Interesting blog on Superhero rpgs and what matters in them.
http://www.petermball.com/13-things-learned-about-superhero-games-after-running-30-sessions-of-mutants-and-masterminds/
Ooh, bookmarked!
Lots of good stuff there, both in the main post and the follow-up. I especially like the emphasis on the campaign pitch, and making sure all of the players are on the same page.
I generally agree with all these points except one minor quibble - Tossing out mechanics. I think this is much more germane to using M&M because of its 3e DNA. Lighter systems don't require this nearly as much as M&M (which is a lot lighter than standard 3e... but still has a lot of crunch n' munch).
And this comes from the fact that 3e wasn't inherently designed to do supers, but GR did a pretty bangup job of making that leap. But it still has so much overhead that for genre emulation there's far better systems to do it with and have "better" results that underpin a lot of his other points (like faster play, social interplay etc.)
5, 8, 11, 12, and 13 are just issues with the game rules he chose to use.
Other than that, mostly blindingly obvious stuff but good advice to anyone who has never run a super hero game or has tried and failed due to poor understanding of what works and what doesn't.
As someone who runs M&M every Sunday (except when someone else wants to run), most of these I've internalized already. But I'm not perfect and I personally need to work on 2 and 8. I've never run into 12, as my players are amazingly creative (thank freaking God, I dunno what I'd do without them...) and I'm willing to bump up effects to make it happen. As for 13... Not if you enjoy it, and I LOVE superheroes, and the games. Hell, a hobby within the hobby is to collect any superhero game, just so I can steal stuff or just read...
But the key element that's different between a typical wandering adventure based Fantasy Game and even a world romping Super's game is 2. You need a LOT of minutiae. And you need to be willing to make more, sometimes on the spot too.
I was agreeing with the first 10 points, sometimes with an added "that's how you do games, period". But then we got to the last 3 points.
Quote11) FIGHTS ARE FAST
Such an important part of the comics themselves, but we do so little of it in the campaign. Or, rather, it takes up so much less time compared to other RPGs. If you're used to the D&D gaming paradigm where you can fit, more or less, one fight-scene per hour into a session, Mutants and Masterminds streamlines the art of the smackdown. This is a huge conceptual leap to overcome when you make the shift from running D&D to Supers, since it means you need to start adapting to a game-style where a fight against the epic big-bad will be over inside of half an hour.
That's the second thing I hear that makes me interested in seeing M&M in action.
Quote12) FIGHTS ARE ALSO KINDA DULL
There is an art to running an engaging superhero battle. Personally, I've not learnt it yet, although I'm slowly getting better. My approach to running combat has been increasingly dominated by years of playing D&D, which has been escalating the level of tactical complexity in recent editions. Comparatively speaking, M&M combat is much simpler, especially in one-on-one confrontations – the players will pretty much adopt the same tactic every fight and whittle away the bad guys defenses.
I've got this flagged as one of the things to try and fix when we resume playing in a couple of weeks. In some respects its my fault – a lot of the bad guys are just as stand-there-and-slug-it-out as the players, so it's not like there's a lot of incentive to get creative with the battle rules.
...and there went my interest;).
Though I assume it would be easy to add a rule for "getting creative", like the Fighter Stunt from Crimson Blades or the likes.
Quote13) SUPERS GAMES ARE HARD WORK
I work harder to make a typical M&M game work than pretty much any other set of RPG rules I've ever run, although it's probably on par with running Feng Shui.
Wait, someone finds Feng Shui "lots of work" to run? Seriously:D?
I find Feng Shui to be less work than M&M and M&M, outside of character generation, is pretty darn simple.
Heh. According to the follow-up blog entry (http://www.petermball.com/15-things-learned-about-superhero-rpgs-after-running-150-sessions-of-my-campaign/), the author and his group switched from M&M 3E to Marvel Heroic.
Since DC Heroes is no longer available, I would have recommended Villains & Vigilantes, but the crunch of the new V&V 3.0 is about comparable to the crunch of M&M 3E. Steve Kenson (the author of M&M and ICONS), recommended Bulletproof Blues for those that want a lighter super-hero RPG than M&M 3E, but I've never played it. I do know that a third edition of Bulletproof Blues is in the works (https://ogc.rpglibrary.org/index.php?title=Bulletproof_Blues_3e_EN:Contents) as well though.
yeah I didn't want to derail the thread talking about other systems. I like M&M, but ultimately I want something that's lighter in my Supers RPGs. I find M&M tends to get in the way of my gaming.
Ironic Kenson recommends something other than ICONS - ICONS is *pretty* lite and it's damn good.
IIRC, Steve Kenson's recommendation of Bulletproof Blues was for those that didn't like the random character generation of ICONS (this was a couple of years ago), but wanted something lighter than M&M 3E.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;1018335I find Feng Shui to be less work than M&M and M&M, outside of character generation, is pretty darn simple.
Yes, me too.
Quote from: AsenRG;1018330Wait, someone finds Feng Shui "lots of work" to run? Seriously:D?
I can see it. Systematically, it's simple, but its sort of formulaic. Things can get to feel a bit samey if you aren't striving to inject fresh awesome.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;1018597I can see it. Systematically, it's simple, but its sort of formulaic. Things can get to feel a bit samey if you aren't striving to inject fresh awesome.
...Nope, sorry, still can't see it. And you don't need to stick to the "formula" parts;)!
Quote from: AsenRG;1018816...Nope, sorry, still can't see it. And you don't need to stick to the "formula" parts;)!
Sure, but going beyond the formula that the system natively supports is work.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;1018914Sure, but going beyond the formula that the system natively supports is work.
Not if you've ever GMed systems that don't rely on formula:).
#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. :D ). 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.
Quote from: Bren;1020128Arguably not realistic? It seems pretty difficult to argue that any pretense of reality is intended to be more than a surface facade.
+1. Someone tried to wave "realism" in front of the Big Green Guy? The guy with the magic hammer? That raccoon with the guns?
We know what happened that **that** argument.:-)
Quote from: Nexus;1020039I'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. :D ). I likes me some crunch for supers games when the general trend seems to be towards light mechanics.
Light systems and/or narrative systems, for sure, seem to be out in abundance. I'm on the fence about many of them. I'm inconsistent on the flavor. There's a PbtA Supers system I thought about running, but really didn't care for the way origins and drives worked--you acquired certain abilities based on "when you...." fulfill certain conditions. But I don't care for ICONS, either, outside character gen, because it's random. Never dove in on M&M, but I did look into Hero system years ago, and then quickly decided it was a monster of a reference book that I just didn't grok. Couldn't commit to Savage Worlds, either, even though I acquired the base and Powers system.
This is an interesting genre, because the mechanical progression prevalent in your typical fantasy, etc. game, with its levels and doohickeys and such, is very much anathema to how Supes "grow." They get better at using their powers, and maybe those powers get inherently stronger, but, for the most part, I don't expect a great deal of change in the basic character. For something like supers, I'd prefer they just get more Competency Dice, which they can selectively use each session, to indicate greater expertise and experience.
Quote from: cranebump;1020166+1. Someone tried to wave "realism" in front of the Big Green Guy? The guy with the magic hammer? That raccoon with the guns?
We know what happened that **that** argument.:-)
You're conflating two different things. Thor might have a magic hammer that lets him fly, call storms and lightning bolts, and be one of the few things that can knock the Hulk across a city, but he can't heal the sick, shoot beams of heat out of his eyes, or tear the moon in half by clenching his buttcheeks.
Any individual Supers world has a "reality" for that world that dictates how things work, it's just obviously very different from ours. Just because in the World of Greyhawk dragons exist doesn't mean 3 year olds can turn the world to cotton candy.
Batman's a literary protagonist, sure, and that's why he'll keep going for another 60 years no matter what happens to him. But, you can totally have a Batman game without the genre conceits.
In a game, you can play Batman with GURPS or HERO as a human with maximums in all physical and mental stats, a bunch of non-superhuman Advantages and Disadvantages and a metric fuckton assload of skills and equipment without bringing a single shred of Superhero Comic Logic into the game, and most of the time he would end up playing just like you would think Batman could, through Verisimilitude, not Genre. If he wants to go toe to toe with Superman, he needs Power Armor and Kryptonite Gas (which he can make in game) not necessarily OOC Genre Mechanics.
"Because X exists in this alternate reality different from our world all bets are off." always has been one of the weakest arguments. ;)
As far as the OP goes, #3 shows this guy to have a fundamental ignorance about GMing language. He thinks "planning" and "preparation" equal "plotting".
Wonder where he got that notion? :p
Quote from: cranebump;1020170Light systems and/or narrative systems, for sure, seem to be out in abundance. I'm on the fence about many of them. I'm inconsistent on the flavor. There's a PbtA Supers system I thought about running, but really didn't care for the way origins and drives worked--you acquired certain abilities based on "when you...." fulfill certain conditions. But I don't care for ICONS, either, outside character gen, because it's random. Never dove in on M&M, but I did look into Hero system years ago, and then quickly decided it was a monster of a reference book that I just didn't grok. Couldn't commit to Savage Worlds, either, even though I acquired the base and Powers system.
This is an interesting genre, because the mechanical progression prevalent in your typical fantasy, etc. game, with its levels and doohickeys and such, is very much anathema to how Supes "grow." They get better at using their powers, and maybe those powers get inherently stronger, but, for the most part, I don't expect a great deal of change in the basic character. For something like supers, I'd prefer they just get more Competency Dice, which they can selectively use each session, to indicate greater expertise and experience.
Supers can be a difficult to genre to fit into rpgs. As you mention, their advancement tends to be odd (and practically glacial) compared some other adventure genres. They're very reactive rather than proactive. And live (or die, then often come back) by genre conventions and some degree melodrama. Which could be part of the reason Supers are (and I suspect will remain) a popular but niche part of a niche hobby.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1020299You're conflating two different things. Thor might have a magic hammer that lets him fly, call storms and lightning bolts, and be one of the few things that can knock the Hulk across a city, but he can't heal the sick, shoot beams of heat out of his eyes, or tear the moon in half by clenching his buttcheeks.
Any individual Supers world has a "reality" for that world that dictates how things work, it's just obviously very different from ours. Just because in the World of Greyhawk dragons exist doesn't mean 3 year olds can turn the world to cotton candy.
Batman's a literary protagonist, sure, and that's why he'll keep going for another 60 years no matter what happens to him. But, you can totally have a Batman game without the genre conceits.
In a game, you can play Batman with GURPS or HERO as a human with maximums in all physical and mental stats, a bunch of non-superhuman Advantages and Disadvantages and a metric fuckton assload of skills and equipment without bringing a single shred of Superhero Comic Logic into the game, and most of the time he would end up playing just like you would think Batman could, through Verisimilitude, not Genre. If he wants to go toe to toe with Superman, he needs Power Armor and Kryptonite Gas (which he can make in game) not necessarily OOC Genre Mechanics.
"Because X exists in this alternate reality different from our world all bets are off." always has been one of the weakest arguments. ;)
So is shifting the definition to fit your evidence.
My comment was just an offhand joke. That said, arguing reality in the superhero genre really is pretty silly.
Quote from: cranebump;1020670That said, arguing reality in the superhero genre really is pretty silly.
We should stick to arguing about important things, like who would win in a fight between Thor and Superman.
Quote from: Bren;1020757We should stick to arguing about important things, like who would win in a fight between Thor and Superman.
HA! Yes, though, from what I heard, the dials go to 11 in Supes' universe (according to the Busiek version).:-)
Quote from: Bren;1020757We should stick to arguing about important things, like who would win in a fight between Thor and Superman.
Sadly, Thor is a little too grounded to win that one, though if he had the Odin Force it would change things completely.
Now, if you really want to shatter friendships toss out Goku vs Superman for debate and watch the flames erupt.
I'd like to see some of the super-hero games give better advice on non-reactive games. What I mean is that most supers games have the heroes doing everything they can to return the setting to its default status quo after some attack/disaster/villain plot and very few of them ever go beyond there to changing the world for the positive. I think the Authority and the old Squadron Supreme were the exceptions, but I haven't read comics for a few decades now, so there are likely more I'm unaware of. Regardless, these don't seem to show up in the gaming side too often.
Quote from: Brand55;1020778Sadly, Thor is a little too grounded to win that one, though if he had the Odin Force it would change things completely.
Now, if you really want to shatter friendships toss out Goku vs Superman for debate and watch the flames erupt.
Nope, because the answer is clearly "neither":D!
Goku wins the first fight. Superman goes to train in kriptonite Hell, returns and wins;).
Then they team up and fight Evil!
No friendships have been ruined during the writing of the above post!
Quote from: HappyDaze;1020799I'd like to see some of the super-hero games give better advice on non-reactive games. What I mean is that most supers games have the heroes doing everything they can to return the setting to its default status quo after some attack/disaster/villain plot and very few of them ever go beyond there to changing the world for the positive. I think the Authority and the old Squadron Supreme were the exceptions, but I haven't read comics for a few decades now, so there are likely more I'm unaware of. Regardless, these don't seem to show up in the gaming side too often.
Kinda seems like that wouldn't really be a super hero game anymore. Super heroes are inherently reactive and trying to restore the status quo. What you're describing could be fun, but that would be "overlords with super powers," not super heroes.
For what it's worth, I'm working on a superhero RPG system that is physics-based and uses a logarithmic approach. The use of logs will be readily grasped by anyone familiar with the Mayfair DC Heroes system, although the game mechanics are different because it is fully logarithmic. (E.g. In DC Heroes, if Batman had Body 6, he could be taken out by 6 1-point damage hits, or 1 6-point damage hit, but in a fully logarithmic system 6 1-point hits don't even equal a single 3-point hit, let alone a 6-point hit.)
The physics of the system are working beautifully. If you enter real world data and turn them into the log system it gives --
- realistic throw distances for footballs, baseballs, shotputs, discuses, frisbees, javelins, kegs, hammers, 56lbs weights based on strength stat and object weight in logs
- realistic blast radius and blast damage based on joules of explosive power
- realistic ballistic damage based on Krupp Formula for weapons
- realistic collision damage from objects based on mass and velocity
- realistic vehicle toughness and survivability based on vehicle weight and material strength
It's virtually the opposite design approach of any contemporary superhero RPG, where the focus has been narrative or emulative. Hopefully folks will dig it.
p.s. to avoid argument, all I mean when I say "realistic" is that "outcomes in the game for event X under condition Y tend to approximate, within a broad range, outcomes in the world for event X under condition Y". So the amount of shots to destroy a destroyer with 5" guns is in the range that naval historical analysis suggested, or the efficacy of a kevlar vest versus a 9mm pistol or an AK-47 is appropriately varied. But I don't mean it's realistic in that it says "superman could never lift a 747 because of surface pressure of his hands on the fuselage." Instead it extrapolates physical law to apply to superhero physics as if it were real - "IF superman could throw a 747 [even though we know he couldn't], how far could he throw it, given that he can lift 1000 tons [even though we know that's impossible]".
Quote from: HappyDaze;1020799changing the world for the positive
That's what the
villains do. This is so hard coded into the Superhero genre that I don't think you can change it and have things still feel like a regular superhero tale. The Authority is Deconstruction of the Superhero genre, not Superhero genre itself.
Quote from: Bren;1020757We should stick to arguing about important things, like who would win in a fight between Thor and Superman.
Quote from: Brand55;1020778Sadly, Thor is a little too grounded to win that one, though if he had the Odin Force it would change things completely.
Now, if you really want to shatter friendships toss out Goku vs Superman for debate and watch the flames erupt.
Superman is vulnerable to magic, Thor uses a magic hammer that shoots magic lightning, and he may be magic himself, but I'm hazy on that particular detail. I'd give the edge to the God of Thunder.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1020881Superman is vulnerable to magic, Thor uses a magic hammer that shoots magic lightning, and he may be magic himself, but I'm hazy on that particular detail. I'd give the edge to the God of Thunder.
Given that Superman can travel at the speed of light and fry Thor with x-rays from a thousand miles away before Thor even knows they're fighting, and that's just one of a dozen options , I'd give the edge right back to Superman.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1020881Superman is vulnerable to magic, Thor uses a magic hammer that shoots magic lightning, and he may be magic himself, but I'm hazy on that particular detail. I'd give the edge to the God of Thunder.
Of course, the real answer is, "Whoever the writer wants to win." There are far too many variables for there to be one real answer, but Supes at his most powerful has done stupidly impossible stuff that Thor hasn't matched without outside help. You'd have to look at which characters are actually fighting, to start. Thor from the movies has no magic at all, for one thing, and there's no definitive answer as to whether (comic) Mjolnir's magic is similar enough to magic in the DC universe to qualify as exploiting Superman's weakness. And of course Superman might very well be worthy of wielding Mjolnir, so I could see a situation where Thor throws his hammer only for Superman to snatch it out of the air. Again, all up to the writer.
When I last read comics, Superman had just been depowered quite a bit so, at that time, I think Thor might have taken him. Just looking at the characters at their strongest (barring Odin Force or other external forces), my vote would be Superman.
Ha ha, I love that people are answering Superman vs. Thor.
Also, the more important issue is who is stronger, Hulk or Thor? I will submit that Thor is stronger when Hulk is just regular mad Hulk, but Hulk will become enraged and berserker-like and become far stronger than Thor and pound Thor into Asgardian jelly.
Quote from: Nexus;1020103I didn't mean cuppa as disparing just a cup of tea, your preference.
I didn't think you were; I just put "cuppa" in quotes because it was your expression.
QuoteAnd I wasn't saying you were wrong but have a different outlook.
That's what I thought you meant. I was just elaborating for the sake of more detail and accuracy about my own preferences.
QuoteI 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.
I quite agree on all of that, and it's one of the main reasons I almost never try to play superhero RPGs. Some of my friends did run GURPS Supers for a while and it was interesting and amusing how it played out - a very savage and unbalanced and weird new thing unto itself, but yeah everyone agreed the feel was not much like a conventional superhero story.
Quote from: Dumarest;1020923Given that Superman can travel at the speed of light and fry Thor with x-rays from a thousand miles away before Thor even knows they're fighting, and that's just one of a dozen options , I'd give the edge right back to Superman.
Except Superman doesn't just "travel at the speed of light" normally - and Thor has fought numerous enemies that do so (and travel faster than light more routinely than Supers - like Silver Surfer). But this is all handwavium. Superman doesn't use his travel-speed as a weapon. In straight up combat, Thor is far more established as a unparalleled fighter. More time in the ring, fighting more adversaries than Superman ever dreamed of.
I'm going to give the Mjolnir = Magic weapons = Superman weakness thing a pass. The hammer is magic, but it's been officially established in JLA vs. Avengers (one of the best stories ever) that it doesn't impact Superman's weakness. However I'd say the lightning definitely would count. It should be noted that Superman beat Thor in JLA vs. Avengers but later Thor said he wasn't going all out and if they fought again he'd beat him. Supes conceded it was possible and Thor was the toughest guy he's ever fought. /shrug.
On any given day - I'll take Thor. Mechanically in FASERIP by the way I stat both characters - Thor would win strictly because of his Fighting skill, though it would be close.
Quote from: tenbones;1021187On any given day - I'll take Thor. Mechanically in FASERIP by the way I stat both characters - Thor would win strictly because of his Fighting skill, though it would be close.
If you go with FASERIP, then Gladiator of the Shi'ar Imperial Guard can take out Thor with one slam attack (the body check that does damage based off of his ShiftZ Endurance).
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.:-)
ICONS isn't "story-based". Some other versions of FATE might be.