Vondy

Honestly, I know this will sound passe, but B/X. Grab the old Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Red) and Expert Set (Blue). For all the populist derision that surrounds it there is a reason people got started with it. I was 7 and a half years old and I was able to figure it out and was hooked for life. Yes, for a modern D&D player it can feel archaic and restrictive, but it works. It is also has a certain "anything is possible" old school romance to it. And, once the players have the feel of it you can switch them to something crunchier or more modern. That's my 2AP and I'm sticking to it.

Atomic Blonde. Its become our "go to" action movie when we can't decide what to watch at home.

Why not replace Newark and Jersey City with Hudson City? That way its right across from Brooklyn and Manhattan - and the Empire Club. Two cities for the price of one!

Yes. The "incident" you refer to was a pair of sock-puppet accounts that purported to be a "hot lesbian couple" named Rachel and Kara created by a cat-fishing troll named Fred Bittick. Some of us had figured it out fairly early on (the photos, personas, and anecdotes were improbable), but even gentle attempts to point it out resulted in some extremely nasty blow-back from board members who had bought it hook, line, and sinker. You either had to ignore Fred or play along so as not to be labeled all manner of nasty names. Ignoring him was not as easy because he was a very active and aggressive poster and would sick other people onto you if you didn't respond to him. It was like an Orwellian social experiment. To compound matters, Fred tried to insert himself into people's lives beyond the boards via private messages and instant messaging, and attempted to draw out intimate and private information from board members while sharing fake information of his own. His first attempt to do that with me was when I concluded my initial doubts were correct. I think that intrusive and falsely obtained intimacy was, more than anything, is why those who let Fred in and became "Rachel and Kara's" most defenders / advocates were so deeply hurt by the whole thing. I kept my "I told you so" at the end very low key as a result. Personally, I formally take everyone on the boards at face value until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Its simply easier (and mannerly) to work from that premise. But, I keep my eyes open, and I'm sensitive to the fact that some people cynically construct Internet personas that gives them social leverage in interactions / debates. I do not assume that is what is going on here. You can't go through your days suspecting everyone all of the time. I want everyone on the boards to be comfortable being themselves and to give one another goodwill, friendliness, and grace irrespective of who they may be. The only person any of us can represent is ourselves. I encourage everyone to do just that.

The first question you have to answer is one of design sensibilities. A broad interpretation of the Survival skill and the requisite weapon skills could be sufficient for many groups. Ergo, Survival 16-. That's the fast and dirty way to do it. However, you could also require background skills, but make them broader / more inclusive. Ergo, PS: Prepper God 16-. This would cover everything that Survival didn't. Or, you could get really granular and have discrete background skills covering very specific things you want them to know or do. An example, High Society can cover Fashion, Grooming, Manners, Who is Who, Juicy Gossip, Social Feuds, Luxury Items, and Culinary Hot Spots. Or, you can make people buy those as background skills individually. I used to build characters with scads of background skills. I realized over time, however, that many of those skills existed for form rather than function. They were really intended to flesh out the character. They were fluff text that / character notes could have been included in descriptive prose.

Could we go with Barbara Eden? ? If I can only have one genre: Pulp. If I can only have one system: Hero. Now, both of those are "cheat" answers because Pulp is really a style that covers many genres and Hero can simulate anything. In other words, I was thinking, "If this were a Wish spell and the adjudicator was Gary Gygax how would I word it?" In the spirit of the OP's question, however, if I could only have one my first choice would be: Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes. Runners up: Top Secret SI and Victory Games' fabulous James Bond 007 RPG. I guess that boils down to "Action / Pulp Hero."

Dice cream is awesome.

A wife foreign policy. Unless your group has monolithic political views, or has been briefed and bought in, its a recipe for disaster. The same is true of religion. There are a lot of different kinds of liberals and conservatives out there. There are a lot of different kinds of democrat and republican voters out there. Painting one side or the other with a broad brush runs the likelihood of alienating people.

NND or drain works. You could slap on "not vs. resistant defense" to simulate its lack of penetrating power or need to prick the skin.

I always do.

I agree, but if one is bent on it: "Psychological Limitation: Lawful Good."

In this vein: the Traveler 2300AD rules are, in my opinion, underrated. It took time and work to come up with a consistent and comprehensive set of task resolution difficulties (they didn't do it for you), but it was very easy to run once you had that down and pretty flexible. Another really great system for crunchier tech-heavy settings, especially vehicles, is SilCore. It was the underlying chassis for Heavy Gear, The Jovian Chronicles, and Tribe8 and has some great rules for varying the level of cinematic realism you want.

First, this assumes you are slapping "requires skill roll" onto a power. Second, it assumes you are buying spells as powers to begin with. It may be customary or recommended or orthodox to build spells as powers, but you don't have to do so. Instead, you can just implement a skill based magic system. No faking required. You don't need anyone's permission to do so. But, if fear of interpretation and deviation without designer sanction makes this seem far to taboo to bear, I shall also quote the rules: "The GM could set up the magic system so that characters don’t pay Character Points for spells; they get them “for free” after buying certain Skills and/or Perks." George Takei voice: "Oh My!" That's in the Advanced Player's Guide on page 190, by the way. Many of us have been doing it this way long before Steve got around to codifying it. There are write-ups for skill based magic on the boards. You can also find one on at Killer Shrike's website. I always do skill based magic and its really easy to do. Example: I jot down "Fireball: Blast 6d6, Explosion, End [6]" but the player buys: Fireball 14- (7 Points). I've found this simpler, faster, and easier to manage insofar as the following guidelines are observed: Spells must be researched, found, or learned from a master. Spells must be purchased individually. E.g., No "Fire Magic 14-" Spells are not characteristic based. You pay 3 points for an 11- roll and 2 points for each +1. Think really hard before allowing skill levels that affect more than one spell. Have a set of common modifiers for spell rolls. I've found up to +/-4 works well. I hear you cry: "But what about really powerful spells?" You can include prerequisites for learning the spell. These could be specific spells, a certain number of spells from the same school, or a relevant background skill at a specific level. Another tack is to jack up the limitations in your write up. Make it time-consuming, expensive, and/or exhausting to cast. Require helpers. Or make the getting the focus ("material component") a quest in of itself. Who said knowing a spell meant it was convenient to cast? Balance issues solved. Maybe I'm just an old dinosaur who came up in the era of rulings over rules, but one of the things I love about Hero is that their are multiple correct ways of accomplishing the same thing in the rules. Another thing I love about it is that for all of Steve's legalese, you aren't locked into his personal design philosophy. It may be the default, but its not the exclusive "One True Hero Way." Its like magic for a skilled GM. ?

Do you mean the rules as presented in the Fantasy Hero genre book? Because that's a genre book. Those are not rules as written. Those are rules as suggested. THIS IS HERO! There are no rules as written dictating how you create a magic system from scratch using the core rule-books. I see no actual rules issue with deviating from the Fantasy Hero baseline to do away with the AP based penalties.

If you find that reaffirming, go for it.

Only if you build the spell that way or decide its a campaign default. The book certainly assumes you will do it that way and sets it as the default, but you don't actually have to do it that way. I do skill based magic and never impose active point penalties to skills rolls. On the other hand, I do have a skill cap in my games (15-) in my games and do impose situational modifiers of up to +/- 4 for things like stress, insufficient time, missing components, fatigue, assistants, power foci, etc.

Add some gray hair to my avatar and find me a real lightsaber and its not too far off the mark.

I agree. A few ideas: Make her like Serpentor. A genetically perfect super-soldier with the memories of the ancient queens and warriors she's built from. Atalanta, Bouddicia, Candace of Menroe, Cleopatra, Empress Jingu, Khutulun, Lozen, etc. Indeed, discovering Viper is going after the DNA of a dozen famous warrior women and trying to discover / stop what they are up to could be an entire campaign in of itself. Make her a Gorgon like Medusa. First, its has a strong snake feel. Also, you could give her a combination of scary gaze powers without really turning people into stone. Paralyzing Gaze, Fear Gaze, Hypnotizing Gaze (post hypnotic suggestion, lost time, mental domination, etc). Make her a vessel for channeling the spirits of ancient snake cultists / mages. A living, breathing "well of souls" of sorts. The spirits in her could give her enhanced characteristics, regeneration, and ancient knowledge on top of spells.

What if Trump is really one of Dr. Destroyer's doppelganger robots? Or being controlled by Menton?

This will sound crazy, but... the 5e version of Oculon. He's the most "super-agenty" member of the group and can be used in agent-level games with very little downward power adjustment. If you strip out Armstrong's super-stats, he can be used that way, too - and is still a baddass agent buster. Why do I prefer that? Because I feel like the Dragon Branch, Avengers, Prime Team, and Unity are 100% necessary but also underscore a huge power gap. Most player characters make fielding agents, even equipped with super-tech, pointless. Without these teams these organizations aren't tactically effective. This is not a right or wrong. That is how a lot of people like it. But, for me, I prefer to run super-agents with powers (and resource points). Admittedly, that's a lower power level than a lot of people want to play at, but its what works for me and its proven both fun and sustainable over time. I do have supers out there, but they tend to be a little more down to Earth.

"Wunnerful! Wunnerful!"

Yes. I find Lawrence Welk banal. Its like having your head dipped in beige paint. Or a shot of Novocaine directly to cerebral cortex. Or being forced to watch Upstairs Downstairs. But my Grandpa Bill and Grandma Liz could not get enough of it. That show was on every single Saturday without fail. Welk was a radio age big band leader who decided to recreate a "radio hour" music format for television - and kept doing it into the 80's. The problem was, he and the show never evolved with the times. It became a time-capsule parody of itself. He had a huge eye for talent, but he was so bent on insulating his audiences from changing culture and mores that no one who was engaged with modern culture wanted to watch. I can watch 10 or 20 minutes of it every other year or so and get a kind of campy-kitchy laugh out of it, but camp requires a self-awareness Welk didn't possess. It is a sanitized record of a life and times I never lived - and never wanted to.

I decided to wait to respond to this and think about what to say. The reason is: you and I aren't having the same conversation. We also, very clearly, have different cultural and political priorities. I am not talking about policy goals. Those are trivial. I could not care less. I'm talking about something higher up the mountain than that. I'm talking about political values. When I said our traditional definitions of left and right were no longer useful because both parties were, above the finite policy level, pursuing mirrored (and selfish) tracks, you immediately started making partisan arguments and saying "well that guy is worse than my guy." So what? Again, I could not care less. We aren't even having the same conversation. You are playing a finite game based on interests and short-term political gains and beating the other side rather than an infinite game based on values. That is also what both parties are doing, too. And, its bad game theory. A finite player who takes on an infinite player invariably loses. They run out of resources and quit the game. You want to debate me? Change your game. Become an infinite player. If you don't, pursuing this is a waste of my time. I don't care if the republicans started it or the democrats started it. I don't care if the republicans are really really mean while the democrats are merely really really petty. Who cares? Pointing the person who started it doesn't change the result. If the dems are so smart and moral and wise, why are they playing the same finite game? When you make your decisions based on finite interests you are not predictable and, from a cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military perspective that has serious negative consequences. Namely, you destroy the well of trust required to make cooperation possible. If you play the interests game friendliness and goodwill, respect and honor, go by the wayside. One party may win, but the entire nation loses in the long run because cooperation - E PLURBIUS UNUM - becomes impossible. How do we survive? We come together and cooperate. How do we prosper? We come together and cooperate. If the parties aren't doing that, why do you think taking a side will save you? For me, America is not a finite game. It is not about the interests of individual parties and groups. It is not about specific pet policy decisions for special interest groups (or voting blocs). I will not play your game. For me, America is about life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's security and happiness. I know my political values. I stated them. You responded with partisan policy complaints. That is the root of the problem this nation is facing. I have zero patience for either party. Neither represent me or my political values. Neither represent the values our nation was founded on. They represent a hungry and intrusive administrative state. Both are pursuing their own short-term finite partisan interests. When they play to win on that level the people lose. I want a party that is running on the values its for rather than the people and policies it is against. The GOP ran on "Not Obama. Not Clinton." They won. Now the Dems are running on "Not Trump." Maybe they'll win. But, that is valueless finite drivel. And that is the problem with Washington. They have lost sight of our most basic and traditional of values. The ones found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The aspirational glue that forms the WE in "We The People." And, so has the media. And so have stridently partisan voters. I choose to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American. Its infinite because its value based. Democrats good! Republicans bad! Republicans good! Democrats bad! Utter tosh. Petty finite interest driven nonsense. Both are playing against the very values this nation was founded to aspire towards. You can choose to play that game if you want. I won't be joining you.

Worth a listen. Maybe, just maybe, Trump isn't the root of the problem he represents.

I dreamt I was on the Lawrence Welk show. I was dressed like the host in one of those obnoxious light blue dinner jackets and we were talking about rockabilly tango dancing (?!?). Anyways, Glenn Miller was leading his orchestra playing a desultory rendition of Begin The Beguine while my grandparents sat in the audience saying approvingly "Oh look, there's David. He's a regular on the show now." My daughters were in the audience too, looking up from madly texting on their phones with a "what the hell is all this?" look on their faces. My mom, at home, switches to FRD-TV. But, here is the thing: Tennesee Earnie Ford and Freddie Mercury are on stage with us, ferverently whispering at one another. My wife comes out onto the stage dressed for dancing and while Lawrence introduces her the band starts kicking up the tempo. The next thing I know Glen Miller gives a signal, Louis Armstrong struts out from amidst the band blaring his trumpet with huge, and Tennesee Earnie and Freddy Mercury launch into a high power duet of "The Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy from Company C.". My wife, who doesn't dance, is suddenly doing sensational swing moves and spinning around me with her skirt twirling, while I just stand there snapping my fingers and bopping my head to the beat trying to look hip. Freddie is doing his big strut and ass wiggles at Lawrence who is really digging it while while Tennesee Earnie dips my wife and swings her in an amazing dance slide back to me. Welcome to my inner life...