Stormlight Archive is what Exalted Should have been?

[souran]

Brooding Batman and Pouting superman are part of their 70+ year history. I get that DC has rebooted twice in the last decade and that when they do they shake up all the personalities.

That doesn't change the archtypes. I would say that the DC characters are actually more like how Achilles and Hercules are portrayed. Yes, they are not flawed like the DC heroes. Peter Parker is supposed to be an audience stand in. However, Superman pouting in the fortress of solitude is a direct callback to Achilles in his tent.

That said, even comics writers like to Fishmalk. How else do you explain the dozens of issues where superman subjects Lois to psychological torture or the ones where he goes up against batman and does crap like send them back in time, impersonate a mayan god, and then make Batman and Robin participate in bloodsports.

[Username17]

You're not actually referencing super dickery are you? Because that weird ass stuff isn't meaningfully referencing Superman's "character flaws" it's deep cuts taken from especially jarring or bad writing over a seventy year history that includes absurdist stories for children. If we're taking stuff from that period we need to take Adam West Batman as well, who doesn't particularly brood.



For fuck's sake. Comics are weird. Also they've been going on for a long time, and have been through several eras of storytelling. The idea of Superman as pouting in his fortress is absolutely a minority of Superman presentations. Heck, The Fortress of Solitude has only been a thing at all in a minority of stories and in those stories it has been mentioned it has been described with many different incompatible traits. Such as being an underground bunker in the Andes.

-Username17

[souran]

My point was that, as you say, comics are weird. Your point that players want to be be disruptive is also true of serialized comics. Sometimes the writer just wants to go "what if superman used his x-ray vision to be an asshole?"

That said, the Adam West batman is iconic and is a defintitive and non-erasable part of batman lore. "Goofy-Batman" is now part of the image of batman.

Similarly, the reboots to superman are many and I concur that superman fortress of solitude is not in every one, but it is in a lot of iconic and memorable stories as is the pouting.

Nobody has chimed in to say that "brooding batman" didn't exist or was mostly minor before Miller's run and Keaton's performance, but it doesn't matter because brooding batman is part of the persona.

DC heroes are not neither flawless nor bound to a single presentation. Discussing any superhero is a lot like discussing Hercules and Achilles. If you read direct translations they often come across as assholes to modern sensabilties. Achilles in his tent is over not getting to keep his favorite war-concubine.

In the Brad Pit "Troy" movie Hector is played super sympathetic, and when Achilles kills him and drags him with his chariot it is played as tragic. This matches how the Hellenistic Greeks would have seen this seen. However, in early copies of the source, Hector is a gigantic asshole who does not treat the death of Patroclus with reverence but instead runs around screaming he killed Achilles to demoralize the Greeks.

Both versions are important to how you want to tell the story.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I mean, brooding and pouting aren't even flaws, they're just moods. You could say they were expressions of an actual flaw like depression, but that's actually a terrible example of a flaw to include in conventional superhero storytelling because it's all about being boring and inactive.

Batman has two flaws that seem to resonate and stick around: obsessiveness, and secretiveness. The first one is where he can't keep himself from fighting crime so long as even one kid might lose their parents, and he winds up half-killing himself, and would probably full-kill himself if his supporting cast didn't wrestle him into bed when he got weak enough for them to do it. The second one is where he makes secret prep to defeat e.g. Superman (in case of power-theft or bodysnatching or whatever), and doesn't tell anyone anything about it, so when someone finds the anti-Superman plan on the Bat-computer they think that Batman's up to no good and relationships are damaged and drama is generated thereby.

Superman's flaws mostly revolve around having very high personal standards. Victory over Lex Luthor isn't exposing him as a villain and shoving him into the inescapable prison dimension after the twelfth time he was a global threat - it's rehabilitating him so that his genius can actually benefit the world, no matter how many tries it takes. Killing a mass-murderer to save his imminent victims isn't a regrettable necessity, it's proof that he's unworthy of his powers and must engage in some ridiculous penance like never using them again or exiling himself from Earth.

And yes, sometimes these characters are written by hacks. JMS infamously wrote half of a Superman arc where Superman physically bullied people for the crime of criticism. But JMS got kicked off that book halfway through and his replacement made the rest of the story about investigating why Supes was acting so badly out-of-character. The audience rejected that characterization, just like they reject all of the weird fetish stuff that various Silver Age writers injected for one issue each.

Anyway, I think it's valid to put in your setting that superpowers are closely attached to some sort of negative behavior. And I think it's totally reasonable to have an RPG provide a mechanical incentive for players to periodically act against their own surface-level best interests for the purposes of generating drama. And I think its equally valid and reasonable to not do those things and just let people have fun with their imaginary powers without having any psychodrama. Batman can just be deep in thought while looming over a gothic cityscape because it's a cool scene.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The problem I have with 'heroes need flaws' is that flaws only mean anything in context. Conan being a brooding, anti-social mass murderer who doesn't keep deals with anyone on his shitlist is not a flaw if you're playing Mad Max. Or Conan for that matter. It's a crippling disadvantage if you're playing 2E Curse of Strahd. But both of them are iconic D&D stories told with the same engine and even setting.

Unless your game is really narrow in theme and scope -- and I'm talking Golden Sky Stories narrow -- this is a doomed endeavor. Especially if we're talking about Superhero games. I mean, shit, last couple of years saw The Boys, Black Panther, and The Incredibles 2. Which vision should dominate? If you're saying 'it depends on the kind of game you're trying to do', then why are we talking about this shit like it should be a universal rule?

[souran]

The problem I have with 'heroes need flaws' is that flaws only mean anything in context. Conan being a brooding, anti-social mass murderer who doesn't keep deals with anyone on his shitlist is not a flaw if you're playing Mad Max. Or Conan for that matter. It's a crippling disadvantage if you're playing 2E Curse of Strahd. But both of them are iconic D&D stories told with the same engine and even setting.

Unless your game is really narrow in theme and scope -- and I'm talking Golden Sky Stories narrow -- this is a doomed endeavor. Especially if we're talking about Superhero games. I mean, shit, last couple of years saw The Boys, Black Panther, and The Incredibles 2. Which vision should dominate? If you're saying 'it depends on the kind of game you're trying to do', then why are we talking about this shit like it should be a universal rule?

I would not recommend or want to add a flaw system to an existing framework not built with it in mind like D&D. D&D games can have a lot of plot but basically nothing in the game is built with "story" in mind.

Like I said in an earlier post, the flaws should be non-disruptive, or only self destructive. There should be a mechanical benefit to playing to your flaw. NWODs "you get all your willpower back" is probably on the right track.

The incentive is intended to make it non mandatory. If you don't want your character to have anger issues this session/story/campaign you just don't have to do that but offering a reason to be flawed and then letting players benefit mechanically from playing to their flaw is all I was getting at.

[Suzerain]

Like I said in an earlier post, the flaws should be non-disruptive, or only self destructive. There should be a mechanical benefit to playing to your flaw. NWODs "you get all your willpower back" is probably on the right track.

Except that in anything where the PCs are expected to be a team, a self-destructive flaw can easily become a disruptive one. Someone who is easily angered causes conflicts that others don't want to be drawn into. Someone that is rash starts things before the others are ready. Someone that is a blabbermouth blurts out a damaging secret. Someone with a damaging secret keeps getting the others pulled into their story rather than allowing the development of the other PC's own, etc. etc.

Big flaws like that work fine in linear fiction, less fine in something that's a game with other people.

[Dogbert]

Except that in anything where the PCs are expected to be a team, a self-destructive flaw can easily become a disruptive one.

Indeed. A conclusion I reached running M&Ms is that the only Complications with actual impact (i.e the only ones worth bringing about in game) are always those that affect everyone's business... but then, they become everyone's business, which means they should be planned and picked with the whole table's participation and consent (Batman Expy's player sure as hell won't like a player taking "Is always surprised by enemies" as a Complication, because that clearly pisses in their cheerios).

Paraphrasing one of my father's most used phrases: "If it affects me, it requires my permission." Which pretty much includes all flaws that go beyond circumstantial roll/stat penalties.

[Iduno]

The idea that all characters should have supernatural powers is not one that will ever make it into a big game again. The last time it happened was probably when VTM was the new hotness, but it's definitely been out of favour since D&D 3rd began to dominate the design space. Now, certain segments of the RPG playerbase are permanently fused to the idea that there should be a non-magical PC option, to the point where they would prefer that high levels are not included in the game to having to gain supernatural power over their career. I don't know where this sentiment comes from, but Fighter is universally the most played class across editions to my knowledge.

Partly "roleplaying is too hard for people who haven't done it before" which is true of everything, and partly Togusa in GitS. I don't mind that there are characters who aren't good in any particular way, but I don't like people wanting a non-special character and also nobody else can be better than them because of balance.

Maybe give "not special" as an option, but make it obvious that they're making the decision to keep playing the same old game while everyone else gets cool powers. You could have chosen the knight who evolves into a mage knight, and casts spells by swinging a sword. Instead chose the fighter who evolves into "guy who peaked in high school", and just follows the group around talking about that time he totally one-shot an orc. That might be a reasonable character, depending on the game, as long as you know up-front that your character doesn't have a high-end. Maybe he's friends with the Abesnt-Minded Mage who can remember all of their spells or where they left their wand and spell component pouch. Don't just list fighter next to mage like they're equivalent in some way.

Except that in anything where the PCs are expected to be a team, a self-destructive flaw can easily become a disruptive one. Someone who is easily angered causes conflicts that others don't want to be drawn into. Someone that is rash starts things before the others are ready. Someone that is a blabbermouth blurts out a damaging secret. Someone with a damaging secret keeps getting the others pulled into their story rather than allowing the development of the other PC's own, etc. etc.

Big flaws like that work fine in linear fiction, less fine in something that's a game with other people.

If it's an actual flaw, it makes one teammate unable to do their job some portion of the time. One person not doing their job is going to be disruptive to the team, at least making that scene difficult. Maybe everyone should have X amount of flaws (where X can be zero), assuming each flaw is more-or-less balanced? Then just set X based on the seriousness level of the game? Decide ahead of time so people at least have to agree at one point what kind of game they're up for.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Maybe everyone should have X amount of flaws (where X can be zero), assuming each flaw is more-or-less balanced?

Not all flaws are equally disruptive to other players. If I'm playing a master planner type like Batman and one of my party members has a flaw of 'blabbermouth', my cheerios are thoroughly pissed in. If I'm playing a party diplomat type like Captain America and one of my party members has a flaw of 'super racist', my cheerios are also thoroughly pissed in.

You can of course account for this in games that have certain genre conceits. If you're playing a 4-color superhero game, you can't take a flaw that requires you to execute any bad guy worse than a mugger. Similarly, if you're playing Shadowrun you can't take a flaw that requires you to always respect legal authorities. But games like D&D are too wide for that genre conceit.

[Aryxbez]

Maybe give "not special" as an option, but make it obvious that they're making the decision to keep playing the same old game while everyone else gets cool powers.

It's best not to create trap-options in a game, as people will play it, even with warning signs (unless the game has enough brevity to not trigger your casual reader TLDR-effect). They might use it as a bragging-point that they're playing "True Hard Mode" earning their victories as an under-dog opposed to being spoiled, or "Man Mode" their way through.

At worst of that, I wouldn't have Fighter as a PC Class, I'd make it an NPC class, potentially in another book (or the DM Section for NPC classes) so they'll have to really be hunting to find something that isn't supported. Even then, you make it clear it's not balanced for PC use, they're better off playing the Druid's Animal Companion, or some of the Conjurer's Summons, if they really want to be fodder.

Been solutions to this before: If your game is like D&D with Power Levels, make non-magical fighting man have an expiration date (1-5th lv say) and then after that they gotta take a Paragon Path that all offer phlebtonium, no option for Dagger Masters, and Sexy Gladiator, if it doesn't have phlebtonium, it's not level appropriate for this tier.


Back to Flaws, I think it could work, or rather, it'd be worth doing an experiment, creating a list of appropriate flaws for X Sub-genre's of Super Heroes. So built to the various super archtypes, you can see if it holds up to the basic stereotypes, then less balanced parties, and then the more outlandish combinations to see where it breaks. Build a Flaw system, and find it's "flaws" as a system as it were.

[maglag]

Maybe everyone should have X amount of flaws (where X can be zero), assuming each flaw is more-or-less balanced?

Not all flaws are equally disruptive to other players. If I'm playing a master planner type like Batman and one of my party members has a flaw of 'blabbermouth', my cheerios are thoroughly pissed in. If I'm playing a party diplomat type like Captain America and one of my party members has a flaw of 'super racist', my cheerios are also thoroughly pissed in.

Why? Captain Hydra America is always protecting 'super racists', taking orders and following laws from 'super racists', it's a core part of the job.

Plus you're even making your character with white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes, which is perfect for getting with the 'super racists' crowd and certainly not anything like an actual native american looks like.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why? Captain Hydra America is always protecting 'super racists', taking orders and following laws from 'super racists', it's a core part of the job.

And, unless the player specifically wanted Captain America to show off their hypocrisy in the face of expedience, it shits on his and other party members' intended characterization. It's the Captain Hobo problem, but for roleplaying.