PDA

View Full Version : Supers Game - Top 5 Problems



Quertus
2020-03-07, 12:00 AM
So, I'm running a Supers game, for kids. In a feat of ridiculous overconfidence, putting me at great risk of falling in with the overachiever crowd, it's a reality-hopping, system-hopping, "multiple PCs per player" game. And I'm trying to change up the way I run the game, even beyond that (I'll vary tone, how much OOC information I give, how straightforward the setup is, etc). This is to allow the players to experience multiple systems and styles, and do so from multiple PoV, and see what they like.

For your amusement, I present, (now that I've noticed that the forums are back up), the top 5 problems I had while running this game with kids.



# 5 - Minis

When he first discussed the 8 aesthetics of gameplay - the 8 sources of fun - Angry specifically brought up playing with minis. So I knew that there were people who got pleasure from the presence of minis, and people who didn't.

What I wasn't prepared for was for there to be people who actually actively disliked the presence of minis in a game.

I think that the group falls entirely within the range between "doesn't care" and "never wants to play a system that involves minis again".

Playing with minis was the second-biggest deal breaker for system-level mechanics.

If there had been any chance of me, in a fit of insanity, considering running 4e D&D for this group, I believe that this response pretty well puts the final nail in the coffin of that idea. 2e D&D, on the other hand, is an "alive and well" possibility.



#4 - Being Heroes

"Why can't we just steal their gear?" "But, if we don't kill them, they'll just come back for revenge later. Heroes are dumb." "The device requires the sacrifice of a sentient being? What's the problem?"

These kids are just too… let's say "genre savvy"… to want to play heroes the way that the systems sometimes expect. So, it's a "Supers" game, rather than a "Super Heroes" game.

They were OK with being… I guess closer to Wolverine or Punisher than Superman or Captain America. But then they hit the Marvel facerip system, which asked them to choose a side (OK, it kinda expected them to be heroes, but it technically had rules for villains), and then rewarded and punished them based on their adherence to that side.

Worse, in the Marvel facerip system, even villains lose karma (XP) for killing people. If they didn't like other things about the system, I think that they would have rebelled against it on those grounds as quickly as they did for #3.



#3 - "Roll low" mechanics

It makes sense that, as your skills go up, your numbers go up, right? We laugh at the design of 2e D&D THAC0, AC, and Saves for a reason. And the easiest mechanic, mechanically, that actually makes sense for utilizing increasing numbers representing increasing skill is "roll under" / "did you roll that number or lower", right? So it sounds like "roll under" should be easy, and good for RPGs, right?

Enter the Hero / Champions system.

First, there's skill checks. Yeah, it's a "roll under", but it's on 3d6. Which means that there's math. Which means that it's not just a simple "roll and compare" scenario. And that difference is very noticeable when you're working with, say, 7-year-olds. It takes longer, there's more chance of error, and the players definitely like it less.

And then there's combat rolls. The actual target number is based on many things, including your attack (Offensive Combat Value), their defense (Defensive Combat Value), the action you are taking, the action they last took, etc. Even the ones who liked playing 3e D&D found Heroes math just too fiddly to care about. Ultimately, I had them tell me what they were doing, and told them their final, calculated target number.

This worked, but… their irritation at there being more going on behind the scenes than they cared to look at only added to their irritation at dealing with basic math (and sometimes getting it wrong), both of which ultimately fed into their biggest dislike, which served as a scapegoat for the whole system: rolling low.

Granted, it didn't help that their first roll in the system was an "18", and they rolled numerous 17s during their very brief stay in Heroes. High numbers feel good. Being told that they're bad just doesn't jive with expectations.

Rolling low and #1 are the only items on this list which were unanimously given a thumbs down by the players.



#2 - Playing someone else's character

Or, I suppose I should say, someone else playing their character.

There is a definite sense of pride in what their characters have accomplished. And that readily translates into a sense pride in what they have accomplished. However, for some players, there is dissonance when those are disconnected - when your character's accomplishments and your personal choices don't match up. Also, there is - or can be - a definite sense of "running them wrong" when someone else plays their character.

Although the players are divided on this issue, it's pretty much guaranteed that I'll hear about this every session, which is why I think that this deserves its #2 spot.



#1 - the 1980s

"Why can't I just ask Google?" "What do you mean, I can't download new apps / Netflix onto my phone?"

This culture shock of "so much like the real world, but so very, very wrong" was the worst thing imaginable for the party of Supers. Upon reaching the 80's, they (first tried to understand what villainous plot had ruined world, and then) immediately began investigating Time Travel. Apparently, there's no fate imaginable worse than being in the technological stone ages of the 80s. I was looking forward to running scenarios from my favorite comics and old modules, but they may require an MCU level of revamping before they'll be palatable to my table. Because "the 80s" are worse than any ploy ever concocted by any super villain, ever, or so my players would tell you.

gkathellar
2020-03-07, 07:20 AM
What I wasn't prepared for was for there to be people who actually actively disliked the presence of minis in a game.

Yeah, battlemats really irritate some people (like me, although I'll put up with them for some systems). Counting squares gets to be a real pain, and slows down the game besides. If you're not interested in highly specific tactical combat, and sometimes even if you are, minis are often little more than an impediment.

Quertus
2020-03-07, 02:21 PM
Yeah, battlemats really irritate some people (like me, although I'll put up with them for some systems). Counting squares gets to be a real pain, and slows down the game besides. If you're not interested in highly specific tactical combat, and sometimes even if you are, minis are often little more than an impediment.

Yeah, that's a bit… beyond me. Not "not caring about combat", but "not caring about tactical combat"? I don't think I know how to split that hair.

I mean… I guess I can see bean-counting squares and ranges as paralleling bean-counting arrows or bullets or HP or spell slots. Sometimes, you just don't want to. Just… what's the game without some beans somewhere?

I agree, there are times when minis seem suboptimal - like the time that my brother complained that it took longer for him to set up the battlefield than it took me to kill the orc hoard with a Fireball. However, I couldn't have known that they'd all die to a Fireball; even if I had known their HP, I couldn't have known what action my character would take until I saw how they were laid out, and that I could catch them all in a Fireball. Sure, in a more abstract game, I could have asked questions until I felt that I had a grasp on the layout, and then, if I understood it correctly, maybe have thrown a Fireball, which maybe the GM would have ruled caught all the orcs. So, both slow down the game - it's just a matter of where and how you pay that price, and how much accuracy / precision you're willing to count beans for.

So, despite all the other ways that I changed the pacing around that they were fine with, apparently the pacing change around using minis was one that they just didn't care for?

One thing that surprised me about this was that the kids actually *used* the battle map, actually took advantage of the layout, and even developed new moves based on it. But didn't care for using minis. That combination really surprised me.