I missing the "OOMPH" for my game.

[Teataine]

Rekyl, that sounds quite good. I doubt I would ever get my group to play anything like that (we're really not into superheroes games), but it reminds me in parts of Doom Patrol and Watchmen, and that's awesome.

[rekyl]

Yeah I know what you mean. I aswell as the group I play with mostly usually avoid superheroes. Well the problem with the superhero genre in all is the fact that, well its more about superpowers than the heroes themselves. The stories tend to become part of the background in favour for Mr Superiors laser beam eye-ray and the fact that his sidekick Lady Spandex can do cool things with her arms.
Even when the story is pushed into the foreground it has a hard time competing with all the cool things peoples characters can do. I mean if someone can squeeze a cool story out of it than thats great but I have a really hard time doing it myself.
(same problem with vampire:tm, I play it from time to time with another group than the usual one and it allways seems to revolve around the tactical design of the characters - the dramas that ment to be there seems to disappear after an hour of play anyway so why pretend I guess? Plus the game is getting to be very much the younger generations AD&D, heavily overplayed)

/Jens

[KeithBVaughn]

It's hard to get something that makes the game stand out. I know, I've shelved a lot of concepts that while novel weren't substainable.

Superpowers are usually a curse in many games often because of secret identies and soap opera complications. Here's a thought, the superpowers as they become more powerful, the less and less human you are until you are something chthulu like evil i.e. supervillian. Heros have to join up in teams to have enough power to overcome a villian. Ironically the villain was one of them long ago. Like muscles as you use them they become stronger and you become less and less human. It should be easy to do with a point system. The system will totally screw with a munchkin and his misuse of superpowers.

Have Fun,
Keith

[Vulpinoid]

The system will totally screw with a munchkin and his misuse of superpowers.

The catch here is that Munchkin players are often fed by Munchkin GMs.

If a Munchkin player is fed by a Munchkin GM, neither will see the need for the inhumanity aspect, it will be severely downplayed. In much the same way as rekyl's comment about Vampire:tm. This is a game with a great built in system for conscience and playing up the ramifications of peoples actions, buit many of the games I've played have ignored this angle of the game.

If a Munchkin player is fed by a non-Munchkin GM, then where did they get their munchkin tendencies from? Someone must have taught them the dark arts of munchkinism. This sort of play will go back to their former mentor and play a game where their can indulge their inner Munchkin.

V 

[jessecoombs]

Thanks for all the thoughts. The game, which I'm calling "Titans" until I figure out something more dynamic will get it's first playtest this weekend, so I'm hoping to iron out some of the individual mechanics with a balls-to-the-wall one shot.

I'm realizing that I probably have had the "OOMPH" all along, but it was getting watered down. Looking at the threads for Matt Wilson's "Galactic" has really inspired me. The game should probably be called "Crisis" and should focus on those big event-type stories that happen when gobs of characters team up to stop the big "Crisis" so to speak. But to find the focus, I need to first figure out what I love about those stories and why:

-Seeing different characters working together (or against each other) that normally wouldn't. It's great to see Green Arrow learn to deal with Hourman from the future while Hourman realizes that he may still have a lot to learn from these backward people.
-The "BIG MOMENT" where Superman dies, or Hal Jordan kills the Corps, or Cyborg downloads a soul, or Onslaught is revealed. These big moments usually change something drastically in the continuity. It's almost like a Meta version of my characters, with the universe gaining a new aspect because of what happened during the campaign or story.
-The nonstop pace of impending dread like WWIII in JLA, or 52, or the later half of Watchmen. Knowing that the threat is coming really keeps the story going and avoids the issue of a world with no problems.

To adress this, the game needs:

-A large amount of characters that we care about that won't take too much time to create. I've got this covered with the simple system, but Ken's thought on having each player play a lot of different characters would probably work to take some of the strain off of the GM. Also character death could be more of a prevalent part of the game, putting the sacrifice angle into it as well as being a big moment. These character still need to get us to care about them, so having a goal or motivation for them is key.
-I've got a resource system already for task resolution, so I'll have to tweak it a bit to work in the "BIG MOMENT" or maybe as a way that the heroes fail the world or something. I'm excited about this, because I have a way to affect pacing with the tokens, but this would seem to tie it in a lot better. This is going to be key to the game, and I believe the real hook when I sell it to new players. I'll have to take time with this.
-The threat will have to be immediate, as in defined when we start play. I HATE playing out the origin stories (although a flashback when it ties in to the current story would rock) so the game should be about the big problem and defining that maybe should be similar to town creation in DITV or the Show premise in PTA.  I'm just not sure about whether this should be in the GM's hands, the players, or both. The best I've got now is some type of hybrid involving first character creation, and then basing the big threat on the world that the characters have created through the character creation.

Ok, I'm going to experiment a bit this weekend, but first I'm going to throw out all the rules in my head and just think about what I want to play.

OOOH! I just had a neat idea. I'm basically using a rule of three to keep things simple for myself, but maybe each player makes three characters: a hero, a villain, and maybe a regular joe or sidekick like Jimmy Olsen or Aunt May? Hell, that might be awesome, especially if the three characters wouldn't be allowed to connect to themselves at first. In other words, Player A makes Jimmy, The Scarecrow, and The Flash; Player B makes Commissioner Gordon, Superman, and The Mirror Master ; and Player C makes The Flash's wife, Batman, and Lex Luthor. This might be tricky with the amount of players, and I don't think that it will work with just one player and GM, though.

HMM.

[Charrua]

Jesse,

First off, I love the idea.  Alot of great ideas were thrown out, all of which could work with what you want to do.   However, I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about "oomph," because it might help to focus on what you're actually looking for, and perhaps narrow the conversation a bit or direct it once you post again with your findings.

When I think of ooomph, I think of something, that one thing, that makes a game worth playing for.  That, "Dang, I've got to try that game!" moment.  And, upon playing it, it's the, "Man, I can't *wait* to play it again!" moment when you're done.

Off the top of my head, there are several things I look at (totally personal to me) when I try a game:
1) setting:  What's going on?  Where is it happening? What would I be in said world?  What cool stories are there?
2) Mechanics:  How do the mechanics work with this setting? What, if any, neat/new/interesting mechanics are there that make the game enjoyable?
3) Character:  What about character generation/growth, character conflicts/resolution, and special abilities make the game special (and work with the setting/mechanics)?
4) The kicker:  Tension.  How does the game work to create tension for the characters, wanting everyone to come back for more?

Before you started this thread, you had interesting things in all 3 categories, any of which gave oomph to the game, and I'm happy you acknowledged it in your final post.  There have also been interesting points regarding mechanic additions (mostly regarding karma and resources, which affect character outcomes), as well as means to creating tension through the interplay between character growth, character decisions, and the setting (eventually, even all the good you do may be for naught... after all, the more good you do the more evil someone else will want to do!). 

Personally, I love your idea of each player having multiple characters to fiddle around with, which might give it some extra oomph (or at least would make me happy).  Each player has a stable of characters: some villians, some side kicks, some superheroes.  Each adventure would have then playing 1 as a primary (can be either all of 1 type: villians, heroes, sidekicks), and then, as situation would have it, others come in and out.  Each scene could have different characters playing out.  The best possibility of this interplay is giving the characters the ability to do things that we, as players, might shy away from because of congruity issues (i.e. I don't want to sacrifice my hero b/c then I'll have nothing to do for the rest of the session).  Therefore, it allows your heroic sacrifices (as you mentioned), for characters to disappear "rehabbing" injuries, taking sabbaticals, etc, have it make sense within the concept of the overarching "crisis." Plus, if you have multiple characters, you can always pull the "I'm giving my mantle to someone else" arc (i.e. Daredevil recently, Green Lantern's ring changing hands, pick a new Robin sidekick).  The main thing, however, would be give both characters AND players resources for character improvement, so that when a player sacrifices his main hero, they're not left with a bunch of schlubs as backups.  Furthermore, these resources can always be used to "retcon" characters back in.. i.e.  a portal from an alternate dimesion opens up, positing your old character into this dimension, just with an alternate identity. does s/he remember anyone?  Do they have the same alliances.  Are they evil?  And most importantly, how will they react to the current crisis (especially vis a vis their former actions)?  Heck, it can even  give players the option to spend all those resources on introducing several different versions of the same character (i.e. DC Crisis ,with several supermans/boys). 

That's oomph, an I'm happy you thought of it.  I'd just recommend you don't force a player's stable to all be related to each other.. but perhaps other player's characters (I play batman, s/he'll play robin, and they'll play the joker).  Oh, and perhaps there should be the adage "villians never truly die"... that way characters can be nefarious, over the top, and affect the world without the player worrying about karma, and preventing player fighting (Joker wants to beat Batman, but in-game wise/character-wise there is little repercussion against Joker if he loses the battle). 

In any case.. I'd love an update!

-nico