megaplayboy

That's what coalition politics is all about--make a deal with other groups, give a little to get a little, etc.  
My take:
In practice, when you give a demographic minority not just disproportionate political power but strategically important political power, they will use it for "rent extraction"(i.e., to get stuff they want, including "extra stuff", if possible).  They can also use it to "stuff" the majority, blocking anything that might be proposed, for naked partisan gain.  I'm speaking specifically of the US Senate, where two facts obtain:
1) The 15 largest states, mostly blue and purple states, represent about 2/3 of the population but only have 30 seats in the Senate
 The 35 smallest states, a mix of red, blue and purple, represent about 1/3 of the population but have 70 seats in the Senate
2) The legislative filibuster amplifies the power of small state senators immensely, since you only need 41 votes to block legislation from going forward
We have a situation where legislation of immense importance to majorities living in urban areas lies fallow in the Senate after passing through the House, because small state senators see little benefit in spending money on urban areas or doing things that primarily aid urban areas.  This, to be blunt, is dysfunctional as hell.  Dystopian, even.  
There's also the matter of "maker" and "taker" states:  in practice, large and/or wealthy states wind up "sending" some of their federal tax revenues to smaller, more rural "taker" states.  
70% of the US population live in communities of 50k+ population(i.e., urban or dense suburban), 10% live in communities between 2500 and 50k(suburban/exurban, dense rural), and 20% live in communities smaller than 2500(rural).  Demographic trends point in the direction of this disparity getting more pronounced over time.  
I understand the argument about local vs state politics in big states with large urban areas and significant rural population, but, again, my advice would be to network with other "out" groups and form coalitions to get things they need.  

That's what coalition politics is all about--make a deal with other groups, give a little to get a little, etc.  
My take:
In practice, when you give a demographic minority not just disproportionate political power but strategically important political power, they will use it for "rent extraction"(i.e., to get stuff they want, including "extra stuff", if possible).  They can also use it to "stuff" the majority, blocking anything that might be proposed, for naked partisan gain.  I'm speaking specifically of the US Senate, where two facts obtain:
1) The 15 largest states, mostly blue and purple states, represent about 2/3 of the population but only have 30 seats in the Senate
 The 35 smallest states, a mix of red, blue and purple, represent about 1/3 of the population but have 70 seats in the Senate
2) The legislative filibuster amplifies the power of small state senators immensely, since you only need 41 votes to block legislation from going forward
We have a situation where legislation of immense importance to majorities living in urban areas lies fallow in the Senate after passing through the House, because small state senators see little benefit in spending money on urban areas or doing things that primarily aid urban areas.  This, to be blunt, is dysfunctional as hell.  Dystopian, even.  
There's also the matter of "maker" and "taker" states:  in practice, large and/or wealthy states wind up "sending" some of their federal tax revenues to smaller, more rural "taker" states.  
70% of the US population live in communities of 50k+ population(i.e., urban or dense suburban), 10% live in communities between 2500 and 50k(suburban/exurban, dense rural), and 20% live in communities smaller than 2500(rural).  Demographic trends point in the direction of this disparity getting more pronounced over time.  
I understand the argument about local vs state politics in big states with large urban areas and significant rural population, but, again, my advice would be to network with other "out" groups and form coalitions to get things they need.  

That's what coalition politics is all about--make a deal with other groups, give a little to get a little, etc.  
My take:
In practice, when you give a demographic minority not just disproportionate political power but strategically important political power, they will use it for "rent extraction"(i.e., to get stuff they want, including "extra stuff", if possible).  They can also use it to "stuff" the majority, blocking anything that might be proposed, for naked partisan gain.  I'm speaking specifically of the US Senate, where two facts obtain:
1) The 15 largest states, mostly blue and purple states, represent about 2/3 of the population but only have 30 seats in the Senate
 The 35 smallest states, a mix of red, blue and purple, represent about 1/3 of the population but have 70 seats in the Senate
2) The legislative filibuster amplifies the power of small state senators immensely, since you only need 41 votes to block legislation from going forward
We have a situation where legislation of immense importance to majorities living in urban areas lies fallow in the Senate after passing through the House, because small state senators see little benefit in spending money on urban areas or doing things that primarily aid urban areas.  This, to be blunt, is dysfunctional as hell.  Dystopian, even.  
There's also the matter of "maker" and "taker" states:  in practice, large and/or wealthy states wind up "sending" some of their federal tax revenues to smaller, more rural "taker" states.  
70% of the US population live in communities of 50k+ population(i.e., urban or dense suburban), 10% live in communities between 2500 and 50k(suburban/exurban, dense rural), and 20% live in communities smaller than 2500(rural).  Demographic trends point in the direction of this disparity getting more pronounced over time.  
I understand the argument about local vs state politics in big states with large urban areas and significant rural population, but, again, my advice would be to network with other "out" groups and form coalitions to get things they need.  

That's what coalition politics is all about--make a deal with other groups, give a little to get a little, etc.  
My take:
In practice, when you give a demographic minority not just disproportionate political power but strategically important political power, they will use it for "rent extraction"(i.e., to get stuff they want, including "extra stuff", if possible).  They can also use it to "stuff" the majority, blocking anything that might be proposed, for naked partisan gain.  I'm speaking specifically of the US Senate, where two facts obtain:
1) The 15 largest states, mostly blue and purple states, represent about 2/3 of the population but only have 30 seats in the Senate
 The 35 smallest states, a mix of red, blue and purple, represent about 1/3 of the population but have 70 seats in the Senate
2) The legislative filibuster amplifies the power of small state senators immensely, since you only need 41 votes to block legislation from going forward
We have a situation where legislation of immense importance to majorities living in urban areas lies fallow in the Senate after passing through the House, because small state senators see little benefit in spending money on urban areas or doing things that primarily aid urban areas.  This, to be blunt, is dysfunctional as hell.  Dystopian, even.  
There's also the matter of "maker" and "taker" states:  in practice, large and/or wealthy states wind up "sending" some of their federal tax revenues to smaller, more rural "taker" states.  
70% of the US population live in communities of 50k+ population(i.e., urban or dense suburban), 10% live in communities between 2500 and 50k(suburban/exurban, dense rural), and 20% live in communities smaller than 2500(rural).  Demographic trends point in the direction of this disparity getting more pronounced over time.  
I understand the argument about local vs state politics in big states with large urban areas and significant rural population, but, again, my advice would be to network with other "out" groups and form coalitions to get things they need.  

Too soon?

No, but...I would like for a few things to be passed to the federal level, to be more centralized and more consistent...specifically, public education curricula and funding.  An equal quality education everywhere in the country.  It's frustrating to hear that, say, Mississippi ranks 48th or whatever in public education, and for people to be perfectly fine with that kind of disparity existing between states.  

Jeff Yang (Drifters Game Workshop)‏ @DrifterWorkshop Follow Follow @DrifterWorkshop More The perfect character backstory doesn't exi-
4:45 AM - 18 Jan 2020

Jeff Yang (Drifters Game Workshop)‏ @DrifterWorkshop Follow Follow @DrifterWorkshop More The perfect character backstory doesn't exi-
4:45 AM - 18 Jan 2020

The one major change I do support is passing a new Apportionment Act, substantially increasing the membership of the House of Representatives(and, by doing so, increasing the size of the electoral college and diluting the population distorting effect of adding two electors per state for the Senate).  It reduces the likelihood of a "fluke" EC win and popular vote loss while making the House more representative of the diversity of the population.  Third party candidates would also have a more meaningful chance of winning, running in smaller congressional districts.  And I'd package it with provisions for non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions to cut way down on partisan gerrymandering.  

The one major change I do support is passing a new Apportionment Act, substantially increasing the membership of the House of Representatives(and, by doing so, increasing the size of the electoral college and diluting the population distorting effect of adding two electors per state for the Senate).  It reduces the likelihood of a "fluke" EC win and popular vote loss while making the House more representative of the diversity of the population.  Third party candidates would also have a more meaningful chance of winning, running in smaller congressional districts.  And I'd package it with provisions for non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions to cut way down on partisan gerrymandering.  

The one major change I do support is passing a new Apportionment Act, substantially increasing the membership of the House of Representatives(and, by doing so, increasing the size of the electoral college and diluting the population distorting effect of adding two electors per state for the Senate).  It reduces the likelihood of a "fluke" EC win and popular vote loss while making the House more representative of the diversity of the population.  Third party candidates would also have a more meaningful chance of winning, running in smaller congressional districts.  And I'd package it with provisions for non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions to cut way down on partisan gerrymandering.  

The trial of an overwhelmingly guilty president who everyone expects to be acquitted anyway starts next week.  

I agree that there was rules bloat going from 4th-5th-6th, BUT, dear Lord, 3rd edition over 4th?!  I played Champions back in those days, and 4th is a HUGE improvement over 3rd.  One of the biggest reasons for the increasingly "lawyerly" descriptions is that the rules as written back in the day were often clear as mud.  And there were new powers in 4th because a lot of kludges were needed to cover new instances. Plus a lot of mechanics were reworked to be more workable and balanced, like: mental powers, presence attacks, martial arts, etc.
"3rd Edition Hero System" is comprised not just of Champions 1/2/3, but also Justice, Inc, Espionage and Fantasy Hero 1st Ed, IIRC.  Lots of rules and abilities different between those games, so not universal or consistent.  Less than a couple dozen skills for Champions players to buy.  End Reserves were a mess.  The vehicle rules... 
3rd Edition Hero System basically is non-existent.  And 3rd Edition Champions is an inferior product, in presentation, consistency, options and flexibility compared to 4th.  It's like comparing MS-DOS to Win95.  Yes, some people preferred MS Dos, but it was problematic for similar reasons.  

Well, life support can protect one from temperature extremes, and environmental movement can negate penalties for being in water, it seems like one could suss out the net benefit of protection from precipitation.  You could do it with a 1 PD Force Field, 0 END, 2 points active, only to keep precipitation off character, real cost 1 point.  

We have Hero Designer.  It does "the math" for you.  But if I'm a new player, it's still 100 pages of character creation(4th edition) or 200-400 pages(5th/6th).  The math is only a portion of what makes character creation complicated.  There are dozens of powers, each with at least a half page writeup/explanation, some with a multipage explanation.  There are dozens of power advantages and limitations.  There's over 100 skills.  Martial arts is replete with options.  All of these have their own text descriptions and explanations.  Ditto for perks, talents and so forth.  Nobody looks at a 2 inch thick rulebook on character creation and thinks "oh that looks easy to learn".  

I agree that there was rules bloat going from 4th-5th-6th, BUT, dear Lord, 3rd edition over 4th?!  I played Champions back in those days, and 4th is a HUGE improvement over 3rd.  One of the biggest reasons for the increasingly "lawyerly" descriptions is that the rules as written back in the day were often clear as mud.  And there were new powers in 4th because a lot of kludges were needed to cover new instances. Plus a lot of mechanics were reworked to be more workable and balanced, like: mental powers, presence attacks, martial arts, etc.
"3rd Edition Hero System" is comprised not just of Champions 1/2/3, but also Justice, Inc, Espionage and Fantasy Hero 1st Ed, IIRC.  Lots of rules and abilities different between those games, so not universal or consistent.  Less than a couple dozen skills for Champions players to buy.  End Reserves were a mess.  The vehicle rules... 
3rd Edition Hero System basically is non-existent.  And 3rd Edition Champions is an inferior product, in presentation, consistency, options and flexibility compared to 4th.  It's like comparing MS-DOS to Win95.  Yes, some people preferred MS Dos, but it was problematic for similar reasons.  

I started with Champions 2nd edition(the box set), then got Champions II and III fairly quickly thereafter(this would have been 1984, I guess).  I got Espionage, Danger International, Justice Inc, Fantasy Hero 1st ed, and Robot Warriors before the Big Blue Book came out in 1988 or 89, at which point I was in college.  So my first campaign I ran in HS was 2nd/3rd ed, I started running 4th edition in college, and when I joined a regular group in 1992, we played 4th, tried Fuzion for a while but the group was split on it(the long time Hero players preferred Hero System, but the newer players liked the speed and simplicity of Fuzion), played 5th for a little while.  I moved to DC about 15 years ago and played one campaign with a 5th ed setup, and later ran one with 6th edition.  My general sense is that if you gloss over the complexities of character creation and focus on them learning the mechanics of skill use and combat first, it's easier to bring someone on board.  If you start out trying to create a character or recreate a comic book superhero things can get over your head pretty quickly.  Figuring out how to keep a character "within budget" was my first big challenge as a new player.  The second was figuring out how to model powers and abilities which weren't simply a 12d6 EB or 30m of flight.  
 
I think one somewhat valid complaint about Hero is that it's TOO generic.  Even the campaign universe stuff can be a little bit on the bland side.  

I started with Champions 2nd edition(the box set), then got Champions II and III fairly quickly thereafter(this would have been 1984, I guess).  I got Espionage, Danger International, Justice Inc, Fantasy Hero 1st ed, and Robot Warriors before the Big Blue Book came out in 1988 or 89, at which point I was in college.  So my first campaign I ran in HS was 2nd/3rd ed, I started running 4th edition in college, and when I joined a regular group in 1992, we played 4th, tried Fuzion for a while but the group was split on it(the long time Hero players preferred Hero System, but the newer players liked the speed and simplicity of Fuzion), played 5th for a little while.  I moved to DC about 15 years ago and played one campaign with a 5th ed setup, and later ran one with 6th edition.  My general sense is that if you gloss over the complexities of character creation and focus on them learning the mechanics of skill use and combat first, it's easier to bring someone on board.  If you start out trying to create a character or recreate a comic book superhero things can get over your head pretty quickly.  Figuring out how to keep a character "within budget" was my first big challenge as a new player.  The second was figuring out how to model powers and abilities which weren't simply a 12d6 EB or 30m of flight.  
 
I think one somewhat valid complaint about Hero is that it's TOO generic.  Even the campaign universe stuff can be a little bit on the bland side.  

I agree that there was rules bloat going from 4th-5th-6th, BUT, dear Lord, 3rd edition over 4th?!  I played Champions back in those days, and 4th is a HUGE improvement over 3rd.  One of the biggest reasons for the increasingly "lawyerly" descriptions is that the rules as written back in the day were often clear as mud.  And there were new powers in 4th because a lot of kludges were needed to cover new instances. Plus a lot of mechanics were reworked to be more workable and balanced, like: mental powers, presence attacks, martial arts, etc.
"3rd Edition Hero System" is comprised not just of Champions 1/2/3, but also Justice, Inc, Espionage and Fantasy Hero 1st Ed, IIRC.  Lots of rules and abilities different between those games, so not universal or consistent.  Less than a couple dozen skills for Champions players to buy.  End Reserves were a mess.  The vehicle rules... 
3rd Edition Hero System basically is non-existent.  And 3rd Edition Champions is an inferior product, in presentation, consistency, options and flexibility compared to 4th.  It's like comparing MS-DOS to Win95.  Yes, some people preferred MS Dos, but it was problematic for similar reasons.  

I agree that there was rules bloat going from 4th-5th-6th, BUT, dear Lord, 3rd edition over 4th?!  I played Champions back in those days, and 4th is a HUGE improvement over 3rd.  One of the biggest reasons for the increasingly "lawyerly" descriptions is that the rules as written back in the day were often clear as mud.  And there were new powers in 4th because a lot of kludges were needed to cover new instances. Plus a lot of mechanics were reworked to be more workable and balanced, like: mental powers, presence attacks, martial arts, etc.
"3rd Edition Hero System" is comprised not just of Champions 1/2/3, but also Justice, Inc, Espionage and Fantasy Hero 1st Ed, IIRC.  Lots of rules and abilities different between those games, so not universal or consistent.  Less than a couple dozen skills for Champions players to buy.  End Reserves were a mess.  The vehicle rules... 
3rd Edition Hero System basically is non-existent.  And 3rd Edition Champions is an inferior product, in presentation, consistency, options and flexibility compared to 4th.  It's like comparing MS-DOS to Win95.  Yes, some people preferred MS Dos, but it was problematic for similar reasons.  

I agree that there was rules bloat going from 4th-5th-6th, BUT, dear Lord, 3rd edition over 4th?!  I played Champions back in those days, and 4th is a HUGE improvement over 3rd.  One of the biggest reasons for the increasingly "lawyerly" descriptions is that the rules as written back in the day were often clear as mud.  And there were new powers in 4th because a lot of kludges were needed to cover new instances. Plus a lot of mechanics were reworked to be more workable and balanced, like: mental powers, presence attacks, martial arts, etc.
"3rd Edition Hero System" is comprised not just of Champions 1/2/3, but also Justice, Inc, Espionage and Fantasy Hero 1st Ed, IIRC.  Lots of rules and abilities different between those games, so not universal or consistent.  Less than a couple dozen skills for Champions players to buy.  End Reserves were a mess.  The vehicle rules... 
3rd Edition Hero System basically is non-existent.  And 3rd Edition Champions is an inferior product, in presentation, consistency, options and flexibility compared to 4th.  It's like comparing MS-DOS to Win95.  Yes, some people preferred MS Dos, but it was problematic for similar reasons.  

I agree that there was rules bloat going from 4th-5th-6th, BUT, dear Lord, 3rd edition over 4th?!  I played Champions back in those days, and 4th is a HUGE improvement over 3rd.  One of the biggest reasons for the increasingly "lawyerly" descriptions is that the rules as written back in the day were often clear as mud.  And there were new powers in 4th because a lot of kludges were needed to cover new instances. Plus a lot of mechanics were reworked to be more workable and balanced, like: mental powers, presence attacks, martial arts, etc.
"3rd Edition Hero System" is comprised not just of Champions 1/2/3, but also Justice, Inc, Espionage and Fantasy Hero 1st Ed, IIRC.  Lots of rules and abilities different between those games, so not universal or consistent.  Less than a couple dozen skills for Champions players to buy.  End Reserves were a mess.  The vehicle rules... 
3rd Edition Hero System basically is non-existent.  And 3rd Edition Champions is an inferior product, in presentation, consistency, options and flexibility compared to 4th.  It's like comparing MS-DOS to Win95.  Yes, some people preferred MS Dos, but it was problematic for similar reasons.