillains, becoming heroes themselves.

In this setting, all the villains are members of Villains Inc., an organization which helps arrange loans, provides insurance, and other services like obtaining unobtainium. The heroes are members of a similar organization called Heroes Inc., which provides the same services. In the contracts, the villains always lose and the heroes always win, and the lives of each are protected, with severe consequences for violation. So all the conventions are enshrined in the contracts, to protect everyone involved from messy lawsuits.

*Commander of the Serpent Armies, Bubblegum Girl, Fascist Man, and The Mole.

Quote from: Brander;763890I think it was a thread here, but one of the best reasons I've read for why superheros don't kill (in 4 color anyway) is the idea that heroes don't kill and villains don't go after the hero's loved ones (sort of a cold war).  And any villain who violates this ends up with other villains helping out the heroes to take down the violator.

Doesn't work so well with villains like Joker, but he's often portrayed as just as nasty to other villains as he is to heroes, so it might make him the exception that proves the rule.

That's...actually really awesome. One of my "down the line" projects for this same universe involves a Villain With Standards who gets spurred into action against a legally untouchable Complete Monster.

Quote from: Bill;763886There can be quite a few reason not to kill

Setting a good example is huge.

Not wanting to kill because each time you do it, becomes easier and more familiar. You risk becoming what you oppose.

Ending a life is a big deal; not something you do for convenience or as a casual act.

You might be wrong about the innocence or guilt of the alleged criminal.

A superhero may feel they apprehend criminals, but society judges them.

Compassion; some people, superhuman or not, can't bring themselves to kill

I remember Wolverine, of all people, busting out the bolded one, during X-Cutioner's Song (when they thought Cable shot Professor X). Bishop wanted him to kill Cable and Wolverine said he had to be 100% of Cable's guilt, because if he did it, Cable would be 100% dead.

I run a semi-"realistic" FASERIP game. I've largely thrown out the Karma system and use Aspects with my own Karma=Fate points system to modify FASERIP rules. As an example I'll allow a player to blow three Karma points to add +1CS to a Stat/Power to go beyond his normal limits.

That said - it allows the PC's to be heroes/anti-heroes and villains based purely on their Aspects and allows the modern moral ambiguities to exist as the PC's desire.

I leave the negative side-effects of being "bad" simple a matter of consequence of the meta-human community vs. the feelings of the governments of the world.

So as such - my game plays a little like Ultimate Marvel/DC with axis of trying to keep metahumans to be seen as "heroes" vs. metahumans being seen as monsters.

So it's mostly Marvel with a lot of DC elements. For example - the PC's were all graduates of Xavier's school, but none of them were actually X-men (X-Men actually fight other mutants that are on the rampage) - but they all moved to NYC to be "normal" people and avoid the mutant issue altogether.

So the first introduction of the Hulk turned into a fight that led to a huge duke-out between the PC's, a bunch of NPC's I invented, Ironman, Doc Samson and Batman. Batman tells the PC's to lure him to Central Park where collateral damage will be less severe and they could try to contain him, Ironman was bickering with Doc Samson who wanted to keep the Hulk from having room to manuever and possibly get away. PC's lured him to Central Park - Batman is evacuating people and radioing orders to Ironman and the PC's on his "estimation" of good tactics. Samson wants to take him head-on. The PC's are hotheads and want a taste of the Hulk. He gives it to them. Doc Samson gets smashed like a nail into the ground, and the Hulk lifts this huge slab of rock to smash onto the PC's but they manage to do a combined attack on the Hulk causing him to sail backwards and his rockslab kills a small family before Batman could save them.

Downstream effects is the mother who wasn't there, starts B.A.M. (Bothered About Metahumans). Meanwhile the PC's are doing their damnedest to do heroic stuff while this undercurrent of people who are harmed by these clashes continues (to the point where Magneto assassinates a Senator pushing for metahuman registration, in his own home with his family by wiping the entire lakeside home off the face of the earth - down to the foundations.)

The key to longterm Supers games is understanding the conceits in which your supers game exists. It goes for all longterm campaigns. The "thing" about Supers games that makes it difficult is the fact that PC's and NPC's have powers that make the very existence of the such characters a threat to the status quo of normal people. Most games ignore this fact, or to the level of 4C-era comics go further into outright heroes-as-modern gods to be idolized.

Which is fine - all of these things are fine. But you have to know in your head: what keeps the status-quo alive. If you want to ignore it, fine, but you're asking for the eventual possibility that a PC or NPC to say "Fuck it, I'll take over this whole bitch, who can stop me?" The degree of "reality" you want to inject needs to be understood by the GM from the get-go, or your game will quickly mutate beyond your intents. If you're like me - and you wanna keep it light but you're willing to go full nuclear Ultimate Dark Knight with a few bad choices of the PC's. Make sure your players understand that - and more importantly OWN it.

Supers, generally speaking, are letting Players play in god-mode. Even the Gods have to have checks and balances. You as the GM need to know how far you're willing to let the escalation of power and control and carnage occur.

Quote from: Brander;763890I think it was a thread here, but one of the best reasons I've read for why superheros don't kill (in 4 color anyway) is the idea that heroes don't kill and villains don't go after the hero's loved ones (sort of a cold war).  And any villain who violates this ends up with other villains helping out the heroes to take down the violator.

Flash's Rogues (when written well) are explicitly on point about this.

Also, Soylent Green is absolutely right about the "revolving prison door" being an artifact of serial publication and financial considerations. Remove those factors, and the bad guys only come back when the GM thinks it's a good idea for this to happen.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;763956I remember Wolverine, of all people, busting out the bolded one, during X-Cutioner's Song (when they thought Cable shot Professor X). Bishop wanted him to kill Cable and Wolverine said he had to be 100% of Cable's guilt, because if he did it, Cable would be 100% dead.

Gotta love it when Wolverine is the reasonable one.