Serge from Babka

I've played Marvel Superheroes (1984), ie FASERIP on and for over twenty years, and I spent about 3 years running it.

Over my trip, I decided to simplify the game for my niece.

After that, I decided to tackle the other issues I'd had over the years. MSH is still one of my favorite systems, being super easy to play. I've wanted to play ICONS, a modernized MSH with simpler rules as well, but I wanted to go very deep- super simple, while keeping the creative expression of MSH, and maybe enhancing it.

And I think I've done it.

The next step is to play test it.

Would anyone be interested in playing a little superheroes?

#TTRPG #superheroes

Feb 13 at 4:12amWeb
Show threadJonFeb 13
@serge I ran a small Icons game for a couple years and it was so much fun! It's a lot like Fate mixed with Marvel FASERIP.
Show threadSerge from BabkaFeb 13

@jmerchen

I think that leaning into narrative functionality (ala FATE) is important and I've borrowed a lot of narrative utility in my game (currently called Superhero Express). At the same time I think it's important to recognize that games like FATE appeal to a certain type of player.

Just as we have Crunchy vs Rules Light, I'd argue that narrative driven games work well for a segment of players who like to think in creative ways in ways that work both in line but also "against" the setting.

I happen to be one of those types of players, but at the same time I recognize that this largely appeals to RPG players who have a good deal of experience.

On the other side you have someone like my 13 year old niece. She had no exposure to any RPGs. Her first game was Cairn, with me as GM, and she has some challenges adapting to even the idea of an RPG.

Games that offer too open ended a play style may be too challenging.

1/2

Show threadSerge from BabkaFeb 13

@jmerchen

I've opted for a middle ground- more narrative driven than MSH, but less than FATE.

In my game, powers are grouped into character core concepts called "Domains" and then "Powers" are less individual abilities and more general. For example, there's no "Energy Shield", there's "Energy/Energy Solidification", and then a suggested set of uses for it (including Energy Shield).

This eliminates the need for Power Stunts and increases narrative play while offering a clearer path for players who may feel "stuck".

While I got rid of the Universal Table in favor of target number and vs rolls, GMs are specifically encouraged to follow a "Yes and...", "Yes", "Yes, but..." and "No, and..." play style depending on the PC's proximity to that TN, encouraging GMs to follow a more narrative structure as well.

tl;dr I'm pretty excited to play test this with players.

Interested? :)

Show threadSerge from BabkaFeb 14

@jmerchen

As I've never actually played Icons (only read it), there are some similarities between it and what I've made and one big difference.

We both have narration points (Icon calls them Determination Points, I call them Hero Points right now- they're roughly the same).

We both replaced the D100 and Universal Table with rolls. Icons uses a D6 pool, resulting in an even distribution. I use a D20, which results in straight probabilities.

But Icons combines to-hit with damage. Your power is both. That bugs me from a narrative sense. I'm curious to your thoughts on it.

Show threadKerploppusFeb 13
@serge I used to have that game. I loved it.