Showing posts with label supers! rpg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supers! rpg. Show all posts

Sunday, April 11, 2021

Revisiting Old Haunts

Sunday. Our last day of Easter vacation (kids are going back to school tomorrow) and I, for one, am a little sad for it to be coming to an end. It's been enjoyable for the whole family, despite not really doing much of anything...I think the kids really needed a break from the "grind" of clock-punching for school. All of us are a little more slack these days...the wife even said she's not looking forward to her office reopening (she's been working from home since last February), and I'd imagine there are a lot of folks who feel the same after adapting to the amorphous Covid-induced limbo of "shelter-in-place."

One thing we didn't get to, though, was much gaming. Sad but true...the boy had a full schedule of sports this week (soccer Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday; baseball on Wednesday; and then both a baseball game AND a soccer game yesterday).  Today he's sleeping in...giving those poor legs a rest...but the last couple weeks of the soccer season look to be equally as busy as it continues to overlap with the Little League (and my daughter's first season of LL is slated to start in a week as well). Seems he may have finally been "called up" to a higher tier in soccer (that's the reason for the extra practices)...just as he was getting ready to chuck the thing in frustration. For me, I'm just happy I can watch my kids play in sunny weather. Yesterday was a beaut of a day (and the boy went 3 for 4 with two runs and an RBI as the leadoff hitter...what a stud!).

D&D. I think we'll be playing some D&D today. Need to exercise the "mind muscles," too.

However, while I have the minute to type, I wanted to blog a few words on my superhero side project. Even though I haven't been gaming this week, I have been designing like a bit of a madman. Even done a bit of writing, though most of that's going to need changes. Thing is, I've been tweaking my whole concept, and while I still like the idea of a game focused on the "superteam" I find I need something altogether different for play-testing. Because the fact is, I don't HAVE a "team" of players to draw upon.

But it's not just that. This week, I've found myself going back to an old well that I abandoned far too soon. Specifically I've been revisiting my old DMI (Deal Me In) game system and Legendary Might (my supers version of DMI). Last tinkered with circa 2015, there were a lot of reasons I set the thing aside:
  • a lack of "robustness" in game play and character generation
  • lack of system for incorporating human elements to contrast with super slugfests
  • need for a modified card play mechanic to allow character effectiveness without "breaking the bank"
  • need for a more abstract combat system, incorporating power usage and comics/film "violence"
  • need for procedural systems that create more than just fight scenes
A lot of these things are interrelated (duh) and while I had ideas for them, they also represented a lot of work (brain sweat) that I just couldn't put together back in 2015, mainly because I was dealing with the upended life and culture shock of moving to Paraguay (not to mention a new baby). Game design in general (for yours truly) was being "backburnered" in those days, and it's not all that surprising I let the thing get all dusty and forgotten on Ye Old Laptop's hard drive.

Stuff happens.

Welp, I've cracked it out of storage and started hammering away again. And with the steady diet of superhero fare we've been ingesting this week (old X-Men films, the Falcon/Winter Soldier series, the old Fantastic Four movies, Guardians of the Galaxy, the entire two seasons of Agent Carter)...well, it's no wonder really. I've got heroes on the brain.

And, astounding as it might seem, it feels like I'm making actual progress (at least, from a design perspective). Much as I was enjoying my MSH-HU mashup of design, the system was feeling far too wargamey for the genre...and the more I wrote, the more I found myself filing off...or amputating altogether...systems that were too specific, and not abstract-y enough.

Because...well, look. When you try to model comics with reality-based specificity (say, something like GURPS, or Champions, or DC Heroes), you find yourself running into all sorts of problems because neither comic books, nor films, give a rip about emulating "reality" UNLESS it is in service of storytelling. How fast is the Flash? As fast as he needs to be. How strong is the Hulk? As strong as is necessary. "Reality" only matters when it makes a decent plot point (like Flash vaporizing himself by pushing past the lightspeed barrier). The laws of physics have never applied to Superman's abilities...only the laws of a "good story."

Yet we know that not all superhuman abilities are created equally. Spider-Man and Luke Cage are plenty strong, but they can't do what Thor or the Hulk can do. Many comic book characters have an agility the equivalent of an "Olympic gymnast;" but even in gymnastics, some Olympians are better than others on a given day (that's why they give out medals). There are super soldiers and there are super soldiers but there's only one Captain America, and it's not really about the shield and costume. 

Going psychotic...as predicted.
Trying to model these things with specificity in a game is a fool's errand. Which is why games like Jeff Grubb's original MSH and Simon Washbourne's Supers! do such a great job: they embrace the abstraction inherent in the genre. Of the two, I think Grubb has the better design, but it still falls down in three areas for me:
  • too much randomness/lack of coherence in character generation
  • too much procedural fiat rather than direction in adventure design
  • too much "wargame" inherent in the game's logistics (in some ways more "board game" than RPG)
[although the last is somewhat corrected in the Advanced MSH system (doing away with the "area" system) it ends up falling prey to the too much specificity pitfall inherent in other games of the genre]

And it's still a pretty darn good game...probably the best for its genre of any I've read/played. At least, so far as system design is concerned. Which, of course, is why I was looking at a streamlined version of MSH for my own system as recently as a couple weeks back.  It just does a lot of things right.

But Legendary Might, especially in its current incarnation, has (I believe) great potential. And its design is all mine, for a change...not drawing from (or knocking off) some other designer's hard work. That has immense appeal to me, a dude who's made most of his money piggy-backing off concepts pioneered 40+ years ago. For that reason alone, I'd like to make the thing work. No, I'm not the first person to use playing cards as a randomizer, nor am I the first to use cards in conjunction with narrative structure...ain't saying that. But the Deal Me In system is still mine, and the way I'm using it NOW in this game...well, it's kind of exciting. 

I kind of want to play-test it. Sooner rather than later. Maybe today, instead of D&D. Maybe.

Happy Sunday to you all. Hope everyone has a good week going forward. Thanks for taking the time to read!
: )

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Supers! Revised Edition (Comparison Review)

[quick word o warning: this is a looooong post. Seriously]

In my last post, I wrote the following (with specific regard to the Supers! RPG compared to the Supers! Revised Edition):

"If I'd read an appraisal of the game in comparison to its original version, I probably wouldn't have shelled out the money for it. That's money (and time) that could have been spent in support of someone else's game."

Fancy Cover
In retrospect, this is far too harsh an assessment. Supers! Revised Edition (hereafter abbreviated as RED) is a good game, and (in more than a few ways) a nice...perhaps needed...update of the original. However, I wouldn't laud accolades on the book for the same thing others do...I don't think the layout or presentation is necessarily better than original book for instance, and while it has a ton of decent art, I don't find the updated graphics and "presentation" to be an improvement worth remark. To the contrary, the book feels a bit cluttered for my taste.

Likewise, I'm not uber-impressed with the "extras" that have been tacked on. Things like miniature rules and random chargen are fine little options, but I wouldn't use 'em and their location in the appendices (as opposed to in the main rules section) is an appropriate placement.

The new "goodies" (powers, aptitudes, boosts, ads, etc.) are hardly worth crowing about, and are actually where I'd lay my harshest criticism. All four of the new aptitudes are garbage, useless and throwaway, for a number of reasons (if someone wants me to elaborate I'm happy to do so, but this is going to be a long post as it is). Many of the "new" powers are likewise unnecessary padding: Additional Limbs is the same as Super Weaponry; Emotion Control is just Mind Control with the complication "limited to emotions;" Super Running is just Super Speed with the complication "limited to running" (if you want to "double up" for your flash clone, make it a power specific boost for extra doubling...though RED doesn't have the same 5D limit for starting powers as the original game, so there's nothing to prevent a person from throwing 10D in Super Speed and getting the same effect). Super Swimming is such an incidental (i.e. seldom of practical value) power, that if you're not going to stick with the original game's Water Powers, you might as well drop it. Meanwhile, dividing the original game's Paralysis power into Mental Paralysis and Physical Paralysis (when they do the same thing and definition/color is already inherent in the original power) is about as good an example of "bloat" as anything.

Of the truly new powers in the game (and I'm not counting the renamed ones...renaming Web to Ensnare is just fine), the only ones worth keeping are the following: Absorption, Communication, Damage Aura, Dimensional Travel, Imbue, Mimic Aptitude, Mimic Energy, Obscure, Probability Control, Transformation, and Time Travel. Of these, Communication has dubious practical value (as written, it's not much different from the Omni Translator advantage) and Probability Control has problematic aspects, probably better modeled by the use of a high Competency Pool and its new "Narrative Control" option. I understand why Damage Aura and Obscure are their own powers (as opposed to boosts/complications of other similar powers), but I'm not sure they don't present some problematic aspects with the way they break the normal rules, especially Damage Aura.

Super Aptitude deserves special mention for being broken and undermining the whole concept of aptitudes and their mundanity; it seems like someone wanted an excuse to allow an uber-fighty guy to sum more than three dice. Look, dudes, if you want to build Midnighter, use Super Brain (and, hell, give it a "limited to fighting" complication) to model his "mental battle computer." Whoever put this power in the book must not have been thinking clearly.

Revising the system for using advantages/disadvantages from the original game was needed (due to it being broken) but the updated list of ads/disads is something of a mixed bag. While ads like alter ego, animal friendship, feign death, and omni translator...and, yes, water breathing by itself...all fit fine as minor powers available for 1D, I don't see why RED fails to keep similar minor ads longevity and tolerance from the original game. Others, like celebrity, intimidating, and nonsentience, are junkable padding, as are mentor, police powers, and security clearance (these three can be modeled using allies). For all ads, I'd limit their cost to 1D and make 'em reactivate-able via use of Competency dice (it fits with the CP's expanded purview) rather than make them so damn fiddly. Not sure why Super Vehicle isn't a straight power with a device complication. I guess because they want to create new vehicle combat rules.

Special mention for crap goes to the new ads Occupation and Size Big/Small. Just so unnecessary except for folks wanting to min-max. A character's aptitude already implies occupation (and level of expertise) this is just a cheap way to get re-rolls for shooting, etc. (rather than use bonuses from one's Competency Pool...what happened to "unified task resolution?" Where else is there a re-roll mechanic?). Size...same deal. These are super-heroes (implied human scale), if they grow big or small then they've got the proper power, if it's "always on" they have the proper complication. If this isn't about min-maxing then it's "kitchen sink" (or sloppy) design. I mean, you can already use Supers! to model (say) Transformers with giant robots simply by scaling what the D6s represent.

[oh, yeah...Base of Operations. So much more straightforward in the original game as Hideout. Again, why do you need to put dice in a base's "aptitude?" It's the character that is performing the lab/science roll (represented by how many dice you give your character). And building an Avengers Mansion or  Hall of Justice? Who wants to spend chargen dice to that? If the campaign setting requires such a structure for the team (instead of an individual wanting his personal Batcave, i.e. a Hideout) then just give it to them]

Disadvantages? Most of these are fine, though I'd limit them all to a 1D bonus (and only take the most severe version of each...for example BLIND instead of NEARSIGHTED. A character can always wear glasses//contacts/goggles-with-corrective-lenses). Of course, this means there are only a couple-four new ones (accidental transformation, bad luck, power loss, and unskilled), and bad luck probably needs to be rewritten or dropped (it's the same as the dumb luck advantage except the GM calls for the re-roll...if a character is rolling their 5D traits all the time, it's still likely to result in a success). The one exception to "fine" in this category is the mental hindrances. I'd scrap all of these as they're fairly unenforceable and seem to exist just to give players bonus dice in chargen. If you want a quirky character, role-play 'em quirky.

[*pause for breath*]

OKAY, at this point you're asking why you should buy Supers! Revised Edition when the original Supers! is still available as a PDF for $1? If you've gotten this far thru my too long review, here's the better stuff:

Rules-wise (everything up through page 20) the RED is actually a step-up from the original edition. Situational Modifiers (how they're defined, how they're used) are a nice addition. The Levels of Success mechanics (with Major Successes and Superior Successes) is a very nice addition, and allows for some neat tricks, specifically with regard to combat tactics.

[I will say I detest the charts as "clutter" but that's my personal bias. I can do math faster in my head]

The expanded Competency Pool rules (and the addition of Temporary Competency) is quite good and I've got no quibbles with it, save perhaps the "ignore disadvantage" use (you're already gaining a bonus die by spending from your Competency pool...feels redundant, though currency-wise it's fine so long as all the disads cost 1D). The related Assist rules (which can award Temporary Comp dice to the character you're helping) is fine, if a little clunky (why not just award a situational modifier?)

Combat is the next section where we see tweaks from the original game, and all of RED's are to the good. As I mentioned in a prior post, RED now allows any power, aptitude, or resistance to be used in defense of any type of attack, and is explicit along with providing good examples. The new method of calc'ing damage prevents some of the wilder swingy-ness that's possible under the old rules, and (to me) better represents the superhero genre...neither protagonists nor their nemeses are generally "one-shot" on a blown roll; that only happens to the no name mooks and goons. The set break points for damage escalation are also nicely uniform.

With the exception of critical strike (RED's answer to D20-style "power attacks"), all the combat maneuvers are good, and make good use of the new "levels of success" system (with specific escalation in effect based on major or superior success). It's reminiscent of MSH's Green-Yellow-Red effect chart (though without the chart) and I could see modeling many of the old MSH combat maneuvers in RED using the system. However, the maneuvers RED includes are just fine...and I especially like the options to utilize moves like Interrupt and Take One For the Team through either initiative delay OR comp die expenditure. If your character's competent, you get more options to play with (and because comp dice are earned in-play, a character's effectiveness increases as the player's knowledge of the play style increases...nice parallel there).

The Character Gen chapter starts on page 25, and despite my gripes about the expanded powers, etc. most of the chapter is excellent. Taking the cuffs off and just giving folks a die pool to build their character (an option in the basic book) is a logical next step, especially considering the small number of dice being used to construct the character (nowhere near most point-buy games). Of special note is the attention paid to resistances and the "benchmark" charts provided...this is really nice when trying to model one's favorite superheroes (again, shades of MSH). The design sidebars in this section are all pretty good, and unlike my earlier gripes most of the new boosts and complications appear useful and straightforward (though some are a bit on the "fiddly" side, especially in the boost section).

The character archetypes in this chapter, easily recognizable as the "standard builds" found in Mutants & Masterminds (just done in Supers! fashion)...well, it gave me a chuckle. I also noticed the MSH power types in the backgrounds & origins section (and Reid San Fellipo's incorporation of these into his random chargen appendix was well-done, especially the origin-specific adjustments).

The Judge's Guide (beginning page 107) is fine, though I think the "material strength" charts are poor...how come it's possible for a normal human to rend titanium with her bare hands? The major change here is with regard to the "mook rules" which has replaced to previous rating system with a dice system based on rating. I'd have to see how it works in-play, but if you want your Aunt May NPC to have a chance of knocking out Spider-Man with a vase from behind (or at least damaging him), the updated rules allow the possibility based on a good roll vs. bad roll. I don't know, it seems a little forced compared to the ease of the original system. But it allows for greater variation in "quality of mook" (with bonus dice for tougher goons, etc...kind o fiddly).

Similarly, Hazards (one of the stronger aspects of the original game, and the main reason I picked up Supers! instead of BASH) have been changed from a numerical rating to a dice rating. This I like quite a bit less than the original edition, as the randomness makes Hazards less dangerous much less dangerous, on average. I'd probably junk it in favor of the old rules. Drowning and falling are a bit fiddly/inelegant (again, they feel a bit like converted Advanced MSH), but are otherwise okay.

The Campaigning section is great, and a nice addition...there's no such section in the original game (perhaps making that ugly assumption that a GM will "just know what to do"). Quite helpful for the aspiring Supers! GM. Advancement is nicely laid out, as are the various options for character death, though the actual mechanics of character death are a bit broken (if resistances can be reduced to negative amounts, but only Fortitude and Will carry the possibility of death at negative levels, what prevents me from assigning all damage to Reflexes or Composure instead? Player gets choice of damage allocation after all, and both of those are allowed options for physical damage).

After that comes optional rules and appendixes which, as mentioned, I find fairly unremarkable.

So there...after a couple thousand words, I've got my feelings for Supers! Revised Edition off my chest, with precious little web "ink" spilled talking about art or layout or presentation. From a game standpoint, Supers! RED makes Supers! a better game...when it's not over-thinking / under-designing itself. But the original game still has value as a "check" of sorts against some of RED's silliness (like the "improved" Life Support power).

Fact o the matter is, even with these complaints, Supers! RED may be the best generic supers game I've ever seen. I realize that will raise an incredulous eyebrow from longtime fans of M&M, SuperWorld, V&V, MSH, Heroes Unlimited, and Champions, but...well, I'll stand by my statement. Yes, I have gripes (a long list of 'em), but they're things that can, in the main, be fixed by cutting and trimming (or ruthlessly wielding a fat black marker on one's print copy...see why white space is useful, people?). Washbourne's original Supers!, good as it was, had some serious issues (though I count neither presentation nor lack of material strength tables as being among them) that RED corrects quite handily. Armed with both books, I feel confident I could run a pretty good game...as long as I wasn't looking for gritty, street-level granularity in my superhero action. Like MSH before it, Supers! doesn't really do low-level granularity all that well.

Ugh...I've got to get some sleep. Later, gators.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Preferences

Originally, I considered calling this post "Bloat."

I'm feeling charitable at the moment.

Actually, it's more than that. In honesty my normal state of mind should rest somewhere between "extremely grumpy" and "dead tired" (I slept around three hours the last few nights)...but after outdoor Mass with His Holiness, being less than charitable today seems like an affront. Not sure "to what," but an affront to something.

And...well, I'm kind of tired of being mean. I feel like, lately, I've been turning into the Paraguayan version of RPGPundit. The old version of 'Pundit, anyway...not the guy who seems so reactionary and defensive and personally affronted all the time (I guess internet politics will do that to a guy), but the guy who would gush about some game or supplement that appealed to his taste while ripping apart a game or supplement that wasn't. I don't want to be like that. I want to encourage game designers to design...regardless of whether or not I think they're any good at it.

You folks grok me? Sometimes I spend so much time contemplating things in my head that when I finally bother writing 'em down in a blog post I forget to include crucial parts of my thought process that makes the thing make sense. Let me be perfectly clear:

In this industry...the game industry, but especially the tabletop RPG part of it...where so much of it is driven by hobbyists, and fun, and love of play...in this industry, I want to encourage people to get out there and make games. I don't want to tell anyone:

You suck. Please stop "creating" your heaping, steaming piles of crap.

Is the internet a crowded place? Sure. Is there a lot of "dross" out there? Probably. Does all that noise make it harder for people to locate the true "gems" that exist. Maybe.

But dross and gems are subjective terms. One person's trash is another's treasure, yadda yadda.

Take game bloat for a moment. I've probably related the following story in an earlier blog post, but here it is again: I was hanging out at a game shop perusing the shelf and talking with folks (in part) about the presentation of game books, specifically being interested in what attracts the potential customer. And one of the guys I was talking to was dismissive of anything that was of a small size, soft cover, or low page count. Anything that looks "indie" or "old school." Not that there aren't good games or supplements that come in such packages (he admitted), but unless it comes in a large hard cover with glossy art and high production values, he makes an assumption that it's not worth his money (until someone else introduces him to the game). In other words, he buys the bigger, shinier package because he figures that anyone unable to put out a similarly professional looking product can't possibly put out something that's of equivalent professional quality or value. His preference is for a bloated coffee table book, regardless of what is contained inside.

[this guy BTW is now the co-owner of a local game shop...though he handles more of the beer sale/distribution side of the place while his partner deals with the games]

This type of thinking, of literally "judging a book by its cover," is fallacious, but understandable. I've purchased and read plenty of lovely hardcovers over the years that were poor in terms of writing, editing, or game-worthy content. Some of these were put out by large companies, but others were from small indie outfits...you don't need to be a big company with a magnificent "design team" to put out a coffee table ready product. You just need money to spend...and rinky-dink outfits have been doing it since before Kickstarter crowdfunding was available. But still, it's understandable: don't you hire the guy who shows up to the job interview with fresh, pressed suit before you hire the scrub in ripped jeans and a t-shirt? Sure you do...in part because presentation shows that you care.

However, small books can still be tastefully, even beautifully, done. A choice to make a small and/or soft-cover book...because of pricing (for the consumer), because of a stylistic choice, because of the book's practical use at the table...can all be plusses, especially when the book itself carries a quality game within its pages. But that's my opinion and, yes, my "preference."

[there are also small, tastefully made indie-game books that are as terrible in editing, writing, and content as a terrible hardcover glossies. However, they do tend to cost less]

And MY preference may not be the majority opinion...at least not the perceived majority opinion. Which is one reason that new editions of games and revised editions have a tendency to be bigger and  more bloated than their predecessors...even at the expense of a game's overall quality or playability.

Ah, yes...now we get to the crux of the post. I spent a good chunk of time "scrutinizing" the differences between Supers! and Supers! Revised and it raised some gripes (for me) about bloat. Not a terrible amount compared to some games, not a huge amount of "bloat for bloat's sake," but enough to irritate me. The book is only 50 pages longer than the original (or 80 if you consider that the original game devotes 30 pages to sample NPCs which the Revised edition doesn't), but it feels cramped and crowded in comparison, partly because excess white space has been filled with full color borders, charts, and illustrations, and partly because the abstract game has been filled with extra blocks of rules and minutia.

However, even as I was making my lists of differences between the two books' content (with the idea of doing a side-by-side comparison), I realized something I hadn't before...Supers! Revised was authored by different people, completely unrelated to the original author, Simon Washbourne. Washbourne (author of Barbarians of Lemuria and the Swords&Wizardry-Stormbringer mash-up heartbreaker called Crimson Blades) transferred the publishing rights for his game to Hazard Studio, a group of illustrators and gamers who are associated with Zenith Comics, an on-line (web) comic imprint.

The connecting factor between Hazard and Zenith is Walt Robillard, artist and (it appears) co-owner of both groups. Walt and Andrew Collas (editor-in-chief of Zenith) were working on a hack of "an old school supers game" when Collas was hipped to the opportunity to acquire Supers!. However, neither Robillard nor Collas were involved in the writing/design of Supers! Revised (both were involved with the artwork). Instead, the writing is credited to Aldo Regalado and Rus Boyd. Regalado considers himself a writer, not a designer, though he credits Champions, Simon Washbourne, and Chris Rutkowsky (author of BASH) for his design sensibilities; his other credits on DriveThruRPG include a couple setting supplements published for both Supers! and BASH.  Russell Boyd appears to a first-time writer, though he has several art credits (mostly for supers-type RPG supplements) on DriveThru; he also cites Rutkowsky as his main influence.

In addition, although uncredited, Dave Bezio (of X-Plororers) provides a five page appendix converting the Supers! abstract system to tactical/miniatures gameplay in the 5' per square range, and Reid San Fellipo (Crawling Under a Broken Moon for DCC) provides a seven page appendix for doing random chargen inspired (at least in part) by the original MSH.

These individuals are the responsible parties for Supers! Revised, not Simon Washbourne who (interestingly enough) has gone on to publish what appears to be his own revised version of Supers! called TRIUMPHANT! The Super Heroic Role Playing Game. I have not purchased Triumphant! (as of this post) but I have read a couple reviews that lead me to believe it's fairly similar to Washbourne's original game, just with an updated dice mechanic that uses polyhedral dice besides the D6, plus a couple "quirks" (like "Triumph dice").

[*pause*]

[*considers what he wants to say*]

The point is this: the design choices of Hazard Studio may not be to my taste, they may fall into their own preferences based on their own gaming sensibilities, as opposed to my own or even as opposed to the original designer (Washbourne). And that's fine...different strokes for different folks and all that. BUT...damn, I bought this game based on its great reviews, the only complaint coming from someone who wanted print-on-demand (and now it has that), and...well, if I'd read an appraisal of the game in comparison to its original version, I probably wouldn't have shelled out the money for it. That's money (and time) that could have been spent in support of someone else's game.

And THIS is why, I suppose, I write a bunch of negative shit about other peoples' games and designs. Not because I'm an asshole (though, I've certainly labeled myself as one over the years), but because I get tired of seeing reviews that are mainly A) puff pieces, B) solely concerned with art/lay-out/production values, or C) both. Especially with regard to games that are 2nd editions or 3rd editions or revised editions or whatever. Just because a new edition is BIGGER does not make it BETTER. Just because an edition is NEWER does not mean it is MORE INNOVATIVE.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to give my honest opinion. And that might be helpful to some people...even those people who consider my preferences the opposite of their own (and thus buy what I dislike and vice versa). It's not that I just get off on being a dissenting opinion, and I do enjoy writing about things that I find cool/neat, too. But my opinions are just that: mine. My preferences. And that doesn't mean someone's book or game or product or supplement is so terrible they should quit designing or quit publishing or even that they should quit trying to make a buck on their work.  I applaud and encourage creativity and artistic endeavor.

On the other hand, if I see something that's fucking terrible, I'm going to suggest that people don't buy it or watch it or read it. In those instances, I'm not telling the particular designer (or filmmaker or artist or whatever) to quit what they're doing...I'm hoping they'll do better in the future. That this particular offering is not up-to-snuff (for whatever reason) or is harmful to its audience or that...well, whatever the reason that doesn't mean I'm telling the creator of said project to hang it all up. Just want to be clear on that.

OKAY. Having gotten all that off my chest, I now want to write a little bit about the differences between Supers! and Supers! Revised...keeping in mind the reasons/goals of the design team that led to the revision. In their own words:

ALDO REGALADO, SUPERS! REVISED CO-AUTHOR: Simon Washbourne created a great game in SUPERS! First Edition. It was fast, fun, simple and robust, and the game’s action economy and narrative elements combined to enable superhero play like no other game I’d ever encountered to that point. The game, however, was also very vague in parts. Some Powers had die codes, but no explanation on how to use them. The game also lacked guidelines for breaking objects, handling vehicles (super or otherwise), grappling and a slew of other elements common to the superhero genre. A primary goal of the revision, therefore, was to provide answers to recurring questions, thus making the game more complete while remaining true to Simon’s original vision. Another reason for the revision was to bring new players into the fold by improving on production values. 

RUS BOYD, SUPERS! REVISED CO-AUTHOR: Another consideration going into the revision was the general presentation of the game. I think a lot of people were turned off by the general look and feel of the book and weren’t giving it a chance. While it wasn’t a major factor, giving the game a facelift was a component of the revision. Otherwise, as Aldo said, beefing up the options, making rules consistent and accessible, and fleshing out some of the missing elements was the #1 consideration.

But I'll get to that in a separate post.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Nerfing Aquaman (Supers! Revised)

One of the reasons I'm really starting to groove on the DC superheroes (more than heroes of the Marvel stripe) is the manner in which their powers are handled. There is a tendency amongst DC heroes to be limited to a single power set (with a couple notable exceptions) rather than possess a number of fairly unrelated superpowers. Consider some of the older heroes: Flash (super speed), Green Lantern (power ring), Green Arrow (archery), Batman (uber-detective), Hawkman (flight)...rather than characters with multiple powers with which to overcome obstacles, you get a single superpower that must be used in a variety of creative, stunt-y ways to overcome a variety of challenges. For me, it's a very Old School approach, which I appreciate.

Use Flash as an example: here's a guy who in the game terms (of some RPGs) has a host of powers...phasing through objects, deflecting bullets, "decreasing gravity" by speeding up molecules, breaking time and dimensional boundaries, etc. But those are all products of a single power: he's really fast. He doesn't really have multiple powers, his comic writers are just trying to figure out different ways to use the powers he has. Contrast that with some of the popular heroes of Marvel like Captain America (perfect physical specimen, longevity, tactical supremacy, unbreakable shield), Wolverine (super senses, claws, regeneration, adamantine skeleton), any member of the Fantastic Four (yes, Reed Richards super-brain counts as a different power from his stretchiness), Thor, Spider-Man, etc. Even the idea of the "brick" type superhero (the big dude or dudette who is both super-strong AND damage resistant) is something far more prevalent in Marvel comics than DC...yes, Superman fits the bill (he IS the original, after all), but even Wonder Woman while strong, wasn't naturally invulnerable to damage (originally, anyway). The number of "bricks" one finds in Marvel is staggering: from Cage to Colossus to Thing to Hercules to Sasquatch to Wonder Man to...well, there's a bunch. An new one born with every super-team that rolls off the shelf.

Aquaman, like his DC brethren, derives his powers from a single source as well: his undersea heritage, The ability swim fast, fight well (underwater), talk to fish, breathe water (duh), and manipulate watery effects (at least, in the old Aquaman cartoon of the late 1960s), not to mention his Atlantean minions all combined to make him a fairly effective and power superhero...in his own element. Part of the reason Aquaman gets such a bad rap (and, yes, I was as guilty as anyone when it came to bad-mouthing the sea king in my youth) was his appearance/presence with those air-breathing superheroes known as the Justice League, AKA "the Superfriends" and his taking part in their surface world (and outer space) adventures. Environments where his powers were diminished or outright useless.

Best Used in Solo Player Campaigns
I've mentioned before that my boy is a big fan of Aquaman. That's because his introduction to the character was by way of YouTube videos of the old '67-'68 cartoon that featured Aquaman as a solo hero in his own environment. We watched a lot of these when we were stuck in the Asuncion Sheraton hotel for five weeks (when we first came to Paraguay). Now that we've downloaded and watched more of the old Superfriends cartoon (and their battles with the Legion of Doom) I can see why I considered him such a punk as a kid. The guy does nothing. He is routinely left behind or relegated to the sidelines, existing only to be captured or voice some simplistic exposition when danger's afoot. When not riding his Sea-Doo (because it's a faster way for him to travel than by swimming?), he is most often seen riding "shotgun" in Wonder Woman's invisible plane which (humorously) reminds me of guys who couldn't get it together enough to get a license or a car and were thus relegated to the passenger seat of their girlfriend's car.

[back in the day, we had rather derogatory terms for this status of male (see the TLC song "No Scrubs") but as a somewhat more mature adult I try to refrain from such judgmental name-calling. Besides, I was "that guy" for a number of years myself. ; )]

At best, Aquaman's portrayal could be described as "lame," like a limping horse (in terms of being a superhero, anyway). But really, he was just a fish out of water, and diminished by the limits of the 20 minute, Saturday Morning format. Because I'm sure that creative use of his underwater abilities could be found, given a little extra time and brainpower.

Enter Supers! which I mentioned a couple days ago (before the specter of illness again struck several members of my household and thus curtailing my writing/blogging time...AGAIN). Supers! uses a quick and easy D6 system (roll handfuls of D6s and total for results) that emphasizes creativity (via narrative control) without being terribly "abstract-crunchy" in a FATE-y kind of way. Which I like a lot. It allows for power use in a very traditional comic book style, where a single power can be used for multiple stunts.

For example, your Incredible Hulk clone is fighting against some sort of flying menace that he can't reach because his feet have been encased in concrete by some typical comic book-y weirdness. You can still use your Super Strength to attack his winged opponent by (for example) "clapping his hands with such power as to buffet his foe with gale force winds." Roll the dice associated with the power. Similar to Villains & Vigilantes, which had an extensive cross-reference table for power use (attack) versus power use (defense), characters in Supers! have more options than the simplistic strike and parry/dodge of Heroes Unlimited...it just dispenses with the V&V table, instead relying on narrative creativity and a simple D6 total vs. total roll-off. Combat is thus only restricted by a player's imagination and the limit of "one-use per round" for powers/abilities.

[in the Hulk example, the villain might use his rating in "Super Flight" to defend against the green goliath's attack...but then he wouldn't be able to use the power for his own attack in the round, needing instead to select a different power or ability]

The default setting for Supers! has players build characters out of 20 dice total...that's not a whole helluva' lot compared to most point-buy chargen systems (Wild Talents is in the several hundred range, and even Mutants & Masterminds 1E defaults at 150 power points). What's especially impressive is you can create most "Justice League" level powerhouses with about 30 dice. That's a pretty impressive feat considering compared to the full page stat blocks of DC Adventures.

As an example, here's a serviceable write-up of Aquaman (30 dice):

Resistances (all start at 1D):
Composure 3D
Fortitude 3D
Reflexes 2D
Will 3D

Aptitudes (all start at 1D):
Athletics (Swimming) 5D
Fighting 3D
Presence 3D

Powers
Summoning (underwater only) 6D*
Super Strength 5D
Water Powers (underwater only) 6D*

Advantages/Disadvantages
None*

*NOTES: The complications added to his powers give them each a +1D bonus. I could easily add some advantages/disadvantages like Wealthy and Allies (to reflect his King of Atlantis heritage) and Enemies (like Black Manta and Ocean Master), but it's not terribly necessary. There isn't really a disadvantage that models his need to occasionally immerse himself in water ("danger of drying out") but this could be achieved by adding a "circumstance" complication to Super Strength and some aptitudes (like fighting) and resistances (like fortitude).

Summoning allows a character to summon mobs of mooks or a henchmen to fight for you, and this adequately models his ability to summon schools of sea life or large sea creatures (though only underwater)...this could even be applied to summoning "Atlantean soldiers" and the like. Water powers gives a person the ability to breathe underwater, create/manipulate water effects (like in the 60's cartoon), walk on water (which Aquaman can't do but the complication nixes this), and swim at 150mph (25mph per die)...the latter is faster than any non-supercavitation torpedo (or sea animal) though considerably slower than the Mach 10 or whatever the hell is his official speed...10,000m per second I read on one web site.

[one thing I dislike about DC superheroes are their seeming Godlike powers, which is more a reflection of "power creep" over the years...and an attempt to model comic book stunts that defy physics...as opposed to any real, sit down discussion of what's, say, actually IN the utility belt or a character's top speed. This is a product of the medium...an artist thinks it would be cool (and/or story appropriate) for a character to "swim up" a waterfall, and only later does a fan figure out how much speed is required for such a feat. Modern hydroplanes are capable of 200mph on straightaways, and that's with very little of the boat actually touching (and dragging) the water. I'm happy with 130 knots of speed, even if it's not "canon"]

Anyway, this a pretty competent Aquaman, though certainly more effective underwater than on dry land. Still, very easy to model using the rules as written for Supers!

Unfortunately, Supers! (as I mentioned before) had a couple issues that made it less-than-perfect. Sure, it didn't have EVERY power, advantage, and disadvantage one might want, but it certainly had enough (and modeling others ain't terribly hard). No, the problems were mechanical ones, and I broke down and purchased the Supers! Revised Edition (both PDF and print copy) to see if they fixed the issues. It did have very nice reviews, after all.

Welp, after reading the PDF I can happily report they fixed both issues. The first was Composure attacks that (previously) allowed any Cop with a decent Presence skill to shout down most any character with their authority. This has been changed so that a character can explicitly defend using powers OR aptitudes ("Hulk not surrender! Hulk smash!!!"). The second issue was that the activation of an advantage gave the GM a pass to activate a disadvantage...which didn't always make sense (why do I need to bring Ocean Master into a space scenario?) or...didn't make sense (the disadvantage  of "Normal" is already accounted for in chargen so how can it be "activated?"). Not to mention the characters that had ads without disads and vice versa. Now, they don't work that way...they're just always "on" (and several have been modified from how they appear in the basic game. "Normal" is gone completely, which isn't a terrible thing).

But even as they fixed these broken mechanics, the Revised edition has also "fixed" a bunch of mechanics that didn't require fixing. They've added ads that are prone to min/maxing (like nonsentience and big size) and ones that weren't necessary due to minimal effect or existing aptitude (feign death and intimidating) and disadvantages that are difficult to enforce or of minimal impact compared to the advantages they bring (mental hindrances, for example, have no real bite, nor ugly characters that stay in their masks).

They've added some needed powers that were missing from the first edition (Absorption for my Sebastian Shaw clone and the new Mimic Aptitude and Mimic Energy powers). But they added some that really stink, like Super Aptitude which completely undermines the whole Aptitude concept/mechanic (riddle me this, dumb-dumb...what's the point in spending dice to increase multiple specialties beyond 3D when you can simply buy "super aptitude" at 4D or 5D. Broke your own damn game). And they changed powers that didn't need changing (like Super Brain, Super Science, and Super Senses). This, plus the addition of dumb aptitudes like Awareness (great...add an unneeded system of surprise mechanics) and Sleight of Hand (to pick pockets?) plus extra complexity in combat (even with regard to fighting mooks!) just makes one go UGH!

However, the worst they've done is to nerf Aquaman.

Whereas the original edition of Supers! allowed one to easily model the King of the Sea with the selection of Water Powers...a power that would be seldom used in the game due to its incompatibility with most surface adventures...they broke up the power set into separate powers that must be purchased individually: water breathing (now an advantage), super swimming, life support (because being able to live underwater also allows you somehow to live in a volcano or outer space??), and (presumably) elemental control water.

Aquaman hate. That's what it is.

*sigh* I know, I know...this post is too long. Sorry. We'll cut it off there.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Wonder Woman

No, not Carli Lloyd...though if you saw her one-woman showcase against Japan in the World Cup final yesterday, you'll understand why the title might easily apply.

[good links on Lloyd, American Hero, can be found here and here. She's the Miroslav Klose of women's soccer...just has a nose for the goal. Congrats to the US team, by the way]

No, just wanted to talk about the real Wonder Woman...the comic book heroine...one more time.

As I mentioned previously, I spent a lot of my vacation time in the USA re-reading and scrutinizing (I won't say "analyzing" since in my mind that implies a more systematic approach) various superhero RPGs I've purchased over the years. The specific books in question included the following:

Capes, Cowls, and Villains Foul (by Barak Blackburn)
DC Adventures (yes, the Green Ronin one)
Heroes Unlimited (both Revised and 2E)
Marvel Superheroes (both versions of the Grubb classic)
Mutants and Masterminds (1E)
Supers! (by Simon Washbourne)
Wild Talents

[superhero games that I own but did not bother to read include Capes, Champions, Godlike, Guardians, Sketch!, Superworld, Villains & Vigilantes, With Great Power, and probably a couple-four others that I'm forgetting at the moment. I own a LOT of superhero RPGs]

These are not listed in any particular order besides alphabetical. If they were listed in order of importance or attention paid (or even chronological order of scrutinization) than Green Ronin's DC Adventures would be first on the list. That's because the superheroes of the DC universe have been getting a lot of love in my house lately.

One of the nice things about being back in the US of A...you've got access to wonderful comic book stores. I've mentioned Batman '66 a couple times on this blog, as an incredibly cool and clever concept: a Batman comic that pays homage to the campy TV show of the 60s, fit for both child and adult consumption (not an easy thing to do, folks). Managed to pick up the second volume (trade paperback) of the series while in town, and it continues to contain excellent stories. The re-skinning of the buffoonish King Tut (was he ever an actual villain of the original comics?) as a dangerous, time-travelling mastermind is sheer genius...and the appearance of the Bat Anti-Croc spray (my son has always digged on the anti-animal sprays since watching the 1966 film) is hilarious "fan service."

Like Mary Poppins: "Practically perfect in every way."
But Batman '66 wasn't the real treasure we picked up. Perhaps due to the success of the Batman '66 series, DC has issued a Wonder Woman '77 one shot (it contains two separate stories, but there are no public plans to make it an ongoing series...or so I was told) that may be the coolest thing I've seen in print (right up there with Xenozoic Tales). Wonder Woman '77 tells WW stories based on the iconic Lynda Carter television series of the 1970s. It is beautifully drawn, skillfully capturing the likenesses of Carter and co-star Lyle Waggoner, even as it includes actual (comic book) super-villains from WW's rogues gallery like Silver Swan and Doctor Psycho. Like Batman '66 the comic does a good job of taking itself seriously, even as it's done in a light-hearted tone, attempting to end

"...as did nearly every [TV] episode, with Wonder Woman or Diana Prince smiling."
- Andy Mangels

I know, I know...this is not the Wonder Woman of the 21st century, the ass-kicking God of War with a sword that doesn't mind putting bad guys in the ground. This is the throwback Wonder Woman, the "Citizen of the World," Ambassador of Peace version. Frankly, it's damn refreshing...I'm just not a fan of the Wonder Warrior version currently on the shelves, in case that was unclear from my last post on the subject. Is it unrealistic that vigilante superheroes have a "code against killing?" Sure: just like utility belts with anti-shark spray or bulletproof bracelets are "unrealistic." Like D&D, it's not important to me that a bullywug shouldn't be interested in carrying off human women (because they're, like, frogs, dude)...it's a damn escapist fantasy! How often do mind flayers need to eat a brain before they start feeling the pangs of hunger...is there a "brain superstore" in the Underdark that they can frequent?

If you're going to buy-in to the madness then buy-in. Superheroes are unrealistic, better versions of ourselves (humans) that we can look up to and strive to emulate. Making Wonder Woman a badass killer is fucking stupid. If you want to make her less of an objectified pin-up girl, try giving her a costume that's not a bathing suit. Is she the only DC hero to continuously have bare shoulders since 1980?

On sale 7/22: Blood and Swimsuits!
But. I'm digressing...my son has not been exposed to the "sword-and-axe" WW, and even so he readily acknowledges her as the most powerful member of the Justice League after Superman (and I'm fine with Supes being numero uno, seeing as how he was the first superhero - i.e. hero with superpowers - ever to see print).

[some four year olds are sponge-savants when it comes to dinosaurs; my boy can correctly categorize comic book characters as either Avengers or Justice League and name the power set and secret identities of most. This without entirely grokking the whole DC/Marvel thing and without being allowed to watch shows in the TV7 category]

That's without the warrior queen, god of war, bench press a jumbo jet power set, mind you.

See, besides comics like Batman '66 and Wonder Woman '77 (what's next, BTW? Superman '81?) you can still pick up illustrated books that feature comic book heroes written for kids. We got one where WW fights Cheetah (and her trained henchbeasts) in the old school fashion: Lasso of Truth, (mild) super strength, animal empathy/telepathy, smarts and fighting prowess. Combine that with some Batman "phonic books" (that include guest appearances from Supes and WW) make for good, heroic fun and DC has created a Big Fan in my little guy.

Anyway, while the Green Spectrum is still my main focus when analyzing superhero RPGs (from Green Arrow to the Green Goliath, AKA the Hulk...and including Green Lantern in between), I now find myself drawn towards modeling Wonder Woman in game. DC Adventures, of course, has a write-up of the Amazonian (pre-God o War even). but man-o-man that system is just too clunky/crunchy for my taste. I don't even know what I can compare it to, in terms of attempting to read it. It's like...I don't know. I didn't bother bringing it to Paraguay with me, so what does that tell you?

[by comparison, I did bring my copy of M&M, even though there's stuff I really hate about the basic system...mainly, the scaling of "power" with "level." I believe I've blogged about that in the past]

Heroes Unlimited fails the "Wonder Woman" test. HU isn't really designed for games with heroes as powerful as the Justice Leaguers anyway, but you can't even create a poor man's version using the system...the Immortal power type ("class") from Powers Unlimited 2 is a pretty poor fit, and there's nothing on the Aliens class that seems to synch up. Advanced Marvel isn't terribly helpful, though the Basic (original) version of MSH does pretty well for modeling WW (with basic powers like Unique Weapon, Unique Vehicle, and Animal Communication/Control. Heck, Steve Trevor even makes a handy Sidekick!), but it still has problems with a lot of other DC-types (Batman, Green Lantern, Flash...and, well, you can probably stop about there).

Surprisingly Robust
No, the gem that really stood out was actually a game that I'd set aside a while back: Supers! The Comic Book Role-Playing Game. Unlike Mary Poppins, Supers! is not "practically perfect in every way;" in fact it has a couple fairly serious mechanical flaws (in addition to making it tough to build a Hulk clone). However, it's a lot better than I remember...so good, in fact, that it meets nearly all my needs for the "generic-supers-system-I've-been-searching-for-this-last-quarter-century." Which is saying something.

Supers! is the other (superhero) RPG I brought with me to Paraguay.

So I am very happy and Wonder Woman is a big part of that. After all, if I wasn't trying to find a way to model her character in a way that wasn't D20 complicated (because I was appalled at her write-up in DC Adventures, which I was reviewing because of the attention paid to the character by my boy...he said today that Wonder Woman is his 2nd favorite character behind Batman, though that's a position that's likely to change on a weekly basis)...I wouldn't have bothered to check out Supers! which I'd previously written off as "nice, but a little lightweight." Hell, it can even make a good looking (i.e. "very playable") Aquaman character. Which is also saying something.

But I'll talk more about Supers! in another post (and I'll get back to KWN and the D&D cartoon..,yes, I have a lot of irons in the fire. See what happens when you don't have enough time to write?). I see Supers! also has a revised edition now...I might pick that up and see if corrects those aforementioned flaws (to sum up: composure attacks and ad/disad use in-play; most everything else is milk and honey).

Aaaand...that's enough. I will say that I had a chance to catch the four or five episodes of The Flash series (On Demand) while I was back in Seattle and I liked it. I especially dig the show's interpretation of the Barry Allen character and the way the writers have embraced super villains (the episode with Captain Cold was a distinct highlight). Also, I particularly like the choice of Iris West and her father Joe to be played by African-American actors Candice Patton and Jesse Martin. The show's not a faithful recreation of the Silver Age character (it's not set in the 50s-60s, for example), so there's no need to keep all the characters caucasian. Hell, one of these days people will figure out it's okay (and interesting) to have a black Bruce Wayne or a Filipino Peter Parker. More interesting than giving them swords, anyway.

[EDIT: at the time I wrote this, I was unaware of the Miles Morales character in the Marvel Ultimate imprint; however, my original point still stands: if you're rebooting a 50 year old comic character for a 21st century film, you're already stepping away from its Silver Age canon. I'd like to think the demographics of American superheroes could match the demographics of the U.S.]

Just saying.
; )