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

[massey]

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.

 

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.

 

It depends how you run it. Silver Age Superman shouldn't fight Captain Baby-Rape, who has his superpower of escaping any confinement whatsoever, no matter what. "Better kill me this time, Superman!" SA Superman's universe doesn't work that way. The character only makes sense in a world that is at most Bronze Age. He shouldn't be put in situations where the only moral solution is to violate his code versus killing. I've seen some campaign worlds where the most moral thing Superman could do would be to just hurl the entire planet into the sun and be done with it.

 

On the other hand, it's fine to have Superman be uncomfortable with Batman's methods. "You broke that guy's leg." "He pointed a gun at me." "You didn't have to do that." "Not all of us are invulnerable." You have to reach a compromise between your world and the character within it. This can be difficult when one guy wants to play Adam West Batman and another guy wants to play the Midnight Mink.

 

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.

 

You can use the DC model for games, but I don't think most people do. Again, the kryptonite is there so Superman doesn't solve the problem on his own. In a classic DC style game, the villains can't stand up to the heroes in any sort of fair fight. Villains are generally masterminds or one-trick ponies. They get in a cheap shot, grab the loot, and disappear. Superman's powers are as much for their noncombat application as for combat.

[massey]

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

 

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.)

 

Superman's attitude doesn't make sense in a world where you are going to force him into a contrived moral dilemma every 20 minutes. Otherwise he's fine. I truthfully don't believe that villains are going to have as their chief motivation the desire to push Superman so far that he feels compelled to kill. "Hey, I killed Lois Lane and your parents and stuffed them in a refrigerator. I'm on my way to set a child on fire. Better kill me first!"

 

Superman is a fictional character. His world has certain rules. Every fictional character has certain rules. James T Kirk doesn't get shot by a Klingon assassin while he's boning a green chick. This need to break genre conventions to make everything darker doesn't mean that the character is somehow flawed. There are types of stories beyond "gritty darkness" (I'm not going to say gritty realism, because I don't find those settings realistic at all).

[esampson]

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

 

Superman's attitude doesn't make sense in a world where you are going to force him into a contrived moral dilemma every 20 minutes. Otherwise he's fine. I truthfully don't believe that villains are going to have as their chief motivation the desire to push Superman so far that he feels compelled to kill. "Hey' date=' I killed Lois Lane and your parents and stuffed them in a refrigerator. I'm on my way to set a child on fire. Better kill me first!"[/quote']

Whoa. Hang on. My villain wasn't doing anything to force Superman to kill them. In fact they specifically arrange part of their strategy to protect themselves from that. Given Superman's proclaimed motivations there's no way at all he should be capable of attacking the villain (which would result in the destruction of all three schools).

 

He was not in fact forcing Superman to do anything but help him kill Superman.

[massey]

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

 

Whoa. Hang on. My villain wasn't doing anything to force Superman to kill them. In fact they specifically arrange part of their strategy to protect themselves from that. Given Superman's proclaimed motivations there's no way at all he should be capable of attacking the villain (which would result in the destruction of all three schools).

 

He was not in fact forcing Superman to do anything but help him kill Superman.

 

I guess I misunderstood what you meant then.

 

Certainly there should be some villains who try to set up some inescapable trap for the Man of Steel. Generally in a universe where Superman is allowed to operate as Superman, he's smart enough and/or powerful enough to win anyway. Doing things like cutting important wires in the bombs with his heat vision (tuned into the invisible spectrum, of course) from outside the building so the henchmen don't notice. Or grabbing all the bombs at superspeed before anyone can trigger a detonator. Regardless how he does it, Superman should be able to save the day with the creative use of his powers. Them's the rules in a Superman book.

 

I think we're in agreement that when you put him in a game, there's got to be a certain amount of dramatic tension, so the character and the game have to adapt to one another.

[Christopher]

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

 

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.

Batman and Robin regulary get shoot at by Automatic Rilfes at close distance, by mooks. They. Never. Get. Hit (unless it is the point of the story of have him shoot).

Combat luck is speciafically designed to allow the "just missed me" effect.

And with the words from "Last Action Hero": "Let's bring you back into the film world, where this is only a flesh wound" (it's surprising how much flesh there is on every film hero).

And let's not forget the unlikely luck of heroes to always have some bullet stopping item exactly over the one critical spot that does get hit (like a sheriff star or bible over the heart).

 

They never take body, this is a genre convetion. So instead of being forced to build our heroes to have Resistant Protection, wouldn't it be a bajillion times easier to just not use Killing Damage?

 

When a hired goon shoots at Batman what do they tend to use?

At least according to Champions 6E and the 5E Character Creation handbook they don't use Guns build with Real Weapon, Focus, Charges, STR-Minimum (Cannot add STR) and other Limitations.

The use Guns with Focus and Charges. And not every gun availibel for them, but the ones that are at thier power level (the 50 point bankrobber never has anything beyond a pistol to use).

 

I would not only not use the penalties' date=' 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.[/quote']

I never said it isn't obvious that he is doing a haymaker/block. The other still know that he is vulnerable (halved his DCV, extra time to execute) or that he is Blocking (has a limit of blockable attacks).

 

It's no fun if the first time Superman runs into kryptonite' date=' 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.[/quote']

Most people always focus on Kryptonite and forget the other two weaknesses of him:

Red Sun Radiation

Magic

 

If would build Supes I would give him:

Succeptibility (Drain of Kryptonian Powers) to Kryptonite and Red Sun Radiation

Succeptibility (Damage) to Kryptonite (with a Sub-rule that it is not affecting him when he is Drained by Red Sun radiation).

Vulnerabiliy to Magic.

 

But even Drained of his kryptonian powers, he still has at least the strenght and resilience of a heavyworlder in normal gravity (something also forgotten quite often).

 

and when it gets torn he has to spend a few hours stitching it back together' date=' but unless you're a major genre fiend you don't want to spend the entire game trying to find ways to [i']not[/i] turn into the Hulk.

Interstingly I don't think I would built the Hulk with a big Accidental Change.

I fact I would mostly have the change be under my controll.

 

That does not means it is under the controll of the Banner personality, but that I the player decide when he transforms (for most of the time).

I mean it is funny that he always "looses controll" in the exact moment he needs to, in order to survive the adventure.

 

Playing a campaign' date=' especially with multiple people, requires using a bit of both and letting it all slide when the story needs it.[/quote']

I would generelly reduce Complicatiosn drastically for a Team game. Values like the 150 many GM's use in 5E work well the characer in his own title.

But the entire 5 Season JL and JLU run had perhaps two uses of Kryptonitem, two uses of magic and two uses of Red Sun Radiation againt Superman and Supergirl combined.

 

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.

Afaik this is an official Safeguard. Same as the rings beign unable to be used to kill (until the Sinestro Corps war). The same as the Yellow Weakness was (the guardians even intentionally build Oa'n Buildings from Yellow/Gold at that time) - at least before Parallax was retconned to be the Fear Entity and the "Yellow Impurity" became something else (wich could also be overcome by some people).

[esampson]

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

 

Batman and Robin regulary get shoot at by Automatic Rilfes at close distance' date=' by mooks. They. Never. Get. Hit (unless it is the point of the story of have him shoot).[/quote']

That, unfortunately, is one major difference between a game and a story. In a story the author has complete control and gets to say when the hero gets hit and how hard. However there's still a lot you can do to simulate that in Champions. Batman and Robin simply have obscenely high DCVs when they dodge, at least relative to the OCV of your average criminal. They also have relatively high speeds which let them 'blow' a lot of phases against assault rifle totting thugs by dodging and then clobbering them with their extra phases.

Combat luck is speciafically designed to allow the "just missed me" effect.

Actually, I think Combat Luck is more designed to allow for the "its only a flesh wound". Sure, the book states that it allows for "just missed me" but how strange would it be to be knocked unconscious through the cumulative effects of "just missed me"?

And with the words from "Last Action Hero": "Let's bring you back into the film world, where this is only a flesh wound" (it's surprising how much flesh there is on every film hero).

And let's not forget the unlikely luck of heroes to always have some bullet stopping item exactly over the one critical spot that does get hit (like a sheriff star or bible over the heart).

 

They never take body, this is a genre convetion. So instead of being forced to build our heroes to have Resistant Protection, wouldn't it be a bajillion times easier to just not use Killing Damage?

I would argue with you on this. I would argue a lot. A flesh wound doesn't mean you weren't hurt. It means that the injury wasn't enough to seriously hamper you. Batman gets hit by a round from a handgun. It's the 1d6+1 style of pistol often used by criminals (9mm semiautomatic). On an average roll he takes 4-5 points of body. Considering he probably has around 20 body I would classify that as a "flesh wound".

 

 

At least according to Champions 6E and the 5E Character Creation handbook they don't use Guns build with Real Weapon, Focus, Charges, STR-Minimum (Cannot add STR) and other Limitations.

The use Guns with Focus and Charges. And not every gun availibel for them, but the ones that are at thier power level (the 50 point bankrobber never has anything beyond a pistol to use).

Oh, I agree with that 100%. It would be nice if the point costs for guns were expressed in Superheroic limitations (since heroic characters don't tend to need to worry about the point cost of the gun anyway) but honestly that's a minor thing.

 

I never said it isn't obvious that he is doing a haymaker/block. The other still know that he is vulnerable (halved his DCV, extra time to execute) or that he is Blocking (has a limit of blockable attacks).

No. I wasn't accusing you of doing that. I'm saying that the problem is that the Special Effect is too inconsistent with most characters (hence the reason I provided an example of someone where you actually could justify the 'one finger haymaker').

 

The problem is that if you let Superman do that then why can't Spiderman, and if Spiderman can do that then is he really Spiderman?

 

Ultimately though we just have somewhat different visions of the game. You don't like Killing Attacks, I don't like Combat Luck. You want to allow Special Effects to have a broader range than I am comfortable with. I have a narrower view of Special Effects than you like. That's all fine and good. We don't all need to play the game the exact same way. As it is written Champions has a lot of stuff that is pretty broad and needs to be interpreted by the GMs and Players. It isn't as broad as the White Wolf storyteller system but it is a lot more broad than Villains and Vigilantes.

 

As long as everyone is having fun that's all that's really important.

[phydaux]

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

 

The Gods with Off Switches is very Golden Age. The Loaded Guns is very Silver Age. Neither are appropriate in the Bronze or Iron age, other than characters that are highly Focus-dependant.

[RexMundi]

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

 

I prefer Both. With my Immense knowledge of Comics in general I know this is possible and easily done with any GOOD writer and team in Any Age. Which limits it to about 4 people now in the Industry unfortunately.

 

~Rex, points out Marvel success comes from Approachable Characters, the World Outside your Window, yet DC's Tenacity and ever returning fans presents better "Mythology" that generates never ending legend....

[phoenix240]

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?

 

'mazing Man.

[esampson]

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

 

'mazing Man.

Don't be silly. There was no tragedy that shaped 'Mazing Man's life and gave him a compulsion to try to solve the problems of the world.

 

He was clearly referring to Genius Jones.

[assault]

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

 

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."

 

"My plan is perfect! Nothing can go wrong!"

 

Superman has been dealing with stuff like this for years.

 

Even Batman could get out of it, a certain movie aside.

[esampson]

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

 

He always gets out of it because the bombs are designed in very superficial designs. Equip the three bombs with radio links. One bomb is disarmed and the other two detonate. Equip them with motion triggers. He tries to move them, they detonate.

 

And for God's sake, don't tell him where they are.

 

Yeah, I'm sure he will figure out some way to cheat and escape from sure death, anyway. No matter how carefully a villain plans he somehow manages to isolate the radio frequency used to link the three bombs and disarm them or something else.

 

In the words of Bart and Lisa Simpson:

Lisa: Oh! There's always a canal!

Bart: Or an inlet, or a fjord...

 

That's why the person contacting him is a cut-out and you have a fourth bomb you didn't warn him about. He cheats. School still gets blown up. Then a new cut-out contacts him. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[esampson]

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

 

BTW, I am in no way advocating this as a fun adventure or anything. It isn't to say that all Superman stories are stupid. It isn't to say you can't enjoy Superman stories as what they are, fun escapist literature.

 

The whole point of this argument is that Superman cannot function under his stated belief system in a world that goes much past the superficial.

[Ranxerox]

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

 

He always gets out of it because the bombs are designed in very superficial designs. Equip the three bombs with radio links. One bomb is disarmed and the other two detonate. Equip them with motion triggers. He tries to move them, they detonate.

 

And for God's sake, don't tell him where they are.

 

Yeah, I'm sure he will figure out some way to cheat and escape from sure death, anyway. No matter how carefully a villain plans he somehow manages to isolate the radio frequency used to link the three bombs and disarm them or something else.

 

In the words of Bart and Lisa Simpson:

Lisa: Oh! There's always a canal!

Bart: Or an inlet, or a fjord...

 

That's why the person contacting him is a cut-out and you have a fourth bomb you didn't warn him about. He cheats. School still gets blown up. Then a new cut-out contacts him. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

And Superman will find the actual person or persons behind the cut-outs, capture them, and send them to jail or the Phantom Zone for a long, long time. If he needs help finding the person behind the cut-outs, he will ask. Cause he is Superman and he is not afraid to ask his friends to help him out occasionally.

[Cassandra]

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

 

Superman

 

Val Char Cost

50*/15 STR 25

14 DEX 12

25*/13 CON 25

12*/10 BODY 3

13 INT 3

10 EGO 0

15 PRE 5

14 COM 2

22*/5 PD 12

12*/3 ED 6

5*/3 SPD 22 [super-Speed]

15*/6 REC 0

50*/26 END 0

45*/25 STUN 0

Total Characteristics Cost: 118 Points

 

Cost Skills

2 AK: Metropolis 11-

6 Combat Luck +3 rPD +3 rED

5 CSL: HTH Combat +1

1 FB: Press Pass

2 PS: Reporter 11-

3 Rep: Superhero 14-

Total Skills Cost: 19 Points

 

Cost Powers

12* Damage Resistance 20 rPD 10 rED

40* Multipower (50 Points)

2* u) EB 6d6 [Heat Vision]

2* u) Entangle [Freezing Breath]

2* u) Flight 10"

2* u) Flight 10", Megascale (+1/4), 1/2 END (+1/4)

1* u) Running +5" [super-Speed]

2* u) STR +20, No END (+1/2)

1* u) Swimming +10"

2* u) Telekinesis 20 STR [super-Breath]

2* u) Tunneling 6", DEF 6

20* ES: Microscopic Sight 10x, N-Ray Sight [Lead], PER +1, Telescopic Hearing +2, Telescopic Sight +2, Ultrasonic Hearing

7 ES: RPT, IAF: Concealed Radio (-1/2)

6* Healing: Regeneration 1 BODY/Turn

9* LS: Extended Breathing [1 END/Minute], High Pressure, High Radiation, Intense Cold, Intense Heat, Low Pressure/Vacuum

3 PRE +5, OIF: Costume

Total Powers Cost: 113 Points

 

*Does Not Work During Red Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

 

Total Cost: 250 Points

 

150+ Disadvantages

10 DNPC: Jimmy Olsen (Unaware Useful Normal) 8-

5 DNPC: Lois Lane (Useful Normal) 8-

10 Hunted: Lex Luthor (As Powerful) 8-

20 PsyL: Code of the Hero (Very Common/Strong)

20 PsyL: Code Versus Killing (Common/Total)

10 SocL: Secret Identity [Kal-El/Clark Kent] (Occasionally/Major)

15 Suscept: Green Kryptonite Radiation, 3d6 STUN/Minute (Uncommon)

10 Vuln: Magic, 1 1/2x STUN (Common)

Total Disadvantages Cost: 250 Points

 

 

This Superman can survive in all environments, and has a variety of useful powers. His major weakness is being expose to Red Solar Radiation which will reduced him to the level of a Competent Normal. Green Kryptonite Radiation does not rob him of his powers but can render him unconscious in one minute, and finish him off in less then two minutes after that.

[esampson]

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

 

And Superman will find the actual person or persons behind the cut-outs' date=' capture them, and send them to jail or the Phantom Zone for a long, long time...[/quote']

You mean like Lex Luthor?

[Cassandra]

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

 

Spider-Man

 

Val Char Cost

40 STR 30

23 DEX 39

20 CON 20

10 BODY 0

18 INT 8

11 EGO 2

15 PRE 5

14 COM 2

16 PD 8

8 ED 4

4 SPD 7

12 REC 0

40 END 0

40 STUN 0

Total Characteristics Cost: 125 Points

 

Cost Skills

3 Acrobatics 14-

2 AK: New York City 11-

3 Breakfall 13-

3 Bugging 13-

6 Combat Luck +3 rPD +3 rED

5 CSL: HTH Combat +1

28 Danger Sense [sense] [Out of Combat] [immediate Vicinity] 14-

1 FB: Press Pass

2 Eidetic Memory, Visual Images Only (-1), OAF: Camera (-1)

2 PS: Photographer 11-

2 SS: Chemistry 11-

2 Rep: Superhero 11-

3 Shadowing 13-

3 Stealth 14-

Total Skills Cost: 65 Points

 

Cost Powers

10 Clinging 40 STR

5 ES: RPT, OAF: Radio (-1)

10 EC [Webshooters]-15 Points, OIF: Webshooters (-1/2)

23 1) Entangle 4d6 DEF 4, [16c/4 Clips] (+1/4)

10 2) Swinging 15", 4x NCM, No END (+1/2)

2 Running +1"

Total Powers Cost: 60 Points

 

Total Cost: 250 Points

 

150+ Disadvantages

10 DNPC: Mary Jane Watson (Normal) 8-

20 DNPC: May Parker (Unaware Incompetent) 8-

15 Hunted: Green Goblin (As Powerful/NCI) 8-

5 PhyL: Teenager (Infrequently/Slightly)

20 PsyL: Protective of Innocents (Very Common/Strong)

20 PsyL: Showoff (Very Common/Strong)

10 SocL: Secret Identity [Peter Parker] (Occasionally/Major)

Total Disadvantages Cost: 250 Points

 

 

This Spider-Man uses his DEX to avoid damage. I gave him a Radio so he can use his Bugging ("Spider Trackers"). Green Goblin gets a NCI because he knows Peter as his son's friend. J. Jonah Jameson shows up with the Secret Identity roll.

[Cassandra]

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

 

A battle between Superman and Spider-Man (Crossover Universe Mistaken Identity) would have the Man of Steel with a STR, SPD, and PD Advantage. Spider-Man would do an average of 28 Points against Superman's 25 PD, so only 3 points would get through. Superman on the other hand would with his maximum 60 STR would sent an average of 42 Points Damage against Spider-Man's 19 Points PD. The trick is for Superman to his him. Even with his CSL HTH Combat +1 Superman would only hit Spider-Man on a roll or 8 or less. Spider-Man however only has to roll a 14- to hit Superman for all the good it would do.

 

At range Spider-Man has the advantage, and would slow Superman down with his webbing Entangle. However Superman can find ways to attack from unexpected directions using his Tunneling and N-Ray sight.

[phoenix240]

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

 

He always gets out of it because the bombs are designed in very superficial designs. Equip the three bombs with radio links. One bomb is disarmed and the other two detonate. Equip them with motion triggers. He tries to move them, they detonate.

 

And for God's sake, don't tell him where they are.

 

Yeah, I'm sure he will figure out some way to cheat and escape from sure death, anyway. No matter how carefully a villain plans he somehow manages to isolate the radio frequency used to link the three bombs and disarm them or something else.

 

In the words of Bart and Lisa Simpson:

Lisa: Oh! There's always a canal!

Bart: Or an inlet, or a fjord...

 

That's why the person contacting him is a cut-out and you have a fourth bomb you didn't warn him about. He cheats. School still gets blown up. Then a new cut-out contacts him. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

Yeah, the hero always manages to find "Option C" that allows to them triumph with their values intact because its part of the genre. In a different genre/different mood that's not the assumption so there's no guarantee there will be an option C. Superman isn't a bad character. I like him when he's written well but he does operate in a fictional setting with genre assumptions and tropes. When different ones apply, he doesn't hold up as well but the same is true for any fictional character. The Punisher falls apart once you drop the assumptions he works under, at least as a hero.

 

More on topic, I prefer the Marvel approach more for role playing games. I find more nuanced, lower powered characters more interesting and provide a more diverse play experience. But playing Achilles with the obligatory foot problem can be a fun change of pace in the right setting/game.

[Ranxerox]

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

 

You mean like Lex Luthor?

 

What was the last school full of children that Lex blew up? And has this had the effect of making cease to function or abandoning his beliefs.

[esampson]

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

 

You're missing the point. The point was that Superman's morals only work in a world that operates somewhat superficially. The comment about Lex Luthor was meant to dispel the argument that "Batman will just find the bad guy regardless of the precautions said bad guy takes".

 

Of course that was absolutely the wrong argument for me to take as the proper response should have been "so you're arguing that Batman can automagically find any criminal in time to save the day but the style isn't superficial?"

 

Ultimately this is just degenerating into a pointless argument. Its like me saying that Star Wars' physics don't make a lot of sense and all sorts of people who want Star Wars to be better than Star Trek jump in and say "yes it does!".

 

They then proceed to pretzel things around in all sorts of illogical ways to make it possible for x-wings to fly in space like fighter airplanes and say "See! The physics works!" completely ignoring that both A) forcing the physics to "work" still doesn't mean it makes sense since people have to go to all sorts of outrageous contrivances to make it even possible (and "possible" and "sensible" aren't the same thing) and that I'm not saying "Star Trek is better than Star Wars".

 

Yes, I said I have a preference. That's not the same as saying that A is better than B.

[phoenix240]

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

 

You're missing the point. The point was that Superman's morals only work in a world that operates somewhat superficially. The comment about Lex Luthor was meant to dispel the argument that "Batman will just find the bad guy regardless of the precautions said bad guy takes".

 

Of course that was absolutely the wrong argument for me to take as the proper response should have been "so you're arguing that Batman can automagically find any criminal in time to save the day but the style isn't superficial?"

 

Ultimately this is just degenerating into a pointless argument. Its like me saying that Star Wars' physics don't make a lot of sense and all sorts of people who want Star Wars to be better than Star Trek jump in and say "yes it does!".

 

They then proceed to pretzel things around in all sorts of illogical ways to make it possible for x-wings to fly in space like fighter airplanes and say "See! The physics works!" completely ignoring that both A) forcing the physics to "work" still doesn't mean it makes sense since people have to go to all sorts of outrageous contrivances to make it even possible (and "possible" and "sensible" aren't the same thing) and that I'm not saying "Star Trek is better than Star Wars".

 

Yes, I said I have a preference. That's not the same as saying that A is better than B.

 

It is on the internet!

[Dr. MID-Nite]

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

 

Er...back on topic....I prefer Marvel characters and style overall, but as there is some overlap between the companies.....I find stuff to like(and not like) about both. Nuff said.

[massey]

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

 

You're missing the point. The point was that Superman's morals only work in a world that operates somewhat superficially. The comment about Lex Luthor was meant to dispel the argument that "Batman will just find the bad guy regardless of the precautions said bad guy takes".

 

Of course that was absolutely the wrong argument for me to take as the proper response should have been "so you're arguing that Batman can automagically find any criminal in time to save the day but the style isn't superficial?"

 

Ultimately this is just degenerating into a pointless argument. Its like me saying that Star Wars' physics don't make a lot of sense and all sorts of people who want Star Wars to be better than Star Trek jump in and say "yes it does!".

 

They then proceed to pretzel things around in all sorts of illogical ways to make it possible for x-wings to fly in space like fighter airplanes and say "See! The physics works!" completely ignoring that both A) forcing the physics to "work" still doesn't mean it makes sense since people have to go to all sorts of outrageous contrivances to make it even possible (and "possible" and "sensible" aren't the same thing) and that I'm not saying "Star Trek is better than Star Wars".

 

Yes, I said I have a preference. That's not the same as saying that A is better than B.

 

It's not a world that acts superficially. You can have a lot of great characterization in that kind of setting. Superman just operates in a world that doesn't explicitly break genre conventions in order to make the character useless.

 

So... your villain has secretly planted a fourth bomb in a school, and when Superman stops the other three, the last one explodes and kills a bunch of kids. Haha, Superman, look how stupid your morals are now! You caused all those kids to die because you tried to help people! Oh wait, no, you really didn't. I'm the guy who killed them all. Well, you didn't stop me! Okay, so how does that affect Superman now? How does it make him immoral? Psycho blows up school. It's all Superman's fault somehow. Riiiight. Let's say the guy who tries to help people is outdated versus the pointlessly nihilistic villain.

 

I'm tired of the idea that comics filled with so much Iron Age-rust that I need a tetanus shot after reading them, are somehow more "realistic" or "mature" or less "superficial" than the Bronze and Silver books I read as a kid. There's a feeling of disillusionment and contempt that fills those books. Like the people writing them hate everything about superheroes. I will agree that Superman doesn't belong in those books. But just because most modern comic writers have an endless hard on for the Sex Pistols doesn't give their work more depth.

[esampson]

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

 

It's not a world that acts superficially..... Superman just operates in a world that doesn't explicitly break genre conventions in order to make the character useless.

Let's be clear, Superman operates in a world that doesn't break genre conventions because that would make the character useless.

 

(N.B.: I am not saying it would make any superhuman useless. I am saying that it makes the version of a superhero who will give up his life to save the life of a single person or relatively small group of people useless because of this exact problem).

 

The origin of my threat is not 'how can I break genre to make Superman useless?' It is 'if I am a villain in a world with Superman how could I neutralize him?'. If that method breaks genre then so be it. My objective as a bad guy isn't to preserve genre, it is to be successful, and if the only argument you can raise is 'villains shouldn't behave that way' then guess what? You're demanding a superficial story (the villains are bad guys but they aren't going to do things that the hero couldn't really solve because we don't want that). Again, note that I'm not talking about a situation that might be beyond the grasp of most criminals (such as getting their hands on nuclear weapons). I'm talking about things that could reasonably be done but that aren't because it makes the hero look bad.

 

So... your villain has secretly planted a fourth bomb in a school, and when Superman stops the other three, the last one explodes and kills a bunch of kids. Haha, Superman, look how stupid your morals are now! You caused all those kids to die because you tried to help people! Oh wait, no, you really didn't. I'm the guy who killed them all. Well, you didn't stop me! Okay, so how does that affect Superman now? How does it make him immoral? Psycho blows up school. It's all Superman's fault somehow. Riiiight. Let's say the guy who tries to help people is outdated versus the pointlessly nihilistic villain.

No. The fact that there was a fourth bomb Superman didn't know about doesn't make Superman a bad guy. What it does is puts Superman in a worse situation when the villain repeats the process and tells Superman "sorry, you can't just cheat your way around the problem. Now here's the exact same dilemma again". Now Superman is in a position where he really has to face "let myself be killed or let other people be killed". He knows that if he tries to dance around it with some trick there's a high likelihood that more people will die.

 

Also note that in my example this isn't a crazy badguy who wants to force Superman to compromise his principles. He's genuinely hoping that Superman will stick to them so he can kill him. Crazy badguy would only threaten a few people if Superman didn't cave in so that Superman might decide to rationalize letting someone die. This guy wants the deathtoll to be large enough that such a decision on the part of Superman is extremely unlikely.

 

I'm tired of the idea that comics filled with so much Iron Age-rust that I need a tetanus shot after reading them, are somehow more "realistic" or "mature" or less "superficial" than the Bronze and Silver books I read as a kid. There's a feeling of disillusionment and contempt that fills those books. Like the people writing them hate everything about superheroes. I will agree that Superman doesn't belong in those books. But just because most modern comic writers have an endless hard on for the Sex Pistols doesn't give their work more depth.

That's great. However it is sort of like me saying "I'm tired of all this hard science fiction that makes me feel like I've audited a class in theoretical physics. Stories like Star Wars don't belong in such settings.'

 

Yep, you are absolutely 100% right on both counts. You're tired of it and Star Wars doesn't work well in it. Neither of these factors though detract from the statement 'the science in Star Wars is very soft'.

 

You hate Iron Age rust. Great. Superman works terribly in such a world. I'm absolutely in agreement with you. Neither statement has anything to do with disproving the thesis that Superman's principles only really work in a fairly superficial genre (and in fact the second statement actually supports it).

 

Again, this isn't to say that all Superman stories are bad. This is simply the statement that his given principles only work in a world where things run at a fairly superficial level.