Hugh Neilson

Silly from a realistic historical and sociological perspective, probably.  From a gaming and publishing perspective, what would the benefit of filling several pages up with the details of 1,700 years of rulership changes, naming each successive ruler in the Royal Family, and discussing changes to those Royal Families every few generations, with a rapid succession of rulers in times of turbulence, going from 2,000 years before the game begins to a mere 300 years past?  Recall that, 300 years ago, there were no United States.  Would you purchase a setting book that went through details of the leadership equivalent to summarizing the leadership in each US state (plus Federal and maybe some of the larger municipalities), before and after becoming a state, and any and all conflicts and border changes and the Federal level, from 1721 to 2021?  There's a sourcebook that would just FLY off the shelves!
 
 

Silly from a realistic historical and sociological perspective, probably.  From a gaming and publishing perspective, what would the benefit of filling several pages up with the details of 1,700 years of rulership changes, naming each successive ruler in the Royal Family, and discussing changes to those Royal Families every few generations, with a rapid succession of rulers in times of turbulence, going from 2,000 years before the game begins to a mere 300 years past?  Recall that, 300 years ago, there were no United States.  Would you purchase a setting book that went through details of the leadership equivalent to summarizing the leadership in each US state (plus Federal and maybe some of the larger municipalities), before and after becoming a state, and any and all conflicts and border changes and the Federal level, from 1721 to 2021?  There's a sourcebook that would just FLY off the shelves!
 
 

Resurrection Regeneration is not well defined.  Is the character considered stabilized, or does he need enough Regeneration to offset that -1 BOD per turn while at negative BOD?  The RAW says:
 
 
So the RAW is not "apply the Regen points every time increment until the character is fully restored".
 
With no standard, how do we determine the variance?  A possibility for consideration (not thought through at all):
 
Determine how long it would take for the character to recover from "dead - negative his BOD score" to full BOD, applying the rate of regeneration otherwise.  In other words, treat it as Regen working normally.  [OPTION: Maybe we increase that time factor because the character was dead.]
 
Check that on the time chart.  Extra Time moves, generally, in 1/2 limitation increments.  For every time increment you move up (or down), apply a -1/2 advantage (or limitation) to the Regeneration adder.
 
So perhaps our character has 15 BOD and 5 BOD per turn Regeneration.  It would take 6 turns to recover 30 BOD.  That's just over a minute, so it counts as "up to 5 minutes" baseline. But it will take him 3 days.  That's less than a week, so we move through 20 min, 1 hour, 6 hours to 1 day and apply a -2 limitation to Resurrection. The cost of the adder becomes 7 points.
 
Now, perhaps he only recovers 1 BOD per week.  It would take 30 weeks, more than a season, so 1 year.  But his whose schtick is that he immediately is restored if he dies.  So we need to move down from a year to a full phase - 11 steps.  That's +5 1/2 on the Resurrection adder.  We then take a -2 on Regeneration as it only works for Resurrection. That's 2 + 20 x 6.5 = 132 AP/3 = 44 real points.  The ability to pop back up a phase after death is pretty powerful at any price, so the bigger question is whether the GM sets a minimum time regardless of point cost.
 
Thoughts?

A peaceful land can also have less peaceful threats lurking in the darkness.
 
With threats lurking around every corner, how does that L2 commoner farmer and wife, and their L1 kids, survive?
 
Many great campaigns see the adventurers dealing with the threats lurking in the shadows, and preventing them bursting forth, and laying waste to the stable, ancient land and its denizens lacking much ability to defend themselves.

The diagram that shows we humans are closer in time to a T Rex than a Stegosauraus is shows that things can be fairly static for a long time, but also that humans move the needle a lot.
 
My view comes back to the game.  Is it good for the game to have a stable history?  Would tossing in a major change a few years back make for a better game?  Perhaps continued stability would be better, or maybe major changes starting when the campaign starts would be better.  Or we could have a world constantly in flux.  We can make up any excuses we want for any level of stability.  "The Gods so will it" - something we don't have to contend with in our mundane world.  We don't have magic - maybe technology just doesn't work in the game world (recalling sweet, cynical Cynosure where magic works in some places and tech in others, but a good sword is pretty much universal).
 
If you have a 1,000 year world history that includes the same level of change reflected from, say, 800 AD to 1800 AD in our world, is it useful to the game?  Are the players so invested in the game world that they will study the minutia of that 1,000 years of history, or are they interested in the current setting, and what it means for them, and don't really care whether the current ruling family came to power 80 years back, or 8,000 years back?  In a fantasy game with magic spells, mighty dragons and bizarre denizens of an underground world which is perhaps even more diverse that the surface world, how important is a "realistic" world history?  Would you place as much energy in making the tax code, or societal views to drugs and alcohol, "realistic and evolving"?
 
Perhaps that 10,000 years of stagnation really does ring hollow for your gaming group.  Maybe that becomes a focal point of the game - what has caused it, what can the player characters do about it, and do they even want to do anything about it?

A peaceful land can also have less peaceful threats lurking in the darkness.
 
With threats lurking around every corner, how does that L2 commoner farmer and wife, and their L1 kids, survive?
 
Many great campaigns see the adventurers dealing with the threats lurking in the shadows, and preventing them bursting forth, and laying waste to the stable, ancient land and its denizens lacking much ability to defend themselves.

That described the analysis paralysis often faced by new Hero players quite well. 
 
 
Not everyone can design and build a better crane, or research a vaccine for a virulent new virus, either. I think this is an excellent analogy. Let's go one step further - what are the Fantasy splatbooks full of?  [OK, besides 💩...]?  New spells.  New classes with new magical abilities.  New technology?  Not so much - the researchers are mainly researching new magic. But many create new magic items to fill up those splatbooks.

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

The diagram that shows we humans are closer in time to a T Rex than a Stegosauraus is shows that things can be fairly static for a long time, but also that humans move the needle a lot.
 
My view comes back to the game.  Is it good for the game to have a stable history?  Would tossing in a major change a few years back make for a better game?  Perhaps continued stability would be better, or maybe major changes starting when the campaign starts would be better.  Or we could have a world constantly in flux.  We can make up any excuses we want for any level of stability.  "The Gods so will it" - something we don't have to contend with in our mundane world.  We don't have magic - maybe technology just doesn't work in the game world (recalling sweet, cynical Cynosure where magic works in some places and tech in others, but a good sword is pretty much universal).
 
If you have a 1,000 year world history that includes the same level of change reflected from, say, 800 AD to 1800 AD in our world, is it useful to the game?  Are the players so invested in the game world that they will study the minutia of that 1,000 years of history, or are they interested in the current setting, and what it means for them, and don't really care whether the current ruling family came to power 80 years back, or 8,000 years back?  In a fantasy game with magic spells, mighty dragons and bizarre denizens of an underground world which is perhaps even more diverse that the surface world, how important is a "realistic" world history?  Would you place as much energy in making the tax code, or societal views to drugs and alcohol, "realistic and evolving"?
 
Perhaps that 10,000 years of stagnation really does ring hollow for your gaming group.  Maybe that becomes a focal point of the game - what has caused it, what can the player characters do about it, and do they even want to do anything about it?

The diagram that shows we humans are closer in time to a T Rex than a Stegosauraus is shows that things can be fairly static for a long time, but also that humans move the needle a lot.
 
My view comes back to the game.  Is it good for the game to have a stable history?  Would tossing in a major change a few years back make for a better game?  Perhaps continued stability would be better, or maybe major changes starting when the campaign starts would be better.  Or we could have a world constantly in flux.  We can make up any excuses we want for any level of stability.  "The Gods so will it" - something we don't have to contend with in our mundane world.  We don't have magic - maybe technology just doesn't work in the game world (recalling sweet, cynical Cynosure where magic works in some places and tech in others, but a good sword is pretty much universal).
 
If you have a 1,000 year world history that includes the same level of change reflected from, say, 800 AD to 1800 AD in our world, is it useful to the game?  Are the players so invested in the game world that they will study the minutia of that 1,000 years of history, or are they interested in the current setting, and what it means for them, and don't really care whether the current ruling family came to power 80 years back, or 8,000 years back?  In a fantasy game with magic spells, mighty dragons and bizarre denizens of an underground world which is perhaps even more diverse that the surface world, how important is a "realistic" world history?  Would you place as much energy in making the tax code, or societal views to drugs and alcohol, "realistic and evolving"?
 
Perhaps that 10,000 years of stagnation really does ring hollow for your gaming group.  Maybe that becomes a focal point of the game - what has caused it, what can the player characters do about it, and do they even want to do anything about it?

I got a text today saying that the little girl is coming home. I'm relieved, to be sure, but also sad and a little frustrated, that it had to have happened at all. 
 
I'll confess that I'm also afraid that certain of the more reactionary elements in my wife's family will look at this as proof that COVID-19 is no big deal and that they don't need to get vaccinated. 

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

First, I did not say "kept in prison indefinitely", I said "unemployable".
 
Second, I asked which crimes were similarly unforgivable, and did not suggest that all crimes are unforgivable. But I am not the one(s) suggesting that his actions were unforgivable either.
 
Finally, if we are addressing degrees of guilt, isn't a stupid choice of a hallowe'en costume decades ago pretty low?  More a misdemeanor than a felony; perhaps just a traffic violation?
 
If he had dressed up as Hannibal Lecter instead, would you be suggesting we keep him away from people under medical care, as we would not want to risk him deciding to have a snack?

So, having not read the Tim Drake "coming out" issues, I do not see passing judgment on whether they are well done or not being practical yet.  I quite liked the story revealing Ben's Jewish heritage (which was really a Thing solo story), building on past details of his youth. 

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!!!"

The typical office worker can open up applications that someone else installed and maybe print to a printer that was setup for them.   If the program is not on the start menu they will not be able to open it.  As far as knowledge of hardware or operating system that is almost non-existent If I were to give your typical office working a new wireless printer with no instruction or software 95% of the population would not be able to set it up.   The typical office worker does not have familiarity with computer programing they have PS office worker.   
 
Most people use a computer the same way they use a car.  Without really understanding how it works. Just because I can drive a car does not mean I have any skill at mechanics at all. 
 

Opening para of an opinion piece in the NYT today, written by a Christian member of the faculty at Duke Divinity School:

 
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/opinion/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandates.html

Is a lawyer required to bring a lawsuit forward, or can a cottage industry of self-represented litigants making their living as abortion law bounty hunters develop? How many cases, especially of that nature, would be settled by paying a claim to the individual initiating the lawsuit?  "Well, you can spend your resources to fight the claim, or pay me $1,000 now to make me go away, knowing that, if you lose, I get at least $10,000, plus my legal bills."  5 settled claims a  month on that basis is a $60,000 annual living. I suspect the Courts will take some action if they start to see huge numbers of such cases taking resources away from their other responsibilities.
 
I'm still waiting for a law to ban abstention.  "Those poor kids didn't even get a chance!"

Not if you want to have multiple swarms acting independently.  It all depends on the effect you're looking for.

Not if you want to have multiple swarms acting independently.  It all depends on the effect you're looking for.

I keep telling myself I will make that insect-based character who can Summon swarms of bugs some day...

I agree that the structure of Summon makes it awkward at best to use and suspect that the writers of Hero never actually used the power to test it out in practical play.  Yes, they're trying to keep it from being overpowered, but I think that they might have gone a bit overboard in that goal.
 
Possibly the best way to judge Summon would be against Mind Control because it gives roughly equivalent effect: an independently acting force carrying out orders.  Is the same level of point cost giving you roughly the same equivalent value in and out of combat?

What are they paying that initial 40 points for?  They could have had an 8 DC attack, +15/+15 defense, 10 resistant. +4 SPD or +4 OCV and +4 DCV.
 
I would suggest the creature's willingness to fight is both campaign-dependant and creature-dependent.  If you encountered this creature in a normal encounter, would it be similarly reluctant to engage in combat? Under this model, I think I would use Summon (if I used it at all) to Summon skill monkeys, transport, beasts of burden or similar, since you seem determined that the power not be useful for combat.

Comparison is tough as neither power is common.  Summon was created for fantasy games and Duplication for Supers games, so I doubt they were ever really reconciled to the other power.


 
Summon requires a full phase, and the creature arrives stunned.  Duplicates require a half phase, and can act in their next phase (or Abort in their next segment), so duplication has the advantage here.


 
If I have multiple Summons, I don’t need an advantage to Summon more than one at a time. That limits Duplication, although since Duplicates are not task-limited, Duplicating in advance is much more viable.


 
Summon costs END, and Duplication does not.  That’s a +1/4 Advantage for Duplication (compared to END only to activate).


 
Duplicates are affected by, and affect, the base character’s damage when duplicating and recombining, an issue Summons do not share.


 
The Summoned being has to be compelled to perform EGO/5 tasks, so what’s that?  4? Recall that one phase of combat is a task.  When the roll is missed, the Summoned being is free to act normally.


 
Amicable beings still limit the number of tasks they will perform.  I’d consider a Duplicate at least Loyal, and the cost of extra tasks is not factored in at that advantage level.


 
If I have Duplicates with altered powers, I generally get to design them.  Summons are generally designed by the GM or pulled from standard campaign creatures.


 
So, can I simulate Duplication with Summon?  Sure, I guess.  I’d need 0 END (+1/2) and probably Devoted (+3/4) at a minimum, it would still take a full phase and they would arrive Stunned.  I’d get [ego/2] tasks out of them, so let’s double that for another +1/4.  Total advantages +1 1/2.


 
I could put Full Phase on my Duplication (-1/2) and Time Limit 1 minute (-2) if I plan to use them as combatants (like Summoned Monsters).  So, for a 400 point character, Summon costs 200 points and Duplication costs 23.  That’s quite a spread.  If I want multiple duplicates, the spread would drop quickly due to

the advantage for Rapid Duplication, though.  
 
Like I said, many differences.  I agree that "duplicate dies means points lost" is problematic, and I'd house rule it away. Most other "points are gone forever" limitations (like Charges don't recover and Independent have been written out).  But Duplication was designed for Supers, where death is rare at best.
 
 
Or +5 to double duplicates, and limit that to not add to total available at any one time.  Either way, though, you're losing points due to the possibility of duplicates dying.  I'd rather remove the orhan rule and allow death of a duplicate to be "permanent" as a radiation accident only - reconfigure the points.

The creature summoned with the friendly advantage will probably not fight to the death, but will probably be ok with fighting in a lot of circumstances.  It will also depend on what you summon and if they have any complications that come into play.  You summon up an Angel and they will probably be willing to help you fighting a demon.