Mr. Negative

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Re: Limitation Boondoggles? Knowing that you aren't focusing specifically on the 14- Activation, but wanting to comment on a specific limitation, rather than just blather generally: This specific limitation, only fails about 10% of the time. However, that isn't to say that it doesn't affect how the player uses the power more frequently than that. I don't think that the "-1/2 affect you 1/3rd of the time" guideline just applies to whether the power succeeds or fails in an absolute sense. A player with a 14- activation power may not use it in many various circumstances where success is critical. If you absolutely have to drop the villain with this shot, then you might drop the exploding arrow for the good old pointy one. If you desperately need to impress the attractive reporter, you might approach using your boring old Flight rather than your occassionally glitchy Teleporter. I think a lot of limitation work like this. Not only are you occasionally constrained by the actual mechanism of the limitation, but you are also constrained by the theoretical occurence of the limitation. Even limitations that are very concrete ("Not Underwater") still have the added variability of not knowing if you'll be underwater this adventure. Also involved in limitation values can be the effect that your opponents have on them. Certain limitations are very hard to affect (completely random activation rolls) but others can be deliberately exploited by the opposition. Thus, even if your "Women Only" Energy Blast statistically affects only 50% of the potential targets, the opposition can make sure to hire a man to do you in. To be concise (too late) I don't think a strict probability calculation from just the limitation itself can often capture accurately how "limiting" the limitation actually will be in play.

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers I haven't really tried it out enough in game-play to say that it clearly works or doesn't work. The interesting thing is though, that this idea does sort of allow people of various viewpoints to "bid" on how well they like the current system of multipowers. A GM who is totally happy with the current system of multipowers and doesn't want it changed at all might say "Bah! It doesn't limit the character at all, so the limitation is worth -0!" (I'd have to disagree with this obvious caricature, as it clearly isn't quite as effective as a 120 point multipower reserve). Someone who feels that active point limits have no place whatsoever in multipowers might say that the limitation is very, very broad and give it some extremely high value (say -100 or something) so that any player wanting to use a multipower can easily exceed it's active points cap without blowing many points. Showing my own bias, I'd also disagree with that GM, as I feel that the flexibilty of a multipower (and moreover, the ease with which new powers can be added to a multipower) do merit some sort of handicap over individual power purchases. Many GM's could test out some middle ground. I'd maybe start out at a -1 limitation, but make it clear to the player that if, in my estimation, the multipower was becoming too effective, the limitation might increase (and you'd either have to pony up more points, or accept doing less with the multipower). I can honestly see a higher limitation being perfectly reasonable, as you're still constrained on active points, and you're also not able to run any MORE powers at once than anybody else with a multipower (and actually, you're forced to run slighly less, since you're both paying for a multipower and paying for it to be able to exceed its own active points cap).

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers Take this as an unwanted intrusion if you will, but I did at least try to read and follow the entire discussion before I typed this out: IF you wanted to allow a PC to "exceed" the base cost of the multipower reserve with the active cost of an individual multipower slot, AND you did not want to do this by replacing or modifying the 4ed mechanics for multipowers, could you not use the Partially Limited Powers idea and apply it to the cost of the multipower reserve itself? For example, you could have a 60 point multipower reserve, with a partially limited 60 point reserve on top of it, with the limitiation (only for purposes of calculating the base cost of the multipower). This would allow you to have individual slots whose active cost exceeded the base multipower reserve, yet not give the player a free reign to design mega-expensive powers with huge sets of limitations. Of course, this sidesteps the whole philosophical consideration of whether active, base, or real points are the most accurate way to measure powers, and whether the method of measurement should vary with different power frameworks. However, it does seem to provide a relatively simple way to allow a version of the type of construct that Souljourner was discussing, and provides that construct WITHIN the current rules. However, it is very late where I am, and I may be entirely wrong on this. Is there anything that would prevent such a construct within 4ed (rev)? If not, does anyone have a reasonable suggestion for what value such a limitation might be? This is also another nice feature. If the construct seems overpowered, you can reduce the value of the limitation (and thus increase the total cost of the multipower) without throwing out the construct. Similarly, if the construct isn't sufficiently liberating, you can increase the value of the limitation, making it provide a larger Active Points cap for the same amount of Real Points. I'm glad that so many people have been willing to hash this out on the forums. This issue has arisen for me and players with Fantasy spells, where often a given effect is very minor in game terms, but is only really well represented by a very large active point power which is severely limited (reliable Mind Control vs swarms of normal insects, rats; Major Transformations of small, inconsequential items, Change Environment over large areas for small but lasting "special effects" with no combat application, spells that reliably and quickly open portals, etc.)

Re: Help Me Populate A Creepy Hotel If you haven't you should check out a book by Pagan Publishing (I've mysteriously misplaced mine, so I can't give you the title) which included an apartment building that was being slowly subverted by Hastur and populated with odd incidents. I can't remember if any of these were inspired (or stolen) from that book, but: The Man Who Wasn't There One of the rooms is obviously occupied. You can hear the man inside talking, showering, typing, and watching TV. He nevers answers the door, or the phone. No one ever sees him enter or leave. When housekeeping enters the room, it is always empty. Sometimes the bathroom is still humid from the shower, or the bedsheets are still warm from being slept in. The people downstairs can hear him walking on the floor. People have even heard the door being unlocked and opened, but have never opened their doors quickly enough to see more that the door shutting behind him. What's He Building In There? This nondescript single man has subscriptions to "those" magazines. He never waves when he goes by. He has no dog; he has no friends. He sends many packages. He has pounded nails into the hardwood floor. People have heard someone moaning, low, and have seen the blue light of a tv show. He has a router, and a table saw. There's poison underneath his sink, and enough formaldehyde to choke a horse. He has an ex-wife in Mayor's Income, Tennessee. He used to have a consulting business in Indonesia. He gets a lot of mail. He may have done time in jail, and has been seen on the roof, signalling with a flashlight. He's always whistling an unidentified tune. ---from Tom Waits' "What's He Building?" Man in the Long Coat This man is tall, though not unusually so. His arms and legs are slender, but he appears to have a slightly thick midriff. He always wears a long black coat. He never speaks, and his complexion is slightly waxy or glossy. He brings parcels wrapped in butcher paper home each day, and occasionally you can hear a dry rustling whirr in his room. There is a large (6 foot) trunk locked in the room, as well as mostly disused furniture. The man in the long coat is actually a "stick insect" of sorts, an insect evolved to blend in with humanity and move unnoticed among them. In the box are "his" offspring, who are miniature versions of himself. If startled or discovered, they will spread the wings underneath their "raincoat" wing cases and fly out the window. --inspired, not by "Mimic", but by a short story by, I believe, Ray Bradbury. Erich Zann Yes. That Erich Zann.

Re: Fantasy Adventures Or Why are we always underground...again Just on a whim, and because someone mentioned Warhammer in this thread, I do think that Warhammer has an interesting "culture" of dungeons. You have the "civilized" dungeons, which aren't dungeons proper, but the workings of the Dwarfs. Their civilization was almost entirely carved into the rocks of the mountains (not just underground anywhere) and communicated via the Undgrin Angkor (I may have misspelled that, so apologies to any Longbeards). The dwarf civilization is past its peak, and they no longer have some of the knowledge, and not nearly the population, to construct or even repair fully the wonders they created. Then you have the "ruined" dungeons. These are dwarf holds lost to the orcs and goblins, or to the skaven (rat-men). These areas were once majestic, but are now in poor repair. They may connect to the underground passages of the dwarfs. The orcs and goblins don't generally expand much in the "dungeons", but make brutish use of what they find there. And then you have the skaven. The skaven aren't were-rats of any sort. They are an intelligent species created by Chaos corrupting rats (rather than corrupting men into rats). They are violent, cunning, sneaky, and unbelievably numerous. However, they are widely believed to be imaginary. The skaven made use of the Underground Road of the dwarfs to spread, but have created their own "Under-Empire". Their network of tunnels links dwarf-holds, human sewers, basements, mines, etc. The skaven live and breed underground, and use their "dungeons" to remain largely unseen and unheard. Of course, there's very little "high" civilizations miles underground, or anything like that. Even the skaven live relatively close to the surface, and even sometimes, as in "Hell Pit", on the surface of the world. However, the skaven tunnels allow you cool "dungeon" adventures without violating too much logic. You could have mysterious disappearances and strange persons sighted disappearing into the sewers of a large city, such as Altdorf. In exploring those man (or dwarf) made tunnels, you could find tunnels created by the rat-men. Those tunnels, while primitive and treacherous, could connect to the majestic, but empty halls of the Undgrin Angkor, which might lead you to a goblin infestation, or a dwarf expedition. Warhammer and Warhammer Fantasy Role Play have made an effort to have races that have reasonable reasons for living "underground" (or in tunnels in mountains), and have given their civilizations a scope across that world. Their "dungeons" aren't really cheesy or ill-thought out. And the dwarfs both cultivate food above ground, and trade with their human neighbors for food, as well as maintaining a presence on waterways and ports for fish, presumably. No fungus gardens for them. Of course, the skaven, like rats, eat pretty much anything.

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

Re: Star Wars - Balancing Jedi with everyone else and heroic vs. superheroic I think you've got a fine handle on the situation. You might want to make everybody pay for all of their gear, and not just the Jedi. Then the bounty hunter with cool armor doesn't get a boost over the smuggler. It also explains why people don't seem to lug gear all over the place, but instead just carry a blaster. Also, your "non-jedi" characters, in addition to paying for vehicles and droids and contacts (and bases, don't forget bases) can load up on those cool powers that reflect Star Wars so well, such as Luck, Combat Luck, and all those neat builds that allow them to run through Stormtrooper fire with only a scorch, while others die in droves. I don't think that Jedi are automatically more powerful than everyone else, IF you make them pay for resources and gear. Sure, the Jedi is more powerful than the little old smuggler, but what about the smuggler with a blaster, a souped up hyderdrive freighter, contacts over the entire galaxy, and multiple hidey-holes? The others may get to use those contacts, bases, and vehicles, but a properly-motivated smuggler will never let them forget exactly who saved their bacon (or who's captain of the Falcon).

Re: Calling All Evil GMs This is a nice attitude to have. It really can take the steam out of a game when the players feel that they are "stuck" and can't do anything about a situation. Some questions/ideas follow: Does the populace know that the PC healed them? If not, you could have one or more groups claiming the healing was their responsibility. You might have people claiming it was a miracle, or another superhero (perhaps even one with healing powers) claiming that he was responsible. You could even have a supervillain with "evil" healing abilities (illusion, reviving as zombies, healing but with mind control) claim responsibility. It could also be left as an unexplained event, to be pondered by researchers and scientists. If your group has such far-reaching and potent abilities, perhaps a little mind-wiping (ala "Identity Crisis") might be in order. This would allow the PCs to avoid the unhealthy attention, but draw them into another moral quandary. If the campaign has "Cosmic Entities", then someone might show up because Fate, the Balance, or Death has been slighted. The PCs might have to find willing (or unwilling) people to "make up the balance" for those who should have died. The healing PC might have to sacrifice her powers, even publicly, to atone for the transgression against the natural order. Perhaps this use of "Cosmic Healing" has damaged reality, and the PC has unknowingly created a dark mirror image of himself, capable of inflicting injury on just such a massive scale (check out the Sentry and the Void from Marvel). The PCs may not have averted such injuries, but unknowingly shifted them from their locale to another. They may still have a chance to avert the injuries and deaths, by quick action, but now know that any time such massive power is used, the same results will ensue. Finally, I'd really look into the ramifications of such a power anyway. The GM allowed it to be used, so it's a valid ability in this world. Is there any inbuilt restrictions to the "City Healing" ability? If not, then what IS there to stop the PC from using it again and again and again? If it isn't restricted, then you might want to explore what a world with such unlimited healing would be like. If it does have "hidden" ramifications, then probably ALL massive uses of power should have hidden ramifications. After all, if HEALING a city causes some force of Order to be disturbed, then HARMING a city should probably also cause some sort of disturbance. I'd try to make sure that whatever you did to "handle" the situation wasn't a specific response to just this one occurence, but something that fit into the cosmology of your game world. The other thing to be asking your PCs might be: "If you've had the power to heal thousands of people all along, why HAVEN'T you been using it?" Is negative attention from the media and particular groups really enough to dissuade you from ending pain and suffering for thousands of people?

Re: DCTAS: Hit Locations? Haven't played DC:TAS, but in thinking about it, you might want to perhaps use aspects of the Hit Location modifiers. I'm thinking that you might want to use the Stun Modifiers extensively, since this will allow a lot of "game protection" for characters, in that they can be knocked out, but not killed, and also give them a great deal of leeway to subdue foes without killing. You might also want to use the BODY multipliers only to reduce BODY damage (so really, the BODY divisiors would have been a better term), so that damage to the limbs is less threatening, and less likely to result in dead Heroes and villains. That way, there's a lot of leeway for "non-lethal" damage, without using cartoony rubber bullets and boxing glove arrows, but there's no incentive to use vicious head/vitals attacks likely to kill an opponent. If the players know that there's an effective way to take out a dangerous villian (like shooting him in the head), then they're goinng to have to resist that temptation. If there's no quick way to win the fight, then there's no temptation to resist (and it encourages them to use the Impairment rules, to incapacitate rather than kill).

OK, I've searched a lot of the old threads, but most of the discussion on SPD has been in tinkering/modifying/abandoning the SPD chart as a whole. I like the Speed Chart, and it hasn't been a problem to get players to think outside of the "act on my DEX at my SPD" box (probably by having even the most basic opponents hold actions, so that everyone thinks of doing it). The segmented and predictable nature of HERO actions isn't what's bothering me. What is bothering me, as someone from a GURPS background, is the idea of normal Heroes (usually Fantasy HERO) having 2-4 attacks/actions in 12 seconds. I know that there are Sweeps and Rapid Attacks, and the like, but it still bothers me that the normals out there can basically do TWO things in twelve seconds. GURPS does have a problem with whirlwind fighting (I attack you every single second until you are dead--HAH!), but I've always dealt with that using the "Lulls" rules (where combat exchanges last 2d6/d6 seconds, with lulls between exchanges, and the ability to try to force/break off combat). However, HERO handles faster characters and multiple attacks much more elegantly than GURPS. I don't want to replace SPD with "I get two actions, you get one". However, I do want to get either more actions into 12 seconds, or the same actions into less seconds. My first thought was: Boost basic speed to 6 (DX/10+5), and divide movement distance by 3 (that means you move in feet, not hexes (or 2 yard intervals). Perhaps, instead, basic MOVE could be lowered, and the cost to increase movement itself increased. In support of this idea: Normals get one "action" every two seconds, but don't move any faster. As you are spending a lot more END each turn, it will encourage you to occasionally rest in combat (as you aren't going to get it all back on your post 12), so you don't just "fight/fight/fight". SPD Draining attacks become a bit more effective, and attractive, for Fantasy Mages and the like. Slow opponents, like Golems, zombies, etc can now be significantly slower than the Heroes and villagers (instead of being SPD 1 or 2, just like the peasants). However, as I haven't had the opportunity to run much HERO to test this, I'm sure that I'm not thinking through the "bad consequences" too clearly. I know that this will impact Move by/Through damage adversely. I know that having movement be in feet rather than yards (or hexes, more accurately) will be a bit clunky and require some calculator work. I'm looking for help identifying the problems, solving the problems, or even an alternative idea that doesn't throw out the Speed Chart, but allows you to get more actions in 12 seconds. There have been a lot of posts in various places that suggest "not thinking" about the Turn as 12 seconds, but as "comic panels". However, the fact remains, that within the system, the Turn IS 12 seconds long, and that links up to a great many other aspects of the system.

Re: Shrinking as an attack power?

Re: Shrinking as an attack power? Perhaps you're right, here, but it seems like you would be dealing with a particularly persnickety GM. It just seems like STR/Running Drain would naturally flow from Transform to Tiny Target. If not, it seems like every single Major Transform would need to have tons of other powers linked to it. If the GM isn't going to rule that being involuntarily shrunk reduces your Movement and Strength (unlike a beneficial power you paid points for), then why not require Flight, Usable by Others for transforming someone into a songbird, or Drain HKA for transforming a sword into a stick? I'm just pointing out that no Transformation has specific effects already listed for it. If you need specific effects spelled out in order to adjudicate what it means to be a "tiny target", don't you need them for what it means to be a "frog", or a "person blinded by acid" or any other Transformation you might use? I certainly wouldn't prevent someone from buying Shrinking, Usable as an Attack, linked with STR & Running Drain, but to me, shrinking someone would be roughly equivalent to transforming them into a mouse, with prehensile thumbs. If you could transform someone into a mouse without buying STR drain, Running Drain, and some sort of boosted KB, then, other than the special effect, what would be the difference to the running of the game? You still have a tiny, weak, relatively vulnerable opponent. If someone really wanted to pay more for that than they needed to, more power to them, but why?

Re: Shrinking as an attack power? Given that you could Transform the target into ANYTHING (say, a pebble, or a gnat), couldn't you just use Transform? I mean, when you do a Physical Transformation, attributes do change, right? A transformation isn't merely an illusion, so it can itself alter attributes, correct? Of course, the Transform shouldn't be used to as an indirect means to simply alter attributes (no Transform into "me, only stronger"), but it seems like if you transformed a target into a mouse, he would automatically be reduced in STR and BODY. Why not allow the same reductions in attributes when simply "shrunk" by a Transform? Given that you could Transform a target so that it is, effectively, dead (say, into a boiled potato), only being transformed into a teeny little villain seems positively benevolent.

Re: Too many points? First, buy off disads, especially Hunteds. If she's a relatively inexperienced hero, let her acquire enemies over time. If she fits his concept just fine, keep the rest as extra points. If she's a relatively inexperienced hero, let her spend them, in addition to awarded XP, on new skills and skill levels. That way, the "established" heroes build up slowly, and she develops quickly. This will also help if the player wants to "tune-up" the character concept over the life of the Hero. Right now she's a flier, ala Hawkgirl. Perhaps she discovers that she's bound to a totemic Eagle Spirit, and develops shamanistic magic, or discovers that the anti-gravity metal of her equipment can be harnessed to other effects, or discovers other Hawk-people like her and brings back their super-hawk-technology. Just because she hasn't spent them RIGHT NOW doesn't mean the character can't spend them quite quickly. Heck, maybe she has past lives like Hawkgirl and you can let her spend them during the game to gain new skills that are actually "old skills".

Re: "Hudson City" like graphic novels Check out "Gotham Central", which focuses on the Gotham City Police Department itself. It gives you a good read, and focuses on the "less superhero" aspects, and when it does focus on superheroes, you see it from the other side of the coin. Also from the aforementioned Bendis, check out "Alias". This has nothing to do with the TV show, but focuses on Jessica Jones, a former superhero who is now a private detective. She still has her powers, but just felt like she "wasn't any good at it." This one features a lot of superheroes, but it features them as PEOPLE, and not as heroes. This has a lot of good storytelling, and often presents the story in a creative and interesting way (when Jessica is hired to find a runaway teen, the artist actually created the teen's entire illustrated diary and then scanned in partial pages). Also from Bendis, follow his run on Daredevil. Not only does this focus on an appropriate Street Level Hero (Daredevil himself), it features a lot of other well-realized street level Heroes (Luke Cage, Power Man) and villians. Furthermore, the stories themselves focus on real "non-superhero" aspects of life. A very cool and innovative story line for what happens when your secret identity is outed (don't forget Matt Murdock is a lawyer), and real emotional stories (Daredevil becoming frustrated that nothing ever seems to change and he doesn't make real progress in fighting crime). Also features Jessica Jones, so even more reason to check out Alias. While I'm not particularly a fan, you might also want to check out the Nighwing graphic novels. Nightwing, the former Robin, is "protector" of a town near Gotham called Bludhaven. As Batman's rogue gallery has become so iconic, through longevity and the movies, (and often both over-powered and over-the-top), Nightwing's foes seem a little "de-powered" and definitely dark (though not colossally sociopathic like the Joker). Very few (none I can recall) epic threats, just city crime. Also a worthwhile read for Nightwing's secret ID, a member of the notoriously corrupt Bludhaven Police Department!

Re: Warhammer 40K Space Marine Power Armour I don't know. It rather depends on whether you are trying to replicate the scale of the 40K board game (where it takes 9 Guardsmen rapid firing from close range to kill a Space Marine, statistically), or from the 40K novels and background writing, where Power Armor is considerably tougher, and a Marine can walk through a storm of lasgun fire with little effect other than scoring on his armor. In addition, as the tabletop game only has two states, OK and DEAD, for most models, it could be argued that those 9 guardsmen may have only knocked a Marine unconscious, and may have done little or no BODY damage to him. Of course, on top of this, is the fact that the default rapid-firing infantry weapon fires only two shots, and half of all shots fail to even drop a normal human. I think if you moved the humble Imperial Guard Lasgun up to a normal Star Hero infantry weapon, then you'd need to boost up Space Marine armor considerably. Up to the point, probably, where a normal lasgun shot couldn't penetrate it, but a lasgun shot that bypassed the armor (through sectional defenses or an activation roll) would hurt the marine. In one of the Gaunt's Ghost novels, the Commisar instructs the men to use the "hot-shot" (or whatever) setting on their lasguns. They don't normally do this, as it leads to overheats and barrel scoring, but he explains that it is the only setting that will penetrate the armor of the Traitor Marines. Another way of looking at it is that it takes at least 5 Guardsmen, firing continuously from maximum range of their weapons (5 shots + 5 shots +10 short range shots), just to reliably incapacitate a SINGLE Space Marine before he can close to melee combat with them (as their range is 24" and he can move 6"+6"+6", then gets an assault move of 6"). If the futuristic small arms of the Imperial Guard are no better than today's assault rifles, how good must Space Marine Power armor be to allow a single marine to advance under that hail of fire? Remember, even 4 guardsmen firing continuously from maximum range won't reliably stop a single Marine from reaching close combat. That's good armor. I don't know of any modern body armor you'd feel confident in wearing while running across an open field towards 4 men with assault rifles, especially if you had to start running out at the maximum range of those rifles.

Re: I could watch him get slapped around all day I don't know, I'd kind of like to have about 94% of both the DC and the Marvel Universes smacked down by "Super-hero Deflation Man". I mean, I really like supers like Spidey, Luke Cage, etc. which have a strong, consistent conception, and a basically static level of "bad-***-ness". I'm so totally tired of the constant power expansion, and the convenient powering up (and down) of heroes to allow certain story lines to be developed. My biggest pleasure in the new Avengers series (other than Jessica Drew--wow!!!) is the constant reminder (not just by Spidey) that Wolverine isn't the be-all and end-all of superheroes. He's a scrapper, he heals quick, and he has sharp things. That's it. Nothing to prevent him from getting tossed out a window, or smacked across the neighborhood by someone. I was never a fan of cosmic story-lines in the first place, but what's really bugging me is the constant intrusion and intermixing of cosmic/epic characters with relatively normal/street level ones. I don't mind the "crime fighting detective" Batman, nor, truth be told, do I mind the "plan for every eventuality" Batman that is on the League (I kind of like it). However, pick one or the other. If the guy has implemented plans to defeat/monitor every superhero on earth, then he's NOT going to get smacked around by some loser with a bag on his head. I'd LOOOOVE to see every single hero/villain in both Marvel and DC engage in an epic bout of "pecking-order" smacking. All the guys who are going to be operating on "street level" get smacked back down to that level, and all the guys who are going to be on planet-cop duty do the smacking. If I had to name names: Wolverine-he's basically a short guy with knives who heals up quick. What couldn't a flame-thrower handle? Zantanna--what's it going to be? Sorceress Supreme of GNIKLAT SDRAWKCAB, or cute magician? I like her; I love the fishnet hose. However, when the spell-casting hottie becomes the crux of the Justice League's soul searching, something has gone horribly awry. Deathstroke--He uses most of his brain. So what? What's he got that gets through bullet-proof skin? Does using more of your brain make you immune to magic AND telepathy? Hulk--look, if you can change into your alternate ID quicker than a bullet can leave a gun next to your head, you shouldn't get the points for "Only in Hero ID", should you? Batman--If you're the world's greatest detective, you don't really have to beat up supervillains (or your friends) yourself, do you? Just figure out their weaknesses, and hand them over to your pals. "Flash, here's some Kryptonite. Drop it into Supe's shorts if he gets uppity. I'm outta here." Given that superhumans have tagged you more than once, how are you still ambulatory anyway? Green Arrow AND Hawkeye. I love Ollie, I hate Clint. Fact remains, they shoot freaking arrows! That's it! Put them up against the villains and threats that are appropriate, or get rid of them. We might as well have Hand Grenade Man (yes, Tick reference).

Re: DC's turn toward the dark I don't feel the need to weigh in on any one of these particular changes (breakup of the League, Alfred, Infinite Crisis, OMAC, etc). I don't even really feel particularly strongly about any perceived direction that DC is taking their books in. My problem is that, for the long-term comic book reader, NOTHING MATTERS any more. This isn't a problem unique to recent DC, or even just to DC. This is a problem that comic books have been having for decades. It's just gotten worse since now, every year or so, every single comic title needs to have a "big, significant, life-changing" storyline. No matter what the event is, at some point, some other writer will get tired of it and change it back. No matter how fundamental or important the event is, some guy will decide to muck with it. We've all (unfortunately) gotten used to the "he's lost his powers" storyline, and even the "he's dead" storyline, thanks to Superman and Green Arrow. However, it just seems to have gotten worse and worse. Superheroes (Green Lantern) can become irredeemably evil (Parallax), die, and then be reborn (Spectre), and then be rehabilitated (Presto, Green Lantern again!). The death of a sidekick (Robin) can be a major force in a hero's life for years, then (poof!) he's back, with an agenda! The writers keep trying to tell us, over and over and over, that TODAY's events are really earth-shattering and important (Sue Dibny's death, JL mindwiping) and there will be repercussions throughout the entire universe with them (the big three lose faith in each other, the League breaks up). However, we ALL know that the instant that something becomes stale or boring, someone will (instead of keeping it changing), decide to go back to the same old formula. I have the same problem with Marvel (say, the Scarlet Witch/House of M stuff). I've become pre-emptively disappointed in comics. No matter how cool, interesting, or well-thought out the story line, I know that some future writer will dislike the direction of the book, and steer it back to some point that he DID like. I would have been impressed with the whole Scarlet Witch storyline (as it did tie together a lot of the Scarlet Witch's crazy behavior), if I didn't KNOW that the Vision will be back, Hawkeye will return from the dead, and the Avengers formula roster will be restored. Comic Book writers are not writing for the long-time reader, almost ever. They are writing for the person who is reading it right now. It isn't a concern that they are upsetting a year, or a decade, or a half-century of continuity. The audience they are trying to reach is constantly renewing. They pick up comics for a few years, and then stop reading them. Criticising them for continuity violations is almost like criticizing romance authors for writing formulaic love novels. The target audience doesn't care--they aren't aware of continuity, so it isn't violated to them.

Re: Chickens? Why not screw with people completely? Ramp the chicken up to predatory prehistoric bird size (6-11 feet in height). Kit them out like velociraptors. Shrink the wings back down into functional fingers. Beef the legs into heavy, muscular taloned legs. Keep the plumage. Then grant them intelligence appropriate to large social carnivores (like wolves), or even higher. Everyone snickers about the giant chickens, then a few of them kick down the door, lay waste to the room, and eat somebody. Jurassic Park taught us that velociraptors can be scary and smart. Just throw feathers and a beak on them.

Re: Powers--by Bendis I still wasn't sure about the "supertech" of Rocket Red. It isn't well-developed enough for me to make sure that he's a normal with a super-suit, or someone who's powers allow him to make/use/mesh with a suit (or even that the suit is simply a power amplifier like others have, but just "amped" up). I mean, it seems like he is a guy with a super-suit, but it seems weird that no-one else has much in the way of super-tech (other than the lame-o with the rocket-pack). I now remember FG3 being induced. Oops. Still, it speaks to the larger point that there doesn't seem to be any difference in quality or kind with induced powers. I would disagree that there are a lot of "alternate" powers origins, simply because we don't really have any information about the "origin" of powers in "Powers" anyway. Are they mutations? Are they "radiation accidents"? Are they ancestral energies passed on through sex/death/childbirth? Are they mystical energies that can be triggered by various means (including chemical)? Are all of the superpowers of the same basis, or does magic & Psionics & mutations & extradimensional weirdness exist? I know that a lot of players like the detail, but I kind of liked the vagueness associated with "Powers", in that, because it was vague, you didn't have as much to nitpick and metagame (if midi-chlorians are in our blood, let's just vaccinate against Jedi instead of killing them). My point was that the "superpowers" in Powers were more loosely defined (kind of like the Force USED to be in Star Wars), so that you didn't have (apparently) situations where someone is vulnerable to Magic, or capable of draining Mutations, or the like. Special effects were actually special effects (fire, lightning, ice) and didn't appear to be grouped in different "themes" with differing origins. There doesn't appear to be any functional difference, or any public stigma, associated with particular power origins. No one goes "I hate MUTANTS, but the Fantastic Four, who got their powers from cosmic rays, are totally cool, and Dr. Strange, who just chants and gestures, creeps me out, but I'd sell him donuts." And while SuperShock did raze the Vatican and Iraq, compared to the "excesses" of DC and Marvel (killing galactic empires, altering reality, combining universes, unraveling the past, etc.), even this single, unbelievably powerful being had relatively limited impact. And it was made pretty clear that he was the "top of the chart" AND he was undone by a relatively minor power (nice use of suggestion). I know that opinions will vary on "Powers." I was just suprised that, given the incredible range of influences mentioned in various threads, that I saw very little mention of "Powers", even by GMs who were raving about Bendis and his work at Marvel. I was curious if it was largely unknown, or generally disliked, or if people using it were kind of quiet. The other thing I wondered about was, given that "Powers" is almost completely unknown, compared to say, "X-Men", was that GM's who were using an established world were choosing to use something well-known, rather than a niche world. I'm also not sure if Bendis' head has swelled, or if, because of his commerical and critical success, they now let him write ANYTHING and don't bother to edit or critique it (because he's "obviously a genius"). Too much success can ruin you even if it doesn't make you an egomaniac.

I'm really suprised, looking at the wide variety of inspirations that people use for their campaigns, that Bendis' "Powers" hasn't come up more often. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's readily available in Trade Paperback, and often in stock at major chain bookstores and comic shops. Powers is a stand-alone universe (which is a nice option, in and of itself, as your players don't have to learn any 50+ years of continuity), where some people have "powers". That's one of the nice things. No "magic vs. psionics vs. aliens vs. high tech vs. whatever). No aliens, no supertech (evidently), no magic (unless all powers turn out to be magic), no "mutants" vs "altered humans". This may seem a little restrictive, but it's kind of nice for a focused storyline (no intergalactic wars, etc.) The focus of the story (so far as I have followed it) has been on two police officers, one of whom once was a Power. The other nice bit here is that police have "power dampers" which suppress Powers (all of them). However, they are huge and totally non-portable. Thus, if you can successfully arrest a Power, you can take him downtown and interrogate him (and kick him around, even if he was a brick). This is also cool, because it allows you to incarcerate and deal with supers without a secondary level of technology increase (no need for super-prisons, super-cells, etc.) Powers are rated on a general level (1+), and only the highest level powers have really any massive influence (say level 9+). So far, there's really only been one "superman" like character, and even that person, on a destructive streak, doesn't do anything like move mountains. This isn't a strict scale, but a rating, applied by the police and public. Thus, there's a convenient way to describe a threat that is both "in game" and easy to understand (Stay away from this guy. He's a level 7, minimum.) There doesn't appear to be any (or much) "super-tech", so you don't need to worry about the influence that Reed Richards types may have on the whole world. However, some Powers require various types of implants to use their powers safely, and others have implants to boost their powers, or allow them to use them without restrictions. They've also basically not used certain types of supers, for whatever reason. Permanently giant or microscopic characters seem absent. Again, this may seem restrictive, but it means that basically everything fits around the human norm. People get into cars, get shot at, get arrested, get into fist fights--none of the really bizarre maneuvers that some superheroics get you into (shrinking into the opponent's brain, knocking over buildings). "Powers" has also dealt with some common-place comic ideas. After the "superman" goes berzerk, and kills thousands of people (but again, no more than a major war--this isn't Darkseid), the president of the US makes it illegal to use powers (not to be a Power, but simply to use them). Of course, this also causes problems, as the law-abiding Powers stop using their powers, and the criminals don't (and this isn't a super-tech setting where SHIELD or PRIMUS is going to the rescue). The other thing that "Powers" has done very effectively is to ground superheroism into a real world very effectively. It hasn't given you complicated rationales for how powers operate (for you to nitpick), but it has a world where comic books already existed. Thus, when "powers" emerge, people instinctively understand them, use them, and interact with them as the powers in superhero comics. People put on costumes, criminals rob banks, etc. I highly reccommend checking it out (but be advised, it is CERTAINLY not for kids). I'm also wondering if anyone has run a "Powers" campaign.

Re: There's No "REAL HORROR" in a Horror RPG setting...is there? I have had a group of players actually ask me to stop running a Horror campaign and start running fantasy because it was giving two of them (roomates-and college girls) nightmares. I think that the biggest thing that you need to do is pay attention to the pacing and emphasis of horror literature. Downplay the mechanics, downplay the rolling, and focus on vivid description and careful timing. In my experience, this is more difficult in some crossover-Horror games than it is in a more "realistic" setting. Once you are playing in a Superheroic campaign, the player and character are pretty different in their abilities and perspective. Thus, it's harder for a player to viscerally identify with their character. The more the characters are like "normal" people, the better this works. I think that is the case for two reasons. First, if the players can vividly imagine their characters and the surroundings, then they can more easily and completely become "immersed" in your storytelling. Second, if the characters are "normal", then we instinctively know what is dangerous and what is not. If you or I were confronted by say, a angry stranger, or by a mass of sentient black slime the size of a train, we know which is an "approachable" threat, and which isn't, and we can react instinctively and naturally. If, on the other hand, we are roleplaying a character who is bulletproof, and who can fly, then we start "abstracting" those threats relative to our character, and it distances us from any emotional response. I suspect that long-time players who have favorite characters will be more able to bridge that separation. This is why I have always really liked CoC for Horror roleplaying. In general, either a threat/challenge is something the party can handle (we have guns, they are fanatics with knives) or something the party obviously can't handle (The shoggoth is the size of a locomotive!). Statistics and rules can easily be sublimated to the narrative flow (4 people with automatics can stop 10 fanatics-4 people, even with howitzers, aren't going to stop a shoggoth). Also, weird horror works suprisingly well in a RPG. Forcing people to think about really odd things (slimy hounds emerging from corners of the walls) forces them to pay attention to your descriptions, whereas "standard" horrors (vampires, zombies) are so commonplace to our media-saturated culture that we often just slap a mental template on it and run with the game (Zombie. Check. Outrun it, shoot it in the head. Got it).

Re: Crazy idea for a magic "system". A similar idea to the "spirits" one proposed above, which is slightly less limiting, might be a "True Name" idea. Each spell is an individual bit of magic. Not really sentient, but still an animate archetype. Discovering the true name of a spell allows you to evoke that spell. You can't impart the knowledge of a True Name without losing it yourself, so you either give up a spell, or the "learner" has to discover that true name himself. Here, more than one person CAN know the true name of a spell, but each one is an individual accomplishment. The other idea might be kind of similar to the flavor (if not the "rules") of the old Doctor Strange spellcasting, where he invoked the attributes of a particular being or plane (By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth). Assume that each "element/plane/deity" is responsible for a particular SFX and effect (perhaps the Crimson Shadows free men from bonds, etc.). The wizard must do something to master that particular "element". Thus, if someone produces the Crimson Shadows, then he has undergone the related ordeal (red-hot manacles, extended tickling, whatever) and he has demonstrated his mastery of that "element". Another way to make magic seem more "personal", without it being unique to a particular caster, is to assume that magic is intensely difficult to invent. Don't allow people to start with a wide variety of spells, and allow them to learn spells only occasionally. Don't allow them to share spells easily between each other, or learn others' spells easily. If spellcasters all manifest just a few spells each, then the spells they know will SEEM distinctive to them, even if they aren't. It's the same way that your car seems distinctive to your friends. You don't show up every day in a different car, and seldom does someone else show up in your car, so even though there are probably 5000 cars just like yours, your car seems like "your car".

Re: Devious Idea that may work once....once... Well, given an alien battlesuit as an example, not all foci have to fit neatly into the Personal/Universal dichotomy. For example, with an alien battlesuit: It may be controlled by neural interface, pluggin a jack into a socket at the base of your spine. Don't have a socket at the base of your spine? Either you discover this before cracking open the suit and climbing in (nice), or you now have a hole in your spine jammed full of active electrical wiring (nasty). The suit protects the wearer's internal organs (which aren't in the same place as yours). Oops. The suit bends at the wearer's joints (which aren't in the same place as yours). Crack. The suit's trauma systems alleivate pain and injury by injecting medicines (tailored for an alien physiology-and varying from useless to lethal for you). The visual sensors are calibrated for a species with eyes spaced differently, with different focal points, and which sees on slighly lower wavelengths, making all images blurry, indistinct, and nauseating. The suit is controlled by interpreting electrical impulses in the wearer's body. Unfortunately, there's no easy or obvious way to recalibrate those settings for a new user. The suit (alien or otherwise, is designed for use by a skilled, well-trained operative. Use by an inexperienced goob from another planet is about as successful and dangerous as strapping a chimp into a scuba suit and tossing him overboard. Now if your player is grabbing foci to study, analyze, and replicate, then arguably, this is in genre. Numerous "super-scientists" have done the same. Determining the level of difficulty and expenditure of effort required is the province of the GM. I'd feel a bit "picked on" if a suit did something odd and specifically designed to screw over an unauthorized user. However, there's no reason to assume that all technology is as user-friendly as tools at Home Depot. Even common scientific equipment can be dangerous if used carelessly. There's no reason why alien weaponry wouldn't be the same. Just design features that are tailored to the original user, and they'll almost automatically be designed NOT to be used casually. This would encourage people to approach odd equipment carefully and if they wanted to use it, to spend long periods learning how to do so safely (and character points too).