RPG Application: The All-Star Marvel Universe

[The Question]

I don't know. The only reasons I'd be apprehensive about choosing All-Star if we have to choose are A) the 60s aesthetic is just damn cool, and B) some of the All-Star backstory seems oddly specific. One problem I had when coming up with the UDC backstory is that I ended up dictating how people had to play certain characters a little too much. And, honestly, if I do play an X-Man, I'd rather it be in a small private school in Westchester in 1963 than as a fed.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

Word. Since nothing has been approved of yet, I don't see why we couldn't just change the mutant setup into something more open to interpretation.

 

[Eddie Brock]

I fail to see how both RPGs couldn't be successful. Clearly, their concepts are different, and 60s Marvel is going to be a one-shot.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

I fail to see how both RPGs couldn't be successful. Clearly, their concepts are different, and 60s Marvel is going to be a one-shot.

I concur.

 

[The Question]

Although, I'd love to see a sequel set in the 70s. Mostly to have a now in his 30s Spider-Man watching Sesame Street.

 

[Harlekin]

Wasn't it the conclusion of the Ult. Marvel debate that multiple RPGs which share numerous traits - as these two do - don't work alongside each other, as happened with Ult. Marvel and Dawn of Marvels? I don't think it's a good idea to have more than two Marvel RPGs (616 plus one of these two) at a time.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Wasn't it the conclusion of the Ult. Marvel debate that multiple RPGs which share numerous traits - as these two do - don't work alongside each other, as happened with Ult. Marvel and Dawn of Marvels? I don't think it's a good idea to have more than two Marvel RPGs (616 plus one of these two) at a time.

That was a different case. There was Ultimate Marvel, based on the comics in a grittier world, and there was Dawn of Marvels, in a grittier world without continuity. These two concepts are vastly different in that the setting, style, and theme are far removed.

 

[The Question]

Wasn't it the conclusion of the Ult. Marvel debate that multiple RPGs which share numerous traits - as these two do - don't work alongside each other, as happened with Ult. Marvel and Dawn of Marvels? I don't think it's a good idea to have more than two Marvel RPGs (616 plus one of these two) at a time.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that these do make one another redundant. I mean, besides differences in aesthetic, how different are Spider-Man's origins going to be from one to the other?

 

[Harlekin]

Exactly. Both RPGs revolve around the idea of 'Marvels', superpowered beings making their (re-)entry into the world. The nature of 1963 (as I'm calling the RPG from now on) and All-Star differ only in 63's 'schedule', so to speak, with its three-year jumps.

Now, as to why I'd want to do the 1963 RPG: innovation. As a concept, it fresher than this, essentially the third/fourth rethread of both DoM and Ult. Marvel. It has a lot more going for it, with the chance to have a new style of storytelling (1963-1966-1969). It's also not set in the current day, which is IMO, quite a liberation. After all, I like sifting through wiki pages for days on end (although I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this). What I mean to say is this: 1963 has instant colour.

Also, if it gets of the ground, it'd be amazing to do sequels set in the 70s, 80s and maybe even the 90s.

This, IMO, is a unique opportunity.

 

[The Question]

Exactly. Both RPGs revolve around the idea of 'Marvels', superpowered beings making their (re-)entry into the world. The nature of 1963 (as I'm calling the RPG from now on) and All-Star differ only in 63's 'schedule', so to speak, with its three-year jumps.

Now, as to why I'd want to do the 1963 RPG: innovation. As a concept, it fresher than this, essentially the third/fourth rethread of both DoM and Ult. Marvel. It has a lot more going for it, with the chance to have a new style of storytelling (1963-1966-1969). It's also not set in the current day, which is IMO, quite a liberation. After all, I like sifting through wiki pages for days on end (although I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this). What I mean to say is this: 1963 has instant colour.

Also, if it gets of the ground, it'd be amazing to do sequels set in the 70s, 80s and maybe even the 90s.

This, IMO, is a unique opportunity.

Could have, for example, a middle aged Spider-Man in the 90s being the Marvel equivalent of Superman or Alan Scott. Which would be awesome.

 

[Eddie Brock]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that these do make one another redundant. I mean, besides differences in aesthetic, how different are Spider-Man's origins going to be from one to the other?

Hopefully, a lot different. The goal of 60s Marvel isn't to change these characters; rather, we're simply playing them in a different setting. The only ones who would be changed are the characters that weren't introduced in the 60s.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

Well, I know if my Spider-Man gets approved, provided ASM gets off the ground, it will definitely be a different origin and backstory.

 

[The Question]

Hopefully, a lot different. The goal of 60s Marvel isn't to change these characters; rather, we're simply playing them in a different setting. The only ones who would be changed are the characters that weren't introduced in the 60s.

Yeah, well, the goal of an All Star/Ultimate/Dawn Of/Whatever RPG isn't really to change the characters either. I mean, yeah, some details will get shifted around and condensed or altered to the writer's liking, but at the end of the day you really can't get too far away from "Something happens to Peter Parker involving vaguely explained science and a spider, he gets super powers, tries to make money off of them, is a dick about it, and in the process gets his uncle killed by way of negligence, propelling him to atone by using his powers to make the city a better place any way he can" and still have it be Spider-Man.

 

[Batman]

Yeah, well, the goal of an All Star/Ultimate/Dawn Of/Whatever RPG isn't really to change the characters either. I mean, yeah, some details will get shifted around and condensed or altered to the writer's liking, but at the end of the day you really can't get too far away from "Something happens to Peter Parker involving vaguely explained science and a spider, he gets super powers, tries to make money off of them, is a dick about it, and in the process gets his uncle killed by way of negligence, propelling him to atone by using his powers to make the city a better place any way he can" and still have it be Spider-Man.

From the concepts I've heard from players intending to apply for Spider-Man, that couldn't be further from the truth.

And to be honest, I don't really agree with that at all. As long as Peter learns that "with great power comes great responsibility", it doesn't really matter where he got the lesson. He's learned it, and intends to make the world better for it. That's who Spider-Man inherently is, and that's what keeps him from becoming another character.

 

[Eddie Brock]

In the original DoM, the Fantastic Four were a team of government agents with the mission of apprehending superpowered/supernatural targets. I'd say that's a far cry from their other incarnations. Sure, they were going to get their powers eventually, but it wasn't going to be the result of a science experiment gone wrong; instead, they were going to be given totem powers from Diablo based on fire, water, air, and earth.

So it is possible to make things drastically different, which I would not want to see in 60s Marvel.

 

[The Question]

From the concepts I've heard from players intending to apply for Spider-Man, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Oh. Huh. Well then.

 

[Watchman]

My Hulk is going to be very different than normal Hulk and I'm toying with the idea of Thor and the Warriors Three as the greatest metal band in the world, Dethklok meets Kirby.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

My Hulk is going to be very different than normal Hulk and I'm toying with the idea of Thor and the Warriors Three as the greatest metal band in the world, Dethklok meets Kirby.

You shouldn't have said that. Now, if I don't see you playing a Dethklok version of Thor and the Warrior's Three (Balder too maybe? Dethklok does have five members after all) I'll be forced to kill you.

 

[Watchman]

You shouldn't have said that. Now, if I don't see you playing a Dethklok version of Thor and the Warrior's Three (Balder too maybe? Dethklok does have five members after all) I'll be forced to kill you.

"There came a time when the Old Gods died and then there was the Metal..."

Maybe if there was a Nextwaveish tone RPG but if I did this I would have ruin Thor for anyone who wants to play him seriously.

 

[Andy C.]

If we do end up doing a one-or-the-other scenario, I'd definitely go with this. The 60s concept sounds interesting, but doesn't really appeal to me.

Anyway, I've got a question about applying for the more in-demand characters, most obviously Spidey and Iron Man. Are we doing a simple first-come-first-serve, or having the GMs consider bids from multiple applicants and then vote on it like at the start of Ultimate DC?

 

[Batman]

The latter.

 

[Saved]

I was iffy on joining 60s marvel, but I am 100% on applying in All Star so there's my two cents.

Although, I also back the idea that both can be successful considering the wildly different concepts of each.

 

[Harlekin]

We're obviously still changing things in 60s Marvel, simply by virtue of the fifty years that have followed it. When Stan Lee wrote Spider-Man it was actually 1962. We're looking at that time period through the lens of 2010. Besides ideology (commies) and speech patterns, there's really very little to date those comics to the 60s in terms of real world events. Just take a look at the multiple Mad Men references in the application thread to get an idea of how different we look at that time period.

Either way, even ignoring these concerns, the two RPG's start at the same point of execution: the beginning. Spider-Man and others, no matter the differences, are being established, first and foremost. And this was discussed in the Ult. Marvel debate: people obviously don't have the energy/enthusiasm to divide in these cases.

I just see either one of the RPG's (probably 1963, going by interests expressed here) fizzing out. I say we just pick one and run with it. Why divide up energy when we can plunge ourselves into one full throttle?

 

[The Question]

I don't know... I mean, way I see it, if we have both and can't support both, then the less popular one will fizzle out. I really like both ideas, so why not give them both a chance?

 

[Harlekin]

I'll go with whatever the majority wants.