Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Disagree-a-thon: Bards

As promised, we're doing disagreements this week. You get to watch human beings talk about something we don't agree on without freaking the fuck out

Today Simon will defend the worst thing in all of roleplaying: Bards.
Smirking at what exactly, guy?
Zak

Ok, Bards, so...

1. Late-era bards w/magic powers: Music as magic out on an adventure looks silly. There's literally never been any pictorial or cinematic depiction of this that didn't look ridiculous. (Noise Marines don't count). 

And hokey.


2. Late/middle-era bards as "encouraging you to fight via music"--again, if you picture this happening in a dungeon it's a preposterous image and has never not looked hokey. If goblins are attacking, put down the lute and pick up a rock.


3. Old-era bards who are just travelling thief/fighters. These are just journeyman thief/fighters, the fact they have a day job doesn't make them a new class--why should it?

A duellist is just a kind of fighter, a burglar is just a kind of thief. What's the point?


4. Bard-as-charisma-wizard. Sure, a character can be charming, but the idea that the performer is somehow especially charming suggests a charisma that translates far away from the culture where said performer is famous for performing. While it's easy to picture a performer being charming to people who like lute music in some farming hellhole somewhere, it isnt going to translate when you're doing things other than trying to impress the mayor at festival time. It's not like being in a band helps you convince TSA not to search your bags.


Your turn.



Simon


Hokay. 


1. It does look silly if it happens in a dungeon during a goblin attack. Outside of a dungeon, though, I say it can work just fine. In "Secret of Kells" animated movie the scene where a fae girl transforms a cat into a spirit by singing "Pangur Ban" looks cool. So, the party needs to rescue someone from a locked tower, it's hard to climb, it's suicidal to attack, the bard steps forward and sings, and music makes his magic happen, putting guards to sleep or summoning mist or whatever - I can see it working. 


2. Yes, this, too, is preposterous in a dungeon. It can work if you view it like Jedi Battle Meditation in "Knights of the Old Republic", which is as 3rd edition D&D as it can possibly get, with skills and feats and all. It works when you gather an army and it's on the march and you raise their spirits with drums or battle songs or whatever. It doesn't work when goblins attack in a dungeon, unless you want to play silly. Sometimes playing silly is okay.


3. Sure, playing a bard as a thief or a fighter or a mage who has a day job is fine. Like playing a pirate or a duelist or a knight - basically it's a thief or a fighter but with some fluff. You can add some stuff like this thief is an important member of Thieves' Guild, or this fighter is in the brotherhood of bards so he has some sort if diplomatic immunity, you can't just throw a bard in jail because the next month in every tavern of every town of your neighbouring contries everyone will sing the new ballad about you being a petty tyrant, and also fat and bald and impotent. But it doesn't require a new class, agreed.


4. The charisma-wizard thing seems as natural to me as intelligence-wizard thing. Sure, the mage is smart, but it takes more than just a well-operating brain to summon fire and ice and monsters and transform people into statues, and it takes more than a silver tongue to be a magic-using bard. It's more like someone who's so in tune with music, which is basic and primitive enough that pretty much any culture knows and uses it and is affected by it, - so that this someone can feel and use the very sort of music that would affect this audience before him. Which is, in my view, how charisma works - you meet someone, you feel what makes them tick, you do the thing that makes them tick.


And playing someone like this would be fun for everyone, I'd say. 


Your turn.

Why would anyone want any of this to happen?



Zak


1 & 2 Seem to center around the difference between the actual english word "Bard" and the image it conjures in the mind--which means an either court-bound or travelling medieval-ish poet/musician ---and a much broader definition that only gamers use, which is "music->magic". I have no opposition to someone doing magical effects via some suitably cool-looking music playing, like, you hit a gong and it causes an earthquake. All your examples seem like a VERY poor fit for the english word "bard" though--and I think the associations make it a bit like saying "Well I have a knight but he rides shoes instead of a horse and wears cloth instead of armor (because cloth protects you from cold, so it's a kind of armor) and he wields a paintbrush instead of a sword". Like: why are we using the word "bard" for this kind of PC that's only interesting with a completely different image unrelated to the word "bard" or its english-language associations?


As for "silly is ok" at that point you're arguing you might as well have literally any class, like a ceiling-toucher class made of people who are good at touching ceilings. That's fine to play a silly game, but it's not a good argument that it's as essential to fantasy RPGs as wizards and fighters.


3. Ok, you conceded that we can drop it,


4. First, that isn't how musicians actually interact with the world at all. Second, the wizard-intelligence thing only makes sense because the wizard has magic. And bards having magic is silly as proved up in 1 & 2.


Your turn.

Hail fellow well m...Hey where are you going?
Simon


Okay. 

1. When I say/hear "bard" I think of the old legendary figures like Taliesin. Since I'm not a native English speaker, no wonder that there can be poor fits like this. I don't mind using synonyms instead of "bard", minstrel, troubadour like that class that you made up, whatever. (Or I could argue that King Arthur's knights in reality wore cloth rather than heavy armour which didn't exist back then and didn't have lances, but that would be pointless and not interesting to anyone.) 


Agreed about silly games. 


4. First, if we talk about magic-musicians, I say they should be stranger and different from just musicians, and it should be somehow related to their connection with music. Second, I think we agree about doing magical effects via some suitably cool-looking music playing being okay. Some mages cast spells by reciting strange words and making gestures, some call the wind by whistling, or make the dead rise by tapping a complex rhythm, or make stone and steel shatter by singing a high note like an opera tenor breaking glass. And having a mage whose powers are limited to such musical things is fun. If it's more fun when we don't call him a bard, okay. We can call him something else. 


Are we still disagreeing?

Who's the real troll here?

Zak


1 & 2. Ok, so Taliesin is, if i understand, a travelling mythic middle-ages bard. Not an ethereal faerie singing a song to cast magic spells. 


So none of your reasoning makes sense there.


4. See 1&2


The idea is: Bard --in a rhetorical framework where it's an adventuring class as essential as a wizard or a thief--doesn't have much to stand on.


Wizard-but-singing or banging an organ is really a different image altogether.

No, you're a cringey dork


Simon


Taliesin was something similar to Thomas the Rhymer, a historic figure with legends connected to him. Thomas was supposed to be a lover/prisoner of faerie queen for seven years and gifted with prophetic abilities by her; there's a tale about Taliesin that a king tried to imprison him, and the bard sang a song that called a terrible monster to come out of the sea and do nasty things to the king. The king wasn't impressed until the monster really did arrive. 


So - historically they were travelling poets, but I like to think of them as travelling poets who could make magic happen with their poetry. 


4. When we speak of adventuring class - sure. It can be a variant of any basic one. I mean, Fafhrd wanted to be a scald - here's a fighter-bard, or rather a fighter/thief-bard. Something to fleshen out the character. If we're talking about essential classes, once again, a bard isn't more essential than a burglar or duellist, or illusionist. If we want to have a mage who's specializing in casting illusions, I don't see why not have a mage who's specialty is using music for spells. If we want to have essential adventuring classes - we have fighter, who doesn't do magic, we have wizard, who does magic, we have thief or specialist who does other things - then there's no reason to make bard a separate class.

Stop.


Zak


An illusionist has a job that has to do with adventuring.


A bard only has a job if we add-on to the word "bard" a bunch of associations which either aren't implied by the word (singing and the monster appears, so just a wizard basically) or which look silly (lute during goblin fight).


Simon


Isn't an illusionist just a wizard, basically, but limited to illusions?


Zak


Yes. Which is a legitimate adventuring person.


A "bard" is as much an adventuring class as a baker.


Simon


I could imagine, say, "Butcher" as an adventuring class, though probably not baker. Anyways, 

if we take an essential wizard and slap some limitations on him, and call him something shorter than "wizard who uses music" to keep it simple, would there be a problem with it?


Zak


No problem: but the name can't be arbitrary. Words have associations, especially in historical or fantasy contexts.


The name should be about what the class brings to the adventuring table AND not conjure an image of something that's not an adventurer.

Must be casual friday.


Simon


True enough. And I suppose people could find a name suitable for such a character, I'm pretty sure you could if you needed one. Not that I ask you to give one right now, just that there are suitable names that could be used, aren't there?


Zak


It's probably conceivable, but I don't have one in mind.


Simon


Okay. So I guess we've reached the point where we agree. If it's not called a bard but has a reasonable name, and it's not silly on the level of playing a lute in the middle of goblin attacks to make everyone feel better, it can be fun, and fun things should be used in games.


Zak


Fair enough. A pleasure, Simon.


Simon


The pleasure, dear sir, is all mine!


-

-

-

Thank you for reading the disagree-a-thon. If you left a comment with a good disagreement and haven't gotten in touch yet, email zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm.

The only cool bard--by Jacques Callot.
He's dead now.
-
-
-
Eager for more bardic content. A new Cube World installment, FUCKING BARDS, is now available in The Store, go get one.


Monday, September 13, 2021

Ten Ideas From Ten Years Ago


So you may have noticed that they've began reprinting classic (translation: old) D&D adventures in deluxe hardcovers with modern-edition conversions alongside essays from various luminaries reminiscing about the original books.

Longtime readers may remember: I told them to do this in 2011, the same year Mike Mearls (one of the essay-writing luminaries in there) said "Hey man. I really dig your blog. I send links to it around the office often enough that I should probably be paying you a consulting fee or something." Which they eventually did.

So, I took a look at some other ideas from ten years ago that maybe someone might want to use:

1. My First Dungeon Kit--Someone should get out their Cintiq, scrub this up and sell it for 50$ a pop. Or, better yet, make it a website.

2. Handwriting fonts--Great if you want to print a hand-drawn map but then you make a mistake, just make your handwriting a font.

3. Information Design That Doesn't Suck--Information design in RPGs has improved somewhat since I made this post, but people still haven't really got it. A lot of games look better but you still can't find tables when you need them, or like Skerples will use bullet points for dungeon room descriptions but then the bullet point says "Cold and dark"--yeah, dipshit, it's a dungeon. You just took a tool used to save time and space and made it waste time and space all over again.

4. Comb-bound Books--From this entry. Not to make your regular book look cheap, but for content specifically designed to lay totally flat--a book full of die-drop tables and two-page-spread dungeons. And the comb should be nice and thick like that cupcake book.

5. Tiny spellbooks--From the same entry. A spellbook for players the size of a deck of cards. Get on it.

6. Interaction matrices--These kinds of charts where you examine how each element in a set interacts with each other are still underutilized. I remember the original Unearthed Arcana used them to show how different species interacted with each other (antipathy, hatred, toleration, etc) but there are so many other ways to used them.

7. One-page character generator--Ten years later and WOTC still can't figure out how to do it.

8. Gigacrawler--Gigacrawler was two ideas: Sci-Fi dungeoncrawler and crowdsourced library content (spells, items, etc).

This seems eminently doable in 2021, especially because there are so many video game models to go off of and it's probably not too hard to build web tools to allow anonymous authors and vote-on-able content.

You make a new kind of proton gun, write it up, upload it to the site anonymously, then everyone who thought it was good upvotes it, everyone who used it in a game gets 2 votes.

You could even have a system where--at a certain vote threshold--a thing got illustrated.

9. Procedurally-generated dungeons using distance from the entrance as a variable--Like this. Basically, the further you are from the entrance, the greater the chance of weirdness, danger, and treasure.

10. Fill-in the Blanks Dungeons--This seems like a no-brainer. In the current environment, anything WOTC releases will be A) Roundly criticized for real or imaginary content problems and B) Sell like cakebusters. So why not release something where the content is up to the customers? You rope in all the old schoolers by enabling good-old-fashioned do-it-yourself content.

---

Honorable Mention: This one's only 7 years old, but somebody finally used this idea today, so...

Fred Hicks getting off social media-- The harasser who heads Evil Hat made attacking people and then immediately claiming he couldn't engage or provide proof of what he'd said for mental health reasons to a fine art. People have been telling him to stop doing this for, like, ever, most recently from fellow indie-RPG harasser Brandon Leon Gambetta.

Today he announced that he finally got the memo:

Since he's "listening", if you--unlike many of Fred's victims--are not blocked, you might wanna ask him to make efforts to undo all the damage he's done by not realizing this sooner and make reparations to the people who's lives he helped destroy by lying on the internet.

-

-

Oh there's a new module up in The Store--The Stair and The Vizier's Secret. Go buy it.



Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Bottle Fantasy

The universe (which others call the Library) is composed of an indefinite and perhaps infinite number of hexagonal galleries, with vast air shafts between, surrounded by very low railings. 

             -Library of Babel, Jorge Luis Borges

 When famas go on a trip, when they pass the night in a city, their procedure is the following: one fama goes to the hotel and prudently checks the prices, the quality of the sheets, and the color of the carpets. The second repairs to the commissariat of police and there fills out a record of the real and transferable property of all three of them, as well as an inventory of the contents of their valises. The third fama goes to the hospital and copies the lists of the doctors on emergency and their specialties.

After attending to these affairs diligently, the travelers join each other in the central plaza of the city, exchange observations, and go to a café to take an apéritif. But before they drink, they join hands and do a dance in a circle. This dance is known as “The Gayety of the Famas.”

When cronopios go on a trip, they find that all the hotels are filled up, the trains have already left, it is raining buckets and taxis don’t want to pick them up, either that or they charge them exorbitant prices. The cronopios are not disheartened because they believe firmly that these things happen to everyone...

-Cronopios Y Famas, Julio Cortazar, tr. Paul Blackburn 

The Merchant is a blue skinned man sitting on a blue-green rug next to some cards, a small chest, a bag, and a knife. He is wearing a mask covering his face and a blue cloak. He acts friendly towards the player and talks to them while they view and purchase his wares.

-Slay the Spire Wiki 

There is a specific genre--or maybe just category--of fantasy I'm going to call "Bottle Fantasy". The simplest way to describe Bottle Fantasy is literally no-one has a normal life.

Let me be precise, though:

While most imaginative fiction (from the Godfather to Lord of the Rings) simply tells a story which focuses on something more exciting than human life as we know it, Bottle Fantasy takes place in a whole universe with no clear place recognizable human life as we know it. In a Bottle Fantasy, nobody gets born, then lives a whole life that looks (at least from the outside, regardless of the physical laws involved) like one that would happen in the real world, and then dies in a real-world way.

This isn't the same as just an imaginary world or universe--Middle Earth, it is strongly implied, either is the past of our world or one a lot like it, which means it both has people living normal lives in it and that it might one day mellow out and look like our world. Star Trek makes a place for our lives: in the past, Star Wars posits itself in the past--and far away. Moreover, all these fictional worlds at least want us to believe they have basically recognizable economies, human biologies (decapitation kills humans), etc.

Aside from the absence of Christianity, vanilla D&D could plausibly take place in the world that a very superstitious peasant suspects is just outside his door.

To simplify, hopefully: in most fantasy, there are dragons but the average peasant hasn't seen one. In Bottle Fantasy, there aren't average peasants and there never have been. All people eat starlight instead of meat, or there may be no people, only spheres, or all people are just stacks of owls in costumes.

Bottle Fantasy is in a bottle--while things may be analogous to our world, there is no in-world connection to our normal world.

Pac-Man, as presented in the original video game, is technically a Bottle Fantasy: there are no people, only Pac-Man, ghosts, dots and fruit. In Borges' Library of Babel there is literally no world except the library full of hexagons.

The world Julio Cortaza describes above in Cronopios Y Famas might be a Bottle Fantasy--there are doctors and taxis, but it's suggested that all people in the world of the book are Cronopios, Famas or Esperanzas--creatures who all act in a stylized way. It is unclear whether the doctors and taxi drivers are people who act in a normal way other than giving trips to Cronopios et al.

Like most genre categories, there's a spectrum. With "Total Bottle Fantasy" (world unconnected to our own operating on rules all its own) to "Almost Bottle Fantasy", some examples:

  • Planescape is the closest official D&D comes to Bottle Fantasy. Though you can travel and get to a world where regular people exist doing regular things, it's assumed you'd spend almost no time there and that the vast majority of the action takes place in worlds with alternate life patterns, economies and day-to-day physical laws.
  • Lewis Carroll's Alice books would be Bottle Fantasies if it wasn't for the fact that Alice is an ordinary girl from our world.
  • Likewise, it's spawn Red & Pleasant Land would be Bottle Fantasy if it weren't for the fact you can get there from a more recognizable world.
  • Mario's gameworld would be Bottle Fantasy if it wasn't for the fact that the early games posit that Mario and Luigi were regular plumbers from our world who just went into the pipes to clean out crabs and turtles.
  • Eberron is right on the edge, because it's implied everything that you can do in normal D&D is somewhere in Eberron, that means that there are people who just, like, go to taverns and work as regular blacksmiths, etc. There's probably versions of Eberron where even the farmwork and daily drudgery is obviously magic-based, but I don't think anyone's ever gone into that much detail. 
  • Slay The Spire is a Bottle Fantasy: there is no clear evidence of normal life anywhere. The clearest examples of real lives we see are communities trying to live within The Spire who definitely survive on weird unreal processes.
  • Candyland is an example of a minimalist Bottle Fantasy. There is naught but travelers and candy.
  • A lot of OSR gameworlds posit or begin to posit Bottle Fantasies.
  • Superhero worlds aren't generally Bottle Fantasies, since normalcy exists as a thing from which superheroes and villains emerge.
  • Sci-fis usually aren't Bottle Fantasies because they posit a normally-functioning historical Earth either far away, in the past, or existing just before the introduction of some sci-fi idea.
An important part of non-Bottle Fantasies is not so much that the real world shows up, it's that we have certain expectations brought on by the assumption that anything not called-out works as it does in our world.

For example: I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone die of vacuum-exposure in Star Wars. But the infamous scene where Princess Leia uses the force to stop herself from dying in The Last Jedi relies on your assumption that she'll die if she's unprotected in space, unless some unexpected force (or: Force) intervenes.

Some general characteristics of Bottle Fantasies in different media:

  • Bottle Fantasies are more common in video games and board games than most other media because the effort to create this kind of game starts with the fun/action/adventure part of the world--the part you, as a main character, play with--and programming in the normal world or references to it is often just more work than making something up. As a game creator with these games you start with what's unusual and then work your way out. You start with jumping on turtles and only tell us what a normal day as a plumber is like if you have extra time.
  • Bottle Fantasies are less common in tabletop RPGs (especially popular ones) because, conversely, the players' tactical choices and the game master's adventure-building choices rely heavily on assuming there's a world outside the game text that functions in a familiar way. For example: few RPG texts bother to explain that rivers are full of water and flow in one direction or that wood floats--but most RPG creators assume that these two facts can be assumed by players who want to build a river-raft to get somewhere. Everytime you want to remove a real-world assumption you need to type at least one sentence ("there are no rivers in the world of Dark Sun") and every time you want to change it, you need to type even more ("instead there are seas of silt"), and then you have to explain the implications, because it's an RPG and the world has to function even when the author isn't narrating it ("Most people get their water from...")
  • Bottle Fantasies in live-action film are even rarer than in tabletop RPGs because in these films (1) You have to take the raw material of reality and transform it to get a fictional world (2) This is expensive (3) Expensive films often have to pay for themselves by being popular (4) A wholly Bottled world, though offering opportunities for exciting special effects, is less likely to be relatable, which limits its popularity. The compromise live-action film generally makes is to offer a Mario or Alice-style "visitation" narrative like Tron where someone from our world goes to a mostly Bottled world. It is a feat of rare daring for a filmmaker to make a complete Bottle World, especially for adults.
  • Conversely, Primitive Bottle Fantasies in animation are common--especially in experimental or student animation because, say, "Dots vs Lines" is very doable.
  • Bottle Fantasies in written fiction are common in short stories, but rare as novels. While many fantasy, sci-fi, and straight literary writers have produced Bottle Fantasies as short thought-experiments, its hard to think of a novel's worth of conflict over things that don't exist in our world, and you have to be pretty good, or at least pretty driven, to do it.

In sculpture, they talk about additive and subtractive sculpture--in additive sculpture you pile up material (say: clay, or legos) until it looks like the thing, in subtractive sculpture you carve away (stone, or the like). In fiction, we can talk about reality like a material: there are media where you start with a real thing, like actors on a stage, and alter them to seem like characters in your story, and there are media where you start with nothing--an empty canvas or page--and add things.

The pattern here is: if working a medium starts with reality and then alters it in order to produce its basic material, then Bottle Fantasy is unusual, if working in a medium starts with nothing and getting something to resemble reality is itself a complex act of craft, Bottle Fantasy is more common, since a fantastic world is often easier to produce than a real one. Bottle Fantasy is easy in painting (look: a world consisting of a circle and nothing else) and hard in theater (every actor needs to be disguised as not-an-actor, the stage might have to be rigged with wires and mirrors to present alternate physics).

Oddly, this puts tabletop RPGs on the "start with reality, then alter it" side of the equation. 

Bottle Fantasy in RPG or live-action film are, thus, very ambitious projects. Building a world that functions for hours without any parts that default to the real world (or at least some shared conception of it) is a bit like trying to build a car that works without gas or electricity or even steam.

Bottle Fantasies are, almost axiomatically, imaginative but inaccessible. And the more imaginative they are, the less accessible they become.

Probably the ur-example in tabletop is Empire of the Petal Throne / Tekumel --while there are farmers in Tekumel, they're from no extant culture (when it is earthlike, Tekumel itself mixes South Asian and Mesoamerican influence, so you can't rely on one or the other the way you can assume anything left undescribed in Middle Earth is just "as you guess England circa 1200 would be") and the layers of ritual and invented religion intentionally insert themselves between players and their assumptions. Even Tekumel has a "visitation" narrative built in--players in the original game are supposed to be untutred foreigners. It might not be technically Bottle Fantasy as I've defined it, but it's close and presents the problems and opportunities of the genre.

Bottle Fantasy in RPGs is kind of great, in that it appeals to the game-masterish desire to invent everything from the ground up--"All arrows are petrified snakes here because there's no wood!" and it's kind of horrible in that it forces you to invent everything from the ground up--"Uh, if there's no wood, is there wine? What's it aged in? Wait, if there's no wood, are there vines?" etc.

-

-

-

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Alien, Predator, The Problem of Interesting Monsters

 Note: If you voted to hear the Vampire story, it's still coming in early May, don't worry.

-The Alien and The Predator are both interesting monsters.

-One reason Alien is a better movie than Predator is it found reasons for the cast to talk about the interesting monster and observe its behavior. After Cain dies, like 50% or more of the dialogue is in one way or another, finding out about the monster, explaining it ("using the air ducts", "Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.", "big as a man").

-What dialogue isn't about the monster is about The Company's plot ("crew expendable" etc.).

-Simple formula (Lovecraftian even)--create an interesting monster and then the story is mostly just explaining how it's interesting.

-Predator on the other hand: how do we know its an alien? First scene we see its space ship. How do we know it has only thermal vision? We see through its eyes.

-Showing not telling doesn't work here because it leaves the characters almost nothing else to talk about or do--except the same things they'd do in any other non-monster action movie: I'm worried about murdering! I'm not! How will we accomplish murdering? Yeah, they got betrayed by the CIA, but it's so not important to anything and Carl Weathers (the Ash figure, the betrayer) gets killed by the Predator, so that plot resolves itself without anyone having to confront him or make a decision about it or act or anything.

-A problem with all the later Predator and Alien movies: instead of interesting or difficult characters being dealt with by the other characters (as the crew deals with Ash in Alien) they just get killed by the monster. We realize, at some point in every later movie, that this is a slasher formula and none of the interpersonal plot gymnastics matter. Ripley matters, that's all, because Ripley will, in one way or another, survive.

-So what does matter (besides the quality of the kills)? We want to learn more about the creatures.

-This, I think, is what really disappointed everyone most about Prometheus--the whole beginning was a classic Hard SF set-up: we were going to Learn About The Universe and then as soon as we get to the big mystery (What the fuck was that thing in the...chair? in Alien?) it turns into a slasher movie. No, we are not going to learn anything else, the only question in a slasher movie is: how will they die? Not well, it turns out. Also he looks like the Michelin man but that's a whole other post.

-Anyway to retrieve the thread: Interesting monsters. The genius of the first Alien--and nearly all the best parts of all the later Alien and Predator movies--is it turns learning about the interesting monsters into the plot.

-The technique: rationing out the information on the interesting monster scene by scene, piece by piece, kill by kill.

-Failure means: wasting information, wasting kills, and, by extension, wasting characters. Letting the monster chew through the cast before the cast gets to chew on the monster.

-Again, Lovecraftian: the scenes in The Call of Cthulhu where we learn about Cthulhu are more interesting than what Cthulhu actually does at the end (with the Swede and the boat and all that).

-It's all a slow tease, a show whose content is slow revelation. It's why there's this curious deflating effect when you see a Wiki full of information on the creatures, like everything fun is mashed down into a statblock. The Predator tribe is called the Yautja? Did you know that? I didn't. Somehow I wish I still didn't? I want the mystery.

It's like looking at the lyrics to your favorite song all typed out. "Oooh, ye-ahh, baby" I mean yes that's the words but...it felt different in the song.

-

-

-



Friday, February 26, 2021

Secret Wars Toys As A Parable of Design, Detail and Giving People What They Want

This is a design-is-not-engineering parable:

It should've worked perfectly.

Mattel--fresh off the success of He-Man--decided to make some superhero toys with Marvel. 

You know Marvel, right? The company that currently dominates the entire entertainment market with a gloved fist?

So they gathered ten-year old boys together in a focus group. They said to them "Listen, ten-year-old-boys, what is it that you desire?"

The ten year old boys spoke:

1-Weapons

2-Vehicles and bases

3-The word "secret"

4-The word "war"

That's what tested well.

So they went to Marvel Comics and said "Listen, Marvel, you make the comics, we'll make the toys. Just make sure it has that stuff." Thus was born a comic book called Marvel Super-Heroes Secret Wars, (over in the UK, a little earlier, the comic anthology 2000AD polled its readers about the themes they liked and they voted for "future war" and thus the comic Rogue Trooper was born). Marvel head Jim Shooter wrote a 12-issue battle royale in another dimension featuring all of the company's most popular heroes: the Avengers, the X-Men, Spider-Man, the Hulk, etc. Mattel made toys in the now-mandatory Star-Wars-like scale. Sales reps went to comic shops and toy stores and hyped them all up and down.

And...

...it didn't work. Well, the comic worked: the first issue sold 800,000 copies. Which is a lot. But the toys, they were not that popular. Again: they should've been. Marvel Comics at the literal height of their popularity with kids (they had recently turned down an offer to buy DC) plus toys, in the middle of The Original Toy Tie-In Decade. It didn't take.

First off you'll notice or remember--the toys sucked:

But it's important to remember what they sucked compared to--it was 1984--two of the most toyetic properties of the late 20th century had just arrived:



Marvel had vehicles! And weapons! And twenty years of good will! Plus a best-selling comic and yet the Marvel toy line wasn't a patch on these newcomers. Why?

Well Transformers and GI Joe had their own cartoons, but the toys were also cooler--and more detailed. And it's important to recognize what that detail meant. Marvel put very little effort into the design of the vehicles and weapons and stuff:                                              

...it's like a...War of the Worlds walker thing that two guys can sit in? With...rays? There is no love in that war walker. But maybe more important it doesn't mean anything. And here's what I mean by that:

Look at GI Joe and Transformers: Roadblock has a fully-automatic machine gun, because he's a big guy and the only one strong enough to carry it, Snake-Eyes has an uzi, because Snake-Eyes is the mysterious cool guy and uzis were cool back then, Soundwave turns into a tape-player and he has tiny other robots that come out of the tape-player, Megatron has a giant cannon on his arm because when he transforms hsi whole body into a gun it's the scope on the gun. And the robots turn into these mundane things because they're hiding on Earth in disguise. Every visual detail builds the world and also has a clue to the narrative (a narrative echoed in the cartoons, comics and the little data-files on the back of the toy box). That gun platform in Secret Wars? It just tells you they're in space. And would like to shoot you.

Of course Marvel had visual world-building: Captain America has that stars-and-stripes shield because he was created as a patriotic propaganda tool in WW2, the Hulk's pants are ripped because he transforms unwillingly from human into monster, etc. but the foundational mistake of Secret Wars--from a toy-selling perspective--was to have the story take place on another planet, light-years away from the world Marvel had already built. The characters were all Marvel, but the focus-grouped selling-point--those vehicles and weapons and bases--didn't have anything to do with the ongoing Marvel story that dozens of creators had already put decades of work into.

If the toys had come with the X-Mansion, Avengers Mansion, the Fantasticar, and Doom's Castle, the line might've done better, but I think the real nail in the coffin might've been the shields.

Every Marvel character came with a shield and this was a terrible idea. Somewhere a toy exec is going "But we're giving these kids more stuff? Who doesn't want more?". But, to a kid, nothing marks this toy line as some off-brand ignorable just-a-cut-above-Hulk-shampoo tat as these shields--they announce immediately that this toy line is detached from the story of Marvel. Why would the fucking Hulk have a shield? With his secret identity head on it? The shields don't even appear in the Secret Wars comic--but even if they did, they would just point to these toys being part of this inessential, skippable, temporary pocket-universe. The shields:

    -tell you nothing about the Marvel world and its story, and

    -tell you that the toy line is going to be characterized by stuff like this instead of things which do tell you the details of the world and its story

With GI Joe and Transformers you had to look at the toys because every inch of them told you something about the character. Where does Grimlock's T-rex head go when he transforms into a robot? Go to a friends' house and look at him. The Marvel toys tell you less than the art you've already seen.

Marvel trading-cards--something with way less genuine play value than these toys--did way better. Because they promised some contribution to the story--one series had each heroes win-loss percentage ont he back, f'rinstance.

The broader point is no ten-year-old boy is going to go "I want toys with distinctive details that feed my sense of exploring an alternate world as large and imperfectly-knowable as our own". They're going to go "I like detachable weapons" and end up with Iron Man holding a fucking lenticular shield with Tony Stark's head on it.

Most people who saw all these toys as a kid could probably tell you now that they weren't going to trip over themselves to get the Marvel toys (even if they couldn't tell you why)--but the toy execs couldn't. And this was even though the design principles they were using ("toy guns good") were solid. You can't really design from the outside-in. You have to have ideas about why what you want people to love should be lovable.

Moral of the story: beware of "design principles". Love what you're doing and build out from there.

-

-

-

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Staggered, Dazed and Hindered (or, What Was Mainstream Game Design?)


If I were asked to sum up the term "mainstream RPG design" up in three sentences I’d say:
Blind: A combined condition. The character cannot see, so everything effectively has full visual concealment from him. He is hindered, visually unaware, and vulnerable, and may be impaired or disabled for activities where vision is a factor.
A lot of people (or at least a lot of people like you, who read blogs about role-playing games in their spare time) talk about "mainstream game design" in terms of being something they don't want to do. But what is it? Why do people make it? What can we learn from it and attempts to avoid it?

It's not exactly Dungeons and Dragons. Editions of D&D take an unusually long time to produce and are pretty fraught due to fan and corporate interest, so every edition of D&D--technically the world's most mainstream RPG-- inevitably includes:

-a mishmash of relics left over from how things used to be (a thing called "saving throws" which are just a kind of stat check in every other game)

-trailing indicators of current trends (inspiration, traits), and

-innovations (advantage/disadvantage)

...so it's rarely a good example. While most RPG design trots from trend to trend, D&D--like the other still-surviving big properties from the 80s and 90s--gets slingshotted forward in time every five or ten years and bounces around drunkenly trying to find a level until it starts all over again.

I would say the current Monster Manual and spell list in 5e are pretty much mainstream design incarnate, but if you really want to know what would happen if you gave a monkey a Mac and 5 cents an hour and said "Write the most mainstream game possible" for any given year, D&D as a whole is too much of a patchwork to use as a model.

Instead, I'd propose that the best way to find an example of the zero-experiment flattened-bobcat dead-center of the middle-of-the-road at any given time is to ask Green Ronin.

And the hallmark of Green Ronin design is: breathtaking thoughtlessness. 

The Green Ronin name is not especially attached to any specific property (unlike White Wolf and World of Darkness) or system (unlike Pinnacle and Savage Worlds)  or designer (unlike Pelgrane and Robin Laws) or even design philosophy (unlike most smaller indie presses) and they have a record of license-chasing, including Dragon Age, Song of Ice & Fire, D&D/D20 and DC Comics.

Green Ronin is to RPGs what Dark Horse would be to comics if you subtracted out Sin City, HellboyConcrete and anything else anyone made by someone who was paid well and wanted to be there.  They'll make you whatever you want, poorly, and throw in a copy of Predator vs Buck Rogers, free.


If the Ronin is Green, it's only because that's the natural state of a chameleon. 

So GR is going to provide us our example:


DC Adventures


Why DC Adventures? Though it is almost a decade old there are two reasons for this--one good, one bad. 

The bad reason is: the DC Adventures game is the only Green Ronin book I can get through without falling asleep.  I'll need a picture from a different, more recent, GR game to show you what I mean:

They not only put this picture in a book, they put it on the page meant to advertise it. Thanks to the art that came along with the license, DC Adventures at least doesn't look like someone plugged a mannequin directly into a Cintiq and hit "print".

The good reason is: it is probably their most popular game. If you add in the parent system--Mutants & Masterminds, it definitely is. It had a whole line, with a whole line developer

People wanted this game--and it can still be found on the shelves of local game stores next to D&D, Pathfinder, Star Wars and maybe some 40K games.

A lot of folks may read this and go "Well that's just 3.5./the D20 era." or even "Well this is just a crunchy game". Well, no, because:

-All those D20 designers are still around and making things

-Deciding to adapt someone else's system is a choice

-The total self-sabotage, in terms of "helping fun be had" is on the shoulders of the person doing the adapting is real.

-These same kinds of bad decisions where you don't think what the player gets out of the system are being made now with people adapting 5e, people adapting Fate, people adapting PBTA, people who were at Fantasy Flight doing 40k, etc. etc.

Has "normal" moved on since this game was put out? Yes. But what's important isn't the trends in game design they're aping, it's the utter thoughtlessness with which they do it.


---

So that's the context, as for what's inside, it does what it intends to do, and what it intends to do is unambitious and will be soon superceded. Its limitations are real and frustrating, but chosen. Let's see what that means...

-The cover is Alex Ross--as mainstream as it could be. On the credits page we find the actual designer Steve Kenson (who did its parent, Mutants and Masterminds and now the equally unappealing Icons and is still around). Nicole Lindroos and Chris Pramas, the company's heads (of whom the less said the better, at least for them), as well as a huge list of DC Comics artists--though artist names are not attached or indexed to the specific pictures they did, which, given the fat block of names, kind of guts the point of crediting them--even I can't figure half of them out and I can tell when George Perez inked himself at 400 feet. Which you might call thoughtless. Maybe I missed something and real credits are elsewhere idk.

Quotes from the book are in italics:
Halfway between skills and powers, advantages are minor abilities characters have, allowing them to do things others cannot. They range from special combat maneuvers to things like financial resources, contacts, and so forth. Many advantages have no rank, or rather just one rank; a character either has the advantage (and the benefits that it grants) or does not. Other advantages may have multiple ranks, like abilities and skills, measuring their effectiveness.
Why do we have skills and advantages? If you must have ranked and unranked things, why not divide them by that instead and name the two different things that way?

Oh but these are quibbles in comparison to the concept of ranks themselves:
Each rank represents a range of measures. Time rank 4 is actually all measures between 1 and 2 minutes, and time rank 16 is everything between 2 and 4 days! So if you’re looking for a measurement that’s not on the table, pick the next highest one that is; so 12 hours is a time rank of 13 (more than 8 hours, but less than 16), and 6 miles is a distance rank of 11 (more than 4 miles, but less than 8).
This idea of ranking different measures of things (time, space, weight) using universal ranks was in the orginal DC Heroes RPG in the '80s. Possibly earlier. 

In D&D magic a spell might last Level Minutes or Level Hours—say 3 hours or minutes at Level 3. In games like this a power lasts Level Time (and then you look up how many minutes or hours 3 is in Time).

I have yet to discover a single advantage to this system either in terms of playing or writing the game—you still have to look something up, you’re just looking up the measurments table instead of the power description. In addition, though it looks like precision, the math requires vagueness “Time rank 4 is actually all measures between 1 and 2 minutes” well that’s everything from 10 to 20 combat rounds, Ronin, kinda not terrible helpful considering the amount of work it takes to design a system of measurement and keep it consistent across all powers.

The time it takes a Speed 14 hero to cover 30 miles is rank –1, or 3 seconds.

Fuck off.

Don’t directly add ranks. Putting rank 4 distance together with rank 6 distance is not rank 10 distance! Rank 4 is a distance measurement of 500 feet. Rank 6 is 600 yards (1,800 feet). Adding the measurements, you get about 2,300 feet. If you directly added the ranks, you’d get rank 10 distance, or 4 miles! If you have different ranks, it is best to either handle them separately or convert them to measurements, add the measurements together, and convert them back to a rank. In the previous example, 2,300 feet is rank 7 distance (around half a mile).

Fuck off again.

Measurements are approximate. Especially at the higher end, where each rank represents a wide range of measurements, the Measurements Table isn’t intended to provide precise values; it’s just a ballpark estimate so you have an idea of how things work in the context of the game. Don’t focus too heavily on precise answers, just use the table for general guidelines.
Then why are we using this system? Can we just have hours and minutes back?

Interestingly enough, the actual numbers in the Measurement System are similar in important ways to the original Mayfair DC Heroes game which used a totally different resolution engine. In Marvel, the strongest heroes lift around 100 tons  according to the game and the Official Handbook (if you’re wondering: no, this isn’t at all consistent with the comic depictions, the Hulk picks up ocean liners no problem he's not even mad). In DC Heroes and Adventures that’s a mere 12 strength, which is where Wonder Woman was in the 2nd ed DC Heroes. 21 here is 50k tons, and iirc in DC Heroes it was 50k tons in the older game. The heroes themselves however are very different: Wonder Woman is now 16 strength and Superman and Captain Marvel now 19. This means: systemwonk canon is more stable than comic book canon, and, at least if you ask DC, Wonder Woman is benchpressing 16 times what Thor is.
To determine the distance a hero covers in a given amount of time, add the rank of the time to the rank of the hero’s speed, with normal human ground speed being rank 0. So a normal person can cover 2 miles in an hour (time 9 + speed 0 = 9, the rank for 2 miles). In fact, with normal human speeds, you can just directly compare the time and distance columns of the table! As another example, a hero with Flight 12 can cover 8,000 miles in an hour! That’s 12 (speed) + 9 (time) = 21, the rank for 8,000 miles. The same character can go an amazing 16 miles in just 6 seconds (the time of one action round)!
This is a lot of work to avoid just writing a power that says “You can fly Level x 20 mph or Level x 20 feet per round”.

You’d think this would at least make power descriptions shorter? No.
You move through soil and sand at a speed rank equal to your Burrowing rank, minus 5. So Burrowing 8, for example, lets you move through the ground at speed rank 3 (around 16 MPH). 
Why isn’t your speed at least just equal to your Burrowing rank? Because of the math burden created by the measurement system.

The DC Heroes universal measurement system is also strange from the POV of transparency and accessibility. You’d think if the game is meant to be accessible to people familiar with D&D or DC comics or just numbers, you’d make however strong Superman was supposed to be at 20 or 25 or 30 (in the original Dc Heroes it was 50) or another round number to “cap” the system, then scale down from there for everyone else—thus giving a new player a good idea of how powerful an ability was “half as strong as Superman” or even “as fast as Superman is strong” etc. But nope: 19. And Mr Battlesuit (a generic Iron Man style character you can use as a base) has a Stamina of 1? Is that a bad score? Ok my dudes.

Here’s a great vulnerability of these kinds of rules: false efficiency.

I look up a power or object or rule (say pg 57?). It says the effect leaves someone “Hindered”. I then have to turn to page 18 and look up Hindered:

What’s hindered?
“Hindered: A hindered character moves at half normal speed (–1 speed rank). Immobile supersedes hindered.”
(And hindered isn’t Impaired or Fatigued or Exhausted— whole other things—so the chance of me memorizing it straight off isn’t great)

It’d be a lot simpler if it just said what hindered meant under the description of the power//object/rule. It’s simpler for the designer’s life to just go “Hindered is a condition, it’s the same every time, I’ll stick this word here instead of this sentence” it’s harder for the player or GM referencing it—if it’s a deluxe pdf  and the word “hindered” is hotlinked, it’s still a click away and you may not easily be able to click back to where you were.

It looks, if you're an engineer, like efficiency but if you actually think about play at the table it’s not.

Even worse, the next page has combined conditions—conditions that reference 1 or more other conditions .

Some are just stupid and unnecessary:

Restrained: A restrained character is hindered and vulnerable. If the restraints are anchored to an immobile object, the character is immobile rather than hindered. If restrained by another character, the restrained character is immobile but may be moved by the restraining character.

Incapacitated: An incapacitated character is defenseless, stunned, and unaware. Incapacitated characters generally also fall prone, unless some outside force or aid keeps them standing.

Staggered: A staggered character is dazed and hindered.

So if you have a bad guy with a power that staggers people, you gotta look that up, then look back at the other section to find Hindered (pg 18), then turn the page to look up Dazed (pg 17). 

…insted of just writing “This leaves the target with 1 action per round and at half normal speed.”

Like that's it. That is the description. Really could you not just have done that?

This isn't a fault of the D20 system, this is what failure to think about what you're doing and who you're doing it for looks like.

Also: the conditions could’ve at least fit on one spread of the book but they stuck a couple pictures in there and so fucked that right up.

This fiddly language even get into the description of what different level superhumans are like. From Power 10 Superhumans:

Power level 10 heroes may have a balance of attack and effect, defense and resistance, or may go for being stronger on one side than the other, having great combat skill, but comparatively limited damage, for example, or great Toughness, but lowered defenses.
Not like "Teen Titans are Power Level 10" but: that.

Spending Hero Points in this game is hilarious trash. (From the point of view of someone who likes games to be a challenge from the character’s pov. If you’re a dull person I'm sure its all as exciting as the new Decembrists album.) Some things you can do:
You can “edit” a scene to grant your hero an advantage by adding or changing certain details. For example, a hero is fighting a villain with plant-based powers in a scientific lab. You deduce the villain may be weakened by defoliants, so you ask the GM if there are any chemicals in the lab you can throw together to create a defoliant. The Gamemaster requires a hero point to add that detail and says the right chemicals are close at hand. Now you just have to use them!

 This option is intended to give players more input into the story and allow their heroes chances to succeed, but it shouldn’t be used as a replacement for planning and cleverness, just as a way to enhance them.
So the chance of having a chemical in a lab isn’t random, it’s the effect of having done hero stuff. Let's say you didn't have a hero point: is there suddenly no chance of having a defoliant in a lab? Is the cleverness of thinking there might be suddenly negated by not having previously done a hero thing and gotten the points?

It's philosophically complicated but I don't think it's pushing it to say:

A straightforward way to reward cleverness is to say if you think of the idea "maybe the lab has defoliants" then maybe you can look for them and if you (cleverly) play to the character's strengths and they happen to be in chemistry or noticing stuff than maybe this looking is more likely to be successful. 

Throwing in a currency that is given for previous play encourages something else but it isn't in-game cleverness.

Ok, you're not convinced? This is much worse:

You can spend a hero point to gain the benefits of one rank of an advantage you don’t already have until the end of your next turn (see the Advantages chapter). 

So essentially there’s a whole arsenal of effects under Advantages….
Accurate Attack Trade effect DC for attack bonus.
All-out Attack Trade active defense for attack bonus.
Chokehold Suffocate an opponent you have successfully grabbed.
Close Attack +1 bonus to close attack checks per rank.
Defensive Attack Trade attack bonus for active defense bonus.
Throwing Mastery +1 damage bonus with thrown weapons per rank.
Uncanny Dodge Not vulnerable when surprised or caught off-guard.
Weapon Bind Free disarm attempt when you actively defend.
Weapon Break Free smash attack when you actively defend.
You suddenly get to-/have to- sort through mid fight. 

This rewards system mastery and staring at page 70 mid-game instead of being engaged with the fictional positioning. That is: what your character in the comic-book panel in your head is actually up to.


None of this has anything to do with how The Flash beats the Weather Wizard. This is just pure systemwonkery. It’s opposed to tactical transparency. You gotta actually know the system to gain the benefit which is a bad thing at most tables including any one I've enjoyed.
You can spend a hero point to get sudden inspiration in the form of a hint, clue, or bit of help from the GM.
Yes this is like the Idea roll in Call of Cthulhu. it’s stupid there too. Learn to say "I look at the ceiling", Batman.

You can also use hero points to remove the cost of “Extra Effort” rolls, which opens up a variety of other options that look a lot like the Advantages (enhancing speed, enhancing strength, etc). So: more system mastery. Less tactical transparency. You get stronger by having done something unrelated last scene and having read the book alone a lot.

What's a better hero point system look like?

In Marvel Superheroes/FASERIP hero points just help you with a roll. Period. It might not even work and you have to announce you're spending them before you roll--so it can't be reliably used to circumvent a problem that could be solved by thinking.

It’s simple, and though it somewhat mitigates pure tactical challenge it doesn’t make you think outside the character’s pov much, unlike say spending a point to claim some acid was already there or going ok I want to use my points to temporarily be better at throwing specifically. It encourages a kind of thinking I like.

In FASERIP you go "Do you want to spend karma on the roll?". That's it--it's a moment of gambling that makes the stakes feel higher. It works, too, it really does feel like that panel in a Marvel comic where someone goes "Must...move...thing...before...I...drown...".

I can save people, act in character, fight a bad guy (all things I’d be doing anyway) and then the math slides in my direction according to how much effort I put in. In DCA game there’s an element of having to switch to being the author rather than being like “I am trying hard” (represented by 70 karma pts) there’s “I need a new idea”--ok, spend  a hero point.

Karma in FASERIP makes conditions more favorable—-it’s very comparable to effort and motivation. Hero points in DCA move you into the writer’s position--or the minmaxer's--forcing you to squeeze the rules to get an efficient result. 

--

Character gen is point-buy.

There are a number of archetypes prebuilt and you can customize them (like "Battlesuit guy")—which is a bone to how fucking pointlessly complex the system is. They build half the person for you then let you fiddle with whatever parts you dare to understand.

Other than the archetypes, character gen doesn’t do much to inspire new ideas unless you want a megapowerful character and so end up having to buy disadvantages that make you more interesting. But such is point-buy.

--
More crunch: if you wanna play Master of Kung Fu you need hella system mastery.

The Gadgeteer and Martial Artist rely a great deal on their advantages (as do other archetypes like the Crime Fighter and Weapon-Master). You’ll want to read the descriptions of all of the character’s advantages from the Advantages chapter so you know the benefits they provide. Remember to make use of them during play to give your character every appropriate, well, advantage.

In particular, note how some advantages and even powers work together. The Gadgeteer can use Quick-Thinking to speed up the process of inventing (see Inventing, page 145) and Skill Mastery (Technology) to make some inventing checks as routine. Similarly, note the Martial Artist’s Power Attack advantage, good for doing extra damage to slow, tough, opponents, and the Skill Mastery (Acrobatics) advantage for pulling off formidable (DC 25) Acrobatics checks as routine!

I don’t get the point of any system where just having a really good "Acrobatics" isn’t all you need to be good at acrobatics.

At least in Pathfinder, you can justify it by going "Ok monks and rogues might make more of their high dex than another class" but in a superhero game there's no excuse
there's no classes. Spiderman is good because he has a high score. Its simple. It works. There isn't a problem, in any take on the superhero genre, with letting Spiderman do all kinds of acrobatics.

Enhanced Strength 10, plus Enhanced Strength 2, Limited to Lifting (Lifting Str 14; 400 tons) • 22 points.

I mean why?

You can have abilities that increase your dodge, but…acrobatics isn’t one of them?

Feinting in combat is part of Deception and makes the target get the “vulnerable” condition til next round.

Here's a complete player skill override:

You can use Deception to send covert messages using wordplay and double-meanings while apparently talking about other things. The DC for a basic message is 10. Complex messages or messages trying to communicate new information have DCs of 15 or 20, respectively. The recipi- ent of the message must make an Insight check against the same DC to understand it.

Noncombat skills are very lightly supported—both “Streetwise” and “Magic” —undeniably useful knowledge-bases in the DC Universe—are given as examples that might be chosen under the grab-bag skill “Expertise” alongside “Carpentry” and “Cooking”.

So helping to solve the crime (half the story in lots of superhero comics and games) using Streetwise or Magic is weighted the same as being good at kitchens and bathrooms.

This interferes with defining the character, personalitywise—in a game where even Deception can give you a bonus in basically any fight and a list of combat-useful Advantages literally as long as a child’s arm that you all buy from the same pool, choosing to have a character that can cook is choosing to make your PC less effective in most situations.

How come Green Arrow got killed and had to come back from the land of the dead in a Kevin Smith comic and Batman didn’t? Well because Green Arrow spent vital character creation points learning to make chili:


This is a problem that can only be solved three ways, as far as I know:

-Establish the campaign world up front such that the challenges are such that only well-rounded or characters will survive (this can be very boring—because it means you have to make the campaign more predictable and know or convince your players you know what the game will be like before it starts) and will include making chili.

-Set aside a given number of points or a section of character gen for only noncombat skills (DC Adventures feints toward this with “Complications” but doesn’ follow through).

-Randomness.

There are people who will make “thematic builds” instead of “combat builds” but putting these players side by side in a superhero game risks making combat less interesting. You got people who are straight up so nightmarishly good that letting anyone else try is pointless—this is already a problem on the scale superhero games operate, exacerbating it by letting the details get out of control is not really feeding into any group’s needs or wants.

A good game doesn’t force the Superman player into a position where them having their fun risks fucking up everyone else’s. Players and campaigns (like ongoing comics) need to be able to have moods—sometimes they do this, sometimes they do that. If the ony way to do That is to choose to be decisively, worldbendingly worse at This, then you’ve made the campaign less flexible.

Having a PC that is stupid but strong (and, character-gen wise, stupid because they are strong) is one thing—that can even be funny and interesting in the game. Having a character have to choose between being strong and, say, having a hobby driving drag racers is just making the character less interesting in a way that doesn’t benefit the game at all.

If you're going to have "personality trait"-like skills in the system, encourage players to take them without an effectiveness penalty.

--

You can use Intimidation in combat as a standard action to undermine an opponent’s confidence. Make an Intimidation check as a standard action. If it succeeds, your target is impaired (a –2 circumstance penalty on checks) until the end of your next round. With four or more degrees of success, the target is disabled (a –5 penalty) until the end of your next round.

Oh do you take Intimidation or Deception? Intimidation lets me use a standard check to make an opponent Impaired, Deception let’s me use a standard check to make an opponent Vulnerable! Which is worse? Oh I’d better Master This System.

Here's an advantage you can have on top of having a good archery score, to be good at aiming:

When you take a standard action to aim, you gain an improved circumstance bonus: +10 for a close attack or ranged attack adjacent to the target, +5 for a ranged attack at a greater distance. See Aim, page 175, for details.
Green Arrow has this advantage.

Is this even a thing?

Like: Green Arrow is better at shooting with bows than anyone else. Fine, That already means his aiming means more than anyone else aiming (his shooting-people-with-bows number gets bigger). Does it have to get bigger again? 

Fast Grab, Improved Grab and Improved Hold are three different things. So if you want to make Lobsterman that’s that much more work.

“Inspire” and “leadership” are different things.

When taking a standard action and a move action you can move both before and after your standard action, provided the total distance moved isn’t greater than your normal movement speed.
This is a common advantage for fast-moving heroes, like the Flash.

Why not just include that as part of the superspeed power? It's actually a nice way to model that without adding a bunch of math.

Building powers--the supposed benefit of this system--is bananas:

 For example, a weather-controlling heroine has the following effects: Damage, Concealment, and Environment. Her Damage effect is the power to throw lightning bolts, so it has the descriptor “lightning.” If a villain can absorb electricity, then his power works against the heroine’s Damage (since lightning is electrical in nature). Concealment creates thick banks of fog, giving it the “fog” or “mist” descriptor. So if an opponent transforms into mist, with the ability to regenerate in clouds or fog, he can regenerate inside the heroine’s Concealment area. Her Environment is the power to control the weather, giving it the descriptor “weather.”

So in order to have Weather Control you need to read through all the powers til you find out “Environment” does whatever that was?

Practically speaking there’s only 2 ways to create a new superhero in this system:

-Read through the system yourself and totally master it
-Ask someone who’s done that already to make your character for you

There’s no good reason for this. Some people like the challenge of extracting a character from an opaque system: this game only works if everyone at the table is them or is willing to hand the translation of their creativity over to them or if everyone is ok with having a system full of bs nobody uses.

This is another example of False Efficiency: yes, controlling the weather in comics usually means you can zap people with lightning, which is basically just like zapping them with eyebeams, but even though bundling them as the same “effect” and calling Weather Control a combined power including both effects sounds efficient if you’re a programmer, if you’re actually playing it means you have to look up twice as much stuff and include more stuff when trying to write the power. So, again, it’s not actually efficient to any of the users

Look how hard it is to “build” telepathy out of its constituent parts:

Rapid: Your communication occurs 10 times faster than normal speech. Each additional rank increases communication speed by a factor of 10. This is useful for high-speed computer links, “deep sharing” psychic rapports, and so forth. Flat +1 point
Selective: If you have the Area extra, you can choose which receiver(s) within range get your Communication, excluding everyone else. This allows you to go from a single receiver (point-to-point) to all potential receivers in range (omni-directional) or anywhere in between. +1 cost per rank
Subtle: Your Communication cannot be “overheard” (it is encrypted, scrambled, or otherwise protected). With 2 ranks, your Communication cannot even be detected. That is, no one can even tell you are transmitting, much less what you’re saying. Flat +1 or 2 points

Like you can’t just say “you can send messages with your mind to whoever you want, buy a range”. This is just stupidity really, at this point, it’s not even an oversight.

Healing does not work on subjects unable to recover on their own, such as creatures with no Stamina rank or inanimate objects.

Fuck off.

Like Trail of Cthulhu, DCA recommends railroading. But the complications system actually intentionally enables it:


Some staples of the DC comic books, while enjoyable in the stories themselves, don’t always translate well to the medium of roleplaying games. You might want to take these “translation issues” into account when planning your adventures.

DEFEAT AND CAPTURE

Heroes in the comics are frequently defeated early on in a story. The typical structure is: the heroes encounter the villain, suffer a defeat or reversal, and then come back from defeat to overcome the villain. 
In longer stories there may be several reversals: the villain beats the heroes and escapes, then beats the heroes and puts them in a deathtrap, which they must escape to make their final confrontation with the bad guy.
DC adventures encourages this kind of narrative structure by awarding hero points for defeats, capture, and similar complications suffered by the heroes. Essentially, the more the heroes struggle early on in the game, the more resources (in this case, hero points) they have to overcome the villain later.
Defeat in the comics isn’t a serious problem, since it usually just results in the heroes facing another obstacle, like a deathtrap, rather than ending the story. Some players, however, don’t care for the idea of defeat, even when there is some kind of reward for it. This may come from other RPGs, where defeat has much more serious consequences, up to and including the death of the heroes! It can also come from associating any kind of defeat or set-back with “losing the game.” These players may overreact to potential defeats in the game.
The best way of handling this is to discuss it with your players. Point out that an early defeat by the villain is not necessarily a “loss,” but a complication, and that they earn hero points for complications, leading up to the point where they can use their earned points against the villain. If this doesn’t address the issue, you may need to give the heroes complications other than defeats, at least at first. When you do have the heroes defeated as a complication, make sure the players all know that there is no chance for their heroes to avoid this once you spring it on them, to minimize the opportunity for them to struggle and rail hopelessly against it.

In other words: if the PC gets captured its part of a plot and plots are planned.

Initial encounters also provide opportunities for the heroes to earn hero points. This means the early encounters in the adventure don’t have to go well for the heroes. In fact, it’s better for them in the long run if they don’t go well. The more complications the heroes face early on, the more hero points they earn for use later in the adventure. In the classic comics story, the heroes encounter the threat and suffer a defeat of some sort: the villain may get away, the heroes’ powers may prove inadequate to deal with the problem, their plan may not work, and so forth. The heroes then regroup, come up with a new plan, and try again.

...A good guideline for awarding hero points is at least one hero point per scene in the adventure leading up to the final scene.
A seldom appreciated knock-on effect here:

The abstract GM advice is: railroad them.

The incentive system is: use your hero points in that final encounter—which means knowing how to use them (it isn’t as simple as FASERIP where they just add to the die roll). At least in practice this means that the game is kinda designed to force you to numberwang around in order to “win”.

And, just in case you forgot:

This is a “Bystander”
STR 0, STA 0, AGL 0, DEX 0, FGT 0, INT 0, AWE 0, PRE 0 Equipment: cell phone. Advantages: Equipment 1. Skills: Expertise: Choose One 4 (+4), Expertise: Current Events 2 (+2), Expertise: Pop Culture 2 (+2). Offense: Init +0, Unarmed +0 (Damage 0). Defense: Dodge 0, Parry 0, Fort 0, Tou 0, Will 0. Totals: Abilities 0 + Powers 0 + Advantages 1 + Skills 4 + Defenses 0 = 5

Here’s a cop:
STR 2, STA 2, AGL 1, DEX 1, FGT 3, INT 0, AWE 1, PRE 1 Equipment: Bulletproof vest (+4 Toughness vs. Ballistic), light pistol, tonfa, cell phone, handcuffs. Advantages: Equipment 3. Skills: Athletics 3 (+5), Expertise: Current Events 2 (+2), Expertise: Streetwise 3 (+3), Expertise: Police Officer 4 (+4), Insight 4 (+5), Intimidation 2 (+3), Investigation 2 (+2), Perception 4 (+5), Ranged Combat: Pistols 4 (+5), Treatment 2 (+2), Vehicles 4 (+5). Offense: Init +1, Unarmed +3 (Damage 2), Tonfa +3 (Damage 3), Pistol +5 (Ranged Damage 3). Defense: Dodge 2, Parry 4, Fort 4, Tou 6/2, Will 2. Totals: Abilities 22 + Powers 0 + Advantages 3 + Skills 17 + Defenses 5 = 47

Jesus fuck. It literally occurred to no human being involved that a GM might want to pick up this book in the middle of a game and see whether the cop was good at shooting and that there might be a reason to not make that d10 seconds at the table excruciating.

So, yeah, traditionally I'd say "Do better!" at this point, but we know the incentives are all to make sure that doesn't happen. So, I don't know, end capitalism and make therapy reliable and free and then wait another decade?

And how many lectures on "creepy male gazey dude game art" were Green Ronin
staffers giving while making a point of showing us this?