It becomes fairly clear that, when you introduce super powers into a system, that actual play becomes different.  In a mundane game, challenges that are introduced might include solid walls, rivers, high window ledges, heavy stones, etc...  However, in a game where super-human feats can be accomplished, the focus is no longer on what can be accomplished (you know that Musclebob Buffpants is going to smash a hole through the wall the second it becomes an obstacle), it is instead on what the consequences are after it is accomplished.

"Sure, you gave us an exit, but the guards have been alerted!"

Is this in any way true?  Are there different generalizations that can be made about how super powers change the challenges brought up during play?  If technology cannot bridge the gap to re-introduce the same challenges (ie: lead-plated rooms to prevent x-ray vision, etc...), is there still enough material to make long-lasting games that vary?

Nogusielkt wrote:
Is this in any way true? 

What Sydney said.

Obstacles are obstacles are obstacles -- what form they take in-game is relatively arbitrary, but they still perform the same function.

My last question sort of adds another view.  I wouldn't care if you said yes or no (I just want to know the answer, and know the surrounding knowledge).  If the technology couldn't scale to match the powers of the players, how does it change?  Without the ability to have that adamantium wall, would you still bother putting walls in place where you know they would have no trouble passing it?

If the players can go through walls, then walls are no longer obtacles.  If you're putting them into your 'game map' you will be doing so for other reasons besides providing obstacles.  A place to hang a picture.  Something to hide behind (assuming no x-ray vision).  An obstacle to contain NPCs of lesser abilities.

Character power levels do not change the structure of a story, but it can change the ways that characters interact with the setting to create that story.

I might be reading too much into the question , but perhaps you are heading to the place I'm imagining.

I assume you are talking about extreme, superman and godling type of power. If that is what you are talking about or interested in, then I've some insight into just what happens when a character totally eclipses the world they are surrounded with. The focus of the game turns very inward, as what really matters is what the character wants at that point. If very little or nothing can impede them, then they have the ability to make world shaping actions. Of course the fun of a game like this is most likely going to be severely limited without having something that the PCs are up against. In my Delphian Tides game (think Hellboy meets Paladin), the characters are beset by lies and corruption- it doesn't matter how much power you have if you can't make informed choices.

Nogusielkt wrote:
If technology cannot bridge the gap to re-introduce the same challenges (ie: lead-plated rooms to prevent x-ray vision, etc...), is there still enough material to make long-lasting games that vary?

Jason wrote:

I assume you are talking about extreme, superman and godling type of power. If that is what you are talking about or interested in, then I've some insight into just what happens when a character totally eclipses the world they are surrounded with. The focus of the game turns very inward, as what really matters is what the character wants at that point. If very little or nothing can impede them, then they have the ability to make world shaping actions. Of course the fun of a game like this is most likely going to be severely limited without having something that the PCs are up against. In my Delphian Tides game (think Hellboy meets Paladin), the characters are beset by lies and corruption- it doesn't matter how much power you have if you can't make informed choices.

In Multiverser, player characters can become superhuman in ways that make it difficult to scale against them in some settings. There are several possible responses.

You can play against the character's weaknesses. I was reading in another thread something about an old D&D module in which one of the possible solutions was to burn down the home of the giants with them inside it, killing them all. There were a lot of questions about how to prevent players from taking that option. One that was not mentioned was the giants are holding several prominent citizens inside their home, and if you burn it down they will die. If the characters have incredible powers, rather than try to stop them by establishing obstacles against those powers, set up challenges that require them to think. Spiderman I had this going on, when the Green Goblin pitted the life of Mary Jane against the entire tramload of kids. Superman III offered a situation in which the Man of Steel had to outsmart his opponent.  In Superman II he had to enlist the aid of one of the villain's henchmen by promising to save her mother before saving the rest of the world, thus making the task more difficult because of his promise.  No character is good at everything. If you absolutely have to get the information out of the computer, super strength and X-ray vision aren't going to help; you're going to need a super hacker, who probably is a vulnerable character who will need a great deal of protection while he works on the problem.

On the other hand, in a lot of such games the entire point of the story changes.  Is it possible for Clark Kent or Peter Parker to have a normal life? Sure, they can do incredible things, but that doesn't make them socially capable and at the same time it gives them some tremendous difficulties to overcome.  You can knock down a building with a single blow, but can you get a date with that cute girl, and have her actually enjoy your company for a few hours? You've saved the city again, but how are you going to explain to your boss why you were two hours late to work?

This is quite apart from the supervillain concept. Eric Ashley did a Multiverser world in which there were scores of super powered characters, deriving their powers from several sources, some heroes, some villains, some working for whichever side hired them at the moment. For every power that a hero has, a villain can have an equal power. In a straight fight, the two would destroy each other. Each then has a vested interest in avoiding a straight fight, but each wants to find a way to disable the other. If all Superman ever has time to do is chase down Bizarro, and Bizarro can never manage to achieve his objectives because Superman is always in the way, each will see the other as a problem.  Time can become the enemy:  if Superman stops to save the busload headed for the break in the bridge, Bizarro can get to his destination and steal the new invention; if Superman stays with Bizarro, that bus goes into the river.

There's a lot that can be done. No character is ever so powerful that he's no longer interesting.

--M. J. Young

Nogusielkt wrote:
It becomes fairly clear that, when you introduce super powers into a system, that actual play becomes different.

What Mike said, but I'll present it from a different angle.

You're setting up a problem in play to which you seem to want a certain solution. It sounds like you're saying, "I'm going to have a game where the obstacles really don't make for challenge for the characters, so that means that it has to be about decisions, and not about defeating the obstacles, right?"

Well, yeah? I mean, you can design a game to do any of this stuff:
1. Characters are way powerful, never meet obstacles they can't defeat (or area allowed dramatic liscence to always overcome them), so play is about decisions. As Mike says, this is Capes and With Great Power.
2. Characters are powerful, but they're forever meeting up with obstacles that challenge even their mighty powers. So play is about the players using the abilities effectively to overcome these challenges. See Marvel Supers, DC Heroes, Champions (AKA Hero System), Heroes Unlimited, etc.
3. Characters are way powerful, do meet tough obstacles, but it's still all about the decisions (Again Capes and WGP cover this, too).
4. Some combination.

There is no, "This is how it has to be" here. Only "This is how I want play to be." Pick a concept for play, and use an appropriate system to make it work like you want it to work. 

Mike

Michael wrote:
Which system? Are you gearing up for some actual play, researching for your own game design, or just spinning hypotheticals?

Mike wrote:
You're setting up a problem in play to which you seem to want a certain solution. It sounds like you're saying, "I'm going to have a game where the obstacles really don't make for challenge for the characters, so that means that it has to be about decisions, and not about defeating the obstacles, right?"

Capes has no GM -- or, more accurately, every player has GM-like powers to create characters, introduce plot elements, frame scenes, etc. With Great Power has a GM, but I understand that the current edition defines his or her role rather more precisely than the traditional "GM is God" approach (I think I ordered the new edition, darn it; gotta check my Paypal account now).

Seems like a contradictory statement, Nog. You want play to be about the outcome of player decisions, but you don't want them to have control over the plot? (To make an obscure refrerence this is like the opposite of the "impossible thing before breakfast")

I think you're saying that you don't want the player to have any Director Stance Authority or something like that? Can't affect things outside of directing the actions of his character? Check out Sorcerer. But With Great Power shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

Mike

Hi, all.

The GM in With Great Power... is much more strictly defined than in many RPGs. She's the person who plays the villains, and that's it. The story evolves from the way the heroes clash with the villains. One could say that the story is how the heroes clash with the villains. The GM still has strong input into every single scene, but she doesn't write out the story before the players show up and usher the players through it, like in the games you mentioned. The direction of the story is a surprise to all.

passing the wrong way will have to lead to bad consequences

Michael wrote:
I'm just wondering, who gets to define what's the "wrong way"? Do they define it before play begins, or at the moment of action? Can they say "you did it wrong, here's the consequences" whenever they want, or do they, too, act under some constraint?

Also, who decides what the consequences are? Is it the same person as the one who decided it was "wrong"?

Mike wrote:
Seems like a contradictory statement, Nog. You want play to be about the outcome of player decisions, but you don't want them to have control over the plot? (To make an obscure refrerence this is like the opposite of the "impossible thing before breakfast")

I think you're saying that you don't want the player to have any Director Stance Authority or something like that? Can't affect things outside of directing the actions of his character? Check out Sorcerer. But With Great Power shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

Mike

About defining "wrong" you said:

Nogusielkt wrote:
Generally, the GM.  It's usually defined at the moment of action, but it can be defined before play begins.  However, it's only meant to be used in cases where it's reasonable.  Therefore, there can also be multiple "right" ways and multiple "wrong" ways to pass an obstacle.  "Right" and "Wrong" are determined by what adds additional difficulty and what doesn't.  Busting through a wall in an enemy fortress would likely be wrong, while busting through the same wall in the wilderness could very well be right.

Michael wrote:
So the GM can arbitrarily set difficulties where she wants simply because she's the GM? At first blush, this seems to be prime territory for GM abuse--no matter how powerful the PC's superheroes, they'll never be more powerful for than the GM! She can set up whatever obstacles she wants, and make them as difficult as she likes. If she wants a wall to be an obstacle, she gives it a very high difficulty number and--PRESTO--it's an obstacle!

However, what you've stated is holding the GM back from such blatant abuses of her authority (what we call "Force" around here) is that her difficulty decisions must be "reasonable." Now, I figure "reasonable" to you is going to be different from "reasonable" for me, which will be different from "reasonable" for a structural engineer, or a 15-year-old comic book geek, or John Q. Gamer.

So if "reasonableness" is the ultimate authority over how difficult a given obstacle is going to be (as well as how potent a given mudane or super ability acting against the obstacle is going to be), then whose idea of "reasonable" counts? How does what's "reasonable" get decided? That is something your game really ought address. And not in a "Well, everyone ought to be get along" kind of way, but in a "Do X, Y, and Z, and everyone will end up on the same page" kind of way.

Michael wrote:
Does that make sense, Nog? (BTW, what's your real name?)

Nogusielkt wrote: The difficulty levels cannot be adjusted because there is only a single difficulty level for any given obstacle.  A brick wall is a brick wall.  However, if you are referring to the fact that a brick wall could instead be a wood wall if the GM wants the players to be able to break through it, then you are correct in that statement.  However, I think this would hold true for any game where things are planned in advance like that.

Nogusielkt wrote: The reason I was worried about obstacles not being challenges and changing the focus of the game is specifically because there is no variable difficulty.  No chance to manipulate the powers of the players as to what they affect and what effect they have.

Nogusielkt wrote: "Reasonable", however, still gets decided, but it is decided by anyone.  If you feel your power should affect an obstacle in a certain way (even though there is very little wiggle room), and it isn't being played as such, then all you have to do is mention it.  Sometimes it is just forgotten, and sometimes you reveal a new point of view that will make sense (in both cases your effect is applied).  Then, sometimes, it is not applied.  The decision is a group effort, but in my case specifically, there is too little room for that to happen often.

Nogusielkt wrote: I think that it's just common sense most of the time.  You don't want to make loud noises while in an enemy base, when you haven't been discovered yet.  If that isn't implied, then it will shortly be learned.

We seem to be going in circles here. Mike is asking about how the premise of the game is set, and hearing that it's about "right and wrong choices" is asking about how that's addressed. Now we're hearing that play is about simulative crashing through brick walls. I think we have a huge communications barrier going on here. Not just because of the actual language barrier, but because of the lack of common gaming terms being used.

Mike

As usual, none of this is going to be helpful without the context of actual play.

Now that the thread has meandered long enough, I think it's time for me to say "Post in actual play, tell us what your play-experiences are like," and that will provide enough context for any conceptual discussions to be successful.

Best,
Ron