Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

[Kristopher]

It has been my contention of some time that there are things that work well in the source material -- in comics -- but do not work so well in an actual game. These things are cherished by some, and are expected in the game, which causes some degree of tension -- both in games, and in the discussions on these forums. EDIT: To be clear, I am one of those who thinks that the game should not try to emulate these things.

 

My opinion as to why many of these things work in the comics, but not in a game, is because everything that happens in the comics is under the writers' and artists' control, whereas having several people and the dice involved in the game takes things out of the realm of authorial fiat.

 

Examples:

 

The One Trick Pony (OTP) -- these characters only have one major power, one thing they can do. Many of the X-family characters over the years have been OTPs. They have a big attack but no defense or movement powers. They have duplication, and that's it. Etc.

 

The Street Level Guy Who Runs with Epic Heroes -- classic example is Batman, who became The Batgod so he could hang with the Justice League, and yet still has trouble with the street-level foes of his classic rogues gallery. This in part leads us to...

 

Power Levels of Convenience -- The same hero that threatens Cosmic Villain of the Year in issue #29 has trouble with a bunch of mooks in issue #37 later that year.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Not sure exactly what you are asking Kristopher, but because I think we often share a similar interpretive view point, I'll make a comment.

 

In such situations as above, I believe the milieu of the game trumps... the mechanics, the design, the resultant play is more important than the tropes of the source material.

 

I interpret everything through this lens... but I realize this is just my prefernence, and others can think as they will. To me, Hero is an attempt at a logical system... one that "rationalizes the fantastic" by asking us to reason from effect and put metrics on wild character abilities and approach things from a perspective of balance and scale.

 

All of the above, in many cases, are anethema to the source material, where... as you point out... power levels and scale constantly shift on the whim of writers and brain dead editors. I actually see the game and it's structure as a forum for getting rid of these inconsistencies, not that the system should be bent to accomplish them.

 

But again, this is the philosophy of how I approach playing an RPG... and not one that is shared by most.

[Kristopher]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Not so much asking anything, but rather trying to start a conversation about the topic. It's been brought up on thread after thread as an aftertought, but I don't recall it being discussed on its own thread.

 

I'm very much in agreement with the following line:

 

I actually see the game and it's structure as a forum for getting rid of these inconsistencies, not that the system should be bent to accomplish them.

 

The game shouldn't try to emulate the (IMO) flaws of the genre.

[Steve Long]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Well, I can't really argue, having stated the same thing in print at least a dozen times. Games aren't books/movies/whatever, and books/movies/whatever aren't games, and while it's great that they can inform, influence, and inspire one another it's important to remain aware of the differences as well -- what works in one doesn't necessarily work in t'other.

[McCoy]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Spliting the team the very best Gardner Fox JLA stories had the schtick of spliting the JLA into three smaller teams, each of which would solve one part of the problem, then bring them back together for the final confrontation. Does not work in game.

 

Death Traps Can be challenging and fun ways to highlight the less used skills the player bought. But players get upset if their characters are knocked out long enough to be put into the death traps.

 

Likewise, not a genre staple, but I have used the Usual Suspects method of team origin, individually each character is knocked out and imprisoned. When they wake up, using teamwork they are able to escape. This overcomes two origin problems, it gets all the characters together, and it gives them a reason, a common enemy, to stay together. But my players Have Not Liked It.

[boomer]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Amen brother....you're preaching to the choir so far.....I've always found it odd that the street level guy doesn't get his butt kicked by the Galactic eater of worlds, but gets jumped by 50 thugs and has issues with that......thank God for Hero system!!!!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Following on from a recent thread, and with the specific character of Superman in mind, extremely powerful characters that only really get challenged when their weaknesses andvulnerabilities are exploited.

[OddHat]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Dialog. Gamers are lucky if they can grunt, let alone speak. In my games, communication takes place entirely through pointing and hitting things. Some of my more advanced players will use a stick.

[SirViss]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

...

Death Traps Can be challenging and fun ways to highlight the less used skills the player bought. But players get upset if their characters are knocked out long enough to be put into the death traps.

...

 

I found a way you can do Death Traps, without necessarily depressing the Players too much. I take a page out of the Teen Titans cartoon, and they wake up in the Death Trap. Then you can give them a quick run down of how the characters were ambushed (together or seperatly), and captured.

 

I found the depressing part of getting characters into such a situation is the fact that if you roleplay, it you have to hit the PCs when they are at a terrible disadvantage, and there is always the chance through luck or genius ideas and exceptional roleplating that they could get out of it. If the GM REALLY needs the characters to be in a death trap, if only to use such a staple of the genre, just tell them how they got there, and let them deal with how they get out.

 

What do you guys think?

[keithcurtis]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

"And he would say no more."

Authors often have an enigmatic character refuse to say more on a subject, or a line of questioning is interrupted and never returned to. PCs are like leeches on this stuff. They never realize that in real life people don't rudely persist, "Gandalf, that's not good enough. Tell me more. C'mon. WHo are these guys? What are their names? Geez, I thought we were your friends. Can you give me a clue?"

 

"And then we'll bzz-bzz-bzz"

This is the secret plan that you get to watch unfold as it happens, usually for maximum dramatic effect. No, if you're playing a game you (rightly) spend 2 hours arguing every contingency. Then it goes kablooey the moment you open the door and see the red dragon.

 

 

Keith "I'm sure there are more, but you guys have hit the heights" Curtis

[Kristopher]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Dialog. Gamers are lucky if they can grunt' date=' let alone speak. In my games, communication takes place entirely through pointing and hitting things. Some of my more advanced players will use a stick.[/quote']

 

Really?

 

Our group has several people who love to get into non-combat dialogs with NPCs or each other. Some of us even commuicate and use teamwork in combat. It helps that most of us have played in role-playing-heavy, combat-light games like Vampire, and/or have been in espionage-based games where the point is often to avoid a fight.

 

Must be one of those things that varies between groups and between individual gamers.

[Korvar]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Unless you can do an actual trap - e.g. the Evil Villain has arranged for an area that, with a press of a button, suddenly has steel walls slam down, acid to start pouring in, and whipped-cream projectors suddenly pop out, or whatever.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

There are ways to do power level variability--generally a strategic use of vulnerabilities/susceptibilities and conditional/limited abilities will convey some of that effect. But even so, going from Batgod to Bathack is a bit of a stretch.

 

Splitting characters up, imposing a common enemy/origin, deathtraps, throwing a team of arch enemies at the heroes (with the expectation of a one for one matchup), etc. don't always work.

 

I guess I'm probably in the minority in saying that plot device type powers can work, if properly moderated by the GM.

[BlackSword]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

I found the depressing part of getting characters into such a situation is the fact that if you roleplay' date=' it you have to hit the PCs when they are at a terrible disadvantage, and there is always the chance through luck or genius ideas and exceptional roleplating that they could get out of it. If the GM [i']REALLY[/i] needs the characters to be in a death trap, if only to use such a staple of the genre, just tell them how they got there, and let them deal with how they get out.

Part two of this is, if done on the board, or through Roleplay, how do you get the PCs unconcious. Either have to use some sort of plot device (which they won't like, or will like and want to grab on the way out so they can use it) or do so in a fight. This begs the question for the players are there certain fights we're supposed to win, and certain fights were supposed to lose. If that's the case then the players may 'give up' anytime a fight is too challenging figureing that the GM has some death trap he wants to put them in.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

"And he would say no more."

Authors often have an enigmatic character refuse to say more on a subject, or a line of questioning is interrupted and never returned to. PCs are like leeches on this stuff. They never realize that in real life people don't rudely persist, "Gandalf, that's not good enough. Tell me more. C'mon. WHo are these guys? What are their names? Geez, I thought we were your friends. Can you give me a clue?"

 

That's one area where I think games are actually more realistic than the source material. Minor stuff? Fine. Don't talk about your childhood issues, no big deal. But if you're holding out on info that could help keep us from getting killed, no way I'm letting it drop. No "Oh, I guess we'll just find a way to defeat the invincible foe when the time comes, let's all trust that Dr. MacGuffin knows what he's doing, even though he won't tell us about it."

[austenandrews]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

The One Trick Pony (OTP) -- these characters only have one major power' date=' one thing they can do. Many of the X-family characters over the years have been OTPs. They have a big attack but no defense or movement powers. They have duplication, and that's it. Etc.[/quote']

Examples: Captain America, Hawkeye, Cyclops, etc. One thing to note is that in the comics, the leadership, athletic and hand-to-hand combat abilities of such characters get exaggerated over time, to account for them surviving so dang long. In effect they become (in Champs terms) high-PRE Martial Artists in addition to their schtick (or in Cap's case, he goes from martial artist to The Most Impressive And Effective Fighter There Has Ever Been). Which is one way to handle such characters in a game.

 

The only problem with One Trick Ponies in a game is that if they're not played well, they can grow boring. But y'know, the same is true for characters with complex power sets.

 

The Street Level Guy Who Runs with Epic Heroes -- classic example is Batman, who became The Batgod so he could hang with the Justice League, and yet still has trouble with the street-level foes of his classic rogues gallery. This in part leads us to...

 

Power Levels of Convenience -- The same hero that threatens Cosmic Villain of the Year in issue #29 has trouble with a bunch of mooks in issue #37 later that year.

There's a certain amount of incompatibility there, sure. But there's also a huge diffference between being on a team and working alone. Batman may do well when he's got Superman and Wonder Woman out front taking the big hits, but all by himself, Bane is a killer. That's not as true in a game as in the comics, but Champs pulls it off fairly well.

[austenandrews]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

"And he would say no more."

Authors often have an enigmatic character refuse to say more on a subject, or a line of questioning is interrupted and never returned to. PCs are like leeches on this stuff. They never realize that in real life people don't rudely persist, "Gandalf, that's not good enough. Tell me more. C'mon. WHo are these guys? What are their names? Geez, I thought we were your friends. Can you give me a clue?"

Heh! Ain't that the truth. Though I've noticed that a PC can stonewall another PC fairly well. It's just NPCs who get incessantly harangued.

 

I may have to adopt "...and he would say no more!" as my code word to players to stop asking.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Likewise' date=' not a genre staple, but I have used the [i']Usual Suspects[/i] method of team origin, individually each character is knocked out and imprisoned. When they wake up, using teamwork they are able to escape. This overcomes two origin problems, it gets all the characters together, and it gives them a reason, a common enemy, to stay together. But my players Have Not Liked It.

Yeah, my players always hated that, too, so I finally quit doing it. I think that to many players being knocked out and captured (even off-camera) feels like a defeat, even if they win later on. Or the opposite happens: it gets used too often, and the players start to feel like there are no consequences to losing.

 

Others:

 

All-Offense-No-Defense characters: variant on the One Trick Pony archetype already discussed.

 

High vulnerability to very rare attacks/situations (ie - kryptonite): it either comes into play too often, or hardly at all. (Personally, I don't like this one much in comics either, for the same reasons.)

 

Riddles, or anything else where the entire plot hinges on the PCs making one brilliant deduction: The players either get it, or they don't and you're stuck.

 

 

bigdamnhero

[RDU Neil]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Heh! Ain't that the truth. Though I've noticed that a PC can stonewall another PC fairly well. It's just NPCs who get incessantly harangued.

 

I may have to adopt "...and he would say no more!" as my code word to players to stop asking.

 

Yeah... a player can say "Hey look... back off. I'm not talking about that," and the others back off because she is a "person." But the GM does it and the NPC is not a person, but a plot point.

 

Personally I hate this unless the point is to confuse the characters, no matter if it is a PC or NPC. If the PC is essntially playing "It's my secret" when there is good reason for them to actually confide... it is bad. If the NPC is being obscure "just because" that is bad, too. The NPC should have a legitimate, plot point reason why they don't tell them a key detail if they actually know it. They are testing the PCs... they are under a Geas not to tell... they are doing a "deep throat" thing and can't afford to give information that might expose who they are... whatever. Being obscure just for lame, hackneyed "suspense" isn't good, no matter who is doing it.

[austenandrews]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Yeah... a player can say "Hey look... back off. I'm not talking about that," and the others back off because she is a "person." But the GM does it and the NPC is not a person, but a plot point.

 

Personally I hate this unless the point is to confuse the characters, no matter if it is a PC or NPC. If the PC is essntially playing "It's my secret" when there is good reason for them to actually confide... it is bad. If the NPC is being obscure "just because" that is bad, too. The NPC should have a legitimate, plot point reason why they don't tell them a key detail if they actually know it. They are testing the PCs... they are under a Geas not to tell... they are doing a "deep throat" thing and can't afford to give information that might expose who they are... whatever. Being obscure just for lame, hackneyed "suspense" isn't good, no matter who is doing it.

True, it shouldn't be forced. At the same time, being secretive for strictly dramatic reasons can be a character's stylistic choice. I've had PCs keep secrets from other PCs simply to surprise/impress people later on. To good effect, I should add. Or more commonly, they wait until the whole group is together to spill the beans, so they don't have to repeat themselves. Which is reasonably a part of most genres.

 

Personally I get a kick out of secret player agendas, if I know they'll eventually pay off for everybody. I try to take the hint from NPCs, as well.

[gojira]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

There are ways to do power level variability--generally a strategic use of vulnerabilities/susceptibilities and conditional/limited abilities will convey some of that effect. But even so' date=' going from Batgod to Bathack is a bit of a stretch.[/quote']

 

Right-o. Take a "normal" 350 point superhero, with phys lims like "2x Stun from Bullets" and "2x body from bullets." I've done this to represent someone who is "super" most of the time, but for whom a mugger with a gun is still a threat. Add in some more supporting lims like DNPCs and Secret ID (with a day job, example "a lawyer in real life") and you have a basic super-normal character.

 

For this to work, the GM has to go along with it. I.e., if villians pick up on the vulnerablity and then start to exploit it by carrying guns, then it kinda doesn't work. This is best for four-color genres. In my games however, villians always resort to laser rifles, magnetic vortex guns, evil clown robots, etc. Only street level npcs and cops use actual guns.

[McCoy]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Personally I hate this unless the point is to confuse the characters' date=' no matter if it is a PC or NPC. If the PC is essntially playing "It's my secret" when there is good reason for them to actually confide... it is bad. If the NPC is being obscure "just because" that is bad, too. The NPC should have a legitimate, plot point reason why they don't tell them a key detail if they actually know it. They are testing the PCs... they are under a Geas not to tell... they are doing a "deep throat" thing and can't afford to give information that might expose who they are... whatever. Being obscure just for lame, hackneyed "suspense" isn't good, no matter who is doing it.[/quote']

Yeah, I've always wanted to do something, preferably a fantasy novel, where the main character ask why the cryptic source has to be so cryptic. "Methods and resources. You're under observation. If you guess right every time, it will be obvious that your enemy has a leak, then they will find it, and that will be the last time I can help you. As long as you guess wrong part of the time, your enemy cannot afford to devote all his resources to finding a source you may or may not have."

[keithcurtis]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

That's one area where I think games are actually more realistic than the source material. Minor stuff? Fine. Don't talk about your childhood issues' date=' no big deal. But if you're holding out on info that could help keep us from getting killed, no way I'm letting it drop. No "Oh, I guess we'll just find a way to defeat the invincible foe when the time comes, let's all trust that Dr. MacGuffin knows what he's doing, even though he won't tell us about it." [/quote']

Ah, but the criterion wasn't more realistic, it was what works in one medium but not another. Novelists have a responsibility to build suspense with the implied consent of the reader. PC's are rarely so trusting.

 

Keith "Gotta love 'em" Curtis

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Ah, but the criterion wasn't more realistic, it was what works in one medium but not another. Novelists have a responsibility to build suspense with the implied consent of the reader. PC's are rarely so trusting.

 

Keith "Gotta love 'em" Curtis

 

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't disagreeing, I was just off on my own little tangent. It's a nice tangent - cozy, comfortable seating, little fridge...everything you'd look for in a tangent.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Works Well in the Source Material, not so Well in the Game

 

Well, this all depends on the opinion that these things, "work well," in the comics. I've always been more of the, "What the hell were they thinking?" camp myself. I think, at least for the orginal examples given, that such events are merely the sign that the comic should have been dropped a long time ago in favor of something new on which to hone the imagination.

 

On a similar tangent, is anyone ready for Robert Jordan to finish it up already and write something different that might have some new content? (Don't seriously discuss this please; I was just offering up a snide comic-to-book analogy.)