Untitled Nar-Sim Superheroes: A beginning

[AnyaTheBlue]

Hi!  I'm a newbie here.  This may not be the best place to start, but I might as well jump in with both feet.  If a system like this already exists, please let me know!

First:  I like superheroes.  I like them when they're done 'funny', like the Tick, and I like them when they're done all pretentious, like The Authority, and I also like them when they're just done darn well, like Jack Staff, or Astro City.

I also really like superhero RPGs.  Villains & Vigilantes was the second RPG I ever played.  Champions had a better system, but I always felt V&V had a better tone and feel to it.  It was more atmospheric to my younger self, and seemed to get the spirit of being a hero down better.

Second:  I only have half-formed notions here.  I'm looking for input, direction, and inspiration.  Further work (assuming I don't find an existing system that meets my needs) would end up on a web page and/or in a freely-downloadable PDF.

Third:  Although a lot of water has gone under the Superhero RPG bridge in the past twenty years, I still feel like every system I've used has a problem or two.

The two big ones are scale and complexity.  There's also a Morality issue.

I call the scale problem the "Worlds Finest Problem".  Superman completely outclasses Batman in terms of 'points', 'power', and/or 'game balance'.  Yet when they team up, they're both roughly equal in their in-story effectiveness.  Heck, Batman outclasses Robin in a similar way, yet Robin still contributes to the story.  The mechanics should reflect this somehow.

Complexity is the other problem.  Because comic books are such a mish-mash of genres, any Superhero game has to be able to handle an enormous variety and range of character abilities and styles.  Oh, you can make design choices to limit yourself (as Godlike and Aberrant do) and minimize the problem.  But then you minimize the player's setting by embedding your setting assumptions in the rules.  Champions is the true pioneer of the 'effects based abilities', but it comes with a cost.  Yes, you can design (almost) anything with the system.  But to be good at building a character, you have to, as a player develop a skill in character building.  And this is not trivial.  Effectively, a good superhero game is a good universal RPG system, almost.

Okay.

So, this leads to my beginning point.

Unknown Armies and Over the Edge have both sort of legitimized the idea of 'make up your abilities, we know what you mean' styles of character design.  I really like this approach, particularly for Superheroes.   The Pool has a similar ethos which I think might work well for Superhero play as well.  I'd like to work something like this out.  While Over the Edge and Unknown Armies are both excellent, there are scale limitations in both which limit your ability to be Superman, for example.

Now, having said all this, we come to the Morality part of my story.  I don't like alignments (who does?), but I do like both The Riddle of Steel's spiritual attributes and Pendragon's trait system.

I've always thought that something like Pendragon's traits are a natural for a superhero game.  Not so much in making heroes follow a certain path, but in reflecting the choices and actions they actually make.  This flows from a formative event in both my RPG and gaming life.  I was playing some V&V at a debate tournament in High School, and when it came time to unmask the villain, the GM had made the secret identity some guy that bullied him and another player when they were younger.  

They proceded to have their heroes (we were playing using the V&V 'play yourself' mechanics) beat the crap out of this guy.  I refused to be a part of this and flew away.

I don't want to keep players from doing this, but I want there to be a consequence in the game system for it.

Finally, I've been thinking about Secret Identities.  And Nephilim.  The idea of having a score for your 'normal life' which represents how well you're relating to 'normal humans' has a resonance to it, and I'd like to see if I can incorporate it somehow.

Some further thoughts:

The solution to the Worlds Finest Problem seems to me to NOT take the GURPS/Champions approach of balancing points.  It seems to me that the best way to solve it is the same way it's solved in the comics.  Yes, Superman can kick the moon out of orbit and Batman has a toolbelt, but that's not important to the story.  They have different skills and abilities, and their respective skills and abilities make them both equally effective in the story even though their abilities in the temporal realm aren't even closely matched.

One way of dealing with this, I think, is to have traits be 'binary' when they're unopposed.  That is, if Superman has Super Strength and picks up a truck, then he does.  If Reed Richards has to fix something technological, then he does.  Unless there's someone opposing them, like Lex Luthor using a Magno beam on the truck, or Dr. Doom having sabotaged something.  Then it's a contest, and they have to contest victory.  It seems to me that superhero stories are all about contests and opposition, not so much about lone success or failure.  People succeed or fail at stuff in comic books all the time, unless someone stops (or tries to stop) them.  And the opposing ability or trait doesn't have to be the same.  Batman wouldn't counter Superman's strength with his own strength, he'd use some other ability he had at a high level, rendering them similar.  Likewise, Luthor would match his amazing intellect (pre-crisis) to attack or defend against attempts by Superman to use his own superhuman abilities.

As for abilities, Champions, very early on, consciously noticed that most Superheroes have three general areas of competence: Attack, Defense, and Movement, and recommended that players at least consider all three areas when designing a character.

It seems to me that one approach might be to simply take the 'Effects Based Powers' approach another step.  Every hero has a rating in these things, and defines descriptively how their particular hero carries them out.  They can have more than one way to do something, but those are just 'special effects' for the actions.

The other approach I see here would be to have each individual power have special effects which cover all three areas.

For example:

Option 1:
"I'm Batman"
Attack: Bat-themed martial arts weapons and training
Defend: Ditto
Move: Bat-themed vehicles and gadgets (ie, bat scuba gear, bat grappeling hook, etc).

"I'm fighting a Never Ending Battle"
Attack: Heat Vision, Super Strength
Defend: Invulnerable, Super Speed Dodge
Move: Fly, super speed

"I can't take off my ruby-quartz goggles"
Attack: Energy shoots out of my eyes
Defend: Knock things out of the way with the Energy shooting out of my eyes
Move: X-men vehicle pool, acrobatics training

Option 2:

Power:  Telekinesis
Attack: Throw things, TK squeeze things, TK punch things
Defend: Block with stuff I lift, push stuff out of the way (ie, grab the bullet)
Move: Levitate myself...

Power: Telepathy
Attack: Overload the brain by telepathically shouting, immobilize by blocking thoughts, or stun into unconsciousness by stopping thought
Defend: Immobilize attacker by blocking thoughts, read mind to anticipate attacks and counter them before they can be completed.
Move: Project astrally, leaving the body behind.

Power: Strange Visitor from another World
Attack: Super Strong punches and grapples, lasers blast from eyes, super breath bowls people over
Defend: Invulnerable, dodge at super speed
Move: Fly, move at super speed

Power: Utility Belt
Attack: Various bat-themed weapons
Defend: Various bat-themed gadgets
Move: Various bat-themed gadgets

Power: Eye beams
Attack: Shoot them at people or things
Defend: Shoot things out of others hands, shoot down things coming at me
Move: Um...

With both approaches, though, how do I take into account 'miscellaneous' powers?

So I guess the variation I'm leaning towards would be to have a character made up of a list of unrated, player defined traits/abilities/whatever.   These are the special effects, linked to a small set of scores which represent effectiveness in different arenas (attack, defense, movement, perception, social interaction).  Then, in-game, the character attempts actions using their general ratings in Attack, Defense, Movement, and, well, Miscellaneous, bringing in their unrated traits as justification for how they are doing something.

Any trait allows you to defend or attack or attempt something non-combat, but the kinds of traits you pick or have will provide you with certain penumbras -- if you don't have a telepathy or psychic or mind reading trait, then you aren't going to be able to read minds.  Depending on how you are trying to use your Mind Reading trait, though, it might be used to attack, defend, or read minds, just as Super Strength can be used to attack, defend, or bend steel bars.  Even something like Microscopic Vision might be able to 'defend' by allowing you to see and avoid deadly microbes or something.  Can't imagine how it would allow you to move, though.  Hmm.

Does this all make sense?  Would it be best just to think about doing a variation on The Pool for something like this?

Anyway, any feedback appreciated.  Thanks for taking the time to give this a look!

[John Harper]

I've been thinking along similar lines lately, myself. X2 really got me in the mood to run a supers game, and then Reloaded pretty much sealed the deal. I have a habit of falling in love with a new game, and then thinking I can use it to run my obsession of the moment. Right now, I'm very much in love with two games: Sorcerer and Wushu. Consequently, I'm seeing Supers games through those filters.

Last night, I ran a (very dark) "mutants" game using Clinton's Sorcerer supplement, Urge. It went very well. I'll post the results in Actual Play soon.

To get back to the points you were making, however... I agree with the Attack/Defense/Movement approach suggested by Champions all those years ago. I also agree that Superman- and Batman-style characters should be able to pal around in a Supers game in the way that they do in the comics. Scale be damned. Wushu may have an answer to this bugaboo. Wushu is a dice-pool system, but the number of dice you roll is determined by how much cool narration the player supplies. Each die that comes up equal to or lower than the character's trait rating is a success. So, Superman would have a very high super-strength rating (compared to Batman's strength, say) but the effect this has on the scene depends partly on the player's level of input and creativity, not just the raw numbers involved. I highly recommend the Wushu system as a vehicle for further musing on Supers gaming.

[Lxndr]

This might not be MUCH help, but you might want to look over an actual example of play in the Pool, using superpowers.  The setting is unorthodox, but superpowers are still a part of it, and mechanically can still be observed.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6610

I honestly do not believe that the three characters in this "Weird West Supers" would be balanced in any "objective" point scheme.  Yet they are able to share the spotlight pretty effectively.

In addition, I've pretty well-completed a superhero add-on for the SOAP game (have you ever seen it?) that's apparently constructed well enough to have impressed the creator of the game (who I call Crayne 'cause that's his rpg.net username and it's easier to remember than his real name, which I've seen MAYBE twice, total).  It, too, was designed to meet your first goal (which I phrase as putting Superman and Lois Lane at equal effectiveness).  

This one handles secret identities well, at last in the context of SOAP's rules.  It in fact was designed to handle even severe cases like Mystique, who can be several different people simultaneously.  I'm not sure if it's quite what you're wanting secret identities to work, but it might still be worth checking out.

Now, I don't think either of those systems, either by themselves or together, might work for you, for one reason: your desire for the morality play.  SOAP doesn't really have any moral code at all, though I'm sure you could tack one on if desired.  The Pool, on the other hand, requires the characters to define the things that are important for THEIR character, and morality might not be amongst them.  If you want an external system like Riddle of Steel, the Pool really doesn't cover it.  In addition, I don't really see any system in the Pool for opposed actions.

Look at those systems, and those offerings, though, for inspiration on solving the Worlds Finest Problem.

If I have more ideas later, I'll post them.

[Simon W]

Although a little different to your ideas, I kind of approached this in my Iron Game Chef game Supercity http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6560

In that game most of the superpowers have attack and defence capability - it doesn't matter how you do it exactly (the more descriptive the better). But for example, if your superhero has flame powers and someone blasts him with laser/light energy, the superhero can use his flame powers to defend (create a fire shield or shoot the beam down in flames, or immoliate himself in flame to absorb the energy). All heroes in a combat round can attack only once, but can use any (or all, if attacked multiple times) of their powers or abilities to defend/avoid/shoot down or whatever.

The game can be used very easily to run standard role-play sessions, not just competitive multi - GM gamesand I'm sur a narrative element could be fitted to it simply, as it has a very simple basic system.

Simon W
http://www.geocities.com/simonwashbourne/Beyond_Belief.html

[Tony Irwin]

I call the scale problem the "Worlds Finest Problem".  Superman completely outclasses Batman in terms of 'points', 'power', and/or 'game balance'.  Yet when they team up, they're both roughly equal in their in-story effectiveness.  Heck, Batman outclasses Robin in a similar way, yet Robin still contributes to the story.  The mechanics should reflect this somehow.

I realise a lot of the fun of a superhero game can be figuring out all the technicalities of abilities and area effects, and "what can my character do?" questions, but another approach might be to ignore that for now and concentrate on a system that limits how players can influence a scene. For example in The Pool, dice and stats aren't about "What can my character do?" they are about "What can I, as a player do?". That way even if you're running The Beyonder and I'm running Robin it doesn't matter if our characters are wildly different, because the system is about making sure that players have equal influence over the game, rather than balancing characters.

I haven't read Wushu but it sounds like a different approach to the same idea - rolling dice isn't about "my character" trying to do something, its about "me - the player" trying to make something happen in this game. If all the players have equal ability to make things happen in the game then it doesn't really matter how our characters compare, they will all have equal story effectiveness regardless of what they're doing in the story or how they do it.

The solution to the Worlds Finest Problem seems to me to NOT take the GURPS/Champions approach of balancing points.  It seems to me that the best way to solve it is the same way it's solved in the comics.  Yes, Superman can kick the moon out of orbit and Batman has a toolbelt, but that's not important to the story.  They have different skills and abilities, and their respective skills and abilities make them both equally effective in the story even though their abilities in the temporal realm aren't even closely matched.

Well... my own personal take on this is that it's the writer that is making them equally effective in the story. He has created situations that enable both characters to shine. Usually this translates to RPGs as the GM's reponsibility - its her task to come up with scenarios that will give wildly different characters the chance to look good.

If you could move this responsibility for matching skills with situations over to the players then it might take away a bit of the headache of the thing. If I'm able to put a bit into the game that only my superman character can solve, than I'm (hopefully) less likely to muscle in everywhere else having superman flying about completing the whole adventure by himself. In other words if your system will let me share in some of the writer's responsibilities and powers then scale doesn't really matter. So when I talk about players having equal influence over the game, that's also thinking of the GM as a player, and having to share out some of her usual tasks.

Usually this power is shared just by the player saying "Hey it would be cool if this scientist guy had discovered some kryptonite accidentally, would that be ok?" and the gm says "yeah ok, I like that". Donjon and The Pool gives rules for how this actually happens, its part of the system.

Does this all make sense?  Would it be best just to think about doing a variation on The Pool for something like this?

Well, I've read on the indie-gaming threads of people using a regular RPG system but then having the pool added on top of that. You've thought a lot about how super powers will work so that way you could just add the pool on top as a "filler" system and see how it works. Players use regular skill rolls and such like from your system, but then are able to use the pool system to "make things happen" in the game, so effectively you're playing two systems at once.

Anyway it all looks really interesting Anya, I look forward to hearing more about your game :-)

[Shreyas Sampat]

The way you presented the powers here reminds me a lot of Puppetland.  Something to take a look at; it's a game that throws out a lot of the assumptions that roleplaying games have traditionally had.  One thing it explores is loosely defined, absolute powers.  This is sort of reminiscent of your 'traits are binary when unopposed' thing, I think.

[Cassidy]

Hi Anya,

They proceded to have their heroes (we were playing using the V&V 'play yourself' mechanics) beat the crap out of this guy. I refused to be a part of this and flew away.

I don't want to keep players from doing this, but I want there to be a consequence in the game system for it.

Something like the Pool would be ideal for using the consequences of the characters actions as fuel for the narrative fire. In the Pool any time a player fails to make a MOV the GM has the opportunity to get inventive and put their own spin on things.

For instance, if you were the GM then instead of the characters beating the crap out of the arch-villian you could narrate things so that in their zeal one character (the one that didn't make a MOV) actually ends up killing him.

i.e. "Player: Errrr...what do you mean he's not breathing? I only meant to rough him up a bit."

That's what you can do in the Pool. When the players aren't making a MOV you can throw in juicy in game consequences for character actions. Does the character show remose for a needless death? Are they guilty of murder? Does that make the hero no better than the villain? What do the other heroes of their comrades actions? Is he a loose cannon that needs to be controlled? Will they turn him in to the authorities? Kick him out of the group?

I'm running a low-level supers/conspiracy type game at the moment using the Pool and it works very well.

I really like your idea of listing some traits under Power, Attack, Defend, Move categories; wish I'd thought of it. It's a very good way of qualifying the nuances of each characters super stuff so that the players can easily get a handle on them during play.

[Bob McNamee]

I'll be trying out the Trollbabe system for use as a superhero game in the future.

The characters are all protagonists, regardless of the special effects of their power capabilities.

We are seeing some of how this works in the Trollbabe-Demigods flavored game I'm running with the indie-netgaming group.
We have a grim fighting son of a death god, a happy go lucky son relation of the Fates, and a conniving son of a god of dreams.

The importance of Relationships in the game seems to echo some of the cool stuff from the comics too.

[Phillip]

AnyaTheBlue,

I read this thread with interest; it intersects my thread (you posted there as well).  I have been thinking along the lines of incorporating a couple of the suggestions from my thread, as well as some of yours.  

The ones from my thread that I speak of specifically are the suggestion about different character types, one having a high power level (Superman) and one having a lower power level but a great deal of narration/plot influence (Batman), and the consequences / effects on the environment of superpowers.  Your suggestion of unrated traits (special effects) applied to generic rated capabilities (Attack/Defense/Movement/Perception/Social) is also a good one.  The first would do well to solve the "World's Finest Problem", as you put it.  The second goes a way towards enforcing potential limits and consequences of player actions, which is lacking in most SHRPG's (the example I gave of putting out a fire that was expanded by Tony Irwin about consequences of The Human Torch's method vs. The Thing's method – the Torch looks good doing it, but the Thing is chased by insurance companies for ripping up the water main).  

I propose as a core idea something like the following:
Each character is rated with different powers/skills/abilities/whatever that are player-defined.  We will go with your idea and say that these are the SFX (call them Abilities), with no rating, and the different possible actions, Attack/Defense/Movement/Perception/Social (this list could be expanded), each get a rating (call them Actions).  Next, each character has to rate the following three aspects at primary, secondary, and tertiary – Power, Wits, and Luck (for lack of better names) – let's call these Modes.  The primary choice of Mode will dictate the predominant style of play that the player follows, and each will use a slightly different mechanic.  Need to work out the details of the mechanics, but they are something like this:
Power – This is an absolute rating.  It would either be diceless, or use a FUDGE-type mechanic (roll x dice and add to the rating).  The hero would know that he could almost always rely on his Actions without a great deal of failure.  The archetypical hero using this Mode would be Superman.
Wits – This would give the player narrative ability, and would be for players that like to drive the story.  It would be in the form of a certain number of tokens that the player would spend to affect his Actions, change the plot and the course of a scene, or gain clues / advantages ("There must be a weakness in the armor somewhere", "Good thing I was researching quantum atomic theory recently", "I know that thug – I captured him last week on a break-in downtown").  Batman would fit here.
Luck – The character has to roll dice when using his Actions equal to the rating.  He has a chance of fantastic success or terrible failure; he is never sure which.  He could also use this Mode to get hints/clues from the GM without any real idea what to ask for (like dumb luck).  Using an Action or calling on the Mode for breaks/clues involves some sort of penalty, like bad luck or bad consequences in future scenes, or even invoke Complications (things like sick aunts, complicated love life, bad reputations, and so forth).  Spiderman definitely fits here.
I think it is important that every hero gets to use any three of the Modes so they would not get bored or feel too pressured to come up with new ideas (allowing the player to switch modes of play sometimes).
The only thing I am stumped on is how to fit any limits on Power Mode – perhaps the character must have some sort of vulnerability or weakness where his Power does not work or is lost, or perhaps some limiting factor like Action Tokens or something.  I was also thinking of some other aspect called maybe Heroism that would show how hard it was to defeat the hero, and serve as a 'reserve' that could be burned to power any of the three Modes (Power could be pushed higher, Wits gets more tokens to use, not sure about Luck).  
As far as unopposed task difficulties, they should be assigned some sort of challenge rating reflecting 1) their possible challenge to the hero's Actions and 2) their importance to the story.  That would eliminate the need for a difficulty or power level chart.  For example, take lifting a city bus.  Batman could not even attempt such a feat; Spiderman could only do it if he pushes himself hard, and Superman could do it without breaking much of a sweat (the comic book Superman, that is).

You can also throw in other things like Motivation (player can call on this to get bonuses for actions involving Motivation) and Complications (mentioned above), and bonuses for appropriate comic book tropes (like supplying dialog and sound effects during combat).  Feedback and comments are definitely welcome on this idea.