Nolgroth

I have a sense that  there were a few design considerations that went into TA which contributed to the impressions you have (which are certainly reasonable). Some of those would not be visible up to the point you've read. It's true that Ambrethel in this era is clearly human-centric, which is pretty common in D&D-esque game settings. I also suspect that Elves, Dwarves, Halflings etc. are so familiar to fantasy gamers that Steve deemed much elaboration on them was unnecessary. But Steve also decided to scatter more details about those races through other sections of the book, which add a little more depth to their cultures and world-views. Some of those appear in sections devoted to generally-applicable topics, such as non-human iterations of the High Faith, or burial customs, or societal attitudes toward women or slavery (nothing meant by the juxtaposition of those last two).
 
Of the various concentrations of Elves and Dwarves across Ambrethel, Steve chose to focus most on the major Elven realms of Elvenholme and Shularahaleen, and on the above-ground Dwarven kingdom of Azarthond; but there are quite a few other communities of both races, although where there are descriptions of them they're usually appended to the human realm or region they're closest to. Often those descriptions add some interesting details, like the close alliance between the Men of Brabantia and the Dwarves of Korregdar; or the Elves of Melurashondar's Retreat who fortified their woods to defend against Vashkoran religious persecution. We even get considerable info on Thordar, the kingdom of civilized Orcs, and a rugged, outdoorsy variant of Halflings, the "Mountain Halflings" of Khrisulia.
 
Then there's the "GM's Vault" part of the book, which adds a few really juicy details.

I'm not sure that's true....
 
Certainly people don't buy an RPG *just* for the art but I have also certainly bought any number of RPGs over the years sheerly based on cover and interior art. 
 
I think any pile of words can be a functional game system. I don't think people buy RPGs because of the words.
 
I think the book has to spark something in the person. Blue and yellow don't spark nuthin' for me.
 
Dr. D vs Seeker made me want to play that game without ever reading it.
 
I remember loads of Classic Enemies based on their art.
I remember buying Champions in 3d based almost solely on the cover art.
 
Since we're a bunch of Hero nerds here I know we all love our system of choice but I don't really think a system has ever sold a game.
I think art sells games.
 
Art invokes creativity.
Art informs potential buyers\players about all kinds of things about the game without them having to read a proverbial thousand words.
Art actually gets potential players to read those thousand or more words of the rules to actually play the game.
 
Shadowrun? Battletech? Bought 'em for the art.
Warhammer\40k? Art. In fact Warhammer and it's family are probably the best case for art being the only thing that really matters. IMO.
All those terrible Palladium games I used to play? It was the art that did it for sure.
Talislanta? Barely remember the system. Loooooove the art and the world and still wanna play that game solely based on the art.
 
Rules are bullshit (to an extent)\no plan survives contact with the enemy.
 
But pretty pictures are always pretty.
 
Art sells product.
 
IMO at least.
 
Gets pricey tho!
 
 

I liked Arnold Schwarznegger's Hamlet.  "To Be or Not To Be  .  .  .  Not To Be."

Thanks for the well wishes. I am normally don't sleep more than six hours a day. No reason other than the ol' body just doesn't seem to need it. With this stupid cold, I've been sleeping almost twice that and I still feel wiped out. Hate getting sick.
 
As to why the Blue Gods stand idle (or "weep") as the text says, I am going to attribute that to Mordak's part in the great creation plan. Something that, like a legal contract, has little clauses built in to allow for the rise of such evils. Plus, it might just be that the Blue gods sometimes need to remind people not to take them for granted. Let some evil dude rise up every couple of thousand of years and then send heroes in to save the day and remind folk of how important the Blue gods are to maintaining peace and prosperity or something like that. By Kal-Turak's time, maybe the power of the Blue gods is diminishing. Maybe they become the titans of ancient Greece and are cast down by younger, more vital gods. Who knows? I don't own a copy of Valdorian Age, which is the next chronological entry into the Hero Universe (as I recall). No idea if any of the gods carry over or if they are relics of an ancient, mysterious past. 

I strongly agree regarding the Spearlord. There are a number of mysteries surrounding him that make for intriguing possibilities to explore. (I have my own ideas, of course.) But one of the biggest for me, which also applies to Kal-Turak, is why they're allowed to spread their evil so far? Kilbern leads the "good" Blue Gods, but is also king over all the gods of the High Faith, including the evil Scarlet Gods. It's implied at several points that even Mordak, the chief Scarlet God, fears Kilbern's wrath. The Blue Gods have acted directly against great evil in Ambrethel in the past, such as cursing the Dark Elves to dwell in darkness beneath the earth, and sinking the island of Khem. So why do they suffer the depredations of the Lord of the Graven Spear and his even more evil son? The situation must be more complex than the surface details.
 
(I will send you all the positive energy I can spare, Nolgroth, to try to speed your recovery.)

I've browsed through TA off and on. The strongest part is certainly the sheer scope and detail. The weakest part, as others hve mentioned, is Kal-Turak himself. But I suspect that is an unavoidable consequence of including a world-menacing Dark Lord who is general enough to be useful to a wide range of gamers.
 
Mordak, God of Evil, has the same problem. He's a cipher. But to make him and Kal-Turak not be ciphers, you have to define what evil is and, by extension, what good is. This risks alienating some readers who don't agree with your philosophical tenets.
 
So you stick to the basics. When Kal-Turak wins, the world groans under his tyranny. Got it. Check. We don't define what he wants to rule the world for, unless it's sheer blind love of power and cruelty.
 
(That Kal-Turak is literally born to evil as the progeny of a demon is part of the avoidance of definition.)
 
I am not sure Steve could have, or even should have, done it any differently.
 
I would have liked to see a page on "Deciding What Kal-Turak Wants," for GMs who want more than his generic, motiveless "Evil." It could have replaced the completely awkward, out-of-place page about the Multiverse copypasted from Champions Universe.
 
Dean Shomshak

I started a re-read of the Turakian Age book today. I, admittedly, didn't go beyond the Introduction today, but I figure I will probably read a few pages to a chapter every couple of days until I get through it. So far, my impression of the Turakian Age re-read is going pretty well. I do not have quite the same hardline stance against its inclusion into the Hero Timeline. Not much else of note beyond the Chapters summary. I'll have more commentary as I read further into the book.

THANK YOU! 
 
Thank you so very much! 
 
Not something I am pointing at TA about, but at the vast majority of fantasy games and settings, etc.  If I wanted Tolkien, I'd play MERP.  If I wanted &D&D, I'd play that. 
 
 
And thanks again. 

By Jove -- I take exception to that!

I started a re-read of the Turakian Age book today. I, admittedly, didn't go beyond the Introduction today, but I figure I will probably read a few pages to a chapter every couple of days until I get through it. So far, my impression of the Turakian Age re-read is going pretty well. I do not have quite the same hardline stance against its inclusion into the Hero Timeline. Not much else of note beyond the Chapters summary. I'll have more commentary as I read further into the book.

While Aarn has the reputation for being the largest city in Ambrethel, for big-city adventure I find the Free City of Tavrosel, in Mhorecia, to hold more interesting potential. Tavrosel is described as "an enormous city, second in size only to Aarn." (The Turakian Age p. 85)  Its government is a semi-democracy with an elected ruling Triumvirate, so there's lots of potential for political intrigue. Tavrosel's excellent port position on the Sea of Mhorec linking most of Mhorecia, and proximity to the Great Pass between Mhorecia and Khoria, make it a major meeting place for the cultures of West and East, giving it a diverse, cosmopolitan populace. It also lies in an area of overlapping interest for several larger powers: Besruhan, Velkara, the Sirrenic Empire, and the Hargeshite Empire of Vashkhor. Tavrosel's diplomats spend much time and energy to deflect those states' acquisitive intentions.

I love tailored settings. So much so, that I am building (they never seem to get done) about a half-dozen of them for the fantasy genre alone. Then my problem becomes that I want to run/play all of them so I end up trying to figure how to throw them all together. I usually end up with the kitchen sink setting. 😕

I love tailored settings. So much so, that I am building (they never seem to get done) about a half-dozen of them for the fantasy genre alone. Then my problem becomes that I want to run/play all of them so I end up trying to figure how to throw them all together. I usually end up with the kitchen sink setting. 😕

I love tailored settings. So much so, that I am building (they never seem to get done) about a half-dozen of them for the fantasy genre alone. Then my problem becomes that I want to run/play all of them so I end up trying to figure how to throw them all together. I usually end up with the kitchen sink setting. 😕

Dark Sun especially was fresh and interesting but the basic D&D world is pretty boilerplate stuff.

Nolgroth's story about adversarial players reminded me of a D&D game I was involved in for a fairly short time (maybe a few months).  Even though it was D&D, the DM allowed each player to have *one* unique ability or powerful item, and such abilities or items didn't have to be fantasy related.  One character, for example, had the ability to create a Bic lighter-size flame anywhere (including inside somebody else).  Another guy had an assault rifle with attached grenade launcher (and an unlimited supply of bullets and grenades).  My character could "summon" any relatively mundane item from the modern world - flashlight, tent, pistol, etc. though not things like military-grade weapons. 
 
This was a large group - I think there were 15-20 players total (though not everybody made it to every game session, so in practice it was like 12-15 at a time).  And of course, there were cliques and factions within the group.  It didn't take me long to realized that two of the players (we'll call them Phil and George) would go out of their way to argue and generally make each other's life difficult.  Things often escalated to the characters attacking each other, with most of the other players taking sides.  It got to the point that the DM was getting obviously irritated with the ongoing a**hattery.  Phil was the guy with the Bic flame power; I don't remember what George had initially.  Anyway, in one session George's character got killed (along with several other PCs), so the DM told them to write up new characters with new special abilities / items, and he would introduce them to the group when they were done. 
 
Skip forward about an hour, and they all have new characters ready.  The DM quickly looks them over and approves them, and then lays out the "introduce the new PCs" scenario.  Very simple - we see this trio of what look to be fellow adventurers approaching us on the road, one of whom (George's PC) appears to have a large metallic backpack with a hose leading to something held in his hand.  We're all thinking, "ah, a flamethrower" and that's when d***-head Phil gets the bright idea to ignite his flame inside the "backpack" while the trio of newcomers are still like 50 yards away. The DM asked him to reconsider, pointing out that there had been absolutely no provocation or reason to prompt such hostile action, but Phil was not to be deterred. 
 
Finally, the DM said, "Okay, fine.  The flame appears inside a key component of George's FGMP (fusion gun, man portable), causing it to overload.  This results in a nuclear explosion large enough to kill everybody in a half-mile radius.  George dies.  Phil dies.  Everybody dies.  The end."
 
Given the group dynamics, I'm not sure how the DM could have better resolved the ongoing animosity between the players, apart from kicking both of them out of the game, as well as a few others who were fairly fanatically loyal to either Phil or George.  The DM did restart the game a few weeks later, but I had gotten so sick of Phil's and George's infighting that I declined to rejoin the game. 
 
 

Not really any single player, as I have encounter this phenomena many times over a long gaming career. It usually goes along these lines. This is one of two or three really hot button topics for me. 
 
Bob never really liked Mike. Whether something happened outside of the game or just not liking "the cut of Mike's jib," Bob just detests Mike. To make matters worse, Mike has no clue regarding the situation and if he does, he doesn't understand why there is a problem. To Bob, though, Mike is an unwelcome addition to the gaming group. Now, for the most part, Bob is able to constrain his darker impulses but somewhere along the line, he passes a note, "I backstab/attack Mike's character." The ensuing conversation, carried out via passed notes basically turns out that there is no valid in-character reason, it's just that today Bob has decided to show his proverbial ass.
 
This has happened to me in literally every single campaign I have ever run. The two players may be different, but the situation is almost identical. I ended my last online campaign (way back in 2009) because of this. The "Bob" in that situation was a close friend to two of the other players. That left the "Mike" in that scenario and one other player. As I didn't want to cause discord and malcontent, I just walked away from the group and the game. I could have handled it better, but that move completely took the wind out of my proverbial sails.
 
I have created two solutions to this. I explain both to a group when we first start playing. The first one is a strict "no notes" policy. The only time a note can be passed is if it pertains to something outside of the game. A valid example would be something like "Hey, my daughter has a dance recital at 6, can you find a way to write me out for the night that doesn't involve killing my character?" Other than that, everything must be announced at the table. Roleplaying is a group event that should be shared anyway. If somebody insists on passing the "Backstab" note anyway, I immediately cease the game. I have to, because the situation is one of those that genuinely makes me angry. I explain why (leaving out the involved names) and promise to give the campaign a second chance next session. If it repeats itself, then once again I explain the situation and resign my position within the gaming group.
 
Now, this is not to say that conflict between two characters is not allowed. If the campaign events suggest this as a viable course of action and the players are good sports about it, party conflict can be an amazingly rich story development. It is the underhanded, one player trying to ruin the experience for another that pisses me off.

Hero is a vast system that dares you to learn it.   Luckily for you, it can be learned in small chunks and, if you can avoid some of the frustration traps, can be a very rewarding system. Let's see if we can help you.
 
The GM, when planning his campaign decides a total number of points for the characters. This total number of points is usually based on whether it is a Champions (superhero) game, some version of fantasy or sci-fi, or whatever. Each character is given that many CP to start building their characters. Now in most, if not all, games, some of those points are contingent on taking Complications. So you might see something the looks like 275/75. In this example, the characters would all get 200 points straight out. To get the other 75, they need to buy Complications equal to 75 points. It is also common practice for the GM to assign point ranges for powers in an attempt to balance out the characters, but that is another topic. Hero is designed around a reasoning for affect principle. You look at the narrative aspect of the power and build from there. The Lightning Toss attack is actually an easy power to create. You start with something that deals damage. That's either going to be Blast or Ranged Killing Attack. For our purposes, I am going to choose Blast. It takes a second or so for the power to build up, so I am going to add Extra-Time: Full Phase and Flash has to be moving at full speed for the ability to work (at least from the TV show). I don't have my books with me but I am going to say that is a -1/2 Limitation. So the power would look a little like Lightning Toss: 12d6 Blast (60 Active Points) Extra-Time: Full Phase (-1/2), Must follow a Full Move (-1/2). Total Cost: 30 Points. The reason Full Move gets a cost break is that there are penalties for making an attack on the run. If that is just special effect, then he wouldn't get points. That is also part of the core rules philosophy; if an ability gives you a substantial advantage, you pay points for it. If you are mechanically disadvantaged by taking something, you get a cost break. Things that are purely narrative are usually things that you don't have to pay for. That's a whole conversation into itself. A Turn (12 seconds) is divided into 12 1-second Phases. Your character's Speed characteristic dictates which of those Phases your character goes on. There is a chart in the book (don't have it handy but I will edit in page references later). If more than one character goes on the same Phase, the highest Dexterity goes first and so on. Each action is either a 0, 1/2 or Full Phase action. Most actions are 1/2 Phase by default. Any attack action ends that Phase for the character. So it is possible to move half of your Movement (1/2 Phase) and Attack (1/2 Phase). Again, I will edit in some handy references later.

Not really any single player, as I have encounter this phenomena many times over a long gaming career. It usually goes along these lines. This is one of two or three really hot button topics for me. 
 
Bob never really liked Mike. Whether something happened outside of the game or just not liking "the cut of Mike's jib," Bob just detests Mike. To make matters worse, Mike has no clue regarding the situation and if he does, he doesn't understand why there is a problem. To Bob, though, Mike is an unwelcome addition to the gaming group. Now, for the most part, Bob is able to constrain his darker impulses but somewhere along the line, he passes a note, "I backstab/attack Mike's character." The ensuing conversation, carried out via passed notes basically turns out that there is no valid in-character reason, it's just that today Bob has decided to show his proverbial ass.
 
This has happened to me in literally every single campaign I have ever run. The two players may be different, but the situation is almost identical. I ended my last online campaign (way back in 2009) because of this. The "Bob" in that situation was a close friend to two of the other players. That left the "Mike" in that scenario and one other player. As I didn't want to cause discord and malcontent, I just walked away from the group and the game. I could have handled it better, but that move completely took the wind out of my proverbial sails.
 
I have created two solutions to this. I explain both to a group when we first start playing. The first one is a strict "no notes" policy. The only time a note can be passed is if it pertains to something outside of the game. A valid example would be something like "Hey, my daughter has a dance recital at 6, can you find a way to write me out for the night that doesn't involve killing my character?" Other than that, everything must be announced at the table. Roleplaying is a group event that should be shared anyway. If somebody insists on passing the "Backstab" note anyway, I immediately cease the game. I have to, because the situation is one of those that genuinely makes me angry. I explain why (leaving out the involved names) and promise to give the campaign a second chance next session. If it repeats itself, then once again I explain the situation and resign my position within the gaming group.
 
Now, this is not to say that conflict between two characters is not allowed. If the campaign events suggest this as a viable course of action and the players are good sports about it, party conflict can be an amazingly rich story development. It is the underhanded, one player trying to ruin the experience for another that pisses me off.

My favorite YouTube channel.
 
 

C:TNM remains the only version of Champions I actually played more than one session of.

Thanks for the info. I will consider your offer.

Long As I Can See the Light - Creedence Clearwater Revival

C:TNM remains the only version of Champions I actually played more than one session of.

Outside of the art, I'm one of the few people who liked Fuzion. I never got to play Champions: New Millenium, but I really liked creating characters in that system. It just felt clean and streamlined in a way that HERO 3-5 never did.