Vanguard

I find this sad.  People have become so used to being "hemmed in", that they've forgotten how to be free.  They've been "institutionalized" like Brooks in Shawshank Redemption.  Like the Israelites leaving Egypt, they have to wander in the desert for forty years to shake off the slave mentality.
 
People have been playing role-playing games probably for almost as long as there have been people.  They just didn't have formalized rules until the late 1970's.  Formalized rules are a good thing, so you can have fairness, and don't have to argue about everything ("I got you!"  "No, you missed!").  Unfortunately, formalized rules can also take away the freedom and creativity that you can use when you don't have formalized rules.  So the best situation is a system of formalized rules that preserve the full flexibility of being able to build and do whatever your creativity can come up with.
 
In the case of new role-players who have no interest in reading the rules, and have no desires and goals regarding spending their XP - or how they want their characters to grow - it sounds to me like people who really don't want to play.  Or maybe they just haven't grasped the basic concept of role-playing games.

A lot of the issue is presentation.  In Hero, we tend to see
 
"Cone of Frost, 6d6 Blast, Cold, Area of Effect (Cone, 16 meters, +1/2), Constant (+1/2), 60 Active Points; No Range (-1/2), Concentrate (1/2 DCV Throughout; -1/2), Gestures (1  handed throughout; -1/2), Incantations (to activate; -1/4), Inobvious Inaccessible Focus (Ring of Frost Wizardry, -1/4), Requires a Magic Skill roll (to activate, -1 per 10 Active Points; -1/2) Real Points 17END Cost 6"
 
"Minor Cone of Frost, 4d6 Blast, Cold, Area of Effect (Cone, 16 meters, +1/2), Constant (+1/2), 40 Active Points; No Range (-1/2), Concentrate (1/2 DCV Throughout; -1/2), Gestures (1  handed throughout; -1/2), Incantations (to activate; -1/4), Inobvious Inaccessible Focus (Ring of Frost Wizardry, -1/4), Requires a Magic Skill roll (to activate, -1 per 10 Active Points; -1/2); Real Points 11; END Cost 4"
 
"Major Cone of Frost, 8d6 Blast, Cold, Area of Effect (Cone, 16 meters, +1/2), Constant (+1/2), 80 Active Points; No Range (-1/2), Concentrate (1/2 DCV Throughout; -1/2), Gestures (1  handed throughout; -1/2), Incantations (to activate; -1/4), Inobvious Inaccessible Focus (Ring of Frost Wizardry, -1/4), Requires a Magic Skill roll (to activate, -1 per 10 Active Points; -1/2) Real Points 23; END Cost 8"
 
"Epic Cone of Frost, 10d6 Blast, Cold, Area of Effect (Cone, 16 meters, +1/2), Constant (+1/2), 100 Active Points; No Range (-1/2), Concentrate (1/2 DCV Throughout; -1/2), Gestures (1  handed throughout; -1/2), Incantations (to activate; -1/4), Inobvious Inaccessible Focus (Ring of Frost Wizardry, -1/4), Requires a Magic Skill roll (to activate, -1 per 10 Active Points; -1/2) Real Points 29; END Cost 10"
 
But what if we presented these in a game Powered by Hero, where we keep the build mechanics behind the scenes.  We have already explained our Magic System.  It often uses Concentration, Gestures, Incantations, Skill Rolls and mystic foci.  Like D&D, we have defined Gestures, Incantations and Material component (Foci or Components) as Components of spells.  Our rules don't price out the various advantages or limitations - all the players need to know is whether they have to Gesture, Incant, Concentrate, make a skill roll, etc. 
 
So we change the presentation of our spells to the following:
 
Cone of Frost
Concentrate:  1/2 DCV throughout
Components:  Gestures 1 handed throughout; Incantations to activate; Arcane Focus Ring of Frost Wizardry
Skill Roll:  Magic skill, -1 per 1d6
Endurance:  1 per 1d6 every phase
 
This spell, common among Frost Wizards, conjures a burst of icy frost emanating from the Frost Wizard in a cone 16 meters to a side.  The Wizard can maintain this Cone of Frost by continuing to concentrate, and maintain the arcane somatic components of the spell.  A Minor Cone of Frost, the least powerful version of this spell, inflicts 4d6 of Cold Damage.  Most experienced Frost Wizards can cast a Cone of Frost inflicting 6d6 damage, while very powerful Frost Wizards can cast even more potent versions of this spell.
 
Cost:  Minor (4d6) 11 points; Standard (6d6) 17 points; Major (8d6) 23 points; Epic (10d6) 29 points
 
You want a 9d6 Cone of Frost that only costs END when you activate it and does not require continued concentration?  Buy Hero System and build your own spells.  In this game, Frost Wizards can only cast the spell with concentration throughout, purchased in 2d6 increments.
 
The mechanics are exactly the same, but they are presented in a more familiar format, focusing on how the spell will work in the Hero-Powered Game, not how it was constructed using the Hero System Build Rules.

This, right here. 
 
I've been introducing a new group of players to Fantasy HERO for the last several months and so far it's...not going well. Despite the toolkit awesomeness and ability to build anything kind of approach, the players just stare blankly at me when its time to spend XP and the wide open nature leaves them cold. They want me to provide a clear dump of 'things that exist I can buy' and then not think about it. I have done this, making PDFs for them of talents and super skills and even that is a bit of information overload. They can't really envision how the stat block equates to a cool in fiction ability (I mean, I can, but most of them can't). 
 
Now, a lot of that is on them...they won't read the rules, none of them have bought a book, nothing. But I don't think my experience is unique. 
 
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a limited selection of possibilities would have been more helpful had I gone with that initially...but, hind sight and all that. 

I never cared for the way the Hero System did space combat. Plus, I found building a starship in Hero rather painful without a spreadsheet. 
 
When I want to do space combat, I use a system made for that purpose. There are a few free games available online. 

Probably cause it’s a game  and not book keeping. 

Let's just say the lyrics of "Last Friday Night" are my actual memories of college.

Why do the horses get singled out?  Most fantasy games also feature:
 
 - armor, weaponry and other gear than never needs cleaning or maintenance;
 - you can just buy arrows and other weapons anywhere (clothes for that matter);
 - all people are entitled to bear arms;
 - no issues with food quality or hygiene (that wasn't just horse pee and poop in the road);
ad infinitum
 
We gloss over a lot of the unpleasant realities of history when we game.

This is more a complaint for fantasy artwork, and video games, but: Giant weapons for human-sized fighters. Seven-foot swords. Hundred-pound hammers. Axes as broad as a car door. All of the insecurity-overcompensating, penis-substituting, power-fantasizing behemoth bodkins that even Conan couldn't swing in a fight.

I'm not sold that the goal was, or should be, significant differences between our Powered by Hero game and the Hero rules.  This is doubly so with Brian's stated goal to get them interested enough in the source code to buy the Hero System.
 
 
This makes sense to me, as it only pares away some of the Teleport rules, but does not change them.  Making movement "per turn divided by SPD" means a major disconnect when our Action Hero group buys the 2 volumes of source code.
 
 
Sure.  Because it is a staple of horror movies that the solution to a ghost is a bigger gun.  I have an even easier answer for Action Hero - it does not need Desolid at all.
 
Let me suggest what was actually stupid.  The stupid GM reading the character sheet, seeing the description Immune to Fire with the desolid build, stupidly not discussing that build with the player, but rather letting him pay the points for a build the GM considered  not to achieve the desired result, then even more stupidly building an adversary specifically to override the player's concept. 
 
NOTE:  I am charitably assuming stupidity here.  It could be that the GM is not stupid, but is instead deliberately setting out to show the player who the boss is, and you don't get to rely on your character concept working as planned, or me telling you I am going to override your concept, in advance.  That's a different type of stupid most commonly described with reference to the end result of the digestive system.
 
Worse, the player is likely to blame the failure to obtain "the character he imagined" as a failing of the Hero System, not an incompetent or adversarial GM.
 
To a lot of the other elements, I think we can easily remove AP, Penetrating, Hardened, etc.  Not so gung ho about merging PD and ED.  Removal of martial arts?  No issue.  Making them "something else"?  Less enthusiastic.
 
That's not to say we could not redesign elements for our "Powered by Hero Game", but that it's not a great idea if the goal is to draw them into the big overall system.  If we are making that kind of major change, it also needs a sidebar or similar to tell experienced Hero gamers we're deviating from the standard.  One of the biggest Champions competitors did a great job modifying the whole d20 damage system, so massive changes can work.  But recognize that they are massive changes which will create compatability issues with the Hero System overall.

was stuff left out or was new stuff created after 4th ed came out?
now I know 6th ed APG's where done with stuff left out of 6th ed but was also never in 5th ed or FREd as Steve Long said that before 6th ed was printed

I would caveat that.  HERO is probably not for a group where NOONE has played TTRPGs before.  Given a good GM with HERO experience, willing to put in some groundwork, it is no worse than any other game.
 
Doc

I'd argue that it is just fine for beginners provided you insulate them from the power building crunch.  Either have canned abilities / talents at fixed prices or do the work for them.
My wife is both math adverse and had only a single season of D&D 5e under her belt when I switched it to HERO.  She still refers to our Fantasy HERO Saturday game as D&D.
My daughter is only 10 and she's had no trouble picking up the player bits.  What to roll, whether or not she succeeds on a skill or attack, etc. 
 
What nobody at my table wants to even attempt is building powers/spells/talents.
Even with Hero Designer (which I love) it is far too complex.  It is along the lines of the difference between playing a D&D fighter and creating the fighter class from scratch.

Well, we won't if we never try. And by "we" I mean someone with the time, resources, and talent (or access to the talent) to capture that lightning in a bottle. As I've said countless times before, it certainly won't be easy, but it is necessary. I guarantee you that anything less will amount to a useless half-measure at best, which will result in no movement of the needle whatsoever. So far history has effectively proven me right, and I fully expect it to continue to do so.
 
Another very unpopular opinion of mine is that the HERO System is not a good system for people who have never played TTRPGs before. It should not try to become a gateway game for that demographic. It is, always has been, and should remain the game system you graduate to after you've tried something simpler, more accessible, and ultimately less satisfying (I'm looking at you D&D). The HERO System has enough to do just being a deeper, more sophisticated, superior system. It shouldn't be burdened with the additional responsibility of teaching TTRPG fundamentals to complete newbies, and getting diluted dramatically in the process. That's why I would not be so eager to put any time/resources into some kind of (misguided) "Starter Set" version of the game.
 
In effect, the goal of drawing "new blood" to the system shouldn't be one of attracting people who've never played a TTRPG before, but one of attracting players from the massive pool of experienced TTRPGers who've never given the HERO System a chance.

I'm still back in "what does the game  need"?  I think it needs that "what is the game" discussion right up front, and that this is where the back cover blurb is drawn from, as well as setting the context for the rest of the game.  But we can't draft the larger discussion, or the blurb, without some knowledge of the game itself.  Is it Supers?  Fantasy?  Pulp? Modern Action Hero?
 
 
It's a genre people are familiar with that does not have dozens of immediate competitors, so this seems as good a genre as any to place our game in.
 
 
OK, so we open with "what is this game all about?".  That's the introduction.  Then we are in to character creation.
 
 
Here, I disagree.  The goal is a GAME, not a bunch of dials you can set and knobs you can twist to design your own game.  It needs some setting/background, and an adventure, right out of the box.  Is that a spies, cops, detectives or mercenaries adventure?  Will it be designed around quasi-realistic cops/soldiers or Bruce Lee and John Wick?  It does not matter which one you pick, but it definitely matters that we pick one.  That sets the parameters of our game.
 
 
Crop the setting down to what we need for the adventures.  Link the adventures.  They need to be usable for our one game, not mutually exclusive examples where one sends cops out to investigate a crime in a modern city, a second features mercenaries infiltrating an enemy base to capture a bioweapon, and a third sends out FBI agents to investigate reports of disappearances in a town called Innsmouth.
 
Could we later write these other games?  Sure.  They don't even have to be separate games - they can provide more source material for their specific game, expanding on what we had in Action Hero.  Now, that may mean this is the Action Hero line, and we need to name our individual games in a manner more indicative of their nature.
 
 
In 1981, the norm for most games was a boxed set, and hope for the best.  D&D was the exception, not the norm.  TSR liked to release a few more adventures.  Villains and Vigilantes released numerous modules and enemies books.  Call of Cthulhu had ongoing adventure support.  But ongoing support was most definitely the exception, not the norm.  Champions was one of the best-supported games by far.
 
That has evolved.  We no longer accept "here's a bunch of rules and some sample characters now go forth and create your own adventures".  You state the reason perfectly above.  Today, we need to present a game Powered by Hero System, supported for ongoing play, not a system you can use to build your own game.

I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience, the average person has literally no clue whatever about role playing games.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
And no clue about palindromedaries, not that that's relevant

Princess Leia was a bada$$.

If I could give a shout out to a more recent character who was compelling and strong...and female? 
 Mako Mori from Pacific Rim.  She had a back story of her own separate from the male protagonist, she had her own hopes and ambitions, she was polite but firm. She loved her adoptive dad, and was as dedicated to the mission as any other in the program- a true professional without being a jerk to people. She was interesting in and of herself, and yet, and I can't stress this enough, the writers didn't have her throw other characters in a pit just so she could stand taller. Even her reasons for  sparring with Raleigh was clear, professional, and damn he did ask her opinion.  She wasn't perfect, she had flaws, but she overcame them with determination.
 
Props to Raleigh too by the way. He didn't want her as co pilot because she was cute, he wanted her there because she was the right person for the job and it was a waste to have her benched!  This was a male character who could have been written as profoundly insecure about having a woman who was his equal (or better in some areas), instead he was impressed and supported her own desire to be a pilot because he saw she had every right to it and they need good pilots. 
 
Mako Mori was an action girl, and a rather quiet dignified example of Girl Power done right imo.
 
 

on a serious note,  that is one thing that bothers me with current cinema.   You can back throughout cinema history and find  strong female characters  (hell, like 99% of Maureen O'Hara* characters alone, for example) who were compelling characters.    Girl Power has become a way to make a "strong" female character without making them compelling, or strong for that matter (other than as an informed attribute)
 
*I could also go with Barbara Stanwyck, Katherine Hepburn, and a half a dozen others.
 
 

I'm retiring my computer.

Or not.
 
Just like that, everything's fine now.

I hate computers.

It took me three times to watch the video. I don’t mind the suit. The Bat logo was fine.

Movie superhero suits cannot look like the comics. Because film and video display more detail than most comic art (because deadlines). Therefore  you get multi layered spandex with texturing, and overlapping plates. This is because the suit has to look visually interesting at unflattering angles during stunts, as well as closeups. Marvel currently is the best at it, picking visually contrasting materials and intricate details, though at the extreme end was Ironman, where the suit was totally CGI. A good friend animated the suit by hand without mocap data for the scene where a champagne drunk Tony Stark embarrasses Pepper at a public function. The suit was based on the designs by Adi Granov, which honestly cannot be worn by humans. But Marvel has the money to pay for the CGI. On the other end of the spectrum was the Shazam movie, where the suit was merely adequate, but looked like a padded muscle suit under microscopically tailored, matte finished or flocked spandex.  Simple spandex Suits in solid colors just end up looking like cheap jazzercise costumes, and don't reflect well on the budget or the actor wearing them. 

I just wish Affleck had gotten a solo movie instead of cross-overs and cameos.

One could make an interesting campaign by crossing Star Wars with Superdimensional Fortress Macross (one of the three component series of Robotech). Veritech fighters with compatible weaponry would be a lot more flexible than X-Wings in some ways, and not others (you can't fit a hyperdrive in a Veritech because it needs the space for the legs and arms). They would run rings around the Imperial mecha (aka AT-AT Walkers). The bewildered crew of a Macross-like vessel finding themselves caught in the middle of the Galactic Civil War (and their original enemies finding they are a much smaller dog than they thought they were) would be a challenge for them, the Rebels, and the Empire. And I'm sure you can find many other ways to run them through the blender.

If it's anything like all the other "New weapon trials" the US Army has conducted since the 1960s we'll wind up getting some interesting peripherals and the Army will get a new model of M-16.
 

World of Darkness died when they decided to reboot it and rebrand it for the 3rd(?) edition. 
 
The gave some kind of apocalyptic meta story arc that pretty much killed off/combined a lot of the "monsters" and totally changed the way things interacted and the world worked.
 
As you can tell, nobody liked it so it died.
 
This a case of the setting being good and well liked enough to launch an phenomenon and then that setting got changed and those that played the game didn't like said change and the rest is, literally, history.
 
Note: My information is maybe a decade old so I could have somethings wrong . . . but I know *I* stopped playing it when they changed everything.  And so did a few of my friends.