Previously Mutants & Masterminds MUX, now a Question! DUN DUN DUN!

[ZombieGenesis]

My experience with superhero games (which stretches back to 1994 and games like Superhero MUX, MetaMux, the original Project Infinity, etc) is that we "won" by telling a good narrative that would lead to future RP. More often than not that meant the hero somehow "lost" the fight because if we "won" then the villain would be locked up and unable to RP any more.

We also built our own sense of drama and tension by, again, telling a cooperative story. The nail biting tension came not from a dice roll but from waiting to see how our RP partners were going to respond to our poses and how we would respond in kind. Again, telling those thrilling narratives was how we won.

Winning did not come from having better dice rolls or having a more tactically built character. It came from experiencing rewarding RP and telling thrilling, action packed stories.

That said I still think using a structured game system has a place in these consent based narrative games. I hated having to read through 10 pages of crap to find out what my partners were capable of...and most of the time these long winded descriptions were so vague I was still left wondering. Character sheets provide an at a glance look at what a character is capable of. Looking at a M&M +sheet tells me just about everything I need to know about a character's capabilities and limits. We do not need to be shackled to the fickle whim of a D20 to guide our RP, however. Though I do think it is also still a viable option for people who do like to go that route so long as everyone in the scene is comfortable with it.

My experience on WoD games is that people are more invested in their characters and "losing" a fight is in some way a personal affront to them. It could also mean PK for not other reason than this person wanted to PK someone tonight. It is one of the reasons I quit WOD games entirely.

[Apos]

@Coin Come to think of it, the most rewarding full-consent rp I've had with a lot of heavy conflict narratives was based in superhero style rp, and I didn't even think of it till you said it. But now that you did, the community (and a really large one) was noticeably way way more okay with losing than any other one I've been in, and you're right, I still don't know why.

I think it might be that most of the natural narrative arcs for comic characters really need to have awful things happen to them in order to create conflict for stories, so they expect it. Maybe. I really am not sure either.

[Misadventure]

Character sheets can be rated by a game system, and still just be used for narrative/RP guidelines. As long as you understand how the game rates things, and how any dice probabilities actually work, you're good.

EG, I have ability at X, a difficulty-resistance of Y, so I would normally have an N% chance to succeed. If that is a high chance, I describe it working with ease, if low, I can fail or describe several tries or that its pure luck.

[Arkandel]

At this point my assumption is shifting towards the difference being a cultural one rather than systemic in nature.

I.e. it's not that superhero games due to their mechanics, sheets, etc cause less issues with people needing to win, it's just (?) that the WoD crowd many of us are used to takes IC defeat more personally.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said:

At this point my assumption is shifting towards the difference being a cultural one rather than systemic in nature.

I.e. it's not that superhero games due to their mechanics, sheets, etc cause less issues with people needing to win, it's just (?) that the WoD crowd many of us are used to takes IC defeat more personally.

Maybe? But I suspect the overlap is larger than anyone thinks.

[Runescryer]

@Arkandel said:

At this point my assumption is shifting towards the difference being a cultural one rather than systemic in nature.

I.e. it's not that superhero games due to their mechanics, sheets, etc cause less issues with people needing to win, it's just (?) that the WoD crowd many of us are used to takes IC defeat more personally.

I kind of agree here. I think that it's also because there's the expectation in superhero games that the good guys will be the ones winning in the end. In WoD and other games, anyone can 'win' or 'lose' depending on the results of TP's, strategy, and other factors that are both within and outside the player's control. A noble and honorable vampire has equal chances of overcoming the cruel and craven vampire, and vice-versa. But with superhero games, there the expectation that victories made by the villains are temporary and the heroes will win; good triumphs over evil and the status quo is (relatively) maintained. I feel that's why there are always very few villain characters on superhero games; not because there's a lack of players that like playing the bad guys, but because playing a villain means that you have to accept that all your planning ans scheming will pretty much mean nothing in the end. It's not an easy thing for role-players to accept.

[Arkandel]

@Runescryer said:

not because there's a lack of players that like playing the bad guys, but because playing a villain means that you have to accept that all your planning ans scheming will pretty much mean nothing in the end. It's not an easy thing for role-players to accept.

We're probably getting ridiculously off topic for the thread at this point but it's a fun debate so... if MSB's admins want it moved elsewhere I'd be fine with it... only I don't know what our topic is.

In ANY CASE! Personally while I'd love to play a megalomaniac villain my problem with it wouldn't be the lack of a chance to ultimately win at the end. I wouldn't want that, since by definition such a character's plan would involve some manner of absurd paradigm shift for the world, so it'd be more of a roleplaying hook than something I'd actually want to see happen.

No, the problem is that playing such a character on a day to day basis would cheapen the concept. You can't - and shouldn't - have Doctor Doom or the Joker walking around regularly for people to meet and have chats with. They should be reserved for large scale events or specific stories built around them to move things in a certain direction, not bar roleplay.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said:

@Runescryer said:

not because there's a lack of players that like playing the bad guys, but because playing a villain means that you have to accept that all your planning ans scheming will pretty much mean nothing in the end. It's not an easy thing for role-players to accept.

We're probably getting ridiculously off topic for the thread at this point but it's a fun debate so... if MSB's admins want it moved elsewhere I'd be fine with it... only I don't know what our topic is.

In ANY CASE! Personally while I'd love to play a megalomaniac villain my problem with it wouldn't be the lack of a chance to ultimately win at the end. I wouldn't want that, since by definition such a character's plan would involve some manner of absurd paradigm shift for the world, so it'd be more of a roleplaying hook than something I'd actually want to see happen.

No, the problem is that playing such a character on a day to day basis would cheapen the concept. You can't - and shouldn't - have Doctor Doom or the Joker walking around regularly for people to meet and have chats with. They should be reserved for large scale events or specific stories built around them to move things in a certain direction, not bar roleplay.

Usually, if a superhero game has an acitivity requirement at all, the villain requirements are much, much more lax.

[Arkandel]

@Coin Fair enough, but then the character is a glorified NPC. I mean if I'm logging Magneto on once a month for that event it doesn't feel like he's my PC, you know? He's a character I occasionally play to achieve a certain effect, not one I log on any time I want to roleplay and have some fun for my own sake.

Basically I'm saying it's the reason I wouldn't play a villain rather than that he wouldn't get to win.

[Runescryer]

@Coin

One idea I've had for a superhero game is that all players have a player bit to log into. When folks want to RP a random scene, a player can attach a villain sheet to his player bit and got provide the action. So, the majority of villains would be unattached to any single player. Just the mastermind villains would be apped.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said:

@Coin Fair enough, but then the character is a glorified NPC. I mean if I'm logging Magneto on once a month for that event it doesn't feel like he's my PC, you know? He's a character I occasionally play to achieve a certain effect, not one I log on any time I want to roleplay and have some fun for my own sake.

Basically I'm saying it's the reason I wouldn't play a villain rather than that he wouldn't get to win.

Then you don't want to play a comic book villain. That's fine. But there is a way to do it. Also, Magneto is a horrible example; he has tons of stuff you could play. Doom was a better example.

@Runescryer said:

@Coin

One idea I've had for a superhero game is that all players have a player bit to log into. When folks want to RP a random scene, a player can attach a villain sheet to his player bit and got provide the action. So, the majority of villains would be unattached to any single player. Just the mastermind villains would be apped.

I've pitched this before. Including having villains be temporary characters for people based on stoylines. Oh, you want to run a Knightfall-style story and play Bane? Okay. You claim Bane for that story.

I actually did this with Azrael once in a DC/Marvel mix-game (Universe Unlimited). I managed to generate some actual suspense because I mixed and matched and gave him an adamantium chain mail...

... and then Talia al Ghul's player was like, "fuck that!" and got herself an adamantium knife and shived the fuck out of him it was amazing. So much fun. I had the least scenes with Batman--spent most of the time terrorizing Gotham crooks and villains and heroes. It was great. But once that storyline was over, I hung Jean-Paul Valley up. No one else took him up after, but they could have. I was done with that story.

[tragedyjones]

When I played Doom on, I want to say Heroes Dreams, I got a lot of RP. I often crossed paths with heroes when we could come up with reasons, but I also formed my own damned supervillain team AND adopted an evil daughter/apprentice.

I think my most memorable scenes were taking the Princess of Latveria to a US Mall, and visiting the Xavier Institute to discuss Magneto.

[Lithium]

I'm not doing a story only game. There are plenty of those already, where people can go and write stories with other people playing characters that are their own or not theirs at all. I don't personally have anything against such a game, it's just not my cup of tea.

I like system.
I like rules saying that someone can and cannot do a thing.
I like characters with limits other than writers fiat.
I like the risk and the reward that comes with /not knowing/ the outcome of a thing until the dice (Or whatever system it is, playing cards, whatever) say so.

This isn't a knock on consent based games, it's just not what I want to build. If M&M doesn't work for what I want (As it may not with the 3rd edition changes) then I will use a different system. Maybe I will use Savage Worlds, or maybe I will hack Fate, or maybe I will hack old school Aberrant (That'd be a major hack) but the game I am building will have a system to determine outcomes other than mutual consent.

There's plenty of game systems that can be used, and I will find, alter, or create one (if I have to) for my game.

Part of this is because while I am using a super hero theme, I am not building on the DC or Marvel continuity where people seem to never stay dead because I believe that it leads to storylines lacking gravitas if there is no permanence.

Just my opinion.

[Coin]

@Lithium said:

I'm not doing a story only game. There are plenty of those already, where people can go and write stories with other people playing characters that are their own or not theirs at all. I don't personally have anything against such a game, it's just not my cup of tea.

I like system.
I like rules saying that someone can and cannot do a thing.
I like characters with limits other than writers fiat.
I like the risk and the reward that comes with /not knowing/ the outcome of a thing until the dice (Or whatever system it is, playing cards, whatever) say so.

This isn't a knock on consent based games, it's just not what I want to build. If M&M doesn't work for what I want (As it may not with the 3rd edition changes) then I will use a different system. Maybe I will use Savage Worlds, or maybe I will hack Fate, or maybe I will hack old school Aberrant (That'd be a major hack) but the game I am building will have a system to determine outcomes other than mutual consent.

There's plenty of game systems that can be used, and I will find, alter, or create one (if I have to) for my game.

Part of this is because while I am using a super hero theme, I am not building on the DC or Marvel continuity where people seem to never stay dead because I believe that it leads to storylines lacking gravitas if there is no permanence.

Just my opinion.

Honestly, just from my experience,. M&M just has a steep learning curve. It may not be apparent to you because you know it and can't see the difficulty for people who aren't familiar with it, but it really, really does.

[Coin]

@tragedyjones said:

When I played Doom on, I want to say Heroes Dreams, I got a lot of RP. I often crossed paths with heroes when we could come up with reasons, but I also formed my own damned supervillain team AND adopted an evil daughter/apprentice.

I think my most memorable scenes were taking the Princess of Latveria to a US Mall, and visiting the Xavier Institute to discuss Magneto.

When I played Black Adam on UU, I teamed up with Amora the Enchantress and we raised a magical pyramid in Shiruta, re-established Khandaq as a world power, and had a whole team of anti-heros ready to go in case Thor or Captain Marvel came over to make a fuss.

It was loads and loads of fun and I played him tons.

[Thenomain]

@Coin said:

anti-heros

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Also:

@Coin said:

When I played Black Adam on UU, I teamed up with Amora the Enchantress and we raised a magical pyramid in Shiruta, re-established Khandaq as a world power

You played on a game where world-changing events were allowed? What, were they mad?! Do they care nothing about the Status-Quo? Hippies.

[tragedyjones]

True to comic form, NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME for a few months.

[Lithium]

Due to starting a new job, all of my projects are on the backburner indefinitely as I won't have a lot of spare time, and definitely not enough to run anything. While I might be able to code it up eventually the chances of me being able to sufficiently admin something are very slim.

It's a definite financial upgrade however, and I can't not take it, so until my writing becomes profitable enough to the point I can live off it alone...

Well unless that happens soon by the time I have enough time to run something again the hobby might no longer really exist.

[Coin]

@Thenomain said:

@Coin said:

anti-heros

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Sure it does. They were heroes, they just weren't particularly nice about being heroes. Some of them might have swung towards anti-villain, too, admittedly.

Also:

@Coin said:

When I played Black Adam on UU, I teamed up with Amora the Enchantress and we raised a magical pyramid in Shiruta, re-established Khandaq as a world power

You played on a game where world-changing events were allowed? What, were they mad?! Do they care nothing about the Status-Quo? Hippies.

I also ended up running that game for like a year after all of that wernt down. So that might explain things. Lex Luthor became president, even! I ganked the former one in a mutant attack... and Magneto ripped Genosha apart and remade it into Asteroid M... oh and we crashed the helicarrier and people roleplayed about there being a huge fucking helicarrier half-buried in the middle of Central Park for like two months. It was pretty fun.

[Lithium]

@Coin I don't think having consistency is a horrible thing at all. I think once agame goes live, it should create it's own history and run with it. Even if you are basing it on established IP once your players are dictating things, and your staff are running things, you are automatically in a land of 'alternate reality' so trying to remain ultra faithful to the IP were nothing ever changes is... silly.

It's sort of why I dislike games set in the middle of a series of movies or books, because then when a new book comes out, things are going to change, and your mush will have to change with it and it's like nothing the players did can really /matter/.

Which is part of why I was going with a wholly original world for this project, that is now retired indefinitely.