ZootSoot

Re: Legality of masks Look guys, masked vigilantes are criminals. The FF did not just decide to let everyone know their names and not wear masks for the hell of it, they did it to avoid being seen as criminals. Spidey is a criminal, cops yell for him to stop and he takes off, he never presents his ID or sticks around to make a statement. Batman is a criminal, who benefits from a corrupt police commisioner turning a blind eye to his activities. Back in the early eighties the Klan, faced with anti-mask laws, changed their costumes so that their dunce hats no longer hid their faces; this allowed them to demonstrate legally in costume. At the same time the American Nazi Party had some success in recruiting away from the Klan because their uniform did not include a mask . . .

Re: Player vs. Character I understand that impulse, but it repulses me because it makes the heroic behavior the tactical behavior. If you take away the risk of failure then you make my successes without value. I prefer to let the dice fall where they will.

Re: The status of normals in the Superhero genre What can a normal person do in a world of superpowered freaks? At the very least they can die on their feet, I have never seen that happen without the superheroes being forced into a re-evaluation of who they are and what they mean. No matter how big the gap between normals and supers, courage and honor can bridge it. On the other hand, there is no cheaper, uglier hero origin than somebody being "rewarded" with powers for selflessness and heroism; when a normal dies (even if it is a bad death) give them the dignity of letting them stay dead (and maybe extend that courtesy to the supers as well).

Re: What Fantasy/Sci-Fi book have you just finished? Please rate it... Arrrghhhh! The fantasy book I just finished is Eragon. Let's just say no one needed to tell me the author wrote it when he was 15 years old . . .

Re: Your favorite PC vs.. Tomcat vs Spiderman: Spiderman's clinging beats Tomcat's climbing and his swinging beats Tomcat's leap, Spiderman is vastly stronger. Tomcat is as quick as Spidey, and more dextrous; Tomster is at least as tough as Spidey and has, probably, greater reserves of energy. Tomcat is also better than Spidey when it comes to sensing danger. Tomcat is a vastly superior martial artist however, and given enough time will beat Spidey, but it would be one hell of a fight. Tomcat vs. Black Canary. Tomcat loses . . . in a calculated seduction attempt.

Re: Pulp archtypes. As a heroic PC, actually. The way it works is my guy claims vast expertise in the supernatural (but is a complete skeptic in reality) and sets out to use that "expertise" to bilk some victim (and probably bamboozle the other characters). Then if the campaign doesn't involve the real supernatural he/she becomes a resource for spotting frauds and becomes the teams resident debunker, occasionally conning an opponent as well. If the campaign involves the actual supernatural the character gets in far over his/her head and most cooperate with the other PCs to deal with the problem. The most fun I ever had with this character was when he was hired to perform an exorcism against a real monster in CoC game. That got hairy fast . . .

Re: Pulp archtypes. I don't know if this qualifies as an archetype but I have used him in a few games: The Fraudulent Psychic/Spiritualist

Re: Ideal Gloating Guffaw? You want to sare you players? Try this, say the words "Moo hoo ha ha ha" in a dead pan Ben Stein monotone. I do lots of different evil laughs for different villains, when my players heard the villain do that one (before they knew anything about him) they actually tried to back out of playing that night (and not because they thought it would be boring).

Re: building mystery men (the movie) As much fun as Mystery Men is the movie that really captures the feel of a Champions campaign for me is The Specials. The only thing missing was the actual super battles and those are the most boring part of the game for me. "Are those nipples on your armor?"

Re: End of an Era In my world I would play heavily on the fact that when you had the chance you did not kill Darius in the form of a little boy. See, that's not a mistake, that's having moral grit in your craw and in the final battle it's the one thing that, when every clever ploy and use of power has failed, might save your sorry @sses and the world you are trying to protect

Re: After the Ultimate Evil... what? Feh, if all your campaign is about is fighting ever more powerful foes then it is time to kill it and start again. Otherwise, well there should be some serious dramatic, role-playing resources built up here and they should be explored for a time until a new (or returned) ultimate evil starts making ripples in your world. Think about the defeat of the "ultimate" evil being like the end of a BTVS season, you've beaten the guy who was behind all that crap that made your lives difficult but next fall a new mastermind will start to plague you (and not necessarily one that is more powerful or more evil, just different). I always liked the quote from Ironclad about Blowtorch(?) in which he says how people are always calling Takofanes or Dark Seraph the ultimate evil, but then if you do that what then do you call a man who enjoys setting children on fire just to hear them scream. Sadly, evil comes in a number of different flavos, it may be time to try the butterriple now that you have grown tired of vanilla.

Re: Your Inner Circle George Herbert Walker Bush Martha Stewart Oprah Winfrey Bill Cosby Bill Gates Frank Sinatra (now deceased) Pete Wilson Rob Reiner Mario Cuomo Rudy Giuliani

Re: GMs, which character concepts did not make the cut in your game? I never say no to concepts, only to applications. I am less concerned about power levels than about the character being well rounded and complete. Most monster munchkin characters would die of boredom in my games (not that we never have combats, even nasty combats, but we do a hell of a lot of other stuff and it is rare for combat to be the primary goal). Porn Star would not cut it, I guess, because the concept has no breadth and frankly she has nothing to do when not dealing with a foe.

Re: Campaigning for Supervillain PCs... There are three ways in which I have run villain campaigns. A: The heroes are outlaws pursued by governments and the shadow powers that control the governments. This is a world filled with conspiracy and secret powers and the characters have, in gaining powers, been illuminated. Now they struggle to survive in hostile world where their powers put them at the bottom of the secret hierarchy of hidden powers. B: The heroes are devotees of a particular issue which they place above the law. they pursue this regardless of the cimes it forces them to commit. C: Reservoir Dogs. The heroes have minor powers and are dealing with the consequences of a particular crime gone wrong or they are minions of a much greater power and are maneuvering amongst that world in a quest for personal survival and glory. My good guy games are never much encumbered by the genre conventions you mention. I think they detract from the fun of the game.

Re: What would your heroes do about this...? Armando: Is a citizen of Costa Rica. If Costa Rica commits crimes against humanity he would be all over the investigation. Sword Dancer: Given her family's experience in Korea she would never ignore the crimes of her own country. Crimson Tide: Isn't going to sweat about crimes against humanity unless he is specifically drawn into it. It isn't a field that worries him regardless of who is doing it. Gangway: Would be as concerned about such crimes, but she doesn't make distinctions between types of violent crime. She doesn't care if she is looking at assault or an instance of government sanctioned genocide, she's going to stop the particular act she has witnessed. Luna's grandfather was a Nazi party member and an officer at an extermination camp. No one gets any slack from her (Luna is little like her world's Jenny Sparks).

Re: The Authority:What the heck?

Re: The Authority:What the heck? This is lousy evidence for claiming Bruce is smart. His plans for bringing down the rest of the JLA were shown to suck tomatoes through crazy straws. He has kryptonite, but rather than use kryptonite to takedown big blue he develops an untested synthetic kryptonite for his plan (which by making Clark's skin transparent ultimately increased his powers); he made the same mistake as Jonnzz's readers and thought MM's vulnerability to fire was physical, but it turned out to be a phobia so that when JJ's skin caught fire he went berserk and pretty much took out Wally and Diana; he "neutralized" Arthur by making him afraid of water (isn't this a recycled Superfriends episode?). If Bruce is so smart why couldn't he come with contingency plans that actually worked?

Re: The Authority:What the heck? [/i] Tricky. Hitler was elected Chancellor, a position obtained (IIRC) by the runner up in the general election. This was because established right-wing political parties (representing the rich and the aritocrats) thought he would be easy to manipulate and so supported his candidacy. Hitler gained the power to rule by decree when it was voted for him by the legislature . . . but his SA brown shirts were present and essentially threatened to kill anyone who did not vote Hitler this power The bad about The Authority exceptionally poorly defined powers so that the characters have no limits; The other complaints about their politics seem misguided to me. I see the team as being intentionally shown as corrupt and compromised by their powers and decisions. Some people don't like books that explore that aspect, I think it's kind of nifty. (If you can't stand Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever because Covenant is scum, you won't like this title; I can't stand Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever because the author lacks imagination and talent, but my standards are probably lower for comix).

Re: The Authority:What the heck? The means of choosing a monarch need not be hereditary . . .

Re: The Authority:What the heck? I have said it before and I will repeat myself here. Lex Luthor should never have won the presidency, and being president he should have been quickly removed, because in entering that arena his archnemesis should no longer have been Superman but someone far more dangerous to him . . . Clark Kent. Can you imagine the information Kent could have dug up and published on Luthor? Kent should have destroyed Luthor's political career (and for that matter all of his legitimate careers) and his failure to do so is a much greater blot on his character than Superman's restraint in the use of lethal force against Luthor.

Re: The Authority:What the heck? The view of a monarchist. A healthy democracy is one wherein disparate interests are pitted against each other and thus the best (as in least worst) course is achieved. It ain't pretty, nor perfect but it's the best thing we've got (barring divine interventions). Now we haven't had a healthy democracy here in the US in something like seven decades, but that's another matter entirely . . .

Re: The Authority:What the heck? Well, yeah. All these complaints about how awful The Authority is seem to be missing the point (OSISTM), which is, hey, superpowers don't change the moral equation. The best motives in the world are not enough to stop good people (or people who try to be good) from doing evil. Maybe it has become more extreme since the death of Jenny Sparks, but Jenny was no paladin of virtue. The Authority is at its best when it shows how they compromise themselves because of personal feelings, pursuit of power and pure expediency. Give me this any day over the simplistic perfection of The Superfriends.

Re: What superhero world concept are you tired of seeing? I hate mutant titles because it is a really poor example of pseudo-science. With the opening up of genetic knowledge that has occured recently something much better could be done. The mutant origin was better pseudo-science when Stan came up with it; each mutation was unique and unrelated to the others (Hank McCoy was a mutant because his father risked his life shutting down a nuclear reation). Mutant hatred because mutants are a new species is incredibly stupid. Mutants freely interbreed with non-mutants and they do not breed true, they are not a species and within a few generations will be entirely reabsorbed by the general populace (though if you get the Mutant Registration Act passed and ghettoized them sufficiently you could go a fair way to making it a self-fulfilling prophecy). The really foul-smelling stuff is the vast misreading of evolution being spewed by mutant titles and such marvelous stupidities as "extinction" genes. Even if mutants did represent humanity's evolutionary future, logically that would be preferable to the likeliest real world outcome which is human extinction (or displacement by a non-human species). For me sponsored teams only work when the sponsors and the team members have incompatible goals. That's what makes the story worth reading. The worst thing that ever happened with team books was "The New Defenders" when everything that made "The Defenders" cool was ejected in order to make a nostalgic homage to the original X-Men. I like dark stories and dark heroes. I can't stand heroes who kill because they set out to kill or who kill in order to punish a villain. I think the defining moment of making Spawn suck was when he murdered the child-molester Ice-Cream man. Both because it was a blatant appeal to popular prejudice which wants to kill pedophiles in grotesque ways because they are "safe" targets for hate, and because it was filled with stupidly inexplicable stuff (how do you stab someone with an ice-cream scooper?) and was supposed to have been done without the use of demonic powers. I don't have a problem with a hero who is willing to kill a foe in the course of a fight, vindictive killing is what is truly unheroic. Vaguely defined powers on the part of both heroes and villains in order to make it easier for the writers to have anything happen they want is a pet peeve. Admittedly this has to be done from an editorial viwpoint, and has always been done to an extent, but it has gotten worse. Marvel first serious descent into this field (that I caught, at least) was Apocalypse who was initially introduced with no specific power except the ability to counter any strategy the X-men would use against him. DC has fallen much deeper into this rabbit hole with story conventions being elevated to the level of physical law, while most of the independents are drowning in it (The Authority in particular doesn't really define what any of the characters can do).

Re: Character Concept Question: Jack Hawksmore? Well, being aliens their motivations are probably alien to us. Also, this may not have been difficult or expensive for them, maybe it is the equvialent of a fourth grade science fair project? Besides, the character concept for all of these characters is the same: This character has the power to kick anyone's @ss the writer wants them to. At least that's the only explanation I can see to explain Hawksmoor's killing of Rose Tattoo.

Re: Dealing with Invisible Heroes Well, my solution with this background is simply to make it all or nothing. He can be undetectable, but he can't interact with the world, he can interact with the world but he can'tbe undetectable. This means he can be a great spy, but is much more limited as an "assassin" and it means that often, in order to get good use from his power he has to take risks when he is not using his power.