Modern & "Realistic"

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Storn

Neil, I think you are misinterperting at least one of your players. Me. I cut my teeth on the Hero system thru Danger International. It was the game of choice for several years. I LOVE D.I. style games (as I enjoyed your cyberpunk games too). I preferred Top Secret to D&D any day of the week before D.I. I love lethal combat systems, it plays to my strenght as a tactician.

 

My major problem with D.I., besides the high mortality rate issue( the cyberpunk game grounded to a halt after my ex-leionairre took a bullet thru the skull, but for the record, I don't mind high mortality if I know tha t is to be that kinda game.), it that it is set in the real world. Sounds contridictory doesn't it?

 

But what I mean is that the PCs by the very nature are going to be involved in some pretty amazing adventures, even if they are more "realistic" than Dark Champions or Fantasy games. Three deaths in a gunbattle in a city even like NYC is going to stir the waters... and I've seen D.I. games hand out casualties of much higher numbers. So it is hard to sustain the sense of disbelief... that these PCs are operating in a shadowy world.

 

Lastly, I simply prefers Spies and Internat'l Mercenaries to Private Eyes and Cops. I just like that canvas to tell stories better. But the problem with a Spy, is that one Spy at the right place can change the path of history. It might not be evident up close in the game, but can easily happen. So, again, the sense of disbelief, for me, gets challenged. If the solution calls for teh taking out of the French Prime Minister... and it happens...boom, we are no longer gaming in the real world. WE are gaming in an alternate history. which, for some reason, bothers me a bit. Yet being constrained to nothing to change the world bothers me as well.

 

And this can happen in a Chicago based P.I. game too. PCs mess up and the L gets bombed. Well, that has an enormous impact on the city of Chicago. Economic, folks trying to get to work... we address that in the game....boom... alternate history time.

 

Which is why I prefer something like cyberpunk. You can do all the tropes of D.I., but there is a bit more flexibility. We can whack the Prez of the US if the story takes us there. If Mexico needs to be the shining star of the future, with very little corruption and democratic society...boom... it can be so.

 

But to say that I'm not interested in a game like that... well...that just ain't so.

 

The real problem you have is that RDU is the 800 lb gorilla. The demand for playing that campaign is paramount. Not only fromt he players, but from yourself. You have stated on these boards that you are a continuity freak. Well. RDU is the haven of continuity. It has been going on for a long time. It is very seductuve with its width and breath and scope. It is the reason that I'm running a spy campaign. Yet it is set in RDU and it is superheroes.

 

I think for a D.I. game to succeed, it would have to be entirely removed from RDU, completely and utterly. It is not D.I. with supers or psionics or even low level Talents.

 

I understand where you are coming from in the ability to disbelieve and I agree that this is a problem if you expect the game world to reflect tommorrows headlines, but assuming you start with the world as it is today and accept that from this point forward it is no longer identical to tommorrow I don't see the problem, on Sept 10th an airliner crashing into the world trade center was outlandish fantasy, now not so much. Assassination of a national leader? depending on the theorys this has happend many times, several Soviet leaders died mysteriously, there were attempts of DeGaul and our own JFK and Reagan. Sure these are wriiten off as kooks or in the Soviets case Colds, but if you allow the conspiracy theories a little more acceptance then a shadowy world protected from the outside by plants in the press and government make this far more acceptable. I don't see how you can enjoy any RPG's from the argument you give (suspension of disbelief) perhaps I am missing your point.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I acceptable. I don't see how you can enjoy any RPG's from the argument you give (suspension of disbelief) perhaps I am missing your point.

 

It is a matter of degrees and balance to be sure.

 

Ok, if the PCs commit several killings over the course of 3 or 4 adventures...not out of bounds for such a campaign... "Realistically":"

1) hauled into court. 2) demoted, 3) Promoted. 4) In therapy and on "rest" 5) dead. and probably a bunch of other "likely" happenings to curtail or make difficult the ability of that PC to continue "adventuring"...or in modern terms, being nuts enough to put oneself in harms way.

 

So it is tough, like Neil said, to get a game past 3 evenings.

 

Yes, shadowy organizations can "cover" things up. Or the adventures and violence have to happen in such a way that is SO -below the radar.

 

I'm not saying I don't like these games or have no imagination... if you knew me you would know quite to the contrary. Its just that I see problems in running them. And I've had experience running them. They are very hard in some respects. Partly because of "realistic" tendencies of the players in those sitiuations. Neil knows this about me, I get into a DI situation, and it looks hoary... I call the cops. If its corruption and scandal.. I call the Washington Post. Those are realistic reactions. But they tend to rip the adventure away from the player characters.

 

So its very hard to build a situation w/o railroading the players that they are motivated to 1) not call the cops. 2) still put their lives on the line. 3) role play as realistically as possible (fear, not want to die, come to mind), (Jason Bourne is a kick-ass assassin...but the dude is scared a bit after those fights. He doesn't want to die and the crux of the character is he is scared by himself). 4) keep the body=count low enough to have adventures, but not cause massacres. 5) Do not use the media. 6) Avoid some obvious cliches; "you are stuck in a building with terrorists trying to get the hoozi-whatsits-macguffin". 7) the missions need to have emotional resonance. Playing Seal team 6 on varied missions becomes a wargame and not role-playing without personal involvement. I've done a lot of military campaigns... they all can really easily suffer from lack of personality. Who has time to talk about feelings when some mortar shells are landing all around you?

 

This is all a tightrope. Not that I dislike it.

 

Lastly, I would LOVE to play in a game like that. I just am not wild about running it. I think Neil has the same feelings. He wants to run in it, but not necessarily play in it.

[Law Dog]

Re: re: Organization vs Characters.

 

Originally posted by misterdeath

 

Make the organization the focus. In Chill, that was SAVE. The organization gathered the PCs together, and sent them out on monster hunting missions. I was a kind GM, and only had 50% casualties. The GM that introduced the game to me had a 85%.

 

And, we loved it. My character may well have gotten put into a coma, but I gained the piece of information necessary for Dave's character to kill the beastie by burning the house down. Next time, Keith's character got his head turned around backwards, but I managed to stake the vampire while she was distracted. Teamwork and the overall mission were the focuses of the campaign. Not individual PCs.

 

 

D

 

Not a bad idea, Mister Death, but it is so contrary to why most people are playing RPG's. Most people what to do neat things and make witty quips and then get mad/disappointed/unenthused when something happens to their character. Even in most fiction we read and watch, we are usually more interested in the character than the organization/group.

 

Case in point - Sliders. When the original four were there, it was a wonderful show, but every time they lost somebody, the show became worse. That last season was a damned joke. I mean, I watched it because I still liked Remmie, but I wasn't real interest in the rest of the show anymore.

 

If you have too high of a turnover (character, not player) in any campaign, it starts changing everything.

[Toadmaster]

Ok, now I see where you are coming from, haven't had the problem you describe but I can understand where the problems could arise.

[Guest AGLAR]

I have a big problem with the illusion of lethality. DnD is the most flagrant offender, IMO.

 

"Look at our cool game! Fireballs, lightning bolts, meteor swarms oh my! Tremendous power in the hands of characters!! Size 15EEEE 'wow' factor!!"

 

Only one little problem...

 

The game is built to prevent the death of mid to high level characters. There is an illusion that death awaits your character around every corner, but wishes, resurrection, raise dead, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum make this a sham.

 

There can be no real victory, if defeat was never really possible! My character is not truly in great danger if a party member can cast a spell negating death. It just rings hollow.

 

Now, in a Hero game without that new/improved regeneration or major transform, etc. DEATH is possible. Victories are pure, without that "rigged" feel.

 

Sure, a more realistic game means creating a new character far more often. A significant amount of work in Hero's case. The tradeoff is that you really FEAR combat. You don't hack/slash everything in sight because the cleric can bring you back from the dead. You pick fights carefully, knowing that the enemy could get a lucky hit every time he swings that sword or shoots that .357mag. I think that more pure roleplaying ensues when the object isn't to slaughter everything that moves.

 

Just my 2-cents, sorry for the sermon.

[Yamo]

I love low-powered and realistic HERO! It is virtually unheard of for anyone in one of my campaigns to be allowed to build a character on more than 25+25.

 

I also really wish that more published HERO products would take a step back from the "kewl powerz r00l, d00d!" philosophy and provide a decent treatment of gritty, realistic campaigning.

 

I feel that the system in general is being shortchanged somewhat by the 5th edition product line neglecting this aspect entirely thus far.

 

So Steve & company: More grit, less glitz, please!

[Storn]

Originally posted by AGLAR

 

 

 

There can be no real victory, if defeat was never really possible! My character is not truly in great danger if a party member can cast a spell negating death. It just rings hollow.

 

Now, in a Hero game without that new/improved regeneration or major transform, etc. DEATH is possible. Victories are pure, without that "rigged" feel.

 

Sure, a more realistic game means creating a new character far more often. A significant amount of work in Hero's case. The tradeoff is that you really FEAR combat. You don't hack/slash everything in sight because the cleric can bring you back from the dead. You pick fights carefully, knowing that the enemy could get a lucky hit every time he swings that sword or shoots that .357mag. I think that more pure roleplaying ensues when the object isn't to slaughter everything that moves.

 

Just my 2-cents, sorry for the sermon.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

Even in Champions, I've been worried about my characters death...and the odds of that happening are pretty low. Yet, it has happened.

 

But at heroic level, with hit location? You better believe my character is going to be worried about death!!!!! One shot to the head and you are checking out of the combat, maybe the whole enchilada!

 

Or you can die from multiple wounds, which is damn easy to happen at heroic level.

 

But like Call of Cthulhu, death is at your shoulder, the intensity of the game experience and the actual role-playing seems to go up for me.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Yamo

I love low-powered and realistic HERO! It is virtually unheard of for anyone in one of my campaigns to be allowed to build a character on more than 25+25.

 

I also really wish that more published HERO products would take a step back from the "kewl powerz r00l, d00d!" philosophy and provide a decent treatment of gritty, realistic campaigning.

 

I feel that the system in general is being shortchanged somewhat by the 5th edition product line neglecting this aspect entirely thus far.

 

So Steve & company: More grit, less glitz, please!

 

Now this is only my opinion, but the realistic, gritty stuff is right there in FRED and is , game mechanically, easy to do.

 

Super-powers and various magic frameworks are much more complicated, game mechanics wise, and therefore get more attention.

 

And Champions, superheroes, is really the flagship genre for the system. It sells. Therefore, it gets more attention.

[misterdeath]

Re: Re: re: Organization vs Characters.

 

Originally posted by Law Dog

Not a bad idea, Mister Death, but it is so contrary to why most people are playing RPG's. Most people what to do neat things and make witty quips and then get mad/disappointed/unenthused when something happens to their character. Even in most fiction we read and watch, we are usually more interested in the character than the organization/group.

 

Case in point - Sliders. When the original four were there, it was a wonderful show, but every time they lost somebody, the show became worse. That last season was a damned joke. I mean, I watched it because I still liked Remmie, but I wasn't real interest in the rest of the show anymore.

 

If you have too high of a turnover (character, not player) in any campaign, it starts changing everything.

 

Well, yeah, that's why the focus has to be off the individuals, and on the agency.

 

You can't be James Bond, you have to be Agent of MI6. You can't be Elliot Ness, you have to be FBI Crimebuster #3.

 

There's a lot of role-playing freedom in knowing that your character won't survive, FWIW.

 

You can play the 80ish narcoleptic museum curator who mumbles a lot, knowing that next session, you'll be playing someone else.

 

Or, you can play that Jar Jar Binks clone, knowing that next session you won't have to.

 

But, yeah, most people don't like to not have the same characters over and over again.

 

It takes the right group of players, and the right GM. It's almost more work creating that kind of campaign rather than a more standard character.

 

D

[Guest AGLAR]

Re: Re: Re: re: Organization vs Characters.

 

Originally posted by misterdeath

Or, you can play that Jar Jar Binks clone, knowing that next session you won't have to.

 

D

 

Why would anyone want to do anything but jam a plasma rifle down Jar Jar's gullet and duct-tape the trigger down?!?!

 

Tell me you weren't serious!!! Reassure me that you haven't played a JAR JAR clone!!!

[misterdeath]

Jar Jar are us...

 

Originally posted by AGLAR

Why would anyone want to do anything but jam a plasma rifle down Jar Jar's gullet and duct-tape the trigger down?!?!

 

Tell me you weren't serious!!! Reassure me that you haven't played a JAR JAR clone!!!

 

Actually, I haven't. Haven't been playing much. Running some, but not playing.

 

But, imagine the intrepid heroes investigating suspicious deaths of local skiiers in Vale. Imagine toddling out, "Meesa Sorry, Meesa no gotsa passporta" at the airport gate. Sneaking around the Chalet, [bANG, CRASH] "Meesa Sorry, Meesa tripped."

 

Now picture the smiles and cheering when Meesa gets skewered by the Alpine Vampire.

 

You get to irritate the hell out of people, and they get vicarious thrills by imagining Jar Jar having both his arms pulled off by something trying to eat his head.

 

Bwahahahahahaha.

 

D

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by AGLAR

Sure, a more realistic game means creating a new character far more often. A significant amount of work in Hero's case. The tradeoff is that you really FEAR combat. You don't hack/slash everything in sight because the cleric can bring you back from the dead. You pick fights carefully, knowing that the enemy could get a lucky hit every time he swings that sword or shoots that .357mag. I think that more pure roleplaying ensues when the object isn't to slaughter everything that moves.

 

Just my 2-cents, sorry for the sermon.

 

Got yer back on this one. (not literally, it's the hair you know, I just can't compete.)

 

I'm running a 3E game. The party is all 8th level.

 

I toddle out a 12th level ranger riding a dire elk, with 3 4th level ranger cat people riding dire lions, and 3 4th level dog people riding dire wolves.

 

The stupid bastards wouldn't run. The druid and his bear charged. The Half dragon barbarian moved into combat, the rogue ran like hell, so he could sneak back, and the sorceress, well she kind of hid so she could lay down the artillery.

 

I did my level best to splatter each and every single one of them, because they had the D&D "there are no concequences" mindset. "I've got a 30 AC, let's go."

 

They found out that an 8th level party does not survive a CR 20 odd encounter. I killed the druid, and the barbarian, the rogue and the sorceress were out of spells and ammo, and down to the single digits on hit points.

 

Darn crappy Will saving throw and the big Ranger guy would have finished them off too. Now the two surviving characters have to figure out how to get everyone repaired, which de-rails the mission.

 

Sigh. Thanks for letting me rant.

 

D

[Yamo]

Hey! Not all Star Wars fans hate poor Jar Jar!

 

As a clumsy, unloved doofus, he's the only character I can relate to!

 

Hehe. Don't mind me. It's easy to develop a persecution complex in Star Wars fandom when Phantom Menace is your favorite of the films. At least I have my good buddy Don Trull's brilliant writings on the subject to encourage me.

[Yamo]

Super-powers and various magic frameworks are much more complicated, game mechanics wise, and therefore get more attention.

 

Ah, yes, but mechanics don't tell the whole story!

 

As this thread illustrates, there are a lot of miscellaneous complex issues involved in running a gritty, low-powered campaign. You have to address everything from high character turnover rates to how to modify the traditional RPG campaign model (centered around highly-resiliant PCs) to something that works better for you.

 

So you might not need a boatload of stats and Power write-ups, but there is still a lot of valuable GMing, campaiging, and character creation advice specific to that type of game.

 

I would hate to think that HERO sourcebooks are only considered dumping grounds for various loose crunchy bits. Some genres depend a lot more on appropriate moods and storytelling strategies and are much less mechanically-dependent than that (horror, realistic espionage, NYPD Blue-style cops, modern military, etc).

 

And Champions, superheroes, is really the flagship genre for the system. It sells. Therefore, it gets more attention.

 

Yes, it does sell. This doesn't mean that HERO can't do more, do it well, and probably sell it like hotcakes, however. I would like to see some risks taken on new material.

 

"We don't do X because we haven't done X" doesn't cut it for me. It;s fallacious reasoning.

 

"We don't do X because the old HERO Games released a version of X with far inferior production values and writing than is standard today fifteen years ago to a completely different roleplaying market and it performed poorly" doesn't either. Irrelevent. That was then, this is now.

 

Neither does "We asked a bunch of our old die-hard Champions grodnards, and none of them were interested." Irrelevent when the idea is to bring new blood to the game.

 

As a universal system (and the best one going), there's a lot of new ground to break still and money to be made doing it.

 

But hey, what do I know? I don't even like superheroes.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Yamo

Yes, it does sell. This doesn't mean that HERO can't do more, do it well, and probably sell it like hotcakes, however. I would like to see some risks taken on new material.

 

"We don't do X because we haven't done X" doesn't cut it for me. It;s fallacious reasoning.

 

"We don't do X because the old HERO Games released a version of X with far inferior production values and writing than is standard today fifteen years ago to a completely different roleplaying market and it performed poorly" doesn't either. Irrelevent. That was then, this is now.

 

Neither does "We asked a bunch of our old die-hard Champions grodnards, and none of them were interested." Irrelevent when the idea is to bring new blood to the game.

 

As a universal system (and the best one going), there's a lot of new ground to break still and money to be made doing it.

 

Well said. I think you are onto something there. I would certainly love to do artwork for a new D.I. I would certainly like to see some of the things you've mentioned explored.

[Yamo]

Well said. I think you are onto something there. I would certainly love to do artwork for a new D.I. I would certainly like to see some of the things you've mentioned explored.

 

And I'd love to see a full-color HERO book packed with Storn art one day. Hope is a glorious thing.

[RDU Neil]

SWEET!

 

I thought this thread had died... take a couple days off, and BOOM lots of great comments.

 

So many things that folks have written here, I've said... verbatim... in gaming discussion before. The issues about "fearing combat" and "role playing improves when combat is scary" are arguments I've made in the past.

 

I also still state that for any ACTION based games, it is hard to justify the weekly shoot-em-ups in a "realistic" game... even though most of us enjoy combat in our games (assumption, yes, I know.)

 

Storn just helped make my point. Not that I don't want to play or run a D.I. level adventure... but the group needs to be in the mood for it... and not expect the storyline or their character to last forever.

 

I've not actually KILLED as many PCs in my "realistic" games, as the players have retired them. They played a news photographer caught up in a gang war... and went to the hospital with a bullet in their leg, and said, "Ok... I'm done!" The player made the character, enjoyed the character, and retired the character in one night.

 

I also realize Storn's issue of "you can't change the world TOO much, or it isn't the real world, anymore." I'd disagree that derailing a train changes the world so drastically as it becomes unrecognizable. Killing the president, well... yes. I also agree that in NO way would I link my D.I. world with my Champions world. Huh uh. Completely separate. I've always kept those worlds separate.

 

In the end, I enjoy the role playing inspired by low level "realistic" games. The tension in the air during combat is palpable. Palms sweat, every die roll is agonizing. Heroics become amazing, small actions are monumental, sacrifice is meaningful. I've seen players role play their characters into hiding in a corner, waiting for the shooting to stop... while others lost their heads and got themselves killed... and still others stepped up and made hard decisions and salvaged a small win in an otherwise horrific situation. Amazingly funny and even poignant dialogue can come out between two PCs pinned down behind a wall by a hail of bullets. They start to appreciate the life of their character even more... and if they survive... role playing out the denouments... the moments following the stark terror and exhiliration, are truly cathartic, in my experience. The moments are laughed and joked about... remembered with fondness... in a way other adventures are not.

 

It is intense... and not, IMO, applicable for a weekly, ever week weekly, game... but occassionally... it's brilliant.

 

Be careful what you ask for, Storn!

[Guest AGLAR]

RDU,

Since your type of realistic game appeals to a smaller number of select gamers (spread all over the globe), as opposed to the teeming hordes of hack/slash junkies, might I make a suggestion?

 

Play "Realistic Hero" via online medium, i.e. PBeM or chat game. That way the one realistic gamer in Florida, the two in New York, the single person in Montana, etc. could game together. With PBeM there is an added bonus.

TIME.

You have time between phases to look up skills, check charts, ask for clarification, etc. In FTF combat heavy hero games, the pacing can be quite slow. Especially using all the optional rules. The pacing in PBeM is always slow, therefore not likely to annoy the impatient gamer.

 

It just occurred to me that you may already play online. Apologies if I am preaching to the choir.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Yamo

Hey! Not all Star Wars fans hate poor Jar Jar!

No, just the vast majority of us.

 

Originally posted by Yamo

Hehe. Don't mind me. It's easy to develop a persecution complex in Star Wars fandom when Phantom Menace is your favorite of the films. At least I have my good buddy Don Trull's brilliant writings on the subject to encourage me.

Episodes I and II have very good stories, but it has become obvious that George Lucas just isn't that good of a director. He should perhaps stick to the creative side of the projects and get someone else to direct--too bad Stanley Kubrick is gone.

[Yamo]

too bad Stanley Kubrick is gone.

 

The only projects that Lucas has ever been involved in that I haven't liked have been the odd one or two he has a producing credit on. Howard the Duck, anyone? I'm generally of the opinion that his Star Wars films are all exactly what they should be: Good clean pulpish fun. No more, and no less.

 

Kubrick had moments of brilliance, but he was very hit-or-miss for me. Some of his stuff is genius (Strangelove, Clockwork Orange) and some is deeply-flawed (Eyes Wide Shut). One odd thing I've noticed about him was his tendency to do adaptations that were absolutely brilliant in some ways, but far short of the original in others. Shining, for example, had fantastic atmosphere but gutted the story and characters. 2001 botched the novel's ending horribly by turning it into a psychedelic lightshow that you pretty much had to read the novel to have any hope of really understanding. I suppose Kubrick didn't garner his reputation as an eccentric for no reason. Still, when he was at his best, watch out!

 

...

 

Stay on-topic, you say? What's that?

[Storn]

Re: SWEET!

 

Originally posted by RDU Neil

I

 

Be careful what you ask for, Storn!

 

heh.

 

Nope, this is a damn good thread. Don't have any add'l comments at the mo'.... but I'm sure someone will spark something up.

 

Aglar, neil and I have done some PBeM games. We both have a real hard time keeping them going for any length of time. But it has always been Champions and I did a really high level fantasy game once(which bombed quickly). Doing something gritty online might be a lot of fun.

[Guest AGLAR]

Re: Re: SWEET!

 

Originally posted by Storn

Aglar, neil and I have done some PBeM games. We both have a real hard time keeping them going for any length of time. But it has always been Champions and I did a really high level fantasy game once(which bombed quickly). Doing something gritty online might be a lot of fun.

 

Yes, keeping a game going via PBeM can be difficult. The turnover rate is normally higher than in FTF games. Lose enough folks fast enough or the GM goes silent for too long POOF!

Dead campaign.

 

Hero Central seems to have a cadre of dedicated PBeMers that might stay the course.

[RDU Neil]

The Mechanic...

 

I actually ran a PBeM game for just Storn, that took place in my superhero world, but was very, very low level guns and crime and death. Storn had the ex-sniper type who'd gotten out of the life, retired in Baja California... until a local crime lord "pulled him back in!"

 

It worked really well, and aside from Storn's character being "best of the best" at a human level, there was only one paranormal factor in the game, and that was an opposing gunman, the telekinetik gun guy from one of the 4th Edtion supplements, also called the Mechanic. It was a fun adventure, with some John Woo moments and scary "run or die" moments as well. It actually had a complete story, beginning middle end, as well.

 

I would note that I've completed EVERY PBeM game I've ever started (as GM), except for the current one. They've all come to adventure/storyline conclusions, except for the latest, which fell apart over the past holiday season.

[Nelijal]

Yeah, yea, I know, it's OT.

 

[off-topic]

 

Originally posted by Yamo

The only projects that Lucas has ever been involved in that I haven't liked have been the odd one or two he has a producing credit on. Howard the Duck, anyone? I'm generally of the opinion that his Star Wars films are all exactly what they should be: Good clean pulpish fun. No more, and no less.

You didn't like Howard the Duck?

 

Yes, I do like George Lucas' stories. THX-1138 was an interesting debut, and American Grafitti is a classic. The Star Wars saga is also good story-telling, but actors such as Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman are capable of much better performances than he got from them.

 

Originally posted by Yamo

Kubrick had moments of brilliance, but he was very hit-or-miss for me. Some of his stuff is genius (Strangelove, Clockwork Orange) and some is deeply-flawed (Eyes Wide Shut). One odd thing I've noticed about him was his tendency to do adaptations that were absolutely brilliant in some ways, but far short of the original in others. Shining, for example, had fantastic atmosphere but gutted the story and characters. 2001 botched the novel's ending horribly by turning it into a psychedelic lightshow that you pretty much had to read the novel to have any hope of really understanding. I suppose Kubrick didn't garner his reputation as an eccentric for no reason. Still, when he was at his best, watch out!

Don't forget Full Metal Jacket. Eyes Wide Shut covers a wide misconception about relationships, but definitely took the long road to tell the story. You are correct about the very obtuse 2001. 2001 is interesting in that Kubrick was inspired to do a movie about an Arthur C. Clarke short story, and the two collaborated on an expanded version of that story. Kubrick did the movie, and Clarke put it in book form. That makes it even harder to understand how Kubrick managed to NOT get the point across to the audience. 2001 is a classic--if you've read the book.

 

[/off-topic]

 

Yes, me too, I do prefer campaigns in which the PCs have "realistic" flaws and vulnerabilities.

[gewing]

Re: YES... RONIN!

 

"Man on Fire" was a very interesting read and a mediocre movie, but still better than many. "Manhunter" was good. Equalizer was Great, though I had problems with the main character deciding Guns limited options all the time. He had a point, but sometimes firepower is useful.

 

I guess most of our characters were on the high end for DI, almost superagents. Sometimes we played allowing 10 points in powers, etc.

 

I still like the DI rules for shotguns, bombs, and Artillery best!

 

HM, LaFeme Nikita anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by RDU Neil

Thank you for reminding me. Heck... I own the movie.

 

LOVE the movie Ronin.

 

Other movies that make for good, "more realistic" style adventures.

 

China Town

Any of the Godfather movies.

The Bodyguard (yes, cheesy as it may sound, it's a solid DI adventure)

To Live & Die In LA (heck, the main PC bites it half way through the movie!)

Man On Fire

Platoon

Year of the Dragon

Heat and Manhunter from Michael Mann

Serpico

Taxi Driver

 

from TV, the old Edward Woodward show, "The Equalizer" (loved that show)

the new Michael Mann show, "Robbery Homicide"

 

ahhh... I really want to play DI again, darnit