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

[Korvar]

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

 

I don't know...it seems to me that if the same Batman who appears in the JL titles most of the time were to appear in the actual Batman titles, they'd be very boring and short.

 

It's almost like two different characters with the same schtick and personality and costume.

 

I have to admit, I find the idea intriguing, as a kind of thought experiment, but I haven't read enough JLA Batgod to really see it in my mind's eye.

 

The classic "Batgod" moment for me is the Grant Morrison arc where Bats takes out three (no, sorry, four) Superman (plus) level White Martians on his own - the issue where Superman (!) referrs to him as the most dangerous man on earth.

 

Having said that, if you take that incident and see if it works in Gotham against thugs - well, yes it does. All he does is lurk in the shadows, scare and/or unnerve folk with the unconscious form of one of their companions, then sucker them into a straight-up fight where their abilities don't work, and his do.

 

Are there better examples of Batgodness that don't "scale down" that easily?

[Vanguard00]

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

 

One of the things I've noticed is that Batman is as good as he has to be. In the JLA-level situations, this means coming up with a way to plan an attack, distract the foe at a crucial time, and/or thinking up a particularly sneaky way to hurt them. In rare cases he has to step up and dish it out, but as a 'normal' man he's probably the single best instinctive fighter in the DC continuum and is thus able to adapt to virtually any tactical situation.

 

By the same token, his duels with Batman-continuum foes is generally more cerebral and skill-oriented; his foes are usually portrayed in a more intelligent and/or cunning manner than JLA foes. With the JLA it usually devolves into might-vs-might, give or take a character spotlight. With Batman stuff it's usually a hunted-vs-hunter thing.

 

At least that's what I tell myself so that I don't belabor the obvious slips in character continuity. I'm usually pretty good at finding the key for suspension of disbelief.

[Adventus]

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' date=' each of which would solve one part of the problem, then bring them back together for the final confrontation. Does not work in game.[/quote']

 

This can work. Heres how: 3 groups of players each with their own group of characters. Run their adventures separately. Bring the 3 groups together for the final scenario. Also Multiple Gms a must. Works best at a convention.

[Korvar]

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

 

We have had the "Split The Group" thing work, but either a) what Group A is up to is interesting enough that Group B is happy to just watch, or there's something interesting enough on the TV that Group B watch that.

 

I think there was also a c), where Group B play NPCs for Group A, and vice versa.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

The classic "Batgod" moment for me is the Grant Morrison arc where Bats takes out three (no' date=' sorry, four) Superman (plus) level White Martians on his own - the issue where Superman (!) referrs to him as the most dangerous man on earth.[/quote']

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with that arc. Bats deduced what they were (he is, after all, billed as the world's greatest detective). That let him know the key weakness of martians - fire - and he proceeded to use that against them, from faking his own death crashing the Batplane in flames to using fire to take them down.

[Korvar]

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

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with that arc. Bats deduced what they were (he is' date=' after all, billed as the world's greatest detective). That let him know the key weakness of martians - fire - and he proceeded to use that against them, from faking his own death crashing the Batplane in flames to using fire to take them down.[/quote']

 

Sure. That's why I was asking for more egretious examples to compare...

[Zed-F]

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

 

Splitting the group can work well enough in a PBEM or PBP format, for example at Hero Central. However, there is a big caveat -- it's a lot more work and writing to GM several people each doing their own thing, than it is if they are all working together in the same place at the same time. I'd say if you have 4 groups of 1 rather than 1 group of 4, then you have 16 times the work. With 1 group of 4, the players will respond to one anothers' posts and will often keep the game going by themselves for a while. With 4 groups of one, the GM has to respond to everything.

[bigdamnhero]

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

 

Are there better examples of Batgodness that don't "scale down" that easily?

My personal least-favorite was at the end of Trinity, when Batman takes out Bizarro while Wonder Woman can barely handle Ras Al Gul. I loved the rest of Trinity, but that part blew it for me. Others may disagree, of course.

 

I think there was also a c)' date=' where Group B play NPCs for Group A, and vice versa.[/quote']

That's my usual tactic in such cases.

 

bigdamnhero

[RDU Neil]

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

 

I'd like to add it on that may be just my play experience...

 

... but the "status quo" type of supers game. The one where the general game world is status quo... the villains attack, get beat... nothing changes... next week, rinse and repeat.

 

I've never gamed with a group that accepted the general inanity and pointlessness of most supers comic material... where there is never true success... the world is not changed for the better (or the worse) by their actions... that it is all sound and thunder, signifying nothing. My players have always wanted to see villains got to jail and stay there. To attempt and end world war and hunger with their powers, to change the course of society and shape history... to really have an impact with their play.

 

Could be that others enjoy the more whimsical sturm und drang of supers, but I've never seen this work in actual play. Basically, the players want their character actions to matter... which means change takes place... and the status quo is not.

[austenandrews]

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

 

If I want a villain to break out of jail, I generally design a specific scenario around it. That way it's not a case of arbitrarily yanking the PCs' victory out from under them, but rather the villain's revenge as part of a storyline.

[Kristopher]

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

 

I'd like to add it on that may be just my play experience...

 

... but the "status quo" type of supers game. The one where the general game world is status quo... the villains attack, get beat... nothing changes... next week, rinse and repeat.

 

I've never gamed with a group that accepted the general inanity and pointlessness of most supers comic material... where there is never true success... the world is not changed for the better (or the worse) by their actions... that it is all sound and thunder, signifying nothing. My players have always wanted to see villains got to jail and stay there. To attempt and end world war and hunger with their powers, to change the course of society and shape history... to really have an impact with their play.

 

Could be that others enjoy the more whimsical sturm und drang of supers, but I've never seen this work in actual play. Basically, the players want their character actions to matter... which means change takes place... and the status quo is not.

 

 

Agreed.

[bigdamnhero]

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

 

... but the "status quo" type of supers game. The one where the general game world is status quo... the villains attack' date=' get beat... nothing changes... next week, rinse and repeat. [/quote']

Yeah, that's at best a necessary evil in comic books. But in a game? Having villains escape and return once in awhile is fine, but it should be the exception rather than the rule.

 

I'd even apply that to super-tech. At some point, there ought to be some sort of trickle-down effect where advanced (non-weapons) tech starts making peoples' lives better.

[megaplayboy]

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

 

Yeah, that's at best a necessary evil in comic books. But in a game? Having villains escape and return once in awhile is fine, but it should be the exception rather than the rule.

 

I'd even apply that to super-tech. At some point, there ought to be some sort of trickle-down effect where advanced (non-weapons) tech starts making peoples' lives better.

 

PC is an alien prince with a broken FTL drive. Two other PCs are tech geniuses. A deal is made: they'll help finance and fix the drive, the patent will be shared between the three of them, and the profits from the new interplanetary travel/shipping business will be divided three ways. Within a few years, they're all filthy rich, and the world begins to change significantly.

[Karmakaze]

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

 

That's always been the trouble with Super Tech.

 

Take, for example, Captain Cold. He invented a gun that shoots cold. Does he patent it and make tons of money? No. He robs banks.

 

So many villains expend all of their resources to rob banks, when the gadgets they make could net them millions in the free market.

[RDU Neil]

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

 

PC is an alien prince with a broken FTL drive. Two other PCs are tech geniuses. A deal is made: they'll help finance and fix the drive' date=' the patent will be shared between the three of them, and the profits from the new interplanetary travel/shipping business will be divided three ways. Within a few years, they're all filthy rich, and the world begins to change significantly.[/quote']

 

And this is exactly the kind of thing we like to have play out over time (years... decades) in our games. In my games, the PCs have become ambassadors to the stars, begun colonizing our solar system... are world leaders... have toppled governments and been toppled... started wars and stopped them, etc.

 

When Dr. Destroyer was finally defeated in 1997 ("Natural causes!") the loss of this major world power created a seismic shift. Without the fear of him crushing anyone who advanced too far in technology and scientific development... tech has begun to have more than a "trickle down" effect.

 

This is the kind of thing my players demand... to have long term satisfaction with the game.

[austenandrews]

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

 

I've generally structured my Champs campaign worlds such that super-technology is mostly impossible to reproduce. Either it's so far advanced that no one can hope to make sense of it; or it only works in conjunction with some unique power source (like a super character); or it only works because the user generates an anomaly field that makes the impossible possible; or what-have-you. In other cases the authorities have gleaned knowledge from the technology but keep it under wraps.

 

Which is why agents don't use blasters in my games, because it wouldn't be long before cops started using them, and eventually you'd wind up with one of those worlds where a SWAT team can deploy truck-mounted plasma cannon. That's fine for some situations, but I prefer the status quo baseline.

[megaplayboy]

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

 

I've generally structured my Champs campaign worlds such that super-technology is mostly impossible to reproduce. Either it's so far advanced that no one can hope to make sense of it; or it only works in conjunction with some unique power source (like a super character); or it only works because the user generates an anomaly field that makes the impossible possible; or what-have-you. In other cases the authorities have gleaned knowledge from the technology but keep it under wraps.

 

Which is why agents don't use blasters in my games, because it wouldn't be long before cops started using them, and eventually you'd wind up with one of those worlds where a SWAT team can deploy truck-mounted plasma cannon. That's fine for some situations, but I prefer the status quo baseline.

which is fine--if your players are on the same page with you. If the power armor guy is a wealthy industrialist inventor, he probably wants to make money off of some of his inventions.

[austenandrews]

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

 

which is fine--if your players are on the same page with you. If the power armor guy is a wealthy industrialist inventor' date=' he probably wants to make money off of some of his inventions.[/quote']

If he's already wealthy, who cares? I would regard his power armor as a very expensive prototype or concept piece and not something that would be worth trying to sell. I'd have no trouble with him making money off of various technological minutiae developed for his suit, but he's not going to be selling fingertip battle-lasers and antigrav boots to the Army.

[DangerousDan]

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' date=' each of which would solve one part of the problem, then bring them back together for the final confrontation. Does not work in game.[/quote']

 

This actually worked for me once. I set up a situation where the superheroes had to take five objects away from the villains at widely separated points in a short period of time, then take a sixth away from an even better defended point near the middle. {of the pentagram} Four out of five of these peripheral confrontations had moments where it appeared that the hero or heroes were certain to lose. The fifth was a cakewalk for the hero. The final fight was long and difficult and all of the villains got away, despite everything the heroes did to stop them, but the heroes kept the toys and spoiled the evil plan. It was a narrow, hard-fought victory for the heroes.

 

It may not work very often in game, but with luck, it can work.

[RDU Neil]

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

 

This actually worked for me once. I set up a situation where the superheroes had to take five objects away from the villains at widely separated points in a short period of time, then take a sixth away from an even better defended point near the middle. {of the pentagram} Four out of five of these peripheral confrontations had moments where it appeared that the hero or heroes were certain to lose. The fifth was a cakewalk for the hero. The final fight was long and difficult and all of the villains got away, despite everything the heroes did to stop them, but the heroes kept the toys and spoiled the evil plan. It was a narrow, hard-fought victory for the heroes.

 

It may not work very often in game, but with luck, it can work.

 

 

I've also found that three things work:

 

1) Split the team without combat... but keep moving around the table with "Ok, then what do you do?" pretty quickly. Don't let a player belabor something like "I want to role play out ever moment of my date with the hot defense attourney," type of thing... but instead, the player is like "I order expensive wine because I want to try an impress her!" and move on. If the group really wants the long, drawn out "in character" bits... either blue book or solo them... OR...

 

2) The other players get to help "GM" the split group. When focusing on Group 1, Group 2 can play NPCs or say things like "I think they should run into that nosy reporter from last adventure!" or whatever. Give the player some investment into the other groups story/plot... then Group 1 doesn the same for Group 2. Requires mature, cooperative players who trust each other, but is a real hoot when it works.

 

And...

 

3) If combat happens to split groups... I've no problem making the contriv-o-meter go to "11" and say "It just so happens that these combat erupt at the same time... but in differet places. Everyone roll for initiative!" (Ok, I use initiative and not the speed chart, but you get the idea) From there, combat moves along like normal... with just two separate fights happening simultaneously. Works just fine most of the time.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

3) If combat happens to split groups... I've no problem making the contriv-o-meter go to "11" and say "It just so happens that these combat erupt at the same time... but in differet places. Everyone roll for initiative!" (Ok' date=' I use initiative and not the speed chart, but you get the idea) From there, combat moves along like normal... with just two separate fights happening simultaneously. Works just fine most of the time.[/quote']

 

Even if it's not at the same time, nothing prevents it being resolved at the same time.

[Lucius]

Works Well in the Champions Forum, not so Well in Hero System Discussion

 

I haven't read past the first post, but I notice this is placed in Hero System Discussion, not in the Champions forum.

 

Just a quibble.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks if we really need to say it again?

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Works Well in the Champions Forum, not so Well in Hero System Discussion

 

I haven't read past the first post, but I notice this is placed in Hero System Discussion, not in the Champions forum.

 

Just a quibble.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks if we really need to say it again?

 

I fail to see your point. The discussion thus far has not been genre specific.

[Kristopher]

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

 

Plus, some of the issues are system-related, such as the inconsistency and "at-the-writer's-whim" nature of powers or skils or fighting ability in a lot of the source material, versus the very consistent nature of such things in the game system.

[zornwil]

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

 

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?

If the group has trust built up, yes, it's fine in my opinion. Often, we have characters trapped after their player missed a session... Okay, I admit it, it's the one evil GM thing I do, otherwise I'm pretty clean. But seriously because we have trust it has worked fine.