TheRPGSite

Riffing off this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=763793&postcount=275) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=763793&postcount=275) 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.

Quote from: Soylent Green;763859Finally, 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?

You're right up until this point.  But after Batman defeats the escaped Joker he has a bigger choice to make.  If he repeats the same mistake, handing the Joker over to people who can't contain him, he bears the responsibility of that decision.

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

Quote from: cranebump;763915Sort of like the "just business" aspect of the Mafia in movies--there are some lines you don't cross.

And I can grant you the "media exception", but in reality there's no such loyalty.  Did you see that De Niro movie 'The Family'?  The real mob seems more like that concept.  Rat on each other when you get jammed up, go into hiding, someone tries to find and kill the rat.

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

Another one is the law.

A few cities now have some real life "superheroes" who fight crime. Some tolerate this as long as the vigilante doesnt harm anyone. Theres a video of one fellow who was breaking up some drunks who got out of hand. and the cops were sitting across the street watching. Other cities arent even remotely tolerant.

So if you start offing people the cops may not be so lenient next time you are framed for some crime you didnt commit.

Also the problem of emulation. What if the cops start emulating the Punisher and offing criminals or protesters, etc? Ye ol death spiral.

Or you get a setting like Justice League Gods & Men. Squadron supreme, etc.

Quote from: mcbobbo;764346You're right up until this point.  But after Batman defeats the escaped Joker he has a bigger choice to make.  If he repeats the same mistake, handing the Joker over to people who can't contain him, he bears the responsibility of that decision.

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

Punisher 2099 had his own prison and execution room. Some would be let go eventually. One though he kept locked up till he was legal adult age and THEN executed him horrifically for serial murders.

And. Lets not forget that Batman originally killed criminals.

Marvel has explored the problem of incarcerating powered individuals the most with a couple of prisons ranging from the Vault to Phym's shrunken prison.

Quote from: Omega;764442Punisher 2099 had his own prison and execution room. Some would be let go eventually. One though he kept locked up till he was legal adult age and THEN executed him horrifically for serial murders.

Punisher isn't a hero, not a superhero. He's an antihero at best, and if he wasn't so popular and kinda locked in his own timeline, I am sure he'd end up being a villain already, with some superhero group finally taking him out as "going too far."

Quote from: tenbones;763977I 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.

...

Good stuff!  I'd be interested in seeing more about how you handled the Karma = Fate system.

Quote from: Rincewind1;764443Punisher isn't a hero, not a superhero. He's an antihero at best, and if he wasn't so popular and kinda locked in his own timeline, I am sure he'd end up being a villain already, with some superhero group finally taking him out as "going too far."

The 2099 Punisher was more akin to a superhero at first. But 2099 had a more lethal Shadowrun tone to it and the body count racked up really fast before Marvel pulled another New Universe ending and killed off 75% of the characters, often pointlessly.

I found a document called FateRip by Blue Tyson - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rmk-3fX2JG3tJPJrtTnhWatT8gcQfGf4e_nqK-4lNz0/edit

And I took elements I liked while cleaving as close to FASERIP's intents as possible and



Gaining Karma
Heroes start each game with a Karma Pool of 0; they have to rely on their wits and their own abilities. As the story unfolds, the heroes may earn Karma by facing various challenges, as follows:

-By defeating opponents of appropriate power, or protecting others that are in threat by others. This includes saving the lives of others, stopping crimes etc. Presumably this is if the character is a hero. If the character is a villain, then they will gain karma for doing things that further their goals. This does not necessarily include killing - even villains aren't outright murderers for its own sake, but they might kill in order to further a larger goal.

-Villains gain karma by furthering their nefarious goals. The more convoluted the plot, the more karma they make along the way. This does not mean villains gain karma *just* for killing people. Villains have goals - but they may gain karma for causing secondary issues along the way for their opponents. This is why villains monologue and have Goldbergian death-traps...

-Anti-Heroes gain karma for the same things Heroes do - however they follow a code that allows them to do things no self-respecting hero would. The "code" needs to be sorted out with the GM via having Aspects appropriate to that code. Anti-Heroes gain half the popularity rewards normal heroes get. They gain double the popularity losses.

-If defeated by a villain in some meaningful way, the hero gains a point of Karma. This includes being Taken Out or captured by a villain, or allowing a villain to escape from the hero in some way. In some cases, the Gamemaster may choose to automatically capture or Take Out a hero, in the form of an ambush or inescapable trap, giving the player a point of Karma in exchange.
When the hero fulfills or deals with a personal obligation, he gains a point of Karma. This obligation must demand something of the hero; just going to work and paying the bills doesn't count. If the hero rushes across town after fighting a villain to make a lunch date, or to visit a sick relative in the hospital, he gets a point of Karma.

-If the Gamemaster invokes one of the hero's Subplots or Weaknesses (see below), the hero gains a point of Karma. For example, if a hero is vulnerable to water attacks and a villain rips up a water main to use it as a weapon against the hero, he gets a point of Karma if the attack is successful. If a hero is claustrophobic and panics while buried under rubble, the hero gets a Karma point. When a Subplot or Weakness is invoked, the player has the option of spending a Karma point (assuming the hero has any) to ignore the effects, but doesn't gain any Karma when doing so.

-If a player goes along with the GM to further the plot in some way, the player's hero gets a Karma point. For example, if a villain mind controls a hero and the player chooses not to resist but allows his character to be controlled, then the hero gets a Karma point (which you know is going to be used to later to pound the mind-controller into the ground).

- Finally, if a player roleplays especially well, coming up with an idea or whatever that everyone agrees is cool, the GM may award that player's hero a Karma point. This includes "master plan insurance," in which the GM awards a Karma point to a player who comes up with a particularly clever plan, which the player can use to help ensure the plan's success. This does not have to spontaneous – it can be the completion of a mid-term or long-term goal.
Using Karma

Players can spend their heroes' earned Karma points in various ways during the game:

-A player can spend a Karma point to automatically succeed at any task with a difficulty rank of Excellent or a +25 to the roll if character's relevant ability, whichever is higher and Remarkable or higher rank. The hero achieves a competent success (Green result) on that task and no roll is needed.

-A player can spend a Karma point to increase the result of an Action roll by one color-shift. Green results become Yellow, etc. This roll can be one the player makes or one the GM makes that directly affects the player's character. A White result is still a failure.

- A player can spend a Karma point to allow his hero to perform a power stunt. After performing a power stunt successfully three times, it becomes a permanent part of the hero's powers (no longer requiring Karma to use).

- A player can spend two Karma points to turn all damage the hero takes in a single round into a Stun Result (1-10 rounds). This is subject to the GM's approval. Some results, such as Galactus eating your planet with you on it are beyond the benefits of a single karma point.

- A player can spend three Karma points to achieve an automatic +3 CS on an Action (OR increase the intensity of a Power/Stat Rank Result by +1 CS).

- A player can spend one or more Karma points to "edit" the circumstances of a scene or situation in the character's favor. For example, a useful item might be close at hand, the circumstances just right for a particular plan, the hero knows someone who can help him out, and so forth. The GM determines the Karma cost for a particular edit, ranging from one point for minor changes to as many as three points for significant alterations.

-A player can spend a Karma point to temporarily ignore the effects of a Subplot or Weakness. The GM decides how long the Karma point keeps the Weakness at bay. For some Weaknesses, one Karma point is enough to ignore that Weakness for the rest of the scene. For others, a Karma point may only keep the effects at bay for a moment (about one combat round).

That's basically the core of it. I have a separate list for Karma expenditures to raise stats, but it's a work in progress. Usually we just wing it at Stat/Power rank round down to the nearest increment of 10, with an in-game justification to raise it to the next rank.

Thanks!  I'm going to have to give that a look.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;763953That'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.

It was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard the OP.  Why don't villains go after each other?  Heroes are for the most part, predictable.  I would think villains have at least screwed each other over as much as the heroes have to them.  They have at least as much to gain going after each other than going after the heroes and villains are even less likely to band together to stop one another.  Would a hero even feel the need to stop it?  Ra's al Ghul going after the Joker.  Dr. Doom going after Loki.  The only thing I would like more would be a crossover classic like Galactus vs. Mogo.  No rules.  Severe consequences.  Thieves stealing from thieves, megalomaniacs stealing/eliminating other megalomaniacs, even just a lone entity acting out of personal reasons, etc...  I would buy that comic book series.

Quote from: Gunslinger;765640It was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard the OP.  Why don't villains go after each other?  Heroes are for the most part, predictable.  I would think villains have at least screwed each other over as much as the heroes have to them.  They have at least as much to gain going after each other than going after the heroes and villains are even less likely to band together to stop one another.  Would a hero even feel the need to stop it?  Ra's al Ghul going after the Joker.  Dr. Doom going after Loki.  The only thing I would like more would be a crossover classic like Galactus vs. Mogo.  No rules.  Severe consequences.  Thieves stealing from thieves, megalomaniacs stealing/eliminating other megalomaniacs, even just a lone entity acting out of personal reasons, etc...  I would buy that comic book series.

That's essentially Superior Foes of Spider-Man, albeit at the opposite end of the power spectrum from Galactus vs. Mogo.

I think Villain on Villain turns into a gang warfare sort of thing with lots of innocent bystanders etc. getting hurt. This would attract more attention from the heroes.

I would think a Villain posing as a hero who more or less took what he found from the bad guys would be an interesting story concept. Sort of robin hood who gave to himself, money, tech, secret bases etc.

That may work better.


Also as has been said elsewhere in the thread players getting the whole being a hero thing is hard. I ran a DC heroes game, knowing it was to fail, with one player who blew up a dog cause it might have been possessed by aliens invaders. He was right but showed no remorse and basically said I'm rich I'll buy another dog. No sympathy or concern for the poor kid and family who owned the dog. Was some sad ass heroics.

He was mirroring Tony stark as a character and basically though Tony would have blow it off the same way. It wasn't the act but the not given a crap later that was completely out of genre. Oh well. Knew he wouldn't get it but they said run what you want so I did :)

Villain on Villain is very much part of Marvel and DC's traditions.

But in terms of scale - they're usually streetlevel sort of fare. Unless you have large organizations hellbent on waging war.

Green Goblin, Kingpin, Hammerhead, The Owl, all the rest of the Maggia family, The Rose - all are villains that hire other villains to do their dirty work at odds with everyone else.

Same in DC - hell all of Batman's major villains are crime-bosses in their own right. Joker, Scarecrow, Penguin, Riddler, Two-Face, Ebon Skull, etc. And they're all at war with one another too.

You can have tons of long-term campaigning dealing with these guys assuming your power-level of your heroes is right. If it's a bit higher, then you'll have to be going for Hydra, Royal Flush, Thunderbolts, AIM, which is only a hop skip anna jump to Legion of Doom, Cadmus, and really big nasties that put the kibosh on anyone in their way.