Haven Walkur

Re: New Game: Remnants of Hope Posting HD write-up of Incirrina to Hero Central this week sometime. Will dual post it here too, if possible; formats 'n' files are not friends of mine. You can trust your essentials to the lady with the tentacles! [Now imagine that said with a broad Aussie accent.]

Re: New Game: Remnants of Hope The background is well-written, quite evocative, and I like it a great deal. It gives Madstone a fascinating tie into a number of simpler times, better times, when the American dream was particularly strong and vibrant. He's a "natural" rebel. He could also be a natural inspiration to others, a character to remind the younger characters -- particularly those born since the coming of the Shadow -- of what America was, what people were and could be again. I hope he's got a sense of humor! And alchemy...that was the "mad science" of his day. "Mad science" could be particularly useful for fighting a guerilla war with limited supplies and a real need for surprise tactics. The evolution of Madstone's personal weapon -- longbow to sling, for reasons of concealment -- was also particularly ingenious. He's flexible and potentially very powerful, but also physically vulnerable. This is a well thought-out character, Log.

Re: New Game: Remnants of Hope Gotcha! I think I've got a pretty clear idea of the kind of set-up you're envisioning. So who's playing the Imperial Senate and doing the actual "governing" now? Did Firewing just generally leave the old political infrastructure in place to run things...after first staging a few illustrative purges? Hey, all hail the return of the train! Both NZ and Australia both used to have extensive rail systems for transporting passengers and commercial goods. But in the real world, with the competition from OTR trucking, aeroplanes and the highways, the rail systems have drifted towards disuse. But if petrol's hard to get now and planes tend to get blown out of the sky.... Hmm, that's entirely understandable from Firewing's point of view as Despot-in-Chief. But how isolated does it end up making Oceania, from a global point of view? If I set my character's background and starting point in Australia, would I have pretty much taken her out of the action right from the word "GO"?

Re: New Game: Remnants of Hope

Re: New Game: Remnants of Hope What a fascinating world; 1984-meets-Call of Cthulhu-meets-covert superheroes! It's a dark and provocative concept with its shades and degrees of gray and apparent emphasis on personal choices; imaginative and challenging for players. This could be very intense role-playing...but watch out for angst-monster PCs! [Oh, and don't mind me; I only run angst-ridden characters in games where the background is rather lighter-hearted than this.] As GM, do you have plots and scenarios in mind for the game already, or will the action be entirely driven/determined by the PCs? As a player, I find that latter option a bit frustrating; yes, I like my PC to have input, but an entirely re-active plot -- with no independent activity -- feels very claustrophobic. I have two character concepts in mind that might be appropriate for your game. At this time, I don't have write-ups, but I'll run the ideas past you to see what you think. The first character calls herself Incirrina. She's a cheerful, irreverent woman with clusters of invisible tentacles, half human and half "something nasty from the sub-basement of Reality." She doesn't take herself -- or her remarkable heritage -- too seriously. Incirrina (pronounced "in-KEE-rin-ah") would be a sort of utility character, with a bit of a stretching, some strength and some arcane knowledge. I'd like to buy her some extra physical toughness and perhaps Desolid (Only to Squeeze through Small Openings), but I don't know if I'd be able to afford it. From an old concept write-up, tweaked a bit for this game -- here's the character in her own words: [Why "Incirrina"? Oh, it's a suborder of the Octopoda, which includes most of the varieties of octopi -- octopuses? -- that anybody's ever heard of. Literally it means "of the flowing locks", and I thought that was the perfect hero name for me...it goes along so nicely with the whole package. Anyway, I'm free, white and over 30 -- well, more-or-less on the first two items -- and more durable than the average bear...um, hero. I'm also strong, not easily impressed and as alien as it's possible to be without being picked out of a line-up...and no, my unnatural/unspeakable bits don't show unless I flash 'em. Even though my mum was apparently some sort of crawling abomination from the depths of the Black Reaches, I'm more the girl-next-door type -- even if you don't live next door to a slaughterhouse. Yes, you really COULD bring me home to mother and not worry about losing the family dog. I've got a sense of humor that never deserts me (you'll notice I didn't say it was a GOOD one) and a broad esoteric/practical knowledge of religion, folklore and the occult. (Gee, I wonder why?) I can handle myself in a fight, and with my powers -- oh, you could say I'm a very "handy" person to have around. You see, I've got tentacles. Lots of tentacles. More tentacles than the average human can handle. I've got tentacles that are very long and VERY strong...but they aren't even visible unless I make an effort. And that's a shame, really, 'cause they have some truly photogenic color schemes. Imagine brilliant black and glowing purple, electric blue and luminous scarlet, and all in rings and rosettes like the ones on an octopus.... Of course, there are some pretty unsettling combinations too, from time to time. We won't talk about the vibrant magenta and crawling chartreuse, and as for the the ultra-violent and infra dead -- that's the one that reminds me of my mother.] The other character is "Uallannach" (it's easier to pronounce than it looks, honest!), a completely inhuman angel whose base form resembles a beachball-sized sphere of swirling colors and glowing "gems". It's a genderless being that once served under the Archangel Raphael (called "the Sociable Angel") in the Order of Ministering Angels. Long ago, it was summoned to Earth by Hermetic mages to serve as their champion and protector. Despite its attempts to explain their error -- that it was a Ministering Angel, not a Warrior or Guardian -- the mages would not release the angel, and it was eventually trapped on Earth by their deaths. But it holds no grudges, then or now. Uallannach is an endlessly compassionate being who has been deeply touched, over the centuries, by the righteous struggles of mankind to choose good in the face of evil. The angel is endlessly fascinated by the marvel that is humanity and has become very protective of their right to make free choices for good or evil...as their souls dictate. In the absence of a more specific mandate, it has adopted mankind in general as the object of its Ministry, comforting and guiding where it can and in general tending and nurturing what it sees as the fairest fruit trees of God's fair garden -- human beings. Uallannach is a mentalist, with a particular gift for Telepathy and Mental Illusions. It keeps its head -- which can look like almost anyone's or anything's head -- down, and tries not to draw the attention of the Edomite, which it considers an incarnation of the Oldest Adversary, that Old Serpent, Chaos. It is often afraid, and all too aware that in heaven, it was numbered amongst the lowest ranks of angels. But it has a nature and it has a mission, and those are both the same -- Minister. And though it's not a Warrior Angel, in this nightmare time where nightmares have become the new order of things, Uallannach fights its battles to bring hope and comfort to those fallen into the Shadow. And I really wish it weren't necessary to ask this...but do you, as a GM, share the "hate-on" that all too many Champions GMs have for Mentalist characters? This seems to stem from the perception that just because some Mentalist powers have no range modifier, the Mentalist is just too powerful and an automatic game-unbalancer. Way too powerful; better limit the character as much as you can, even above and beyond some of the absurdly high point costs...or so the mindset seems to run. While I understand that the Mentalist can be a potential game-unbalancer, I don't agree with the way the HERO System responded. Slapping Limitations on Mental powers and raising the power-cost to "price" Mentalist PCs out of the game is not, in my opinion, the way to achieve game balance. Of course, it's absolutely up to you as GM to allow or disallow Mentalist PCs and what rules to apply. I'm not trying to argue otherwise...honestly!

Re: Make everyone fight at your level... a heroic fighter in a supers world. I think the original post was more concerned with how one would go about constructing this sort of power, than whether a character who uses this sort of power is a mean, nasty, unfair bad person. :-P I have no idea how the effect would be built -- short of GM fiat -- but I do think the concept is a fascinating one, and the psychology behind it particularly intriguing. I find myself wondering how well Hidden Dragon, my LSH martial artist, would stack up against him. I think she was more-or-less straight skills and skill levels -- I believe her only super-power was the ability to become invisible -- but I suspect I'd be reminded the hard way once she got into it with the Great Equalizer, and any other "taken-for-granted" powers I'd forgotten about stopped working....

Re: Question for female players of Champions Gamers tend to build their cross-gender characters with idealized, outrageously high Comeliness characteristics...and yes, I'm counting a 20 COM as outrageous. Perhaps you'd find it easier to focus on your character as a "real" woman -- a real person -- if you reduced her incredible beauty down to "merely" very good-looking? If you shift the emphasis off her physical appearance, you may find it easier to connect with the character as a person; she becomes more to you than just a physically idealized "pretty face." Frankly, a 20 COM character would hardly be memorable as anything other than just a perfect beauty anyway. Oh, an eyewitness will remember that the character was really, really hot -- but not much else about her. It's the imperfections that make a person physically striking or memorable; physical perfection lacks those little flaws, making a 20 COM character gorgeous, bland and generic. And "generic" is hard to wrap your brain around as a player. It's hard to get a role-playing handle on. Just because COM is only half a point per point, resist the urge to go crazy. A 20 COM produces clichés and cartoon characters, not real people. (Oh, and yes, I'm a female gamer -- and I've noticed that my very infrequent male characters all end up beautiful as gods and stiff as cardboard.)

Re: The Hero Forum's Hottest Man in Comics. As am I. Always have been, always will be...except sometimes in RPGs. And yes, I like seeing attractive comicbook (or other fictional) men tied up or hurt.... Be honest, ladies -- I'm not the only one who liked the flogging scene with Orlando Bloom's character in the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie, am I? Or the Bane episode of Batman - the Animated Series, where Robin (mature Dick Grayson) is shirtless, bound and being lowered into a drowning pool? (And even if I am the only woman around who likes that sort of thing...oh well, kinky is the fire of the imagination.)

Re: The Hero Forum's Hottest Man in Comics. Angel of the original X-Men. Yes, I know the white winged pretty-boy wasn't particularly effective as a mutant hero, but he...was...gorgeous! If the term "fan service" means "stoking and stroking the fans' hormones", then Angel was a fan service character designed to draw girls to comics! Wings, golden hair, patrician features...there was even an issue of X-Men in the mid-1980s that offered the definite fan-girl thrill of Angel In Bondage...[+15 COM when bound, restrained or otherwise helpless] This was the issue of X-Men where Angel was kidnaped by Callista and the Morlocks, and rescued by an unexpectedly ferocious Storm. Angel was shown bound, kneeling and stripped to the waist, with his marvelous wings spread behind him -- that definitelygave this undergrad girl more than a little tingle! Um...I'll be in my bunk?

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever. The Hulk is the worst hero ever, no matter who's writing him. {Whoops, this turned into rather the anti-Hulk rant. Read on if you wish, but you have been warned.} It was a dreadfully-executed character concept from the outset! In the comics, the Hulk's twin natures are A) a musclebound mentally-defective monstrosity with rage issues who generally reduces everything in sight to rubble, and a self-excusing and ineffectual genius who manifestly cannot deal with the real world and everyday life. And the problem is that neither nature is particularly interesting, sympathetic or appealing. Nor are they likely to get much better-developed while most issues of the comic Player:simply mark time for as many pages as it takes to get to the utterly predictable "payoff" -- Dr. Bruce Banner gets upset and transforms into the hulk! Eeeee! {Dull, dull, dull! Someone please launch that jolly green gonad into deep space and make him some other race's problem.} The Jekyll and Hyde alternation of personalities and powers could have been the basis for a fascinating character if more effort had been made from the outset to personalize the two warring selves. Instead..."Hulk smash!" alternates with, "Betty dear, please don't say that. I'm sure this time I'll be able to modulate the gamma-ray energies correctly and free myself forever from the raging beast that inhabits my soul! The eighty-first time's the charm...." {Oh, and while you're at it, someone just shoot Banner. He's too pathetic to live.} The Hulk's basically a one trick pony as a character. When Banner gets upset -- and he always ends up getting upset, because he has absolutely no coping mechanisms of any sort -- he turns into the Hulk and smashes things. That's it. The Hulk himself (I'll say him-self, even though he never loses the ragged capri shorts and to let us prove that empirically) can barely speak, is largely incapable of reasoning and honestly, hasn't got that much to say in the first place. When he's not destroying something, he's pretty boring -- and after a while, even rampant destruction gets dull. But what can you do with a mindless monster? Well, you can turn him back into his genius scientist self and let him angst about the monster in his soul and how unfair the world is in general and to him in particular...and mark time until the readers are screaming for Banner to get upset and Hulk-out again, anything to stop him talking! There's no reason that the Hulk character has to alternate between a constantly berserking musclebound moron and a cringing genius crybaby. I'd snicker at a player who tried to introduce such a character into game, and wonder why he didn't bother to put just a little bit of effort into developing two personalities that at least nodded at the complexities of human personality. Player: "Well, in his id-driven rage form, he smashes things." Me: "Yes? And...?" Player: "He...uh, he's really mad all the time, and he smashes things." Me: "Okay, he's mad and he smashes things. What else..?" Player: "He can't talk real well, so he says stuff like "Mulch smash!", and "Little man cannot beat Mulch!" And then he smashes stuff. And he gets stronger the madder he gets." Me: "No upper limit on his strength, right?" Player: (nods eagerly) Me: So what happens when he calms down?" Player: "Oh, Mulch never calms down! He's always mad, 'cause that's why Dr. Panner turns into the Mulch, 'cause he gets mad. If the Mulch calms down, he turns back into Dr. Panner." Me: "Right. And Dr. Panner...? Player: "He's this brilliant ultra-genius who wanted to remove all his evil impulses with this radiation device but it just shunted them all into the Mulch and now when Dr. Panner gets really upset he actually changes into the Mulch -- " Me: So Dr. Panner is pure good now and the Mulch is absolute unbalanced evil? Player: "No, Dr. Panner's just this brilliant guy, and the Mulch, he just smashes stuff 'cause he's mad...you know, he's got the primal fury of the id...." Me: (a little heated) "What does the Mulch like to eat? What happens when he gets horny? The id controls all sorts of urges; what other urges does the Mulch have?" Player: "He's just really...you know, mad...." Me: (with great restraint) Go away, you nauseating little worm. You're the reason role-players have such a wretched reputation. Please don't ever reproduce." {The above exchange works equally well if you replace "Player" with "Comicbook Writer," and "Me" with "Comicbook Editor". Oh, and don't forget to replace "role-players" with "the entire comicbook industry".}

Re: Back With BEACONS Aha, so the Beacons are finally lit! Very glad to see the campaign outline, Adam. As I've said before, this looks like an intriguing and unusual campaign concept. The only difficulty will be persuading players not to try and "one-up" each others' characters in terms of drama or tragedy. "Well, yeah, so your PC's a werewolf -- but my PC has no head! And he's a hopeless heroin addict hunted by the disembodied spirit of Lizzie Borden! And he also has no reflection and no shadow, because he was betrayed in love by a woman who was possessed by the ghost of a vengeful witch, and...."

Re: When did [Title X] Jumping the Shark Repped, V. The "Chav Sonnet" is mordantly funny. Quite heartbreaking -- I'm originally English -- but funny. Edit:{sigh}No, you're NOT repped. I have to spread Rep around first...it's the same old song. Sorry about that.

Re: Superhero Images V, you're making Mark Millar too sympathetic! One might almost feel sorry for him...and that just won't do.

Re: Best Mystic comic/character ever? John Constantine/Hellblazer Swamp Thing/the Alan Moore run And I don't know if Dream/The Sandman qualifies; Morpheus is inherently mystical, but I don't know if he can be said to be a mystic. When was the last time you saw Dream casting a spell? Didn't think so. ;-) Come to think of it, the same could be said of the Swamp Thing; mystical, but not a mystic.

Re: Around the World With A New Character Each Week I've given you Rep already, Tribe, but I felt the need to expound at more length on what a good idea this project is and what tremendous job you're doing with it...hence this post. Tribe, thank-you for creating internationally-themed metanormal characters who are something more than comicbook cultural clichés of each nation. Thanks for creating realistic, mature and convincingly foreign characters who actually do seem like natives of their countries of origin! I am awed by the amount of research and background development that's gone into each character so far, to say nothing of the actual narrative and write-up. It's a massive undertaking -- albeit one that's been desperately needed by the comicbook/gaming communities -- and I'm very impressed by the work you're doing on it. Thank-you.

Re: Cap is dead!!!! I'm a naturalised American citizen -- I'm originally English -- and I honour and admire the classic American icon that is the Steve Rogers Captain America. (And my New Avengers character in the HERO Central game has sort of an infatuation with Cap's son, the hero Banner.)

Re: ONE power: what do you do with it? Transform -- into Princess Louise of the Misfit Princes of Amber. To reverse -- prolonged concentration on becoming my mundane self again. Thanks to Pariah's mention of Corwin of Amber, I remembered my old Misfit Princes character, and thought, "Why the hell not?" Since Princess Louise is everything I've ever thought I wanted to be, and has many of the powers and abilities of a Child of Amber and Chaos, it would be a case of achieving my heart's (or dream's) desire. Using Transform to become an Amberite, I'd pretty much have all the other Champions game powers -- and more! And if being a Misfit Prince of Amber weren't as wonderful as I'd anticipated, just spend an hour or so thinking about the way I used to be, and POOF! I'm back to my mundane self.

Re: Music To Raise The Dead The Nine Inch Nails cover of Dead Souls, from the soundtrack of "The Crow." The Prophet's Song by Queen Don't Pay the Ferryman by Chris de Burgh Gallows Pole by Led Zepplin This Corrosion by the Sisters of Mercy

Re: matchmaker for masks? Took it twice. And both times...The Amazing Spider-Ham, at 60% + Oh dear. It's not the fact that Peter Porker is an anthropomorphic pig that turns me off, it's the fact that he's an anthropomorphic pig with the personality of the hapless Peter Parker. (No, I have no problem with anthropomorphic animal heroes. [snicker] My first Champions/Legion of Superheroes character, human hero Joanna Sinclair aka "Hidden Dragon," always said that her favorite "encounter" ever was one she had in a furry animal dimension, with a green-feathered anthropomorphic duck Legionnaire named Squirrel Ducks -- the mega-genius Brainiquac 5!) In my first run-through on the test, second and third places were held by Cable and Wolverine respectively (yeah RIGHT! Perhaps when I was 17...and what about my marked preference for blonds?) On my second run-through, Puck and Batman appeared in second and third place. Still no blonds...and overall, none of the suggested heroes were very good matches with my preferences.

Re: Storn Art From Idea to Full Picture Year 4 Waltzing Matilda -- humanoid lady kangaroo. Matilda is a heroic Australian Martial Artist: Pugilist...yes, she's a boxing kangaroo! She's the wide-ranging defender of the Outback, complete with bright red boxing gloves on the paws of her front legs (or perhaps on her massive muscular tail or on her powerful back legs instead). She wears a dark blue vest with the Australian flag on it; small Union Jack in the upper left field and five stars of the Southern Cross in the middle. She does NOT wear a bush hat; that's just too clichéd for an Aussie. On her head, Matilda wears an old-fashioned sports helmet, like the ones worn by Australian rugby players in the early 1900s. Her immense rabbit-like ears stick up from underneath it. She carries a copy of the Queensberry rules of boxing (and revised rules of the London Prize Ring) in her pouch for ease of reference. NB: In a fight, an actual roo would brace itself on its tail and rear back to deliver devastating kicks with its hind legs. The front legs aren't really used for roo combat, just for grooming/minor manipulation and support when the animal is moving on all fours.

Re: Signs your Champions GM is now (fill in the blank) Satire, perhaps, but just asking for trouble. (Also nowhere near as funny as the previous posts.) Take it to the NGD, people!

Re: Chimpira's Art Dump I DO like the pics of Buck Wylde and his friends and foes. They are suitably 1970s and suitably heroic/villainous/thuggish. In short, they're inspired! Ah, if you can just take the '70s "a little bit seriously", the decade makes wonderful gaming (and gaming art) fodder. The styles, the attitudes, the personas...and Chimpira has really captured the whole groovy, larger-than-life 1970s "feel" with the pics of Buck and his associates. And those clean lines, of course...ooh! And speaking of "ooh!" -- Majestic! What a wonderful picture! It's clean-lined, boldly and exactingly detailed, and beautifully framed against the off-center geometric shape. Majestic is definitely a figure in motion, for all those who wanted to see "movement", and a damned handsome hero as well. However, a problem starts to appear with the pic of the Dragon Slayer, and it's worse with Tempus. In both pictures, the characters look foreshortened, as if they had human height but Dwarf proportions. (I think the Anime term is "super-deformed"?) The characters may be drawn in proportion, but somehow they still look (to me, anyway), stumpy. Stubby. And this "short 'n' squat" effect turns Tempus into a belligerent Hobbit, and Dragon Slayer into a beautifully-dressed Tengu. The picture of Bounty verges on the same problem, but doesn't seem to share it, not quite. Standard disclaimer: I. CAN'T. DRAW. Not at all, not even a little bit. And I really like Chimpira's work, which I think is skillful and appealing; I'm impressed by and a bit in awe of him. So I'm not offering criticism in order to offend the artist, but to hopefully point out a weakness/problem with a few of the pics, which he may not have noticed...or which may be due entirely to my own warped perceptions (YMMV).

Re: The cranky thread If you destroy all your gaming stuff and "swear off" gaming, you'll eventually regret it. Perhaps not immediately, but once you've had a chance to calm down...the good memories will reassert themselves. From my own unhappy experience, a gamer CAN quit -- and have every intention of _staying_ quit -- because in long-running games or groups, things can have a way of becoming such a frustrating miserable mess that the pleasure has ebbed away to nothing...and the idea of gaming further fills you with disgust. And so you go on a "Night of the Long Knives" style rampage through your gaming materials, and feel some relief and a little satisfaction. But sooner or later, you/one/a person -- as a gamer -- will find yourself drawn back into gaming, even if you end up having to crawl back, because even if it is sometimes pathetic, or flawed and wretched, gaming is really the only "game" in town for us...the gamers. And that's when you'll start missing the things you trashed.

Re: Help Me Populate A Creepy Hotel I thought "1408" was one of the very few later works of Stephen King that still had the power to chill. The voice on the phone...that brought a little frisson of fright across the back of the neck, especially when I had to then get out of bed in the dark and walk to the bathroom. That said, the promotional clip for the movie version of "1408" looks formulaic and overblown in the extreme. Go for neat effects when you have to pad a too-meagre storyline out to full movie length. The preview of "1408" reminded me strongly of that recent abortion, the remake of "The Haunting." The original 1960s version, in black-and-white, was based on a novel by Shirley Jackson, and was one of the most sheerly frightening horror movies I've ever seen. Terror and suspense, the lines between reality and fantasy blurring -- and the blood, gore and body-count was precisely ZERO. The movie didn't need any of that. Not when the slow turning of a doorknob with a cherub's face on it -- coupled with a sudden cry from one of the heroines; "Oh my God, did you lock the door? Did you lock the door?" -- was all you needed to practically make you wet yourself -- because you didn't know if that door was locked either. The remake was farcical. Lumbering special effects monsters rampaging all over the house, hordes of "sweet little innocent spirits" bound to the big baddie that must be saved, blood, guts and gore in all directions -- and no hint of the delicate, terrifying "bad place" haunting that appeared in the book and the first movie. The remake featured plot complications, nonsense extraneous features and plot holes like the Crater Lake (only not as scenic). And when the poor abused house finally perished in a CGI orgy of destruction, you could almost hear Hill House's sigh of relief..."At lasssst the pain is over...." I confidently expect to see all of those sterling techniques showcased so successfully {a little sarcasm there, for you literal-minded readers} in the remake of "The Haunting" employed again in the movie version of "1408". Oh come ON! Extraneous subplot involving tragically dead little girl and obsessed and grief-stricken father; reappearance of daughter's innocent little spirit inside the cursed hotel room; major mobilization of CGI effects once inside the room; involvement of more and more people in the situation.... The great strength of the story version of "1408" was that it was about a man alone, completely isolated, and the effects he experienced were initially subtle, so subtle that he dismissed them. And even as the manifestations escalated, there was still the suggestion they might just have been delusions or hallucinations, the classic "stressed mind playing tricks on you." The terror of suggestion, of ambiguity, of things seen from the corner of the eye and dismissed -- that was what made the story so damn creepy. That -- and the sense of "something coming", something hot and burning and buzzing like an electric razor given the power of speech; something coming THAT NEVER ACTUALLY GOT THERE! That scared me. But Hollywood these days doesn't believe in making the effort to create terror by means of the "something is coming" trope. No, Hollywood wants the full-on horror of "something's already here and boy is it pissed." Hollywood wants to give you an explicit look at "the thing" as it slashes -- shreds -- exsanguinates -- eviscerates -- and finally decapitates a horde of characters whose names the audience will never need to know. Hey, that's entertainment, right? Well, if you think that's the case, then I suspect you will thoroughly enjoy the movie version of "1408". But if you, like me, still distinguish between terror and horror, between the shivers created by what is suggested and what is splattered all over the screen in glorious Technicolor CGI, then stay away from this one. Oh, it might make a good popcorn movie or rental, and it might even make you jump a few times, but it won't scare you any more than the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man battle in "Ghostbusters" did...and that's a pretty pathetic commentary on a movie based on a very tense and creepy story.

Re: Signs your Champions GM is now (fill in the blank) And what about Rob Liefeld as GM? {Oh, don't mind me, I'm just making trouble.} ;-)