Why does no one want to GM superheroes?

[TheQuestionMan]

A GM's expectations of ethical Superhero standards of behavipur must be made clear at character creation.

 

The GM must also apply the same standards to the supervillains.

 

Otherwise it is just cops and robbers with superpowers.

[bigdamnhero]

What's always funny to me is that fantasy and sci fi and comics were the nerd genres of my youth, but traveller players were few and far between, Champions players the same.

 

It's not like the same people aren't reading fantasy, sci fi, and comics in a ton of cases.

 

I think it's more a coincidental culture that sprouted up. I think D&D marketed more effectively at the start, and it ended up being the go-to genre. It's not like there is an innate desire for humans to specifically want to battle troglodytes, but not stormtroopers.

I think this is a lot of it. D&D set the baseline for RPGaming and defines expectations for a lot of people. So even people who like superheroes might have trouble seeing how to fit them into their existing paradigm of what an RPG is supposed to be. A big part is that D&D/PF are *so* built around the concept of gaining XP & GP, so genres where that's not the focus just doesn't compute for a lot of folks.

[Lawnmower Boy]

There's also the fact that D&D established the murder hobo as the default style of play, which naturally appeals to teenage boys. Other genres don't typically deliver the same ethically bereft power trip as D&D.

 

Sigh. Once again, it's not "morally bereft" to torture children to death for their treasure (and xp!) if they have an invisible sign attached to their metaphysical being that says "Evil." Well, maybe not Chaotic Evil, because that's kind of like being an anarchist/libertarian [Choose only one option]; but definitely Lawful Evil. 

[TheDarkness]

I would say gold for experience, being the biggest difference, had greater ties to murder hoboism in D&D than almost anything. You generally got experience for beating, but not killing, other things, at least as far as I recall.

 

And most players always ostensibly played good guys. That the enemies were inherently evil and unredeemable structurally didn't help.

 

Thus, since most people in both games felt they were fighting for good, and D&D players had structural reasons within the game world to have confidence they were, the inborn ethics of Champions was simply nerf magic. They could punch people through three buildings and have confidence they wouldn't die. This did not stop our teenage selves from aiming for punching them through FOUR buildings, nor did it make any deep ethical statement about the virtues of the actions, nor did it teach a different lesson in protecting others over a system where what you were fighting was evil by nature and incapable of good.

[bigdamnhero]

Sigh. Once again, it's not "morally bereft" to torture children to death for their treasure (and xp!) if they have an invisible sign attached to their metaphysical being that says "Evil." Well, maybe not Chaotic Evil, because that's kind of like being an anarchist/libertarian [Choose only one option]; but definitely Lawful Evil. 

I also think a lot of roleplayers get so used to that sort of B&W, easily-detectable morality that it becomes an expectation. Thus even 4-color supers becomes "morally vague" when you can't reliably cast Detect Evil to know who the bad guys are.

 

Ironically, I spent some time last week hanging out with a bunch of "story" gamers who are completely contemptuous of any games that involve combat or mechanics of any kind. Their perception of supers was that it's all just punching people, so they weren't interested. To be fair, that perception isn't entirely inaccurate. (It was rewarding to hear a couple of people who have played in my games talk about ways I use story and narrative choices and all that in my supers games. But I was clearly being held up as the exception to the rule. Nice for me, but doesn't help the genre.)

[Spence]

There's also the fact that D&D established the murder hobo as the default style of play, which naturally appeals to teenage boys. Other genres don't typically deliver the same ethically bereft power trip as D&D.

 

 

Sigh. Once again, it's not "morally bereft" to torture children to death for their treasure (and xp!) if they have an invisible sign attached to their metaphysical being that says "Evil." Well, maybe not Chaotic Evil, because that's kind of like being an anarchist/libertarian [Choose only one option]; but definitely Lawful Evil. 

 

I think your response illustrates zslane's point.   People and players that are not ethically (or morally) bereft would understand that just because the adversary was evil, that does not mean that the "good guys" can just abandon the "good" part and become torturing murder hobo's.    It's one of the reasons the younger crowd cannot understand how Superman callous killing of Zod was a complete departure from the very concept of the Superman concept.   In gaming at least they have no idea of the "hero" concept.  The other day I had someone tell me Deadpool was their favorite hero!?  Deadpool?  Hero? 

 

Back to the subject, this lack of understanding is why most D&D players are selecting Dragonkin, Warlocks and such as PC's.  The few that pick things like Paladins spend all their time trying to twist it into a non-Paladin killing machine based on "my god is evil" or some such.   This bleeds over into other games.  

 

Take this mentality and combine it with the second gamer flaw, "GM's are there to serve the player and must abandon any hope of fun because the player is paramount".   The whining of shitheads crying "MY concept", as they try to bring a merc murder machine with machine guns and bombs into a detective game.  Or make a Wolverine/Deadpool clone for a SuperHERO game. Never mind that they had agreed to the game in the first place.

 

No concept of what a "Hero" or "Good guy/gal" even is. 

 

Luckily I have actually found a few players that can actually role play character concepts to fit the campaign they are in rather than agreeing to play in a campaign and then trying to twist that campaign into something else.

 

 

I also think a lot of roleplayers get so used to that sort of B&W, easily-detectable morality that it becomes an expectation. Thus even 4-color supers becomes "morally vague" when you can't reliably cast Detect Evil to know who the bad guys are.

 

Ironically, I spent some time last week hanging out with a bunch of "story" gamers who are completely contemptuous of any games that involve combat or mechanics of any kind. Their perception of supers was that it's all just punching people, so they weren't interested. To be fair, that perception isn't entirely inaccurate. (It was rewarding to hear a couple of people who have played in my games talk about ways I use story and narrative choices and all that in my supers games. But I was clearly being held up as the exception to the rule. Nice for me, but doesn't help the genre.)

 

I actually don't think it is a "B&W, easily-detectable morality" at all.  I don't think most of them even comprehend "morality" at all.  To them there is no "story" or "roleplaying", only "killin" and "taken stuff". 

 

I've met that type of "story" gamers too, but they aren't as bad as the murder hobo

 

Now I know that we will now have half a dozen people say that "they" never play like that, or that "their" games are different.  But then most of them also say they will never run an open game at a FLGS because of, well, the murder hobos Though they will insist "it ain't so".

 

For myself, all of the games I run have clear themes and I do require the PC's to fit the game.  My players then role play the heck out of things.  And the game never ever actually goes where I thought it would, instead the players give me a run for my money in, dare I say it, IN CHARACTER!!!!  Wooo Hooo!!

 

Yes, roleplaying in character.  Who'd a thunk it?

 

For myself I think that Supers games are actually the easiest to run.  If the players actually make superheros.  The lone gun vigilante or anti-hero works fine in a book or movie because the author controls it all.  So the story plays out as needed.  Frankly they tend to suck in long terms Supers RPG games. 

 

Why?  The simple play of "kids in the bus on the bridge".  For heroes their is no choice, they must save them.  Even if Master Villain Dude escapes or they could get seriously injured.   This allows the GM to inject "story" and set up the every useful and fun "reoccurring villain".  But the vigilante or anti-hero can simply say nope as soon as the going gets rough and leave.  I've actually seen this in Super games.    Or, while the the Heroes are stopping the big bad, they are robbing someplace because "no one will notice".

 

It goes right back to one of my central gaming rules.  If I agree to play in a game, my character will stay in the campaigns concept.  If I can't do that, I'll decline to play in the first place.

 

I guess I sound pretty cynical, but over the years I have found it less and less fun to run.  Many players are not there to participate in a great game with a GM and other players.   Instead they insist that they are the only star and the GM and other players are only there to support them.  

They agree to play a game of chivalric knighthood and then actually play their PC's like a Sith. 

They say they are all to play a Superhero Detective game and then make a PC built around 5d6 KA's and combat skills.

 

Depressing actually. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah its not the alignment system that caused people to become murderous monsters in D&D.  It was the system of rewards and the way dungeons were set up.  Kick the door down, kill the monsters, take the loot.  There was no morality at all.  Nobody was thinking "they're evil so its okay" they were thinking "this is fun to kill monsters and woo hoo loot!"  That style of gaming is perfectly fine, but its not the style that superhero RPGs carry over and it takes a shift of mindset.

[steriaca]

Yeah its not the alignment system that caused people to become murderous monsters in D&D. It was the system of rewards and the way dungeons were set up. Kick the door down, kill the monsters, take the loot. There was no morality at all. Nobody was thinking "they're evil so its okay" they were thinking "this is fun to kill monsters and woo hoo loot!" That style of gaming is perfectly fine, but its not the style that superhero RPGs carry over and it takes a shift of mindset.

So true. But that was early wargaming roots of rpging for you.

 

Thing is, the games are suppose to outgrow that with time. Unforcently some players haven't.

[Spence]

Yeah its not the alignment system that caused people to become murderous monsters in D&D.  It was the system of rewards and the way dungeons were set up.  Kick the door down, kill the monsters, take the loot.  There was no morality at all.  Nobody was thinking "they're evil so its okay" they were thinking "this is fun to kill monsters and woo hoo loot!"  That style of gaming is perfectly fine, but its not the style that superhero RPGs carry over and it takes a shift of mindset.

 

Yes, what you said.   Exactly. 

[Spence]

For me, a Superhero story has a lot of "not in costume" action/investigation RP.  I run campaigns that have a lot of mystery and recurring villainy.  Archenemies and wide reaching evil plots.

 

With a good group of players the script writes itself.

[zslane]

I started with AD&D 1st ed back in the day, when I was in high school. The murder hobo style of play was all we knew. But then I got to college and I joined an incredible group of gamers who were into Champions. You didn't get to join their campaign unless you demonstrated that you understood the supers genre and the obligations of proper heroism. A year after playing with them, I found myself contemptuous of the murder hobo mindset and was amazed to discover how an RPG (and the group of players that championed its spirit of play) had changed my own moral compass. Yes, Virginia, roleplaying games can change people for the better.

 

Sadly, not everyone's RPG experience follows this trajectory, and they remain stuck in the murder hobo mindset well into adulthood, bringing it to every system, genre, and campaign they play in.

[bigdamnhero]

I actually don't think it is a "B&W, easily-detectable morality" at all.  I don't think most of them even comprehend "morality" at all.  To them there is no "story" or "roleplaying", only "killin" and "taken stuff".

Yeah its not the alignment system that caused people to become murderous monsters in D&D.  It was the system of rewards and the way dungeons were set up.  Kick the door down, kill the monsters, take the loot.  There was no morality at all.  Nobody was thinking "they're evil so its okay" they were thinking "this is fun to kill monsters and woo hoo loot!"  That style of gaming is perfectly fine, but its not the style that superhero RPGs carry over and it takes a shift of mindset.

Well put both of you. I agree the rewards system in the bigger problem. But I would argue the way D&D* portrays evil as something that certain people are rather than things that people sometimes do exacerbates the problem. I'm good, they're evil, so killing them is not only necessary but essential. The murder hobo rewards system would be harder to maintain without an alignment system that neatly defines who it's okay to kill without remorse.

 

* Tho the problem is by no means unique to D&D; its practically ubiquitous in fantasy.

 

It's one of the reasons the younger crowd cannot understand how Superman callous killing of Zod was a complete departure from the very concept of the Superman concept.

Citation needed for the bolded part. I mean, I share your disdain for that attitude, but it seems no more prevalent among the young gamers I meet than it was when I was their age. I mean, our generation invented the murder hobo style of play, so it seems unfair to blame it one These Kids Today.

 

And I've heard plenty of Old Geeks defend Supes killing Zod as kewl & badass and whatnot. So I really don't see it as an age thing.

 

Now I know that we will now have half a dozen people say that "they" never play like that, or that "their" games are different.  But then most of them also say they will never run an open game at a FLGS because of, well, the murder hobos Though they will insist "it ain't so".

Well, I run a lot of convention & demo games, and I almost never have that problem. Granted, that may be partly because I write my blurbs in a way that makes it clear this isn't a murder hobo game, so players who want that experience don't sign up for my games. But I have had a lot of D&D/PF players drop into one of my games when their table doesn't go off. It's usually pretty easy to retrain them; you just have to explain the conventions/expectations, and then reward the behavior you want to see more of, even if it's just by handing out Hero Points/Bennies/whatever.

In fact, that's easy to do in a one-shot because loot/XP doesn't carry over to the next game so it's already removed as a reward. Too many GMs like to punish PCs for doing the right thing; just make it clear you're not that guy.

 

(And again when I do have a problem, it's more often with older gamers who are more set in their ways, not youngens.)

 

I've met that type of "story" gamers too, but they aren't as bad as the murder hobo  

Oh yeah, no contest!

[steriaca]

I don't agree with Superman killing Zod in Man Of Steel. But it was still in character. Primarily, Superman will kill to prevent more bloodshead if it was the only way, and the last resort. The writer made really shure Superman had no other choice but to murder Zod before he could kill even more people. (Phantom Zone projector was destroyed, as you remember).

[Christopher R Taylor]

A clever writer would have shown him finding a way that didn't involve implausibly breaking the neck of someone as invulnerable as he is while cosmically moronic people just stood and watched a blazing eyebeam move toward them.  But that's just my frustration with the writing of the film, nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Spence]

Citation needed for the bolded part. I mean, I share your disdain for that attitude, but it seems no more prevalent among the young gamers I meet than it was when I was their age. I mean, our generation invented the murder hobo style of play, so it seems unfair to blame it one These Kids Today.

 

And I've heard plenty of Old Geeks defend Supes killing Zod as kewl & badass and whatnot. So I really don't see it as an age thing.

 

We did invent the murder hobo style, no argument there. 

 

And as for younger crowd, the meaning has stretched for me.   these days it is the under 30's.  

But mostly people who base their vision of Supes on 90's forward.   Sometime in the 90's, I don't recall exactly when because this is what made me lose interest, began to try and be super-gritty began making everyone a recovering addict and those it didn't began to lose the "hero" part.  Even Supes began to lose.  

They began the "alternate reality" stories to the point that sometime between 1990 and 2000 they even had a Hitler styled Superman, complete with concentration camps for supers that didn't join his Gestapo.  I know it wasn't literally Hitler and Gestapo, but it might as well have been. 

 

But to too many people these "gritty" versions were the only ones they remembered, and the whole "hero" part took on greater and greater distance.  Add in the rise of the antihero and comics concentrating on the the Dark Knight rather than the Detective and so on, you saw the slow death of Superheroes and their replacement by "People with Powers".   Which does not lend itself well to Superhero RP IMO.  And before the point is raised, it does not mean the "People with Powers" stories are bad, it means that IMO they do not work well in  RP storylines  that have a cast of 3-6 players.   And as a GM, trying to run a game where the players are basically out of control criminals "for the right reasons" gets really boring really fast.  Been there, done that.

 

 

 

Well, I run a lot of convention & demo games, and I almost never have that problem.

 

I don't on my convention & demo's either.  But I pre-generate everything and tend to write them in very general and broad strokes.    I will admit my Super con/demo's were more punch fests than they are thinking games.  These days I tend to con/demo mystery/horror more than anything else. 

[Spence]

I don't agree with Superman killing Zod in Man Of Steel. But it was still in character. Primarily, Superman will kill to prevent more bloodshead if it was the only way, and the last resort. The writer made really shure Superman had no other choice but to murder Zod before he could kill even more people. (Phantom Zone projector was destroyed, as you remember).

 

You see that is just it.  It is not in Superman's character and never was even hinted at until the comic died in the make everybody a "Person with Powers" era that effectively killed the Superhero genre.

 

A clever writer would have shown him finding a way that didn't involve implausibly breaking the neck of someone as invulnerable as he is while cosmically moronic people just stood and watched a blazing eyebeam move toward them.  But that's just my frustration with the writing of the film, nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

Yes.  Very well said.

[steriaca]

Things to watch before playing a superhero rpg:

 

Sailor Moon (many major henchmen reformed in that one)

 

Any incarnation of the Superfriends

 

FOX Spider-Man

 

Did I mention the Superfriends?

 

Space Ghost (not coast to coast)

 

My Hero Academia

 

Batman (Adam West version)

 

Greatst American Hero

 

The Incridable Hulk (Bill and Lou)

 

Superfriends? Did I forget to mention them?

 

The Adventures Of Superman

[bubba smith]

what about the current supergirl series ?

[zslane]

My favorite Champions campaigns were the ones where the basic structure of each evening's play was thus:

 

1. Characters hear about the crisis.

2. Characters spend about an hour doing the detective work to discover who is behind the villainy, what their ultimate goal is, and where "it is all going to go down."

3. Head to the showdown site and attempt to thwart the villain (i.e., play out the combat for the rest of the evening).

4. Hopefully be victorious, but either way, while the GM hands out XP, discuss (as a group) which players deserve a bonus XP for their play (either outstanding roleplaying or outstanding tactical performance on the battlefield).

 

This was the primary structure because these scenarios were invariably designed to take up only a single evening's play. The nature of the player base was such that continuity from week to week was impossible to guarantee, and besides, the core GM team (there were about three of them) switched off amongst themselves so that each had enough time to prepare the next scenario. Given the demands on their time (work, family, etc.) and the fact that these scenarios were always exquisitely crafted, it meant that each GM was only running a session about once a month. Sometimes there would be two-parters that would extend across two successive weekends, but that was rare.

 

With this group of players, you were expected to behave like a hero. Even if you didn't have a Code Against Killing or a Code of Honor on your Disadvantages list, you were nevertheless expected to behave honorably and not kill villains. You were expected to turn away and face another foe if you knocked a villain unconscious, even if you had every reason to think they would be conscious again after a single recovery Phase. You didn't stomp on them into GM Unc. It was extremely rare that they would accept a character into the game that was a nasty anti-hero willing to "do whatever it takes" to take down a villain and keep them down.

 

It was interesting to see the kinds of players that this group tended to attract and the kinds it repelled.

[Christopher R Taylor]

A lot of the problems faced with comic book role playing is that comics have drifted far from their square jawed heroic origins.  As late as the 80s it still was about doing good at great personal cost because it was absolutely right to do so.  These days, its questioned whether there is really any such thing as right and wrong and superheroes are more just costumed thugs ala Kingdom Come.  They fight each other, mostly because their gang was hurt by the other gang, but not for any overarching concepts of nobility or heroism.

 

I remember a scene in the Batman TV show, which basically was about mocking superheroes and their tropes, in which Batman needs to talk to the bank president.  So he goes and stands in line behind all the people coming in to use the bank.  The president offers him to come directly to the cage, and he declines.  "I can wait behind these good citizens."  It was played for laughs: how square!  How stupid!

 

But when I saw it I thought "that's actually pretty cool, he's more concerned with the people of Gotham than his own convenience."  Yeah it was an excessive example, but still, it was the kind of nobility and mindset I want to see from superheroes.  You just cannot get that out of most players, even most GMs.  At best you get "cops in costumes" as mentioned above.

[Enforcer84]

Yeah, I think that kind of resistance exists towards almost any genre that's not fantasy. It takes a special group of players to pull off a Morrow Project or Call of Cthulhu or Bunnies & Burrows campaign for precisely this reason. Maybe the overwhelming prevalence of D&D has led to this "fantasy-only" mindset?

 

 

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me "That sounds like a cool game, but I only play fantasy..."

 

I haven't seen it as they'll play fantasy only. But the Kill the Dude and take their stuff Mentality is the factor there. No matter the genre. There are plenty of genres that works in. Supers being one of the exceptions. Maybe D&D is to blame but it's how most video games are played as well. The Murder Hobos are the First Person Shooter ideals. I mean how many guys have wanted to play space marines and blow up everyone? 

 

As long as the players in question can behave unrestrained they are happy. They're usually the guys in the fantasy campaign that eventually steal from their fellow players or try to murder someone in their sleep (game wise) I mean I played with the same guys and they make the same characters no matter the genre. 

 

And I don't think that D&D established the Murder Hobo as the default. I could be wrong, perhaps the war-game aspect was always the most important bit. But I've been playing D&D since I was eleven and I think I've played with 4 guys I'd label as murder hobos in 30+ years. 

 

Even at eleven they wanted to do something more than just fight monsters and grab treasure.  

 

For me, the golden age of Supers Roleplaying was the 80's Champions and V&V in 84, Marvel Superheroes and DC Heroes came later. I had regular games through 1990 and irregular games til 1995. After that it was very hit or miss. I had a few guys in our local group that would play the genre but one or two who couldn't be trusted with it

 

I'm also not a great GM, I have to admit. 

[Enforcer84]

Yeah its not the alignment system that caused people to become murderous monsters in D&D.  It was the system of rewards and the way dungeons were set up.  Kick the door down, kill the monsters, take the loot.  There was no morality at all.  Nobody was thinking "they're evil so its okay" they were thinking "this is fun to kill monsters and woo hoo loot!"  That style of gaming is perfectly fine, but its not the style that superhero RPGs carry over and it takes a shift of mindset.

 

 

I suppose but that's a very narrow "Tomb of Horrors" look at even the old AD&D adventures. Plenty of them had story lines that could be conducive to critical thinking, morality plays, and cooperative story telling that the Supers Genre is supposed to entail. Some people just didn't care to do that. 

 

I'm not sure that just because there were item lists in the adventure booklet players and GM's suddenly were incapable of storytelling. 

 

But there has always been that mentality among the gamers - and not just RPGs but board games, video games, and any other potential conflict/competition - some people can only really enjoy winning. And winning is often narrowly defined as the other players have to lose. 

 

 

[TheDarkness]

Moral superiority as a reward in an rpg is as real as imaginary gold or imaginary experience. There is absolutely murder-hoboing for exactly that wish fulfillment.

 

Not at all more real.

 

Now, actually reasoning through a real ethical conundrum in an rpg has a value, which is something that was argued 2500 years ago and is the basis for Confucian ritual.

 

Said conundrum does not have to be too deep for children, something else argued that long ago. In fact, most would say it was best started as children, actually practicing ethical decision making as practice for real scenarios.

 

This is not to say that a game needs to be that, but to claim to teach ethics, that is the ONLY way it can do so.

 

This is always my issue with the claim to value of clear good guys and clear bad guys. It teaches none of this, it is, quite frankly, to ethical thinking the same relationship as nationalism to true patriotism.

 

There are literally thousands upon thousands of books and stories for children that recognize the difference, so children can clearly concieve of this.

 

And again, this is only in relation to claims that there is a merit to black and white in such stories, and that merit is a sense of real ethics.

 

Comic book ethics are pretty much identical to action movie ethics, and only differed when better storytelling jumped in at various points, and mostly differed in the same ways some action movies differed.

 

Clear good guys and inherently bad guys could describe many Superman comics as easily as it could describe Birth of a Nation. And the uses, sadly, were not always different, and the differences were not because using that tool ever produces ethical sense, but because the writers did not use black and white thinking for the ethics of that story, since ethics is not germane to that sort of black and white thinking. Those other ethics trumped black and white thinking and trumped its very basis over time.

 

There are still comics that are not grimdark, there simply is also grimdark now. Moore laments his works' influence, but I think that is a bit silly, Watchmen and V for Vendetta were never meant to be the same kind of story, and anyone who finds any of the characters more amazing-cool-tough without simultaneously noting they are also sad and stunted by it, are completely not reading for comprehension. Grimdark as a market tries to get rid of the sad and stunted, and fall way short, but there is absolutely no doubt, it was the black and white thinking's logical conclusion that justified Moore's work, he largely presented exactly what was already there, everyone knew it was already there, he just put it in ink.

 

The comic's code made ethics a central piece of the comics, while, ironically, bleaching comics of ethical content they did have before. The comic's code awarded stand-ins for ethics, like inately bad guys* attacking inerrantly good guys and gettting punched out for their efforts, for actual ethical content. As the code became less enforceable, and the market grew, fan epectations and sensationalism ended up enforcing the same norms in a lopsided way. Now, inherently bad guys could be cut to ribbons to the joy of teen boys.

 

This is not to say these teen boys are ethically stunted. It is to say that, if they have ethics, they, like everyone else ever, learned them from good examples, and seeing the results of bad examples, in life, in fiction, in movies, wherever they took it from.

 

I've met murder hobos who, in life, were really, really good people. I've met ethical philosophers who were the lowest scum I can imagine.

 

It's notable that the most common place to see a placard telling people never to do violence except to protect the innocent is in martial arts schools. I would not recommend actually learning your ethics from most martial artists, though I know some very fine ones(who would also warn you against doing so). Some activities attract our desire for feelings of power. Any such activity will attract many people who have no interest in ethics beyond a tool to claim superiority. And I've never known one such person who did not live on the idea of clear good guys and clear bad guys.

 

But most just want to feel the rush, and don't turn that into a philosophical justification for their goodness.

 

Actually, I rather like the post above about Batman waiting in line. That is showing and teaching ethics, even in the context of humor. You really couldn't watch that show and think that he was not a nice person.

[TheDarkness]

As for why no one wants to run it, I actually suspect that a great many people running games are also daunted by or have somehow spent a lot of time doing workarounds to having large sections that involve non-combat skills.

 

For the feel of most comics, especially the detective comics, those sections are very necessary.

 

I actually think this also another reason why it can often be hard to find sci-fi games, especially hard sci-fi.

[steriaca]

You really can't teach ethics. Your either a mostly moral person, or your not a mostly moral person. Mortality can not be enforced into others via punishment (or they would never be criminals), nor by rewards. Beyond that, each and every person has a different definition of 'right' and 'wrong'.

 

But in fiction, we love to pretend that there is a constant 'right' and 'wrong'. It gives us a piece of mind. But add people with different views on such things and having different goles, and we shouldn't be surprised if we are not reading the same book, let alone on the same page.

 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to run superhero games. It just means we shouldn't be surprised if people have the wrong idea about superheroes.