Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

[Cassandra]

I was watching an online debate between actresses representing She Hulk and Wonder Woman on who was stronger. She Hulk pointed out that while Wonder Woman was strong, since she wasn't actually invulnerable she could be taken down by having a box of sharpened pencils thrown at her. This got me wondering about how DC and Marvel present there characters conceptually.

 

Cyclops is a Loaded Gun, a character who can't control his powers do to an accident. He has to wear "ruby quarts" glasses in order to prevent his power from hurting any innocents. Always On disadvantage seems to have been created for him.

 

Superman is powered by the sun and has a wide range of powers and abilities. He's invincible unless you happen to have a piece of kryptonite, then he collapses to the ground. It's only the sadism of his enemies that keeps them from finishing him off. The word Susceptibility rings a bell.

 

Marvel has presented characters with limitations on how their powers work, and when then can be used. They also are bound to have more personal disadvantages and psychological limitations. DC has powerful stalwart characters with specific weakness that makes them absolutely helpless, and personal rogues galleries of frequent enemies.

 

I ask then, which to you prefer?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Depends on the writer/player/GM, actually. I like both approaches on occasion.

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Both approaches work, and both companies use both of them.

[Cassandra]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Question: Would your Superman lose all his powers?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Sure, why not?

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Depends what you mean by "my Superman".

 

If you mean "my HERO system writeup of Superman", the answer would be probably not. The problem is that the effect of kryptonite on him is portrayed inconsistently. If Luthor wants to beat him up while he is in a weakened state, his invulnerability should switch off. If not, all that is really necessary is for him to be paralysed, with the kryptonite itself, which bypasses his defences, being the thing that kills him. Both portrayals can be supported by examples.

 

If I was going to create a "superman equivalent" character, like, say Thor, the Hulk, the original Human Torch, Namor, Captain Marvel (Billy Batson), or any of a zillion others, I would definitely have a way of either switching off their powers or just plain hosing them with a single hit. It's just too useful for narrative purposes. And that would be true even if them being routinely outfought was a viable option - there's little fun in pages and pages and pages of slugfests. (Hours and hours and hours in game terms). Sometimes they're good, but they take up valuable space (game time), which could be otherwise used advancing the plot.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

"Invulnerable" is always a loaded word. It gets tossed around a lot but almost never correctly. She Hulk is a great example of that since she is "less invulnerable" (what a concept) than the Hulk and we see him get hurt all the time. He just regenerates and has hefty defenses so that things like bullets bounce off of him. Not even Superman is "invulnerable" (with the exception of Kryptonite). Doomsday was able to beat the stuffing out of him without a scrap of green K. (Of course there was a story back in the late 70's/early 80's where Superman died while in the bottled city of Kandor but when his body was removed he came back to life since he was once again "invulnerable")

 

As for which I prefer, I tend to enjoy the Marvel stories a bit more. Characters seem a bit more human. Their powers tend to come with downsides whether it is Cyclops' need for his visor, Rogue's inability to touch people, or Hulk's profound anger management issues. Even characters who do not have a direct downside from their powers such as Spiderman tend to have their own crosses to bear (guilt over his uncle's death).

 

DCs characters have a tendency to not go too far past the surface of what they are. (This is a tendency, not an absolute rule) Superman is a great example of this in the fact that he has these truly immense powers and talks a good line about how every life is precious and he has an enormous responsibility towards protecting everyone. If you want to see how such a situation would really play out then read Astro City #1. As it is we get Superman talking the talk but not really walking the walk.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I generally prefer that PCs (and comic characters) not have hoser weaknesses. I would simply make them less powerful, so that they don't need an 'off switch'. To put it in HERO terms, I'd rather have, say 62 point powers with a -1/4 limitation, or just 50 point powers, than 100 point powers with -1 limitations.

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Of course Superman can't protect everyone. That's a major problem for him right there. How such situations would "really play out" depends on your assumptions. In most versions, Superman chooses to take time out and have a life, rather than drive himself mad.

 

In any case, Superman is generally used as a strawman in these kinds of discussions. He's not typical of DC characters, and frankly isn't even typical of himself as he tends to be represented in these threads.

 

Let's pick another DC character, then, shall we? Somebody nice and well-known, whose personal problems are comparable to those of Spider-Man. Perhaps someone whose life was shaped by tragedy, and who has a near-insane compulsion to try to control the world around him. Someone whose personal relationships are consistently distorted by his obsessions. Someone whose personality has been a regular subject of stories for decades. Does anybody come to mind?

[Cassandra]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I noticed the Marvel Dictionary gave strength levels in tons, but DC avoids specifics.

 

How much does the moon weigh anyway?

[Cassandra]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

In order to be Bulletproof a character should have 20 rPD. This could prevent an average amount of stun from having any effect from a RKA 2d6.

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

The moon weighs lots, and Marvel characters have the same strength as DC characters - what the plot requires.

 

I'll note that when I'm modelling characters in HERO, I work on what characters are shown doing more than what is said about them. Typically, there is little difference between DC, Marvel, Fawcett, Quality or any other comic company. This is probably because what looks awesome on a page works regardless of the publisher.

[Christopher]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Let's pick another DC character' date=' then, shall we? Somebody nice and well-known, whose personal problems are comparable to those of Spider-Man. Perhaps someone whose life was shaped by tragedy, and who has a near-insane compulsion to try to control the world around him. Someone whose personal relationships are consistently distorted by his obsessions. Someone whose personality has been a regular subject of stories for decades. Does anybody come to mind?[/quote']

Let me throw out a wild guess and say "Batman".

But I also agree that DC somewhat tens towards lighter stuff. Just compare the JL/JLU Animated Series with the Avengers one.

 

What I prefer:

DC, by a small margin. I have enough angst and troubles in my real life, so I prefer the often "lighter" stories of them.

But family friendly levels of Marvel are also okay.

 

About deadswitches:

Depends. I tend to not use too many limitations. Anything beyond -1/4 is just uncommon. Focus in particular is uncommon. I tend to sacrifice raw power rather than aplying a lot of Limitations.

And I always make certain that my characters can still do stuff when the limitations kick in. Reduced to heroic rather than reduced to useless.

 

I am mixed towarsd "Killer" Complications. On the one hand I have to take them (to get the points). On the other hand I do not want them.

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

In order to be Bulletproof a character should have 20 rPD. This could prevent an average amount of stun from having any effect from a RKA 2d6.

 

No. In 5e, non-resistant PD works against the stun from KAs, as long as the character has at least some rPD. So, to be bulletproof, a character only needs enough rPD to avoid taking body, plus enough overall PD to handle the stun.

 

Of course, a .50 caliber machine gun or similar can do up to 18 body, so the higher figure might still be appropriate.

 

In 6e, non-resistant PD always works against the stun from KAs. Furthermore, the default stun multiplier is 1/2d6, making the stun lottery less of a risk.

 

Incidentally, a character who actually takes stun from a KA but isn't seriously affected by it could also claim to be "bulletproof", IMHO. The main criterion would be not taking body. YMMV, of course.

[Christopher]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

In order to be Bulletproof a character should have 20 rPD. This could prevent an average amount of stun from having any effect from a RKA 2d6.

Specification:

Bulletproof requires enough Defense to be not bothered significantly by gunfire (who cares if they could wear you down over 5-10 turns, if they don't even get one?). And for most parts I think that Super games should not built guns with RKA at all. Or even look at the weapon/vehicle tables in the book, wich are written for Heroic games.

Also "bouncing Bullets of your chest" sounds like a viable Special Effect for Ranged Block*/untconrolled Reflection for me.

 

*Allowed in 6E. The book notes possible extra penalties, but I would not use them.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Of course Superman can't protect everyone. That's a major problem for him right there. How such situations would "really play out" depends on your assumptions. In most versions' date=' Superman chooses to take time out and have a life, rather than drive himself mad.[/quote']

Oh, absolutely, and there's plenty of stories that deal with superheroes and their need for downtime. However the point remain that in the case of Superman his actions are a lot of times at odds with his statements, at least as far as this kind of activity goes, yet this inconsistently isn't really addressed. It isn't decided that he's just saying things to try to comfort people knowing that he has to fall short of such goals or that he's making these statement despite not really wanting to sacrifice everything that would be required to achieve such goals. The disconnect is just glossed over, which is what I mean when I said that DC doesn't tend to dig too far past the surface.

 

In any case, Superman is generally used as a strawman in these kinds of discussions. He's not typical of DC characters, and frankly isn't even typical of himself as he tends to be represented in these threads.

 

Let's pick another DC character, then, shall we? Somebody nice and well-known, whose personal problems are comparable to those of Spider-Man. Perhaps someone whose life was shaped by tragedy, and who has a near-insane compulsion to try to control the world around him. Someone whose personal relationships are consistently distorted by his obsessions. Someone whose personality has been a regular subject of stories for decades. Does anybody come to mind?

This would be the man who is able to build and maintain jet aircraft all by himself and his butler without other people noticing the millions of dollars that have to be diverted and no one ever wondering why unidentified aircraft have a tendency to appear and disappear around the old family home? Again, on the surface there's a statement made that he's super wealthy and he can afford it but really such a statement is fairly superficial. Dig a little past the surface and you encounter problems.

 

And yes, I am picking an older style of the character that isn't as true today and yes, if you dig deep enough into Marvel's characters you encounter inconsistencies in their powers/abilities/stories but those inconsistencies tend to be buried a bit further down, at least IMO. I'm not saying "Marvel rules and DC drools" or anything like that. I'm saying that if asked which one I prefer more then it is Marvel because they tend to have less of these issues.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

...for most parts I think that Super games should not built guns with RKA at all...

I would disagree there. You've got plenty of heroes who can take some pretty extreme punishment such as Spiderman but who have absolutely no defense against a gun (other than not being shot). Batman himself was like this for a very long time and even now his bodyarmor isn't capable of handling much more than a rifle.

Or even look at the weapon/vehicle tables in the book, wich are written for Heroic games.

When a hired goon shoots at Batman what do they tend to use? Guns don't necessarily behave really well for characters in a superheroic game but for thugs and the like it seems quite reasonable for them to be armed with such. Of course if your heroes are more along the lines of Superman than even high powered rifles are terribly effective and you're stuck breaking out the Apokolyptian weaponry.

Also "bouncing Bullets of your chest" sounds like a viable Special Effect for Ranged Block*/untconrolled Reflection for me.

 

*Allowed in 6E. The book notes possible extra penalties, but I would not use them.

I would not only not use the penalties, I wouldn't allow the maneuver. Special effects are all well and good and are even a principle component of the Hero System, but you can get too far carried away with it, IMO. Letting people bounce bullets off their chest as a block maneuver should be no more allowed than letting someone throw a haymaker by lightly touching their opponent with a finger. That is to say that maybe I have a character who has the freaky ability to transmit kinetic energy through contact and so by concentrating hard they can touch someone and inflict a massive 'haymaker' because of the strange way their power works but for 99.9% of the characters out there if you want to throw a haymaker it has to at least somewhat look like an all out attack. Likewise if you want to bounce bullets off your chest with a block maneuver there better be a reason why you have to be concentrating on the incoming fire for it to bounce of your chest (something that aligns with requiring a half move, only works on attacks you're aware of, and when you miss you start taking damage regularly).

 

At least that's how I would rule it as a GM.

[massey]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Both types of characters have their uses, and both have to be adjusted to fit in a campaign.

 

It's no fun if the first time Superman runs into kryptonite, the villains dogpile him and he winds up dead. Part of the genre rules of the "god with an off switch" is that said off switch will come up with some frequency, but is not fatal, and can be overcome by the character somehow.

 

Loaded guns are great, but it's likewise no fun if the game just revolves around how you can't use your powers. It may be interesting that Spider-Man has to sew his own costume, and when it gets torn he has to spend a few hours stitching it back together, but unless you're a major genre fiend you don't want to spend the entire game trying to find ways to not turn into the Hulk.

 

Playing a campaign, especially with multiple people, requires using a bit of both and letting it all slide when the story needs it.

 

If I were to write up a Superman, I'd give him a big susceptibility to kryptonite (both Stun and a Drain to powers), and a disad where he is Stunned when first exposed. He'd also have a vulnerability to kryptonite-based attacks. Anytime you see him suffering more than his susceptibility would account for, the villain bought it as a power.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Both types of characters have their uses' date=' and both have to be adjusted to fit in a campaign...[/quote']

 

I think that's probably the most true statement there is. Playing a bright four color hero in a campaign focused on complex ethical issues, constant betrayal, and complicated social issues can feel "cardboardy" really quick. Likewise playing an angst machine in a campaign that takes place in the bright new world of the future can quickly start feeling like you're being a drama queen with a martyr complex.

 

In the end what it all boils down to is everyone (both GMs and players) having fun? As long as you're doing that you're doing it right.

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Playing a bright four color hero in a campaign focused on complex ethical issues' date=' constant betrayal, and complicated social issues can feel "cardboardy" really quick.[/quote']

 

Not really. Maintaining the character's integrity in this situation is far from cardboardy.

 

In Raymond Chandler's words:

"Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world."

 

That's Superman and Batman, right there.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Not really. Maintaining the character's integrity in this situation is far from cardboardy.

Maintaining the character's integrity as a four color hero is far from possible in such a campaign.

 

"Superman, I've got three bombs in different schools. Get me enough Kryptonite to kill you or my henchmen will blow up one of the schools. If you try to disarm one of the bombs the remaining two schools will be blown up. If you try to attack me all three schools will be blown up."

[Balabanto]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

The problem comes in the fact that RPGs are run in groups. You can't use the DC model for running a roleplaying game, because everyone else exists pretty much to kick the Kryptonite out of the way for Superman.

 

Superheroes with flaws are much more interesting. I tend to go for a more late 60's to early 80's Marvel/Astro City style approach to superheroes. It keeps the power levels a little lower, but it keeps things from getting out of hand, too.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I find it amusing that all the knocks against Superman tend to focus on the Silver Age version of the character. The more modern incarnations (like Justice League Animated & Young Justice Animated) have a much better handle on the character's power level that is in line with his contemporaries. Yes, the "off switches" are still there but by the time he's part of the JL most if not all of the Kryptonite has been accounted for. Heck, if using the DC characters as a basis of a RP campaign, an early adventure could be based around securing unaccounted Kryptonite.

 

A similar argument could be raised around Green Lanterns and their 24 hour charge requirement. Who's to say that wasn't a design failsafe by the Guardians to help prevent the Rings from being used for evil purposes. It's really not that different than how Kryptonite and Red Solar Radiation affect Kryptonians.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I find it amusing that all the knocks against Superman tend to focus on the Silver Age version of the character. The more modern incarnations (like Justice League Animated & Young Justice Animated) have a much better handle on the character's power level that is in line with his contemporaries...

Actually, I think the majority of my 'knocks' against Superman have less to do with his powers and more to do with the fact that his attitudes only tend to work in a world where things aren't examined too closely and where villains tend to operate on a more superficial level (I'm not crazy about using the word "superficial". I was going to say "simplistic" but that's even less accurate.)

 

A similar argument could be raised around Green Lanterns and their 24 hour charge requirement. Who's to say that wasn't a design failsafe by the Guardians to help prevent the Rings from being used for evil purposes...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's exactly why the Guardians designed the rings with a 24 hour limit. That was also given as the reason the ring didn't work against anything yellow, so that the Green Lanterns wouldn't suffer from "absolute power corrupting absolutely" (although that was later retconned).

[The Main Man]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

What about Loaded Guns with Off-Switches?

 

Most DC characters clearly came from that more simplistic flavor of escapism of the pulps. Marvel is mostly "the next generation" of superheroes; a little more nuanced; post-pulp if one will.

 

I think this discussion brings to light an important way to invoke the styles of the Big Two. DC for whimsical, unexamined escapism; Marvel for a dash of realism, a dash of conflict, and a dash of humility.

 

Now i wonder about the differences in their villains... Sounds like a different thread.