Comic Games And Scope
-
This post is based entirely on my own curiosity and experiences. Also, keep in mind that when I say something like "I'd like to see" it also inherently means I'd like to see it done on an Ares server as those are really the only types of games I can play nowadays.
That said, there seem to be two primary game types that are "successful" in the MU world, WoD/CoD and comics. Keep in mind I think success is relative and could be determined by a number of factors. In this case, we'll base it entirely on the number of unique logins a game has.
My problem with WoD/CoD games is that they tend to be 'all-in' games. They allow as many splat types as possible where I'm generally really only interested in Vampire. When people post that they're working on a WoD/CoD game the first questions are generally, "Are you allowing X, Y, and/or Z?"
The same seems to hold mostly true for comic-based games. The "most successful" games tend to be blended universe games with a broad scope. I guess my question is this, what type of game scope would interest you most as a player. Assume all are semi-sandbox with both staff-run plots and tools for players to run their own PrPs.
It also assumes these are FC games. OC games have their own issues that would need to be discussed.
-
Broad: Multiversal game that allows as many characters as possible.
-
General: A single comic universe(DC or Marvel) but pretty much any character in the said universe is fair game.
-
Focused: A game set in a single comic universe with a specific character focus. A Marvel game featuring only the X-Characters or a Marvel game specifically excluding the X-Characters(ala Heroes Reborn or the MCU).
-
Narrow: A game set in a single universe with a very specific character focus. A DC game focused on the Teen Titans or Gotham City, a Marvel game focused specifically on the X-Men(no other X-Teams allowed).
-
Alternate Universe Game: A game set in the Squadron Supreme universe, Age of Apocalypse, DC Injustice, etc.
In my experience, you tend to see mostly those of the broad category and some of the general. You almost never see any of the others. I'm curious if that's because people just have no interest in such games or because someone has just not come out and made on(or at least not made on in some time).
-
-
@zombiegenesis said in Comic Games And Scope:
I guess my question is this, what type of game scope would interest you most as a player. Assume all are semi-sandbox with both staff-run plots and tools for players to run their own PrPs.
There is a lot of content in your post worthy of discussion relating to comic games and scope. I'll try to focus on your general question to help with what you're feeling out.
In your terms, my interest is between general and focused.
For me a broad game is too much. I may come in wanting aquaman, app him in, then show up for some event and the submariner/Namor is there. That, or I show up as a comic icon/paragon prototypical superhero who ends up fighting alongside a powerpuff girl, an anime legend, frankenstein's monster while we fight the staypuff marshmallow man. The former takes away from feeling super or special which is part of the draw to a comic game and the later feels too surreal to me.
Narrow is similar to the first reluctance to play on a broad game; if I'm feeling Nightcrawler and I go check out the X-Men game and he's claimed, I'm out. Or like the one recent game that had only rosters, if I go on and all the guys are checked out and no other guys to play, I'm out.
I think they appeal of broad comic or multi-splatt WoD/CoD is there is a big group of players for potential RP. I may want Justice League play but I'll go hang with swamp thing or arrowverse or x-men just to get some play. I think folks want general to focus to narrow to play their niche but those places end up small do to the reason I mentioned, X is already claimed most people move on.
For me, the time commitment it would take in ares for my dyslexic butt to create a system is a juice not worth the squeeze scenario. If there were some plugins developed for public consumption to allow more in-game dice and such, I'd have considered supers on ares myself. I'd be in for a nice comic game on ares where I fit in and can run PrP's. I have never been in a staff plot/event unless I've ran one on a game of mine and I have several decades of being on this bus ride.
So in the end, if I find a game, I prefer general to focused and I would like to feel a PrP would be easy to do without jumping through hoops, especial on a comic game. I mentioned the one that had rosters, it was also X-sphere/roster located on Genosha, I have no idea how i'd even run a multi-scene PrP let alone a one shot. Not like if we're centered in Metropolis or NYC and we can bust thugs if we want or easily get to the players general locations in the books for a few scenes of adventure.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
@lotherio I hear ya.
My issue with multiversal games combines the surreality of what you've said (I've been on games with a team made up of a power ranger, a MiB, Lion-O from the Thundercats, and Batman) with the fact that DC and Marvel really don't mesh well together IMO. I mean, I've played on games where they've been blended and I've run games where they've been blended but some things always felt off to me.
The Hulk, for instance. Superman is just as strong but can fly, is super fast, has heat vision, super-senses, etc. It's mitigated by the fact that on a Marvel game you might see someone like Hyperion or Blue Marvel or Sentry. Which is why I've played it, I've run it, and it's entirely possible I run one again someday. Even so, there is something about characters being less special.
As for Ares plugins, what kind are you looking for? There's a general dice plugin that lets you roll dice in the scene system(and there's a dice command in-game). What kind of things were you looking for, plugin wise?
-
@zombiegenesis said in Comic Games And Scope:
The Hulk, for instance. Superman is just as strong but can fly, is super fast, has heat vision, super-senses, etc. It's mitigated by the fact that on a Marvel game you might see someone like Hyperion or Blue Marvel or Sentry. Which is why I've played it, I've run it, and it's entirely possible I run one again someday. Even so, there is something about characters being less special.
Is that a real problem, though? I mean, is balance the reason you'd want to mix Marvel and DC characters in the first place? Or is it to see these different heroes interact?
Because balance doesn't work internally either. Superman has those powers in the DCU whereas say, Robin doesn't have any. And yet it's perfectly doable to have them share the screen in the right plot and as long as their players play them according to this dynamic.
I see no reason Superman and Daredevil wouldn't mix just based on their power sets.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel It's less about balance for me and more about that feeling of being special, about contributing in your own unique way. The Hulk is supposed to be "the strongest one there is"...except when he isn't. The Hulk himself(excluding Banner) contributes in one way, being strong. That becomes less cool when you're on a team with 3 other people just as strong but who can also fly, move at super-speed, shoot lasers from their eyes, etc.
At this point, it's more of a peeve than an actual gripe, though. Like I said, even on a pure Marvel game there are a number of characters that do what the Hulk does plus a host of other things.
-
I play Coulson a lot on comic games, which means a lot of shrugging and finding ways to contribute while hanging out with Superman and Thor at the same time. If the players are good and interested in selling each other's strength, then there's always some sneaky/spy/gadget-based thing I can do...or the players let me get mileage out of being the Dad/Leader type and letting me come up with plans to best use all their strengths. I imagine it would be miserable where nobody cared about "sell" or including people at every power level, but in the right environment balance doesn't tend to matter for me one whit. I like to watch the characters interact and to see what new stories can develop. And...admittedly...when playing FCs I also sort of get a kick of finding a comic or a podcast or a short story where I find the writing ended up pretty close to what me and the other MU*ers did. I'm kind of burnt out on comics right now but I admit the first thing I do check is "are any of the characters I could play still available," OCs are risky. I like playing with them as they're key to making new stories, but I don't like taking them on a comic game cause a lot of people don't feel the same way and avoid them. I admit that I would find Coulson working with the Thundercats kind of hilarious so...super broad doesn't bother me if I can find RPers who like generating the kinds of stories I also like.
-
@devrex Can I just say I love you for playing Coulson? A good Coulson is AMAZEBALLS.
-
@macha He is so fun to play too!
-
In my experience, you tend to see mostly those of the broad category and some of the general. You almost never see any of the others. I'm curious if that's because people just have no interest in such games or because someone has just not come out and made on(or at least not made on in some time).
First, there's a current X-men+ game that's been around at least a year, as well as a new alt-universe game, so 'almost never' seems extreme.
Otherwise, there's a couple things being discussed here. Some of it is very general. 'Big and sandboxy' vs 'small and focused' is not comic specific, but rather one of our oldest topics. Insert the usual debates on total RP vs. getting lost in the crowd, or on whether logins are actually a measure of game quality or success. And 'include every IP' vs 'just X-Men' is definitely a subset of this.
But FCs do add some particular dynamics.
The slope on FC popularity is pretty damn steep, with a quick fall-off from the top characters. So, unlike with other big game vs. small game stuff, there's essentially an absolute cap based on how much IP you provide. You really can't make the choice to have a 'big' X-Men game. And the harsh cut-off really impacts style preference, too. Being a Gotham fan may be kind of pointless when there's so few key characters and your chance of ever landing your favorite might well be zero unless you help build the game.
This doesn't only apply to people wanting to take the characters, but also to people wanting to play with the characters. Vibe is simply not going to attract RP the same way as Wonder Woman.
And there's a tendency of staff not to be realistic about any of this stuff: no one wants to admit 'yeah, all the good characters are taken, no reason for you to really play here.' nor admit that a given character is just not very popular (or heck, kind of a joke) and probably won't get any RP unless the player is in the top 1% of proactivity and charisma. I feel like there's even a bit of that vibe in this thread already, in the 'why should power level matter?' refrain. It seems to make unrealistic assumptions about every player being cooperative, giving, self-aware, willing to write to others and generally share the spotlight. This are great ideals but... yeah. My experience is that a lot of the players of high powered characters are typically absolutely awful at this. Some outright are in it for the power trip, others are just blithely unaware (ie, I've seen people give the Superman 'World of Cardboard' speech/quote as an OOC context on multiple occasions on these games, offered as proof they were a 'good' Superman player and knew what was up. Except the context of the speech is literally the ultimate 'Lol I was just holding back, I am a living I Win Button', given before Superman solos Darkseid. It's 100% inappropriate in a MUSH context.).
So, IDK. My preference is not to play on a style of game. My preference is to play a character I want to play, and get recognizable comic-y RP. Any game that serves that goal is acceptable, but many games will fail at it.
-
@bored said in Comic Games And Scope:
My preference is not to play on a style of game. My preference is to play a character I want to play, and get recognizable comic-y RP. Any game that serves that goal is acceptable, but many games will fail at it.
In my elder, snobbish age, my experiences with comic games have been mostly poor because I am apparently unable to ken the way to RP consistently with players with whom I can RP comfortably.
This may be because I just don't understand what the drive of most players on these games are; most of the time, they apparently want to scream look at me and how awesome i am, and I just don't have the time for that.
-
@ganymede I have no special insight beyond my own
My motivation these days, on pretty much all games, is just my enjoyment of writing (and maybe as a form of practice, as well). I like some of the characters, and have fun writing big bombastic stuff as an alternative to what's usually more subtle/serious RP in other genres (something about getting old making 'mature' themes elsewhere less special and escapism more appealing?). There is a sort of license in comic-style RP to be more over the top, and the power scales can allow for more creative breadth. The other day I posed a whole robot army (and we lost).
I also only play on these games right now. I think there's a certain ease to them, as they're generally statless and consent based, vs having to grind a bajillion xp in WoD or Fantasy doing filler rp. That said, you're not wrong about the self-aggrandizing sorts. As ever, its ultimately about finding a playgroup.
-
@bored Just to clarify...I wasn't assuming cooperative play, it was very much an if the play is cooperative then it can be fun, not a "Oh sure, it can always be fun thing." It really would be miserable if you're with a bunch of people who don't care about anyone other than themselves having a good time.
-
I think that the big difference between comic games and others is the sheer amount of pre-created characters over decades of stories. And there's a pre-set notion in the minds of comics fandom, including myself, that there's 'star' characters and 'everyone else. And everyone wants to play a star, even if it might not be the one you had your heart set on. There's a lot of baggage that can go along with that.
Relationships are already established and defined from the comics, with almost no deviations allowed for fear of a player making changes then dropping and future players not liking some of the changes a player made. I know that I've certainly passed on some of my preferred characters because I didn't like the in-game continuity for them.
And the 'star' characters remain relatively constant, but there is some shuffling of the 'A List' every so often, as new character get introduced in comics/media, and established characters get a popularity bump. Back when I first started MUing back in the late 90's/early 00's, it was easy to find a game where my personal favorite, Iron Man, was open and available. After the first movie,, though, his popularity shot through the roof and Tony tended to get taken quickly on new games. Same with 'specialty' games; there was a time when there were multiple games that were purely X-Men centric when the movie came out. Same with Heroes in that show's heyday.
I'm also not a big fan of the mixed universe games, despite how popular they are. There are serious power discrepancies between the top tier of DC characters and the top tier of Marvel. So, you end up giving Hulk or Thor a massive power boost, or you nerf Superman and Wonder Woman to scale them back.
I'd love to see OC games make a comeback for supers. Once, there were like 3 or 4 OC games running at once; now, we're pretty much down to Champions. But even then, I recognize that OC games aren't popular because of the amount of lore needed to be learned by a player to become functional in the game world, and that OC characters are stigmatized as being 'lesser' among supers players.
Another factor in supers games is what I call 'A Canon Of My Own'; the desire to create a new line of stories that suit the player's tastes where published canon falls short for them. I'm as guilty of this at times as anyone, I'll admit.
It all comes down to getting players invested in the game, and FC settings have numerous ways of getting that player investment right from the start.
So, how do you get player investment in an OC game? My main thought is to give them a way of making the character concept unique and special, even if it's an inevitable homage to an FC. Someone wants to play a Superman 'clone' character, that's fine; but give that player control of the lore surrounding the alien race they come from, have the player decide if there's other members of that race. Let players craft lore and legacies that can shape the game world and be passed along.
De-stigmatize OCs or homage characters; after all, the Fantastic Four are basically DC's Challengers of the Unknown with superpowers. Both Superman and Captain America share story and power beats from the 1930 novel Gladiator by Phillip Wylie (scientist creates a formula that turns his unborn son into a superhuman with tremendous strength and the ability to leap tall buildings). Batman's tone and concept are taken from Zorro.
It's certainly possible to create a general focus supers game these days; X-Men: Divergence certainly shows this. I think the keys are 1) Manage expectations, 2) Encourage player-centric lore, and 3) Patience. This would be a game that's going to require a lot of staff hand-holding and encouragement, will probably never be as big as one of 'the big boys', and will take a long time to grow into stability. Like a couple of years, rather than months. And I can understand a lot of devs not wanting to commit that amount of time to a game just just get a solid return in the player base.
-
I never quite got the stigma of homage or pastiche characters. As a player and staffer I think I prefer them. I think they come with a number of inherit advantages. For starters, it sets a tone for the character without having read anything else. A pastiche of Batman is going to have a different feel than one of Daredevil.
It also automatically sets some power level parameters. One of my primary problems with OCs is that many players automatically shoot for 'best there is on the game' in some way, shape, or form. For instance, if someone is a homage to Spider-Man you're likely not going to see a flying brick with super-speed and laser eyes.
It also eliminates the "Oh, my favorite characters are taken..shoot..." issue. Want to play a Batman homage? Go for it. Just make sure that it is, in some small way at least, different from Batman and different from the other Batman homages on the game.
I would be all for an OC game that either highly encouraged or required characters to be homages to existing comic characters. When pondering OC games I've often thought about doing something in the Squadron Supreme universe using Hyperion, Power Princess, Doctor Spectrum, Nighthawk, and Whizzer as benchmarks/examples and then just letting people fill out the rest of the universe with their own OCs, the only requirement is that they're an homage to an existing comic character.
-
@runescryer said in Comic Games And Scope:
Relationships are already established and defined from the comics, with almost no deviations allowed for fear of a player making changes then dropping and future players not liking some of the changes a player made. I know that I've certainly passed on some of my preferred characters because I didn't like the in-game continuity for them.
Another factor in supers games is what I call 'A Canon Of My Own'; the desire to create a new line of stories that suit the player's tastes where published canon falls short for them. I'm as guilty of this at times as anyone, I'll admit.
I think these are really two of the biggest challenges facing comic book games. It results in a really narrowed form of both RP and administration because there always has to be an eye on how what a character does today might impact "a future player" of that character. Which in a way makes them feel a lot more transient IMO for the player - I don't really feel like I AM the character, more that I am just the person currently driving.
So you have real narrow rails on which characters can ride - you want to avoid marriages (the death blow sometimes to roster characters unless you undo it) no matter how well crafted the personal storyline is, you can't kill or make permanent changes. You're stuck in the same loop as animated cartoon shows (lampshaded brilliantly and then annoyingly by South Park with Kenny) where nothing ever really changes or progresses.
It ALSO is what's responsible for the vast amount of administrative oversight - every single app has to be scrutinized for not just the player but the future players, but also to make sure that nothing bad "slips in" and gets stuck there forever.
Now, I play on and enjoy a few comic book games right now that follow this model, it's enjoyable. I sign in, I pick up a random scene like "my hero runs into a super villain at a coffee shop and doesn't recognize her, hilarity ensues", and I enjoy my time there.
I also play on a game that turned all of this on its head by going with a model where the entire timeline resets every few months into a different elseworlds kind of theme. There you can tell the story of what happens if Bruce Wayne and Diana fall in love and get engaged, because two months later the game shifts and if there is a new Bruce or new Diana, they aren't held to that. Or where Booster Gold dies heroically saving Blue Beetle's life in a Big Hero Moment that he always deserved but not really got, because a few months later it's all back to zero.
But that's still not the same as a continued continuity - you can't leave and come back six months later and find the same plots, because they've moved on. There's not really a consistency to it and an ability to do long term plotting, it's more like super intense "what can we cram into one or two seasons of a dramatic tv show" pacing, and then it's on to the next thing.
So they are very different things, and appeal to very different people (or different sides to the same people).
And some people are here for as much drama as they can extract from their characters, knowing that once all that is done - they get to refill from the drama bucket and squeeze again in the next storyline.
-
@visquaine Aren't a lot of these tropes applicable to actual comic books as well, though? I feel it's not MU*-specific.
When you sign up to write one of the DC Batman titles you have control over what the character does today (within, I'm sure, some narrow rails as well) but none of it is permanent. None of it will 'stick'. You may write a great antagonist for him with a personal vendetta and a twisted relationship to the hero, and then the next writer after you might never reuse any of it or butcher the nuances that made it work, change its core themes into something completely different or... whatever. Comics are packed with this kind of thing.
It's a package deal. If we want control over a character, we can create one. If we play, write or use a canonical one with others - it's temporary. Our story will never be the definitive version. There is no definitive version.
-
@arkandel said in Comic Games And Scope:
@visquaine Aren't a lot of these tropes applicable to actual comic books as well, though? I feel it's not MU*-specific.
100%. I was just giving an example of a game that flies in the face of that trope the same way DC unleashed their writers to do the same when they went all into the Elseworlds concept, and you started to get "World without a Superman" and "Evil Superman" and "Not as Evil but kind of a Dick Superman" and "Batman meets Abbott and Costello".
They may not all be the rich world that Alan Moore creates using facsimiles of the Charlton Characters, but there are good stories to be told unfettered by what I think is always the problem with comics or games that stick to a major canon - "ok, but what happens next month?" When there is no next month, you're free to do that.
(And avoid the worst comic trope of all, "dramatically killing off a character because it makes great narrative sense, but then someone down the road REALLY wants to write for the character so we'll cheapen it". It used to be "No one stays dead other than Uncle Ben and Bucky", before someone got the (admittedly super cool) idea of the Winter Soldier.)
-
This isn't constructive, but I have always wanted to app Baytor on a comics game just to see what would happen
-
I mean, there's an X-Men-only game that was successful last I heard. There aren't really many options for people who just want a focused universe; and I think focus is best, as characters become spread pretty thin otherwise on most games.
I think most failed games fail via either the failures (and/or drama) of the staff, or because they lost the dice roll that seems to semi-randomly decide whether or not a good sized group of people notice a new game or not, and stick around long enough to get a viable cast going.
Me, I just really want to play a fresh-start Harley Quinn, so DC or Just-Gotham is my bias.
-
Ultimately I think my question boils down to this; Are there few games on a focused theme because of lack of player interest or because staff want to hedge their bets by allowing as many characters as possible? I don't think character balance factors in though I do think character unique-ness could.
And I'm also not saying there aren't any or have never been successful games with a focused theme. They are, however, vastly outnumbered by games that allow either everything from a given comic universe or anything from any comic universe. I'm just wondering why the scales are so unbalanced.
