Sell Me Off SCRPG

I know that's an odd thing to ask on the company's forums, so let me explan a bit.

I'm a backer and I have been reading the draft chapters.  I own the Starter Kit, but I haven't played it yet.  I really like everything I've read.

Presently, I'm running a Champions campaign and I'm wondering if people who have more experience running SCRPG could offer some insights for me on how SCRPG plays.  I realize the easy answer is, "try the game yourself and see if you like the way it plays."  And I will.  But one session or even three sessions of the Starter Kit may not reveal issues that others might have uncovered trying to run an actual campaign.

I guess my first and easiest question would be, "What have you *not* liked about running SCRPG?"

How easy is it to design encounters? The rulebook's tools look good, but it seems encounters *do* need to be constructed, as I've read that action scenes with just fighting are not very exciting.  I prefer *very* low mechanical prep for games because I'm old and don't have the time and energy I used to.

How does it play when players are either having an off night and are not feeling creative or with players who are just more inclined to look at their character sheet for the biggest attack they have?

Aside from the GM holding a strong narrative rein over the scene, what prevents players from just choosing their best dice combo and jamming their description to fit into the scene's narrative hole over and over?

Does the game play well if not using Sentinel Comics as the backdrop? I'd want to keep using my present world.

Does the game feel like it has real character progression? Does it really feel that characters change in play or do they only get bonuses as experience?

I realize the game doesn't have formal benchmarks (i.e., my character can lift 10 tons, while yours lifts 5), but is there a real sense of niche protection (i.e., I'm the best at this particular power)?

The game seems light on traditional "skill usage."  Do Skill Monkey characters feel good in the system? Does the game play out in a pattern of "big action scene, quick role-play, next big action scene"? Are investigations or filler fights against easy enemies really worthwhile in the system? (It reads a little like D&D4, where every fight was a showpiece fight).

I'm sure I'll have some more questions, but these are the ones that I've been thinking about the most.  Just to be clear, I *love* what I'm reading, but I'm looking to get other play experiences - especially negative ones - before I put my players through a system change come August, especially since I don't *dislike* Champions.  It just seems this game can generate some really top-notch comic book experiences.  I want to know at what "cost."

I can't say anything for certain; I've played through the 6-part freedom five module and my players have played about 14 sessions and are on the 12th issue of our own campaign. That said, I will answer these questions as I have experienced them, and hopefully its helpful.

"How easy is it to design encounters?"
During the first 6 issues, I did not have the bullpen to run session, only the gameplay guide and similar sources. As such, I only did any serious preparation for the final encounter, which took about 1 hour. It was a simple encounter, just a number of challenge boxes and one villain. During the next 6 issue arc, I spent more time on each encounter, and it definitely helped them feel more enjoyable. From my experience, assuming you can quickly jump around in the book(pdf or otherwise) it might take you 1 hour to make an encounter, or 2 hours if its particularly complicated(environments/main villains are the big offenders here).
  All this said, my experience has been you only need 1 encounter each session, and that's assuming you don't have a major/multiple roleplay encounter.(that's how my group has played 14 sessions, but are only on the 12th issue). I actually had to slow down with encounter creating so they could get some extra roleplaying done.
  The other piece to all this is that once you make the villains you want for the arc, there's about 3 charts in the bullpen that are VERY helpful for making things up on the spot. In particular the environment twist chart is almost 2 pages, all put together, and lets you just drag and drop as needed.

"How does it play when players are either having an off night and are not feeling creative or with players who are just more inclined to look at their character sheet for the biggest attack they have?"
  This is a problem I have been struggling with my group, since two of them only have real experience with D&D, and are power-gamers. That said, because the system relies on both attacks and overcome checks to solve problems, its often difficult to just hit things hard(and if they want to do that, adding few minions/lieutenents gives them something to do) The principles help, but sometimes that might be you just explaining to them how there twist culminates in a hinder/damage. Trust me, nothing gets my players going if I tell them they take MAX die damage from their minor twist. 
  For some groups, these problems might be easier or harder to deal with. That said, if you follow the rules as written, you can often tug on things if you want to push your players, or throw something dumb at them just to pass the session along. The session where I've had attendence issues, another big problems for my group, I've often just thrown a roleplaying encounter out there, some minions for them to beat up and place a future thread, or run a solo issue for their character.

"What prevents players from just choosing their best dice combo and jamming their description to fit into the scene's narrative hole over and over?"
   As you said, the GM does hold narrative reign in many ways. Its also interesting, because unlike some other RPGs, killing a character is actually specifically disallowed without player permission. This actually allows you to kinda get away with unusually cruel or weirdly specific mechanics to counter that kind of player exploitation. The trick is to introduce them early on so the players don't feel like you're being a dick to them specifically. The real problem is that its not really impossible to stop them from doing it, only prevent them from succeeding for doing it. At some point, the apocalypse you might describe gets out of hand. ;P
So don't describe something that you yourself don't want to deal with(which might be a reason to keep the stakes at street level)
  There are some descriptions for qualities and powers in the character creation book if you need to stop players from forcing the same dice set every time, but I'll admit that the argument is semantic and really weak here. One of my players specifically tried to get me to desribe all the things I would/wouldn't allow for a number of power and qualities because they didn't want to pick things that would then get disallowed. In the end of the conversation, I basically just said that they could try anything, but not everything will work, and I might change my mind on some things. It was a slight problem for about 5-10 sessions before they found something that they liked the versatility/feeling of. As usual, talk to your players.

"Does the game play well if not using Sentinel Comics as the backdrop?"
This one I can't speak well to, since I have only played in the Sentinels world. But I suspect there shouldn't be any issues unless you've already established specific mechanics associated with certain superpowers, and the player wants to keep it.(the system doesn't powerscale the same way other RPGs do) 

"Does the game feel like it has real character progression? Does it really feel that characters change in play or do they only get bonuses as experience?"
  The only real progressions comes from remaking/editing characters and collected trades, and because they are mutually exclusive, one of the main complaints or issues of this system is a lack of mechanically progression. I have considered allowing the benefits of the retcon(in character creation) instead of a collected trade, but ultimately, it either would get out of hand, or not change much. That said, as long as the characters and the setting changes from their actions, it really does have the comic book feeling of story progression without changing the status quo(until it REALLY does, and might be changed back later)
  It is worth noting that my players have not obtained very many trade collections, so I'm don't have personal experience with this, but trade collections seem to be VERY strong if used often. they can also help with the flavor of the story if used correctly, but once a character has obtained enough collected trades, being able to maximize any die is a strong benefit. And the lack of obvious limits means it's kinda a sneaky power boost for characters. So watch out for that.

"I realize the game doesn't have formal benchmarks (i.e., my character can lift 10 tons, while yours lifts 5), but is there a real sense of niche protection (i.e., I'm the best at this particular power)?"
  The GM can obviously push this, but one thing that is mentioned in the book a few different ways(but not explicitly) is the idea that certain powers and qualities have a strength based on the die size. You can really push this by saying "who has a power that can do X with d10 or higher?" This works as a type of passive check, and can help players like their choices in certain qualities. That said, this is only implied, so I think it would be cool to have this a more specific optional mechanic.

"Do Skill Monkey characters feel good in the system? Does the game play out in a pattern of "big action scene, quick role-play, next big action scene"? Are investigations or filler fights against easy enemies really worthwhile in the system?"
1) Yes, they do. So many qualities.
2) More like quick role-play, big action scene, quick-role play. Or just big action scene with roleplay.
3) They can be. Mostly to make your player feel powerful, or set up future story threads.
All that said, the game definitely pushes narrative description and actions scenes, rather than overcomes/boosts between them. But there are tools there, and they feel good when people are on board to use them.

What have you *not* liked about running SCRPG?
The big flaws to the game right now is complexity. It is very streamlined, lets the player/GMs push their narrative easily, and has lots of GM tools to avoid turning into a stale wargame scenario. But progression is just strong, not well-tailored to play experience. In addition, while there are a lot of tools to keep the description interesting, if you don't use them AND the no one feels like being creative, the mechanical complexity does not hold up the combat on its own.
Essentially, there are two conditions that would need to be met for someone to avoid playing this game:
1)Your group really does not like roleplay, and instead prefers wargaming/roll playing.
2)You can't wait for any of the additional expansions they have been working on(heroic flaws, magic systems, and other promised content will really help the wargaming aspect of the game)

TL;DR
This is a great RPG unless you love a different RPG system, would prefer a mechanics heavy RPG​, and don't want to wait for the other books. otherwise, give it a try. Show it to your players, see if they also like it. 


 

Humandoom, THANK YOU for all this information.  I really, really appreciate all the time you took to do this.

One follow-up question.  You wrote,

"As you said, the GM does hold narrative reign in many ways. Its also interesting, because unlike some other RPGs, killing a character is actually specifically disallowed without player permission. This actually allows you to kinda get away with unusually cruel or weirdly specific mechanics to counter that kind of player exploitation. The trick is to introduce them early on so the players don't feel like you're being a dick to them specifically. The real problem is that its not really impossible to stop them from doing it, only prevent them from succeeding for doing it. At some point, the apocalypse you might describe gets out of hand. ;P"

Could you give me an example here? I'm not sure I followed.

Bottom line at the moment after reading this is that I still have concerns.  My players are not wargamers or power-gamers, but we are old players used to mechanically deep games (you know, like Champions).who don't always have the mental energy after a week at work to come up with cool moves every round.

Humandoom, do you mind if I borrow your format and put up my experiences running the game as well?

Edit: Well, I guess I should OP if I can. Woops.



Edit 2:

How easy is it to design encounters? The rulebook's tools look good, but it seems encounters *do* need to be constructed, as I've read that action scenes with just fighting are not very exciting.  I prefer *very* low mechanical prep for games because I'm old and don't have the time and energy I used to.

I've usually been able to sit down for maybe two hours and design two consecutive scenes. There's a good set of guidelines in the Bullpen chapter for designing action scenes, which will usually be your 'encounters'.

How does it play when players are either having an off night and are not feeling creative or with players who are just more inclined to look at their character sheet for the biggest attack they have?

Having had some players who are having off days or aren't terrible creative that day, it still works. It's a bit less vibrant, but I give my players the option to let me handle description of events if they aren't feeling up to it. For players who just want to unload their largest attacks, they can do that. They might not feel included when there's Overcomes or a secondary objective that needs to handled, but the system does encourage heroes splitting up the workload to some degree.

Aside from the GM holding a strong narrative rein over the scene, what prevents players from just choosing their best dice combo and jamming their description to fit into the scene's narrative hole over and over?

Nothing, really. However, the rules recommend that the players describe what the comic book readers would be seeing on the panel while their character does their thing. On the same token, it kind of ruins the point of having more than one power or quality. Sure, not all of your powers are strong; That doesn't mean that they don't exist, and if your action reflects a weaker power more than the one you think, it could be interesting in the story to see a character use a different combination than their absolute strongest. 

Does the game play well if not using Sentinel Comics as the backdrop? I'd want to keep using my present world.

Definitely. I run the games almost explicitly in my writing world, although I definitely bring in stuff from Sentinel Comics if a player forgot their sheet and is using a precon.

Does the game feel like it has real character progression? Does it really feel that characters change in play or do they only get bonuses as experience?

Getting trades or rebuilding characters can both be extremely powerful, although not always in obvious ways. The Bullpen chapter also provides other options for rewards for heroes to gather at GM discretion, so you could easily do that.

I realize the game doesn't have formal benchmarks (i.e., my character can lift 10 tons, while yours lifts 5), but is there a real sense of niche protection (i.e., I'm the best at this particular power)?

In general? I wouldn't say so. I view the dice as an expression of relevance to that heroes personal legend, so to speak. I have a character who has a d12 in Absorption, but it's extremely limited in application. It's a d12 because it's that character's defining power. The powers can also be somewhat vague, such as Fire possibly being flame manipulation or the ability to unleash blasts of heat. Absorption could be absorbing energy, or it could be sealing away weapons to put them permanently out of reach.

The game seems light on traditional "skill usage."  Do Skill Monkey characters feel good in the system? Does the game play out in a pattern of "big action scene, quick role-play, next big action scene"? Are investigations or filler fights against easy enemies really worthwhile in the system? (It reads a little like D&D4, where every fight was a showpiece fight).

Several of my players have made 'skill monkey' type characters, and they are from useless. It's extremely difficult to make a character who has absolutely nothing to do in a fight, and skill monkeys often have ways to make use of their powers and qualities in action scenes.
I'm currently running a game where the players are investigating strange occurences, and the format is usually 'Investigate, Role Play, Fight, Roleplay More'. You could easily build a story where it's entirely focused on blasting through waves of mooks though, or a gritty fight for survival against huge foes at every turn. There's no real benefit to weaker fights though; I tend to use them to give players breathers or to wrap up dangling story threads and set up new plot points.

I hope that my explanations make sense, and I can definitely give more details.

This will not be everyone's experience, but:

I have players who are all in their 30s and 40s, work full-time jobs, and are generally exhausted when they roll into my house on a Monday night. They have varying degrees of RPG experience, althought none of them are total beginners. I've found that the amount of preparation I put in to planning games is pretty much what they get out of them.

Before I ran Sentinels for this group, I ran Blades in the Dark (not very crunchy, much more storytelling-type game) for them. Before that, I ran the FFG Star Wars game (so very crunchy - it has this narrative dice aspect, but also pages and pages of rules and abilities and equipment and stuff). I also run D&D, and I play D&D (so I'm at the tabletop 3 times a week, usually). I've only run 5 sessions of Sentinels RPG (because I didn't want to run the game until I had the chapter for enemies and Challenges and Environments), so this based on limited experinece, too.

My group of players seem to be embracing the simplicity, and I think it does their tired brains a service. Obviously, all players are different. But in the last session, I actually encouraged one of my players to "be cheesy" with her rolling - she kept taking a d4 for "Power" because she felt her powers weren't applicable, but as I told her, in comics, every superhero is armed with only a hammer, and every problem is a nail. This is true in all forms of "myth storytelling," which encompasses a lot of science fiction, fantasy, superhero stories, and most movies. Most of the time, the story ends up being about what the character is good at, and they are given a chance to resolve the story using their talents and skills. It's what most protagonists end up getting to do.

That is a long way of saying, "I just let my characters do their cheese, for the most part, as long as they are telling me how it works." If they tell everyone else at the table a story, then we're all good! That's what we sit down for!

(Here's the secret: I'm the GM. If I want to hurt the PCs, I can always hurt the PCs. If I want to challenge the PCs, I can always challenge the PCs. I don't care how good their cheese is - my cheese is always bigger, better, and stinkier.)

So I let the players indulge themselves. If they want to use the same dice every time, I just nod. But I don't accept the same narrative description every time. If the game is a comic book, then the readers aren't going to buy an issue where every panel is Dr. Badgerface slashing a robo-pirate his mighty badger-claws. He's got to use his enhanced badger-senses to track them, or his unstoppable badger toughness to plow through the robo-pirates techno-poop deck.

But not all players are going to like that, of course, so your mileage may vary. Champions is a very different game from Sentinels, and I have to admit I think all my players would rather do the Sentinels RPG than Champions, so maybe we're not a good example for you. :-)

These examples are all super-helpful.  I am very appreciative of all of you who have taken the time to share your experiences.

I'm very likely going to "force" the Starter Kit on my players as a temporary break from our normal Champions game, and they will know that I'm doing this as a sort of "backdoor pilot" for a possible switch to the SCRPG rules.

But I am concerned, because Champions is our "comfort food."  From 1983-2005, there was no extended period of time when we *weren't* playing Champions.  Then I was finally burnt out...until I picked it up again a couple years ago.  I love so many things about it, and it's very comfortable for us, but I have to admit that it takes some work to make the action *really* feel like a comic book.

We've tried M&M, ICONS, and the old MSH as alternatives, but none lasted longer than 6 months.  I'm hesitant to move over to SCRPG to then move back again 6 months later.

Getting to the point: I'll be sure to get my own play experience with it, but I want the wisdom of those who have played longer as well.

22 years of playing Champions? o.o I feel congratulations are in order. (If only because it's not an easy system!)

I highly suggest checking out the GTG live-play videos/podcasts to get a feeling for how they play it, the prep the GM does, etc. https://www.youtube.com/user/GreaterThanGames

Also, something to keep in mind: Champions is a super-hero RPG, but SCRPG is a _comicbook_ RPG (as mistergone alluded to). Subtle difference, but an important one!!! :-) One thing they recommend is to think of it as though you're all in the writers bullpen trying to come up with the best comic book you can. Action is described as what you'd seen in the panel. Heroes don't have (easy) access to their most potent abilities until things are at their most dramatic -- because that's how a comic structurally works.  

There's no real replacement for comfort food! There may never be a thing that takes the place of Champions for your group, honestly. I've been playing D&D since I was 12, and I continue to play D&D at least partly (probably largely) because it's so familiar and easy to me. I know the classes, the monsters, how the stories go, etc. I love D&D, and there's no real "replacing" it for me.

I still hope your group tries out Sentinels with an open mind and has fun! But I'd say Champions is more like a family member than a game for your group at this point, so it might be hard to unplug from that. ;-)

Lots of good responses, and not a lot I can add. But I will try to clarify my statement from before.(the statement mentioned here is resposted at the end of this)

  Holding narrative reign and mechanical reign is two different things. If players come to the table with the presumption that you can make any number of any kind of monster/encounter with with stats/numbers to represent it, that's narrative reign. But if they come to the table with the presumption that you can change the rules of the game on them, that's mechanical reign. In a lot of RPGs, GMs are given narrative reign, with chapters like the Sentinels bullpen being optional inspiration for creating content. However, only a few RPGs really push mechanical reign into the hands of GMs; most of the time they are balanced between all the players at the table, and the chapter on gameplay itself. This is largely because many RPGs want the feel that the dice could always cause a problem(even if that chance is incredibly low)
  However, because Sentinels explicitly calls out that a player can never be *forced* to lose their character to dice rolls, those mechanical reigns are given back to the GM(assuming the players trust them with them). I asked a question on the letters page about other methods of removing a character from a game(like turning them into a villain), and the answer was the same. As such, if try to do a thing that you don't want them to do, you could always say it just fails. However, best the risk of character death is removed, you could also tailor the effect to be a bit more specific. Here are some examples:
->Any actions taken using a mental quality immediately fail, because logic doesn't work here, and your knowledge can't save you. (attacks do 0 damage, hinders are -0, overcomes just fail, etc...)[prevent a person from using deduction on every problem]
->Any overcome checks made to convince matriach to stop will fail, unless the hero tachyon makes them.[lets a specific player take the stoplight, no matter how clever other players are]
->The villain succeeds in getting away, despite your best efforts to catch them.[lets you have a reoccuring villain]
->Everybody now flips a coin work instead of their normal rolls; heads counts as 12, tails counts as 0[lets you input a lot of extra randomness to a scene]

Of course, none of these things prevents a player from wasting their action every turn trying to reason through why they can't use deduction and deduce how to use deduction even when they couldn't use deduction. But you can 'punish' that choice by having them lose scene after scene; just don't dig the game into a hole where you don't want to play.
Long story short, jamming the best dice pool again and again isn't really that helpful in sentinels, numerically speaking, and how they managed to creatively use the part detachment power to create a convincing copy of an airplane passport is part of the fun.

"As you said, the GM does hold narrative reign in many ways. Its also interesting, because unlike some other RPGs, killing a character is actually specifically disallowed without player permission. This actually allows you to kinda get away with unusually cruel or weirdly specific mechanics to counter that kind of player exploitation. The trick is to introduce them early on so the players don't feel like you're being a dick to them specifically. The real problem is that its not really impossible to stop them from doing it, only prevent them from succeeding for doing it. At some point, the apocalypse you might describe gets out of hand. ;P"

Could you give me an example here? I'm not sure I followed.

In Re Hero System

Hero System is actually quite streamlined. the issue is lots of prep uses lots of (relatively simple) 4-function math…

GM prep is helped a lot with spreadsheet skills; players can benefit from the spreadsheets, too.

Back to topic

I’m just about to start up a campaign of SCRPG… Char Gen too 20 min, 20 min, and 4 hours… for the various players

That last was done over discord, and with sending only the relevant options from the rolls.

I’m doing all the sheets for the party… made a sheet in LibreOffice, works ok, but one player’s sheet had… “issues”… 12 bug reports in an hour.

Realizing that the game has 103 pages of char gen, but only 100 of play rules… including copious examples in the later, and LOTS of relevant art.

I know, however, I’d throw another government portrait of Andrew Jackson at the devs for a No-art, no examples, condensed PDF for use on tablets/readers. Or a GI portrait of Hamilton for a fully functional char generator.

(For those potentially unfamiliar with US currency: government portraits = US bills… Jackson=$20, Hamilton=$10.)

Just catching up on comments here...

@TakeWalker: Champions has a rep of being more difficult than it is.  Chargen is very detailed, and gameplay is more detailed than current trends in RPGs, but because it's all very traditional, I think it's pretty easy to get your head around.

@Rabit: I have started listening to those sessions.  I just wish they weren't each 2-3 hours long.  So far, what I've gotten out of them is that GM prep is a must for smooth play (which I would consider a strike against it) and that players sometimes have no idea how they should translate their actions into mechanics and dice pools.  As a GM, I'm not as worried about that.  I suspect I'd have a pretty firm hand in saying, "No, that trait can't apply here."

Also, thank you for the distinction between "superhero RPG" and "comic book RPG."  The distinction makes perfect sense to me and is an excellent way to describe what makes SCRPG different.  It also highlights my own conundrum: myself and my players are so used to "physics simulators" and we like that...but every time I'm reading comic books or watching animated superheroics, I think, "this would probably never happen in my Champions game because it would require too much work to prep adequately."  So I'm torn.

@mistergone: We will definitely try SCRPG! It just remains to be seen whether we'll try it as a possible replacement for our regular Friday night rules set.  Champions is most definitely comfort food.  Previously, when I've been disappointed by a supers RPG, it usually comes back to, "I like the way Champions does most of this better."  The challenge is that it's always "most" of this better; there are always elements of comic book simulation that never go the way I want in Champions.  Hence, my questions here!

@Humandoom: Thank you for the explanation.  I still had to read it twice to get the full context, but I got it now! Watching GTG's videos made it clear to me that the GM can also be comfortable in saying, "No, that trait can't apply here."

@aramis: Please share your experiences when you start playing! I too have found rendering the pages of chapter 2 so slow on my tablet as to be unusable.

Part of the problem is they didn’t flatten all the image layers down to one layer, and there are a bunch of things that were covered over rather than actually replaced. One page had 5 layers deep, not counting two layers of text.

So, Issue 1 is in the back issues. 

2 players are thrilled with the system - the other two got a bit bored when scene 3 got stupidly hard. One of whom was annoyed that the villain's chief lieutenant detonated rather than let the villain go down. 

This felt at least as good a comic book game as Marvel Heroic. (While Champions is excellent as a system, it's not as fast and freewheeling as either.)

This definitely has roots firmly planted in storygames; the AWE/PBTA elements are strong. Need to make player mats for tracking bonuses...

This also suffers from the usual storygame crash-point: players who aren't willing to describe their actions are going to find it repetitive and potentially dull.

In fact, this is one of those cases where, "The answers are not on your sheet" can be a good approach. SCRPG-Lite would be didtch all the abilitiy definitions, and just use Powers, Qualities, and status.

That's about my experience. I've run my players through a couple of scenarios recently, and the main sources of difficulty for players came down to 'I don't have a relevant ability on my sheet' or 'I have no idea how my character does this'.

Unrelated, but wolf-pack style encounters require caution when designing. They can grind down heroes with surprising ease.

> the main sources of difficulty for players came down to 'I don't have a relevant ability on my sheet' or 'I have no idea how my character does this'.

Yeah, this is definitely going to be a slow point in the system for new players, but I think experience with the system and the actual character will help.

My advice to my players has come in two forms:

"Don't worry! In the superhero genre, every character is a hammer and every problem is a nail!" The "Power" part of the dice pool can be really difficult in some actions. For instance, one of my players was trying to evaluate a villain for flaws to exploit. But she didn't have any sensory powers or anything. So, she was going to take a D4, but I wanted to try and see if we could find a way past that. So, I suggested that, if she was hitting the villain with her Ice powers while using her Science Quality to evaluate and examine the results, then the dice pool was Ice + Science + Status.

This approach basically encourages players to find ways to stretch what's happening in the scene to include their Powers (or Qualities) that seem otherwise irrelevant, which hopefully means it encourages them to tell stories, or at least flesh out a "panel" of the comic.

"Don't worry! Just take a D4. It's not a big penalty." Taking a D4 is not the end of the world, and if the other two dice are reasonable, the D4 is not going to ruin the Mid or Max result too badly. For one-off occasional rolls, encouraging the player to take a D4 isn't a big deal and it can speed along the game. However! If, for instance, one character is trying to do an Overcome Challenge by themselves, I would not recommend letting them roll a D4 turn after turn. On a single roll, the effect is minimal, but over multiple rolls, the effect can be much worse to the overall chance of succeeding at the scene. Plus, rolling that D4 turn after turn is frustrating. This is when I'd say you open it up to all your players and brainstorm how the character might solve the problem using one of the Powers or Qualities they do have. This will probably end up making for a better story anyway.

In the end, the game is probably not going to break because a character uses Finesse to do a ranged attack, or uses Science to do an investigation, etc. This is especially true if your players are justifying using those Powers or Quallities by telling a story or using a short description.

Not just new players as in low gaming experience, but also those new to SCRPG despite years of other games.

To do it, Narrate doing it, and if you don’t have a good grip on what to roll, hand the GM your sheet and let them pick what to roll.

It also requires a GM who understands the need to accept the basic premises of comics and of the rules:
Of the rules:
Success is expected, it’s the quality that’s in doubt.
Failure of the roll isn’t failure of the action, it’s failure to have the full desired effect.
Use the tools to create the mood. The Tracker and Environment both have roles here.
Keep aware of the players’ statuses… know when to back them off.
3 minions doing Boost/Boost/Attack is much better versus minions

Of the comics:
Character growth is ephemeral.
In-scene logic is optional; Action is paramount.
Vibrant colors and wordy text are second to a good story with engaging art.
Lots of the story happens in tiny narration texts, but the important scenes and only the important scenes get page count.
The Heroes are the Heroes - everyone else is there to serve their story, and shouldn’t be there to solve the problem.

Best bit from issue two: Alistair, playing the alien hiding under an illusion,  needed a twist. He opted for "Someone from my past?"

I told him, "Give me a concept for them"...

"The guy who hunts for aliens for TV."

So, said guy came in as a neutral lieutenant d6, with a videocamera...

One insubstantiability overcome later, he no longer has a camera nor memory of why he came to the farm.

Just to follow up, we got issue 3 down before lockdown... but Alistair and Kevin were locked down by family the week before the official lockdown..

On hiatus with that group. 

New group started play last week, and did CG the week before... CGen for the two done over skype were over an hour each, them with the tables.

I used the same adventure I'd written. And, as is common in more narrativist games, it played out differently. Recognizable, but not the same.

The grind was less grindy, and the 4 players work better together.

I did a short "page 1 HQ scene"... and let them decide how to get there... Teleport? Ok... Overcome... major consequence... scattered all over the site, a turn's movement-as-action away..

Lots of twists, lots of fun. (Writeups over on RPGGeek in the How Did Your Session Go lists )

Finished the collection On hiatus until dune PT ends.

Iss.1: Rise of the Watermellon Man
Iss 2: Haka Needs Help
Iss 3 Smashing Mellons
Iss 4 A stretch at the Office
Iss 5 A Booming Market
Iss 6 Watermellon Bombs

The best scene of the bunch was in issue 6... when Mobius, the undead hero, had a crossed the veil complication, summoning the shade of Abraham Lincoln to hold his mystical sword in place to keep the water main blocked.

Best overal hero for theme? Maria "Kerberos"
Infernally powered tex avery style chomper from hell.
Her Boost-all is described as demons fly from her and report on goings on to boost her and her allies.

Most consistently fun special - "Superstar d8"… Flashpoint is a gloryhound, and hounded by the press. Hindering minion reporters!