Villain PCs (and Killing and Other Related Stuff) in FC PbP

[Sandman XI]

Shaen, we've always gone with if the death drives a story, it's OK. If the death is just meaningless 'derp, I'm badass and can do it because I can', it's not OK. Belphegor killing that family started a story. Your mummy killing all those heroes will start a story. Killing is not a right, it's a privilage. The Bronze Age we're trying to emulate here didn't have whackedout killings unless it meant something. Take a look at Gwen Stacy for example. Some say that was the kickoff of the Bronze Age.

Edit: Another one, straight from TVTropes's Bronze Age article

"[...] Captain America went up against the Secret Empire, a conspiracy to take control of the United States government whose leader was finally unmasked as a thinly veiled version of then-President Richard Nixon. This shook the Captain so badly that he temporarily abandoned his hero identity, becoming Nomad. However, he soon returned to the red-white-and-blue when an amateur successor to his costume was killed by his greatest enemy, The Red Skull. The Captain realized he could champion the ideals of America without necessarily supporting the government without question."

[quotemyname]

Damn. You guys got far without me. So instead of "quoting and agreeing" with all the things I like so far. I'll just do a few shout outs.

StB, Thumbs up on your original rant. Geez3r you too.

StB's argument in particular has convinced me to leave the cake on the plate. I'm content at this point to have it and not eat it. No killing. Fine. Let's move on. (Because I think I was the only one arguing FOR that.)

Geez3r depicted my wishes for the "epic struggle" perfectly. If I am supposed to lose, FINE. But SAY THAT. If I am allowed to win, give me a shot at it.

I agree with StB in that what we really need here is for you guys with the colorful names to tell us what's really going on, or what we should be really doing.

I'm a villain. Let me act like one and I'll be happy. After that you can beat me up again

MBCE and StB say we should adhere to a less strict time line. Even WITH the non-canon boards I still agree with this. It's been like six months since I got locked up originally in character. We all know I'm getting out eventually. Isn't that enough time to just say it happened? If not, then just shuffle the dates around later. I can't ever remember actually mentioning a date in character. therefore things can be moved arou....Oh my it seems I am off topic.

*Ahem*

Right. Some stuff is in the past. Leave it there. Looking to the future, I personally look forward to getting to develop Captain Knievel's other traits besides blow stuff up adrenaline junkie because now he has a reason too. As far as taking a building hostage unless I get paid ONE MILLION DOLLARS, yea that will probably happen as well being as how Knievel is now poor. But I need to know that every time I start a thread I'm not looking at jail time for him. I need to know that I can just get away with, "I'll get you next time, Gadget!" Tell me that much is true and I'll be okay.

In fact - Why bother setting a process in stone? So much on these boards is case by case anyway, why not allow this to be. Villain starts a thread, and "this time if you beat me you can lock me up" or "this time if you beat me I'll run away with my tail between my legs" etc etc etc.

I think I am going to go do something else before I take all of the wind out of my own sails.

First, let me just make this statement: I love gaming here. This is one of, if not the single greatest gaming communities I've been a part of. And without exception, I consider all the regulars here to be friends and I have naught but respect for them.

[angrydurf]

I think a couple key points have been brought up here. Mainly that we need to move even PvP threads more to a narrative than a pure die roll conclusion. Also both sides of the fence need to be more flexible with how threads end. No one can out run DS for instance, so Cyroa has to be willing to let the villian go if the villian isn't going to be arrested/incarcerated/whatever. Ace and Scarab through different methods can find just about any villian and their hide out and bring down the assembled heroes of the city on thier head if we choose. We need to not do that. Villains need to be flexible and understand that they need to run alot earlier than Heroes do in a fight. You don't wait till you're all but unconcious to flee you flee when the battle starts to go against you becasue the penalty for getting caught is greater than the reward of "winning".

All of this is predicated on discussion at the begining of the thread of where the Narrative is going to go. If the dice change that up or the situation begins to evolve discussion is key once again. The Trial is a perfect example of this not happening. We went into that thread with no clue if Knieval was supposed to get free or if it was just going to be the nail in the coffin of his case and he'd escape later.

Another related Idea I have for PvP threads is a new use for HP/VP which is to give you're opponant a setback that allows you to escape the ultimate fate. Villian can burn a VP when trying to flee to have a buss of schoolkids teetering on the brink of a colapsed highway or they fall into the sea and are assumed "dead" and Heroes can burn one for the freedom league or star squad to be seen approaching. This gives an IC reason for the Hero to let the villian go or the villian to run away despite "victory" (With wonderflonium in hand of course).

If a villian is caught I think its important to have threads available for them while incarcerated, from foiled breakout attempts to prison riots to visits from their captor. Villians also do need to be Silver age/Bronze age villians. So "just" wanton destruction isn't really an interesting motivation. knieval, The poster boy for that, is growin out of that to more interesting capers. Any other Villian can too. Its also important to recognize that IG the threat of the villian killing people is very real even if OOG we all know they won't manage to they should not manage too because the heroes stop them (perhaps allowing the villian to escape in the process)

[Ecalsneerg]

Another related Idea I have for PvP threads is a new use for HP/VP which is to give you're opponant a setback that allows you to escape the ultimate fate. Villian can burn a VP when trying to flee to have a buss of schoolkids teetering on the brink of a colapsed highway or they fall into the sea and are assumed "dead" and Heroes can burn one for the freedom league or star squad to be seen approaching. This gives an IC reason for the Hero to let the villian go or the villian to run away despite "victory" (With wonderflonium in hand of course).

That's not actually unprecedented. The HP rules currently let you spend a HP to alter the situation slightly at the DM's discretion (just got in from work so'd appreciate someone else looking it up ). I would have no problem with spending a VP to divert the heroes a little bit so you can escape.

[Avalon]

Since we're trying to come up with a code for villains to adhere to, I think it is best if we have some concrete examples of the extremes of what villains can do here.

Which of the following examples be ok in this forum?

• [*:18v88v1d]Joker's stunt in the Dark Knight movie where he has two ferries decide on the fate of the other to test their humanity
  [*:18v88v1d]Zoom's (Hunter Zolomon) attempts to make heroes stronger by having them face personal tragedies
  [*:18v88v1d]A villain's attempts to destroy the world if humanity doesn't rise above itself

[Ecalsneerg]

Since we're trying to come up with a code for villains to adhere to, I think it is best if we have some concrete examples of the extremes of what villains can do here.

Which of the following examples be ok in this forum?

Joker's stunt in the Dark Knight movie where he has two ferries decide on the fate of the other to test their humanity

I'd not be against that one. In a dark, gritty setting like the Nolan films, the ferries weren't detonated. In an idealistic setting like this, they definitely wouldn't be.

Zoom's (Hunter Zolomon) attempts to make heroes stronger by having them face personal tragedies

Really depends on the tragedies. Killing family? No. However, putting them in hospital I'm not against, though I can't speak for everyone, as violence is used on this board even if killing isn't.

A villain's attempts to destroy the world if humanity doesn't rise above itself

On the one hand, destroying the world involves a lot of killing. On the other hand... it is a classic Silver Age villainous plot. Again, I'd not be against it, because obviously it's not going to succeed.

[angrydurf]

Since we're trying to come up with a code for villains to adhere to, I think it is best if we have some concrete examples of the extremes of what villains can do here.

Which of the following examples be ok in this forum?

• [*:1b7wknxo]Joker's stunt in the Dark Knight movie where he has two ferries decide on the fate of the other to test their humanity

Thats fine, actually detonating the ferries? Not OK

[*:1b7wknxo]Zoom's (Hunter Zolomon) attempts to make heroes stronger by having them face personal tragedies

I think this is the kind of thing best kept to NPCs to do when its an arc that the PC hero is interested in. Eventually any villian who does this kind of thing really is likely to be taken out of play.

[*:1b7wknxo]A villain's attempts to destroy the world if humanity doesn't rise above itself

Attempt absolutely I would love to have a good ole fashioned attempted genocide. Key word attempted this isn't the villina trying to kill the world one at a time and getting stopped along the way this is a doomsday device/ritual that the heroes have to stop. (with the villina escaping while they foil his plan.

Like I said above the threat should be very real the act should just not happen outside of exceptional circumstances (of course if a hero is a tool and leaves his girlfriend to drown so he can finish off the villian thats a different sotry )

The threat of injured/killed inocents should be what stays the Heroes hands from opening up on a villian full bore, a little like Bats take on Joker that you can't kill him because you might not succeed and then he will kill everything. (though Joker does ebough to warrent the risk IMHO the theory is sound and I think applies)

[Avalon]

To be fair, heroes are defined by their villains.

God-like heroes like Superman wouldn't last very long if all they had to face were things that would pose no threat (real or perceived) to them. But let Superman face off against one of his arch-nemesis like Darkseid or Braniac who plan to destroy the Earth or convert it to another hell and we can see what really makes a hero thus.

I think a quote made by Zoom in the first issue of the Sinestro Corps War would sum up what I'm trying to convey:

What makes a hero better? Is it the villains you face, Batman? The things you've returned from, Superman? Or the mistakes you've made, Wonder Woman?

[Avalon]

Like what Quote and Geez3r said, I'm fine if The Vestige never really succeeds in a meaningful way. As long as my actions serve to heighten the heroic nature of the heroes I'm fine with that.

As for my first two examples, I was trying to focus more on having those just be situations. It would be up to the heroes if things go as planned or they save the people or themselves.

As I said earlier:

What makes a hero better? Is it the villains you face, Batman? The things you've returned from, Superman? Or the mistakes you've made, Wonder Woman?

In short, villains (especially arch-enemies) should serve as a foil to the heroes so that they shine all the brighter after having faced difficult and sometimes overwhelming odds and staring into something of their darker selves.

[quotemyname]

That's not actually unprecedented. The HP rules currently let you spend a HP to alter the situation slightly at the DM's discretion (just got in from work so'd appreciate someone else looking it up ). I would have no problem with spending a VP to divert the heroes a little bit so you can escape.

Thumbs up, A+, 100%, do it! PLEASE!

Absolutely love this idea!

[N/A]

Some good ideas.

Just as an aside, there are a few key differences between the mummy and the demon-riding-the-human. First, he's an NPC, so don't have months of growth and earned PP invested in him. He's an NPC (one I fully expect to be destroyed). Second, as an undead abomination, he's an Acceptable Target. The PCs not only can use lethal force against him, they have to. Even in a Silver Age game, it would be acceptable to destroy him. He isn't "alive," so it's OK to "kill" him in retaliation for his crimes.

That's a good thing to remember, actually. Robots and Undead make great villains in a game like this, because you can actually use "lethal" force against them and "kill" them without crossing any ethical lines. To a lesser extent, the same sometimes applies to animals, or aliens.

[N/A]

So should we just submit formal requests to the Ref team every time we want to kill someone, so they can decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not it "has merit to the story" or "serves a purpose," rather than just being a chance to act out our own bloodthirsty fantasies?

[Avenger Assembled]

What if we restricted killing to NPC villains? With the caveat that NPC villains shouldn't expect to reappear after the story where they appear, barring an exceedingly appropriate reason. (i.e., when they go away, they stay away) (I haven't been perfect about this, but arguably the insane cultist wielding the magical artifact is more a tragic figure than a monstrous one.) That way we can justify PC villains escaping with slightly more ease than most (at least at first), after all, they're not as big a priority to the cops as the _real_ bad guys. And characters like Malice and Knievel can tell themselves, "I'm not a bad guy, that's points to Stabby McGee, serving ten life sentences he won't escape from a bad guy."

[angrydurf]

Well I think rather than say they can't come back we say tehy come back under exceptional circumstances for specific plots. Unlike PC villians who eternally evade capture or are out in record time.

It seems kind of counter intuitive in a way to say NPC villians have rules X and PC villinas hve rules Y but this is primarily to allow the PC villians to be in continuous play. NPCs are eternally disposable PC's are not.

That said even NPCs still need to be watched for goign overboard on what we want for the tone.

[Sandman XI]

That said even NPCs still need to be watched for goign overboard on what we want for the tone.

This. We're not in here to slake someone's "bloodthirsty fantasies" as someone put it. PC or NPC wise. Only if it makes sense for a story. Belphegor had a reason. He is a PC. Mummy will have a reason. He is a NPC. either way, death should not be limited. It should make sense and drive a story, but not be limited.

[Dr Archeville]

In my very first adventure on this board, Doktor Archeville's PC villain Belphegor tortured and murdered an entire family of innocent people, just so he could steal their house. The NPC villains he then diverted our attention to murdered around a dozen people for fun.

In six months, I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why this was OK when PC villains who don't belong to Staff Members have been reprimanded or rejected for less.

I would even accept "It was part of the learning process and we've decided we're not going to do it again," if that's actually the case.

I was sure I had said something to this effect, some months ago, in chat if not also here on the boards.

I'll be the first to admit I've had Bel cross lines that he really should not have been allowed to cross. Part of it is because of what he is, but largely it's b/c -- like the Trial thread -- the Refs (well, I, at least) are still learning what works and what doesn't, what flies and what s(t)inks.

I do sincerely apologize for the confusion and hypocrisy.

(I'd also put demons in the "acceptable targets" category, along with Undead and Animals.)

*continues reading & pondering*

[Cyroa]

I generally don't get involved in these discussion, just go with the flow. But I thought I'd put my two cents in. The questions I ask below, I don't particularly have an answer for but I think they are questions that we (or more acurately, the refs) will have to address sooner or later. Being something of a planner, I tend to prefer sooner.

1) I prefer the no killing feel that the site has (even though I prefer characters that can do it when necessary; little gritty can be fun). Just wanted to be clear about this before I continue.

2) While it is comicy, where do you draw the line at the revolving door for criminals getting in and out of prison like they own the place? Yes, it hasn't happened yet. But it is a possibility. You can only have it happen so often before the regular authorities appear to be a joke and completely worthless. Which (using logical progression) leads certain types of heroes to solving the problem on their own. Which leads to characters going bye-bye in one form or another.

3) What is the end point? We are playing a game, with character sheets and rules and the like. In a campaign IRL table-top kind of situation, death/imprisonment/whatever (ie loss of character) is a distinct possibility. Here, it isn't. There is nothing to fear here really. You CAN'T die or be lost forever or what-have-you (baring player actions, and that's the player not the character). We are going have people hitting PL 13 shortly, rubbing elbows w/ PL10 or even PL6s. Now there is nothing wrong with that. But there is no threat of loss here. So where does it end? I'm not in favor of manditory retirement or anything, but... this medium is missing the 'consequence' of gaming. I've done the free form writing PbP and because they don't have a rules system, they also don't have experience points. It is all RP. Here, we have experience. (I like having a set rules system just to be clear.) But there is only expansion and escalation. Never resetting. It will cause trouble eventually (assuming it hasn't already).

I dislike the idea of only NPC can do XX rule. It seems cheap and somehow unfair to the players. Likewise, I'm not in favor of allowing general killling. Someone (many posts back) mentioned a thought about killing. As in: if you do it (PC or NPC)and it wasn't an accident (ala Arrowhaek blowing up two innocent people), you're now able to be killed in turn. I think it might be worth exploring. Not on the main board mind you. More like a "play test" to see how it would fly. Obviously anyone in such a thread would know from the get-go that death is a possibility. (Though, it would also mean a possible spike in people wanting the 'resurrection' regeneration for their characters I suppose.)

*shrug* Just a thought. I just tend to dislike the no consequence thing we have for heroes and villains alike.

[Dr Archeville]

Okay, first off, a broader question: are y'all okay with the "let's keep things like the DCAU cartoons" thing? Not as campy as Silver Age, not as grimdark & hyperviolent as Iron Age, but straddling some middle ground -- which, IMO at least, the assorted DCAU series did pretty well, and which we can do if we all agree to certain things.

If folks are not okay with this, if there's some other cartoon or series you'd like to see us emulate, please speak up now.

Secondly, it looks like folks would like a more clearly defined roles for their villains, to know ahead of time whether a given adventure will be one where the villains (PC at least, maybe NPC as well) will be able to succeed or it's one where they're foiled (barring strings of unusually high or unusually low die rolls, though maybe not even then, either). That the OOC threads should perhaps have a basic summary of what the person running it is hoping to do. I like this idea.

Killing. Killing could and did happen in the DCAU, both on-screen and off. I believe the two most famous on-screen ones were in a Superman ep where Darkseid killed Dan Turpin with his Omega Beams as a parting "FU" to Superman, and in an ep of JLU where a panicking Deadman possessed Batman and used a gun to shoot Devil Ray dead before that villain could shoot another hero. Offscreen deaths, the one that immediately springs to mind is the ep where Felix Faust was introduced, and we saw the petrified (and pain-wracked) heads of some of his former colleagues. Then there were the assorted alien invasions and disasters, in which I imagine some people would have died. But the focus wasn't on how many were killed, it was on how many the Leaguers could save.

How does this translate to the FC PbP games? If it's something that drives a story or character -- John Fraser became Arrowhawk b/c he saw Malice kill his parents -- I think that'd be okay. If it's something happening between PCs, and all concerned agree to it -- I get tired of playing Doktor Archeville, so Avalon & I agree to let Vestige sacrifice him in some Evil Ritual, or Warmonger & I agree that Ronin assassinates him -- I think that would be okay, too. Acceptable Targets -- undead & robots & demons -- are, wall, acceptable targets for all.

On the surface, the "if a villain kills, heroes take the kid gloves off when dealing with them, but if the villain is largely non-violent, the heroes go easier" seems okay. Ghost has never killed anyone, he's mostly a B&E man, so the cops & superheroes shouldn't be as concerned about him as they would be with, say, Belphegor or Captain Knievel or Malice, who've caused lots of damage to people and property. But I fear a "Villain A killed Bystander B, Hero C kills Villain A, Villain D kills Hero C in revenge, Hero E kills Villain D, Villain F kills Hero E, Hero G kills Villain F, ad infinitum" case of escalation, where everyone becomes "hardcore" and this slides into the Iron Age. I'm not sure how to address that issue.

Consequences (aside from having heroes/cops come after you to put you down) is the other big issue I still don't know how to properly address. The Refs had been working on a Suicide Squad/Task Force X-type thing for captured villains, so the players could continue playing even after their villains are caught and sent to jail; they'd still be under a leash (or several leashes), so it will be clear they're not free & clear. But this doesn't necessarily work for all villains.

Suggestions?

[N/A]

DocA, I appreciate that you've always been reasonable and flexible. But given that you're the one who pays the bandwidth bills every month to keep this site running and give us all a place to play, I would think the decision as to the tone and type of play environment is ultimately yours. It would be silly for other people to tell you what kind of game you can run on a site that you own.

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to dictate terms to you, only that I want consistency.

[quotemyname]

Okay, first off, a broader question: are y'all okay with the "let's keep things like the DCAU cartoons" thing? Not as campy as Silver Age, not as grimdark & hyperviolent as Iron Age, but straddling some middle ground -- which, IMO at least, the assorted DCAU series did pretty well, and which we can do if we all agree to certain things.

I am a big fan of the JLU episodes, though I have not seen them all. I think this could work very well for us. It may not be a perfect fit where all are concerned, but it is at least a concrete start. We can approve outlying cases on a case by case basis as is our policy.

Secondly, it looks like folks would like a more clearly defined roles for their villains, to know ahead of time whether a given adventure will be one where the villains (PC at least, maybe NPC as well) will be able to succeed or it's one where they're foiled (barring strings of unusually high or unusually low die rolls, though maybe not even then, either). That the OOC threads should perhaps have a basic summary of what the person running it is hoping to do. I like this idea.

I second this idea. I am running a thread with stinger at the moment where we did exactly this. She tries to steal a car and the thread is based on Breakdown trying to stop her. When one particularly bad roll took her out of combat on the second round we discussed the possibilities for the thread in the OOC until we came to a conclusion we both agreed upon. Another Villain has come to her rescue. This is supposed to spark Claremont's awareness of the Shadow Academy being formed. Thus sparking more threads at a later date maybe?

Killing. Killing could and did happen in the DCAU, both on-screen and off. I believe the two most famous on-screen ones were in a Superman ep where Darkseid killed Dan Turpin with his Omega Beams as a parting "FU" to Superman, and in an ep of JLU where a panicking Deadman possessed Batman and used a gun to shoot Devil Ray dead before that villain could shoot another hero. Offscreen deaths, the one that immediately springs to mind is the ep where Felix Faust was introduced, and we saw the petrified (and pain-wracked) heads of some of his former colleagues. Then there were the assorted alien invasions and disasters, in which I imagine some people would have died. But the focus wasn't on how many were killed, it was on how many the Leaguers could save.

I agree with this as well. It should be an option for some characters sometimes (emphasis on the the sometimes). As the good doctor has pointed out, it happens rarely enough in the 'toons. I would like to point out that characters like Ronin are Assassins. More to the point, he uses guns. Guns kill people, that's just how they work. His character might be one of the characters that is inclined to deal lethal damage more often. If for no other reason than having a gunshot "bruise" someone can be considered quite silly.

How does this translate to the FC PbP games? If it's something that drives a story or character -- John Fraser became Arrowhawk b/c he saw Malice kill his parents -- I think that'd be okay. If it's something happening between PCs, and all concerned agree to it -- I get tired of playing Doktor Archeville, so Avalon & I agree to let Vestige sacrifice him in some Evil Ritual, or Warmonger & I agree that Ronin assassinates him -- I think that would be okay, too. Acceptable Targets -- undead & robots & demons -- are, wall, acceptable targets for all.

I can see this as something that may happen. What happens when a character actually reaches PL 14/250 and they get bored because they can't get any better? They want to do something with their character, yet turning them into an NPC or retiring them don't seem like viable options or seem boring as the case may be. (I know they would bore me). Whats wrong with these types of actions if all are in agreement. It's another argument for killing to happen, albeit rarely. I can think of other examples to list, but I think this point has been made well enough.

On the surface, the "if a villain kills, heroes take the kid gloves off when dealing with them, but if the villain is largely non-violent, the heroes go easier" seems okay. Ghost has never killed anyone, he's mostly a B&E man, so the cops & superheroes shouldn't be as concerned about him as they would be with, say, Belphegor or Captain Knievel or Malice, who've caused lots of damage to people and property. But I fear a "Villain A killed Bystander B, Hero C kills Villain A, Villain D kills Hero C in revenge, Hero E kills Villain D, Villain F kills Hero E, Hero G kills Villain F, ad infinitum" case of escalation, where everyone becomes "hardcore" and this slides into the Iron Age. I'm not sure how to address that issue.

How should we deal with this? I would say: Don't. Just don't get involved. I think the idea that, "once a character kills they become an acceptable target" is quite silly. To prove this point, let's examine one important recent case: Arrowhawk. He blew some stuff up, but it was not his intention to kill people in the process. Whether or not he had taken leave of his senses at the time is another issue . My point is this. It wasn't really the player or the character's choice that cause those deaths. At least not in the same way that shooting someone with a gun kills them. Therefore this would be ruled (IMHO) an "unintentional death". If we blanket the boards with the above rule, Arrowhawk should be considered an acceptable target. I'm sure Ecalsneerg would not be okay with that happening, because it removes that safety net that Cyroa spent so much time talking about. As players we value that net, and to have a GM ruling or an accidental event in a story, or a simple bad roll on the part of another player take that away is, frankly, Bull@#$%. I'll say it again for emphasis. Just don't get involved here.

Consequences (aside from having heroes/cops come after you to put you down) is the other big issue I still don't know how to properly address. The Refs had been working on a Suicide Squad/Task Force X-type thing for captured villains, so the players could continue playing even after their villains are caught and sent to jail; they'd still be under a leash (or several leashes), so it will be clear they're not free & clear. But this doesn't necessarily work for all villains.

This has possibilities for a case by case basis. It certainly worth an experimental try.

One problem that has been raised by others that I would like to address is the issue of the cardboard prison. Many players that run heroes have griped that it would get irritating if all their hard work is for naught and they have to watch the villains just crawl back out onto the streets after a few days. Here is my suggestion, and it has to do with another idea that's already been put forward:

Thumbs up, A+, 100%, do it! PLEASE!

Absolutely love this idea!

Instead of enacting this idea / method at the END of a thread, why not enact it at the BEGINNING. The villain that has been incarcerated can spend their Villain Point right off the bat to cause a situation to occur that leads to their escape. There should be a thread modeling this. An example comes to mind: My own trial. I spent a point at the start of the trial to be allowed a certain avenue of questioning. We never reached it, but I was able to at least create a situation that would allow for my potential release. We could make these threads a contest of sorts, and not all of them have to be as large scale as the trial thread. If your villain is one that is more subtle (which knowing The Captain should not be difficult) it is possible that their breakout attempt passes largely under any hero's radar. They would be opposed by a few NPC's at best. If you are flashy and showy, it probably would end up just like my trial. But is that really a bad thing? It fits your character perfectly, right?

The time after the breakout attempt where you are disallowed to start new threads could reflect one of two things depending on the eventual resolution of the thread.

A] You win your escape and the time you missed posting reflects the fact that you have laid low for a while so as to sink under the radar. (This is my planned IC explanation btw. It will probably come with a slew of news posts.)

B] You fail to escape and are incarcerated again. The time you miss posting reflect the fact that it takes quite a while to be able to establish another decent escape opportunity, and thus spend another Villain Point, and thus get the cycle started again.

IMHO Villains should be allowed an eventual escape. If their attempts just keep getting foiled, or the become bored with their suicide squad threads, they should be let free. We don't want to quash anyone's dreams here.

In short: We should not use cardboard prisons. We should not use inescapable fortresses. We should let our prisons fall somewhere in the realm of "Reasonably escape-able".

This has been a public service announcement courtesy of Quote Inc. We thank you for your time. :)

[Thejoshie]

DANGER Will Robinson, DANGER! Long post ahead!

There's a point to this, I promise. We could try to adopt a slightly looser time system. In comics (and even in the DCAU cartoons), time passes between arcs. Sometimes weeks, even months. This 'deadtime' is a convenient way to accelerate Prison sentences and other things that creep up (like injury recovery and the like). By pigeonholing our threads in the days of a month, we're handcuffing ourselves by moving time forward at a pace of an earthworm doing the moonwalk.

One pbp I was in split the time into seasons (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer) and we would post which season a thread would happen in. When necessary, we post the 'order' it happens, but we keep from being TOO specific. This way, we can keep the opportunity to assume that time has past between threads that are happening simultaneously irl but in different time frames rpg time. It helped mange Dead time and that often helped to explain inconsistancy between threads and even help create new ones (for example, if in the Fall, some one was imprisoned, but hes back in the winter, then a new thread can be made either late fall or early winter chronicalling how he broke out). This allowed players who was moving at different paces to be involved, while those who wanted to build a solid background could still do so.

This could work here, cause the players then decide whether days, weeks, or months pass between threads. This unseen Deadtime can be used for the sake of imprisonment and the villian can then post in a 'later season, while making note what happened to him doing the deadime he spent in prison (breaking out, parole, trial thrown out due to technicality, etc) A hero who is in that particular thread would also note the length of the dead time and make notes as to what he may want to do in threads between than and now. Thoughts?

On Killing, most mainstream comics and cartoons use death in two ways: First to move the story forward and second, to show the danger of a villian when there is no other way. The Dan Turpin death (And that should've been labelled as a spoiler, curse you Doc Ock) wasn't a random death. It wasn't even a regular 'life isn't fair' death. It served a huge purpose story wise: It strentened the resolve of Superman in his fight against Darkseid. It also was a heroic death for Turpin, who was killed cause he (a human) put himself out there against a monster like Darkseid. Darkseid meant it to be an FU, but he instead mad Dan a Martyr.

The point is that death (or rather, meaningful death) is 'scripted'. The Green Goblin kills Gwen Stacy. The story purpose: Spider-Man is ultimately left with a choice of cold hearted revenge or forgiveness. He chose forgiveness which ultimately made him the bigger hero (and note, this is one of the few onscreen deaths in comic s back then and because Green Goblin 'carefully' picked his shot, he became immortalized as one of Spider-Man's greatest foes). Another Example is how Doctor Octopus 'Accidentally' killed Captain Stacy (Gwen Stacy's father), this death served the story purpose of furthering the gap between Peter and Gwen, since she blamed Spider-man for that death. On a side note, notice how each death benefits the story from the _Hero's_ perspective?

Ultimately, we'll need to find a way to determine if a death is necessary. What I propose is that if a PC want Villian A to kill Hero/Civilian/whomever X, then he shoud present his case as to what purpose said death will serve others as well as himself. If it's a loved one of another PC, he must get that PC's permission. If it's a random npc and it's onscreen, WHY does it have to be onscreen? If it's off-screen, the WHY does it have to happen. Will it make his character seem deadlier? if so, why can't he think of other things? The Joker is a classic villain not because he kills, but because he kills to prove a point: That Chaos and Insanity is stronger then order (The Dark Knight Movie 'nailed' this theme) If someone killed Jokjer, you merely prove his point and the Joker wins. Every Writer who wrote the punisher has said, in there own words, how psychotic, the Punisher is. After all, he all ready killed the people that killed his family, yet he still has pain over their loss. And he uses that as an excuse to keep killing, justifing it by the fact that he kills only those that 'deserves' it. Garth Ennis often makes it a point to have us 'feel sorry' for him, rather then look up to him.

I apologize for the size of this monster post. Just trying to help. >>;

[Cyroa]

I only mentioned the 'killing' thing of back and forth as an option for those who want to go there. The rest of us could happily exist in threads where it doesn't come up.

[Warmonger]

Ok I know it is a little late but I'm goign to drop my 2 cents. I want to preface it by saying that, I know Ronin has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. I happen to play probably the most Iron Age character on the board, and I did that even though I knew it would come with some drawbacks. Well Doc wanted to know why I made a villain. The thing is that I didn't really set out to make one. What I did was picture what type of adventures would be the coolest, and what comic book characters inspired me the most. It is no secret that Ronin is a mash up of Deathstroke, Deadpool, with a little Taskmaster thrown in.

What I pictured in my head were my favorite comics starring those guys. I wanted to sneak into compounds, steal the secret macguffin, swim in an ocean of ninjas, and make it out the door right before the building explodes (preferable with a hot lady over his shoulder). In essence, an action movie. Ronin is a swashbuckler more than anything. Though the question becomes why I couldn't have made a hero? Well I am generally not inclined to acts of heroism, in my characters. I didn't really want to save the world or protect the common man, for my characters everything tends to be personal. Not necessarily between Ronin and the person he is fighting so much with Ronin's reason for fighting. He is amoral. Ronin has an amazing skill and he wants to use it to get paid. Ronin is more like Conan than Cobra Commander. I knew that he couldn't be a hero with that kind of attitude, and I didn't see him as an angsty hero, just a ruthless pragmatist, so I made him a villain. I don't even see him as being an in betweener he is just a guy with a gun.

I agree with what has been said by Geezer and Quote. I want to win, I don't have to. All I want is for Ronin to be force to be reckoned with. I would like a bit of narrative reason for Ronin to be around. I always pictured him as sort of a midboss or Lt for more powerful villains, part of the reason I made him a mercenary is because it would make team-ups easier but I also thought he would take a job from a hero just as easily.

My take on the Killing thing is that, I want it in. Ronin has offed a couple of guys already, I've done my best to keep it from getting graphic. The only guy's Ronin has killed has been no name NPC mooks. Private Security, drug lords etc. I wouldn't have Ronin running around killing cops, civilians, or anything like that. He would take a contract against a predominant NPC like the mayor but OOG I expect him to be thwarted. If I am going to fight a hero I want ti to be dramatic and over the top, a fist fight in a mine-field, gun battle while falling off the roof of a skyscraper, sword fight on moving train. Meaning no more killing than in the GI Joe movie(shudder).

I actually dot think we need more or difference consequences for villainy. I agree with the general idea that what there needs to be is more dialogue before a PC hero and a PC villain cross paths. That way people can work out expectations and wants.

I'm also a big fan of the Suicide Squad thing.

[angrydurf]

Okay, first off, a broader question: are y'all okay with the "let's keep things like the DCAU cartoons" thing? Not as campy as Silver Age, not as grimdark & hyperviolent as Iron Age, but straddling some middle ground -- which, IMO at least, the assorted DCAU series did pretty well, and which we can do if we all agree to certain things.

If folks are not okay with this, if there's some other cartoon or series you'd like to see us emulate, please speak up now.

Personally I would preffer a straight Silver Age game. Its not what everyon here has signed up for and I'm sure there are plenty who would preffer Iron Age. I do however think that a big part of the problem this thread brings up is that attempt to straddle the line. There are characters villian and Hero alike that lean to one side or the other, its hard to have them co-exist at times. Since it is consistantly brought up I'll use Ronin as an example he and Avenger are both really rather Iron Age and I think both characters really muddle the tone of the site as well as get held back from fully playing thier characters by the restrictions on killing Etc. I don't really have a solution except to say that contrast that to characters like Ace or even moreso Dark Star who are very anti-killing, and use minimal force whenever possible. It creates a situation where some characters feel they should be allowed to go further and some characters fell things are taken too far already. With hero to hero interactions this can be a fun batman vs. superman argument about philosophy of heroism bring villians in however and it turns into a situation where they just have no hope of redemption and really the Hero feels the villian should be taken permanently out of commision (in prison that can't be escaped) and the villian has to struggle to find a reason not to employ lethal force against these gods that walk amongst us.

Ok kinda rambled there in the end I think the real issue is that the tone does need to be clear and that characters that streatch that tone need to know they are stretching that line and may not be a satisfactory experiance in the end as they will be limited.

All that said its Docs site and really up to him what he wants out of it (even if that is to have a ref or player vote on the issue) All I think any of us really want is for that to be clearly defined across the board. Perhaps with something akin to the CCA rather than the somewhat harder to grasp DCAU meets Buffy/angel that is kinda commonly tossed out there.

Secondly, it looks like folks would like a more clearly defined roles for their villains, to know ahead of time whether a given adventure will be one where the villains (PC at least, maybe NPC as well) will be able to succeed or it's one where they're foiled (barring strings of unusually high or unusually low die rolls, though maybe not even then, either). That the OOC threads should perhaps have a basic summary of what the person running it is hoping to do. I like this idea.

I think this is key regardless of if villians are involved or not and is key to a good PbP alot of this is often hammered out in chat but sometimes it isn't really covered sufficiently at all leading to confusion and irritation on some players part.

Killing. Killing could and did happen in the DCAU, both on-screen and off. I believe the two most famous on-screen ones were in a Superman ep where Darkseid killed Dan Turpin with his Omega Beams as a parting "FU" to Superman, and in an ep of JLU where a panicking Deadman possessed Batman and used a gun to shoot Devil Ray dead before that villain could shoot another hero. Offscreen deaths, the one that immediately springs to mind is the ep where Felix Faust was introduced, and we saw the petrified (and pain-wracked) heads of some of his former colleagues. Then there were the assorted alien invasions and disasters, in which I imagine some people would have died. But the focus wasn't on how many were killed, it was on how many the Leaguers could save.

How does this translate to the FC PbP games? If it's something that drives a story or character -- John Fraser became Arrowhawk b/c he saw Malice kill his parents -- I think that'd be okay. If it's something happening between PCs, and all concerned agree to it -- I get tired of playing Doktor Archeville, so Avalon & I agree to let Vestige sacrifice him in some Evil Ritual, or Warmonger & I agree that Ronin assassinates him -- I think that would be okay, too. Acceptable Targets -- undead & robots & demons -- are, wall, acceptable targets for all.

On the surface, the "if a villain kills, heroes take the kid gloves off when dealing with them, but if the villain is largely non-violent, the heroes go easier" seems okay. Ghost has never killed anyone, he's mostly a B&E man, so the cops & superheroes shouldn't be as concerned about him as they would be with, say, Belphegor or Captain Knievel or Malice, who've caused lots of damage to people and property. But I fear a "Villain A killed Bystander B, Hero C kills Villain A, Villain D kills Hero C in revenge, Hero E kills Villain D, Villain F kills Hero E, Hero G kills Villain F, ad infinitum" case of escalation, where everyone becomes "hardcore" and this slides into the Iron Age. I'm not sure how to address that issue.

I first suggested this and pointed out exactly this issue with it. This is exactly what caused the Iron Age in the comics really. To make Villians more "serious" and less "campy" they started to have villians step up the violence. Then to make the heroes not stupid or at least seem effective the heroes stepped up the game and we got the downward spiral of violnce athat characterizes the Iron Age. Its a matter of taste if thats good or bad. But once again its deffinately something that needs to be clear. that thats what we want for the tone of the site.

Consequences (aside from having heroes/cops come after you to put you down) is the other big issue I still don't know how to properly address. The Refs had been working on a Suicide Squad/Task Force X-type thing for captured villains, so the players could continue playing even after their villains are caught and sent to jail; they'd still be under a leash (or several leashes), so it will be clear they're not free & clear. But this doesn't necessarily work for all villains.

Suggestions?

This is a PbP convention that I really don't like personally the idea that until you decide you want your character out of the picture it won't be. Particularly when coupled with the convention that you can act however you like and the worst consequence will be other players or characters not interacting with you. I think with as things stand now. Meaning villians are more guilty of assault and property damage than anything more serious the cardboard or revolvign door prison is fine and fairly genre appropriate. Once it is stepped up to more serious crimes it stretches the bounds of both believability and fun. Because its not fun if the hero can have no reall effect to better the world any more than the villian can't be a "rReal" threat. That said I think the threat of Killing still needs to be valid. Villians should be able to issue ultimatums to the hero ala rescue the school bus full of kids or catch me. Its the Heroes job of course to make that believable by choosing to rescue the kids even if the player knows the Villian isn't supposed to actually kill anyone.

All in all I kinda like what we hve now. If it was up to me 100% I'd say no villian PC's and more silver age than bronze but that's not what the site has been advertised as but I will note it hasn't been advertised as a villians consequenceless playground either.

[quotemyname]

I've just been reading the following:

http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopi ... =3&t=19360

This is the first concrete ruling on what exactly silver age is, what exactly bronze age is, and what exactly iron age is. Better yet, it comes from the mouth of Steve Kenson himself. So you know you can trust it

No that I have a better idea of what I would be arguing for I would like to put forth that I like the idea of playing in Silver Age stories best. I'm talking some old fashioned capers, heists, hijackings, etc. But I would like to have the possibility for things to get a little more serious like in the bronze age.

Think increased seriousness instead of jovial. In the Bronze Age heroes did not always succeed, death was a real threat, storylines involved taboo subjects such as sex, drugs, and alcoholism, many villains did not mind killing people, and some heroes did not mind killing either.

Specifically the heroes don't ALWAYS succeed, and where death is a real threat. Though I think these boards can do without all of the taboo subjects as I am all for maintaining the PG-13 atmosphere. (And I'm talking like 90's PG-13, not the PG-13 we have come to know in the current generation.)

I wholeheartedly agree that we DO NOT need to stray any farther into the Iron Age than we seem to already have done. (no matter how much that is.)

I am fine with real world issues coming into play on our boards for those players and characters that desire it. I personally despise politics, and would rather do without. But I respect that we don't all share the same play style. I am okay with the occasional Bronze Age Prostitute (as the example goes)

she would come-on to the hero and the hero would try to fix her life.

But I don't think these real world issues need to get any more detailed than that. (Again, IMHO.)

I actually consider the Modern Age to be a new Bronze Age.

Could we give this a try?