esampson

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. I'm sorry that you feel that the discussion is nonsense. You are absolutely correct that comics are a form of art and not reality an I've tried to be really, really clear that I'm not saying you can't enjoy comic books, current comics aren't good, that comics need to be more real, etc. The whole kerfuffle has sprung up from the fact that I said that I found DC to be a bit more superficial (I would now use the word 'over simplified') than Marvel to which people responded 'it isn't superficial at all' and I've been in a position of 'what are you talking about?'. I've tried to make it really clear that I don't think that comic books need to be highly realistic. I've tried to make it clear that I don't think Superman needs to be changed at all. Superman was used as an example to people who say that there isn't a great deal of simplification in certain aspects of DCs comics. I've really tried to restrict my use of him as an example to that purpose and the '4 bomb deathtrap' was an example of how that aspect of his personality was too simplistic to work in the real world (again, because people were claiming that there wasn't any such simplification). Not because I thought he'd be a better character if he were written without that aspect of his personality. Not because I thought he was a bad character. Not because I wanted to see Superman in torment because schools were being blown up. It's basically a situation where I said 'I enjoy the alternative because it has less X' and people have jumped in rather vociferously saying 'the first product doesn't have any X', so I use an example to point out X. You, sir, are completely correct that all the different products out there are full of X. Some have less X than others but they all have it. I never said they shouldn't. I never asked for an "X-less" comic (though I know many people who feel that there is entirely to much X being published by Marvel). My usage of Superman has never been to show that company A has more X in their comic than company B. My usage of Superman was because people were saying that company A doesn't have any X at all. Of course they do! And there's nothing wrong with X! I wish I could have more X! Its the joy of X! X is natural! X is fun! X is best when it's.....wait a minute. Sorry. Starting to digress from my point. Anyway, what you are talking about vis-a-vis competitor products is really along the lines of "I prefer company A's X and their usage of it over company B's" (because let's face it, X itself isn't simple. You have X of character personalities and motivation, X of situations, X of physics which let some people hold up buses by their bumpers, etc.) That's really a preference thing and I can understand that we don't agree on preferences. In fact that was the whole thing this thread was founded upon. Which do you prefer?

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Sorry about that. I tried to make it clear. My basic problem is that I find a lot of aspects of DC to be a little over simplified (that's probably the word I should have used at the start). My example about Superman was to show that while could have higher standards than the rest of the world over simplified standards such as those often attributed to Superman would get him killed despite his powers. Certainly even a complex world can support Mother Theresa as she doesn't fight crime. Given your earlier statement about the Timm/Diniverse I suspect you can understand my original motivations better than you think.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: Powers controlled by the Characters Emotional State Christopher is right in that No Conscious Control is the most accurate way of modelling what you're describing. That said I'm not sure I would build a character where nearly all of his powers are at a -2 No Conscious Control. Doing that would mean that A) you're practically not playing since the GM is making all the decisions about when your powers activate and you're putting an awful lot on your poor GM. I've always thought that NCC worked better at the -1 level (you can chose to turn it on and off but you can't exactly control what form the effect takes. Used for things like Mental Illusions) or on just a smaller subset of powers so that the player can continue to control the character but with occasional flashes of something happening beyond the character's conscious control. I think you would have a more playable character by taking a small limitation that represents not having full control over the power while allowing you, the player, to still be the one making the decisions. One possibility would be a small Side Effect limitation with an explanation that the special effect isn't that you become sad because you're making it rain but that you're making it rain because you became sad. The other possibility would be a Limited Power limitation such as "only works if the character can be sad and works automatically if the character can't stop being sad". As a final alternative you might just lump it as a Special Effect. It depends in large part as to how much control you are giving over to the GM.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Sorry you feel that I am not trying to discuss things. I have tried repeatedly to make it clear that in the broader picture (can you enjoy reading Superman) that I am not saying "No you can't". In fact I enjoy reading them from time to time. It's just not my favorite thing. I make a statement supporting my own preference that is roughly the equivalent of 'the science in Star Wars is kind of soft' and I'm suddenly the one being told I'm wrong. Ultimately though I suspect you are right. I think we are all at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. That wasn't the specific example I gave. That was conflating two different examples. I say, "Here's a bad guy". You respond "Superman can call in Batman because Batman can capture any criminal." I respond with "Like he's captured Lex Luthor?" That isn't the same as saying that Lex Luthor was blowing up a school. How is my example superficial? My example shows a person trying to think things through logically and to the ultimate conclusion (despite the fact that I take a lot of precaution Superman might figure out how to work around what I've done so I should probably use a cutout and then punish Superman for "cheating" so he doesn't do it again). Actually, I was going to point out that I'm only a reasonable clever person. If we're silly an we assume I am in the top .01% of clever people in the world then I am one in 10,000. In a world with a bit over 7 billion people that means there are about 700,000 people as clever, or more clever, than I am, and we are already starting with a silly assumption about what percentage I'm at. Yes. Because Timothy McVeigh had a huge truckload of fake explosives, which especially proves your argument since he was such a criminal genius. Absolutely true, and it does absolutely nothing to prove that the genre isn't superficial. Tell you what, come up with a solution that doesn't include someone automagically locating a person who has taken reasonable precautions (the cutout doesn't know who the head criminal is because he's receiving his orders through burner phones and communicates back through classified ads and we assume the head criminal isn't foolish enough to do something like drive around without license plates like McVeigh) and that doesn't include Superman's death or Superman compromising his principles and I'll believe you.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Except for the fact that in a non-superficial universe it would get him killed. That's kind of a challenge. Everyone wants to argue 'villains shouldn't do that' and 'it's not Superman's fault' and 'Batman will save him' and 'you're breaking genre'. For B I would say that yes, you're right, it isn't Superman's fault. For A, C, and D I would say that those statements do nothing to disprove that he operates in a superficial world (and I guess B doesn't disprove it either). Again, that is all I am saying. Read carefully. I am not saying Superman is a bad character. I'm not saying Rust age comics are better. I'm not saying I like Star Trek is better than Star Wars or peanut butter is better than jelly or that the sky isn't blue.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Strawman. I'm not saying it's outdated. I'm saying it doesn't function in a non-superficial universe (basically because it gets him killed). Two totally different things.

Based on some of the feedback from my earlier posting as well as finishing reading the Champions Universe book I've gone through and made a few modification to the backstory of Cartel. I've also got another gun to present, one which is designed around Blasts rather than Killing Attacks as it feels that most Champions weapon design for agents is based around Blasts. As always comments about the OCV bonuses, damage, costs, Cartel's history, and even if this seems to be the wrong genre are greatly appreciated. Cartel: A more recent addition to the world of supercrime Cartel is a conglomeration of research laboratories, scientists, manufacturing facilities, and business men motivated by a simple goal; profit. To be more specific Cartel is interested in the profits that can be made from the current situation created by supercriminals and the heroes who try to stop them. Founded by an ARGENT executive who became disgrunled after ARGENT's attempt to seize Guamanga in 1994 Cartel initially concerning itself with the manufacture of arms and armaments for various villains. Over time they slowly branched out into additional profit producing fields such as pharmaceutical and genetic enhancement, laundering of money, acting as a clearing house, broker, and arbitrator for super-villains interested in contacting and working with other villains, and later functioning very much like a bank for super-criminals to store their loot. In the most recent years Cartel has further expanded their operations to providing assistance in the form of armed and armored agents, training of henchmen, logistical planning, and super-human support in the form of Cartel's own super-human 'associates'. Cartel maintains an uneasy relationship with the various criminal organizations in the world. Their primary opposition comes in the form of ARGENT who views Cartel as a renegade splinter and competitor comprised largely of 'bean counters'. Cartel on the other hand views ARGENT as largely a bunch of inept egghead competitors with delusions of grandeur who have forgotten how to pay attention to the bottom line. Cartel's relationship with VIPER on the other hand is largely non-existent. With Cartel's primary focus on making money rather than the acquisition of power VIPER does not view Cartel as any form of real competitor or threat. On the other hand VIPER's reliance largely on their own technology and unwillingness to sell that technology to others places them in the position of being viewed neither as a client nor competitor by Cartel. There is some occasional jostling between the two organizations over issues such as Cartel's assistance of people in possession of stolen VIPER technologies but by and large the two organizations tend to take a 'live and let live' approach with one another. Likewise Cartel has almost no contact whatsoever with DEMON or much of the rest of the mystical world. Small scale experimentation is occasionally conducted but Cartel tends to find the results unpredictable and difficult to turn into a revenue stream. As a result almost all of Cartel's operations with the mystic world consist of the rental of agents to certain supernatural villains who need to commit some form of mundane crime and who lack the resources to raise servitors of their own. APW-11 "Falcon" Combat Rifle: In many ways the gold standard for firearms in the post-superhuman world. Created in 2011 and based off the design of the more conventional ACW-10 "Talon" Combat Rifle by one of Cartel's various arms manufacturing companies as something of a showpiece weapon the Falcon is too expensive for wide scale military deployment but sees a great deal of use in smaller scale. It is the standard firearm of most Cartel combat agents as well as enjoying a high degree of popularity among the various support personnel of quite a few criminal enterprises. Of course all weapons that are used illegally arrive on the street after being 'stolen' from the manufacturer in order to keep the company's hands clean. As a result the Falcon is also deployed by the MARS units in many major cities, often being sold at a discount as escalating the power available to superhuman response units increases the demand from criminal organizations for Cartel's services. Composed of high tech polymers and alloys the Falcon is a light weight particle weapon capable of firing three round bursts of charged plasma. The clip of the Falcon holds 30 rounds in the form of a high-discharge chemical electro-pulse generators and includes built in sensors capable of monitoring the amount of ammunition remaining in the magazine and passing the data along to the optional Advanced Combat Electronic Sight (ACES). Typical load out for most consist of 4 magazines. Beneath the barrel of the gun is a specialized launcher. The launcher utilizes a cylinder capable of holding 6 specialized 40mm shells. Controls on the side of the launcher enable the user to quickly fire whichever of the shells they so desire. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 100%] [TR] [TD]Cost[/TD] [TD]POWERS[/TD] [TD]END[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]35[/TD] [TD]APW-11 "Falcon" Combat Rifle: Multipower, 71-point reserve, (71 Active Points); all slots OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]3f[/TD] [TD]1) Autofire: Blast 8d6, Autofire (3 shots; +1/4) (70 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 4 clips of 30 Charges (+1/2)[/TD] [TD=align: right][30][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]1f[/TD] [TD]2) Rifle-butt Club: HA +3d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (22 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]3[/TD] [TD]Inherent Accuracy: +1 OCV with autofire attacks (3 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1) +2 range with autofire attacks (4 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Like the Talon the Falcon has a variety of grenades which it can fire. While several of the grenades can be fired by either launcher slight differences between the two mean that not all grenades are fully compatible between them. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 100%] [TR] [TD]Cost[/TD] [TD]POWERS[/TD] [TD]END[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]Concussion Grenade: Blast 9d6, Area Of Effect (20m Radius Explosion; +1/2) (67 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 1-6 Charges (-3/4)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1-6][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]1f[/TD] [TD]Flashbang Grenade: Sight and Hearing Groups Flash 6d6, Area Of Effect (14m Radius Explosion; +1/4) (44 Active Points); 1-4 Charges (-1), OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1-4][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]Flashbang Grenade: Sight and Hearing Groups Flash 6d6, Area Of Effect (14m Radius Explosion; +1/4) (44 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 5-6 Charges (-3/4)[/TD] [TD=align: right][5-6][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]Smoke Grenade: Darkness to Sight Group 14m radius (70 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 1-3 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each (-3/4), Limited Power (Doesn't block IR perception; -0)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1-3 cc][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]3f[/TD] [TD]Smoke Grenade: Darkness to Sight Group 14m radius (70 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 4-6 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each (-1/4), Limited Power (Doesn't block IR perception; -0)[/TD] [TD=align: right][4-6 cc][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]Shaped Concussion Charge: Blast 7d6, Armor Piercing (+1/4) (44 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 1-6 Charges (-3/4)Blast 3d6, Area Of Effect (8m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4) (22 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 1-6 Charges (-3/4), Limited Power Armor piercing only works on target directly hit by the attack and not against targets simply caught within the explosion. (-0)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1-6][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]1f[/TD] [TD]Shockwave Blast: Blast 14d6 (70 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), OAF (Rifle; -1), Reduced By Range (-1/4), Reduced Penetration (-1/4)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]Shockwave Blast: Blast 14d6 (70 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 2-6 Charges (-3/4), Reduced By Range (-1/4), Reduced Penetration (-1/4)[/TD] [TD=align: right][2-6][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] The Falcon is also capable of using the same sights as the ACW-10 "Talon". [TABLE=class: grid, width: 100%] [TR] [TD]Cost[/TD] [TD]POWERS[/TD] [TD]END[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2[/TD] [TD]Laser Sight: +1 OCV with all rifle attacks (3 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power Only out to 125m (-0) +1 range with rifle attacks (2 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power Only out to 125m (-0)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2[/TD] [TD]ACES (Advanced Combat Electronic Sight): +1 OCV with all rifle attacks (3 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power: Only when shooter braces and/or sets (-1) +2 range with rifle attacks (4 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power: Only when shooter braces and/or sets (-1)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Because the slots represent things that might possibly be carried rather than what is absolutely carried the final cost of the gun can vary depending upon its configuration. As an example: [TABLE=class: grid, width: 100%] [TR] [TD]Cost[/TD] [TD]POWERS[/TD] [TD]END[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]35[/TD] [TD]APW-11 "Falcon" Combat Rifle - Standard Loadout: Multipower, 71-point reserve, (71 Active Points); all slots OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]3f[/TD] [TD]1) Autofire: Blast 8d6, Autofire (3 shots; +1/4) (70 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), 4 clips of 30 Charges (+1/2)[/TD] [TD=align: right][30][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]1f[/TD] [TD]2) Rifle-butt Club: HA +3d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (22 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]3) Concussion Grenade: Blast 9d6, Area Of Effect (20m Radius Explosion; +1/2) (67 Active Points); 2 Charges (-1 1/2), OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right][2][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]1f[/TD] [TD]4) Flashbang Grenade: Sight and Hearing Groups Flash 6d6, Area Of Effect (14m Radius Explosion; +1/4) (44 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]5) Smoke Grenade: Darkness to Sight Group 14m radius (70 Active Points); 1 Continuing Charge lasting 1 Turn (-1 1/4), OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power (Doesn't block IR perception; -0)[/TD] [TD=align: right][1 cc][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2f[/TD] [TD]6) Shaped Concussion Charge: Blast 7d6, Armor Piercing (+1/4) (44 Active Points); 2 Charges (-1 1/2), OAF (Rifle; -1)Blast 3d6, Area Of Effect (8m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4) (22 Active Points); 2 Charges (-1 1/2), OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power Armor piercing only works on target directly hit by the attack and not against targets simply caught within the explosion. (-0)[/TD] [TD=align: right][2][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]3[/TD] [TD]Inherent Accuracy: +1 OCV with autofire attacks (3 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1) +2 range with autofire attacks (4 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: right]2[/TD] [TD]Laser Sight: +1 OCV with all rifle attacks (3 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power Only out to 125m (-0) +1 range with rifle attacks (2 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1), Limited Power Only out to 125m (-0)[/TD] [TD=align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Again, not helping the argument that the genre is somewhat superficial. Sure there is. I can now commit crimes in America without worrying about Superman. If I simply neutralize him through some threat I have to worry that he might figure out some way to escape and come after me. If he's dead and I'm not relying on genre knowledge (which well written characters shouldn't) that he always comes back to life then I don't have to worry about him figuring out how to slip out of whatever it is I'm using to tie him up in knots.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Let's be clear, Superman operates in a world that doesn't break genre conventions because that would make the character useless. (N.B.: I am not saying it would make any superhuman useless. I am saying that it makes the version of a superhero who will give up his life to save the life of a single person or relatively small group of people useless because of this exact problem). The origin of my threat is not 'how can I break genre to make Superman useless?' It is 'if I am a villain in a world with Superman how could I neutralize him?'. If that method breaks genre then so be it. My objective as a bad guy isn't to preserve genre, it is to be successful, and if the only argument you can raise is 'villains shouldn't behave that way' then guess what? You're demanding a superficial story (the villains are bad guys but they aren't going to do things that the hero couldn't really solve because we don't want that). Again, note that I'm not talking about a situation that might be beyond the grasp of most criminals (such as getting their hands on nuclear weapons). I'm talking about things that could reasonably be done but that aren't because it makes the hero look bad. No. The fact that there was a fourth bomb Superman didn't know about doesn't make Superman a bad guy. What it does is puts Superman in a worse situation when the villain repeats the process and tells Superman "sorry, you can't just cheat your way around the problem. Now here's the exact same dilemma again". Now Superman is in a position where he really has to face "let myself be killed or let other people be killed". He knows that if he tries to dance around it with some trick there's a high likelihood that more people will die. Also note that in my example this isn't a crazy badguy who wants to force Superman to compromise his principles. He's genuinely hoping that Superman will stick to them so he can kill him. Crazy badguy would only threaten a few people if Superman didn't cave in so that Superman might decide to rationalize letting someone die. This guy wants the deathtoll to be large enough that such a decision on the part of Superman is extremely unlikely. That's great. However it is sort of like me saying "I'm tired of all this hard science fiction that makes me feel like I've audited a class in theoretical physics. Stories like Star Wars don't belong in such settings.' Yep, you are absolutely 100% right on both counts. You're tired of it and Star Wars doesn't work well in it. Neither of these factors though detract from the statement 'the science in Star Wars is very soft'. You hate Iron Age rust. Great. Superman works terribly in such a world. I'm absolutely in agreement with you. Neither statement has anything to do with disproving the thesis that Superman's principles only really work in a fairly superficial genre (and in fact the second statement actually supports it). Again, this isn't to say that all Superman stories are bad. This is simply the statement that his given principles only work in a world where things run at a fairly superficial level.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. You're missing the point. The point was that Superman's morals only work in a world that operates somewhat superficially. The comment about Lex Luthor was meant to dispel the argument that "Batman will just find the bad guy regardless of the precautions said bad guy takes". Of course that was absolutely the wrong argument for me to take as the proper response should have been "so you're arguing that Batman can automagically find any criminal in time to save the day but the style isn't superficial?" Ultimately this is just degenerating into a pointless argument. Its like me saying that Star Wars' physics don't make a lot of sense and all sorts of people who want Star Wars to be better than Star Trek jump in and say "yes it does!". They then proceed to pretzel things around in all sorts of illogical ways to make it possible for x-wings to fly in space like fighter airplanes and say "See! The physics works!" completely ignoring that both A) forcing the physics to "work" still doesn't mean it makes sense since people have to go to all sorts of outrageous contrivances to make it even possible (and "possible" and "sensible" aren't the same thing) and that I'm not saying "Star Trek is better than Star Wars". Yes, I said I have a preference. That's not the same as saying that A is better than B.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. BTW, I am in no way advocating this as a fun adventure or anything. It isn't to say that all Superman stories are stupid. It isn't to say you can't enjoy Superman stories as what they are, fun escapist literature. The whole point of this argument is that Superman cannot function under his stated belief system in a world that goes much past the superficial.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. He always gets out of it because the bombs are designed in very superficial designs. Equip the three bombs with radio links. One bomb is disarmed and the other two detonate. Equip them with motion triggers. He tries to move them, they detonate. And for God's sake, don't tell him where they are. Yeah, I'm sure he will figure out some way to cheat and escape from sure death, anyway. No matter how carefully a villain plans he somehow manages to isolate the radio frequency used to link the three bombs and disarm them or something else. In the words of Bart and Lisa Simpson: Lisa: Oh! There's always a canal! Bart: Or an inlet, or a fjord... That's why the person contacting him is a cut-out and you have a fourth bomb you didn't warn him about. He cheats. School still gets blown up. Then a new cut-out contacts him. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Don't be silly. There was no tragedy that shaped 'Mazing Man's life and gave him a compulsion to try to solve the problems of the world. He was clearly referring to Genius Jones.

Re: Dodging a Mental Power My personal feeling is that I probably wouldn't allow a normal person to dodge a mental power. I might be convinced to allow a normal person to try a block to simulate marshaling will to resist a mental power but dodges have always felt to me that they are a bit more about getting out of the way and I can't see a normal person knowing how to do that. Now that said, I keep tossing out the word 'normal'. My feeling is that if you want a world in which people can be trained in more active psychic defenses than the Mental Defense power then simply make up a set of 'Psychic Arts' maneuvers (Psychic Block, Psychic Evade, Psychic Strike, etc.) that function similarly to the standard Martial Arts maneuvers but which are for mental combat (with the exception that while standard Martial Arts moves do damage based on Strength a Psychic Arts move doesn't get any dice for Ego, only for whatever powers are purchased). Would your campaign be 'Rules As Written'? Definitely not, but I think you would definitely be operating in a 'Rules As Intended' world.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Actually, I think Combat Luck is more designed to allow for the "its only a flesh wound". Sure, the book states that it allows for "just missed me" but how strange would it be to be knocked unconscious through the cumulative effects of "just missed me"? I would argue with you on this. I would argue a lot. A flesh wound doesn't mean you weren't hurt. It means that the injury wasn't enough to seriously hamper you. Batman gets hit by a round from a handgun. It's the 1d6+1 style of pistol often used by criminals (9mm semiautomatic). On an average roll he takes 4-5 points of body. Considering he probably has around 20 body I would classify that as a "flesh wound". Oh, I agree with that 100%. It would be nice if the point costs for guns were expressed in Superheroic limitations (since heroic characters don't tend to need to worry about the point cost of the gun anyway) but honestly that's a minor thing. No. I wasn't accusing you of doing that. I'm saying that the problem is that the Special Effect is too inconsistent with most characters (hence the reason I provided an example of someone where you actually could justify the 'one finger haymaker'). The problem is that if you let Superman do that then why can't Spiderman, and if Spiderman can do that then is he really Spiderman? Ultimately though we just have somewhat different visions of the game. You don't like Killing Attacks, I don't like Combat Luck. You want to allow Special Effects to have a broader range than I am comfortable with. I have a narrower view of Special Effects than you like. That's all fine and good. We don't all need to play the game the exact same way. As it is written Champions has a lot of stuff that is pretty broad and needs to be interpreted by the GMs and Players. It isn't as broad as the White Wolf storyteller system but it is a lot more broad than Villains and Vigilantes. As long as everyone is having fun that's all that's really important.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Actually, I think the majority of my 'knocks' against Superman have less to do with his powers and more to do with the fact that his attitudes only tend to work in a world where things aren't examined too closely and where villains tend to operate on a more superficial level (I'm not crazy about using the word "superficial". I was going to say "simplistic" but that's even less accurate.) Actually, I'm pretty sure that's exactly why the Guardians designed the rings with a 24 hour limit. That was also given as the reason the ring didn't work against anything yellow, so that the Green Lanterns wouldn't suffer from "absolute power corrupting absolutely" (although that was later retconned).

Re: Champions 1st edition Villains really didn't need it. They didn't have to be point balanced anyway and it could frequently produce odd results (usually giving a villain like Firewing a world-spanning organization or making a villain who was suppose to be a normal but with a massive organization too powerful personally). In the case of letting a hero take it it could get even worse as they would very quickly amass massive robot armies (I mean really, a player only needed a half dozen vehicles and bases and after that what was there to spend points on?) that grew ever larger without the character spending another point.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Maintaining the character's integrity as a four color hero is far from possible in such a campaign. "Superman, I've got three bombs in different schools. Get me enough Kryptonite to kill you or my henchmen will blow up one of the schools. If you try to disarm one of the bombs the remaining two schools will be blown up. If you try to attack me all three schools will be blown up."