Advantages Are Not Utility Priced

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

No, Superman is cool because he's also a speedster and he's also immune to anything mundanes can do. He can get to the scene before the action is over. I guess that's why Wonder Woman needs a jet plane.

You can buy the speedster part for cheap in GURPS. The immunity to mundanes is not.

Dude The Justist League are not all build on the same point total. 4 colour comics team up like the Justlease, and the Advengure were not because they are point balanced, it becuase the Writers balances rule of cool spotlight time for everyone. Green Arrow is no where near The Flashes point total

You want that feel you got to GM the same way

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

No, Superman is cool because he's also a speedster

He's slower than the Flash.

and he's also immune to anything mundanes can do.

Not immune, not to anything. Unless you don't consider military weapons to be mundane.

I guess that's why Wonder Woman needs a jet plane.

Not since the Crisis, she hasn't. She flies pretty much as fast as Supes.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

He's slower than the Flash. Not immune, not to anything. Unless you don't consider military weapons to be mundane. Not since the Crisis, she hasn't. She flies pretty much as fast as Supes.

I don't know exactly what abilities any given writer gives to Superman, but he's lacking most of the weaknesses a one- or two-thousand point hero has in GURPS, at least as I think of him.

I don't know if you could stop Superman with pepper spray or if off-the-shelf AP rounds hurt him, or if he can't see through a cloud from a fire extinguisher. Maybe that stuff works against modern Superman, but that's not the way I've ever thought of him and he has been significantly depowered if that's the case.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't know exactly what abilities any given writer gives to Superman, but he's lacking most of the weaknesses a one- or two-thousand point hero has in GURPS, at least as I think of him.

I don't know if you could stop Superman with pepper spray or if off-the-shelf AP rounds hurt him, or if he can't see through a cloud from a fire extinguisher. Maybe that stuff works against modern Superman, but that's not the way I've ever thought of him and he has been significantly depowered if that's the case.

Cannon shells hurt him. Nukes hurt him. Giant Space Goat gorings hurt him.

I think this is straying into a pointless (heh) tangent here though.

The same stuff is true even of lesser paragons on more balanced teams. Traditional bricks don't make sense outside of their oeuvre. It won't matter if you make the ability to lift an Aircraft Carrier or DR 100 cost 1 CP if trying to lift an Aircraft Carrier just breaks it and everybody just attacks you in ways that either penetrate your armor or to which it's irrelevant.

[dataweaver]

Point of order: Superman was given vulnerability to Kryptonite, Magic, and Red Solar Radiation specifically so that it would be possible to threaten him with physical violence without resorting to equally powerful enemies all the time.

Ultimately though, I can't think of a single point-accounting game system capable of handling the Justice League that assigns the same or even similar point totals to every member of the League. Invariably, the likes of Superman and Green Lantern are built on massive point totals while the likes of Batman and Green Arrow aren't. And yet Superman/Batman and Green Lantern/Green Arrow teamups are the stuff of legend.

The idea that two characters built on the same point total are going to be balanced against each other is a myth, because in actual gameplay "balance" isn't about point totals. It isn't even about niches, though that comes closer to the mark: as soon as player B is better at one thing than player A is, it's possible to balance the two, even if player A is built on 1000 points and player B has a net point total of zero (though you do need to watch out for "wizarding the fighter" in these cases).

Want to take the point further? Let's not look at the Justice League; let's look at Superman and his supporting cast. There was a moderately successful TV series a few years back called "Lois and Clark", featuring a teamup of ace journalist Lois Lane and mild-mannered alter ego of superhuman powerhouse Clark Kent. Despite the massive disparity in raw power between the two characters, Lois managed to hold her own in the series. In fact, she got top billing in the title not just as a riff off of "Louis and Clark", but also because she was the senior partner of the duo and Clark was often struggling to keep up with her, despite the aforementioned power differential. How did it work? By making the bulk of the challenges they faced not be things that could be resolved through brute force.

Smallville is another example of this, as exemplified by the Smallville RPG (now sadly out of print due to the end of the licensing agreement, but proof positive that a game doesn't die when it goes out of print). As the RPG very ably illustrated, the primary conflicts of the show were more drama-oriented than action-oriented: tests of values and of relationships took the foreground, while superpowers were barely more than flavor. Again, the bulk of the conflicts were ones that couldn't be solved by brute force; and in the arena of teen and then young adult drama that dominated the show, Clark was on a level playing field with everyone else. When challenges of raw power came up, he did tend to dominate; but such challenges were rare enough that his tremendous advantage in the physical arena didn't let him run roughshod over the rest of the cast. Tremendous power means nothing if you're not in a position to use it, or when the important question isn't about what you can do but rather what you should do.

Point balance is a myth. The idea that you can achieve game balance through point accounting is a trap that distracts from what truly is important to game balance: the gaming group's social contract. If the players and GM aren't on the same page, no game system will solve their problems; if they are on the same page, even the most flawed game system can be made to work.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Cannon shells hurt him. Nukes hurt him. Giant Space Goat gorings hurt him.

Those examples of being hurt, even a little or winded from attacks but not taking singificant damage is why IMHO most Supers have IT:DR.
They probably have DR as well but the IT:DR is a staple of the heroes and makes them more fun.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't understand the inner workings of players, though. It often seems like they expect to overcome the realities of the setting through sheer force of awesome. Even if I tell them ahead of time it's not going to happen.

Maybe remind them that you agreed the game world would react in plausible ways to the presence of supers, so it's likewise incumbent on them to play their characters in plausible ways.

So, the 'brick' character finds that more and more bad guys are pulling out weapons able to breach their defenses, or attacks that don't directly target their strength but serve to blind, distract, slow down, etc. Rather than try to get through with thud and blunder, why not be clever themselves? Unless they've got Cannot Wear Armor, layer the best ballistic armor over their innate DR; if they're high ST, it's not like they can't carry it. Tear the shovel off a bulldozer or pry up a manhole cover and use it as a shield; topple stacks of pallets serving you as cover on top of them. Sneak in rather than announce yourself. There are all kinds of ways to play it smart.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

People think Superman is pretty cool even on the same team as Martian Manhunter and The Flash. Maybe because every once in a while he gets to throw a Destroyer at a Giant Space Goat.

Do that with a thousand points by RAW, though.

I don't think there's any argument that GURPS has Rule 0 and GMs can change the costs of things. The question is how much, if at all, does one have to change the cost of things like ST and DR to make bricks and archetypes really viable as compared to speedsters and psis at the same point levels. There's a lot of debate on that, one possible answer is presented with Super-Effort ST in GURPS Supers, but in at least one GM's opinion, it's definitely an issue.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

Do that with a thousand points by RAW, though.

I don't think there's any argument that GURPS has Rule 0 and GMs can change the costs of things. The question is how much, if at all, does one have to change the cost of things like ST and DR to make bricks and archetypes really viable as compared to speedsters and psis at the same point levels. There's a lot of debate on that, one possible answer is presented with Super-Effort ST in GURPS Supers, but in at least one GM's opinion, it's definitely an issue.

Superman is far more then 1k points though.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Point of order: Superman was given vulnerability to Kryptonite, Magic, and Red Solar Radiation specifically so that it would be possible to threaten him with physical violence without resorting to equally powerful enemies all the time.

Ultimately though, roguebfl got it exactly right: I can't think of a single point-accounting game system capable of handling the Justice League that assigns the same or even similar point totals to every member of the League. Invariably, the likes of Superman and Green Lantern are built on massive point totals while the likes of Batman and Green Arrow aren't. And yet Superman/Batman and Green Lantern/Green Arrow teamups are the stuff of legend.

The idea that two characters built on the same point total are going to be balanced against each other is a myth, because in actual gameplay "balance" isn't usually about point totals. It isn't even always about niches, though that comes closer to the mark: as soon as player B is better at one thing than player A is, it's possible to balance the two, even if player A is built on 1000 points and player B has a net point total of zero (though you do need to watch out for "wizarding the fighter" in these cases).

Want to take the point further? Let's not look at the Justice League; let's look at Superman and his supporting cast. There was a moderately successful TV series a few years back called "Lois and Clark", featuring a teamup of ace journalist Lois Lane and mild-mannered alter ego of superhuman powerhouse Clark Kent. Despite the massive disparity in raw power between the two characters, Lois managed to hold her own in the series. In fact, she got top billing in the title not just as a riff off of "Louis and Clark", but also because she was the senior partner of the duo and Clark was often struggling to keep up with her, despite the aforementioned power differential. How did it work? By making the bulk of the challenges they faced not be things that could be resolved through brute force.

Smallville is another example of this, as exemplified by the Smallville RPG (now sadly out of print due to the end of the licensing agreement, but proof positive that a game doesn't die when it goes out of print). As the RPG very ably illustrated, the primary conflicts of the show were more drama-oriented than action-oriented: tests of values and of relationships took the foreground, while superpowers were barely more than flavor. Again, the bulk of the conflicts were ones that couldn't be solved by brute force; and in the arena of teen and then young adult drama that dominated the show, Clark was on a level playing field with everyone else. When challenges of raw power came up, he did tend to dominate; but such challenges were rare enough that his tremendous advantage in the physical arena didn't let him run roughshod over the rest of the cast. Tremendous power means nothing if you're not in a position to use it, or when the important question isn't about what you can do but rather what you should do.

Point balance is a myth. The idea that you can achieve game balance through point accounting is a trap that distracts from what truly is important to game balance: the gaming group's social contract. If the players and GM aren't on the same page, no game system will solve their problems; if they are on the same page, even the most flawed game system can be made to work.

Excellent post, and an excellent argument for playing without point limits or even point accounting, I think. Agree on a character concept, write it up with all the relevant GURPS traits, positive and negative, and go play. You can derive a point total if you want to, but why bother, really? It even makes it easier to define brand new traits without necessarily playing with modifiers and such, since in principle you don't need to worry about what the new trait should cost, just how it will work in play. E.g., your Superman clone should by concept have the DR of a main battle tank and just a little damage reduction, as opposed to a little DR and lots of damage reduction (although probably not the case, given the wide range of attacks that just shake Supes up a tiny bit)? Just make it so, you're not worrying about points. Meanwhile, your super-normal or just normal investigator type gets all the skills and mundane advantages and so on that make sense, and you're not worrying either about how little that costs, or about how much having, say, a thousand different Contacts will cost you.