Dauntless

I would love to do an asian fantasy setting (either China during the Warring Kingdoms or even earlier in the Song dynasty with some low fantasy elements, or maybe in feudal Japan) but I think most people's conception of asian fantasy is stuff like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, or Storm Riders, or The Zu Warriors. Unfortunately, I'm not too big a fan of high flying/leaping, blades emanating forces style of fantasy either. But if you look at most asian myths, their monsters are actually very subtle and most often take human forms for most of their time interacting with humans. Even asian dragons for all their power were extremely reluctant to use it. And magic in eastern cultures is usually based on alchemy or Feng Shui manipulation of heavenly chi....so there's very little in the way of spectacular magic effects. It's unfortunate that the more modern asian fantasy has taken on Dragonball Z-like effects and powers. I think that fantasy is like a drug....in sufficient quantities it can be beneficial, but in higher and higher doses not only do you build up an immunity to it, you may also get addicted to it. That's just my take on it, and people are of course free to enjoy whatever they like. But I hope that the majority of fantasy supplements that come out are set in low fantasy settings.

One of the great things about the Lord of the Rings trilogy was that magic was subdued, and at least in the third age, creatures of great power (dragons, balrogs and other Morgoth lieutenants) were few and far inbetween. I happen to think this is a HUGE reason why the movies ignited the fancy of mainstream audiences....precisely because Gandalf and Saruman weren't throwing fireballs at each other, or levitating off the ground or doing other Harry Potteresque things. Also, while major characters were extremely capable, you didn't see them doing impossible things (well, except for Legolas, but I guess if you're an immortal you have a lot of time to practice skills) even with incredibly powerful weapons. Even Narsil, Glamdring and Sting didn't do much other than glow, and the most powerful magical item of them all could only make you invisible. I always loved the game HarnMaster which is a fantasy game that's very medieval in its feel with limited magic and non-human races. I found this to be a refreshing change of pace from the typical AD&D monster bashing +5 Vorpal sword slashing campaigns. Another game that I enjoyed immensely was the first 3 editions of Ars Magica which was set in Mythic Europe (it followed Europe's history through the 13th century....but the legends and myths about wizards, faeries, demons, and other supernatural creatures were real). In Ars Magica you had the realism of history backing you up...but with the inclusion of Mages and the occasional supernatural creature. Magic in this world however was not very spontaneous, and only the best mages could do improptu ad-libbed magic so they needed protection through warrriors (or Grogs and Companions as they were called). High Fantasy has never appealed to me that much, at least in the manner that it is usually done. Looking at Middle Earth's First Age, it was most definitely High Fantasy, with the Vanir gods walking the Earth (although technically I suppose the wizards could be counted as demi-gods in the 3rd age), Morgoth's armies made up of legions of Balrogs and Dragons, and entire continents being destroyed and mountain ranges being created (even in the 2nd age when Ancalagon was slain, his death created an entire mountain range when his body plummeted to earth). Somehow, this age just doesn't intrigue me as much as the 2nd or 3rd ages however. How many other people prefer low fantasy as compared to high fantasy?

I think an infantryman's kit loadout is dependant on where he's going and for how long. If it's a simple hump away from base, then he's not going to carry a huge load. Generally speaking though, full combat gear seems to be in the 60-80lb range including body armor, weapons, ammo, food, water, and other basic necessities. However, once the fighting starts, most of this is ditched. If you can, look up Andy McNabb on google, and see if you can find a recounting of his story during the first Gulf War (he was a member of a British SAS patrol that got it bad...only he and one other trooper made it out alive). From what I remember of it, he and his team ran into some Iraqi troops and they had to ditch their main rucksacks. They then had to hump over some 50+ miles through the desert with very little in the way of survival gear. As for weapons, the American Army has as it's standard assault rifle the M16A2, which may be replaced soon due to fairly poor combat record since Somalia (the 5.56mm round that was originally used in Vietnam had more power behind it and less rifling in the barrel...this made the bullet tumble causing horrific wounds, but tended to lessen accuracy and range, which was deemed fine for the jungle warfare environment). The Army and Marine Corps are currently testing a 6mm round for future use. Another common weapon is the M4 carbine, which is essentially a shortened barrel version of the M16A2, and has even worse ballistic tendencies than the M16A2 (there have been numerous reports of soldiers hitting their target multiple times in the chest and not putting the target down....this has led the Army and Marine Corps to re-evaluate the combat worthiness of the 5.56mm NATO round). One weapon making a sort of comeback is the M14 rifle, which was seen being used by some of the 82nd airborne troops in Afghanistan. This battle rifle (a battle rifle is usually differentiated from an assault rifle by its caliber and its hardiness) uses the older and more deadly 7.62mm round. This round has superior ballistic capabilities compared to the 5.56mm, including far greater range, greater penetration, and greater manstopping power. The disadvantage is heavier ammunition and slightly heavier recoil. The Army M21 sniper rifle is essentially a match quality M14 rifle with some enhancements. The M203 is the combination M16 rifle with 40mm grenade launcher. the M249 SAW is the squad automatic weapon used for suppression fire capability. It is a rugged 5.56mm weapon that is quite a bit heavier than an M16 and uses belts for ammunition (though it can use the same box as M16's). The MAG (or M240) is the light machine gun used by the Marine Corps and Army (though the Army also still uses the M60 LMG of Rambo fame). It fires 7.62mm rounds and is originally of Belgian manufacture (who btw are excellent weaponsmiths, having also made the legendary FN-FAL and the excellent HP 9mm pistols that were probably the best 9mm pistols in WWII). For very heavy weapons, we use the Javelin AT as our main "fire and forget" missle. For personal infantry use, the AT-4 (84mm...get it?) replaced the older M72 LAW as the personal AT weapon of choice. The British use a more modern version of the M72 called the M80. BTW, the Russians have a laser guided ATGW called the Kornet which took out at least 2 M1 Abrahms in the recent Iraq War...so the Abrahms are not invulnerable to infantry AT weapons as once believed. The main hand grenade is the M67 fragmentation grenade which has a rough casualty radius of 15m. For sidearms, the Army uses the M92 9mm Beretta although I think a few units still use the old M1911 Colt .45. Generally though, only officers, tank crews, and a few special units carry sidearms...the general grunt does not carry sidearms into battle. For that he has to rely on fallen comrades weapons or use a trusty knife/bayonet (doesn't that just suck when your gun jams?).

I was doing some research for special operations teams and was looking up my favorite...the Marine Force Recon teams and found this site that might be useful. It doesn't list a loadout, but it does describe just about everything these guys use....googling the names of these items might give you a hand. http://www.forcerecon.com/strongmenarmed3.htm

Was Daredevils that old game from Fantasy Games Unlimited? Oh man, does that bring back memories, including Villains and Vigilantes and Space Opera. Man, I knew I'd regret selling that stuff one day.... I do miss a good pulp action story, although I'd like to see a time period from about 1870-1930. It's a big span I know, but there's just so much interesting stuff happening in that time frame.

Dr. Rotwang- Funny you have Justice Inc., NPC as your tagline. Speaking of comedic players and impeccable timing, the most hilarious game I ever played was a Justice Inc game at a convention with a player who created a character called Magico the Magician. Basically he was 3 parts con-man, one part sleight of hand with the grace of Rowan Atkinson and the mouth of Eddie Murphy. He had the whole group cracking up with his antics and trying to rob people or con/persuade/manipulate them out of something. He always had just the right crack to say at just the right time, or would do something incredibly bizarre right out of the blue just to confuse people. So you're right, doing a Cartoony series campaign would be very difficult, and I'd only attempt with very good roleplayers. As for the issue of control, if the GM controls the "Elmer" type NPC's, it could be fun for the players. I could also see someone playing a "Daffy" role (the straight man) and another player playing the "Bugs" role...and as long as they both realized it was non-competitive, I think they could definitely play it off each other.

Even in the off the wall Cartoon type shows, there was still something of a chase in virtually everyone. Obviously you couldn't kill anyone in cartoons, but there was still some element of chance (even Bugs got beat by the Gremlins). So while I think more action oriented cartoons like Gargoyles, Gi Joe, The Visionaries, Jackie Chan's Adventures, or other similar cartoon styles would easily extrapolate to the Hero system, I think it would be possible at least to use the Hero system for cartoony series as well. The trick would be explaining how no one dies or takes lethal damage as I'm sure Wile E. Coyote would hate to have to take lethal damage from falling all the time.

I don't know how or why this popped in my head, but has anyone ever played a cartoon series with the Hero system? For some strange reason a vision of playing Dudley Do Right versus Snidely Whiplash came popping into my head. Then I started thinking about the Looney Tunes characters and some of the other MGM and WB characters. I for one would love to play those two mice that terrorize Claude the cat. Obviously using Hero for anime or other action oriented cartoons like GI Joe would be a good fit. But I was wondering if Hero would be overkill for something like Looney Tunes characters? How about Disney shows like Tailspin or The Rescue Rangers?

I kind of saw Doomsdsay as a force of nature...so whether you see that as a villain or not is debateable. Definitely an antagonist and definitely something to overcome. As for Doom being dull and lame? Well, one is entitled to their opinion, but Doom has a lot character to him rather than being a one-dimensional villain. If we're talking pure earth-based villains without cosmic powers, I liked Ozymandias alot. Anyone who can catch a bullet and outsmart a man who can create life is pretty damn cool in my book. However is he really a "villain"? Sure, he killed a lot of people, but he also might have saved humanity. It's an interesting deontological question..."does the end justify the means"? As is often said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

How about these? Hal Jordan - the flaked out Green Lantern Doomsday - the guy that "offed" Supes The Sentinels - which in one possible future destroy or enslave all of mutantkind. How about the classic "monsters" of comics like: Fin Fang Foom, Collosus the living It, The Destroyer? Of the ones that have already been mentioned, I do like Dr. Doom alot. Not only is he a super genius, but he does have a heart (he's always trying to save his mother from damnation) and he also has a code of honor. The same goes for Magneto who is doing what he thinks is best for mutantkind. Just out of curiousity, does Captain America have an arch-nemesis now that the Red Skull is gone and Hydra is no more (at least as far as I know)?

Ahhhhh, Paranoia A line like that follwed by a cackling laughter is usually more than enough to set most players straight, and if they are REALLY dense penalize them by giving them harder villains to fight or worse not giving them any experience points (that's my favorite...afterall, XP is to reward roleplaying and overcoming challenges, "cheating" in this manner should void all XP). Let the players know that using OOC knowledge will penalize their XP and most of them will stop. If some loser keeps doing it and complaining, it's simple...don't allow him in your campaign.

He was in a Top Cow comic book series. Top Cow was a spin off of one of the Image comics teams. Marc Silvestri was the founder of Top Cow. The Darkness was one of a triumverate of ultra-powerful beings the other two being The Angelus (the opposite of the Darkness being extremely powerful in the light) and another you may have heard of before...The Witchblade. The Darkness was also cool because although he was a Mafia assassin he had a heart...at least for one person. I stopped reading it about 2-3 years ago, so I'm not sure what's happened to him since, but it seemed like they were trying to "redeem" him. But in the beginning he was as icy as the iceberg that toook out the Titanic. He dropped people left and right along with his little "demon" friends that were made out of darkness itself. And it wasn't just that he offed them...he offed them in very gruesome ways.

I'll try to post someone who hasn't been mentioned yet... Bullseye (as Frank Miller wrote him)- The guy took out Elektra with relative ease and he's insane. His powers are cool and he's a tough nut. The Mandarin- Perhaps Iron Man's greatest foe. While his arrogance often costs him, his rings are devestatingly powerful Legion- The son of Professor X...nearly changed history by trying to kill Magneto in the past creating "The Age of Apocalypse". The Darkness- virtually unstoppable in the dark, but just a normal Mafia assassin in the light The Dark Phoenix- She ate up a star destroying several billion people in that star system I do have to give a tip of the hat to Korvac. He was a cool tragic villain with cosmic powers.

Here's a general rule of thumb, take your die type divide it by two, and add .5, then multiply by the number of dice you roll to obtain the "average" number you will role. For example, 3d6 would be, 6/2 = 3 + .5 = 3.5. Multiplied by number of dice is 3 x 3.5 = 10.5 Another example, 2d10 would be 10/2 = 5 + .5 = 5.5 Multiplied by number of dice is 2 x 5.5 = 11 so 10.5 is the average number (in other words averaged out over many rolls, the average will equal 10.5). This is why the "average" skill roll is 11 or less. I've always preferred multiple dice that are added together over straight percentile rolls for one reason. In a straight percentile roll, it is just as easy to roll a 01 as it is to roll a 100 as it is to roll a 50. In other words, your chance to roll a 29 or a 100 are exactly the same...1 in 100. Some will say, but if you need a 50 or less, that's the same as saying you need a 7 or less in a 2d6 system. Not quite...due to statistical deviation, or what happens at the extremes. If you roll 1d100 a hundred thousand times, it will be a mostly flat line with roughly 1000 marks between 1 and 100. In a 3d6 system, it is not as easy to roll a 3 as it is to an 18 as it is to 11. A multiple die system takes into account the bell curve, which basically means that extremely high and low outcomes are rare, and things tend to fall more in the middle. This makes catastrophic errors or outstanding success much harder than percentile systems. If you roll 3d6 a hundred thousand times, you'll get the vast majority of the rolls centered between 9 and 12 and slowly tapering down both directions. The upshot of this is that multiple die systems reward mediocrity

I always thought Yuen Woo Ping's best films were the one's he didn't use wire work in. Check out Tai Chi Master, Hero Among Heroes, Fist of Legend or any of his Jackie Chan films. Yuen's more famous films...Iron Monkey, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and The Matrix of course all had serious wire work...but I highly recommend you check out the other titles I listed above. I think Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Donnie Yen are so popular because a lot of their movie work involves little to no wire work (with some notable exceptions). Jackie himself said he doesn't like wire work because he wants people to see what the human body can truly do...and I agree. After watching movies like Shaolin Temple (watch a young Jet Li make Michael Jordan envious with the ability to jump), Once Upon a Time in America 2 (probably the best staff fighting sequence ever between Donnie Yen and Jet Li...even more than Invincible Pole Fighter), or Drunken Master 2 (Jackie in his prime), I think you'll agree that you can have incredible martial arts sequences without flying all over the place. But if you really want leaping abilities I think it depends on the kind of "feel" that you want. Like you mentioned, there seems to be the innate "flying" abilities like seen in Crouching tiger...and then there's the "augmented" leaps seen in most others.

I believe hard science is not as necessary as logical consistency and plausible deniability. Make sure that the rules of your world are always consistent (unless of course your world is highly influenced by chaos principles or other weird quantum effects like non-locality that can affect causality violations) and make it at least seem like what you are doing is possible given the defining constraints of your system. When this breaks down, then our minds have trouble accepting the world we are in, and it makes for a less enjoyable experience because the feeling of immersion and believeability are lost. Science can provide a good background and I've heard it said that realistic sci-fi settings should break only one law of physics. I personally tend to prefer sci-fi settings that aren't too far in the future, so they are based on more realistic extrapolations of what we might see in the near future (about 100-200 years down the road). I think the real challenge isn't so much the science and technology, but how it will affect social change. Think back even just 50 years and how the social fabric has changed thanks to technology. Think how the common pervasiveness of jet airlines, nuclear proliferation, and mass communications technology has changed the societies cultural values and outlook. This I believe is the real challenge...to make the social fabric of society fit within the framework of technological progress of the world. Just as a small example, I can remember when you rarely didn't shop retail. And when you did, you had to do it through mail-order which often took a few weeks for you to get your items. Nowadays, it's often cheaper to shop online and get your item within 7-10 days (or less). I can remember going to college in the early 90's and having to wait in line to use the free public access phones....now everyone has a cell-phone to call. And if you think that's not a big deal...try living without your cell phone for a week to see how much you use it and indeed rely on it now.

Perhaps taking a look at some books on Zen archery would be of benefit. Also, looking up real historical speed target shooters could help (I forgot the guy's name, but he could take a single action revolver....not a double action revolver or semi-auto....and shoot 5 rounds a second with a shot group of less than 5 inches in diameter at 50 feet...extremely impressive). Also, if you can find any other shooting books, in particular ones about skeet shooting would be beneficial. I remember my dad telling me about how a famous skeet shooter said that it was a far more mental challenge than a physical one and that he would "feel" the skeets being shot. So it seems like the common thread even with modern firearms is that it is about mental concentration. I read an article about pentathletes and the Olympic sport of rifle shooting with cross country skiing. One guy on the American team said he practiced Yoga so that he could reduce his breathing patterns down from how hard you'd be breathing after sprinting 100 yards with your heart pounding, to breathing only once every few seconds and returning your heart rate to normal in a matter of a few seconds concetration. Pretty neat stuff actually. And of course sniping is a whole nother ball game when it comes to training and there's plenty of reading material available for things like that. I'm not sure how helpful that information is, but at least it can help you explain the special effects of such "gun-katas" and how they work.

I've been thinking of creating a game campaign that's part pulp-action, part martial arts, and part lovecraftian horror...think Big Trouble in Little China in the 20's. I might even push back the date and make it sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's (think Boxer Rebellion). Pulp-action is a fairly popular genre, as is horror, and martial arts, though a minor genre, has rabid fanatics. But what about Asian horror? Being part filipino, I grew up on a lot of asian cinema and lots of asian stories, and I've always been more intrigued by asian mythology and the supernatural. Combine the possibility of fighting with asian vampires, dragons, the Yama Kings of Hell, and summoning the mysterious powers of Ch'i, Ki or anting (a filipino thing) and I think it could make for some really cool gaming. The trick is it can't be TOO overboard, otherwise it loses a sense of plausible denial. Big Trouble in Little China may have actually gone a little too far in that sense, as I would have made the 3 Storms' powers more subtle. Look at the Lord of the Rings movies for example...you didn't see Gandalf and Saruman throwing fireballs at each other. And look at the X-files for a case of its first two seasons giving you the willy-nillies because it seemed like all the cases could have been real...to the end episodes when they were dealing with ghosts and aliens. The ancient Chinese had a saying, "it's what you don't see that is the most provocative". From the popularity of the thread for the Asian Bestiary, I think there's at least a sizeable population interested in something like this. So combine the mysterious supernatural with flying kicks and joint lock reversals set in a more quaint time period when automatic weapons were almost never seen, and the fastest transportation was a fast horse and I think it could be interesting. For a good look at the potential of this campaign setting, take a look at Mystic China from Palladium.

Does anyone know of books or movies about Apocalypses brought forth by climatic changes or meteor impacts? I'd like to take a look at some to give me some inspiration for my own game world. I've been developing a world background in which Earth was hit by several cataclysmic meteors. Initially, it was one huge meteor which would have been literally the end of most life on Earth, but it mysteriously broke up in orbit before landing, creating several smaller but still incredibly devestating impacts. The long shot of it is that this happens a few score years in the future, when man has terraformed Mars and has a few other intra-solar colonies (Io, Europa, the Moon, and some La Grange points have some hefty populations at this point). What this allowed me to do was to create a ravaged society and a high tech one at the same time. In a nutshell, the surviving Earth Colonies band together to try to save Earth, but due to their small numbers (and they are barely self-sufficient themselves) that it takes them a few decades to tool up. By the time they are ready, the surviving Earth populations have settled into various factions, all fighting for survival against each other and the elements. Because these factions have developed a bad case of xenophobia, the "rescuers" are looked down on as just another conqueror...whether they can provide high tech support or not. The game actually takes place a few score years after "The Impact", and society has for the most part recovered on Earth...at least in some areas. Most of the Earth Factions eventually got subdued by the Colonial Government and they have instituted certain laws and taxation in return for medical aid and infrastructure improvements (schools, roads, hospitals, etc). There are however a few "Freezones" which were never absorbed into the NEC...due to a combination of a lack of will on the NEC's part (it's citizens felt that after conquering 80% of the Earth factions, it was good enough) as well as the budgetary constraints of continuing the war. These Freezones are not beholden by NEC laws and are free to pursuse their own customs, technology and trade. So really, my setting has an apocalyptic origin, but a recovered apocalypse. What the cataclysm did is allow me to radically alter human society in a realistic, and logically consistent manner which plays off on several themes. I was very much influenced by the American Civil War, and he main theme that I wanted to get across was the idea of local sovereignty vs. a strong central government. In my world, there really isn't a good guy vs. bad guy world since both sides have their heroes and their villains, their good laws and their bad laws. The apocalyptic setting also allows one to sift through ideological and cultural ways like an archaeologist would...and it leaves some "badlands" for adventurers to explore. I developed the game world not so much for roleplaying originally, but actually for a computer strategy game that I'm slowly working on. I do however want to expand it to a roleplaying setting (much like Battletech was originally a board game, but also had a supporting world storyline). I definitely admire more realistic settings, and a game world has to be plausible and logically consistent. So even in my wargame, the rules are geared more towards realistic considerations (like logistics, morale, command and control, communications, and leadership to name a few). The roleplaying elements will be equally as well-detailed and realistic as I believe this is more fitting of the "grim and gritty" nature of apocalyptic and realistic sci-fi settings.