Vondy

And, for the record, I still use Hero for most everything because I love it and its my game of choice. I'm just not using 6e as my version of choice.

I'm an old player. 6e was just a bridge too far for me. There are good ideas in 6e, and it is rigorously consistent. I just find that it feels more like work than play, which was not my experience with previous systems. I use specific ideas from 6e, but more and more I'm returning to the BBB with those things I like from 5e and 6e ported backwardly in. And, keep in mind, I first played champions in 1984 and got really into it in 1990. I'm not a newbie. I've read every word of FRED and 6e. I'm a dedicated herophile.

This touches on something inherent in all cooperative endeavors: the social contract.

I'm not 100% clear on what you are asking. Points-wise, they are pretty close to "skilled normals." Add one or two skills and they would serve as solid professionals representative of a criminal type. A really expert (not super) criminal could be built using the competent normal template with a few little flourishes. I like them because they, far more than named villains, provide a solid baseline to compare (better) player characters against. However, they aren't "normal people." The strong goon, for instance, has 15s in ST, CN, and DEX. He's twice as strong as a "normal person," and theoretically twice as fit and durable as well. The fast goon, with his 15 DX and 3 SPD, is twice as agile and at least 50% faster than a normal person (depending on how you do that math).

It doesn't help that Hero is a game that requires a cooperative spirit of good faith from the players and a well-developed sense of judgement by the GM to run smoothly on all cylinders. Hero is, by its open-ended nature, more susceptible to abuse by people seeking to game the system than many other games are. As a result, munchkins have a heightened pernicious effect at a table where Hero is being played.

Toon and Aftermath!

I found a pristine copy of the BBB for ten bucks in a used bookstore. I also found a pristine copy of FRED for ten bucks. FRED is the Mad Hatter's gloss on the BBB. This is, really, all I need. Old timers will understand. I have had 6e1 and 6e2 for a while, but I seldom use them. It's sort of like looking into a grimoire. I could cast the spell, and it is an impressive structure to behold, but there would be sanity loss.

In an RP heavy and character driven game, a few levels of SA can go a long way...

Leaving aside politics (and he is a whack-a-mole), Correia's writing is repugnant to me. Its awkward, sloppy, unnecessarily purple, and his sense of camp and humor is ham-fisted and badly timed. I simply could not finish his first book despite the fact that I am traditionally forgiving of author's early works.

True, but for me, I just write down the title with a mod notion and call it a day.

I'd treat it as a flavor or urban fantasy Unless of course your hunter falls into bed with the witch. If they do, then its paranormal romance. Of course, both of those are just brands of modern pulp fiction.

Except for my presumption of good faith. It's not always munchkinism, and I discuss builds with players to determine their rationales before drawing any conclusions, but when it is... "It's a trick! Get an ax!" Fortunately, I've been blessed with an abundance of forthright, mature, talented players over the years. Min-max munckinizers have been the exception.

I think it's less useful for supers. But, for the system? I leverage the pre-built in the heroic genre books HARD.

Word.

My sweet spot for crunch is a cleaned up and more clearly explained 4e. 5th and 6th introduced some good ideas, but the trend towards increased crunchiness, granularity, and definitional bloat killed it for me. I stopped running supers and high fantasy (anything that required me to use the powers system extensively) entirely. It's not that I can't do it, but frankly, I really don't want to. If I can't find a pre-built super-skill in a book like pulp hero or dark champions, or a spell, I probably won't run it. It has also led me to pick genres where, if the supernatural does exist, I only have to bud a page or two of powers / spells to be done with it. For me, I keep going to other systems because hero collapsed under its own weight.

You mean hot teen ingenue woth the special snowflake mystery background torn between beefcake male model worthy vampire brothers at odds with one another over her is not marketed with you in mind? Let alone her hot friends all falling in love with every sexy bump in the night that crosses their path? It's a paranormal telenovela! Deep shocked Latino Dracula voice: Maria!

I've been reading the Parasol Protectorate, which my daughter has been doing a hard sell on. I think urban fantasy / paranormal romance is a very clear descendant of the pulps.

Which is dodging the point. You don't have to try to hard. You don't have to go to extremes to treat all demographics with an even hand. But, at the same time, the clearly stated notion that (for you) white males are a universally acceptable villain (punching bag) while other demographics should be treated with more nuance, respect, and care also advances a prejudice, cavalier insensitivity, and underscores a serious blind spot in your enlightened stance on proper representation of different ethnic groups. Let's face it, if all of you villains were black, you'd be accused of racism. If all of your villains were female, you'd be accused of sexism. And, frankly, members of those groups would have a valid complaint about the pervasively negative stereotype you are tagging them with. If all of you villains are white and male, well, that's pretty much the same thing. And, frankly, why should you expect to be able to say something like that unchallenged. Only men are villains? Only whites are villains? Everyone else is nuanced and pure? Unless you were planning to run a blaxploitation black panther party parody, of course. Then you'd be playing to genre. But, in any other game, you're fine if only white males are villains? Really?

Word.

This, I did not know. Interesting.

Steve emailed me about Israel and the Israeli character's names when he was writing CW because I was living there at the time. I felt he really wanted to do everyone as much justice as was possible based on his deadline.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Justice for all really does mean justice for all. If you are going to take justice into account, do it for everyone. Else, its not so much justice as hypocrisy.

You are likely damned if you do and damned if you don't. (this is something I've been thinking about vis-a-vis my own writing) If you don't include a minority, you are white washing. If you do include a minority but don't leverage their ethnic identity, you are still white washing. If you do leverage their ethnic identity, you are misrepresenting or misappropriating or stereotyping. This leaves the question: what is your motive for including minorities? Personally, I don't write (or run games) to drive other people's agendas. I write to express myself, and to have fun. Am I imperfect? Yes. Is my expression therefore imperfect? Yes. Is my fun for everyone? No. But, in the end, if I'm going to include a minority in my stories, its going to be for a reason other than being politic. That (doing things because they are politic), in my opinion, is disingenuous and smacks of posturing. Which I do not think you are doing for a minute. My motive could be verisimilitude (a sword that cuts both ways), it could be to spice things up, it could be to give a narrative or thematic counter-point. It could also just be because I've enjoyed having all sorts of people in my life and feel like I can fairly represent (some of) them. Which brings me to the bottom line: write what you know and what inspires you and flows naturally. Write what is fun for you and your group. If writing a minority character flows naturally for you and you feel you can do them justice, you should do so. But, in the end, it shouldn't be forced. Nor should the starting goal be: "create a character that will prove I'm not a stereotypical white person." Because, in the end, that would be playing into a stereotype.

I think the only way this really happens is if people from those countries produce the material themselves. And, for the record, if it were written in English, I'd eat that up. Steve and Darren did a great job with Champions Worldwide and took the time to do research and ask people who would know. At the same time, its unfair to expect every creator to completely shed their perceptions, or suddenly become insiders in a gazillion other cultures. Also, while there are certainly bad stereotypes in fiction and games, deftly applied tropes (and even stereotypes) are useful touchstones. For instance, if I'm running Pulp Hero, an ersatz Fu Manchu with the racism filed off will be immediately understood by the players and remains genre appropriate. So would the clever little french detective, Poirot. Or the New Knights of the Round Table. Yes, Arthuriana is hackneyed. But everyone says "Brit!" It can be done well. They key is 1) not to fear the stereotype, and 2) twist it, play with it, and turn it on its head after the desired flash of recognition occurs. And, non-Americans leverage some hackneyed stereotypes about us as well. I tend to forgive them. Unless they've lived here or done extensive research or lived around Americans, they can't know how we really are. Sure, they can research the structural details, but in terms of culture and character? That takes experience.

It wasn't specifically your reaction I was referring to. And, for that reason, I also apologize.