Vondy

Steve talks about different ways of approaching background skills in The Ultimate Skill. While he is largely responsible for introducing increasingly granular background skills in the 4e DC book(s), he is very clear in TUS that how broad background skills are is entirely up to the gamemaster / group. If you want PS: Private Eye to cover everything a PI needs to know how to do, that is a correct application of the system. If you want a PI to have half a dozen PS and KS skills on top of Deduction, Interrogation, and Streetwise, that is also a correct application of the system.

I would suggest the precision you reference is not inherent to Hero's core mechanics, but rather, the design zeitgeist of 5th and 6th edition. You can run Hero with much more broadly defined special effects and remain true to the underlying engine that makes it go. This is doubly true with background skills. In fact, while Steve has always had a design granularity fetish, he repeatedly references that there is more than one way to use the system in The Ultimate Skill (and other books). That's why there are so many optional methods in the books. The published materials are the design think, but not the only design think. The key is that one be consistent.

I've found you don't need to have one team of heroes to rule them all akin to the JLA. You can have several important teams. One in London, one in Toronto, one in New York, one in Millennium City, one in... Pick or invent a major city and have your heroes be the big guns. The world has lots of big towns. The Champions are one team. Your team can be another. Heck, if you want to use MC just move the Champions eksewhere. Or delete them entirely.

Correct! But pushing a haymakered attack you've made a successful Find Weakness roll on? That's catharsis with bells on.

As would I.

FFG SW has talent trees for character design (which I don't love), but doesn't really have them for plot and resolution. In that sense, its different from video games at run time.

I favor fighters, or martially inclined rogues. I make a point of creating fleshed out characters with personalities and hooks the GM can pull the character into their story and world with. If I were told I had to play a spell caster I'd probably decline to play. Those classes have seldom spoken to me and I've only had one spell caster I ever enjoyed playing. Most of my experiences with magely type characters have been lackluster. Not every player is suired to every charactrr or game. I game to have fun. If I'm not having fun, why bother?

But, but, but... I was making a corollary between a high-tech media with flashy production values and a visual interface and a low tech one that leverages the minds eye. Active vs. passive aren't relevant to the allegory that was being made. There are passive consumers who prefer their mind's eye. There are active consumers who prefer their minds eye. I don't see anything material in you "critical difference" that is counter to my point. Gamers, as active consumers, are still drawn to different types of gaming media.

Well... 12d6N (60AP) would average 42 Stun and 12 Body. A normal with 8 Body and 2 PD will take 10 Body on average. They are now, without medical assistance, dying. I'd call that "killing" for all intents and purposes.

I wouldn't use HAP to let people soak damage (I've never liked that sort of mechanic, either). I would allow a player to burn one as a "lucky break" that saves their life.

I believe consulting treacles is more the norm. You know, where you stand around a tart asking her opinion on things. No, wait, I mean, where you find answers by looking at crumbs of a freshly demolished molasses tart. I'm still not sure I have this right...

In the West, a male version of a "Swallow" is called James Bond.

One thing to consider as well is that a "universal systems" and tool kits find themselves in a tough-spot marketing-wise. Its much easier to produce tons of materials for a single genre and setting, which amounts to a single game-line. You end up having to produce numerous genre books (some of which will sell better than others) and multiple settings - and hero has multiple settings for some of its multiple genres. Trying to support each of those at once eats into resources and time and dilutes the underlying brand. Not every gamer is interested in every genre or setting. Unless you have a deep war chest and stable market share, that is a very tall order to meet. This is compounded by the fact that RAW is designed to deal with every genre as opposed to presenting only what is needed to get started with the genre the player is interested in buying goodies for. I think Champion's Complete was a step in the right direction, but how to sell a "toolkit" and "universal" system as being capable of doing anything without supporting everything? I think the 1-3e approach to the system worked better for that, which is not to say the core rules really did need the standardization and clean-up 4e introduced. I guess what I'm saying is, in its heyday, my book said "Champions" on the cover and that was what drove the line. It could do everything, but didn't really try to in the publishing sense.

That's not allowed. Strap on your cestus. The cage awaits...

I'm not going to argue my aesthetic preferences, social mores, or personal ethics with you. But, for the record: I didn't see anything in those scenes that amounted to anything more than oratory and role-play. It does not, in my opinion, require a fiddly power construct.

As a general point, I agree with you. But the same is true of television and books. TV is quick, easy, and has increasingly high production values. People still buy a lot of books.

Building and efficient and effective character, and being a rules-bending douche who ignores the spirit of the rules, are two different things. Recognizing the difference is the mark of an experienced GM as opposed to a beginning GM.

That they included them in a section dealing with common problem player types and described them using such unflattering terms was not intended as a compliment or even tacit approval of their behavior. I'm sure Aaron didn't think an anvil was necessary when he first wrote it. I'm sure the 4e authors didn't think one was necessaty, either.

Also this.

This.

As I grow older I find myself less impressed with inertia and more impressed with gravity. Inertia alone is not enough to keep me watching any show.

In general, I wouldn't. I would, however, impose negative modifiers to skill and atrack rolls. If you want to be fiddly you can use CE for that, but it seems like a lot of work for what is a minor effect. Unless of course the taunted character has berserk or hulkish rage that leads them to squash the mouthy punk. Which would be fun to watch as a backfire. Like I said, I don't enjoy this kind of thing at my gaming table and don't care to put any effort into modeling in.

I call it "ecclectic."

I'm sure you'll be offered all sorts of intricate power constructs. I'd call this simple and use an opposed skill roll. Trash Talking (PRE) I would allow opponents to use ego (will) to resist it with skills in tactics, psychology, etc as complimentary rolls. Some talents might make it easier to resist the taunts, like Resistance (Unflappable) +3. But, there would also be plenty of psychological complications that might give bonuses to the taunting character's roll. At the same time, I hate people like and don't like it in a game, so I wouldn't bend over backward to accommodate it.

Agreed.