Vondy

I would build the "elite mooks" as competent normals with the relevant military and SF packages. I don't, however, include characteristics in packages. That can be tweaked as needed. I'm also wary of stacking skill levels from packages, which can result in mooks who are out of tune with their dramatic importance. Most other mooks -- the rank and file -- would just be skilled normals with a relevant package if need be.

I tend to agree. It would depend on how you build the mooks she's mowing through, I think. If most of them are skilled normals she could, even as a "powerful hero" wade through them in bunches.

Don't be surprised if Ward turns out to be on some "off the reservation" infiltration of Hyrdra aimed at finding out why they are so interested in Skye / Coulsen with the twisted justification that it was the only way to protect them. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Player characters are, presumably, named protagonists built on cinematic levels, no?

I make a distinction between protagonist agents (main and recurring cast) and the extras who are there as suit filler. I would build Fury, Coulsen, May, Ward, Hill, et all on cinematic levels -- they are the marquee agents. And Romanoff is a Super. But run of the mill agents? I would build them as competent normals with a package, a few maneuvers, a few levels, and one or two color skills. Ergo, their CVs with their best moves and primary weapons would be around 7. I think the notion of access level / rank automatically equating to "more combat capable" is intrinsically flawed. Besides, the rank and file agents -- as opposed to those on the main cast or serving as "named opposition" -- are mostly just mooks.

Way too high for my tastes.

Seriously, do you read our posts? What part of sitting down to "define the genre, what elements do and don't work, what the target design range is, and both game-master and player expectations -- then you design characters" doesn't cover where the line for fair characters are for players? The point of the up-front discussion is making sure players understand what is and isn't appropriate for the game you are going to run. You still have to look their characters over, but proper communication ahead of time will eliminate 90% of the design issues that crop up -- allowing tweaks as opposed to giving a hard "no." The feeling, intuition, and art we are discussing is something the GM needs to set those guidelines for the players in his game.

You have answered your own question. So, don't waste time criticizing honest answers you happen not to like. As for the amount of work involved, its a question of experience. The intuition you ask "when?" about is the art of the game, which takes patience and perseverance to learn. I can skim a character sheet and pretty much instantly know if something is problematic. And I can run fast combats in my sleep. But, I've been playing Hero regularly since 1990, and first met it in 1984. It didn't take thirty years to get there, of course, but it did take hard work learn the nuances and mind of the game. This is a game that relies on GM discretion and front-loads the work at the design-stage. And its really art rather than science. Either you want to develop your art, or you don't. If you don't, Hero isn't for you.

I tend to agree. My write-up for "smith" is for a "headlining" agent. I prefer to keep things relatively simple and avoid too much granularity and bloat. I would link it to their "Shield level."

Also, Unity = Avengers. It would be pretty easy to port all of these characters / films into a UNTIL based CU game.

I wrote up a non-canon shield agent for a spinoff fanfic that's brewing last night. Heracles Smith, Agent of Shield. But, don't call him that. His tagline: "Smith. Just Smith." And, "No. Not from the Matrix. Sheesh." He's a L8 who does off-book investigations and jobs for Fury. He will narrowly escape the Hyrda attempt on his life. He dressess like a MIB, comports himself like Joe Friday... but is a deadpan snarker. He lives out of a Shield-modded sedan with an AI and advanced systems -- and vac-packed suits in the trunk. He carries an SW500 instead of the standard Glock. His relationships to the official characters are: Coulsen – “Phil was my SO.” Fitzsimmons – “Nerds: Stop talking.” Hill – “We drink. Things happen.” Fury – “XO-0 Direct Access Line.” May – “She's still pissed about the midgets, isn't she?” Rogers – “We've never met.” Romanoff – “We honeymooned in Brunai.” Skye – TBD [i'm open to ideas] Ward – TBD [He doesn't inspire me] Those are designed to be "open to interpretation." However, his relationship with Hill is just "drinking buddy" and is, despite the rumors, non-sexual. Its well known among the upper ranks [L8 and over] that Hill + Smith + Booze = Noodle Incident. “That thing with the bootleg tequila and nitro in Pakistan.” “Let's not revisit the launch code mishap, okay?” “Operation Body Shot? That's restricted Level 8 and above.” “One word: Toronto.” “Look, they dropped the charges didn't they?” “How *did* Fury's boxers end up in the punch bowl?” “It involved a shoe horn and a great deal of lubricant.” “Need I mention Berlin?” “July 4, last year.” “We have a truce.” “Athens was fun. I never did find my pants.” “No Ouzo. Just no. Not after that business with the jet pack in Ankara.” “In our defense, Stark was footing the tab.” “Wait a minute! We jello wrestled?” Coulsen: “I have pictures.” “That op at renfair with the woad raiding midgets?" “Very blue. Very short. Very nude.” “How did the quinjet end up inside that Honey Tonk?.” “Don't ask.” About all of these incidents they both protest: “Its not how it sounds!” These are intended to be off-screen references that are dissonant with his "Joe Friday" demeanor.

I'll settle for Agents of Fury.

Thanks for your thoughts. What you propose is similar to what I was thinking: "competent normal template plus 50 points" for packages, martial arts, and flavor, etc. I could use "skilled normal template plus 50 points" for the "tech-support" folk.

No. Just because a game is focused on agents doesn't automatically render it Dark Champions. Indeed, the UNTIL Defenders of Freedom book is a regular Champions genre book. And that book is mostly about SHIELD. Oh, wait, I mean UNTIL and its agents, their gear, and how to run them. Indeed, Coulsen made his first appearances in Iron Man, Thor, and the Avengers -- which the show is directly tied into. Are those Dark Champions titles?

Has anyone written up Agent Coulsen and crew from Agents of SHIELD? I could edit the basic write-ups from UNTIL Defenders of Freedom, I guess. Mostly, I'm just curious how others would interpret them in light of the TV show paradigm.

This could probably be settled with Ego rolls for everyman types who haven't been trained and/or "blooded."

The first rule of Hero has always been, and always will be, communication. Not one-way communication, but a discussion. You define the genre, what elements do and don't work, what the target design range is, and both game-master and player expectations -- then you design characters. This is, incidentally, true of every endeavor you undertake in life. You don't start building/working until you have fully defined what the product/goal is supposed to be. Its up to you -- not the system -- to do the preliminary work.

In Pulp Hero there is Let's Talk and Sexy Distraction. In Fantasy Hero there is Fascinate. They are all basically iterations of the same mechanical construct. It would be easy to adapt to a new FX.

This may be unduly conservative of me, but it is preferable that your advantages be clothed.

I did notice!. This is a frequent question with new herophiles. As powerful a tool as hero is, its flexibility comes with a certain amount of native ambiguity built in that can only be overcome with experience and subsequent tweaking. This is one of the things I get frustrated with our resident bean-counters and number-crunchers over. As mathematically precise as hero is, you can't actually reduce it to a set of algorithms and forumulae. Running Hero isn't science. Its art. And art isn't taught -- its learned.

That process didn't start with the Patristic fathers. It started with Plato, who while not describing daemons as evil, did describe them as dangerous and sometimes malevolent. That was the first shift away from the traditional, neutral view. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were heavily influenced by neo-platonism and fused its already negative notion of daemons with the fallen angels depicted in Second Temple era Jewish apocalyptic writings as evinced in the Enochian and Qumron texts, whose elements bear a striking relationship to the book of Revelations. My point is, people act as though Christians are the root of all evil and responsible for distortions when, in fact, they were merely working with -- and often synthesizing -- extant intellectual trends. They weren't operating in a fully Christianized culture and weren't even the dominant religion when these trends began. They were Ancient Greeks (and Syrians, and Hebrews, and Copts, etc) themselves -- hence their use of their native Greek term at all -- and weren't merely "ignorant Christians sundering ancient Greek myths." They were ancient Greeks!. They didn't invent the idea that daemons were, in some way, worrisome to man -- they inherited it from Plato! Incidentally, the rabbinic fathers largely expunged the notion of rebellious fallen angels (ala the Christological demon) from their texts despite it being, originally, a Jewish idea-- though echoes of it remains here and there if you know where to look. Also, the rabbinic attitude towards sheidim (the equivalent of daemons and not to be confused with angels) was identical to Plato's -- dangerous and sometimes malevolent, but not necessarily evil -- and evolved from Hellenic influence in ancient Israel well before the common era! Talk about going full circle!

One article I read indicated the answer was "yes." And, the fuel could be used to power other ships, or maybe cars -- which would mitigate operating expenses. One of the benefits of the Navy program is that they don't have to replace the engines on the ships these units would operate on. Some engineers familiar with the Navy tech speculated it could be scaled up and placed on a platform akin to an oil drilling platform -- which would also allow you to suck up deeper water if need be. But, for that to happen, you need investment dollars -- from government or business.

I did some digging and the cost per gallon in the lab is somewhat high, but the Navy's projections for cost once efficiencies are tweaked for real-world production run between $.79 and $1.21 per gallon. Also, the tech is almost identical to the tech proposed to scrub hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. However, the Navy's projected cost per metric tonne is $114 compared to the commonly used $559. I suspect this is because 1) hydrocarbons are more easily soluble in water, and 2) are significantly more concentrated in our seas. On the other hand, focusing on cleaning up the seas seems more efficient -- and is ultimately where the airborne hydrocarbons end up. A sword that can double as a ploughshare -- scrubbing the high seas clean of hydrocarbons and the enemy in one deft stroke! On the other hand, we would need more scrubbers than just our fleets engines to do it. The estimated cost to get us to target levels would be a trillion dollars spread over a century. On the other hand, we blew that in a decade on Iraq -- so one could argue its just a question of priorities. It is cool though. And, soon we'll have RAIL GUNS to boot!

Most are just excuses to drop defensive powers onto heroic characters without a focus. For instance, lets take Damage Reduction 50% Resistant PD and ED You might give it to a fighter and call it "Tough." If you want it to be more iffy, make it dependent on a CON roll. Or you might define it as "Cinematic Safety" and only have it apply when a character takes suitable risks, or facings suitably dangerous opponents (dragons, demons, giants, arch-lich-guy, etc). You could also have it be non-resistant and only PD and define it as "can take a punch," also with a CON roll if need be. Or, Resistant PD and Resistant ED [to whatever amount]. You could define it as "combat luck" with its relevant limitations. On the other hand, you define the resistant defenses as "A Mere Scratch" and say "let's first body through" so that, even if it would otherwise negate the damage, a character still gets cinematic, but relatively minor, bloody cuts ala Conan. You could also tailor Deadly Blow to work against cinematic (the non-human) opponents. Ergo "Monster Slayer" Deadly Blow +2d6 vs. Monsters. One tactics I've used is to give characters "cinematic safety" and "monster slayer" and then leave their attacks and defenses at the range for "low-fantasy" I described above. It lets me have them operate on a more manageable level and still deal with the monsters when they appear (which is less frequently in my games and might not work for you).

At least, it allows you to sustain more hurts.