Suzerain wrote:I suspect the issue will be less haves vs have-nots and more "everyone is have nots" when it comes to impactful abilities.
The most depressing part is that yes, you're right. Everything moves in cycles, and right now we're back to the origins of odious storygaming. Right now agency is the devil, and chances are by the time the wheel turns back to "rules and standards are good, agency is fun" we'll all be too busy standing in line for soylent green rations and the closest suicide booth to care.
souran wrote:Batman broods, Superman pouts, Aquaman has anger issues, the flash is a jerk to people he thinks are less smart than himself (everyone), and wonder woman has a bunch of totally sexists character flaws.
Just one question... when was the last time you actually read a DC comic? Because you couldn't be any farther from the mark if your name was Zach Snyder. (90s Aquaman was the closest you got).
DC' thing has always been "the superhero as an icon, an ideal, and otherwise larger than life." Sure they may have their highs and lows, but at the end of the day they are still icons rather than people. They'll never,
ever be "heroes like you," that's Marvel's school of doing things.
On the flaws' thing: If you ask me, severity of in-game flaws must be inversely proportional to the stakes of any given game's premise. If you're playing a laid-back game of Bubblegumshoe where you're just investigating "the mystery of the cafeteria dessert thief" then players are a lot more likely to be chill about quirks that
will cost them an encounter in the best case and the mission in the worst. If, on the other hand, you're playing dnd or Champions and the consequences of defeat range from Gwen Stacy getting her neck broken to losing a character you invested months' worth of XP and treasure or the world ending then chances are the players will be much wary about slapping around their characters' necks anything that could become a potential killswitch under the wrong circumstances,
no matter how circumstantial the flaw.
I know you guys hate M&M's guts but I still subscribe to Steve Kenson's criteria for flaws: "Complications are meant to make a situation interesting, not to destroy your players' characters and/or their fun" (emphasis on the latter, since crap GMs tend to assume by default "durr hurr, destroying your character's premise by royal eddict is interesting").