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

[Greywind]

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

 

The Mayfair game never altered Superman's stats for team play. I oughta know' date=' since I used those books just the other day to make that Superman writeup (he's Earth 2 Superman from the 1st edition Superman Sourcebook toned down a bit, honestly). I've got them all, first through third edition (and those I don't own, I have on PDF).[/quote']I never say they changed Superman's stats. I said that they rated him differently for the adventures. Superman solo is stronger than Superman with the JLA. I know. I own a lot of the adventure books.

[CrosshairCollie]

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

 

On the other hand, in the comics, Superman's (and any character's) 'stats' fluctuate according to the needs of the story, and Superman has been on the receiving end of a number of power-ups and power-downs over the decades. Considering that, I'd be hard pressed to say any write-up of Superman is inaccurate. When he first appeared, he couldn't fly, didn't have vision powers, and his strength, while superhuman, was in more like the 30-40 range in HERO terms.

[Pattern Ghost]

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

 

That wouldn't get play in my campaign unless you want Sammy Davis Jr sticking his head out the window to talk to you as you climb the side of the building.

 

That'd be so cool.

[massey]

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

 

I never say they changed Superman's stats. I said that they rated him differently for the adventures. Superman solo is stronger than Superman with the JLA. I know. I own a lot of the adventure books.

 

Those were the average character ratings at the end of the 1st edition adventure books. You averaged the group's character points. He wasn't rated weaker. The rest of the JLA brought him down because their character points were so much less.

[assault]

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

 

When I model characters, I'm very careful to define my source material. I create characters that can do what they are shown doing in that material. They may not be able to do everything they are shown doing elsewhere.

 

Superman is no exception to that. I've got a version of him that conforms to his original appearances, and another based on the second season of the 50s TV show. (That's the only season I have on DVD, naturally). Both of these are Superman. They have very little in common with each other mechanically, but they can both do what the character did in their source material.

 

The 1938 material was by Siegel and Shuster. The 50s material was supervised by Whitney Ellsworth and Mort Weisinger. If they say the character presented was Superman, I'm inclined to believe them.

 

Both writeups are 250 points. Both would benefit from being 350.

[Greywind]

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

 

When I model characters, I'm very careful to define my source material. I create characters that can do what they are shown doing in that material. They may not be able to do everything they are shown doing elsewhere.

 

Superman is no exception to that. I've got a version of him that conforms to his original appearances, and another based on the second season of the 50s TV show. (That's the only season I have on DVD, naturally). Both of these are Superman. They have very little in common with each other mechanically, but they can both do what the character did in their source material.

 

The 1938 material was by Siegel and Shuster. The 50s material was supervised by Whitney Ellsworth and Mort Weisinger. If they say the character presented was Superman, I'm inclined to believe them.

 

Both writeups are 250 points. Both would benefit from being 350.

 

This is basically why I won't let people play, or use myself, established characters from other sources. I don't mind homages, used plenty myself, but Wolverine ain't gonna put in an appearance.

[RexMundi]

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

 

Bah, you had to wreck it all by mentioning Wolverine....though there are worse in the Marvel lineup currently....

 

~Rex....Ah well, Capcom even got their pokes in at the character. Dill Claw, Dill Claw, Tomato Claw, BURGER BARRAGE!!!!

[assault]

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

 

This is basically why I won't let people play' date=' or use myself, established characters from other sources. I don't mind homages, used plenty myself, but Wolverine ain't gonna put in an appearance.[/quote']

 

Ditto, but character modelling is a game in its own right.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

There's also an interesting little hole in your argument where you specify DC. You haven't made any attempt to prove that Marvel is any different! (Other publishers can be ignored for the moment).

 

I will, however, point out that Captain America, Thor and Spider-Man certainly share much of Superman's attitude. How do you think they would fare in the the four schools situation? Why aren't they dead?

 

Applying the exact same "four bombs" scenario, and simply instructing Cap or Spidey to stand still and be shot dead, would seem to have the same results. Thor's tougher to kill, without a real "bring me this to exploit your weakness" hook. Would Cap or Spidey sacrifice their own lives to save those schoolkids? Well, Spidey's all about "great responsibility", isn't he? Why doesn't the Kingpin use exactly that tactic to get rid of Spidey or Daredevil?

 

To briefly return to Marvel: why is it over simplified that Batman can maintain and operate the Batplane' date=' while it's not a problem that Tony Stark can to the same to his armour? (I don't know if his identity is publicly known in the comics at the moment, but it certainly wasn't for a long time). Likewise, how could the X-Men operate their jet for so long without anyone noticing?[/quote']

 

Back in the '70's, didn't R'as al Ghul, in his first appearance, deduce Batman's ID by assessing the supplies Bats would need, then determining which companies bought them all? A hole Bats indicated he would plug. What the heck does a "school for gifted youngsters" need jet parts for anyway?

 

If the goal is to compare the companies, it seems reasonable to compare them.

 

Of the two' date=' I would say that Marvel Characters are more "realistic" in terms of power levels. In the Silver Age you had Superman moving the planets around, while Hulk could lift a tank. Personally, and reflected in my designs, I go the Marvel route.[/quote']

 

There are plenty of Hulk stories where pure brute strength accomplishes a lot (an old Defenders where he demolishes a magical mountain turned doomsday weapon seems to come to mind). There's a reason Silver Age Superman got depowered.

 

The conversions based on Marvel characters aren't much better. I think setting realistic limits' date=' say max 60 STR 30 Defense would allow build that balance out in the end.[/quote']

 

For games, setting limits is reasonable. Supes is not "The Strongest One There Is", so the campaign limits would reasonably exceed his STR. A 175 STR Superman just highlights a concern I always have with Published Settings - we either get the published characters as hugely experienced characters the PC's cannot hold a candle to, or the PC's are built to equal or exceed those characters. If I want to play in the DC or Marvel Universe, I also want the ability to stand toe to toe with the Big Boys - not be relegated to the JLAntarctica or the Great Lakes Avengers. But having the PC's overshadow the main characters of the published universe also works poorly - the published universe quickly fades away.

 

Regarding how buff Clark Kent is my build of Superman on this Thread has him with 15 STR vs. the Max 60 STR he normally can utilize. Now' date=' I know that doesn't seem much but consider that he is more then capable of beating a normal man to death with his bare hands. Further, his 5 PD +3 rPD Combat Luck makes him all but immune to a 10 STR individual. Super-Agents with a few points of Martial Arts are another story, but that's the price Superman pays for falling into a Red Solar Radiation trap.[/quote']

 

A lot depends on where we set our benchmarks. A 15 STR seems like a well above average human, which hardly seems an unreasonable level. Clark is a reporter, not a weightlifter.

 

Wow. We build characters very differently. I don't think he should lose to anyone in the Champions Universe. He's the original superhero. My version would beat Dr. Destroyer. I don't want a Superman who loses to Durak. I want All-Star Superman.

 

So why bother with Superman at all? He's not a character, but a deus ex machina. Why shouldn't he be capable of losing to opponents in the CU? The DCU Superman is capable of losing to characters in the DCU, is he not? Solomon Grundy has punched him around - is Solomon Grundy really that much tougher than Durak? All this does is set the entire DCU on a different power level, for no reason I can see other than "they're published, so they should be at a different quantum level".

 

If I want such characters to fit in my game, my approach would be to look at the character and ask where he fits in my game's parameters. "Hulk is the strongest one there is"? Then we must establish the absolute limit for STR in my game. It should not be so mighty as to overshadow, say, Grond or an augmented Ripper. Superman's at the upper edges, but it seems like there are characters as strong or stronger, although the latter seem limited to characters whose sole schtick is STR.

 

You're right' date=' characters don't exist in a vacuum. You've got to compare them to something. And when you compare them to standard published characters, this Superman comes up short. Face it, Superman isn't a starting character. He's not a 250 guy. If you're running a Justice League type game, it's okay to give people more points. Otherwise you're just playing a guy who looks like Superman.[/quote']

 

This is more an issue with "xp as power gain" than with anything connected to the published DC Universe. When Firestorm joined the JLA, he was the new kid on the block, but no slouch in terms of power. Superman does seem to have a lot more knowledge skills, Rep perks and other things, though. For example, when he introduces himself on an alien world in an old JLA as "I'm Superman - many of you may know me", that bespeaks a lot of xp spend on Reputation. But he doesn't spend xp buying more STR, DEX, CV and Defenses.

 

Unfortunately, we're often conditioned to expect our RPG characters will become more powerful over time, as that's what we equate with "winning" or succeeding in game. That's consistent with some versions of fantasy. Is it really consistent with Supers source material? Daredevil and Nightwing have been around a lot longer than Quasar or Captain Atom, and published a lot more consistently (ie way more adventures), but the relative power levels aren't really consistent with all that earned XP, they?

[massey]

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

 

Part of the thing about a 3,000 point character is that it's a modeling exercise. At that point you don't increase in power level any more. If you do, it's certainly not because of earned XP. It's a storyline thing at that point. In my opinion, once a character design stops caring about point efficiency (my version could probably cut its points in half without sacrificing much real power), that's when you also stop caring about XP. You're effectively "maxed out" and anything else goes towards contacts and favors and other things that don't really get written down on the character sheet.

 

Champions assumes that you earn XP as time goes on and generally become more powerful. Supposedly this represents heroes who later develop more skills and abilities, or at least display more skills and abilities that they never showed before (even if they're assumed to have always "had them"). This kinda sorta happens in comics, but not always. It's a disconnect between the game and an outright simulation of comics. It's an issue regardless of which character you use.

 

A 175 Str Superman generally needs his own villains. I'd say that 5th Ed Dr Destroyer makes a decent stand-in for Green Battlesuit Lex Luthor from the early 80s. No Battlesuit Luthor might be represented by Telios or some similar mastermind. Regardless, he's a lot of points and usually someone an entire team of heroes takes on. He fights Galactic Champions Mechanon (Brainiac) and a lot of cosmic types who come to Earth looking for a fight. Superman's usual role is to fight such people himself. He's normally a solo character. If your plan is for the Ultimates to show up and fight the PCs, 175 Str Supes probably doesn't belong on your hero team. If, on the other hand, your plan is for the Ultimates, Eurostar, the Aesesinos, and Grond to rampage through the city while an asteroid the size of Texas hurtles towards Earth, that looks like a job for Superman.

 

I would say Nightwing probably started as a lower point character than Captain Atom. He started as Batman's 250 point follower (Bats himself being a much more expensive character), while Captain Atom started as a 700 point high powered character. And while Nightwing spent loads of points on skills, contacts, and other abilities, the good Captain just bought more and more powers. He's basically Gigaton's big brother.

[esampson]

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

 

Applying the exact same "four bombs" scenario' date=' and simply instructing Cap or Spidey to stand still and be shot dead, would seem to have the same results.[/quote']

Again, the point of the example wasn't to say that such things could only happen to Superman, would happen to Superman more, should happen to Superman more or anything else of the sort. It was because people were saying a certain condition didn't exist in Superman. That's it.

[Cassandra]

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

 

I think that as long as both the villain and the hero are built on the same point level, the fight would be evenly matched. The villain would have the advantage, or course, in that they don't play by the rules. The hero has the advantage, on the other hand, in cooperation with the authorities, crowd control by the police, etc..

[massey]

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

 

Again' date=' the point of the example wasn't to say that such things could only happen to Superman, would happen to Superman more, should happen to Superman more or anything else of the sort. It was because people were saying a certain condition didn't exist in Superman. That's it.[/quote']

 

The problem, of course, is that it's not in genre for the villain to get away with a plot like that. Or at least, it shouldn't be in genre (too many modern comics have villains blowing up half the city and then getting caught afterwards for my tastes, instead of the heroes stopping them before it happens). It's not just that the hero is protected by the rules of the comic, those same rules are the ones that allow the villain to even remotely have a chance to succeed in the first place.

 

The "I've planted bombs in X number of schools" would actually be really hard to pull off in real life. Having bombs that communicated with one another in some way that couldn't be interfered with would be even more difficult. Planning and executing this sort of arrangement through subsidiaries without exposing yourself would be nearly impossible. It's basically the plot from Die Hard 3. I think it's telling that no one has ever done it before. In real life the plan would probably fail even without the involvement of a hero. The FBI shows up at the villain's door as he's trying to arrange illegal purchases of high explosive.

 

So basically you're left with "what genre are you in?" If you're in a superheroic genre, Superman stops the bombs and wins. If you're in "SAW style flawless villain genre", then he loses.

[Egyptoid]

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

 

Lois is in relationship with another man. Where do you go from there?

 

Well James Marsden has a tendency to die off, so we can hope...

[Nothere]

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

 

O.k. Second half first.

 

Please, please, please stop asking me to please ,please,please understand you don't think Superman is a terrible charecter, and we shouldn't read his comics. I know that. You were right when you said whats tripping you up is the word superfical. Your basically arguing Superman must allow himself to be killed because of his stated beliefs, or it's a wsuperfical comic. You might as well argue that any comic where Batman escapes because of something he just happens to have in his utility belt is superfical.

And before you say no, lets back up. We began with 3 bombs. It was pointed out that Superman would find a way to difuse them. Then suddenly theres a four bomb nobody knows about. How somebody setting off a bomb no one knows about affects Superman's stated moral beliefs I don't know, but o.k. 3 bombs and an unmentioned fourth. You still mantain that since Superman is deidcated totally to not letting anyone die, he must immediatly upon hearing about this agree to commit suicide or the comic is superfical. Err no.

These are superhero comics. Not super losers that fail at everything. When presented with someone who says die or I kill someone the hero is expected to try and save the victim, and catch the criminal. Not go. O.k. I'll die now, but only if your really promise and pinky swear that you won't blow up those schools you are totally williong to blow up after I'm gone. This is why cops never give up there guns. That Superman dosen't just die, but tries to save everyone dosen't make it a superfical comic. It makes it a comic about a hero trying to uphold his beliefs. When the 4th bomb goes off, the comic becomes even less superfical.

 

O.k. first half second

 

Personally I prefer Marvel over DC, but it has nothing to do with the gods/guns thing. After all there really are only a handfull of I am a god who can be defeated by a toothpick in Dc. And most of that was because Superman and Green Lantern were just too overpowered. Throughout most of the 40's and into the 50's Superman kept dealing with regular crooks. Any problem he confronted was dealt with in 2 seconds. So kryptonite was invented so people would finalkly have a chance against him. Which is really the thing. Dosen't matter if it's Dr. Strange or Green Lantern, Silver Surfer or Superman if there is no threat or problem they can handle with ease the stroy has no tension.

[esampson]

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

 

The problem' date=' of course, is that it's not in genre for the villain to get away with a plot like that...[/quote']

My point is that it's a personality trait that cannot successfully exist outside of genre. Saying the example isn't genre misses the point.

[massey]

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

 

My point is that it's a personality trait that cannot successfully exist outside of genre. Saying the example isn't genre misses the point.

 

No. It's a personality trait that doesn't work well in a certain specific genre. The one where heroes never win.

[esampson]

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

 

Your basically arguing Superman must allow himself to be killed because of his stated beliefs' date=' or it's a wsuperfical comic. You might as well argue that any comic where Batman escapes because of something he just happens to have in his utility belt is superfical... [/quote']

As I've said, the situation isn't specific to Superman. He's just an example. Saying I can find the situation elsewhere doesn't invalidate that the situation exists.

 

As for how many bombs there were, I never said there were three. That was the bad guy saying there were three. Guess what? In the real world bad people lie. Or perhaps he was simply upset after Superman "cheated" and went and blew up a school anyway. Doesn't matter.

 

As for Superman deciding to try and save everyone and failing, that's the core of my problem. As has been often presented Superman would let the bad guy kill him and hope that he kept his word rather than allow a relatively small number of people to die (relatively small in this case is hundreds but for Superman relatively small could be thousands since he often does things to save millions or billions). Sure, if he could see a way out that would save everyone and not involve him dying he would take it but there's been an implication that if he couldn't solve the problem he'd take the proverbial bullet to save the others. Naturally because of the genre he's always able to find the escape clause, but that's beside the point. The point is that in a world were such a genre didn't exist then such a personality trait could not successfully exist.

 

Of course the writers will vary around aspects of his personality over time but this has been an aspect of his character probably more often than not and I am not simply referring to the golden age Superman or anything but simply Superman pre-52 (I don't have a good enough handle on the post-52 Superman to be sure but he might be more willing to view things in terms of acceptable losses).

 

Now I'm sure that you can probably pull up other counter-examples such as the fact that in the real world even the best trained fighter would get shot sooner or later so Batman makes my argument invalid. No, that does not. I'm saying a condition exists. Saying 'well, if the Superman example proves the condition exists than these prove it as well' isn't a valid argument because the answer to that is 'Yes, yes they do.'

 

The only thing that would really invalidate my example (at least that I can see) would be if the personality trait didn't exist and Superman would allow the people to die, and by that I don't mean he has to just shrug his shoulders and say 'go ahead and blow them up'. Striving valiantly, success or failure, as in your example would invalidate my example but it can't just be the 'I think I can pull this off so I don't have to die' that is usually done. It would need to be more of a 'I have no other option since I'm not going to let him kill me' kind of thing.

[esampson]

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

 

No. It's a personality trait that doesn't work well in a certain specific genre. The one where heroes never win.

Well, technically you are correct. It doesn't work in the genre where heroes never win.

 

My point, however, is that it doesn't work in the genre where it is possible for the heroes to legitimately lose (I had to append 'legitimate' to distinguish it from those lesser failures a character can sometimes suffer to increase dramatic tension).

[assault]

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

 

A quick couple of points:

1. This is argument for the sake of argument at this point. Whatever the original point was has pretty much been obscured.

 

2. Every single Marvel superhero, including the Punisher, would behave in essentially the same way as Superman in this situation. Thus, the argument that DC is more simplistic/superficial/whatever is not supported.

 

3. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that people in the Real World wouldn't give their lives in this situation, particularly if there was a real chance the lives of others could be saved. This is a personality trait that exists in reality.

 

A while back, I emphasised that these stories were exactly that. Unfortunately, I omitted a key part of my argument, which dealt with how stories tend to put forward, emphasise or support particular world views, including interpretations of human nature. Some portray humanity in an essentially positive manner, while others suggest humans are greedy, selfish, cowardly and mean-spirited.

 

Unsurprisingly, Superman has traditionally tended towards the former. So did most superheroes up until the deconstructionist stories of the 80s. Even there, heroes still functioned to bring out that positive side. It was mostly the adolescent sex-and-splatter comics of the 90s that lost sight of that.

 

There's an interesting aspect to this - comic stories carry an ideological content. The question is: what should that content be?

[Zen Archer]

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

 

There's an interesting aspect to this - comic stories carry an ideological content. The question is: what should that content be?

 

What it is and likely will continue to be is varied, as not everybody looks at the world, or comics and its tropes, exactly the same way.

[assault]

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

 

Of course the ideological content will vary. That's my point.

 

The thing is to be aware of it. A portrayal of Superman as someone who considers his life to be worth more than those of other people is sending a message. In the context of the story he's either right or wrong, and both have implications.

 

A Superman who values the lives of others above his own is a different case.

 

An odd case: DC's Dial H, written by China Mieville.

 

The world Mieville portrays in some ways a classic cr*psack. It's a polluted slum, inhabited by the unemployed and other victims of social decay. Authority figures, if present, aren't sympathetic.

 

And yet, at heart it's a positive world. The protagonist might be obese, unemployed and unhealthy, but he's still a hero.

 

Faced with the four bombs test, he would behave like Superman.

 

And probably get away with it, since he's the protagonist, unless Mieville pulls a Doom Patrol on him.

[megaplayboy]

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

 

I've only skimmed the thread, but my .02:

1) The first APG expands upon Vulnerability and gives you the option to, instead of a damage multiplier, take an instant stun(for the x1.5 damage level points) or instant KO(for the x2 damage level points) or other similarly bad effects(paralysis, insanity, etc.). That would work pretty well as an Achilles heel simulator. I've done it for a nigh-invulnerable character with a "glass jaw"(due to a psychological quirk), who can soak immense amounts of damage but still be one-punched with a good sock to the jaw.

2) You can also have immensely powerful characters with significant or even crippling limitations. Imagine someone with a huge VPP who needs to have their hands free to use it. All you have to do is bind their hands and all their power is useless. Most players don't care to have such limitations, but I suspect more than a few would happily take them for a little bit more power, most of the time.

3) Some characters in the comics are one-trick ponies, like Cyclops and most of the members of the LSH. What happens is that these characters tend to diversify their capabilities over time, so now Cyke knows martial arts, can do a zillion tricks with his optic blasts, and has lots of leadership skills.

4) Don't be afraid to give a character a big disad or limitation. It can help define them, and can also complement other complications, like "overconfident", when they come up.

[Greywind]

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

 

There's an interesting aspect to this - comic stories carry an ideological content. The question is: what should that content be?

It depends on the character.

 

Superman believes in the best of people and his guiding principle is to be an inspiration to others.

[assault]

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

 

I can actually think of a "superhero" who wouldn't sacrifice himself in this situation - Zenith. He was a special case though. In one case everybody thought he actually did sacrifice himself to save the multiverse, but it was one of his interdimensional counterparts. He wasn't a Marvel or DC character, of course.

 

There are probably other "independent" characters that would do similar things.

 

The Punisher, John Constantine or most other anti-heroic/cynical characters would probably go out like heroes, if they were pushed.