I missing the "OOMPH" for my game.

[jessecoombs]

So, I've designed an rpg purely because there is nothing out there that does what I want it to do, as far as I've checked. It's a high-level superhero game along the lines of the Authority, Planetary, Big DC comic cosmic crossovers, etc. It's about big events and how they affect the characters individually. Mechanically, I've designed it with the idea that it will be a game that caters to my own GM style, which is very improvisational, fast with big ideas and hopefully pace, and very little preparation. I hate stating up NPCs, but I love coming up with concepts for story, character, and themes. It's a very simplified character creation process, focusing on character conflict and change. A simple resolution system using tokens as resource management, pacing, and player cooperation or competition avoids the issue of powerful characters failing at things that would be rediculous or that might derail the story. It also has a neat mechanic built in for keeping players who's characters are not in the scene interested in what's going on with the other players when parties split up, as they probably will. Most big comic book events have many different characters doing their own things, all working towards accomplishing some big goal.

OK, I'm getting a little wordy here, so here's my problem. I like everything I've done, but the main problem I'm having is coming up with an OOMPH, or a hook for the game. Something that gets me, anyone, running it, and especially the players excited to play the game. I don't just want to sell this as a generic rules-lite high-powered superhero game. I want to make one feel like: HELL yes I want to play/run this today!

The best thing I've come up with is that this is a game where you save the world. And that's as tired as anything. I've been throwing around ideas in my head about having one player be the BIG BAD that any other players have to stop maybe even in different groups or sessions, but I'd love for this game to be playable for two as well as for five or six.

I feel like I should really focus on how these events change the characters, how characters change the world, or a combination of both. I'm just trying to get that lightning bolt moment I guess.

Any thoughts?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Lots of thoughts, but I'm a bit hampered by the fact that I haven't designed in that direction in a long while. I usually start with the OOMPH and then create the system, not the other way around. I agree though, that a game should have something special, otherwise it's a bit hampered.

How about having pregenerated player characters? I've toyed with making a superhero game myself, but instead of having the usual generic superhero creating system, I'd have a set of ready-made heroes and their enemies. At least your game would be specific that way.

Another focus could be the Authority thing, having the heroes be proactive in their politicy towards the human race. I'd certainly be interested in a superhero game that started with the question of what, really, this character is going to do with his powers. And instead of clean and easy answers about capes it's a mess of government brainwashing camps, tyrannizing helpless populations, toppling dictators and messing around with large-scale human affairs in general.

I don't know about inserting this stuff into a ready-made game, though... it seems to me that anything interesting I think up, there'd also need to be specific rules systems there to really polish the idea and enforce it as the real focus of the game.

[Callan S.]

I'll second Euro's thought on starting with OOMPH, then designing.

I think things with real oomph don't want to be used to just spice up a game - they want to be the reason there's any game to begin with. For instance, take something that's happened to you that's traumatic but important - perhaps a close relative dying, perhaps someone having a brush with cancer. Would you want to just throw these things into a game to 'spice it up'?

Really important issues demand to be the reason the game came to exist. When they are relegated to just spicing a game up, they dissapear and hide themselves, uninterested in such a minor role when they are such important issues. That's why it's hard to find oomph.

I had something like this when I first GM'ed, then years latter when I first GM'ed for another group - I had some real thematic issues in the game, then the players rolled in with a 'My character beats everything' approach...and my games which were applauded at first, became more and more boring. That's because the real issues I carry don't want to be treated that way and become more and more remote.

Probably not a very down to earth post, but there it is for what it's worth.

[Ken]

Hi Jesse-

You would think that a game about hyper-powerful superheroes would have plenty of oomph; but I get your point. I like the direction you're taking on quick character generation and not sweating the small details. I'm also a big fan of the inspirations you've listed. Your hook idea of saving the world is really a good start and I wouldn't give up on that.

I've also developed a superhero game (it is focused on the golden age of the genre). I have a pretty strong drive to wrap my system around the concept as possible, so a lot of my advice here will be along those lines.

1) Sacrifice & setback. These high-powered cosmic tales usually have moments of triumph punctuated by shocking tragedy & upset. Maybe things are going fine, until a traitor lets the bad guy into the base; the villain has called in a marker for help, creating another front for the heroes to fight on; an otherwise rational party has decided to do something reckless & brash which makes a situation spin out of control; concerned about defeat, the villain unleashes a weapon of last resort; a previous victory exacts a heavy toll, and its effects are now seen by the character(s); you've read the books. Maybe there could be a mechanic; a trouble pool that builds as things go well for the heroes, and then when the pool hits a certain level, it turns into a plot complication. How the players deal with this would vary, and these consequences would be harsher than just fighting villains in a normal situation. It may fit well into your fast & loose concept.

2) Changing the world. Instead of the normal perks and stats that other games share, your characters can pickup traits like fanclub, restaraunt chain, endorsement deal, government/security/whatever consultant, or something like that. This would allow characters to see the marks they left behind as the world they save over and over worships them like heroes. There are other things too; technical advancement, environmental modification, physical redevelopement, advanced medical treatment, or other grand efforts like that. The point being that the game world would quickly take on a different appearance than the real world as the heroes became more and more a part of pop or world culture.

Here's an idea: Perhaps, instead of using experience points to refine their skills and abilities (like most games), the characters buy aspects of their celebrity and once they have enough ingredients (influence & social power) they can use xps to change the world. Again, this may fit into your story driven/rules light idea. (Lets say Armor-Man has been making inroads with the Centurian City PD and various city officials; he then offers to equip the city's PD with light versions of his armor (he can arrord it, because of his car wax commericals); and the added benefit is that he is patched into PD communications through the armor, and can be on top of super crime in his city; or something like that).

They both sound like fun ideas; though I'm not sure they are the oomph you're looking for. Still, I hope it helps. Would love to hear more about your game.

Good luck, and take care,

Ken

Since I don't know much about your system, I can't offer advice how you could integrate this stuff, or if its even suitable for your

[Vulpinoid]

This is just the way I work, so it's a pretty personal statement...I'm sure there will be people who will say this isn't the way to do things, but that's their way of working...but here goes.

Put aside what you've done so far and work on some other stuff for a while.

Have a look at other games out there, consider what they do right and what they do wrong from your perspective and make some notes on that.


Don't even restrict yourself to games. Watch some movies, read some nooks, watch some TV series. If you've still got Superhero concepts in mind, don't even restrict yourselves to this genre. There are plenty of other sopurces of inspiration out there. Read a fantasy book and then consider how those characters might be different in a modern setting, watch a romantic movie and think about how the situation would have been complicated further if one or more of the characters had supernatural powers...

I guarantee that eventually something will slap you in the face and say..."S&%T, I've never seen that done in a game before".

Once this thing hits you, and you think that you can pull it off effectively with some kind of innovative mechanic or even a twist on an existing mechanic concept then work on that idea for a while.

Don't worry that you've ignore your original project, because one of two things will probably happen. Either you're new mechanic will seem to logically integrate into your existing work. Or you'll find a way expand the old work to include the new concept.

Everyone has established thought patterns in the back of their mind, so those established thought patterns will have driven the original concept and they will have been a part of the process for developing the newfound OOMPH. Once you've stepped back and taken your original concept in perspective with the new idea, it shouldn't be too hard to modify one until it meshes with the other (or come to a midpoint between the two).

The only thing I'd caution against in this regard is trying to stay too pure to both the original concepts. There ae plenty of game systems on the market that look like a design by commitee where one person has decided they like lots of tables for this part of the rules, while another person has decided that they like minimalism and simplicity in another part of the rules.

If your current system uses d12s (as an arbitrary example), and you're newfound OOMPH factor seems to work best with playing cards, consider which of these is more integral to your vision and modify the secondary factor to fit.

I know, you've probably heard plenty of this before.

But it's the way I've been writing for conventions for over a decade now, and it's worked for me.

V

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Apparently the setting is the oomph for our buddy, Jesse. Still, there are plenty of things you can try to kick it up a notch. Point of collapse had a system where chars had opposing traits (e.g., uphold justice vs breaking the law) and you got bonuses or penalties for those traits based where you were on the track for those traits.
  Or, you could design all your traits ditv-style where the players just makes up a trait for their char and assigns it dice. That way you don't need gobs of lists of powers.
  I find that making chars in those systems has more to do with concepts and less to do with mechanics.
  Good luck with your game!

[jessecoombs]

I'll second Euro's thought on starting with OOMPH, then designing.

I think things with real oomph don't want to be used to just spice up a game - they want to be the reason there's any game to begin with. For instance, take something that's happened to you that's traumatic but important - perhaps a close relative dying, perhaps someone having a brush with cancer. Would you want to just throw these things into a game to 'spice it up'

Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I don't want the oomph (there has to be a better term) to be used as spice, it needs to be integral. I may just be too in love with what I created to want to start over, especially with the same concept. Of course, is this a concept already or just a setting? I'm trying hard to think about what I want to accomplish when I have some friends come over and game. Mainly, I just want everyone to have a good time that will get an "AWESOME!" out of everyone, like a great action movie might do.

As far as the system goes, I'll give you guys a few details, but I'll keep it short. Basically, characters start out by completing three sentences about their characters...
(Character name) is the...
(Character name) can...
(Character name) doesn't know...

These sentences define the inherent elements of the characters, and allows the GM to tailor the game according to what it seems that the players are into. From then on, any other stats are basically applied and removed during play, as story dictates. I'm using a simplified version of Aspects that the Evil Hat Crew introduced in FATE for this. Allowing compels from all players and gm to rotate tokens. The system does without die rolls, and merely uses the tokens to accomplish amazing tasks..ala Nobilis. The player can choose to fail actions to gain tokens and so on.

SO, this allows for a lot of character change, growth, and interactivity with each other and the world. So the biggest question for myself once the engine gets rolling is..what's the point of the game?

I believe that the system can handle two players or more playing both sides of a hero/villian story... That seems to be the most interesting route to take so far. Conflict breeds good story, we all know, and a game that has this built in would be pretty fun. What do you folks think?

Oh, and thanks for all the replies, I'm digesting them still...

[Ken]

The player can choose to fail actions to gain tokens and so on.

Expanding on this, maybe characters can elect to take more damage during combat for bonuses to the endgame. This kind of follows the dramatic hero getting the dirt beat out of him, until he has had enough, gets up, and then takes out the bad guy. I don't know much about FATE of noblis, so maybe this idea doesn't fit.

SO, this allows for a lot of character change, growth, and interactivity with each other and the world. So the biggest question for myself once the engine gets rolling is..what's the point of the game?

Do you mean short-term goals or long-term character/world developement?

I believe that the system can handle two players or more playing both sides of a hero/villian story... That seems to be the most interesting route to take so far. Conflict breeds good story, we all know, and a game that has this built in would be pretty fun. What do you folks think?

Is there going to be a GM and a player-run villain? How do villain evolve/develope? What keeps it fun for those players?

Sounds neat so far; keep it up.

Take care,

Ken

[Callan S.]

I'll second Euro's thought on starting with OOMPH, then designing.

I think things with real oomph don't want to be used to just spice up a game - they want to be the reason there's any game to begin with. For instance, take something that's happened to you that's traumatic but important - perhaps a close relative dying, perhaps someone having a brush with cancer. Would you want to just throw these things into a game to 'spice it up'

Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I don't want the oomph (there has to be a better term) to be used as spice, it needs to be integral. I may just be too in love with what I created to want to start over, especially with the same concept.

I relate to that. For what it's worth in my own case if I connect (reconnect?) with an issue that's really important to me, I wont have to start over - the really important issue will throw it all out for me. The important issue knows it's more important. But heh, that involves connecting first, heh!

But yeah, I relate, you've come so far with it - why would you want to go back? Of course that's a bit of a trap too - because you've come so far, your staying with it even if it doesn't suit you (kind of like going out with the wrong person for years, just because, well, you've gone out with them for years).

And I think oomph is a great term! Any intellectualised version of it would likely lose the passion and mystery of it!

Of course, is this a concept already or just a setting? I'm trying hard to think about what I want to accomplish when I have some friends come over and game. Mainly, I just want everyone to have a good time that will get an "AWESOME!" out of everyone, like a great action movie might do.

I probably sound corny, but again I relate to that, because I have often thought about what I want to accomplish once I have friends over to game. But my theory at the moment is that it puts gaming first - you/I think about them at your house gaming and THEN what you want to accomplish.

Perhaps try it the other way around - what are the big problems in life you want to try and work out?

Now, there a bunch of mediums to choose from to achieve that - write a book, make a film, draw a comic, and roleplays also a useful examination tool amongst these. In fact if roleplay doesn't work out in dealing with your issue, then punt it for writing a book, or whatever will work. In other words, roleplay is the bitch of your big issue. So is book writing, comic drawing, etc. They is all ze beyotch!

As a supplement to that idea, with regards to "Awesome!": Were you ever impressed when someone was trying to impress you? Another theory: when your not trying to impress them, that's the time they have the best chance of being impressed.

Hope that wasn't too blue sky theorum to read through! Hope it's of some help - to a strong degree I'm examining my own position through this post as well

[LordKiwi]

The player can choose to fail actions to gain tokens and so on.

You're after a world altering set of events with phenomenally powerful characters. Why let them fail at something to gain tokens when you can make them 'fail the world' to gain some tokens. By fail the world I mean that they can get extra tokens if they describe fallout for their actions that has a terrible price on the world, the more tokens the more terrible.

If you're fighting over the planet it could even have it's own stats, just a couple maybe....
Sympathy: How much the world likes the characters.
Resilience: How much punishment it can take.
Have these as token pools. Villains remove tokens form either pool when they win conflicts. Heroes add tokens to either pool when they win conflicts. Players can take tokens from either pool to use for themselves, hurting there rep or the world in general, in the process. The current level of Sympathy determines co-operation form the other forces of the world. If Resilience reaches 0 the Villains win (for the moment).
Winning could also offset some of the penalty from taking the world's tokens for your own, meaning that the stakes of the conflict are raised whenever you take tokens. Say 1/2 the tokens lost are put to one side and are returned if the conflict is a success.

Would that be enough OOMPH? Not only can you save the world, it's represented as a mechanic so players can see they're saving the world, it's not done by GM fiat. Of the comics listed as inspiration I've only read the Authority but you can clearly see in that how the two world stats change constantly. If you're only playing in a City or Country, then it could represent that instead, but it would clearly define what's at stake and the scope of the game.

John,

[Robert Bohl]

Jesse, I agree with everyone that you have to find the oomph. So let me ask you this: What three things do you love most about the kinds of stories your game is going to generate? Find those things, transmogrify them into game-versions, then see if you can build a system for that.

[Robert Bohl]

Sorry, I mean start with the oomph. You know you have to find it.

[Ken]

OK, I'm getting a little wordy here, so here's my problem. I like everything I've done, but the main problem I'm having is coming up with an OOMPH, or a hook for the game. Something that gets me, anyone, running it, and especially the players excited to play the game. I don't just want to sell this as a generic rules-lite high-powered superhero game. I want to make one feel like: HELL yes I want to play/run this today!

The best thing I've come up with is that this is a game where you save the world. And that's as tired as anything. I've been throwing around ideas in my head about having one player be the BIG BAD that any other players have to stop maybe even in different groups or sessions, but I'd love for this game to be playable for two as well as for five or six.

Just switching gears here; maybe the players can run entire groups that are tackling different fronts the mega-crisis-conflict-type stuff. Either all players have a character in each team, or each player stats a team of their own. The second optional doesn't seem like a big deal considering the rules light-ness of the game. You could even have mixed teams with heroes and villains who ban together for major cosmic conflicts. I'm not totally sure how this would work in your game (if at all); its just an idea.There have been other games that take the super team  tact, but there aren't many.

Interested in hearing more about your progress.

Take care,

Ken

[masqueradeball]

I don't know if you've read Infinite Crisis or any of the other "crises(?)" over at DC but the honest truth about why those books work is because we care about the characters and their world. This isn't the end of the world that we live on, these aren't peoples lives that are changing, but, instead, its a collective fictional reality that some of us have invested a lot of time, thought, money and emotion into. In short, the OOMPH comes from the fact that Superman is Superman and we care because he's Superman.
So, I guess I have a question about the time scale of your game. I've played in plenty of games where players become invested enough in their characters that they really start to feel something when they're threatened or changed. A "good" (in my opinion) role-player will bring some of that empathy for their character to the table from the get go but really, its something that builds over time.
In the case that your building the system to support long term play, I think a good way to add a lot of OOMPH would be to create a real sense of IMPENDING DOOM through some sort of resource mechanic. How I'm seeing this working would be something like Force Points in the old D6 Star Wars (which, as far as I know, came up with the "Resource that make me do better sometimes" thing) but instead of having a finite pool characters would literally be taking out loans against the universe. Over time (months of weekly sessions) these loans would become so big that the universe would come to collect and WHAMMO! Universe shattering crisis that promises not to kill or erase player's (by this time hopefully) beloved heroes/world, but to change it radically and, at least momentarily, for the worse.

[rekyl]

Hi,
I think the key to getting an "Awesome!" from your players is to connect them to the story, making the theme something they care about. Choosing a theme for the game that the players are themselves interested in (say politics, sports, anything that get the players blood going) that ties them in quicker than just a cool plot.

Like I know that if I make a game about simple superheroes beating up bad guys I'll get an "uhuuuh..." from my players but if I'd make one about some breed of mutant superheroes who didn't choose to become superheroes and are tied in by law to register their powers with the state authority on Superheroes and also often have huge ad-contracts ("Mr Mysterioso use Nike while protecting the populace!") that tie in their abilities to use their powers freely (Nike wouldnt want to support anyone who busted up a city block), that might get them going.
(Thet would be cool by the way, a game where superheroes kinda battle their own morality since they cant just run around beating up bad guys anymore. So they have to double-hide their identities so they don't lose their ad-contracts or become arrested.
Like a news feed going:
"an unknown self proclaimed "superhero" stopped a bank robbery last night by destroying most of the front of Bank of England aswell as 20 cars parked outside. All to a cost of 1.5 million euro. Police have yet no leads as to whom the masked avenger was but are confident that the culprit will be caught through the "superpower database" listing all known mutants and their powers. Police Inspector Paul Waters at the Metropolitan Police Mutant Control Agency (the MCA) comments: 'it is acts like these that makes the whole "superhero" community look bad and we should bare in mind that self-proclaimed "heroes" only promote "supervillainism" through their rash and destructive behaviour"

I mean what if mr. Mysterioso also kept getting notes from the Nike saying that they need him to open up a change of sports stores in the Midwest or that they saw the news feed and are fearful that HE may be the culprit, which would strip him of all ad-opps and the luxurious life style he is accustomed to.

Ohohoh! What if, at charcter creation, all players bought their character through binding flaws in their contract? Like the worst would be "You are not to appear in public as Mr Mysterioso unless while endorsing Nike products"...

If added to that there would be some impending doom that only the heroes know of that FORCE them to break contract and law in fear of the loss of human life (if they dont people die and angst angst angst)

/Jens