Leaderboard

Heck, I had pretty much abandoned the system. It IS the system that I know the best. So when the players wanted to play Supers, it was the game I chose. We are running a beginning 6e Champions Game. Dex 18, SPD 5, DC10 (62 active), CV 7 as our averages. So Skill levels (yet) The PCs are the newest hosts for Beings that are Iconic for a character type. Developing I'm BACK!! LOL

So I have recently completed a move, to a place largr enough to not need storage. So I have bern unpacking many boxes of books. Along with finding all of my old gaming books, I found my character binder. Inside was the original Hero flyer announcing Champions, and also the character handed to me by either Bruce or Ray, for a game GMed by Steve Peterson an that convention back in 1981. I present it to you in the interests of the historical record.

Buy the magic as Requires A Skill Based Roll. Buy the corresponding skill. Buy two levels in the skill, Usable Only During Daylight. This achieves the two point difficulty swing without any fancy business on the Requires A Roll modifier, since it offloads the variability to the skill itself.

Hey guys, my little brother just got his first Music Video made for his song, "The way she says my name." I'd be real pleased if any of you gave it a view

I loved Endgame for what it was: an almost perfectly executed resolution to an epic superhero story arc that included one of the darkest cliffhangers in movie history. And I know it was almost perfect because of how hard people have to work to find something to complain about. Mantis and Shuri didn’t get enough frames in a film that included literally every major character in the MCU? Thor was overweight? Paradoxes resulting from time travel? This was a superhero movie that literally made people weep with joy!

This was sent to me by a player who then had the audacity to ask "we're not that bad, are we?" https://i.redd.it/35w2wbpo57v21.png Didn't want to do a hot link on someone else's bandwidth, so you'll have to go check it out.

Not the squeal one might have expected.

If these characters stayed wallowing, I would agree. They didn't. When the occasion called for them to be heroic, they rose to it. Characters who are never challenged in that way aren't heroes, they're cardboard cutouts. And they're the ones who make me yawn. Let's look at Thor for a moment. What led to his depressive period? He lost his lover. He lost his mother. He lost his father. He lost his brother. He lost his closest friends. He lost his home. He failed to protect half his people, and lost them. Through all of that, he kept moving forward, refusing to give up. What finally pushed him over the edge was what he saw as his personal failure to save half the people in the universe. Granted, it took him a long time to find his way back, and he needed help. But in the end when it mattered most, he stood up and fought again.

I really like this moment for the characters. I don't like what the Russo's are saying after the fact, because it doesn't feel right. The reason I liked that is that Thor was worried in that scene that Cap could potentially lift the hammer. He was almost sweating bullets. But in Endgame he was filled with -delight- that Cap could. So as a story, it sounds much better that both of them became better people through everything they've been through. Cap can become worthy (even the desire to rest, now, may be part of that), and Thor has become happy for someone else rising up to this stature. That's a really important moment for both characters, who don't show a lot of direct, positive character growth in their movies.

Spoilered for language. Cap doesn't like it when we talk like that.

A lot of scenes got me too, but the one that got me the most was Steve Rogers finally getting his dance Peggy Carter. That was so perfect.

Yeah, I'm the odd man out, but I've never made a secret of my favorite: Mark Williams. Yep. Nothing fancy. Looked almost like it was drawn with a ruler in hand. But two things: First: While I was never a comic book kid (never made a secret out of that, either), his art looked so much like the comic books of my childhood. It was _huge_ pull-in for me. At the time, there were a couple of "super hero" choices. It was Williams' art that led me to find a Champions group over anything else: it _looked_ like a comic book looked in my head. (Again, it's not like I was -- or ever became-- very familiar with them. Second aside: Superbabes or whatever it was called had appeal for art reasons as well-- the "comic book rightness"; not the idea that you're thinking). Champions or V&V at that time. Williams' art told me Champions was what I wanted. Second: You have to see this from the point of view from a guy who _all of his life_ wanted to be able to draw. A guy who killed hundreds and hundreds of trees "practicing" because that's what everyone who could draw kept saying was the key. (I'm hear to tell that they are all hands-down a pack of lying bastards. Practice is undoubtably super-important, but it is _not_ "the key." If there is not at least a hint of talent, twenty hours a day of practice will get you nowhere). Anyway-- let's say that you're me: a guy who his whole life wanted to be able to draw-- a guy who had several siblings who could sit down with a pencil and in ten minutes whip up an entire page of a comic book or a photo-realistic drawing of a trout breaking from the creek, leaping for a hand-tied fly. A guy who had all these ideas and images and notions in his head yet found himself completely powerless to share them with even his closest friends. Mark Williams' art looked _attainable_. It looked like something that I could _eventually_, with practice and determination, be able to do myself, and it was, apparently, good enough to go into a commercial product. (Yeah: I know. RPGs of the day would ink a chicken's foot and let it walk across the page and still publish it, but again: you had to be me to really appreciate how much Mr. Williams' art meant to me at that time-- and frankly, still does.) I could never fool myself enough to believe I could achieve what Storn Cook does, or the covers of 4e Fantasy books, or anything else. But the simple-- someone on this board once characterized it as "workman-like," and I can't over-stress how accurate this description is, nor can I ever fully explain how complimentary that is to his work from my point of view: it's something that I could achieve.... Now, what-- pushing 40 years later?-- it's clear to me it's not something I can achieve. Believe it or not (and it's not important if you do, because I don't do it for you anyway)-- I still practice. Yes: I am fifty-nine years old, and I have been practicing drawing _every single day_ with rare exception since I was six. Fifty-three years, and all I have to show for it is a large missing forest somewhere. Why? Because it still looks like everything I ever did when I was six. No; I'm not kidding. Practice is _not_ the key. But I still practice. And when I do, without fail, the thing I'm trying to draw is usually one of those simple unshaded, un-lit characters drawn by Mark Williams. Even knowing that I will _never_ get there, he still inspires me. So regardless of just how amazing the artwork by any other contributing artist, none of them have had the effect on me that Williams did, and still does.

Some of my favorite moments: Professor Hulk, through the whole movie Geriatric Ant-Man, Baby Ant-Man The Portals opening for everyone who came back Tony meets his dad "Hail Hydra." Captain America with the Hammer The women of the MCU stand together and kick a$$ "And I...am Iron Man." "It's okay, Tony. We're going to be all right. You can rest now."

10k rep....wow. Seriously, guys...I'm humbled here. Thank you for accepting me and my posts for all these years.

When I've played under 6th edition... actually sitting down at the table and rolling dice and counting movement and BODY and STUN... I was hard-pressed to notice a difference between 6th and other editions. If you had looked really closely you could tell, but it was pretty hard. Sometime during the period between the last year or so of 4th edition and the first couple of years of 5th edition, I decided that the way I would run my games forever henceforth would be: if you can describe what you want your character to do, I will figure out how to make it work within the rules, even if I have to come up with some new rules. Now it's "... or use some from another edition". We have one system, spread out through a bunch of games from 1981 to the present; gameplay is close enough that the editions are completely illusionary, and every piece exists as part of the toolkit. It's almost enough that the real differences are: 1st through 3rd used 1 END per 5 Active Points (and levels of halving to reduce it), a -1/3" Range Modifier, and diminishing returns on Disadvantages. 4th and 5th used 1 END per 10 Active Points (and a flat Advantage to reduce it to half or zero), range modifier based on doubling distances, and caps per category on Disadvantages. 6th is just like 5th, except it decoupled Figured Characteristics and got rid of Comeliness. There are plenty of dials and switches GMs can set... Knockback or Knockdown? Impairing/disabling wounds? Hit Locations or not? To me, we can add END Cost and Range Modifier and Disadvantage handling to that. All of this nitpicking to figure out which edition is better? I have to admit I've done my share of it... but I don't think it's relevant anymore. We can all get ahold of very nearly every Hero Games publication, ever, legitimately on PDF, and use whatever pieces and parts from whatever book we want in our games. It's all "the HERO System". Does it really matter if one part was invented in 1981 or 1985 or 1989 or 2002 or 2009?

"It's a cookbook!"

I once ran a Cap clone who was a legacy character from generations. He had presence defense - only usable by others. as long as he was up and able to fight, others felt confident.

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play. Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother. Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening. I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good, but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play. If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play. That position is consistent. As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it. If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it. They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing. If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general. Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent. For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

This is one I share with my students, especially at the end of the semester when everything becomes due:

My son kept asking questions about who could defeat whom when encountering superheroes and video game characters across a variety of media, none of them comics. so I decided to run Champions for him, with his fave supers, train him in the ruleset, and then eventually have the PPGirls come up against the many different iterations of Superman and family. So far: a damaged Superman robot that was controlled by Mechanon. also: I plan to use it to teach him about science (villains galore) and math (System and puzzles), which he needs instruction in.

A 100-year-old Army vet who fought Nazis from a tank named for his wife was just knighted by France

Hawkwoman!!

Steve Rogers didn't go back to the 1970s. He went back to the 1940s, to be with Peggy after WW II, picking up his life where he left off when he was frozen. That's clearly the era depicted when we see them dancing together at the end of the movie. For a man a hundred years old (born 1918), I thought he looked pretty good. Cap's shield in the MCU isn't the unique alloy from the comics, it's "just" vibranium, and no more "indestructible" than any other vibranium. Granted, that's still very tough. MCU Cap has also been knocked flying before when his shield was hit with powerful explosions. Besides, the shield being shredded is a classic image of Avengers defeat, including during his fight with Thanos in the Infinity Gauntlet comic series; not to mention a callback to Tony Stark's vision in Age of Ultron. True. However, "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Odin's own words during the first Thor movie.

My impression was that, while Dad Bod Thor may have been played for laughs, the subtext of it was that Thor had suffered so much profound loss, with no way to resolve in a satisfactory way, that he had kinda given up and sunk into a deep depressive state post-snap. He lost his parents, his brother, half his Asgardian brethren, Asgard itself, and many mortal friends and allies. That's some serious PTSD! So I was fine with it, and I am also a huge fan of comic book Thor.

The all women shot was clearly a homage to comics....which have full page shots like this all the time. I had zero problems with it.

So, I'm sure someone else must have noted this, but I just finished seeing it a second time, and one thing was very, very clear that I just missed, the first time. Bucky knew. He knew what Steve was going to do. He said, "I'm going to miss you," when supposedly Steve was only going to be gone for 5 seconds. He smiled and turned away as Hulk and Sam freaked out when Steve didn't come back. He was a bit surprised, but knew immediately who was sitting on the bench. He pushed Sam to go talk to Steve and clearly knew about the shield being passed on to him. So clearly, at some point, old Steve had come to him and told him what was what. He was prepared for it. And this goes a long way towards really establishing that Steve was around for those 70 plus years incognito.

Unsung hero of Avengers: Endgame -

Based on the quantum bubble theory they are going with in the MCU, every possible universe exists, so in the "main MCU" Thanos did all the bad stuff and got his head chopped off by Thor. When they went back in time they created a new timeline, where Thanos discovers them and comes to the future... and that one, he and the armies are dusted, so that alternative timeline loses their Thanos and he isn't there to continue conquering and getting the stones (so they really made THAT timeline better, most likely). The real confusion comes with Cap's old man appearance. As the previously posted article goes into, there are certain assumptions you have to make, depending on your theory, and none of them seem good... except that I do feel that Cap was around, living quietly, making a life with Peggy while all the crazy stuff of the first 21 movies happened... My personal theory is, if you ask him, he'd say that the hardest fight he ever managed was NOT fighting, NOT interfering, because he knew how it all worked out. Cap's growth from almost blindly self-sacrificing to a level of enlightened self-interest, juxtaposed to Tony's arc moving from selfish hedonism to ultimate self-sacrifice. The beauty is in the writing. There are infinite ways to explain/justify/argue about what Cap did and the implications... but by not telling us, having Cap keep it to himself... it simply allows the viewers to apply their own POV. I mean, this is crazy comics world... so many possible over-convoluted explanations... pick the one you want... we'll never know and that is just fine.

I loved the oneupsmanship on Vormir. I loved seeing Valkyrie on her pegasus. I loved the McGuffin keepaway game, and that just about everyone had it at some point. But mostly it was great to see Captain Hammer Time! (even despite being Captain Hydra.)

PS: Musician (Concert Pianist) 14-

I want to thank everyone for their patience with this project, its been years I have worked on it and been trying to promote and keep people interested. I know that its tough to keep interest up in a product line when its so long between updates and releases. I hope to have another out by the end of the year (a adventure module) and the following year I'll be working on putting out the Players Guide for making characters and play in the world. Then next on the agenda is another adventure, and then the Master Guide for running games in the Jolrhos setting. Down the road are a treasure book and another volume of the bestiary planned for release. I hope I can get these all done, and done in a timely manner. When its all said and done, people will have a complete campaign setting with adventures to play in it ready to pick up and run with. Somewhere in the mix I want to get that Champions Begins project done and a Fantasy Hero Begins one as well. Thankfully unlike the Jolrhos setting, other people can pitch in and help with writing and building those.

That's to conceal his true identity.

Primarily the spellcaster's in my game use OMCV for their alternate CV. I allow for spells to target STAT/3 as a CV as an alternative to help simulate D&D spells in the game for players coming from that background.

It's a common enough "mistake" that it has given rise to a term which is widely shared and very commonly (if not universally) understood by anyone who has played the system. While "unconscious" is the technically correct term, there's a practical difference between "out of action" and "needs to take a Recovery", both of which are degrees of "unconsciousness". People tend to call the second state "being stunned", causing a need for the additional term. Language does that kind of thing even in the presence of technical definitions.

Okay, here's my take on the first season. Spoilered for verbosity and, well, Spoilers for those who haven't watched it.