Andrew_A

Re: Why Don't The Villains Kill?

In character: Varies by the villain. Some just aren't killers by nature and don't want blood on their hands' date=' some don't think its worth it (escalation, retaliation, murder raps carry a longer sentence than assault, etc)...[/quote']

 

The Flash's Rogues are are a good example of this. They have a "Whatever you do, don't kill the Flash" policy.

Re: OIHID or Why Doesn't Billy Batson not Change Back?

This is just me, but I would build Colossus with Perceivable DI and link a whole bunch of powers to it. Not that any of the preceeding makes a difference. This is Hero System. There are a hundred different ways to build the same thing. It just depends on what the GM and players will allow and how they'll implement it.

Re: [New Product] Champions Complete

What A_A said... expect the marriage part.

Trust me, it would only be for the money. Ms. Hilton and I do not have compatible personalities.

Re: OIHID or Why Doesn't Billy Batson not Change Back?

Do you have a cite for this? It's not listed in the entry for OIAID (6e1 386) or Obviousness (6e1 126). Focus' date=' Physical Manifestation, and Restrainable are specifically mentioned, but OIAID is not.[/quote']

 

I think it's assumed. Your alternate form would, at the very least, have to look different from your normal form. (I have no idea how you'd build Freddy Freeman though)

Re: [New Product] Champions Complete

That depends' date=' when are you willing to hire me? [/quote']

 

When I win the lottery. Or marry Paris Hilton and get access to the Hilton fortune. So any day now.

Re: Marvel Heroic Roleplaying

It's not appropriate for this forum either. It belongs in General Roleplaying. This forum is for non-Hero products that Hero Games sells.

Re: [New Product] Champions Complete

I had too much experience waiting for vaporware back in the day to want to see DOJ suffer the ravages of too much advance hype and too little product to show for it.

The interesting thing is that once CC is released, there'll be a lot of product available for it (Champions Powers, Champions Villains, Champions Universe, War of Worldcraft, King of the Mountain, Pretty Hate Machines, etc.)

Re: World with superheroes - Only one power set?

All of the Wild Cards were based on TK.

CES

No. Superstrength for example was based on increasing the "contractile strength of the muscles." The downside was that an Ace could only be just so strong. 50 tons was the most any Ace could ever lift. Telepathy, ESP, supertough skin, regeneration, superhuman reflexes, acid spit, teleportation, enhanced senses, and other powers existed in the setting.

Also, even the "TK" based powers tended to be very diverse. It covered flight, force fields, energy "projection", "gadgets", superluminal flight, shapeshifting and honest-to-Campbell telekinesis among others. That isn't remotely the same as "everybody has the same power set".

Re: Ratios of Superpower Archetypes

It's not about what they know' date=' it's about what I know. If I write down 'There are precisely 13 (X)s in the world', then I will stick to that.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. That's not me though. I reserve the right to change stuff if I think it'll make a good story. Both approaches have their upsides and downsides.

Re: What if there are no super-prisons?

which is a really good case to kill all lawyers....

 

(Or at least keep them out of comic books/HERO games)

We have to keep Steve Long around, at the very least.

Re: Attention Star Trek Fans

Google is known for celebrating on odd year anniversaries.

Did not know. Thanks for the info.

Re: Attention Star Trek Fans

Saw it. Amusing, but why are they doing it on the 46th anniversary? Did they do this last year? Are they going to do anything on the 47th anniversary?

Re: Ratios of Superpower Archetypes

Not really. I don't want to paint myself into a corner by saying 'Country X only has Y bricks' then find myself needing to retcon or backtrack it later.

"Chavez and his lackey Dr. Radiation wanted you to think they only had 5 telepathic-speedster-bricks. The truth is, they bio-engineered 5000 in their sub-orbital, six-dimensional, radar invisible, sentient gulags.

"Meanwhile the covert, Syrian, Martial Artist-Gadgeteer, underground made plans to turn the Sahara into a tropical rainforest. All while keeping the alien mystic-weapon masters, who secretly control Norway, from finding out."

There's a difference between what the PCs think they know and the truth.

Re: What if there are no super-prisons?

Ok. Given those situations what I would see is this:

 

The Government is not going to be happy with Supernal running his own prison. That's just a fact of life. Maybe they can't come in and seize the mirror cells and maybe they view the heroes as too important to alienate but they will never be happy with the idea of someone running their own prison. It's just a fact.

 

That said their very first step would probably be to ask nicely for the mirror cell technology. They would probably use logical arguments pointing out the legal problems that the character is creating for themselves, the legal problems that the character is creating for the government, the fact that there needs to be people monitoring and the character can't do it all the time, etc.. If that fails the government might offer some kind of carrot. What that might be I have no clue. Depends upon the characters. Given what you've stated I doubt very much the government will ever move to the stick. Probably the closest would be someone very carefully pointing out that the character's refusal will negatively affect their relationship with the government. It may still be a good relationship, but it won't be as good as it was.

 

The character is almost certainly going to have difficulty with organizations like the ACLU. In addition to the fact that the characters are not authorized to be running a prison Valak has not been tried (or most likely even charged or arraigned). The past decade we have detained certain individuals under the title of 'enemy combatants' but part of that is predicated upon the concept that we are at war with a group of soldiers of a non-conventional sort. You can't really argue that you are at war with a single individual, so how do the characters plan to allow Valak to be properly charged, arraigned, and stand trial?

[Emphasis mine] What he said. I'd also add that no government can afford to look weak or incapable of protecting its citizens. That way lies the potential for chaos and the possibility that foreign enemies might try to take advantage of any perceived weakness. In all probability they might give the heroes a temporary pass in this case, but the thing to remember is that it's temporary. Sooner or later the government is going to have to deal with powered criminals. That means sinking some serious money (in the billions) on ways to contain powered threats.

Also, despite what Batman comics might have taught us, the death penalty is going be mentioned. If someone can't be contained in a jail cell, can't be brought to trial (without escaping), isn't a citizen of the country or the planet, and is a major threat to the economic and physical well-being of the citizenry, then they're going to have to kill him/her/it.

As for an ACLU like organization: This is going to be very controversial. No group is monolithic and this is going to split any organization down the middle. Some will say that civil liberties and the Geneva Convention don't apply to people who can destroy buildings and kill in the hundreds or thousands. Others will say that principles should be absolute and that we need to be better than the bad guys. Imagine 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, every day. People will become very polarized and very militant.

If that's too dark and realistic for you, the government could make some clever scientific breakthrough. Suddenly, super prisons are possible and their construction gets fast tracked. The only problem is, how do you get the supercriminals into jail without powered help? The PCs could end up being deputized ala 50s DC comics. Once the fight's over, their job could be to detain, make safe, and transport dangerous super felons. Maybe their relationship with the government could become closer, with "perks-a-plenty." Not to mention mundane things like insurance (life, health, liability), free legal representation, and a stipend of some sort.

This scenario isn't remotely realistic, but it is "comic logical."

Re: Things you never see in a comic book

Things you never see:

Advanced alien species never fights a high-tech hero (Iron Man, Blue Beetle [Ted Kord], the Rocket Reds, Booster Gold, the Vision, Cyborg, etc.) and kicks his/her/its butt due to having vastly superior alien technology.

In a debate between a mystic and a scientist, the scientist is never right (e.g. Reed Richards knows more than Dr. Strange).

The team mystic never tells everyone, everything he knows.

In a team with mixed power levels, the most powerful hero never beats the threat easily, leaving the archer, the guy with the indestructible shield, the dude with the claws, the millionaire playboy dressed in black, and the Russian superspy with nothing to do except clean up the mess.

The most powerful member of a team is never black/female/gay/whatever. (Alan Scott is a recent exception.)

A superhero vs. superhero fight doesn't end with innocent casualties. (Not at Marvel and DC.)

The villain never uses his most powerful attack on the non-bullet proof hero. He/She/It only uses it on the ones with borderline indestructibility or against inanimate objects.

No supercriminal ever says, "Screw Metropolis. To hell with New York. I'm robbing banks in Toledo."

Thor and Superman never fight the Kingpin or Black Mask.

Non-powered vigilantes, despite insane levels of competence, never put a meaningful dent in organized crime. The Punisher can beat Thor, Batman can outthink the Kryptonian, but Gotham City and Marvel New York are still lousy places to live.

A popular psychotic villain is never murdered/executed (by pissed off victims, by cops, by the justice system, by muderous "heroes", etc.), regardless of how many times he escapes from prison and kills people. The Spectre never kills the Joker, despite having the power of God.

A popular supporting cast member (who's not a jerk) is never allowed to live for very long. (Superman's supporting cast being one of the rare exceptions.)

A Corollary: A popular @$$hole will survive for decades. (Kutter from Bendis's Powers is one of the rare exceptions.)

That's all I got for now.

Re: The Good and Bad about Marvel and DC

Good about DC: Superman.

Bad about DC: Superman.

Good about Marvel: No Superman.*

Bad about Marvel: No Superman.*

Yes I believe all of the above. Superman is one of my favorite superheroes, but sometimes I don't like the way he dominates DC. Other times, I'm glad that he's DC's go to, true blue good guy.

What can I say? I'm complicated.

*Sentry, Gladiator, Captain America, Hyperion, and Thor don't count IMHO.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Yes. It's one of those Alberta versus Ontario things. I'd explain further' date=' but I'm off to smoke dope, have a Japadog and do vigorous outdoor things while wearing Lulu Lemon-brand outdoorsy clothes in fashionable colours. (Personal details thanks to my narcissistic self involvement[/quote']

 

What's a Japadog? I'll have to ask my brother about the Alberta vs. Ontario thing. He's seen more of this great nation than I have. I've never worn anything by Lulu Lemon, but I do own some of their yoga gear (strap, blocks, mat, and bag). I don't "do" outdoors. Outdoors is something that should be enclosed by a city of some kind.

 

Oh, and only Marvel has a Canadian team. With a comic book. That I even paid attention too at some points. Needed more Canadian stereotypes, but apart from that, definitely a selling point for Marvel.

 

Until they screwed it up after Byrne left. Hell, they screwed it up before Byrne left.

 

To be fair, I'm not sure this country even exists in the DC universe or if it does exist, nothing ever happens here. (Didn't I say realism has no place in fiction?)

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

That brings up another excellent point. In the real world, the Joker would be lucky to escape Arkham even once, Wilson Fisk would be serving 12 consecutive life sentences in some maximum security hell hole, and Bruce Wayne and Frank Castle would be chairing some Victims' Rights organization, not beating up muggers.

 

Realism makes every aspect of superhero comics impossible, not just the powers, secret identities, and costumes. Either way, who cares? I don't read superhero comics to see the real world. I read superhero comics to see a highly romanticized version of the real world. One in which Superman's moral code does work, where Batman doesn't get killed by a random thug with a 9mm, where some guy dressed in an American flag can stop alien invasions. Strict realism has no place here, just like it has no place on ER, Law & Order: SVU, Community, Charles Dickens's novels, Shakespeare's plays or any other form of fiction.

 

I think the criticisms are valid, but they are misplaced.

By the way, I'd like to add that I did enjoy Watchmen and the Wild Cards novels.* I think realism has its place. I think crapsack worlds and grimdark settings have their place. The Iron and Rust Ages have some truly great moments (to me if no one else). However, I don't want to read a Justice League story about rape or one where Spider-Man makes a deal with Satan, or one in which (and esampson has said this numerous times) Superman's moral code gets him or others killed.

Like I said, I like Watchmen. I also liked the Authority, Irredeemable, Empire, Newuniversal, Supreme Power, and Miracleman. And I like Legion of Superheroes (almost all eras), Superman, the Avengers, Justice League Unlimited, Batman:TAS, Astro City, Alan Moore's Supreme, and a lot of stuff Jack Kirby did. Great stories transcend genre.

*Not that those are terribly realistic either.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

My original statement was that I preferred Marvel over DC because I found DC to be a bit more oversimplified, which isn't to say that I don't enjoy DC, just that if asked which publisher I prefer more then that's my response. That doesn't even take into account specifics because I am sure you can find certain Marvel titles that are more simplified than certain DC titles. However, if asked 'which publisher' that's going to be my response.

 

As far as 'who cares', well, I would have to say those people who jumped all over me and said there is no such simplification in DC. They weren't saying Marvel has more or that it's necessary. They were basically saying it didn't exist (in their defense I chose 'superficial' instead of 'simplification' but tried to make it clear what I was talking about when I used the word 'superficial').

 

As other people have pointed out, however, this aspect of the thread has pretty much died out and would be best allowed to rest in piece. I never thought my statement would be so contentious.

Hey, do ANY Marvel vs. DC comparison and things are going to get heated. Especially when everyone secretly knows that DC is vastly superior to Marvel in every way.*

*That's a joke by the way.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

I was watching an online debate between actresses representing She Hulk and Wonder Woman on who was stronger. She Hulk pointed out that while Wonder Woman was strong, since she wasn't actually invulnerable she could be taken down by having a box of sharpened pencils thrown at her. This got me wondering about how DC and Marvel present there characters conceptually.

 

Cyclops is a Loaded Gun, a character who can't control his powers do to an accident. He has to wear "ruby quarts" glasses in order to prevent his power from hurting any innocents. Always On disadvantage seems to have been created for him.

 

Superman is powered by the sun and has a wide range of powers and abilities. He's invincible unless you happen to have a piece of kryptonite, then he collapses to the ground. It's only the sadism of his enemies that keeps them from finishing him off. The word Susceptibility rings a bell.

 

Marvel has presented characters with limitations on how their powers work, and when then can be used. They also are bound to have more personal disadvantages and psychological limitations. DC has powerful stalwart characters with specific weakness that makes them absolutely helpless, and personal rogues galleries of frequent enemies.

 

I ask then, which to you prefer?

Has anybody noticed that Marvel has a lot of Gods without off-switches?

Don't believe me?

Silver Surfer

Thor (some versions)

Doctor Strange

Hyperion

Black Bolt

The Eternals

The Hulk (Peter David version)

Phoenix (whoever she is this week)

Quasar (Mark Gruenwald version)

The Sentry

The last two are rather interesting, because Quasar has Green Lantern's powers without the yellow weakness, 24 hour recharge time limit, or the removable focus. The Sentry is Superman, as seen by a Marvel fan who's never read a Superman comic in his life. That's not literally true, but he does seem like it.

As for which I prefer, I like good stories. That's it. There's nothing else. Any attempt to prefer one over the other will lead to someone pointing out that one inspiring Superman story or that time Spider-Man did something that made them cheer. I used to have preferred characters. Now I just want good stories about people I can identify with. Sometimes I identify with the Man of Tomorrow, other times it's the Webhead.

It would have to be a pretty freaking amazing story for me to identify with the guy with the claws though. (Are we really from the same country?)

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Whatever. This discussion has been over for days anyway. We're on a whole new derail now.

Yes' date=' I know, but it looks like some people are trying to resurrect that.[/quote']

 

Sorry for resurrecting an old discussion. I was away for days (new boss at work, she expects more shifts). If you guys wanna drop this and get back to the original point of the thread, I'm game.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Well, technically you are correct. It doesn't work in the genre where heroes never win.

 

My point, however, is that it doesn't work in the genre where it is possible for the heroes to legitimately lose (I had to append 'legitimate' to distinguish it from those lesser failures a character can sometimes suffer to increase dramatic tension).

Still sorting through this long-@$$ thread. Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but isn't that a problem of marketing as opposed to genre? Superman, Spider-Man, the Avengers, and Wolverine, never make that one colossal f--k up because who wants to read the "adventures" of Peter Parker's corpse every month? ("In the next pulse-pounding issue, the body continues to decompose! Dr. Evil uses his billions to turn Venezuela into his own personal abattoir! Annoying Girl Friend marries a used car salesman and settles down to domestic drudgery! Don't miss it True Believers!")

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

OK. Before this starts up and derails things again;

 

The Superman example came about because I said that I found the DC comics to be a bit more superficial (I would now use the word 'simplified') than Marvel and certain people jumped in and said there was no superficiality. It was intended to show that there is a degree of simplification that occurs in DC's comic books.

 

It was not meant to show that there is more simplification in DC's books than Marvel's, that Superman should behave a different way, that schools should be blown up, that Superman is a bad character, that it is a good storyline, or anything else. Again, it is meant to show that there is a (quite probably necessary) degree of simplification that occurs in the stories and personalities and that is it.

 

Please only take issue with the example if you can honestly say that you feel that A) there is absolutely no simplification that occurs in DC comics and that your argument establishes that such an example is faulty because it would not be successful (not that it could fail but rather that there is no reasonable chance of success) in the 'real world' without any alteration of Superman's personality.

 

Unless you can honestly say both conditions are true then you are arguing to argue (either because you reject the argument but you agree that there is still simplification in the first case, which was all that it was suppose to illustrate, or because you have issues with the example but are doing absolutely nothing to argue against the point of the example).

Of course there's simplification. My point is this: Who cares? There's simplification in just about every form of fiction you care to name. An example: I'm currently reading Charles Dickens's book Bleak House. There are many characters in there who are more archetypes than actual people. They don't behave like real people, they don't think like real people, they don't act like real people. In short it's a simplified world, just like everything in fiction. I could come up with a million more examples. The emperor isn't wearing his clothes.

I'm not arguing to argue and unfortunately I posted before I had a chance to read the rest of your opinions (I apologize for that). Either way, I'm missing the point you're trying to make. Assume I'm slow and dull witted (I usually am ) and explain your points again slowly.

You're saying that you prefer Marvel over DC because DC offers a simplified version of reality, right? You're also saying that there's nothing wrong with this, but it's not always your cup of tea, correct? You're saying that Star Trek is a million time better than Star Wars and that Captain Kirk would easily take out the Emperor and seduce Princess Leia halfway through the first movie, right? (Okay, I made that one up, but you know it's true. ) If I've mis-characterized your opinions or put words in your mouth I apologize in advance and eagerly ask for illumination, good sir.

However, if that is what you meant, how can you say that DC specifically, or superheroes in general are simplified, when all fiction simplifies reality to make a point? I don't go to the movies very often, but the Expendables is a realistic political thriller about people who sit around a table negotiating and making deals, in order to juggle the delicate balance of power in a complex world, right? Hunger Games was a about a young woman who lives in hopeless circumstances that never get better, until something, that has nothing to do with her, changes society, right?

If you don't enjoy a simplified version of reality, I can't argue against that. In the end, you like what you like and I like what I like. Nothing wrong with that.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

The bombs in the schools was your example. Don't gripe when people reply to the specific example that you give.

 

I responded to your example by bringing in Batman, because your example was straight out of a comic book itself. Given the "superficiality" of your example what is the point in giving a response that assumes a more complex universe? You come up with a plot that only Lex Luther or the Joker could pull off and cry foul when I bring in Batman. In something closer to real life, your criminal mastermind would get ratted out by one of his henchmen or the people who sold him the explosives before the explosives were ever planted. For that matter the explosives wouldn't even be real, they would fake explosives provided by undercover FBI agents.

 

You see the bad guys always getting beaten by the superhero as opposed to being taken down by the local SWAT team is also a genre convention. In real life law enforcement can be extremely competent, and would totally curb stomp a lot a of supervillains. The genre conventions ultimately do as much to protect the villains as the heroes.

 

So, if you want to talk about a world with Superman but without genre conventions we can do that. In such a world, Superman would have to change many things about his methods. He would not however find it necessary to abandon his beliefs or get killed. People far squishier than the Man of Steel with belief systems just as demanding manage to function in our world, I see no reason that Superman couldn't also. To convince me otherwise you are going to have to do a lot better than some stolen from a comic book/action movie bomb plot. That is just Space 1999 ragging on the physics of Star Wars and Star Trek. It certainly isn't real life.

That brings up another excellent point. In the real world, the Joker would be lucky to escape Arkham even once, Wilson Fisk would be serving 12 consecutive life sentences in some maximum security hell hole, and Bruce Wayne and Frank Castle would be chairing some Victims' Rights organization, not beating up muggers.

Realism makes every aspect of superhero comics impossible, not just the powers, secret identities, and costumes. Either way, who cares? I don't read superhero comics to see the real world. I read superhero comics to see a highly romanticized version of the real world. One in which Superman's moral code does work, where Batman doesn't get killed by a random thug with a 9mm, where some guy dressed in an American flag can stop alien invasions. Strict realism has no place here, just like it has no place on ER, Law & Order: SVU, Community, Charles Dickens's novels, Shakespeare's plays or any other form of fiction.

I think the criticisms are valid, but they are misplaced.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Sorry, but if your villain aims to kill superman he is not a normal criminal, he is out for blood. There is nothing to be achieved by killing superman, you can't also achieve with delaying him/preventing him from interfering.

If your villain has to equal option and chooses the one that kills superman, we do talk about a crazy madmen.

I would add this: Is killing Superman worth the hassle? This question has been bugging me since I read John Byrne's Superman #1. If you don't remember, in that issue Metallo (the man with the Kryptonite heart) comes very close to killing Superman, ranting all the while about how he's going to be king of the Earth. I remember thinking to myself, "Are the rest of the world's superheroes going to let him get away with that?"

Think about it. You just killed the most popular and respected hero on the planet, the guy every other superhero takes their cues from (except Batman because he's a d--k). How are you going to prevent the Justice League, Doom Patrol, Metal Men, Teen Titans, The Outsiders, the local Green Lanterns, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, the Spectre, and the Inferior Five for goodness sake, from curb stomping you with extreme prejudice? None of the people I mentioned are going to be stopped by a glowing green rock. The only reason Luthor tries is because he's arrogant. Most of Supes' other enemies are powerful enough that none of the people I mentioned scare them. So why try, unless you're so crazy and stupid that even Major Disaster's Injustice Gang thinks you're a loser?