ZootSoot

Re: Superhero Showdown #8: Mr. Fantastic v. Plastic-Man Reed's intelligence is all technology and abstract science. Eel is not the freaking moronic @ss that DC potrays him as now but a very clever guy whose mastery not only of malleable body tricks but tactics and strategies involving them is supreme. Reed Richards cannot beat him, unless we give him access to a whangzoom lab of Kirby-esque fascist tech.

Norse mythology is not of the same kind as Greek. The relationships of the gods varies more from place to place, because Scandinavia never had the history of being conquered that Greece had (Poseidon is god of the sea,and the creator of horses!!!), so a dominant deity matcing the patron of the dominant race never emerged. While the most common (Snorri Sturlison's?) version has Loki bneing Odin's adopted brother, his being Thor's brother is certainly possible insome of the myths. Similarly Odin All-father seems to have been cobbled up as an answer to the Christian singular god; in many myths Thor is the ruler of the gods of Asgard and is clearly, overall, more powerful than all the others. The worst thing Marvel did with Norse mythology was the demonization of Loki who, as the Norse face of the trickster archetype, moved freely from good to evil and back again with relative ease.

Re: My 2.5 cents. An explanation on why Jordan is bad? All right, first there is the premise of a world in which the same story happens over and over and over again for all eternity with people only being saved fom the boredom inflicted on the readers because their memories fade; and all the little sub bits of nonsense such as legendary heroes whose legends grow of the course of many re-incarnations but with the heroes themselves having no memory of having lived before when they are alive (how does that multiple lifetime legend thing work again?). Then there is the hodge-podge of invention, with him coming up with random magical notions to cover his butt as he goes along (the gholam, the resurrection of the Forsaken when they are slain, etc). There is his painful geography (an excellent match for his painful history) as the entire story is set on a square continent. The tiresome and predictable misogyny (probably not really Jordan's fault, as he did attend the Citadel). His endless dissection of military maneuvers (probably not really Jordan's fault, as he did attend the Citadel). His use of the tiredest cliche in all fantasy fiction, the BAD. Finally, and probably wrst, his hero is endlessly successful in his opposition to the Bad, never once suffering a setback at the hands of his foe, combined with the central premise of the story, Jordan renders the experience of reading his prose about as intriguing as reading the ads in the real estate section of your local big city newspaper.

I despise Donaldson, but not because Thomas Covenant is unsympathetic. That was the only good thing about his writing, if it had been placed in marginally more competent hands (say those of Koko the gorilla) it would have been a welcome respite from tiresome, pure-hearted cretins saving the world. But Donaldson has the Midas touch, anything he touches turns into mufflers . . .

Re: Worst. Swords and Sorcery. Ever. There is always something worse out there. There's Piers Anthony's Xanth, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, Stephen Donaldson, Eragon,there are endless numbers of books titled Sword(blank), or (blank)Dragon, there is endlessly repulsive selection masticated and vomited up Celtic mythology (in fact, I don't think I have seen any fantasy in at least the last 20 years that wasn't Celtic influenced), and there are any number of second-rate imitations of J.R.R. Tolkien's boys' adventure stories, there is E. Nesbitt and her disciple Edward Eager, and as good as J.K Rowlings' Harry Potter is, it has its share of cheese as well.

Hey, you can't bogart that stuff, share what you're smoking. The Death of Superman was so bad I wouldn't use it as toilet paper, and it could have been good. They could have introduced Doomsday as a real character with real motivations, they could have had Superman behave rationally ("I'm sorry little boy but if I break of to rescue your sister, and there are only about fifty other superheroes around here who could probably save her, who knows how many people Doosmday will kill before I can get back to the fight"). Bah, the post Death story lines have only made Dosday more ridiculous and brought further contempt upon DC's conception of how the universe works. Death is the quintessentially awful DC-type story (not that there aren't good DC type stories just as there are bad Marvel-type stories and the good and the bad of each type appear in all super hero comic publications).

Definately the best experience, but you don't all have to want the same thing, you have to respect each other's desires and respect game continuity.

Re: Would you rather game as a player or a gamemaster, and why? Tough one. I prefer being a player because it lets me develop a single individual, a personal history, personality and to explore the possibilities of someone very different from myself. On the other hand, so many games are pedestrian, unimaginative or offer no room for doing new things, that I much prefer to GM than play in them. I am a good GM, I can create a detailed world and I can run things off the cuff, and I will step in to offer to run when things are getting out of hand; but I do prefer to be a player.

Just had to ask

Strange trivia? Strange is so powerful that when a group of villains defeated the Defenders (you know, the most fearsome superhuman non-team ever), including Strange himself, he transfered a fraction of his power to another and that one wiped the floor witrh the villains. So what? That other was Howard the Duck!!! Fate is in serious trouble here . . .

The Human Torch is a mess of killing attacks. Superman should kill just about anyone he lays a hand. While Wolverine does kill, he also uses his claws in combat without killing. Almost every comic book character out there regularly uses dangerous, KA type attacks, sometimes exclusively, without causing irrevocable havoc. I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for reckless use of force; but if you wish to simulate the genre then it is incumbent on both players and GMs to work to achieve it. You can have all sorts of in game consequences for poorly conceived actions, but if you allow the characters to murder bystanders willy-nilly then, in genre, the only appropriate in game consequences will be to end those characters' careers; I would think this would not be fun for either the players or the GM.

A standard genre convention is not tht characters do not have or do not use killing attacks, even irresponsibly; it is, rather, that, for some reason, such use never results in truly ugly events. If your players choose to use KAs against targets that cannot withstand them, have events conspire to save the targets or reveal the targets are more than they seem. This is probably the simplest way to reconcile their actions with your vision.

Re: Re: Re: How to make the Villains Interesting Well, for example, in DC Hell is a place with a zip code and a civic government. Good always triumphs. The Amazo Android literally has all the powers of the Justice League regardless of who is in that membership (and when the League was disbanded it had no powers at all). Essentially, in the big DC plots there is only one possible solution and it generally involves working with these sorts of "meta" rules and until the heroes figure out this approach nothing works. That's fine in a comic, the heroes figure things out when the writer wants them to; in a game, the players figure it out way too early to allow the story to work (the most common outcome; GMs who want the story to work out must alter the basic idea of what they have been doing, a players will see things being switched around and it will upset them), they fail to come up with the solution at all (the GM has to give them the solution if the story is to continue, and the players will resent this), or the players figure it out very slowly (and the GM has to retard the story in a number of awkward, silly and obvious ways and the players will resent this). Plus, this approach means that if the players' clever solution isn't the one, it won't work. Also, bnecause of the nature of the DC universe, players know that they have to come up with a "clever" solution, again and again and again.

Re: How to make the Villains Interesting Also, don't make your villains , generally (preferably ever, but some people are hung up on this), evil. Nothing gets tired faster than characters whose motivations are senseless. Rather than have the big villains being opposed by NPCs to start with (a sure way to make your players feel like a side show) have their early moves be subtle and non-criminal and built up their plans simultaneously with your players gaining experience so that both are ripe at approximately the same time. Bad guys as members of a rival frat? Villains shold not be primarily interested in attracting the heroes' attention; that is counterproduictive. Instead they should be pursuing their own goals, which as GM you can tailor to intersect with the pcs' own. DC comics do not translate well into the games. Symbolic/ideal rules have real physical force in DC, one can accomodate this in a game only by railroading the players. It gts tiresome fast. If you don't want your players to grow so frustrated that they start "accidentally" killing the bad guys, make the justice system fairly reliable and keep the prison break-outs down to a bare minimum. Also, while the recurring villains are a comic staple, inexplicably unbeatable villains who keep coming back in a game can be very annoying for the players. The big secret to doing this isn't in preparing a method by which the villain's plans can be unhinged (after all the way you want him beat may not fit within the players' viewpoint), it is allowing the best plan the players come up with the be workable (not that it will necessarily work, but their ideas be appropriate even if this involves considerable transformation of the npcs plans and powers to do so). Good stuff.

Hmmn, I don't have a problem designing games where telepathy and other mental powers are useful but not gamewreckers. But, the fun thing to do with the mentalists (for me as a GM) is to provide situations that tempt them to do unethical things . . . and every player cracks and does them. This can be sort of fun, but it does get frustrating for the other players, can even ruin their fun entirely. In general, most mental powers just aren't very, um, heroic. I mind f

Absolutely, also (and this is one reason for the presence of "exotic" coins in obscure locations) coins were not "money" in the way we think of it; instead, they were an aspect of the barter economy and relly had no more fixed value than anything else someone might be tying to trade.

This is an exagerration. Archeological evidence shows that currency was widespread in many pre-industrial societies. Pennies are pretty common throughout twelfth century British sites. But, yes, many times individuals would be more willing to trade something of obvious utility than simply accept currency (which might be clipped or debased in some form anyway). This varies according to particular environments. Some locations will have natural surpluses. Also, in northern Europe, beer was probably at least as common as gruel as a form in which grains were consumed (and much safer than the water available, too). On the other hand, it was a tradition in war to loot the bodies of the slain and the equipment that made a man a "knight" was traditionally forfeit to the individual who defeated him in single combat, even when such combat resulted in one combatant's death. And an outlaw, by definition, was outside the protection of the law.

Re: Creating a fantasy $ system Remember also that much of one's labor is compensated directly through food (you grow) housing (you build it) etc rathr than through wages. Another reason why you can charge more is that adventurers are, quite often, in a non-mercantile setting and what they want may be disproportionately valued because it is necessary for the locals. I avoid fixed price lists and instead set ranges and require appropriate skill rolls (though I always make Haggling an everyman skill in this sort of setting). I am sure there are, but some things are simply not going to be available at any price or at any budget. Importing goods is rare and many communities might have either no one with the skills to make a particular weapon or lack the necessary raw materials (or both). Also time, quality and price are interrelated; to some extent manipulating one can effect the other two. Again, Haggling skill is useful for identifying the difference between actual difficulties and negotiating techniques. Swords are expensive in more ways than simple monetary value. They require considerable training to use, so anyone openly carrying one probably knows how to use it. Don't give thugs expensive weaponry for the players to barter off. Also, swords are difficult to craft (in most tech levels where they are used) each one can be fairly unique and identifiable so that they can't be easily pawned (particularly if the only person likely to buy them in a particular area is the person who probably forged them in the first place). Swords that are cheap aren't worth selling, more valuable swords are harder to take off their rightful owners and harder to sell.

Re: Low fantasy, anyone? I prefer low fantasy, but what most people call low fantasy I consider high fantasy indeed.

A little background on me. I am approaching thirty-years of gaming experience, I have played in every genre and in a vast array of systems and I believe conflict is necessary to keep a game going and the more conflict the better. But, I also don't believe that the GM is god nor that the GM is solely responsible for the world or the tone of the game. So, yes give your players hell as villains. But don't do this to be vindictive, do this to keep your game alive. Walking away from a campaign is always the very last resort, because almost any campaign has untapped potential.

Four things come to mind. One. Are the players acting out against you? Have you made them unhappy with the way the world treats them? If so cracking down on them for this will only make things worse. Give them an out, an opportunity to turn this into a sophisticated ruse or to make them victims of a villainous plot. Tailor your game a bit more to their expectations from here on in. Two. Your players, from what I can see, are playing a fairly classic form of comic book villainy; that is they are engaging in pointless acts which are illegal and violent, so if nothing else, you can take advantage of their stupidity. In particular I think the Russian mob boss would be better served using them as a distraction from his real businesses raher than relying upon them and in particular taking full advantage of their aid while giving them nothing in exchange. Three. You want to run a villain campaign? Then you are going to have to find a way to motivate the players. Too much success and there is no point to villainy. After all, it's not reactive like heroism and new challenges do not need to be met. The best way I have found is to make the players very low powered and serving a real master villain who gives them assignements they don't know the significance of, which they can't accomplish on brute power and where losing doesn't end their careers every time. Done right, they could actually become fed up enough with being villains to turn on him and try to be heoes again; which brings me to . . . Four. There is no point in comics where a character can't be rehabilitated and become a hero. Magneto has jumped the fence, Namor has jumped the fence, Thunderbolts, Punisher, Venom et c. In genre it doesn't take that much to turn things around so don't asume you are stuck with either a villain campaign or a dead one. Roll with it and go.

I just don't see any technology penetrating the secret ID of hero/villain of the Captain Marvel style. No one will guess he is really Billy Batson, it won't even be a possibility (and, yes, I know that in the original comic Billy Batson/Capatin Marvel did not have a secret identity and everyone did know, but if he wanted one it wouldn't be hard . . .).

Captain Courage was the first major superhero the world ever knew. He first appeared in he mid 1950s and he has been at the forefront of every serious challenge. But what no one realizes is Courage's powers are based on black sorcery. To renew and create his powers Courage must go on rampages of evil, and adopts the identity of The Monster in order to avoid attention . . .

Heey, what about the Red Ghost and his super apes, or, many decades later, the U-Foes?

Re: What do you have in your coinpurse? Well, usually each authority in my campaigns tends to use only one species when minting coins (silver is preferred) and everyone of them likes to have them be roughly the same value as their competitors, so most tag their size and metal content to the dominant economy, though they might be using a different species for their coins. I try to name two or three of these currencies, but the name of the dominant economy is what is usually used generically.