Chris Goodwin

I agree Killer Shrike howeveri still maintain that Hero System should’ve offered more to help with the new blood.

I have played D&D. I have played Pathfinder.
 
Pathfinder is D&D.
 
It is more like D&D edition. 3.5 than D&D edition 4 is. So if you want to claim that both D&D 3,5 and D&D 4 are D&D, I don't know how you can do so and not call Pathfinder D&D.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary finds the path to the dragon's dungeon....

The Basic Rulebook \ Sidekick were not a different game; they were just slimmed down. The existing supplements from their respective editions were and are usable with them. 
 
As to posters (at the time) anti- comment, I don't recall it that way but perhaps. Experienced players are often dismissive of gateway / entry products; all that eliteness they've amassed I suppose. That doesn't change the fact that getting new blood is essential to growing and maintaining a consumer base.

I never picked up VA nor TA, partly because of the "Hero Universe" thing (which left me cold), partly because every review I ever read said that while TA was extremely well done it was also extremely generic, and partly because for all of that there weren't any sample adventures.  We were looking at an $80+ outlay between the 5th edition rules, Fantasy Hero, and the setting book, and I still couldn't sit down and run the game.  I mean, I know adventures don't sell, but they do help GMs run games, and without GMs there are no players.  

For settings, I'd like to have seen something a little different.  We don't need more generic, rewarmed D&D; I don't mean any offense to Steve, but I wasn't all that interested in D&D-type fantasy, and if I'd wanted to do D&D-type fantasy in Fantasy Hero I could have used any of the other generic, D&D-type fantasy worlds that were out there.  
 
I harped on this for years, and we finally got Fantasy Hero Complete.  Which is something; while I mean no offense to Mike Surbrook, it was pretty generic as well.  But at least I could sit down with the provided materials and run a game. 

Even though I won't actually play in this game, I would agree that I don't play FH for D&D. I like a separately defined magic system, even if it just the Colleges of Magic 4th edition had to offer. Anything but the D&D "you only get 4 first level spells per day" system. ?

Then tell players not to bother with social skills.  Take PRE out of the game entirely.  This will be adjudicated based on player skill, rather than character skill.  If Player 1 invests 50 more points in combat abilities than Player 2, he should be commensurately more skilled in combat.  If Player 2 spent the extra 50 points on social skills, he should be commensurately more skilled in social situations.  Otherwise, the player investing in social skills feels ripped off - and that feeling is not unjustified.
 
If a player spends 50 points on anything, and I as GM let him spend those 50 points, then the onus is on me to make that 50 point spend valuable, on a comparable level to what any other player spent their 50 points on.
 
 
I didn't go far enough into the history to get to the spine injury, or Extremis making his armor a part of him, etc.  Most games won't run as long as the comic.  But his medical issues were pretty much always there, sometimes emphasized much more than others and frequently evolving in some manner.
 
 
First off, I at least care.  Your comments are always well-considered and great food for thought, whether our views align perfectly, oppose entirely or fall anywhere in between.
 
Above, you nail it for me where I have emphasized.  Whether bonuses are provided, and to what extent, could vary markedly and still be fair to everyone at the table, provided that they are applied across the board.  If an eloquent player can get bonuses to enhance his character's social skills, and the combat-savvy player can enhance his character's combat skills similarly, that's equitable.  The extent to which success depends on player skill vs character skill may vary between games, but it is success in all aspects of the game, not just some aspects, so that combat-savvy player gets bonuses for his player skill commensurate with the bonuses our social butterfly gets in social situations.
 
Players lacking any personal skills important to the game (like a nuclear physicist in a fantasy game) may feel left  behind, and that may be an issue for the group, but a player who is proficient with the rules, uses his abilities at the right time and leverages the environment also has advantages - player skill, in some form, cannot be removed entirely from the game.
 
 
I get to say "I swing my sword at the dragon", "I karate chop the thug" or "I throw a grenade in the middle of the room".  I then get to roll based on my combat skills.  If I wish to "persuade the guard that we are invited guests", then I should get to roll based on my social skills.  I have provided no reason, in any of these cases, to expect any bonus to the rolls. 
 
Maybe I flip over the table beside the thug, bringing a crushing blow down from overhead, and get a bonus for my description (and/or for use of the environment) - say +1 DC. Maybe I make a more eloquent speech, including elements from game play (say, we know the Duke is paranoid about an invasion from the south, so I build in our having news from the south into my speech), and I get +2 to the roll (equates to 2 levels placed in DCs).  That's allowing for player skill in description, and in using the in-game elements to their advantage.
 
Perhaps our group allows only use of in-game elements (no bonuses for OOC skills allowed).  That's fine too.  I'd find a game where you can't use in-game elements to your advantage more frustrating, and pretty bland, but that's an option as well.  But when only some actions can be affected by player skill, and others cannot, that does not seem fair to the player whose skills don't grant bonuses compared to the one whose skills do.
 
 
This depends a lot on genre, tone and the nature of the game.  A lot of fantasy game combat abilities are not realistic.  Can I simulate a firebolt?  Probably not.  But how do I simulate a 50 PRE and +10 to Persuasion skills from a real-life perspective?  The Barbarian can soak up more damage than an elephant, and cut down a dragon 100 times his size.  Why can't the Casanova achieve similarly legendary "beyond normal human" feats with his similar investment in social abilities?
 
In a gritty, realistic game, we will have neither.  But we will also have a much better frame of reference to imagine a more mundane use of social skills, so does it really matter that Bob cannot simulate the suave seductiveness of Roger Moore's James Bond, or that it's hard to picture the 350 lb sweaty guy with 3 days' beard growth as the sweet elvish maiden he plays in this campaign? I'm playing an RPG, not taking a college-level drama or debate class.

I voted Enemies and Adventures. Which I would combine into one book. The main thing is that the book must be usable for Champions Complete like Micheal Satran’s adventures are. I’m wondering if there aren’t several adventure ideas that you could mix in different style of villains to suit your team. 

I voted settings book and adventure modules.  Things that GMs can use to get more players playing with less work.  
 

I voted settings book and adventure modules.  Things that GMs can use to get more players playing with less work.  
 

Low mana areas restrict mana regeneration and cause penalties to skill rolls, some even cause an endurance cost in addition to mana.  But it reduces some side effects.  High mana areas give a bonus to skill rolls, can increase mana regeneration and even reduce mana costs of spells, but also can increase or even give side effects

If I started paying attention to stuff like "days won", I'd start posting things in an attempt to get likes and trying to avoid conversations where I had an unpopular opinion.
 
So I have to cover my eyes and pretend that stuff like that doesn't exist here or I'd be off chasing the ever-elusive "like".
 
I've had my account since 2007 and in that time have been active in the forums about a year total. I've "won" a single day so far but have participated in a lot of great conversations.

I am currently running a campaign where all spells must be powered by END Reserve: Mana Pool (for Magic) or a Divine Pool (specific to each deity). The pool’s recovery requires Meditation/Study for Mana or Prayer/Worship for Dicine. The Recovery of the pools is also affected by the character’s physical location.
 
Very High Mana Area = x2.0 REC
High Mana Area = x1.5 REC
Average Mana Area = x1.0 REC
Low Mana Area = x0.5 REC
Null Mana Area = No REC
 
Deity’s Consecrated Ground = x2.0 REC
Ally Deity Consecrated Ground = x1.5 REC
Non-Consecrated Ground = x1.0 REC
Other Deity Consecrated Ground = x0.5 REC
Enemy Deity Consecrated Ground = No REC
 
There is no difference to the actual spell casting unless the spell is built with a specific limitation, i.e., “Must be cast on the Deity’s consecrated Ground” [-1] or “Does not work in Low or No Mana Areas” [-1/2]. 

I'd backrev the Time Limit modifier from 6e, myself.

Here: The Fantasy Trip Kickstarter
 
It's got a lot of stretch goals done and yes, very quick and easy system.   It's what I played before Champions.  (Hexes and points, but way simpler)
 

The Fantasy Trip I’ll second also.

The Fantasy Trip, aka Melee/Wizard.
 
Just about as simple as a role playing game can be and still function.
 
And after many years out of print, I understand it's soon to be available again.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Taking a palindromedary into the labyrinth

Jason Walters, whose board username is @Jason S.Walters, would be the one to ask.

Dispel, Suppress, or Drain against any of the Powers that are built through those Foci.  

In my case, it was the internal consistency that was the problem.  
 
Champions, 3rd edition, was a different game from Danger International and from Fantasy Hero, 1st edition.  To me, it was fine that they had different sets of rules.  For the most part, perfectly compatible; a lot of the optional dials-and-switches type rules in 4th through 6th editions are almost word-for-word identical to their first-gen counterparts.  
 
To me, the parts that are different serve a purpose in their difference.  Champions, the 3rd edition core rulebook, didn't need or have an extensive skill list, because finely detailed extensive skills weren't the point; the point was the things that your character can do as a superhero.  It told the GM how to do skills, including importing them from Danger International if you wanted, but an optional way to handle them if you didn't (and the Champions II supplement added most of those in anyway).  Champions wasn't just "a superhero RPG powered by the HERO System," it was a dedicated superhero game that happened to use a house system.  Fantasy Hero used a lot of the same basic mechanisms, but added its own tweaks that worked for fantasy games.  Likewise for Justice Inc. and Danger International.  If you look at, say, Runequest/Call of Cthulhu/Superworld, you can see something similar.  
 
In first-gen era, the games themselves were designed using the core "Hero System" and their own sets of assumptions; each game did its own thing and did it well.  In 4th edition, suddenly we had the fully internally consistent "HERO System" that tried to do everything, and did most of it, pretty well, but you did it all starting with one set of assumptions.  The most unsatisfying games I had were when I tried to run first-gen style non-supers campaigns with people who started with 4th edition; even when I'd write up in campaign documents what I was trying to run, even when I'd use the campaign design sheets, the underlying assumptions tripped us up.  I was trying to run one style of game, they were trying to play a different one.  I was trying to run low powered, primarily skill-based games, and they were trying to figure out what powers their thief should have and how many points they needed for their Multipower.  
 
The truism around the webs is that Hero is best for superheroic games, and GURPS is best for gritty games.  I honestly never found that to be the case, until 4th edition came out.  The group I used to play with in the late eighties, firmly in first-gen era, was an organized group that had five sessions in a weekend; Friday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday evening, Sunday afternoon, Sunday evening.  I was part of that group for about three years, and the system of choice was almost exclusively "Hero System", meaning the first-gen games.  We played ridiculous numbers of different campaigns; some of which went on for two years, some of which went on for two sessions, but 95% of which were one or more of Champions, Fantasy Hero, Danger International, Robot Warriors, Justice Inc.  Each of the games -- even different campaigns using the same game! -- had its own flavor, and own assumptions.  For instance, Fantasy Hero 1st edition didn't include the Martial Arts rules by default.  The assumption was that you were playing swords and sorcery types, with weapon skills represented by specific fantasy-flavored optional maneuvers.  In a Fantasy Hero conversion of FGU's Bushido RPG, I played a ninja (it was the 80's, don't judge) with Karate from DI, so I asked the GM, who chuckled at my kewl-ninja-wanna-be-ness but said yes, I can do that.  If he'd said no I wouldn't have had Karate.  And it was no big deal either way.  You started with the particular set of assumptions in the game you were playing, and asked the GM to go beyond them; it's easier to give than it is to take away. 

Nowadays?  It's one system, one set of assumptions.  The assumption is that everything in the book is fair game; for instance, if want to run a low powered Fantasy Hero game reminiscent of the first-gen days, I can write up a campaign rules document that clearly says "No Martial Arts," and no to a dozen other things, but I guarantee every character will have Martial Arts and at least half of the other things on my "no" list.  And I'll get all kinds of pushback about how this is just his combat style, it's not really a Martial Arts form, and I'll just toss the character sheets back and never run the game. 
 

I remember trying to write a character creation program in BASIC on my Commodore 64.  ☺️

There's no such thing as ninj

These are the sorts of things Ron Edwards got out of first-gen Champions!  And in fact is what he's optimizing Champions Now for.  
 
(Boldface mine.) 

I remember trying to write a character creation program in BASIC on my Commodore 64.  ☺️

The limiting factor for spaceships is mass, not volume.  I mean, you can strap all kinds of things to the outside of a ship, as long as it doesn't require air.
 

I learned to add to 250 in my head really fast.
 
That turned out to be a very useful skill when I took accounting classes. :D