Rene

Re: Ultimate vs The Authority

Re: I love The Ultimates I'm yet another fan of the Ultimates. Mostly repeating what many have said here, I'm fascinated by these flawed "heroes". It's funny because I've always hated Image Comics, so maybe I should hate the Ultimates too, but I don't because: 1) The artwork is clear and tells the story, as opposed to confusing the hell out of you. 2) The stories usually are more about the team members's personalities and intergroup conflict than about fighting ninja cannon fodder. It was 8 issues or something like that before they fought anyone who wasn't in the team. I'll have to admit that I was never a big fan of the "real" Avengers. I'm a fan of some individual members, like Cap, Thor, and Iron Man, but the group itself always seemed to... lack identity, for me. The X-Men are an school, the FF are a family, the Avengers are what? Earth's mightest heroes? Huh? The JLA really are DC Earth's greatest heroes, but the Avengers? With guys like Wonder Man, Tigra, and Wasp? (I like the Wasp and Wonder Man, but they don't seem like movers and shakers in the MU). I like that the Ultimates are all linked by being products/creators/users of government technology who also are posterboys and celebs for the government. Except for Thor, who is the odd man in the group, of course. But the Ultimates would work better than the "real" Avengers for a movie, because their origins are all linked. It would be a little easier to suspend disbelief for the big public unused to superheroes. I basically like all the characters. I may not agree with their choices or ideologies, but I think they're all interesting. Especially the Wasp. There is a cliche no ones talk about, because it's politically incorrect, but I'm a bit tired of all women in fiction being feisty gutsy fighters who take no nonsense. I don't think ALL women in real life are like that. There are many weak self-destructive men out there, and there are many weak self-destructive women out there too. So, Janet as someone with a sense of self-disgust due to her being an insect woman basically being ambiguous about her feelings as Hank abuses her strikes me as fascinating, even if isn't politically correct.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll I had a heated discussion with Nexus over this very topic in another thread, and I don't want to reopen that particular can of worms (especially because I'm surprised to see that most of Nexus's posts in this thread are mostly stuff I'd like to say myself), but you managed to sumarize my own oppinions nicely. I see superpowers as the ultimate test for your morals. Now you have powers, you'll show your true colors. Don't blame the powers for "corrupting" you. Though I agree that, over time, the possession of powers will probably change you, I think this process will be too complex and individual for us to package everything in a nice catchphrase like "superpower corrupts".

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Well, the story I mentioned was published in the late-80s/early-90s. That would be late Bronze Age. The Bronze Age was always my favorite period of comics. Not "kill them all", nor "you shall never kill", but a recognition that there are special circunstances. Captain America killed in a Mark Gruenwald story, where some terrorists opened fire against a crowd, and Cap had lost his shield, so Cap was forced to grab a gun from the ground and stop the terrotists before the casualties got even higher. I thought it was a "heroic" action. Superman killed too, in the conclusion of the pocket universe storyline mentioned in another thread, when Superman was the last force for good in a alternate Earth wiped out by three Kryptonian criminals who then threatened to do the same to Superman's Earth. There were no authorities left to turn the criminals to, and they were mass murderers in an unbelievable scale. Supes killed them, I gave Supes a pass for the "special circunstances" clause (later the poor guy had a breakdown for doing it). Marvel Boy/Justice killed his abusive bigoted violent father in a moment of fury and fear. I don't think it was "heroic", but I think it was understandable and, up to a point, self-defense. Hm... on a tangent, I also always found a bit strange that superheroes are supposed to be "excused" when destroying vampires, robots, and computers, for instance. At least to my mind, the defining factor should be sentience. If the creature is sentient and sufficiently self-aware, then I shouldn't treat their existence in a lighter way than I treat human life and should only destroy then if the situations are extreme enough. Well, robots and computers can be rebuilt, at least. Perhaps this hint at the real root of some "CVKs": religious feelings. You can kill a vampire because a vampire has no "soul". Is that it?

Re: Code VS Killing Poll There was a Silver Surfer story by Jim Starlin where a poor guy is transformed into a hideous monster. He wasn't a particularly evil guy at that, just a stooge manipulated by his evil military father. Anyway, the poor guy keeps getting more and more hideous and deformed, by the end he is more like this huge Cthully monstrosity, who can't even control himself. The Silver Surfer manages to transport him to a lifeless moon where he won't threaten anyone. There on the moon, the Surfer discover the monster is sentient and used to be a man. The guy *begs* the Surfer to kill him and end his suffering. Instead the Silver Surfer says "no", and leaps on his board, and leaves the guy behind. The last panel has a close-up shot of the guy's face in the midst of the cthullian blob of flesh he became, screaming in agony. Since his new and hideous body was immortal, it's implied that he is going to spend eternity there, all alone in a lifeless moon, and a monster. Anyone else read this story? I found the Surfer's actions particularly monstrous and shocking. It reminded me that a "Code vs. Killing" isn't necessarily compassionate or even rational. Actually, it can be quite dogmatic for some. Oh yes, I'm mostly a #2 kind of person, myself. I don't consider those who kill *easily* and *effortlessly* such as the Authority, as good examples of superheroes. But I fervently believe that there are special circunstances that warrant killing in a superhero's life, filled with danger and extreme situations. But I can roleplay all kinds. Even though if I were faced with the situation the Silver Surfer was, and I were a #1 kind of hero, I'd spent whatever time it took to find a cure for the guy, and failing that, I'd kill him, even though I'd suffer a major psychological breakdown.

Re: What Fantasy/Sci-Fi book have you just finished? Please rate it... I've just finished "The Dragonbone Chair", first book of the "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" fantasy trilogy by Tad Williams. I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. The overall format of the story owes much to "Lord of the Rings" (of course, of course), and the characters are very archetypical fantasy templates but I thought it was more realistic, human, dark, well-written, and melancholic than most efforts of the kind. One thing I enjoy a lot is a writer who knows how to inject feeling in archetypical characters, revitalizing the old ideas. Williams does that. BTW, I though his book a perfect midway point between "Lord of the Rings" and a completely dark fantasy like George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire". On one side, you have something of Tolkien's innocence, descriptions, and old Celtic roots, on the other you have a bit of Martin's darkness, realpolitik, cruelty, and descontruction. I also am a sucker for sympathetic characters, and I am quite ready to cheer for the thousandth time for outcast boy who becomes hero, the disguised princess who craves a life of freedom, the brooding romantic prince who has a tragic past, sometimes I love a old story retold as much as a more original tale. Nice book, I plan to read the rest of the series. I also recently read Neil Gaiman's short story, "A Study in Emerald". You can go to his site and read it. Very fun and cool. It's a clever crossover between Sherlock Holmes and the Cthullu Mythus. But instead of the obvious idea of Holmes investigating mad Lovecraft cultists, you have an alternate world 19-century where Lovecraft's Great Old Ones rule the Earth and have replaced human royal families. Gaiman, with his usual flair for mixing horror and comedy, avoid turning it into a dystopian nightmarish tale and opts to go the absurdist satiric route. The story also has a clever twist in the ending.

Re: Rage-Enhanced Strength

Re: Rage-Enhanced Strength No. Succor works like that: you roll a 3, and then you get these same 3 points for as long as you pay END. Succor is Constant in that way. It don't allows you to automatically roll again and keep adding, as if it were a Continuous RKA. Now, if you assume that you don't need to set up the Trigger again after it's sprung, then I agree with you that you could interpret it to mean the character can automatically roll every Phase he is Triggered. Still, I disagree with Lord Liaden that you can keep adding with no upper limit. *Suppress* allows you to keep draining without upper limit, but that is because Drain (the power Suppress) is based on, has no upper limit. Now Succor is based on Aid, and Aid has a upper limit, so I assume Succor has too, no matter if it's "Continuous" or not, you still must buy up the Maximum Points you can adjust.

Re: Rage-Enhanced Strength

Re: Rage-Enhanced Strength

Re: Homo Sapiens Draculis Did you ever read a novel called "Fevre Dream" by George R. R. Martin? If not, you should, it does a wonderful job of presenting vampires like the ones you're describing.

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate Yeah, it's not that they can't do the math, it's just that they find themselves unpleasantly surprised that they're required to do it, because, you know, most other RPGs don't need much more than adding and subtracting. But I agree with Zornwill, HERO isn't intended to be a RPG of mass appeal. Now, if I had to make HERO more user-friendly, I wouldn't go the FUSION way. I'd keep all (or most) of HERO's rules in place, I'd just "disguise" most of them. For instance, imagine a new product called "Champions LITE". Full color, no more than 200 pg, full of flavour text. We'd keep STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO, and PRE. 6 chars. BODY would remain the same, but would become a "Extra Hit Points" Power instead of a CHAR. Same thing with COM that would become a Beauty Talent or Perk. All the Figured Characteristics would remain more or less the same, but would be moved to the Combat Chapter (and oh yes, END would be optional, and perhaps PD and ED would be joined). So now you have only 6 Chars. Only those skills and perks more important to the supers genre would remain. I'd present a decent list of pre-made powers for gamers to choose from. Instead of letting everyone build their own Superspeed and Weather Control, I'd build the "official" versions of Superspeed and Weather Control using the HERO rules and disguising the modifiers. I'd give cooler names to some of the powers. There would be only a handful of the most simple Advantages and Limitations, and you'd have a percentage value for them, instead of -1/2, -1/4, etc. It's not any easier to do the math, but appears easier to the people unused to the system, because it's more intuitive. I'd translate everything to feet and do away with the hex grid. It's not that you wouldn't be able to use a hex grid to play it you wanted to, it's just that the book wouldn't mention it (except perhaps in a optional chapter). The combat chapter wouldn't contain the gritty optional damage system. I'd probably use some mandatory variant of the standard effect rule to severely diminish the # of d6s rolled. That is it, you'd have the very same system, with minor modifications, but with most of the complexity, the "there are too many options, help me!" factor removed. Then you could release extra books with more powers, more options. In the end, it's the same as HERO, but in a different format. Now, the problem would be that HERO would look dreadfully similar to most other superhero RPGs in the market.

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate That is the big advantage of GENREic systems. They first present an environment in which those rules will facilitate play, they first provide concrete examples of the archetypes the rules will manipulate (classes, clans, weapons, spells). Then, and only then, they will bring the math and the rules. By then, the reader will be more "in the mood" to swallow the usually rules-heavy combat chapter.

Re: Linked vs. Compound Powers - educate the new guy Since the Human Torch has the power to cover his body with a sheet of flame, not to actually become flame, I don't think Pyro could control him like Magneto manipulates Wolverine. Pyro probably could make the Torch's flame "leap" from his body and hurt some innocent bystander, but I don't see how he could throw the Torch himself on the bystander. I also think the Torch could easily flame off in such circunstance, to stop Pyro from using his flame. BTW, I never read a comic where the two met, but I stopped reading the X-Books in the early 90s, so it's possible they met later.

Re: Variable Power Levels for Heroes "Maturity" here translates as "players are not competitive with one another". If anyone in the group is a little bit competitive, either the heavy hitters or the little guys, then such games don't work well (except in the aforementioned "troupe style"). The strange part is, if we're talking pre-generated characters, player A usually won't mind playing Hawkeye while player B is playing Thor. But if the characters are originals, then suddenly there will be all this tension. Maybe it's because established teams like the X-Men and the Avengers already have their dynamics pretty well-tested, and even the less powerful Avenger or X-Man still is "cool".

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate Well, I wouldn't say "less work". More like about the same amount. For instance, I know of several kinds of fantasy worlds with paradigms that are so different from D&D that you can just about throw out anything in the Player's Handbook but for the basic hit-roll and skill roll rules. I'd say you'd have a lot of work making such worlds work, wheter you use D&D or HERO. Then it becomes a question of what system you're more used to, what system you most enjoy using for creating new stuff. For me, it would be HERO.

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate I get a thrill of playing around in worlds and sub-genres taken from novels, comics, and movies I enjoy. The published GENREic systems cover some of the most popular settings, but they only scratch the surface of possible adaptations, IMO. For instance, I think Vampire: the Masquerade is good enough if you want to play in something like the Vampire Chronicles from Anne Rice. But there are a lot of vampire novels out there where the undead work in very different ways. GENREic systems are well and good and you can tell infinite kinds of stories with them. But only because you can have a infinite number of apples don't mean you have a single orange in the bunch. And not to mention the times a GENREic system, for whatever reason, fails to live up to your expectations of how they should treat your beloved novel/movie/comic/sub-genre. Sometimes it's possible simply to home rule the GENREic system into doing what you want. Other times it's just too much trouble. So much trouble that you could as well use a GENERic system in the first place. But I admit it, I think HERO *is* hard. If there is a GENREic system out there that does the job for the game I want, I don't see any reason to convert to HERO (apart from the pure pleasure of flexing your HERO-nerd muscles to see if you can build whatever).

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

Re: Tornado Entangle IMO, the Powers Database book overused the Entangle mechanic, using it for lots of powers that would work sooo much better and sooo much simple with TK. Gravity Fields, for instance. The tornado would be another example of Limited TK.

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate I always thought HERO was a game only for GMs who have a very clear mental image of the genre and game they want to run, and don't mind having a lot of work. Because it's up to you to select and build everything to make it "fit". If you don't have a clear enough mental image, you probably will end up with a "supers in some other setting" thing. When I first met HERO, I thought it was too much trouble, much better to play D&D if I wanted fantasy, for instance. Then I grew older, and read more and more fantasy literature, and saw D&D wasn't doing it for me anymore, because it was too different from what I read. Then I turned to HERO and saw that, though it wasn't by no means effortless, in HERO I could do the worlds and characters I read about.

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome I laughed out loud at that, but I have to say that I know what these reviewers must have been thinking. To me, there *are* magic systems that "feel" more realistic than others, strange as that may seem. First, there are systems that take the approach of borrowing from magical traditions that really existed on Earth and imagining "what if it really worked"*, and it makes for a greater sense of realism to me. Some go a similar route, but trying to create magic systems that feel appropriate for fictional cultures ("A Song of Ice and Fire" is a good fantasy series for this stuff). Second, the quantum mechanics thing of perception shapes reality that is a hallmark of the magic in Ars Magica and Mage also seems very internally consistent. Third, there are magic systems that gain in realism when they posit a entire worldview that makes the magic the logical consequence of said worldview. Fourth, games and stories where magic is kind of like psionics but dressed in fancier outfits also seem to gain in realism for me. Heh, it seems like I think all kinds of magic are fine and dandy. Not really, a magic system that always seemed somewhat "fake" to me is D&D (the wizards only, the other magic-user classes are kinda fine). I think it's style of magic was fine for a couple of Jack Vance stories from the 60s that tried to break from the mold and if limited to these stories only would have been amusingly quirky. But the strange thing is that D&D magic, while looking unrealistic to me, works fine in a rules and gaming context. I call it "videogame" magic. * I added this phrase for the materialistic folks that mostly compose this board. I'm in the very minority in that I don't necessarily believe all magic systems in the past were fakes. Comes from living in a very mystic-minded country like Brazil.

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome Nicely put. Different genres have different ways of bending reality. The Punisher lives in action movie land, "realistic" in that the heroes are techically your standard model Homo Sapiens, but unrealistic in the dramatic liberties that allows for the action sequences to proceed as they should in respect to genre.

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome Re: The Punisher thing. Hugh Neilson has a point, folks. There are several kinds of "realism". I agree with him in that sometimes I find Punisher and Batman (non-powered guy who do all that shit!!!) much less realistic than Superman, but they're unrealistic in different ways. There is the matter of "power enablers", stuff that grants the heroes and villains their abilities. Take the "Wild Cards" novels for instance, you have a very fantastic element - alien virus that gives people all kinds of superpowers - and this isn't "realistic" in that we've never seen anything like that in reality. But once the specific powers are granted, the stories are realistic, in that the consequences of people running about with such powers are mostly logical, happening in a world with rules like our own. No one in Wild Cards who lacks an enhanced health (for instance, a telepath or a trained human) shrughs off a beating and wakes in the next day feeling fine. Now take Batman. There are no overtly fantastic elements in his origin or his character, but c'mon. No Wild Card character could learn so many skills in so little time and be so good at all of them, no Wild Card character could win in almost every situation all by himself. No Wild Card character is a very famous celebrity while maintaning a secret identity that consists of a cowl that leaves half the face bare and no ones ever takes a picture of him and exposes him. I'd say that in Batman, the fantasy elements aren't in the power enabler, but in his heroic career. I see different kinds of realism in play here. There is also the matter of psychological realism that is another whole can of worms.

Re: Non-combatant campaigns? Yes, I know 99.99% of HERO gamers think the Storyteller systems sucks green apples, but it's a system that seems to try to give equal opportunity to physical, mental, and social actions (Does it suceed in that? Probably not). Aberrant was the only superhero game to make a big deal of social superpowers, as far as I can remember. I also agree that GURPS probably would be a better choice than HERO for games like these. HERO is still too much of a combat-oriented game.