Fixed Values in Supers-Brawl

Just curious as to why you decided to change Supers Brawl into more of a miniatures game with a RPG variant rather than a straightforward RPG. Is it because you want it to be more akin to Heroclix, or is it because Supers Brawl is more about physical combat and not about roleplaying? Either way, the game works just fine regardless of how you word it. Could it be that we have the REAL final version now? LOL

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

I changed the terminology... referring to Supers Brawl as a miniatures game because I felt like with the heightened level of simplicity where character creation was concerned that calling this a "role-playing game" might create a false expectation for those who download the game.

I didn't say, "I'm going to make this into a miniatures game." I said, "I'm going to make this into the game that I want to play." ... then when I was done I stepped back, took a look at what I had, and I thought... "Hmmm... I'm not really sure I can call this an RPG... so, how should I categorize it?"

Miniatures combat game comes the closest to categorizing this game in it's current form... at least that's what I think today... who knows what I'll call the thing tomorrow.

LOL ... you are right, I certainly seem to keep uploading new "versions" of this... and, uh, "no." I actually don't think we've hit the final version yet (there is so much more that could still be done with this.)

I do "hope" that this will be the final one for a while... the plan is to fidget with this "smaller" package until play-tests prove that the game play is what I want it to be.

Then, once the system is perfected in this form, I will be ready to expand the content with all the trappings and expositions of a proper RPG.

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

Jeff,
Don't get too hung up on "is it a miniatures game or an rpg?" After all, rpgs-as-we-know-them were very specifically "miniatures-except-we-keep-the-same-little-guy-as-"us"-from-game-to-game." Most rpgs from that tradition, manifestly including this one, are miniatures games but with some rules for how to resolve contingencies other than shootin'n'hittin. Super-Brawl is an extremely well-done miniatures game, and every bit as playable as an rpg - what the rules don't provide the players can easily create, and of course you'll help 'em out by writing "role-playing" rules later down the line. Keep up the good work.

Thanks! It's my hope that Supers-Brawl will work exactly as you describe... the terminology used is just that... terminology... words on a page... the game play is the thing. I do however worry about misrepresenting the final product. I don't want players to leap into Supers-Brawl expecting one thing only to get something very different than expected. Hollywood does this with movies all the time... presenting them as one thing when they are truly something else... this is usually to the film's determent because the ticket buyer walks out thinking, "What was that? That wasn't what I paid for?" So, trying not to mislead folks is all.

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

I actually like the updated versions and watching your projects evolve this way, Jeff. But I do get a laugh out of when I think your process is complete only to see yet another new version crop up. It's always a pleasant surprise.

As for the current version of Supers Brawl, I have given it a full reading and have some minor editing type comments to make...

For one, the Initiative section could perhaps be a little clearer that each participant in the combat rolls a d6 to establish their Initiative. Instead it justs says 'Roll Initiative 1d6' when perhaps 'each player rolls 1d6 for Initiative' is a more accurate description of what you are getting at. Of course, people can figure it out on their own (we all know how Initiative tends to go), but it never hurts to be specific and precise in rules so as to avoid confusion among future readers.

For two, there seems to be a redundancy in the way the Attack Rolls and Control Damage Rolls are explained. There are three different times in this version where you basically say the same thing. Pages 6 through 8 all repeat the same rule for making Attack Rolls and the same rule for Controlling Damage. The page 7 rules are definitely keepers because they have the fullest description of Attacks and Control Damage, but perhaps one or both of the others can go. I think it is the repetition of those same rules on Page 8 that is the most superfluous... the page 6 rules work as an intro to the Attack and Control Damage concepts and might be worth keeping.

Anyway, that was my two cents worth. On a side note, I think you should refer to Supers Brawl as both a miniatures game and a RPG, because that, in essence, is what it is. I think it was a good move seperating the two aspects (miniatures and roleplaying), and Supers Brawl is indeed primarily a miniatures combat game, but it is so readily adapted into a RPG that perhaps that should be denoted a little more in the rules. Also, I don't think it's an either/or thing with those two aspects... you can just as easily write the game as a traditional RPG with a miniatures combat variant, rather than the other way around as it currently is. Whatever you end up designating it as, you have made an excellent miniatures combat game, you have made an excellent roleplaying game, and they both go under the name of Supers Brawl.

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

Thanks for the recommendations... I'll definitely add to the Initiative portion... in fact I think this has become even more important to do now that I have suggested that 2 player head-to-head combat allows each player to control multiple characters. The Initiative rules need some attention.

I am aware of the redundancy in the combat explanations and have thought a couple of times about cutting something out... I have opted not to so far mainly because I sort of WANT to hit people over the head with it... it's like those radio commercials that repeat a phone number 20 times... I want people to read and remember the combat rules... they are the foundation for everything... learn these, understand these... and you've got it all.

The control damage mechanic is different. It doesn't work the way people are used to these things working. I do think it's simple... easy to learn... but it's different.

I am reminded of ravensron's issues with the system...

As with "original Brawl" I've got some philosophical disagreements with the concept of "successful defense" almost always meaning "you got hit you just chose where."

And ravensron wasn't the only one to note this particular flaw in the system... but I didn't see it that way.

The way I see it is:

In D&D I roll to hit...
In Supers-Brawl I roll to hit...

In D&D the defender's armor class is his defense.
In Supers-Brawl the defender's Evade is his defense.

In D&D I roll damage...
In Super's-Brawl the defender rolls control damage...

In D&D the defender reduces hit-points based upon the damage roll.
In Supers-Brawl the defender reduces a Value based upon the control damage roll.

Control Damage happens after defense has already failed. It is a damage roll. A roll that influences how your character's body reacts to injury.

I reworded to try and emphasize that the "control damage" roll has nothing to do with defense... but even after rewording things, there was this perception that "control damage" was a defensive roll and that it should counter a successful hit.

I hope that no one reads this and thinks that I am complaining in anyway... not the case at all. I am trying to illustrate one very simple point, which is this:

We all bring a certain level of previous experience to the table when we pick up a set of rules. We have expectations. These expectations... this experience... it colors the way that we interpret and perceive the rules that we read.

Because of this, when a rules set does something differently, a reader (any reader) will try to relate this back to their previous experiences... this is normal and expected. But, it can mean that sometimes a rule might be misinterpreted because although the page says, "A" our mind translates it to "B."

(I did this with the game, "With Great Power ..." I really want to play that game... but it works so differently from what my players and I are used to we just can't seem to squeeze our minds around it... ultimately, for us, "With Great Power" proved to be unplayable.)

I am concerned that my rules might run into this kind of misinterpretation. So, I repeat the rules... explain them to the point of redundancy so that a reader has time to bring themselves around to my way of thinking.

That's the reason I left the redundant explanations. Are my concerns regarding rules-interpretation unfounded? Does the redundant explanation do less to reinforce and more to annoy? I'd really like to know.

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

...I think it is a little redundant to have the same definition on three different pages that are all in a row. Repetition of core rules is good to do so as to highlight to readers which rules are the most important for them to know, but you should have faith that a reader can remember from one page to the next. I could see citing the same Attack and Control Damage rules on three different pages if those pages weren't in a row, but odds are I don't need to be reminded on each page what I just read a few sentences ago on the last page. It's not annoying at all and can stay as is... it's just a question of how concise you want your rules to be.

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

Now, moving a section of the redundant rules isn't something that I had thought about... that could solve this problem without taking a thing away. I am going to look into that.

Thanks, again Errin!!

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

If certain rules are very important to gameplay and you want to make sure a player understands them, one way around the redundancy thing (which can be a turn-off if it comes off as talking down to the reader... I say that in general, as you are not guilty of that) is to simply have one or so pages of completely redundant rules that it is important for the reader/player to learn. For instance, during the normal course of denoting all the rules in a particular RPG, you just denote a rule once and don't repeat it. Then, at the end of all the general rules is a specific page (or pages) that re-emphasizes/repeats) all the most important core rules. Just a thought. Such an approach would allow you to emphasize the most important rules without having to resort to redundancy.

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

I have seen that in other games and it is an excellent option... additionally there is one thing that I need to be doing that I am just really terrible about not doing... and that's examples. A handful of game play examples can make all the difference in the world.

Thanks again!!

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

But like you, I tend to not use them much. At least not as part of the general pdf for a game. If I have a blog associated with a particular RPG of mine, I'll use that sometimes to provide examples of gameplay. I'll have to think of incorporating more examples in my RPGs.

On the example tangent, I think another thing that helps superhero RPGs is for you to make a sourcebook of characters that can be heroes or villains in Supers Brawl. Creating a number of characters and featuring them in their own pdf is an excellent way to set an example. I made a few such sourcebooks recently for my game Crime Fighter RPG, and I think it improved the game vastly, plus were fun to make. Just a suggestion...

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

First, you could try a different text/layout of call boxes to emphasize the rules. Or set them out on a summary sheet at the end of the game. However, you already seem to be doing fairly well in the layout department.

Secondly - you could do exactly what we are doing here. Include sidebars/segments that explain why the rules are present in such a form. Not many mainstream games include such information - but it seems that they really should.

I'm hoping for a chance to play the game over the weekend and get in some more feedback - but my friends can be a bit fickle.

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.

Thanks, Errin... check out the new version of the RP resolution rules when you get the chance.

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

Not much really. What I mean is that this is the best version of Super Brawl yet. The changes to layout and presentation (such as an index, the generation tables, and the POW bubbles) make it look fantastic.

Through one small change (all Stats are the same), you have made Powers that much more important and vital to play. After all, now they are what seperates one hero from the next, which is perfect!

I hope you agree that seperating the RP from the G has made the rules flow a lot better. This makes presentation easier and allows new players to fit in easier.

Funny, I thought I said I didn't have much to say :). But seriously, all of your revisions to this point have definately paid off, as this is easily one of the top games on RPG Lab. Well done!

http://www.1km1kt.net/Aaron-White.htm

...how Jeff is able to use RPG Lab to evolve his games in design and playability. We first saw it with Duel Blade, and now with Supers Brawl. I wish I was as good at adapting and improving my own games, but I tend to mull out everything while making a game and don't leave myself much room to evolve a game once it's "done" in my eyes. When I get feedback here, it is usually confirming the same decisions I already mulled over, or I get very nice compliments for a game, but no feedback beyond that the game is cool and people like it, which is good enough for me... no complaints here, but I do wish I was a little better at putting forth RPGs that could be adaptable and had real opportunities for the people here to give a wide variety of feedback. Then again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it... the game's the thing, not the process, and what ever ends up producing a good game is all that matters. We've all found our own ways to use RPG Laboratory to improve as game designers. Cool.

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

I am very thankful for what RPG Lab adds to my process. It's interesting because I rarely act upon feedback immediately... but everything sinks in and rumbles around in my subconscious for awhile. Then eventually that feed back sees something change in the game (if it's the right thing to do.) I am sure you do the same Errin. Each one of your projects is evolved from the experience earned from the effort before it. 100 games with 100 names ... 1 game with 100 revisions... it's all the same thing. As long as we keep creating ... right?

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm