Jump to content

GM Joe

HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    GM Joe got a reaction from Pariah in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Reminds me of that concept in developmental psychology, "Object permanence." We're supposed to have that down by the time we're 2 years old.
    I guess it takes some of us longer than others.
  2. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I remember a print interview quite a few years ago, in which Trump was questioned about making a new deal with someone who'd already lost big in one of his previous ventures. IIRC Trump's response was along the lines of, "That was the past, it doesn't matter."
    The pattern of DT's interactions with business associates and world leaders has been transactional, based on what he believes will benefit him at the time. He's not looking for allies or considering long term implications. He'll insult someone one day, praise him the next, if that suits his purpose of the moment; and deny that ever happened even if there's proof. I don't think he comprehends why past precedents would influence anyone's present decisions.
  3. Like
    GM Joe reacted to massey in A rule that always bothered me, Full Move, Half Move and Attack, DEX, SPD, and you!   
    It made sense to me the first time I saw it, but I came to roleplaying from a wargaming background.  It made perfect sense to me that combat is broken up into sections and you might sometimes get an unrealistic result, because it's not somebody's turn to go yet.  Combat usually takes up the largest part of most rulebooks, so more complexity isn't always better.
    In my mind, we get around this with held actions, everyone starting on segment 12, and the chance for surprise.  During the course of a fight, you aren't always ready to react at every instant.  Also, if you've got 30" of movement, you kind of are like the Flash.  Yeah, you're at the other end of a football field, but you can cover that distance in the time it takes me to get out of my chair.  One of your superpowers is moving fast.  In a comic book, you covering the distance to hit the other guy would be shown in one panel, and there would either be a streak of color behind you, or whoosh lines, or if you were a Batman type there'd be little afterimages showing you doing flips and bouncing off cars acrobatically to cover the distance.  To interrupt somebody in the middle of their panel, you need a held action.
  4. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Trechriron10 in Hall of Champions Open For Heroes   
    So, being that I speak Adobe and being that I have some skillz (lulz), I would like to make an offer to ALL Hall of Champions participants. I am happy to help create high quality covers, previews and final products for upload.
    For free.
    I've seen a ton of shout outs on Facebook and the covers are blurry and terrible (I mean no offense...). I would like to level-up our social media presence and this will go a long way towards making it all look "more shiny".
    I can also create FB sized previews that fit better (also Instagram and Twitter), so you can ensure your product puts its best foot forward (we can forward these to Jason if he's cool with that...).
    Hit me via DM or email me directly at trechriron (with at) gmail (dot commage)
    (My final goal would be to create some templates and scripts to help auto generate this in the future.)
  5. Like
    GM Joe reacted to sentry0 in What happened to HERO?   
    I hear what you're saying but I've always been a DIY kind of GM.  Although I certainly appreciate a good setting book crammed with NPCs and plot seeds to use as a playground.
    HERO is great system for DIY, I've gone on the record stating my fondness for the setting books like Turakian Age... it fits in nicely with my mentality.  Weaving in player backgrounds into the world and giving people freedom to explore their characters in a big sandbox is where it's at for me.  I also realize that not everyone appreciates this style of play and there is plenty of demand for canned modules.
    Hopefully the Hall of Champions will provide some cool adventures for those types of GMs.
  6. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Duke Bushido in What happened to HERO?   
    The differences were minor, really.  If you had 2e, Champs II, and Champs II, you had 3e.
    Thats why I never traded up. 
    That, and at the time 3e came about, I was at a point where I was without a lot of loose money to throw at another book.  I have picked and chosen from the newe stuff I liked, (for example, I use the 3/4 e rules on adjustment powers, sort of; things get reversed a bit to be more 2e-ish); not because I liked it being cheaper or working against AP instead of CP, but because it was easier on the players. 
    And it works; it works great! 
    You know why?  Because all editions are not only compatible, but pretty much the same save for the increasing levels of detail, "no," and "must." 
  7. Thanks
    GM Joe reacted to Hugh Neilson in Confused Old Timer   
    Your "supporting of the idea" is not, in my view, supporting the idea.  Being able to use all of the points you spent on attacks at the same time is not, in my view, a clear and obvious advantage.
    The problem is that what you consider is " not the argument" is only "not your argument".  The rules themselves are independent of GM oversight.  Two 60 AP attack powers, used together, are no more problematic than a single 120 AP power used on its own.  Two 30 AP attack powers, used together, are no more problematic than a single 60 AP power used on its own.  That is the relevant comparison, contrary to your repeatedly stated disbelief.
    Comparing a character with a single 14 DC attack power to one who has three 14 DC attack powers is not a relevant comparison.  What did the first character spend his extra 140 points on?  If he spent them on +4 SPD (40 points), +8 DCV (40 points), +20 rPD and +20rED (60 points), I submit that the fellow with the three attacks will find himself outclassed, not the other way around.
    Prima facie, the combined attack is not advantageous.  You are assuming that the GM will permit characters to be built with an unlimited number of campaign maximum attack powers, all of which can be used at once, but will exercise judgment over all other aspects of character creation, such that the choice of having a single, much higher DC attack, a massive CV advantage, much greater defenses and/or a much higher Speed does not exist.  If you allow unbalanced characters with multiple campaign maximum attacks which can be combined, that is the same as allowing any other unbalanced character into the game.  The game is not only, primarily, or even significantly about AP caps.
    Yes, a character who spends 210 points on attack powers  WILL pack a much higher offensive punch than a character who spent 70 points on attack powers.  To suggest otherwise would be nonsensical.  But it is just as nonsensical to suggest that the solution to the reality that spending three times as many points on some aspect of a character should not result in that character being massively more powerful in that one regard.
    We don't allow a character to exceed the campaign maximum DCs by requiring a full phase to attack.  Nor should we.  We instead exercise governance over character construction, and do not allow characters to have unbalancingly high levels of attacks, defenses or anything else.  That properly extends to abilities with which a combined attack can be made.
    You have steadfastly refused to answer the question of what, under your model, the character who purchased three 70 AP attacks at full cost enjoys for the extra 119 points he spent in comparison to the fellow with the same three attacks in a Multipower.  Please provide a direct answer to that question.
  8. Haha
    GM Joe reacted to DreadDomain in What happened to HERO?   
    Thanks for the detailed response Duke. You finally convinced me that the 4th edition is much better than any of the previous editions!
  9. Thanks
    GM Joe reacted to Duke Bushido in What happened to HERO?   
    Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think I have that kind of time tonight!  
    Not at all; go right ahead.  
    Okay, assuming that you did:
    First off: 4e isn't too terribly different from three and pre-three: it's essentially all the supplemental and additional rules from all the related non-Champions games published by HERO games up to that point.  It's a neat idea, but in the end, required a lot of shaving and cobbling to push it all together.  It worked, at least as a game system, but in rendering them all "part of a single universal system," it took a lot of the genre or setting-specific "feel" away from these rules, as well as crowding them into places that we had never really needed them before.  It's a bit long-winded, and--  well, let's move on for a bit.
    First and apparently most-importantly, at least in terms of brevity, is that they weren't written by lawyers.
    Yeah....   that's going to get some hate, so let me add more (in my opinion, totally unnecessary save for the touchiness of people these days) to that sentiment:
    I have _never_ met any of the Holy Legions of Champions authors.  (and to be fair, the one I regret not meeting the most is probably Aaron Alston; his writings and the mythos around him suggest to me that I would have _loved_ hanging out and discussing things with him, rolling dice, etc).  Never.  Not once.  Why?  Well, there was no Champions when I was growing up in Alaska, and when there _was_ Champions, I lived in Georgia.  Not a lot of those folks from this area. Until Steve, none of them lived within two days of me, and the only Con around here is Dragon Con, which I think we have _all_ boycotted since "The Revelation."  (Proudly, I might add)
    I have not met people who have met these people.
    However, I _have_ spoken repeatedly with people who have met a lot of these folks, and I have had my suspicions confirmed:  these are great guys.  These are (as I always suspected) _real human beings_ who do real things, one of which is "enjoy playing (or at least playing with) games."  So when I condemn the "written by lawyers," it is not the people who are lawyers I am condemning.  It is the writing of lawyers I am condemning.
    Look up the Constitution of the United States and _read_ it.  I _dare_ you!  Not that part we all had to memorize in grade school; the hand-written stuff is _easy_!  Get to the stuff added in later years.  Keep going.  I'll come back in a couple of years and check on you.
    Which part was easy?  Which part was unnecessarily over-verbose, ponderously painful to read, required breaking down and diagraming sentences to make sure you followed and understood what was what and which was where and about who?  Oddly, all of this deeply-detailed over-specificity is done in the name of clarity.
    Fine.  So Power descriptions go from one or two paragraphs to a full column, to one or two pages for each subsequent edition.  Does that add anything?
    Each new edition gets better and better indexing, sections, sub-sub-subtitles, etc.  Does that add anything?
    How can I say these horrible things?!
    For one, it's been my experience that people who enjoy role-playing games tend to be readers, and it's been my experience that readers aren't really stupid.  We can be curmudgeons, disagreeable, opinionated, and bastardly, but not generally stupid.  When given an outline, we can fill in enough details to make it all work.  Best part of that?  We tend to bias those filled in blanks with things that we like.  When something _seems_ to conflict, we will either read and reread until we get what we missed, or we will re-interpret it in such a way that it doesn't conflict anymore.  
    So let's publish new, more intricate, more complex rules:  We will fill in the blanks for you.  Now each power seems to have a long list of how every other power _must_ interact with this power, and how each advantage works with every power-- literally broken down by power!
    There are a lot of reasons I disagree with that, the two foremost being this goes against the grain of advantages being fixed mechanics and pushes more toward the "typical" RPG model of telling you precisely how your power works, period.  We are moving away from "Blast" and toward "Ice Blast," "Laser Vision," "Heat Ray, Normal," and "Heat Ray, Gun."  Yes, a bit hyperbolic, but still:  this level of specificity _denies_ "the generic, do-anything system!" mantra we use to support it.
    The additional verbiage doesn't help:  Define each Advantage-- go into great detail there, if you want-- even list out powers that you shouldn't apply it to if you're obsessed about making sure everyone is playing it your way,  but leave it to the groups or the GMs to determine how they affect the Powers.  Personally, I've always felt that if an Advantage can't be applied to every Power, then it should be an adder for the powers to which they can be applied, but you don't see me trying to force that on people, do you?
    Where does all this stuff fit?  Where is it written?  Okay, I wish to alter my Skill Levels mid-combat: a situation that I missed but was told to me yesterday: can skill levels be altered when you abort?  Well, let's check under Combat.  Nope.  Aborting?  Nope.  Here it is, under Skill Levels!  
    Sure, it's a good thing we have an index, but an eighty-page rulebook was even better: check this three-page section.  Nope.  Check this half-column.  Nope.  Check this column on Skill levels.  
    But why?  Why would you put the combat particulars for a skill under the skill description when all other skills simply have "what this does and how it works," and all other "here's your combat options" are under "combat?"   Why put this one thing in an entirely _separate book_?  We have an index now, so I suppose searching through 800 pages must now be easier than searching through 80 (or fifty-six).
    Reading non-lawyer text is easier.  I totally grant that whoever wrote 4e (the name escapes me; Bell, wasn't it?) was unusually "not dry" for a lawyer, and even Steve tends to be less dry with the setting books and genre books (more "not dry" with the settings than the genre), but rules?  Straight to the lawyer speak (with jarringly "not dry" examples, because I assume he gets tired of lawyer speak, too).
    Each new addition adds new Powers / Skills / Whozi-Whatsits!
    Does it?
    I have no idea how many, but I know that there are members still active on this board (besides me) who have been playing since 1e, or 2e or 3e (which seemed to have the largest number of "my first Champions," presumably because it was more successful and wide-spread by then)-- well, let's just say who have been playing since the early to mid eighties.  4e pulled stuff from all the 3e sources, and it added "Multi-Form" and EDM and T-form (though I swear, I _think_ T-form was a fall-out from Fantasy Hero.  My daughter has my FH books right now, so I can't check).  It also added "Talents" and changed some pricing for this or that.   Oh, and Desolid officially lost its granularity, resulting in it ending up being used pretty regularly as "immune to damage."
    Or, as I have always been privately amused to notice:  it added the things we argued about the most!    That's not better, in my own opinion, but your mileage etc.  Math fanatics seem to have been the happiest by the costing changes; I was disappointed by the loss of 1/4 END cost the loss of the extreme cost of 0 END on high-dollar powers.  Damn balancing the friggin' _math_; I'm trying to balance characters against each other in actual _play_.
    Put another way: it became less expensive to become way more "effective" if you were mathy enough, and not all my players are that mathy.  Further, I do math all damned day for money; I don't want to come home and do it again for "fun!"  It's not my bag, but suddenly I'm having to do all sorts of it for my less math-inclinded players who are desperately trying to keep up with the point-shaving pros.  Yeah, that's not a new thing, but with eight-dozen new options, it became much more prominent.  Today, it is the most _famously renowned part of the system" to outsiders, totally killing any other attraction the game may have to the majority of people who just want to pick up and play something.
    But I questioned if the new stuff added anything; I should address that.
    (Hey!  You were right, Amorcka!  Seems there _is_ a wall of text coming!)
    1) There were no Hulk Clones before 4e.
    2) There were no Doctor Strange Clones before 4e.
    3) There were no Shape Shifters before 5e.
    4) There are new things like "MegaScale"
    5) All of the above are bull snuckles.
    Why Multiform when we already had "Only in Hero ID?"  It was pretty easy to extrapolate that into "only in Hulk ID."  And we did.  I mean, it made a lot of sense for "Accidental Change."  Certainly that limitation couldn't apply only to people who had bought "Instant Change?" If that was the case, Instant Change could be more-than-free if you were willing to take a chance on the dice; effectively free if you stuck with 8 or less.
    I am willing to bet most inter dimensional travel was handled by tweaking Teleport.  Most of the groups (man, I miss the 80s with their "game stores and game groups _everywhere_" golden good times!  Yeah, I'm not Australian enough to be able to fully commit to that joke) I encountered were doing it as a -0 Limitation: only for interdimensional travel, but again: mileage varied, and people tended to do _what they liked_.
    Shape Shifters?  Hell, I _still_ ignore the disaster that 5e gave us: the biggest reason you shape shift is to gain some sort of advantage:  certain powers, disguise, whatever--  the fact that you changed shapes is just a special effect.  You don't even need multiform for this; do it the original way:  A list of powers with "only in appropriate ID / form."  Decide with your players which forms are appropriate and cost it accordingly.  Certain forms won't have +15 STR; certain forms won't have 3 levels of Shrinking, either.  
    Was one better than the other?
    Well, go through the history of the board.  Use the Wayback Machine to find as much of the old Red October as you can.  Which one generated the most disagreement?  Spurred the most complaints, confusion, and discussion?
    Mega Scale, while never really written up as an advantage, has floated around many game groups-- those who were interested enough of had a strong enough need to build it-- since the very first edition, when the maps presented in The Island of Doctor Destoyer were spelled out as being displayed in Tactical Hexes, and the movement of the helicopters was given in Tactical Hexes.  No; no stats for that, but it's not hard to take the inspiration and extrapolate, or come up with it on your own, if you have a need.  (We called ours "UpScale," because in the eighties, "Tactical" was pretty much a buzzword used to sell absolute garbage on TV.  Come to think of it, that came around again in the mid oughts, with the new LED "Tactical Flashlights" and-- well, utter crap painted black.  Even today, calling something "tactical" makes me feel all Skeevy McFastbuck).

     Which one --
    well, let's skip that.  The shorter approach to the discussion-- rather than rattling off example after example of differences-- is that the newer editions focus on minutiae; minutiae that wasn't really a problem for most people.  Yes: if you didn't have a group already, you didn't have anyone to bounce ideas off of to get an idea how something might or might not work, and I agree: that kind of sucked.  Still, it wasn't insurmountable.  You could still get an interpretation that worked for you, and if you finally found a group, that's how you played.  Once upon a time, we accepted with _any_ game that some people were going to play it differently, and you let it ride.  As a result of the steady push of "must play the same," when we offer up "house rules" or rules variants, there is endless discussion about the pros and cons (which I enjoy), and invariably there is at least one person taking major issue on the grounds that it is _not_ "The Rules as Written"  (there is more complaint here about drifting away from the letter of the rules than there is in church, for Pete's sake), and is therefore wrong.  Yeah; it's easy enough to ignore that, but still- what's the driving force?  Tighter and tighter bindings of the "must do this way" phrasings of the rules.
    Today, the big control-freak push to make sure that everyone is playing the _exact_ _same_ _way_ is even more ridiculous: rather than make a call or an interpretation that works for everyone in your group, we can send a letter to the author (which, I do not deny, is _extremely_ gracious of him, and re-enforces all I've heard about him being a wonderful human being) to make sure we are playing a game correctly.
    While there is a small resurgence for certain old classics, this isn't one of them.  As others have noticed, HERO is pretty much dead, at least for now and for the foreseeable future.  It was dead before 5e stopped pumping out books; it was dead before 6e came to exist.  Google it up, and you find us few diehards, and lots and lots of nostalgia about "this game that used to exist."  With the fan base at an all-time low and dwindling, sweet merciful Jesus on a stick, why does it matter that we are all playing the exact same way?!  The only single partially-justifiable reason for making calls that may counter your group's enjoyment of the game is the laughable idea of importing a character from one table to another.  Yes; I said it: laughable.  Allow me to recant that and rephrase as "Damned laughable."
    Where does it happen?  Let's see...   Now I'm not playing favorites, here, but in my time on this board, I have had interest in playing with _many_ of the forum members, as I enjoy their takes on certain things.  In no particular order, if I were to select five at random, let's make a quick run-down:
    Chris Goodwin:  lives, based on his posts, somewhere near Seattle.  Maybe some hours from it, but a damned sight closer to Seattle than Vidalia, Georgia.
    Lord Liaden.  Trapped in the frozen wastes of Cannuckistan.  Same for Hugh-- though he's never stated it as such, he gives off a powerful vibe of having also been born and raised in the mystic lands of Canadia.
    Doc Democracy:  Again, I'm not entirely certain, but I think Scotland or thereabouts.  If that's the case, I couldn't play there anyway, because while Scottish reads and writes enough like English to allow easy communication, it certainly doesn't translate as easily for spoken conversation.
    Sean (Shawn?) who's last name fell from my mind even as I went to type it....   From England.  I think he's only popped up one time since I came back, though he used to be extremely active in rules and variants discussions.  Not only is it no less time and money-i-don't-actually-have consuming to visit--- WATERS!  Sean Waters!  -- him than it would be to game with Doc Democracy, but by Sean's own admissions, he doesn't actually _play_ the game.  Still, lots of neat ideas about tweaking rules.
    Christopher Taylor:  he is extremely invested in his personal fantasy setting, which makes me believe that as a GM, he could really sell it, and even though it's Fantasy, I would probably have a great time.  I think he's in the US, but _where_?  And even if it were only a two-day drive, well-- that's a hell of a trip.
    We are diverse and spread out enough (certainly there are lots and lots of players who aren't on this forum.  Or I'd like to believe so.  It's been my own experience that there are lots and lots of _former_ players who aren't on this forum because they're pretty sure HERO and Iron Crown both died some time in the 90s) that the odds of actually being able to _present_ a character to another group is in itself laughable.
    Then there's the absolute fact that the GM has guidelines for his campaigns (well, most of them do.  Mine are pretty damned lax, and I'm not changing that, which just reinforces where I'm going), particularly non-supers games where "no; my magic works _this_ way,"  or "no; I'm not willing to let your 35 STR adventurer in this game because that's above the level of realism I'm going for" or "no; you have to take 'real weapon' because that's how I want all equipment built' and on and on and on and on and on and on and on----
    There is a _perceived_ need, at least among some people, that making sure we are playing lock-step with identical rules is a good thing.  Personally, I think it stifles creativity and results in characters-- and sometimes adventures-- that all have a certain sameness.  I don't view that as a good thing.  You know what?  Let's just stop.  Let's stop with the examples and the discussions and the complaints and even all the stuff I've just said.  It's stupid.
    The point is, as many well-practiced individuals point out above, that the editions all play the same.  Granted, that's because you can pick and chose the rules you want to use from _any_ edition, and I expect that most of us are going to select only the "new stuff" that we like and are using only the rules that let us more or less play the way that we always have.  Granted, this is another point on the side of "why all the verbiage, then?", but remember that different people are going to like different new stuff, so there's that.  But still----
    I can sum _all_ the differences between "old" and "new" with one word (and probably should have, about four thousand words ago  ):
    There is a Hell of lot more "NO" in the newer editions than there were in the old ones.  The old ones are short, easy to read, learn, and teach, and extremely open to creativity and novel suggestions.  The new ones tell you precisely how you must use individual Advantages and Limitation and how that varies from Power to Power to Power to Power....
    Each time you expressly say "this is how it's done," you are also saying "it cannot be done any other way," and I find that unconscionable next to the idea of "build anything you imagine."
    So there you have it:  
    The differences between the new editions and the old editions?  They are all personal problems. 
  10. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Gnome BODY (important!) in Confused Old Timer   
    You're stating a conclusion (Combined Attacks should take a Full Phase) as a fundamental assumption and reasoning from there instead of supporting it. 
    And I feel it's a heavily flawed assumption. 
    It relies on another assumption, that using more than one power at once is an advantage.  If the GM is keeping things sane, using a Combined Attack is different, not better.  If the GM is allowing 3x14d6 in a 14 DC game then of course it's broken, but arguing based on that is as intellectually dishonest as arguing that Hand Attack is OP because technically STR 60 and Hand Attack +12d6 are two 60 AP powers not one 120 AP power so you can have 24d6 in a 60 AP game. 
    So I'm going to take a little digression here to talk under the assumption that the GM allows whatever as long as sum AP fits in the cap. 
    What happens with combining two damaging powers?  That's a rhetorical question, we all know that 2x6d6 is going to be nearly useless in a 12 DC game.  In fact, you have to go to 2x9d6+1 to break even with a basic 12d6 (assuming 25 DEF).  At 2x9d6+1, then a Combined attack is more expensive, better on soft targets but worse on hard targets, never inflicts Stunned, deals less Knockback, and costs half again as much. 
    Combining a damaging attack and a non-damaging attack trades damage for utility, and means you bounce harmlessly off anyone with the appropriate exotic defense.  Blast 8d6 + Flash 2d6 + Drain 1d6 means basically nothing if the target has FD and PowD 5. Ego Attack 3d6 + Mind Control 6d6 means you deal half damage and generally don't mind control meaningfully unless you're going for really low hanging fruit. 
    In fact, the only time splitting your AP into two attacks is even a wash is 3d6NND + 3d6NND, and all you've done there is split your risk of losing damage and open yourself up to doubling the defender's Damage Negation. 
    So in conclusion, because of HERO's subtraction based defenses and threshold based effects, a Combined Attack of powers that sum to a given AP is outright less effective than just using singular powers of the given AP. 
    So what has to happen for Combined Attack to be as effective? 
    I touched on this above, but you have to add enough additional DCs to overcome the target's defenses again.  And this still doesn't help with Stunning and Knockback, a Combined Attack just won't do those well. 
    Let's look at Damage Negation based defenses since they make things easy here.  Defending Dan has 6DCs of DN.  Attacking Anne has 12d6.  She deals 6d6.  If she were Combined Attacking with two attacks, she'd have to have a sum of 18d6 to get that same result, since Dan's DN would apply twice.  Three attacks would need 24d6 sum to get 6d6 though.  So on and so forth. 
    So if for a single attack RAWDAM - DEF = DAM, then for a Combined Attack sum(RAWDAM) - DEF*Attacks = DAM.  Plug in values for DEF and DAM and you can solve for RAWDAM.  This gets a bit more complicated when exotic defenses enter the equation (you have to use sum(effectiveness*(RAWDAM-ThatDEF)) instead) but it holds. 
    Except, whoops, what's happening to the cost per damage as the number of attacks goes up?  Cost goes up too! 
    So in conclusion, because of HERO's subtraction based defenses, a Combined Attack as effective as a singular attack costs more. 
    So what has to happen for Combined Attack to be advantageous?  You have to blow a giant pile of points and the GM has to check off on a construct that looks more powerful because there's more raw dice.  There's some pretty efficient cases, (NND+NND for example) but they're also the most obviously powerful. 
    And our counter-argument is simply one of logic: That thing is not this thing. 
    Want "supporting evidence"?  FRED puts the Multiple-Power Attack rules around forty pages away from the Rapid Fire and Sweep rules.  Very clearly very different things!  6e just moved them together because they're similar, not because they're the same. 
  11. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Simon in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Lee will no longer be joining us on these forums*

  12. Haha
    GM Joe reacted to Lee in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
    -- Groucho Marx

  13. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I don't disagree with you in regards to what "Christian faith" is being used as a justification for in the present day. But what you're describing is a broad modern interpretation of some Christian tenets. All religious faith is by definition a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Those doctrines vary widely. The moral dimension you attribute to faith isn't inherent, and the belief in the fundamental goodness of God, people, love etc. is not and never has been universal. Certainly the Old Testament of the Bible is full of stonings of sinners, destruction of cities for their immorality, and other scenes that depict a God more concerned with obedience and punishment than compassion and mercy. The history of Christianity is replete with torture, murder, conquest and exploitation in the name of God.
    "Unreasonable beliefs" are pretty hard to pin down when you're talking about religion. Someone being resurrected from death days later? Physically ascending into Heaven? The whole human race descended from one couple? Sounds absurd based on our personal experience, but the moment you accept the concept of an omnipotent God, then the boundaries of the possible are whatever It decides they are. Then again, the Earth being round, or it orbiting the Sun, or solid matter made of atoms, or quantum theory, also seem unreasonable based on common experience. Science justifies our belief in those latter things, but most of us haven't tested those beliefs ourselves, and don't really comprehend the depths and scope of contemporary science. We accept, on faith, that scientists know what they're talking about. Yet the ranks of scientists include some deeply spiritual people, who believe their research into the mysteries of the universe grants them insights into the mind of God. So I reiterate, faith and reason are not incompatible.
  14. Sad
    GM Joe reacted to TrickstaPriest in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    It bothers me how close we are to the brink of climate disaster, and how impossible it is to get any progress on the environmental front at all.  By any government. 
    So I don't know about "always shall be"...  😕
  15. Like
    GM Joe got a reaction from Chris Goodwin in What happened to HERO?   
    Anyone else notice the announcement that Chaosium is going to be making an OGL and SRD for the system that powers their popular games, such as Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest -- Basic Roleplaying (BRP)?
    I think that's pretty darned exciting. I'm glad that a good number of companies over the years have chosen to do that. It's opened up a lot of possibilities.
  16. Like
    GM Joe got a reaction from assault in What happened to HERO?   
    Anyone else notice the announcement that Chaosium is going to be making an OGL and SRD for the system that powers their popular games, such as Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest -- Basic Roleplaying (BRP)?
    I think that's pretty darned exciting. I'm glad that a good number of companies over the years have chosen to do that. It's opened up a lot of possibilities.
  17. Thanks
    GM Joe reacted to Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    As that article seems to try to illustrate, yes, that is a major component of it. But there's also a component that sees this as an absolute issue of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Faith and reason are not incompatible, but faith doesn't depend on reason. And Christianity has always included submitting yourself to the will of God. As in what you believe to be the will of God.
    If you believe that the world will be ending and the righteous will be saved by the grace of God, then saving the world is irrelevant. If you believe that people are instruments to bring about God's plan, then the morality of those instruments is irrelevant. If you believe you have the Truth, then other beliefs are irrelevant.
    I get it. I don't agree or approve, and I see this as a self-deluding and self-defeating doctrine which is being exploited by those who don't share that belief, for their own selfish ends. But I get it.
  18. Like
    GM Joe got a reaction from pinecone in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    As has always been, and always shall be...
  19. Thanks
    GM Joe got a reaction from Duke Bushido in What happened to HERO?   
    They ran a Kickstarter to bring back all of their Pocketbox Games of the 80s.
    I'll bet you'll be able to get what you want once the Kickstarter orders are filled in a few months.
  20. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Duke Bushido in What happened to HERO?   
    As humorous and heart warming as that is, I admit to having a "perfect" version od Champions that is pretty much 2e with excerpts of Champs II and III, my own vehicle / giant robo rules, and a small "discussion entry" of new powers from later editions that is essentially 'how to do this with 2e rules."
    Given that there is currently this.   "Champions Now" project and of course a floundering current edition, I doubt I could even get it into the Hall of Champions. 
    I suppose it will forever remain my private "I hope to make a Lulu book" dream... 
  21. Haha
    GM Joe got a reaction from Duke Bushido in What happened to HERO?   
    In the future, everyone will design and publish their own Champions.
  22. Sad
    GM Joe reacted to Pariah in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    At this point, I feel that one could no more tarnish the reputation of the United States than burn Pompeii. That ship left the harbor a long, long time ago.
  23. Sad
    GM Joe reacted to Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    ICE Creates Fake University, Lures Foreign Students, Collects Tuition From Them, Then Arrests and Deports Them
  24. Like
    GM Joe reacted to DShomshak in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Okay, more backlash than I thought (though it mentioned there was some). :-(
    Thus paragraph stood out to me in the linked article:
    "On a local level, two competing visions of Australia are essentially fighting for votes: the Australia longing for a nostalgic past, and the Australia trying to figure out the next phase of integration for a more globalized nation."
    That seems to be the issue in the US as well -- a lot of people angry that the real world and the future are stepping on their fantasy of how things were and ought to be.
    Tough patooties. People who tell the big wide world to go away are doomed to decline. The last several centuries of Chinese history shows this all too clearly, and it's not the only example.
    Dean Shomshak
  25. Like
    GM Joe reacted to Michael Hopcroft in Movies and TV Shows That are Great   
    Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1946)
    One of the very best film performances of the classic era can be found in this adventure film set in 1930s Mexico, and that is courtesy of Humphrey Bogart, a man who helped define modern film acting in the United States, If you are not familiar with Bogey's body of work, you need to remedy the situation.
    Bogart plays Fred C. Dobbs, an American drifter stuck in northern Mexico without a penny to his name. Even as a beggar, he retains a sort of quiet dignity. But when he and a friend take up an "old-timer" prospector to search for gold, Fred's fortunes finally take a turn for the better. Now all he has to do is protect the claim, and make sure he gets to keep his cut -- a cut that keeps growing as greed eats away at his mental and moral condition. This swift, tragic deterioration is terrifying to behold, and must have had a considerable impact on 1946 audiences used to seeing Bogart play anti-heroes like Sam Spade (The Maltese Falcon) and Rick Blaine (Casablanca) who always effortlessly kept their cool even when dealing with impossible moral choices.
  • Create New...