Vondy

I am a fan of Bureau 13: Stalking the Night Fantastic and its attendant supplements. "Protecting America from everything!" Another, less tongue-in-cheek, option is anything in the Delta Green line. And, let us not forget Urban Fantasy Hero from Hero Games! Other hero books I found useful for this kind of game are the Grimoire, Demon, and The Mystic World. The write ups for vodoo, black magic, and witchcraft in the former were time savers. The latter two, however, were more useful as inspiration. All the stats have to be downscaled for heroic play.

I run ongoing "small group games" focusing on solo heroes and duos. Once in awhile, a trio. The small group size and serial nature allows for a more personalized, character-centric style of play. It also allows one to simulate the kind of stories you more often see on television or in comics that aren't team-focused. Because of this, while I like to keep things moving and my games have a lot of Action! and Drama! they also have a fair number of sub-plotty social interludes aimed at showcasing the character's relationships, lives, and whatnot. It doesn't hurt that my players tend to want to know what their characters wardrobes, cars, domiciles, and whatnot are like as a means of fleshing out their character's aesthetics. I find all of this useful as I can often use them as "left-handed" hooks for investing them in the main plot (when done right). I used to run games for larger groups of 4-7, but at that point, you have a lot less time for individual attention to character detail.

It depends on what I'm running! I prefer a harder science fiction that has very little rubber, or is at least, rooted in believable speculation. Some gaming examples would the Jovian Chronicles, Cyberpunk, and Transhuman Space. I regard a lot of popular "science fiction" as actually being different genres, or at least sub-genres, altogether. For instance, to me, Star Trek is really futurist social fiction rather than science fiction because it's not about the science. Trek uses speculative aliens and technology and metaphors for contemporary social criticism while presenting a hackneyed boomer woo-woo view of the human ideal. It's about Roddenberry's pretentious utopian vision. And Star Wars, which I love and run? What science? is a straight-up fantasy tale reskinned as a space opera. It's a mythic tale that gives a nod to morality plays while never quite rising to being one. To call either of these franchises science fiction is to do them, and fiction that is really about the science and its realistic implications for man, a disservice.

Another thing to keep in mind is that martial arts can be purchased with multiple weapon elements including barehanded. If you have the drive back maneuver, for instance, in your sword-fighting "MA" package along with the "barehanded" weapon element, you can shove the attacker who disarmed you back to gain space to recover your weapon. If you have the trip maneuver (its in sword-fighting in HSMA) then you can knock them down to gain that same time... or switch to "put the boot in" while they are prone (+4DC) and start face stomping for 6-8d6. Alternatively, drop down on top of them (grab) so they can't effectively use their weapon (you are too close), snatch up a rock, and start in helmet-bashing! By that same token, who said the opponent you disarmed doesn't have unarmed martial arts separate from their weapon fighting. A simple "Knockout Punch" (+1 OCV, -2 DCV, +4DC) and Steel Gauntlets (+1DC) could result in a nasty 7-9d6 surprise. The list continues... SHWING! "Ha! Take that! You are disarmed! Yield I say!" "Foolish Knave!" KA-POW! CRASH! "I yield! I yield! For I am stunned and prone and... wait! Get off of me! What are you....?!" "Die you lame-arsed Oedipus wannabe! Die! Die!" Klang! Klang! Klang! Spurt! Spurt! "Drat! He is more proficient with a rock than a sword! Why didst I disarm this savage foe...." "He lies dazed. I shall recover my sword for the coup de grace!" The thing about Hero is: you've got options.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!! Der Rumper Trump!

Polls have been showing Trump v. Clinton to be a much tighter contest than Trump v. Sanders for months. In the former she's just barely eked out wins and has steadily lost ground. This is within the margin of error. In the latter, Sanders has typically been ahead by the margin of error or slightly greater. In some cases, much greater. The simple fact is, no matter how hard her supporters try to spin it, people dislike her almost as much as they dislike Trump. If she doesn't have a big moment, or hits the wrong tone once to often on the capaign trail, she very well could lose... and badly. Clinton is an unlikable plodder whose policies are unimaginative and represent a status quo Americans increasingly see as corrupt and elitist and stacked against the common man. And, trotting Bill out on economics, irrespective of his competence, is a hack move that will be read as weakness. In a campaign between a plodding hack and a windmilling baffoon, the buffoon may just land a knockout punch. If past performance is an indicator, she is, contrary to media fantasy, in a much more tenuous and vulnerable position than the dems want to admit. In this case, the less electable candidate is (clinton) is likely to win the nomination. And, me? If she doesn't offer Sanders camp substantive policy concessions and clean up her act, I'm going to sit back, eat popcorn, slurp my soda, and cheer while she gets beat down and bloodied. I can survive four years of Trump if it means the DNC pulls it's head out of its collective backside and realizes they lost touch with key elements of their base. They need to get with the times and with the people. So does Hillary. The people shouting for unity really mean surrender. I'd rather go down fighting for my principles in this case. I want her to lose. Badly. It's the best way to teach the DNC what they need to know to elect a real populist firebrand.

There isn't any systemic weighting based on the electoral issues you raise. Its up to Bernie to make that argument to the superdelegates. If he can, maybe he'll shut up about them. They serve a purpose. That said, I do think that superdelegates should not declare themselves prior to the states voting. I feel they have undue influence on the populist vote by pre-weighting the outcomes.

It is perfectly within the system to fight it out to the last ballot and to try to convince the super-delagates to switch sides based on better polling numbers against the eventual rival. That the odds are very strongly against that happening is a separate consideration and the Hillary supporters who are trying to shame him into quitting on their terms are, quite frankly, being undemocratic because they don't like that the system hasn't silenced their opposition (yet). As for the runner-up endorsing the winner: it may be tradition and good politics, but I see absolutely zero moral value in the act. Nor do I see nominations as being of any value whatsoever if they are made pro-forma and only because its expected. If a runner-up were to refuse to endorse the winner because they believed they are a sad-sack candidate and a poor choice for president, I wouldn't shed a single tear over it. I am sure, should Bernie lose (which I believe is likely), that he will endorse Hillary on the grounds that she is not Trump. He's said he thinks she has the intelligence and competence to do the job. That does not, however, obligate his followers to vote for her in any way shape or form. Its not incumbent on Bernie to convince his followers to vote for Hillary. In the absence of substantive policy overtures on her part, I see that as pure nonsense. Its 100% on Clinton's shoulders to convince us to vote for her. If she can't, then she deserves to lose. Four years is not an eternity.

I could riff on that in so many outré ways, but I shant.

I'm sure there are politicians who will promise you a pony...

From CNN: "Despite the former secretary of state's status as the almost certain Democratic nominee, tens of thousands of Democratic voters still prefer another candidate — Sanders." Disingenuous, much? Try millions.

I think agency = violence is shortsighted and, frankly, Hollywood stupidity rubbing off on hack social theorists. Yes, the ability to use force is a kind of agency, but it is a limited and narrow agency with real drawbacks in all but the most desperate circumstances. In our modern society, force is the agency of last resort. Can some women be warriors? Yes. But, that is hardly the be all and end all of personal agency. What is more, not all men are capable of exercising that kind of agency, and as time marches on, fewer and fewer can do so as age grinds us down. War-fighting (using force) is best left to younger, fitter men. No one argues a seventy year old man lacks agency because he is no longer capable of being the quintessential action-hero. So, why would we argue that the average woman, who is not likely to possess the desire or athleticism necessary to be a warrior, is somehow lacking agency? Must one "punch Cuthulu out" to have agency? I know I'm going to get flack for being impolitic, but injury and efficiency reports for integrated combat units (and women in selection courses for combat units) underscores that far fewer women have the necessary athleticism to compete for infantry slots. Some certainly do. That hardly establishes a norm. There are a lot of ways to assert yourself, stand up for yourself, and exercise agency in this world. "Women who fight," while popular for bucking norms, playing with the boys, and an exercising an unusual form of agency for most women are far from being the only women who exercise agency. It is the agency of last resort, and defining it as "agency" as opposed to "a form of agency" does everyone who isn't a youthful warrior in fighting trim and injustice. Focusing exclusively on the most extreme forms of traditionally masculine agency gives people a very warped view of agency to begin with.

After all, Sasquatch.

Indistinguishable?

But, what if the people who say they are leaving are people I'd like to see go? Dillema!

I'm voting for Bernie, even if I have to write him in.

Dupe

I'm kind of an outlier case to begin with, but your point is well received. For many white folk, Jews are only "ivory white." Stupid, but then, so is racism.

This is very good.

Technically speaking, yes.

People to avoid: Middle Initial Guy. The initiated will understand.

I just received a DNC fund-raising call. A part of their lengthy spiel was that they are raising money to target vulnerable seats held by white male republicans. Me: So, hang on, the seats you are targeting are held by white, male republicans? DNC: That's correct. Me: I'm white and male. DNC: ... Me: Why didn't you just say "republicans?" It might surprise you, but I have no problems with white people or male people... They hung up.

Most characters in editions 1-3 were 100 base points and weighed in +/- 225 points. DCs and defenses also tended to be lower. This wasn't explicitly spelled out, but it was implicit in the materials you were presented with. In 4th edition, 250 (total) points became an explicit starting baseline for "average" campaigns and the sample characters were built to it. While many villains were more expensive, they still used the same base points with assorted "villain bonuses" to round out the math. Those guidelines did creep upward in 5th and 6th editions, as did the DC/DEF guidelines.

Skill levels are not an equal buy in 6th edition. They are, in most cases, inefficient now. 20 points will buy +2 OCV and +2 DCV or +2 with All Combat, which is significantly less useful / efficient. 5e had skill levels priced correctly. The bean counters lost sight of the forest for the trees.