Golden Age Heroes Question. Comics vs. RPGs - Is a combat heavy Campaign "in genre"?

[KA.]

Hello to fellow GM's and Players alike!
I have recently been reading some of my Golden Age reprints.
(Right now it is the DC Archive Editions - All Star Comics Vol. 1)

And what I have read has brought up a "philosophical" GM'ing question.

A little background. I have heard many GM complaints, and lodged a few myself, about players who just want to fight, fight, fight!
We come up with elaborate schemes, lovingly hand-crafted NPC's, detailed locations, plots and sub-plots, and all the stupid players want to do is fight something.
They complain that they are bored when a few minutes goes by without combat.
And we, as GM's, complain about that. We want them to follow the clues, talk to the NPC's, help the plot to unfold! And one of the trump cards we usually play is "genre".
Much of the time, when we want players to go along with things they don't like, we claim they are not being true to the genre.

Except in this case, Four-Color, we are not entirely correct.
(Which is, of course, as close as a GM ever gets to being "wrong")

Reading through this volume, I noticed how many times the Heroes said things like "I'm tired of just waiting around. I need action!" or "I'm not going to solve anything just sitting around here, I need to go look for some crime to bust!"

Here is a quote from a comic where Johnny Thunder is trying to become an official member of the Justice Society, and goes missing:

Green Lantern (to himself, no one else is around)
"I'm getting tired of waiting for Johnny to come back! Think I'll take a look-see around town - Might find some crime to smash up!"

This sounds just like what some people say their players are saying.

Maybe the players are the ones who are "in genre" after all.

I was also reading the recent Marvel Essentials Daredevil Vol 2.
Not exactly Golden Age, but again, every time Daredevil is sitting still for a minute, he either starts training or patrolling. When he is dealing with one of his many personal problems, the solution is always, go out and find some heads to bust.

Now I am not saying that we should abandon all pretense of plot, and just turn Champions into a pen and paper version of Rock'em Sock'em Robots.

But maybe we are putting in a little too much plot, at least based on what the comics seem to do.

Okay, that is the topic, what do you guys think?

KA.

[Doug McCrae]

I think you're spot on about Golden Age = action. Makes sense really. There's not much point in having these guys who can fly, lift tanks and bounce bullets off their chests just sitting around chinwagging, eh?

Non-action scenes in the GA:
1) The hero is tied up and has to escape.
2) Detective work, like when Batman has to figure out the Riddler's clue.
3) Heroes could use a stealthy approach to get inside the bad guy's lair.
4) Lois calling Clark Kent a wimp.
5) Exposition.

[KA.]

I think you're spot on about Golden Age = action. Makes sense really. There's not much point in having these guys who can fly, lift tanks and bounce bullets off their chests just sitting around chinwagging, eh?

Non-action scenes in the GA:
1) The hero is tied up and has to escape.
2) Detective work, like when Batman has to figure out the Riddler's clue.
3) Heroes could use a stealthy approach to get inside the bad guy's lair.
4) Lois calling Clark Kent a wimp.
5) Exposition.

Well, thanks for the affirmation, Doug.

I think you are right about this being mostly a Golden Age thing.
Most of the other genres are more complicated and introspective.
More character development, more non-combat conflict.

But the Golden Age was a much simpler time, it was easy to tell who the bad guys were, and the heroes were sure of their motives and actions.

And when you know who the bad guy is, and you are sure that he is the bad guy, then butt kicking seems like the right option.

So, while I intend to try to keep some a plot going, I will be a little more understanding when the players want to just reach out and stomp someone.

KA.

[AngryBug]

Well, thanks for the affirmation, Doug.

I think you are right about this being mostly a Golden Age thing.
Most of the other genres are more complicated and introspective.
More character development, more non-combat conflict.

But the Golden Age was a much simpler time, it was easy to tell who the bad guys were, and the heroes were sure of their motives and actions.

And when you know who the bad guy is, and you are sure that he is the bad guy, then butt kicking seems like the right option.

So, while I intend to try to keep some a plot going, I will be a little more understanding when the players want to just reach out and stomp someone.

KA.

Mostly a Golden Age thing, true, but not exclusively. You mentioned DD, but he's far from alone...When Peter Parker had a lot on his mind (which was, like, always), I seem to recall that his main response was to "get some air" and go look for some unsuspecting baddies to pound... The Thing always wanted Reed to "quit yakkin'" so he could bust some heads... I won't even bring up the most beloved/hated of the X-Men, who actively looked for any excuse to fight...
I think that it is a big part of the genre that while most of the characters want to solve the mystery at hand through thoughtful investigation, there is always someone who figures it's easier to just find the nearest "underworld dive" and beat it out of someone. In fact, wasn't that DD's main way of getting info?
The whole Nite Owl/Rorschach dynamic was there simply because characters wanting to bust heads is part of the genre. The only problem is if every character just wants action, and the GM wants an actual plot...

[zornwil]

I see nothing intrinsically opposed to RPGing in a combat-heavy setting. As people have posted, one can RP in combat quite well, from tactics to statements to even subtle interactions. Yes, it can be "genre", and so can relatively little action. I think the genre has shown us both, moreso the latter as the 60s turned into the 70s.

AngryBug's point is sound that "The only problem is if every character just wants action, and the GM wants an actual plot..." In that situation, neither party is "wrong" though I would prefer the latter by far. And as a GM, my strong point is not combat, it is the stuff, generally, before and after. So yes, I'm going to want to have players who enjoy RPing out of combat. But I don't think it's truly a genre issue either way.

What IS a genre issue is characters who relentlessly play combat just "to win" and will not actually roleplay. They'll play a speedster but not do speedster tricks, simply using that "extra EB" they bought to "round out" the character to maximize range while keeping up their speed, for example. That is NOT genre. Similarly, if it's a 4-color game, it is not genre (typically, anyway) to fight to the death. Those are legit issues, I believe.

[Lord Kryptman]

If anything this conversation is more about how to deal with characters that just want to smash and bash, and dont want to figure out why. I (as a GM) have found that even the smashers want to know why if you really really mess with their lives and there is no good reason for it. Genre is just a word we use to make players think or react a way WE think is right. So for all intents and purposes all you really need to do is get into your players heads.

[Mentor]

Conflict and combat are pretty much the reason for the existence of the superheroes in the first place, even in a golden age setting. Preemptive combat in order to forestall a catastrophe or just to prevent any innocents from harm is well within genre.

I am sure that a team made up of Sister Marian the Healer, The Zen Master, Negotiation Man, and Professor Pacifist would be legitemate concepts, but they wouldn't make for a very exiting game.

[KA.]

Conflict and combat are pretty much the reason for the existence of the superheroes in the first place, even in a golden age setting. Preemptive combat in order to forestall a catastrophe or just to prevent any innocents from harm is well within genre.

I am sure that a team made up of Sister Marian the Healer, The Zen Master, Negotiation Man, and Professor Pacifist would be legitemate concepts, but they wouldn't make for a very exiting game.

Isn't that the bridge crew from Star Trek:The Next Generation?



KA.

[KA.]

I see nothing intrinsically opposed to RPGing in a combat-heavy setting. As people have posted, one can RP in combat quite well, from tactics to statements to even subtle interactions. Yes, it can be "genre", and so can relatively little action. I think the genre has shown us both, moreso the latter as the 60s turned into the 70s.

AngryBug's point is sound that "The only problem is if every character just wants action, and the GM wants an actual plot..." In that situation, neither party is "wrong" though I would prefer the latter by far. And as a GM, my strong point is not combat, it is the stuff, generally, before and after. So yes, I'm going to want to have players who enjoy RPing out of combat. But I don't think it's truly a genre issue either way.

What IS a genre issue is characters who relentlessly play combat just "to win" and will not actually roleplay. They'll play a speedster but not do speedster tricks, simply using that "extra EB" they bought to "round out" the character to maximize range while keeping up their speed, for example. That is NOT genre. Similarly, if it's a 4-color game, it is not genre (typically, anyway) to fight to the death. Those are legit issues, I believe.

Good comments Zornwill.
I agree that, while fighting a lot is in-genre, they should be doing it "genre style".
No fighting to the death.
Use your "signature" power most of the time.
And no spending hours working out tactics before you knock down the door of the hideout.
Golden Age heroes tend to wade right in.
Of course, since they only get put into easily escapable death-traps when they are captured, there is no real reason to think everything to death.

KA.

[AngryBug]

Good comments Zornwill.
I agree that, while fighting a lot is in-genre, they should be doing it "genre style".
No fighting to the death.
Use your "signature" power most of the time.
And no spending hours working out tactics before you knock down the door of the hideout.
Golden Age heroes tend to wade right in.
Of course, since they only get put into easily escapable death-traps when they are captured, there is no real reason to think everything to death.

KA.

Well put!
Unless you're playing a "Monty Haul"-style kill-the-monster-take-the-treasure D&D campaign, RPGs are about genre simulation. I think any campaign needs a session beforehand to discuss "genre ground rules", and to make sure everybody knows, and familiarizes themselves with, whatever source material the campaign draws on for inspiration ("But why can't I play my Wolverine character in your All-Star Squadron campaign?").The GM needs to take a special interest in helping those players who care more for strategy than roleplaying to at least develop a tactically-minded character, and point out to him what the "House Rules" are about how much "out of game" time is or isn't allowed for planning...
It's been said before, but it bears repeating- most tactical gamers have a role-player in them somewhere, if a patient GM guides them to the right character concept...

[zornwil]

Well put!
Unless you're playing a "Monty Haul"-style kill-the-monster-take-the-treasure D&D campaign, RPGs are about genre simulation. I think any campaign needs a session beforehand to discuss "genre ground rules", and to make sure everybody knows, and familiarizes themselves with, whatever source material the campaign draws on for inspiration ("But why can't I play my Wolverine character in your All-Star Squadron campaign?").The GM needs to take a special interest in helping those players who care more for strategy than roleplaying to at least develop a tactically-minded character, and point out to him what the "House Rules" are about how much "out of game" time is or isn't allowed for planning...
It's been said before, but it bears repeating- most tactical gamers have a role-player in them somewhere, if a patient GM guides them to the right character concept...

Somehow I've been very successful not having any formal genre discussion, though I do talk with players beforehand. Moreso I usually draw up a bunch of campaign material that describes the world in good detail. In the old days that of course would be on paper and handed out but now I do it all on the web. And the gaming group I'm in is so props/info-heavy that the bar's raised enough I do fairly extensive info. This does give people a reasonable idea - and for this campaign I also put sample types of characters on my site, though not in points-terms but English-language. I think that helped.

[Trebuchet]

Isn't that the bridge crew from Star Trek:The Next Generation?



KA.

Obviously you've heard of the "Picard Maneuver."

[McCoy]

Action is a staple of the genre. In four color comics, all problems were believed to be solvable through justified violence. In the Silver Age you may see an occasional issue without combat. I remember during Englehart's run on Avengers two consecutive issues where they sat around in the mansion and talked. Some good characterization, but the fans were less than entheused IIRC.

[Agent X]

Most comic books of the period I collected and occasionally collect from back issues - The non-combat scenes tend to be short, intended to increase our understanding and connection of the character, and then the action begins. At a suitable time in a given comic book, maybe there will be an additional 1 or 2 non-combat scenes. Often the non-combat scenes are intended to foreshadow another combat scene. Superhero Comics are or were greatly about combat, although the context of the combat is what gives it any semblance of depth. The context of good versus evil. Throw in a little pathos and you can end up with a hit.