Why did superheroes never take off in quite the same way as fantasy and sci-fi...

Why did superheroes never take off in quite the same way as fantasy and sci-fi? There are basically two real superhero companies, then like three or four minor ones, then nothing. It's not like fantasy or sci-fi where anyone can start writing and get stuff made. The entire genre rests on the assumption that you're either DC or Marvel.

Because superhero stories have banked on recognizable characters over narrative quality every step of the way. Recognizable characters means it's easier to sell merchandise, which means it's easier to make a ton of cash.

It's not like fantasy or sci-fi don't suffer from this. Lord of the Rings is all about this. So are Star Wars and Star Trek. The biggest grossing examples are the ones that bank on the same money-making formula.

But superheroes are an established concept now, just like fantasy and sci-fi have been for a long time, so you can in fact find people who just started writing and got stuff made. Veeky Forums has a hateboner for it, but Worm is exactly this, and managed to stomp all over the giant swell of superhero fiction that started to show up online at about the same time as it did. The author, Wildbow, has been approached with offers to turn it and his other stories into media franchises.

*Correction: Lord of the Rings as a franchise, I should say. Tolkien's work stands the test of time with the best of them, but in pop culture it's essentially just recognizable characters with no recognition for the epic narrative.

take a look at this, it is a interesting watch especially if you like the Buckaroo Banzai

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNbJb1NEGUk

no way in hell does that depressing grimderp story succeed in the general marketplace. and thats assuming it doesnt get torn apart for all the asspulls and plot device characters.

You're deluded, probably because you haven't read it, but I guess we'll see.

Because much of the genre is based on a shared universe with decades of continuity building on itself.

Kind of this. But since superhero fiction largely trades on classical myths and heroic tropes, a lot of the bases have been covered for a while now. It's like creating another pagan pantheon instead of repurposing existing ones.

There are examples to the contrary, like Rising Stars, Watchmen, and arguably 90s X-men, but it's hard to fight the established gods.

oh? please point to anything in my statement that isnt true.

You describe it as "depressing grimderp", which is totally inaccurate and not the impression someone who has actually read any amount of it would get.

As for "asspulls" and "plot device characters", if you listed any examples I could at least know what you're talking about, but I don't remember much of that in the story I read.

I do see much of that in massive multimedia superhero franchises, though, so I don't see how even if that were true, it would hurt its performance in the market for this genre.

ok, the second is the easiest so ill tackle that first. taylor always win. however sometimes she has no business winning a fight because no amount of stretching her powers {can you say bulletproof silk? how about insect draglines?} will win her the fight. so what happens time and time again is that the enemy suddenly develops a new weakness. alexandria somehow needed to breath despite fighting enemies who could have taken advantage of that for years, lung who burned so hot venom should have denatured inside him and who had iron skin and regen was suddenly weak to insect bites. the type of insects you could find approaching wintertime in new england by the way. shadow stalker suddenly has the weakness of using her intangability when dogs took her out by running through her. the list goes on. as to plot devices: simurgh, contessa and cauldron in general, jack slash, and the only acceptable example on this list is tattletale who makes sense to help the audience understand the setting and had an actual character. seriously the first two on that list were some of the most blatant examples of walking plot ive ever seen. i could elaborate if needed but my keyboard is busted so big posts like this is a real pain.

No elves.

Even scifi struggled until it added elves.

I guess I just feel sorry for you for being unable to suspend your disbelief to enjoy a story. None of what you list is really a black stain on Worm, especially not once it gets in front of general audiences.

You're just a bitter fuck who forgot how to read books.

RPGs are niche
Superheroes are niche
superhero RPGs are very niche

also, they're very easy to break

>tg/ has a hateboner for it, but Worm is exactly this

By hate boner do you mean fucking suck it's dick every time babies first WHAT IF SUPERHEROES WRRE ACTUALLY BAD GUYS GAIS grimdark highschool bully shot gets brought up? Work isn't bad - it's astonishingly generic. The same beats have been getting hit since fucking Watchmen

now the first is everyone is shit in this story but like two people. seriously everyone is a piece of shit from the authorities who are always evil and corrupt, to the heroes who are corrupt or incompetent or evil, to the thing granting powers who wants to destroy everything, to the protagonists themselves who are all horrible people. the world is shit and it just gets worst and theres never any point where you feel hope or even want good things for these characters. lets not get into the seemingly omniscient unstoppable monsters that come every few months to destroy a city.

That's not what Worm is about, so the hate side is clearly winning.

if your writing is bad enough to break my suspension of disbelief im gonna call you on it.

>Thats not what worm is about

Work is about super powered highschool kids being exploited by adults to fight Eldritch horrors. It even has the archetypical mean girl. Do not shit a shitter.

Oh, okay, so who explained Worm to you? Was it a really wordy post on some other site? Because if you really think this you must have read the story while on pills. The thing goes out of its way to humanize literally everyone.

Bullshit. That's not even a peripheral setting detail. It's not fucking Evangelion. There's plenty of adult heroes and the plot has the protagonist avoid all those institutions for like half the length. Who hurt you?

i read it, or at least a large portion of it. i just didnt like it. and i shudder at your view on humanity if you think being human means being a piece of shit.

>Peripheral to the setting

Are you fucking high? It literally ends with the protagonist pulling a Madoka

>Work is about super powered highschool kids being exploited by adults to fight Eldritch horrors

cauldron selling powers and using the undersiders
> It even has the archetypical mean girl

fucking emma the whole reason the story started.

Are you? None of that came about by adults exploiting children, and the mean girl bullshit was left behind a million and a half words beforehand.

So three people in a conspiracy manipulating all of society is "adults exploiting children"? Come the fuck on, now.

I suppose this is a good enough place to ask.

How is The DC Universe M&M game?

the wards, the fucking wards user! its in their goddamn name!

The wards being "exploited to fight eldritch horrors" is a peripheral setting detail. Has nothing to do with the bulk of the work and is definitely not something you could say "it's about".

peripheral? have you read this book?

>Peripheral

It forms a central moral impetus for a great deal of the setting.

Face it user, Work is The Watchmen for kids who didn't live through the 90s and who like anime.

Are you so retarded that you think the main character is in the wards?

Children aren't very exigent.

It depends on the metric you use, because even if it's just the 4-5 companies running the show, the MCU and whatever the DC equivalent is called are a multi-billion dollar business which outsells roleplaying games as a whole, and probably would outsell fantasy as well if not because of the handful of relevant IPs like Tolkien, Game of Thrones and WoW

It does no such thing. The fact that the wards are basically expected to lay down their lives fighting the big monsters is a fact that the story presents, but it's not actually explored to any depth beyond a few chapters during the second large arc of the story, when it's used to contrast these teenagers who are basically being shamed into it with the protagonist who could never even imagine not joining in.

Not for nothing but if child soldiers are a "peripheral" in the setting than that is a violation of chekovs gun

Not very accurate to the comics in some places (like Superman being only PL15), but mostly for the sake of making them playable. There's also some... imaginative interpretations of how certain mechanics work in some statblocks, but nothing too bad. Overall it's probably your best choice for running a DC game

>What is Weaver

>Forms the circumstances of the opening chapters
>Exemplifies the characteristics of the protagonist as well as antagonists

None of that is "peripheral". And none of this changes the fact that Work is The Watchmen + Evangelion and is derivative as fuck

Weaver is a large chunk of the story, sure, but she's the second act, not "what the story is about", and she's never "exploited into fighting eldritch monsters".

>Why did superheroes never take off
There are like 2 super hero movies a year. How many big budget fantasy movies are we getting?

Supes are pretty mainstream.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is like saying Lord of the Rings is about immortal elves leaving Middle Earth.

The heroes in Worm were unironically right about everything, though. A huge part of Taylor's character is that her blind adherence to her moral compassion robs her of the objectivity to evaluate what they're trying to do.

I honestly think that superheroes are now even more recognizable than sci-fi or fantasy. Try to ask anybody if they've seen Babylon 5 or Farscape, or even mention Larry Niven or Heinlein, and you're likely to just get blank looks. Fantasy has more recognizable titles, but that's counting all forms of media (video games, films, television, etc.)

With superheroes, you pretty much have them becoming big again in a time when the only two dominant superhero companies are DC or Marvel. Valiant pretty much collapsed during the 90s, and Image is only brought up when you want to talk about the comic book crash of the 90s. A lot of the other comic book companies just plain don't have any big superhero universes.

she only has compassion when it plays into her insecurities. she never even thinks about the people bitch drove out of her block through excessive violence or the fact that a certain mini-heartbreaker was perfectly ok with enslaving people to his will. she commited horrible and unnecessary acts with regularity because those people after all werent her living emotional crutches.

Super heroes are as a rule, iconic. It's very difficult to distance yourself from existing superhero fiction because is a far more narrow genre. Go too far, and no one is willing to take the leap. too close, and you're just retreading the big name's characters.

You pick a flavor and are kinda stuck in the cops and robbers story, no matter how big or small you make the stakes: A flying brick fighting an army of giant robot isn't really all that different than a vigilante fighting a swat team.

There's also the barrier to entry: You have to start with "I know this sounds ridiculous..." with a majority of superhero stories. Even ones that try to stay grounded usually have serious problems with cheese or edge.

It's almost like an emotionally damaged young girl with superpowers isn't a good source for ethics.

She isn't ignorant of it. she about it, rationalizes it and moves on. It's amazing how much simpler life gets when you operate under narcissistic moral relativism.

>no elves

Tell me that this wouldn't be the best Super Hero movie.

Many Scifi and Fantasy main characters are powerful (or plot armoured) enough to count as superheroes a lot of the time.

Even the more grounded ones have stories that would fit "street level" heroes.

Of course if they are only in books then they lack that visual factor that has become key to the big superheroes.

Basing a movie on the best (in my totally bias opinion) comic that either of the big 2 have released in a decade or more would be awesome...if I trusted any of the studios to not fuck it up.

Thor Ragnarok's success makes me a little sad, because if they ever adapted the comic, they would probably just end up removing Hercules altogether and just having Thor go through the challenges instead, and it would be nowhere near as fun.

But, part of me hopes that they'd risk everything on a stand-alone Hercules movie, which is the most ridiculous gamble they could ever make, that half-way through it switches into the comic absolutely and unapologetically.

The lack of any consequent worldbuilding and the unwillingness to create a coherent world is what has plagued the Hero genre for most of his history. It is what ultimately prevents it to be as popular as fantasy or sci-fi. In that particular, the genre has never grown up.

Both fantasy and sci-fi strive to create interesting narrative in an coherent world. They often fail, but the struggle in itself is what has given them their pedigree.

Nowadays, far as we are into the modern age of the Hero genre, coherence or worldbuilding is too often replaced by pseudo-realism. Each individual hero of each individual story live in a relatable world, but the childish unwillingness of the authors to make it a coherent whole ultimately undermine the purpose of their narrative. Stories and entire worlds are character driven with part of the setting fading out when unneeded. There is no persistence of objects, of actions, of places. A hero can destroy New York in one episode, and get nothing less than a one-sentence cameos in the next. Half of America can be destroyed and the lights would still be on for the other half, except when it would be narratively better for a hero to experience a light shortage.

The genre is laughable. As deeply as I dislike Worm on a technical level, its kind of worldbuilding is what the genre needs.

If only DC or Marvel actually tried.

And when we get something that goes a bit further, like Watchmen or Sandman, it pretty much becomes a different genre.

>As deeply as I dislike Worm on a technical level, its kind of worldbuilding is what the genre needs.

Oh god no. Fuck no, and I'm even going to go so far as to say fuck you.

The only thing Worm has going for it is that it's made by a single author. That's literally the sole, singular, and only advantage or noteworthy aspect it has in comparison to DC or Marvel. And not even all of DC or Marvel, because both have smaller, more self-contained serials, and they are coherent wholes within themselves.

What you're complaining about isn't DC or Marvel, but your own limited knowledge of DC and Marvel. That's understandable, considering the unforgiving scale of two companies that literally shit out twenty comics each week, but, of all self-contained superhero serials to mention, you even bother with the incoherent and self-contradicting Worm? What is wrong with you?

How the hell do think Worm is incoherent or self-contradicting?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

So, I was thinking of reading Worm, I've seen some criticisms here, but what are some main things people don't like about it? Promising premise but falls apart in the middle and end?

Veeky Forums really is a nesting ground for contrarian fuckwits. At least hate something that's actually popular

Just read it. If you don't like it you can drop it. It's best to go in blind and without expectations

The start seemed promising but for me it just became tedious and ridiculos to read to the point that I just abandoned it

It wouldn't be the best superhero movie.

That would be Doom.

Even just the nature of triggering has so many silly little contradicting clauses, and with it being central to the world crafting and narrative, you really aren't allowed to think too deeply about it without shattering the suspension of disbelief.

Even Mystery Men has a more coherent world.

If you don't know what contrarian means, you're best off not using it.

You hate it because people like it. It's a reactionary response. That's being contrarian.

Because D&D literally is RPG's to the vast majority of people and most can't conceive of anything else so very little other than D&D gets played and if it does it's still a fantasy hack and slash game.

Ironically D&D in its modern iterations basically is a superhero game, the characters are nigh invincible behemoths that wield magical powers to go after world ending threats.

Or, because it's genuinely awful?
Maybe you shouldn't just defend everything anyone criticizes?

Quit being a contrarian-contrarian, you nutcase.

Stupid, dumb Doomfag scum.

What about it is contradictory?

woah woah woah, i was one of the people calling worm shit from the beginning of this thread, but worm does have things going for it or else we wouldnt be so pissed at it.

does anyone know about some independent cape comics/books/games that arent well known? i mean other than worm.

same reason D&D is successful: branding. you get some imaginary nerd creds by being part of the fanbase. a little bit of THEIR popularity rubs off onto your popularity. absolutely disgusting if you ask me but can ya do if neckbeards crave brand association to boost their own image?

>Forgets all the other super heros stuff in fiction
OP have you hear of My Hero Academy? Al'bout Mutants and Masterminds?

Ignore the haters, just read it and form your own opinion.

It starts off decent and gets better, but has its ups and downs. If you don't like it by the time you've read arc 8 you probably never will. I wouldn't call it grimdark, but it does get dark enough at times to be almost exhausting to read, so if that bothers you you should probably skip it.

I actually thought it got worse as it went on because it went from "edgy" to "edgy-for-the-sake-of-being-edgy" in the worst and most obvious way, like a soap opera that ran out of plot.

It's not something that you read brainlessly. It's much better when you take the time to consider what you're reading. The beginning is a little weak but gets much better as it continues.

The only time I felt that way was during the S9 arc, and by that point I was invested enough in the characters that I didn't really care. I can definitely see how you'd feel that way though.

It's a dark story, the world is a pretty bad place, but the progression of threats is logical if you actually think about it. That being said, the downward spiral can lead towards apathy.

Because you're already playing superheroes when you play D&D, and that's the only RPG that anybody cares about.

t. burger

It just feels that way, in reality superheroes as it's own specific concept (different than demigods like Hercules) is only about 70 years old or so, it just hasn't been around the same length as sci fi or fantasy, and thus, we are only in the beginnings of it. There is much more to come, I assure you.

RIP blue elf lady

I didn't like it at all, but just go and see for yourself. If you don't like it, just drop it. You won't be missing out on anything of worth.

>is only about 70 years old or so, it just hasn't been around the same length as sci fi or fantasy,
Whereas sci-fi or fantasy have been around... centuries?

>Whereas sci-fi or fantasy have been around... centuries?
Yeah. This one is from 1870.

It's one of many subpar works that people give a green light to because they're starving for more stuff in its genre. The only good thing I can say about it is that it should encourage more amateur writers to get into the niche and just knock it out of the park.

Worm is a lot better than most of the stuff out there I wouldn't call it sub-par at all.

I mean, Worm beats par for superhero fiction.

It's just that superhero fiction is a fucking wasteland.

Hence the "overly defensive" fans and "obnoxiously harsh" critics. They're both right.

Only if you're going by unpublished, fanfiction-tier standards. Even then it doesn't rise very high.

But Whor is a published mainstream title right now.

I think you might want to rethink your definition of "mainstream".

Worm is a first draft, it should be judged as one. I don't believe we can get the final publish version of it yet.

The reason that there are so few superhero universes is because each universe can hold an unlimited variety of genres. Each fantasy or sci-fi setting has it's own rules. Superheroes exist to break rules. If you go to the movies or read comics you're probably aware that Superman (virtually unlimited power) is a teammate of Batman (no powers at all). Similarly Hawkeye is a teammate of Thor. It's an astonishingly huge gulf between the two members of each pair. In fact I don't think that there's any other genre where such a variance is possible. In any other genre the Man would be the hero while the God would be the Ultimate Big Bad.

My biggest complaint is that the timeskip was extremely sudden and threw the story into disarray. Taylor spends such a long stretch of story working on a another character's guess that she really loses all her own agency and just rides the wave of causality where she doesn't know what's going on, and so neither does the audience. I do feel it recovers by the end though and the last three arcs (which are really one super-arc) were satisfying.

Now I want a setting/story/genre where the hero is the god and the Ultimate Big Bad is just a man.

...

I agree, as someone who loved Worm the time skip was the one part of the story that I would call bad. Even the writer agrees on this point.

Colin Baker sure has let himself go.

Either Whor counts as mainstream, or literally all superhero fiction outside the MCU does not count as mainstream. I'm actually fine with either, but pick one so I actually do know what the hell you're talking about with your usage of that word.

Worm has tone and pacing issues, like all of Wildbow's work.

Worm compensates for it with some damn good worldbuilding and an intriguing (if not particularly satisfying) myth plot.

It's the combination of 5 separate story pitches, which shows if you retreat at any time and examine the individual threads.

It is also highly dependent and somewhat hobbled by its structure: The massive, single stream style is addicting and entirely avoided the author's greatest crutch; an (at the time) utter inability to deescalate.

It also makes reading exhausting, entirely lacking comfortable breakpoints to reflect or stop reading.

Worm definitely needs another pass or two, but that's a lot of content to edit. Frustratingly, unless you enjoy Wildbow's rough writing (which is part of the appeal to some of the readers), the worse chapters can be an absolute slog.

If you quote Jules Verne, I quote the tales of Hercules for superheroes.

Because "superheroes" isn't an actual genre just like "aliens" isn't a genre. They either belong to fantasy or sci-fi.