Hugh Neilson

Interesting that the article identifies the convicted individual as Black, but does not mention the racial status of the judge.  Thank you for that addendum.

I'd say the OP's 6 points per level is probably reasonable if the increased mass is going to be ignored.  Now you are just buying the stats, with "costs END", which would be 6 points per level.  Although even then, you could also be Limiting them with Unified Power and/or Linked.

Player 1: I put 2 skill levels in OCV and 3 in DCV; I'll attack the rock-guy with an Uppercut.  That makes my OCV 11, and I roll a 13 - hits DCV 9.
 
GM: That easily hits...roll damage.
 
[several actions later]
 
GM: The rock-man lashes out trying to Grab PC 1 - good roll, he his DCV 12!
 
Player 1:  Good thing I stayed on the the defensive - he misses my 14 DCV.
 
I don't see this slowing the game.  If Player 1 sucks at math, it seems like another player can easily help him determine his OCV, add 11 and subtract 3d6 without knowing the opponent's DCV and jot down his DCV for him at his action.
 
 
"The two normal-looking bystanders are panicking, weaving wildly in the street.  One is shrieking like a little girl.  Five security guards, their smoking guns indicating they have recently been fired, appear to be maintaining their composure, and are bobbing and weaving.  They look pretty skilled, comparable to VIPER agents or a SWAT team.  You rounded the corner just in time to see PC 2 blast one thug, who is reeling from the blow.  A second thug levels his gun at you -he's bobbing and weaving much like the guards. Pulsar (someone has to be the boss..."the guy in the yellow and orange costume" will do if he has not been identified) is scampering about wildly - seems like he's more focused on not being hit than counterattacking - seems pretty average agility for a Super."
 
If he wasn't looking for a sniper on the rooftops and didn't luckily roll a 3 PER roll walking around the corner, forget it!   If he did, the best he might do is the glint of a possible weapon on that rooftop WAY over there.  The distance and positioning make the difficulty hitting him quite obvious.
 
Now, if the PC had been there all along, he would have seen what each person or group did on their action, and would not need the whole paragraph at once, if the player is actually engaged in the game.
 
In any case, I'd rather have a slower combat with good descriptions and role playing than "he attacks; take 34 STUN, 8 BOD, 4 meters knockback".  If the goal is to make combat fast, just roll an opposed "Supers Combat Skill" and describe the aftermath.  What I find slows combat is poor OCV/DCV matchips (so people rarely hit) or too high a defense to DC ratio so too many hits are needed to KO.  Bumping the opponents' OCVs  up 2, and DCs up 3, offset by reducing their DCVs by 2 and their Defenses by 10 speeds those combats up quite nicely.

Player 1: I put 2 skill levels in OCV and 3 in DCV; I'll attack the rock-guy with an Uppercut.  That makes my OCV 11, and I roll a 13 - hits DCV 9.
 
GM: That easily hits...roll damage.
 
[several actions later]
 
GM: The rock-man lashes out trying to Grab PC 1 - good roll, he his DCV 12!
 
Player 1:  Good thing I stayed on the the defensive - he misses my 14 DCV.
 
I don't see this slowing the game.  If Player 1 sucks at math, it seems like another player can easily help him determine his OCV, add 11 and subtract 3d6 without knowing the opponent's DCV and jot down his DCV for him at his action.
 
 
"The two normal-looking bystanders are panicking, weaving wildly in the street.  One is shrieking like a little girl.  Five security guards, their smoking guns indicating they have recently been fired, appear to be maintaining their composure, and are bobbing and weaving.  They look pretty skilled, comparable to VIPER agents or a SWAT team.  You rounded the corner just in time to see PC 2 blast one thug, who is reeling from the blow.  A second thug levels his gun at you -he's bobbing and weaving much like the guards. Pulsar (someone has to be the boss..."the guy in the yellow and orange costume" will do if he has not been identified) is scampering about wildly - seems like he's more focused on not being hit than counterattacking - seems pretty average agility for a Super."
 
If he wasn't looking for a sniper on the rooftops and didn't luckily roll a 3 PER roll walking around the corner, forget it!   If he did, the best he might do is the glint of a possible weapon on that rooftop WAY over there.  The distance and positioning make the difficulty hitting him quite obvious.
 
Now, if the PC had been there all along, he would have seen what each person or group did on their action, and would not need the whole paragraph at once, if the player is actually engaged in the game.
 
In any case, I'd rather have a slower combat with good descriptions and role playing than "he attacks; take 34 STUN, 8 BOD, 4 meters knockback".  If the goal is to make combat fast, just roll an opposed "Supers Combat Skill" and describe the aftermath.  What I find slows combat is poor OCV/DCV matchips (so people rarely hit) or too high a defense to DC ratio so too many hits are needed to KO.  Bumping the opponents' OCVs  up 2, and DCs up 3, offset by reducing their DCVs by 2 and their Defenses by 10 speeds those combats up quite nicely.

Player 1: I put 2 skill levels in OCV and 3 in DCV; I'll attack the rock-guy with an Uppercut.  That makes my OCV 11, and I roll a 13 - hits DCV 9.
 
GM: That easily hits...roll damage.
 
[several actions later]
 
GM: The rock-man lashes out trying to Grab PC 1 - good roll, he his DCV 12!
 
Player 1:  Good thing I stayed on the the defensive - he misses my 14 DCV.
 
I don't see this slowing the game.  If Player 1 sucks at math, it seems like another player can easily help him determine his OCV, add 11 and subtract 3d6 without knowing the opponent's DCV and jot down his DCV for him at his action.
 
 
"The two normal-looking bystanders are panicking, weaving wildly in the street.  One is shrieking like a little girl.  Five security guards, their smoking guns indicating they have recently been fired, appear to be maintaining their composure, and are bobbing and weaving.  They look pretty skilled, comparable to VIPER agents or a SWAT team.  You rounded the corner just in time to see PC 2 blast one thug, who is reeling from the blow.  A second thug levels his gun at you -he's bobbing and weaving much like the guards. Pulsar (someone has to be the boss..."the guy in the yellow and orange costume" will do if he has not been identified) is scampering about wildly - seems like he's more focused on not being hit than counterattacking - seems pretty average agility for a Super."
 
If he wasn't looking for a sniper on the rooftops and didn't luckily roll a 3 PER roll walking around the corner, forget it!   If he did, the best he might do is the glint of a possible weapon on that rooftop WAY over there.  The distance and positioning make the difficulty hitting him quite obvious.
 
Now, if the PC had been there all along, he would have seen what each person or group did on their action, and would not need the whole paragraph at once, if the player is actually engaged in the game.
 
In any case, I'd rather have a slower combat with good descriptions and role playing than "he attacks; take 34 STUN, 8 BOD, 4 meters knockback".  If the goal is to make combat fast, just roll an opposed "Supers Combat Skill" and describe the aftermath.  What I find slows combat is poor OCV/DCV matchips (so people rarely hit) or too high a defense to DC ratio so too many hits are needed to KO.  Bumping the opponents' OCVs  up 2, and DCs up 3, offset by reducing their DCVs by 2 and their Defenses by 10 speeds those combats up quite nicely.

Player 1: I put 2 skill levels in OCV and 3 in DCV; I'll attack the rock-guy with an Uppercut.  That makes my OCV 11, and I roll a 13 - hits DCV 9.
 
GM: That easily hits...roll damage.
 
[several actions later]
 
GM: The rock-man lashes out trying to Grab PC 1 - good roll, he his DCV 12!
 
Player 1:  Good thing I stayed on the the defensive - he misses my 14 DCV.
 
I don't see this slowing the game.  If Player 1 sucks at math, it seems like another player can easily help him determine his OCV, add 11 and subtract 3d6 without knowing the opponent's DCV and jot down his DCV for him at his action.
 
 
"The two normal-looking bystanders are panicking, weaving wildly in the street.  One is shrieking like a little girl.  Five security guards, their smoking guns indicating they have recently been fired, appear to be maintaining their composure, and are bobbing and weaving.  They look pretty skilled, comparable to VIPER agents or a SWAT team.  You rounded the corner just in time to see PC 2 blast one thug, who is reeling from the blow.  A second thug levels his gun at you -he's bobbing and weaving much like the guards. Pulsar (someone has to be the boss..."the guy in the yellow and orange costume" will do if he has not been identified) is scampering about wildly - seems like he's more focused on not being hit than counterattacking - seems pretty average agility for a Super."
 
If he wasn't looking for a sniper on the rooftops and didn't luckily roll a 3 PER roll walking around the corner, forget it!   If he did, the best he might do is the glint of a possible weapon on that rooftop WAY over there.  The distance and positioning make the difficulty hitting him quite obvious.
 
Now, if the PC had been there all along, he would have seen what each person or group did on their action, and would not need the whole paragraph at once, if the player is actually engaged in the game.
 
In any case, I'd rather have a slower combat with good descriptions and role playing than "he attacks; take 34 STUN, 8 BOD, 4 meters knockback".  If the goal is to make combat fast, just roll an opposed "Supers Combat Skill" and describe the aftermath.  What I find slows combat is poor OCV/DCV matchips (so people rarely hit) or too high a defense to DC ratio so too many hits are needed to KO.  Bumping the opponents' OCVs  up 2, and DCs up 3, offset by reducing their DCVs by 2 and their Defenses by 10 speeds those combats up quite nicely.

So, if we reveal that Ben Grimm is Jewish, it';s just hack writing.   Never mind that he grew up in an area with a high Jewish population, his name ("Benjamin Jacob Grimm") is quite consistent with being Jewish and his religion (Jewish or otherwise) has never cropped up, it's "hack writing"?  Ditto Colossal Boy, a character in an ensemble cast where we have never seen any indication of religion (especially being a thousand years in the future), turning out to be Jewish is "hack writing".
 
Would it have been better writing for everyone to be Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or agnostic, or atheist, because that is what you, one reader, imputed from the fact their religion had never been mentioned?  Maybe LSH should have assumed that religions which have already survived 2+ millennia would not make it another thousand years?  Black Manta should have been white because we'd never seen under  the helmet, and lots of people are white, so he must be white?
 
If a character is solidly straight (or Catholic) one issue, then securely bisexual (or Jewish) in the next, followed by being confidently homosexual (or an uncertain agnostic), and has been all his life, six months later, I'd call that hack writing.  Diving into character attributes that have never been solidly defined in past appearances?  Not so much.  Especially when a lot of that character's appearances have either been as a secondary character (Robin to Bruce's Batman) or part of an ensemble cast (the many Teen Titans books), not a solo star whose psyche and relationships have typically been front & center.
 
But we are back to the constant criticism of comics.  "Nothing ever changes - how boring!"  "You changed that?  YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!!!"

JMS was on record, as I recall, that each major character had a "trap door" in his grand scheme that would permit them to be written out if need be.

Quite possibly, but I think it's better for Artists to create something from scratch, or from very 'distant" sources, rather than borrow from their contemporaries. If you are going to draw Mickey Mouse, or Superman, then just accept a "work for hire" contract, and get paid.

Well said. As an illustrator and graphic designer who does work for hire, I'm quite okay with the agreement that my employer (or their clients) own and control work I do on the job in exchange for a steady paycheck (and health insurance). I entered that agreement with eyes open, and could have chosen instead to create art on my own time and be responsible for all the costs, marketing, and so forth if I wanted sole ownership and control. Admittedly I've never created IP that became a major element of popular culture like Mickey Mouse or Superman did, but it's not as if comic book companies yanked those early writers and artists off the streets and impressed them into servitude against their will.

JMS was on record, as I recall, that each major character had a "trap door" in his grand scheme that would permit them to be written out if need be.

That concept is often referred to as "work for hire".  Let's say DC Comics hires me to write a new series, and I create a brand-new Superhero.  I'm working for them.  They own the fruits of my creativity.  And I get paid whatever we agreed that I get paid for writing that series.
 
Who got the better deal?
 
Well, if I created, say, Cyborg, the I'd say they got the better deal.  But if I created Brother Power, the Geek?  Not so much.  I have chosen the low-risk approach, trading away the potential benefits if I create a real winner to still get paid if my work does not sell.
 
Maybe I really think my creation has potential.  I can always self-publish and reap all the rewards.  But I also pay all the costs, and take all the risks.  If it doesn't sell, I may be writing for DC for a long time after to pay off my creditors.  And don't think DC Comics will be promoting my indie creation with their house ads!

What do you call a wreath made of $100 bills?
 
 
 
There is. It's in the A-hole.

Why is it "nonsensical" to propose treating real property and intellectual property in the same manner?
 
Real property is yours or your heirs (barring unlikely events like eminent domain or an earthquake sinking your property under the sea).
 
Intellectual property is yours or your heirs as long as you never publish it in any way. But if you do, it is automatically taken away from your control at some point.
 
I can see the point of that with patents for inventions.
 
I but I see no rationale for it, at all, when it comes to artistic endeavors like Captain Underpants. The creator might be cornering the market on "Captain Underpants" but he's in no way limiting the market for children's characters. Or even children's superhero characters.
 
And society isn't experiencing an undue burden from lack of Mickey Mouse cartoons because Disney is owning the character and other authors are not getting to use that one particular character.
 
Mickey Mouse isn't a folk hero of some sort. The popularity the character has is because the corporation which owns it has spent huge wads of money keeping the character in the public's eye. 
 
 
 
Geez, I gotta get some sleep. Can't focus enough to finish making a point....

Similar to Archer's point, if I build a house on a plot of land, how long should I have the right to use, or direct the use, of that house?  We could use it for low-income housing, a shelter for battered women or runaway children, an orphanage or various other public uses, or just knock it down and have a little park there.  When does the real estate revert to the public domain?  If I sell it, how long should the buyer retain exclusive rights to the property?
 
Let's try some real-life examples, and maybe people can assess how their preferred  models would work.
 
EXAMPLE #1
 
John Lennon died in 1980.  How long should his widow, children - whoever he selected under his will - benefit from his works? In other words, how long should he control who benefits from his labour and creativity?
 
Now, contrast that with how long Paul McCartney should control the benefits from his labour and creativity.
 
EXAMPLE #2
 
In what year should I be allowed to publish a game that's about 15% generic superhero setting with a few sample characters, 10% small derivative mini-adventure/adventure seeds and 75% a reproduction of the Hero System rules?  Recall that Champions 1e was published in 1981, 40 years ago.  Its original creators sold the rights 20 or so years ago (5th Edition was released in 2001).
 
EXAMPLE #3
 
Elsewhere on the Boards, there's a discussion about the planned re-imagining of Babylon 5.  Why can't CW, or anyone else, just do whatever they want with the B5 concept, characters, etc.?  The original ran from 1994 to 1998 - it's been well; over 20 years.  Yet the only real optimism about this venture is that J. Michael Straczynski remains heavily involved.
 
Now, he could still be heavily involved if we ditched the copyrights, and removed any ability of JMS to govern the use of his concepts.  But anyone else could also do a Babylon 5 project without his involvement, at the same time if they were so inclined.
 
At the same time, because WB controls the TV rights, JMS has largely been blocked from using B5 for the past couple of decades.  But he chose to assign those rights to WB - and WB freighted a lot of costs and risks in producing the show, which was massively different from the TV norms of the day, and consequently massively risky.  Would WB (or anyone else) have fronted those costs and risks if they could not be confident they would reap the rewards if the show was a success?  JMS could not have funded the project himself.

That concept is often referred to as "work for hire".  Let's say DC Comics hires me to write a new series, and I create a brand-new Superhero.  I'm working for them.  They own the fruits of my creativity.  And I get paid whatever we agreed that I get paid for writing that series.
 
Who got the better deal?
 
Well, if I created, say, Cyborg, the I'd say they got the better deal.  But if I created Brother Power, the Geek?  Not so much.  I have chosen the low-risk approach, trading away the potential benefits if I create a real winner to still get paid if my work does not sell.
 
Maybe I really think my creation has potential.  I can always self-publish and reap all the rewards.  But I also pay all the costs, and take all the risks.  If it doesn't sell, I may be writing for DC for a long time after to pay off my creditors.  And don't think DC Comics will be promoting my indie creation with their house ads!

I believe royalties are paid for the use of a copywritten work.  No copyright, no royalties.  Are you suggesting that, when the work passes into public domain, each use of the work continue to generate royalties for the creator?
 
Now, let's take this one step further.  The owner of real estate can receive rent, or sell the property (that is, the right to collect those rents) to someone else.  Would your model permit the creator of the work to sell their right to future royalties to a third party, realizing all of the capital now instead of receiving a bit of income every year?

JMS was on record, as I recall, that each major character had a "trap door" in his grand scheme that would permit them to be written out if need be.

I believe royalties are paid for the use of a copywritten work.  No copyright, no royalties.  Are you suggesting that, when the work passes into public domain, each use of the work continue to generate royalties for the creator?
 
Now, let's take this one step further.  The owner of real estate can receive rent, or sell the property (that is, the right to collect those rents) to someone else.  Would your model permit the creator of the work to sell their right to future royalties to a third party, realizing all of the capital now instead of receiving a bit of income every year?

So let's say I'm an author.
 
If I'm understanding the stance of some people here, the only way to stop whatever I write from going into the public domain, regardless of my personal wishes or how many contracts I sign, should be to burn the manuscript immediately after writing it.
 
Because otherwise, I should have no permanent control over my own creation other than completely destroying it before anyone reads it.
 
That seems so wrong on so many levels (place the emphasis on whichever word or words seems most appropriate).

Thank you for the information. I was rabid about this show during the 90’s. It would be interesting to see what a sligh larger budget and 25 years of technological progress will give the shows look. At the time JMS was known for keeping the show on time and under budget. 
 
I also have mixed feelings about this, as most current year shows are saddled with personally unattractive agenda, which is why I have been watching the old show with my mother as it’s on HBO Max and she has a better TV than I do. She’s a Trekkie and it took her one season of it to get the characters straight. Other than the kind of rough FX, it still hold up due to the writing and the acting performances. 

Like that "Shakespeare" fellow a few hundred years back?

"Good" and "Evil" are very nebulous.  If the game is to use them as absolute concepts, it needs to provide absolute definitions.  We might disagree with whether "Game Defined Good" is actually "philosophical good", but if we have an in-game definition, unmodified by house rules, such as "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." then that is the definition.   My character may believe Good is about prioritizing innocent lives over every other choice, or the "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" (no hesitation sacrificing one innocent person to save five, or killing Hitler as a baby, or all those trope moral dilemmas), or perhaps "my country" or "my religion" above all else, but his good is a compromise, or even a refutation, of Alignment Good.
 
The potential for disagreement is a reason to discuss and firm up Psych's in Hero as well, and evaluate the frequency and severity based on the player and GM conceptions. That may mean "I see Code vs Killing, Absolute Commitment" meaning that your character would only use lethal force (more than 6 DCs) against a known adversary who can reliably emerge uninjured; would be a vegetarian; would actively impede a teammate risking lives (including blasting an unknown enemy at full force); would save the villain from a death he has brought on himself, even at the risk of his own life - is your character that extreme, or did you want to downgrade that complication to be less severe?
 
That's obviously a very extreme view of C v K, but so is "What? Your Paladin killed the Orc prisoner who slaughtered villages of helpless peasants? He loses all his powers and changes alignment.", and similar issues which have caused such anti-alignment vitriol by many D&D players over the years.  If the GM and/or players view alignment, or psychological complications, or any other element of the game as role playing straightjackets that suck fun out of the game rather than providing opportunities for challenges and role playing that enhance enjoyment of the game, Duke's response - remove it from the game - is the right one.  Unfortunately, not everyone finds the same things fun.  If Charlie likes his character's morals and ethics to be challenged by a grey, dark world, and Pat does not enjoy playing out ethical dilemmas, and wants to be a True Blue Hero with right and wrong color-coded and hard-wired, either one of them has to compromise, or one of them needs to find a different game.

No more so than a lot of attempts to quickly define personality traits.  Does “honourable” mean the same thing to every Hero GM and player?  Or the aforementioned “Code versus Killing”?  Does the latter require strict vegetarianism?  

My problem with the Mickey Mouse argument is that unlike most of the others, that character is the "face" of Disney. He isn't just a cartoon character anymore, he is a representative logo. It's Ronald McDonald or the Gecko from Geico. I can understand Disney not wanting him on public domain. I think he is a different case then many of them.
 
It was mentioned that do we not give credit to writers who really elevated a character. Do we give Thor's creator credit or Williamson who really brought the character popularity. What about Burns, who seemed to breathe new life into so many characters and redefined them in ways still used today.
 
Miller with Daredevil and Batman.
As Spence was saying, I don't know and wouldnt want to be the one deciding.