Everybody Knows . . .

[KA.]

Like most people here, I have occasional thoughts that the average person would find weird.

As in, I think of things in gaming terms that most people would never consider.

For example, the other day I was in a public restroom and I thought about what would happen, tactically speaking, if a crazed serial killer in the next stall tried to reach under the dividing wall and inject something into my foot.

 

Weird, right?

 

Anyway, that brought me to my next thought, the origin of the idea, and the point behind this post.

 

There was an episode of The X-Files where some evil person does something similar to Agent Scully.

He is hiding under a vehicle of some sort and reaches out and injects some type of sedative into her leg.

Since she is a normal human, and whatever it was he used was powerful enough, it knocked her out.

 

Which made me think of something that I may have been ignoring in Champions.

 

As a GM, we are called upon to play the part of the "bad guys".

We have to make their plans for them.

But we have knowledge of the game world that they do not have.

 

So, let's move this type of attack into the world of Supers.

 

A normal human kidnapper decides to kidnap, abduct, whatever, Clark Kent or Linda Danvers or Diana Prince, with no knowledge of their secret identity.

He might very well go with something like Plan A as listed above.

But we, as GM's, know that Plan A would never work (Can't pierce the super-tough skin, might be immune to the sedative, etc.) so we would never consider that plan.

So we would come up with a plan involving threatening another hostage or something else that would work on the character in question.

 

But the problem is, unless the kidnapper knows that the target is a super, why wouldn't they try something simpler?

 

The point I am trying to make is that, as a GM, it is almost impossible to separate our knowledge from the villain's knowledge.

I know we have enough sense to not send the villains storming into the Hero's secret lair just because we know where it is, but in other, more subtle ways, are we altering the actions of the villains based on things that they could not possibly know?

 

Not meant as a criticism of anyone's GM'ing, just an interesting thought to ponder.

 

KA.

[Heroic Halfwit]

Ok, just playing Devil's Advocate.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, the supers could simply ignore the assault and go about their day.  The only time I can see it creeping up would be situations like

 

1.  Clark Kent allows himself to be abducted so that he can be brought to where the hostages are?

2.  In order to protect a secret identity, the Clark Kent has to "play along" with the assault.  e.g. he's in a bank where everyone has been gassed and has to play along or the video tape would be hard to explain.

3.  Clark Kent suffers from a psychogenic fugue, forgetting that he is also Superman, and "thinks himself injured"

 

 

Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that Clark Kent or whoever would simply bounce the assailant off the walls and go about their day if they reacted at all.

[freakboy6117]

I think batman is the best example of this it happens a lot to

Bruce Wayne he gets mugged or kidnapped a lot and has to conceal the fact he is batman often using drunken kungfu or psychology to defeat his foes.

[Lord Liaden]

As Game Masters, our primary responsibility isn't to think of what would "really" happen. It's to create a story that will interest and excite our players. To follow up with the OP's example, if it's necessary to advance such a story that a superhero be kidnapped, there's no point in thinking about what won't work against a given hero. Ideally the plan should be something logical and practical that could really come to mind to a would-be kidnapper; but it needn't be the first most obvious thing.

 

The previous responders bring up a valid point: if a hero has a Secret ID which would be compromised by not succumbing to an attempt geared toward a "normal," they may be forced to pretend to be affected in order to preserve it. If you have players who are willing to role-play that situation, you can go ahead with it. But IME you can't count on PCs always doing what's sensible.   In particular, I've noticed that some players would rather their PCs be killed than captured; I guess because they equate capture with defeat.

 

OTOH if your players primarily enjoy opportunities to show off what badasses they are, it might make sense for bad guys to try a reasonable plan they could have no idea would fail miserably against a secret superhero, and let your PCs teach them a lesson by merrily bouncing them off the walls. It really comes down to your understanding of what your players would like from you as GM.

[Nothere]

Liaden is correct. The answer to the question is Yes/No. Game knowledge always influences what the villians do because this is a superhero roleplaying game. To use your example an adventure where someone gets mad at Clark and tries to kidnap him with a hypo makes for a very short adventure. It's fine for an episode of the Adventures of Superman though. In game unless you plan it as a funny side bit you do have to adjust things using outside game knowledge. For example the kidnapper is being used by Toyman who gave his kryptonite tipped hypos in case Superman should interfere. Every villain having an antiSuperman plan for dealing with Clark is a bit much, so you do have to sometimes make the villians do things they shouldn't.

[DShomshak]

As LL says, it isn't wrong to design a scenario using our knowledge of the characters' capabilities -- it's necessary. Ideally, the comic-book writer or gamemaster comes up with a plausible-seeming way to make the scenario work. (Though such contrivance starts to look silly the second or third time there just happens to be kryptonite or red sunlight or whatever at the time and place the ignorant goob attacks Clark Kent).

 

One alternative is to build the story around the attack that can't possibly work, and ask why the bad guy is attacking Clark Kent (or the PC's Secret ID) in the first place. It's a different adventure than "Hero Kidnapped in Secret ID" but potentially just as interesting.

 

Dean Shomshak

[assault]

This is what DNPCs are for. Instead of attacking Clark Kent, the villain attacks Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen. Because Lois is the bigger threat...

[Dead guy on the tab]

This is what DNPCs are for. Instead of attacking Clark Kent, the villain attacks Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen. Because Lois is the bigger threat...

Or at least a more annoying threat

[Houston GM]

A normal human kidnapper decides to kidnap, abduct, whatever, Clark Kent or Linda Danvers or Diana Prince, with no knowledge of their secret identity.

He might very well go with something like Plan A as listed above.

But we, as GM's, know that Plan A would never work (Can't pierce the super-tough skin, might be immune to the sedative, etc.) so we would never consider that plan.

So we would come up with a plan involving threatening another hostage or something else that would work on the character in question.

 

But the problem is, unless the kidnapper knows that the target is a super, why wouldn't they try something simpler?

 

Actually, if I'm running a campaign and someone wants to abduct Clark Kent (without understanding who he really is), then the bad guy uses something simpler than a hypodermic under the edge of a restroom stall. He's more likely to point a gun at him, club him unconscious, put him in a sleeper hold, or roofie his drink (depending on which would most appeal to the bad guy).

 

As Lord Liaden (and others) have pointed out, our job is to create a compelling story. As a GM, either I can move the story forward by having Superman actually captured (in which case the bad guys come loaded for Superman), or I can move it forwards by having the bad guys come loaded for Clark Kent ... and have them fail miserably.

 

Either option moves the plot forwards. In both cases I'm choosing an option based upon my GM knowledge: what reasonably could/would work on the hero, or what would reasonably work on a normal human, but would be nearly certain to fail when used on the hero.

 

From a story-telling perspective, the more important question is "Why does someone want to capture Clark Kent?" If there's no reason for the bad guy to take interest in Clark Kent, then he's not going to be targeted. If there's a pressing reason for him to be targeted (like he's acting as bait), then it's far more likely to happen.

[Clonus]

The truth is, the "stick someone in the leg with a hypo" thing isn't simple.  Or likely.  It's the kind of thing a GM does when they just want to remove any chance the character has of fighting back despite the lack of practicality in involved in a plan that can so easily fail if the target happens to stand in the wrong place or you just hit the subcutaneous fat rather than a blood vessel.  That being the case it's reasonable to make the unavoidable sneak attack something that will work unless you're just shooting for a comedic interlude.  If you are going at it from the point of view of the characters trying to carry out the abduction on Clark Kent...why not just walk up to him and point a gun at him?  It would even work for a reasonable value of "working".  Clark Kent would let himself be kidnapped both to protect his secret identity and to find out what was going on.  

[Cassandra]

Like most people here, I have occasional thoughts that the average person would find weird.

As in, I think of things in gaming terms that most people would never consider.

For example, the other day I was in a public restroom and I thought about what would happen, tactically speaking, if a crazed serial killer in the next stall tried to reach under the dividing wall and inject something into my foot.

 

Weird, right?

 

Anyway, that brought me to my next thought, the origin of the idea, and the point behind this post.

 

There was an episode of The X-Files where some evil person does something similar to Agent Scully.

He is hiding under a vehicle of some sort and reaches out and injects some type of sedative into her leg.

Since she is a normal human, and whatever it was he used was powerful enough, it knocked her out.

 

Which made me think of something that I may have been ignoring in Champions.

 

As a GM, we are called upon to play the part of the "bad guys".

We have to make their plans for them.

But we have knowledge of the game world that they do not have.

 

So, let's move this type of attack into the world of Supers.

 

A normal human kidnapper decides to kidnap, abduct, whatever, Clark Kent or Linda Danvers or Diana Prince, with no knowledge of their secret identity.

He might very well go with something like Plan A as listed above.

But we, as GM's, know that Plan A would never work (Can't pierce the super-tough skin, might be immune to the sedative, etc.) so we would never consider that plan.

So we would come up with a plan involving threatening another hostage or something else that would work on the character in question.

 

But the problem is, unless the kidnapper knows that the target is a super, why wouldn't they try something simpler?

 

The point I am trying to make is that, as a GM, it is almost impossible to separate our knowledge from the villain's knowledge.

I know we have enough sense to not send the villains storming into the Hero's secret lair just because we know where it is, but in other, more subtle ways, are we altering the actions of the villains based on things that they could not possibly know?

 

Not meant as a criticism of anyone's GM'ing, just an interesting thought to ponder.

 

KA.

 

     There is a reason why Secret Identity is worth 15 Points and this is it.  Superman and Supergirl couldn't risk being exposed as Clark Kent or Linda Danvers so they would have to go along with the abduction.  There is nothing to prevent themselves from letting themselves be injected (both have "perfect muscle control") but either the drug would have no effect or their bodies would recover far more quickly then a normal human.  In fact in a Lois Lane Comic in the 1960s Lois chloroformed a disguised Supergirl not knowing who she really was.  She has to pretend she was unconscious and wait until she could escape after chloroforming Lucy, Lois' sister.  

 

     Of course the Kidnapper might just by coincidence be wearing a kryptonite ring that weakens the victim long enough so they can be captured  .  .  .

[Christopher]

A normal human kidnapper decides to kidnap, abduct, whatever, Clark Kent or Linda Danvers or Diana Prince, with no knowledge of their secret identity.

He might very well go with something like Plan A as listed above.

But we, as GM's, know that Plan A would never work (Can't pierce the super-tough skin, might be immune to the sedative, etc.) so we would never consider that plan.

So we would come up with a plan involving threatening another hostage or something else that would work on the character in question.

 

But the problem is, unless the kidnapper knows that the target is a super, why wouldn't they try something simpler?

Oddly you are asking the wrong question here: What approach would the villain logically take?

The question is never wich approach the villain should LOGICALLY take to any goal!

Logic makes a wide berth around superhero stories, there is barely enough left for the writers.

 

The question is what you (the GM) want the story to be about. The villain choses his plan to fullfill your adventure goal. No mater how impractical and low chance of success that plan is going to be to a normal person:

- You want this to be about the secret ID complication? A kidnapper tries that, it fails (due to being super), he adds 1+1 together and suddenly knows the targets secret identity.

- You don't want this to be about secret ID? The villain uses some harebrained sceme to aduct the person that either allows him a switch when out of sight, or at least to react to the attack like the "normal he is impersonating".

 

There is a third option:

- The character realises that the attack was against his secret ID and feigns being affected to cover it. Basically you are using the secret ID as leverage to get teh player to play along with your basic plot.

[Comic]

There's more sense to what Christopher says here.

 

Villains and their henches, being criminals, crazy or cause-ridden will not use the logic that drives normal minds.

 

Harebrained outlandish schemes in line with their psychological limitations will rule the bad guys. Riddler gives cryptic clues of his planned crimes, not because it's good tactics, but because he's driven to by his insanity. That he's been known to compensate for this urge by using it to trap and mislead doesn't make it less a limitation, but more of a theme and calling card.

 

What would you do, logically, to kidnap anyone in a world with a Superman in it? Well, you'd do your best to make sure Superman was off the planet if you could, but at the very least you'd put people in peril, generally in multiple locations rather than pick up a useless knife, syringe or gun, if you were logical. But if you were a truly wonky villain, you'd advertise, perhaps with riddles, or Luthorcorp logos.

[pinecone]

Like most people here, I have occasional thoughts that the average person would find weird.

As in, I think of things in gaming terms that most people would never consider.

For example, the other day I was in a public restroom and I thought about what would happen, tactically speaking, if a crazed serial killer in the next stall tried to reach under the dividing wall and inject something into my foot.

 

Weird, right?

 

Anyway, that brought me to my next thought, the origin of the idea, and the point behind this post.

 

There was an episode of The X-Files where some evil person does something similar to Agent Scully.

He is hiding under a vehicle of some sort and reaches out and injects some type of sedative into her leg.

Since she is a normal human, and whatever it was he used was powerful enough, it knocked her out.

 

Which made me think of something that I may have been ignoring in Champions.

 

As a GM, we are called upon to play the part of the "bad guys".

We have to make their plans for them.

But we have knowledge of the game world that they do not have.

 

So, let's move this type of attack into the world of Supers.

 

A normal human kidnapper decides to kidnap, abduct, whatever, Clark Kent or Linda Danvers or Diana Prince, with no knowledge of their secret identity.

He might very well go with something like Plan A as listed above.

But we, as GM's, know that Plan A would never work (Can't pierce the super-tough skin, might be immune to the sedative, etc.) so we would never consider that plan.

So we would come up with a plan involving threatening another hostage or something else that would work on the character in question.

 

But the problem is, unless the kidnapper knows that the target is a super, why wouldn't they try something simpler?

 

The point I am trying to make is that, as a GM, it is almost impossible to separate our knowledge from the villain's knowledge.

I know we have enough sense to not send the villains storming into the Hero's secret lair just because we know where it is, but in other, more subtle ways, are we altering the actions of the villains based on things that they could not possibly know?

 

Not meant as a criticism of anyone's GM'ing, just an interesting thought to ponder.

 

KA.

I don't think I have had a problem with this. Using your example, an attempted kidnapping with a injection would be a "Secret ID" adventure. Bending the needle is a major "tell"

 

I try to play the Villians as being smart, and using knowlage they could reasonably know. So if Lady Action! Was defeated by a cold based attack. Dr. Phibes might well use a cold based death trap, if he could gain that knowlage....

[pinecone]

Actually, if I'm running a campaign and someone wants to abduct Clark Kent (without understanding who he really is), then the bad guy uses something simpler than a hypodermic under the edge of a restroom stall. He's more likely to point a gun at him, club him unconscious, put him in a sleeper hold, or roofie his drink (depending on which would most appeal to the bad guy).

 

As Lord Liaden (and others) have pointed out, our job is to create a compelling story. As a GM, either I can move the story forward by having Superman actually captured (in which case the bad guys come loaded for Superman), or I can move it forwards by having the bad guys come loaded for Clark Kent ... and have them fail miserably.

 

Either option moves the plot forwards. In both cases I'm choosing an option based upon my GM knowledge: what reasonably could/would work on the hero, or what would reasonably work on a normal human, but would be nearly certain to fail when used on the hero.

 

From a story-telling perspective, the more important question is "Why does someone want to capture Clark Kent?" If there's no reason for the bad guy to take interest in Clark Kent, then he's not going to be targeted. If there's a pressing reason for him to be targeted (like he's acting as bait), then it's far more likely to happen.

Word, I would only have Clark kidnapped to serve as bait, for a trap for Superman..."I have noted that Superman often intervenes when you are in danger Mr. Kent"

[Marcus Impudite]

Interesting idea, but...

 

Even against a normal human, injecting the tranquilizer in their lower leg isn't an optimal strategy if you're going for a quick ambush and abduction. When someone is standing or walking, their legs are lower than their heart; and thus it's a literal uphill climb for the drug. Not only would it not be an instant sedation, but the target would have more than ample time to scream out for help, run away, or even retaliate after they feel the prick of the needle. Hiding around a corner with a bottle of Chloroform and rag would be a bit more plausible, if somewhat cliched.

[Christopher]

There's more sense to what Christopher says here.

 

Villains and their henches, being criminals, crazy or cause-ridden will not use the logic that drives normal minds.

 

Harebrained outlandish schemes in line with their psychological limitations will rule the bad guys. Riddler gives cryptic clues of his planned crimes, not because it's good tactics, but because he's driven to by his insanity. That he's been known to compensate for this urge by using it to trap and mislead doesn't make it less a limitation, but more of a theme and calling card.

 

[...] But if you were a truly wonky villain, you'd advertise, perhaps with riddles, or Luthorcorp logos.

The riddler exists to simulate the "superior intellect" of the protagonists. There would be no Bat Dedecution wihtout the Riddler and similar foes.

 

All Villain plots (and where they stumble uo) are more or less obvious Contrived Coincidences of action that might seem remotely in character.

 

They even made one shoot Villains to make the plot appear less harebrained.

"I got this idea for a plot where [villain] steals the cat's eye diamond. But I can't decide wich [villain] to put in."

"You are in luck. I had this idea for a 'Catwoman', wich would certainly comit a cat themed crime".

 

The original reason for the Martian Manhunter to even exist was to have a mix up of batman and superman skills, when they feared about overexposing them. So it is not even limited to heroes.

[massey]

As others have said, it depends what kind of story you want to tell.

 

We often have villains use plans that are destined to fail. The villain simply lacks the knowledge necessary to implement the plan properly- usually the knowledge that the heroes are nearby.

 

Every bank robbery in Metropolis is based on the idea that "Superman is probably busy somewhere else, and won't be within earshot of this bank at this moment". Sometimes they are right.

 

The most important rule for the game is that whatever you do should make a good story and be fun for the players (and for you). Having a guy immediately deduce Superman's secret ID and then Twitter it is not going to make for a fun adventure. However having him stab Clark in the calf with the needle, seeing it bend in half, and then you looking expectantly at Clark's player for an explanation might be fun. He might have to blurt out something like "oh, you hit my fake leg from my war injury" and then limp around for a while until the kidnapper is convinced. But whatever happens, it should be fun.

[Balabanto]

Like most people here, I have occasional thoughts that the average person would find weird.

As in, I think of things in gaming terms that most people would never consider.

For example, the other day I was in a public restroom and I thought about what would happen, tactically speaking, if a crazed serial killer in the next stall tried to reach under the dividing wall and inject something into my foot.

 

Weird, right?

 

Anyway, that brought me to my next thought, the origin of the idea, and the point behind this post.

 

There was an episode of The X-Files where some evil person does something similar to Agent Scully.

He is hiding under a vehicle of some sort and reaches out and injects some type of sedative into her leg.

Since she is a normal human, and whatever it was he used was powerful enough, it knocked her out.

 

Which made me think of something that I may have been ignoring in Champions.

 

As a GM, we are called upon to play the part of the "bad guys".

We have to make their plans for them.

But we have knowledge of the game world that they do not have.

 

So, let's move this type of attack into the world of Supers.

 

A normal human kidnapper decides to kidnap, abduct, whatever, Clark Kent or Linda Danvers or Diana Prince, with no knowledge of their secret identity.

He might very well go with something like Plan A as listed above.

But we, as GM's, know that Plan A would never work (Can't pierce the super-tough skin, might be immune to the sedative, etc.) so we would never consider that plan.

So we would come up with a plan involving threatening another hostage or something else that would work on the character in question.

 

But the problem is, unless the kidnapper knows that the target is a super, why wouldn't they try something simpler?

 

The point I am trying to make is that, as a GM, it is almost impossible to separate our knowledge from the villain's knowledge.

I know we have enough sense to not send the villains storming into the Hero's secret lair just because we know where it is, but in other, more subtle ways, are we altering the actions of the villains based on things that they could not possibly know?

 

Not meant as a criticism of anyone's GM'ing, just an interesting thought to ponder.

 

KA.

 

Actually, in the old days, there were quite a few plots like this. Clark Kent attacked by gangsters? Have to pretend to be unconscious! I can't let them find out that I'm Superman!