David Blue

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer Let's look at the definition of the campaign, at: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29491 "Morality and Tone: This game will be darker than what you are used to from me. Morality will be shades of gray, even dark. Civilization is gone. Some cling to its tenets, but many do not. You have to strong to survive. Sometimes you have to cruel. The PCs are Heros in the since they skilled and competent, but they aren't necessarily. nice people. They also have no particular script immunity either." My own first thought, after the apocalypse, would be to generate someone like a great leader who was truly nice - "Uncle Bill" Slim, "Daddy" Plumer, Joan of Arc, Scipio Africanus, Brasidas of Sparta - and strive to overcome the darkness with well-organised and well-armed niceness. But you can't, or if you try to be a candle in the darkness and rain, you'll just fail. You have to be cruel sometimes. Morality does not have brilliant clear shafts of sunlight such as your character and their crusade, it is shades of grey, even dark. These are not bleak midnight thoughts that dawn will refute, they are facts. OK, next idea, given that you've got to produce a player character with some personality - given that vague people with no real opinion either way may not be what the player feels like playing - you can't beat the moral darkness - join it! That's not rules abuse, or creating a shonky psychological disadvantage. That's correctly identifying the required tone of the campaign and conforming to it. This is something I think a good player should strive to do.

Re: Russian Superheroes - Ideas and Comment Needed for 'Russian Dawn' game openings Straight from my game guide/summary non-player character and agency lists, not a hero but someone intersting and potentially useful for the heroes to meet: FALSE DMITRI - a Russian master-spy with a genius for every sort of copy, illusion, brainwashed actor and doppelganger. Whoever you catch, sooner or later it always turns out that it was a false Dmitri, it's never the real Dmitri, that is False Dmitri, who's ... The downfall of the Soviet Union was the best thing that ever happened to False Dmitri, who seems ageless. He has prospered mightily as a MAFYA boss, and is aggressively expanding his operations. His goons still can't beat real heroes though, especially not America-Man. Notable allies - MIRAGE, a formidable, young agent with an attraction to power. * MAFYAS - these vary from gangs that can't shoot straight to Charlie ("straight arrow") Partanna's associates, to gangs with supervillains, to the mirror-maze Mafya empire(s) of False Dmitri. # C.H.O.R.U.S. - Communist Heroes Of Revolutionary United States - a Communist network long since rolled up, and dangerous only when False Dmitri was running it. False Dmitri makes extensive use of doubles, hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestions for his arcane plots. His hobbies include chess, collecting icons and rare Russian dolls, mushroom-gathering, serial and compound bigamy and attendance at prestigious events such as the Olympic figure skating (under various false identities of course). He loves mirrors and mazes, and has a unique art collection of the world's greatest forgeries. False Dmitri should never ever be a big killer threat, because he's far too frustrating an opponent for that role. Instead he's much more like the Thugmaster, and a cultured James Bond 007-type dubious occasional ally. (Any threat to Russia as a whole, like an unwanted war, will definitely get the otherwise devious - albeit urbane - mastermind's complete attention.) Dimitri Mishkin: I am Dmitri Mishkin, Russian Minister Of Defense. So, how shall we execute you today, Mr. Bond? James Bond: What, no small talk? No chit-chat? You know, that's the problem these days. No one bothers to take the time to give a really sinister interrogation. It's a lost art. - GoldenEye, 1995 While False Dmitri lives - and he's an archetypal survivor - this art, so highly developed in his beloved Russia, will never be lost.

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer Which of course changes the deal. Different things will be workable and not workable, really disadvantageous and not really disadvantageous, depending on how the gamemaster's post-apocalyptic future works in practice. David Blue: "Think first about the good, friendly, life-affirming reasons why a highly intelligent, perceptive person would choose to hang around a cold killer. Then the bad ones." Which, with the gamemaster and the player agreeing, is obviously not a problem. I was trying in part to provide ways the disadvantage might start stories, but in a different context from any I had in mind, and with player and gamemaster singing in harmony, I think there's no need for me to add anything more but congratulations on your new character, and have fun.

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer Well, first of all, what OddHat says is right. You're the gamemaster, so you're right, and if he disagrees, kill him. Second, everyone agrees with Trebuchet because he's also right: the most important thing is that the player and the gamemaster are reading from the same page. Now, from one player's roleplaying point of view: 1. The first thing "casual killer" does for you is completely eliminate that internal warning: "Stop! This is serious!! At least think about it!" No you don't feel any need to stop and think about it before doing whatever "seemed like a good idea at the time" - it's "casual". If you see that it probably wasn't a good idea, it'll just be an "oopsie!" like any other. I think it's a mistake to say someone with "casual killer" is totally rational about killing (especially if they took it at an "irrational" or "strong" level). Did you buy some marvellous power that made you super-rational all the time? Because people aren't rational all the time about - pretty well anything. It's just that the wise know when enough's enough. And you don't and can't know that. You've taken points on that basis. If you can be jollied into telling an off-colour joke when that's something you wouldn't approve of normally, and you are a casual killer, you can be jollied into killing someone in just the same way, because no internal warning light goes red. And if you can be bribed to do something slightly unusual for you, or an attractive person of your preferred sex can get you to do things fairly easily, or if you can be hassled or baited or bullied into doing things, if you would do "something awkward" to settle a restaurant bill, to get creditors off your back, because someone annoyed you, for a nice suit, or for any petty reason, then you can be gotten to kill in exactly the same way. At which point, considering you are an appallingly dangerous person, and you are probably not liked (I'll get to that), and there are likely to be conflicts of interest, the logical next person to be killed would be ... you. God help you if you've fallen in with someone like Hannibal Lecter or even Suzie Marie Toller (discussed in the Extraordinary Gentlemen) thread, because everything will have been worked out well ahead of time to take advantage of what you're good for and then tie up the loose ends without fail, and you might as well shoot yourself - it'll probably hurt less. The more pleasant option is - anyone with any wits at all who messes with a casual killer is going to have their vanishing act ready, leaving the killer patsy to explain it all to the judge. For which reason, I think "casual killer" is a terrible disadvantage for a player character. The logical penalties, from the law and/or from the people who are likely to seek out someone like you, are such as to deter a gamemaster from following through - at which point, you've got a killer character in a situation where they haven't been disadvantaged and in fact they get rewarded because they'll probably get to kill lots. 2. I think an acid test of the "casual killer" is how the gamemaster and the other players react to the character. I feel the player with "casual killer" is doing it right, then from time to time, as a perfectly natural part of who the character is, and without your making any fuss about it or striking any poses, you should leave people seriously chilled, upset, shaken and hostile. Because human life should not be taken so lightly, and because that's (without the usual joking) just wrong. You shouldn't need to resort to any violence to achieve this effect either. It can be more upsetting to spare someone for a frivolous reason (especially when the original reason that you would otherwise have killed them was equally weightless in comparison to human life) than it would be (for the onlookers who understand what just happened and what nearly just happened) if you go ahead and kill. Ultimately I think it's a good thing if (regardless of your body count), those who know the character best - even if they agree that he is stylish, well-mannered, useful and everything else - are weary and disgusted with him, and simply want him gone. Because ultimately this is someone who readily resorts to the most boring, abortive, trivialising solution to complexities of human interaction - and fundamentally no amount of sweet smells or snappy badinage can make up for vacuity. All this is not good if you are hanging from the thin tread of others' affection and high regard, outside the law - which a casual killer soon will be. But if you're not going to go that far, then in my opinion you're not really playing the disadvantage. Some examples of casual killers: 1. John Wesley Hardin explaining as a matter of fact that he didn't shoot men dead for snoring, he only shot one man dead for snoring. A real Casual Killer (CK) feels no need to pad his count. It's not a wrought-up ego thing, it's just something that happened. 2. Demise, from the Wild Cards books - with a powers (death-gaze and mega-regen.) that could have made him immortal - routinely killing people and piling up enemies who were bound to do for him in the long run. Just to settle his debts for moderate sums, or because he took pointless exception to some remark in a bar ("Look me in the eye and say that.") or because a taxi driver was honking his horn, for any or no reason. "Tell me why!?" "I don't like Mondays." At minimum, absolute minimum, I think the player with "casual killer" should have their jaw stuck way out to be hit on the button at any time by a clever, manipulative "friend", and the gamemaster should take full advantage of a character who's never likely to see what's wrong with slaughter till he's the one that's slaughtered. And the gamemaster should start thinking on the basis that the player character's friends either don't know him well and are possibly hard of thinking, or see right through him, grasp the basic disdain for human life where his heart should be, and find that convenient for some reason, good or bad. Think first about the good, friendly, life-affirming reasons why a highly intelligent, perceptive person would choose to hang around a cold killer. Then the bad ones. If the player character is "lucky" it'll be something weird like suicide by mild provocation. Of course being the official guilty killer for someone who didn't want to take responsibility for ending their own life can have problems associated with it too. What you really want is a non-player character whose death would: a. profit some very clever and manipulative person who is not the player character b. be bad or outright catastrophic for the player character, preferably also in a way that profits Mr., Mrs., Miss. or Ms. Clever, c. and be totally, absolutely unable to be put right, in effect, by the killer just doing more (and more) of what's no big deal for him or her. It Matty Walker (from Body Heat) or some woman of her (fortunately rare) stamp can't take hold of the smooth handle, as they say, and guide the player character to take care of her little problem for her, then I think you've got a basic roleplaying problem. Ned: How's the cop business Oscar? Oscar: Real good. Always starts hopping in weather like this. When it gets this hot people try to kill each other. - Body Heat, 1981

Re: What we like about HERO Things I like: a) A minimum number of (good!) resolution mechanics handle everything. It's consistent and thus easy to play and to run in ways that even many otherwise good systems like dungeons and dragons aren’t and can't be. Also, you can play it largely from memory, without tables. It handles superheroes and a lot of modern action really well. Fox1 is right about all that. The difference in "feel" is tremendous, and if you like superheroes (and hex maps) all in Champions' favour.* STUN, what a concept! c) It's remained pretty much what it is, so that everything I've ever bought is still of some use to me, with no more changes than I routinely make when adjusting villains and other writeups to the heroes and the scenario. I expect Hero will continue to be backwards compatible. That makes Hero products exceptionally good value. d) I can translate anything into it - often poorly, but I can do it. Whatever I see that inspires me, in any genre or in the news, becomes Hero fodder. And that's just keen. e) Apart from the art, which can be a turn-off, Hero just puts out good products. The rules are well-written and make sense. The physical product isn't too flimsy. (Fuzion never happened ...) The layout is good. I'm finding it hard to sum it up, but if you look at something like VIPER, this is just so obviously worth my gaming dollar, I'll buy it on the assumption either a use for it will arise or I'll create the opportunity to use it - and it won't fall apart in the meantime. f) Character sheets can be simple and straightforward to build and understand. Critically, this can be true with bricks. So you can sit a totally new player down, and often what he wants is someone like Ajax (classical Greek) or Orion (DC) or Doc Sampson (Marvel), and with Hero you just go here you are, this is what this means, and this is what this means, and let's play. Beautiful! g) It scales OK for different-sized playing groups. By comparison, if you get a lot of TORG characters together, just because of all the cards they'll put down, the game is out of harmony. A lot of games have a similar problem. But with Hero you can run one player or as many as will fit in your living room, and yes the combats get tedious, but it works. h) No "hero points". (Related to the previous point. Also, I find not having to decide when and how many hero points to award makes it easier for me to just let the player characters to take a side turn and do what they want.) * I learned to roleplay from Superworld, which I still love, but where "hit self, do critical, impale, die" was a very possible way for a superhero to die. When I hooked up with some Champions players, I was amazed and delighted at all the unnecessary and dubious-for-genre rules that they - didn't - have. Cool!! I think Champions has lost some of that highly-desirable rules-lightness, but not too much.

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics Lord Liaden: "As has been mentioned on this thread and in many other discussions, STR is not really imbalancing at the Superheroic level. Where it sometimes becomes an issue is with Heroic-level games, particularly in genres such as Fantasy where muscle-powered weapons dominate." This is true. A big but not superhuman weightlifter may not look too fancy in a pulp game, because every pugilist who can afford it will also buy 18 or 20 strength. ("I'm the world's strongest flyweight - I'm known for that.") The big limitation on strength, that it ties up lots of points you could spend in more devious and likely more effective way elsewhere - doesn't really apply any more. In superheroes, this is acceptable. Looking at how people are drawn, even Doc Strange should be a wall of muscle, so if people treat 15 or 20 strength as the minimum for a superhero player character, OK. But in pulps and other genres, that's not right. So if everyone in your game has normal characteristic maxima, and the gamemaster decides that the magic number for strength will not be twenty, or even fifteen, but ten, and it works for the players - I have nothing but applause for that. Isn't that what a good gamemaster is supposed to so - tweak things so the system produces the optimum result in his or her campaign? I would only really have a problem if strength was nerfed officially, for superheroes and everyone.

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics This just seems to do things much the way Superworld used to. It's no big deal. It's possible, though not convenient or very advisable, to build player character bricks in Superworld. They are, essentially, ineptly designed martial artists or no-range energy projectors, with an additional option to do property damage by lifting and then thowing/dropping/whatever. I think Champions strength is not broken. But I believe the current game designer thinks is it, which means it might be re-written one day. If so, I'd just stop bothering with bricks, except as villains to beat. I'm familiar with the Superworld character types that do work, and I'd use one of them. (Obscure - and probably complicated - Deadly Attack Guy goes right to the head of the list.) Gaming, and even Champions, is to some extent a genre of its own anyway. Simple, brawny heroes like Mister Incredible don't necessarily have an eternal place in this genre. I think the discussion about de-linked strength should be based on the experience of people who've actually played a lot of Champions, especially four-colour Champions, under de-linked strength rules, and will be familiar from personal experience with the replacement character types that come to occupy the ecological niche bricks used to occupy after characters are built with the new rules in mind. They'll be the ones that really know about this. Since I haven't played in such a Champions game - just lots of Superworld - that's my piece said.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? If takes, on average, a 12d6 attack to one-punch an agent. The way for a 43 strength hero to do that is to haymaker. (This would be true whether you use a +4d6 modern haymaker, or the antique 1.5 x damage haymaker) It seems to me like it would make sense if the base figured damage from a lifting capacity of 10 tons was enough to one-punch an agent without needing to buy any hand attack to go with it, and without using a haymaker. But honestly I can't see this as a problem. If it is a problem, isn't it a problem with the toughness of normals? Maybe both the 43 strength brick and the 13 strength martial artist with the stick should be doing enough damage to drop an agent and keep him down? If you want frailer agents, build frailer agents. (I'm still firmly in the "strength ain't broken" camp.) Or possibly think about making haymakers easier to do, now that they don't do as much damage for many characters as they used to? Thanks to the guy (or girl) who suggested thinking of strength damage as just a figured extra to lifting capacity like any other. That was insightful. I will rep you when I find you again - but this thread is very cluttered with off-topic comments.

Re: Is Punisher the problem? This is sounding like Amber to me. Are there any Amber players here, and if so, how would you compare this equipment system with Amber equipment - which you can get free, build with Conjuration, or buy with permanent character points?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? I'm happy with what Champions strength does too. It lets Daredevil and Spiderman have a fight, which they can and often have. It's enough bang for your buck because of the figured stats that so many people complain about (but that look OK to me). And it certainly doesn't put other character types out of business, which it would if it was really under-priced. There are aspects of Champions that look to me to be broken or at least a bit cracked. (Which would be a different thread.) Strength isn't one of them. It's one of the last things I would want to meddle with.

Re: Is Punisher the problem? I sure agree with the speed chart issue. Big speed gaps seem to make for bad play (though other people's mileage may vary). Have you used free equipment, like your initiative system, to get characters into play who otherwise would have been idle in combat? Or what are you doing with this free hardware?

Re: Is Punisher the problem? That's interesting. I remember you also don't use the speed chart - you use an initiative system instead. Are there any special interactions between the kinds of equipment you allow free and the speed system you use? I can't see any offhand, but a report from the guy with lots of experiences is better than speculation.

Re: Is Punisher the problem? I have no problem with this as a house rule to achieve the balance between different kinds of character concepts that you want in your game. That's what we all want - for things to balance out favouring a result that pleases us. Here's where I double-disagree though: RDU Neil: "If you feel this makes the game too gritty or not your thing... fine... but "I don't like it" isn't a legitimate problem. Balance is the answer, and I've yet to see such a problem." First "what I like" is a legitimate problem, and solving that problem is actually the legitimate justification for this rule. Second, no way is this rule neutral between character types as to who gains and who loses out. That fails the horse laugh test. RDU Neil asked the question: "Does one character type become more effective than others?" I'd answer, except Mike W already did, using the Punisher, the example named in the title of the thread. OK, I will answer. Of course one character type becomes more effective: the type that suddenly gets free points equal to everything he used to spend on equipment, plus free additions to his arsenal that fit his character conception but which he couldn't afford before. Of course he gains, and others lose out by comparison.

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

Re: Is Punisher the problem? OK, reading from the left and using the 7.62 M-60 LMG, which every Rambo will at least take to the party from time to time because it's free: * I see +1 OCV +2 RMod. If you want to give gunners free levels, that's good. * 2d6+1 RKA. Assuming you want the game to focus on free killing attacks that's good. * +1 STUNx. Mmm, that's some decent damage, playing STUN lotto. * STR Min 17. That won't break a hero's heart. Buy more strength with your free points! * Shots 100. Good enough. Killer-Man needs a melee weapon. That's not a problem: Katana time! * +1 OCV. Everyone should use mundane killing attacks just for the free OCV! * 11/2 D6 killing, stacks with strength. Nice, but a free Great Sword is better. * STR Min 12. Is that a problem? I don't think so. * And it can be thrown. Killer-Man obviously needs grenades too. * 2d6 killing explosion. They're free, so everyone should use lots of them. And the beautiful thing is: you're a better man than Daredevil, all things equal, because he pays character points for that dinky little baton. Showing restraint and decency costs character points. Now, Killer-Man hires a couple of flunkies (who he'll pay for) to run his free helicopter gunship. Nuke is a clear precedent here. And pretty soon Killer-Man may get a chance to capture an alien disintegrator. After all, guns are free, right? But even if he doesn't, is this how things should be? Heroes lugging around arsenals to use, at least, for the free levels?

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games You can minimise any potential conflict as a player, though, rather than increasing it. I learned to do that long ago, and it was a good thing to learn. Suppose you do learn for sure all the information in that scenario - you still don't have to draw any of the conclusions from it. It's not that you draw any different conclusions. You just blank. Rescuer, or your hero of choice, just has no thoughts on this topic at all, and consequently no inclination to do anything. Souls can be handy in all sorts of ways, and their complete absence can be depressing. So a gamemaster may want to use them. It needn't mean anything. A gamemaster may want to do a scene like in Miracleman, with Winter demonstrating nor only consciousness but considerable telepathic power in the womb. Again, this needn't mean anything. It's just a cool "bit". The gamemaster may do various other scenarios that repeat the information, add to it, even line it up as the hospital scenario does. But again, the way I would see this as a player is: it doesn't mean anything, the gamemaster isn't making a point, they are just using things that are individually natural and plausible ideas. And so I would leave it there. Or if I had any doubt, I would ask the gamemaster privately out of character: "Do you want me to draw any conclusions from X,Y and Z?" And if the answer isn't "yes I do," I would draw no conclusions. Zero, blank. Doesn't matter if I am playing a character with INT 50 and compulsive curiosity: "Colonel Hogan! I see not-thing, not-thing!" I've looked at similar information, heard the gamemaster's instructions that pro-choice was the right stance and my highly ethical angel should know that, and been perfectly happy to follow that guidance - actively glad to get it in fact. All I really need to know is, what suits the gamemaster? I think it's more convenient for the gamemaster if the player is comfortable taking that attitude: enjoy the scenario and ask no questions. And follow any instructions provided.

Re: A Modern League of Extroardinary Gentlemen I've heard of him. He's not too obscure. But I don't know much about him. He'd have to be phenomenal to be a better pick than Mandrake's large friend Lothar. I know some other people on that list are. Is Rafferty?

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games One way or another, I think it's best that nobody notices anything controversial. No player character will ever happen across any intimations of Negroes in chains - no whips, no sales of men, women and children; and likewise there are no indications of abortion mills that any player character will ever notice. "Colonel Hogan! I see not-thing, not-thing!" Which works, and I think it is socially necessary. We're just people playing games after all. Hence, I don't have a lot of big boasts I'd like to make about realism in comics, superhero games and so on.

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games OddHat: "It settles the controversy for the players: In that world, souls now exist as a demonstrable fact, fetuses have them, and abortion is murder. There's no room for debate left." This is one of the reasons why I would never do this in In Nomine, where it would be extremely relevant. The player character angels suddenly become able to notice abortion, and head to the Library of Heaven to get the party line on it. There they get the equivalent of a plaque summarising my opinion ("Pope John Paul II is right! Act accordingly!"), signed God. What a disgusting thing for a gamemaster to do to players. How propagandistic. I would never do it. (Hastily added in, because I've made myself misunderstood before): Nexus, this is not a shot at you. Far from it - anything but. I was just talking about my own limitations, particularly on not hammering the players or the player characters with direct statements effectively signed God - which is not what you were talking about. OddHat: "More importantly, there's nothing the players can do about the problem, unless you want the players to dedicate the rest of the campaign to hunting down abortionists or trying to change laws as a sub-plot. You can use that plot element in the game, but aside from making your world a bit more depressing, what exactly would be the point?" I think the player characters could do as much on this as on many other topics like democracy or freedom. I think it's just as worthwhile to have a player character now advocate a pro-life stance as it would be to have (in the appropriate era) your character opposed to the Negro slave trade, whether there were any immediate results or not. I recently suggested something like this in a thread on Cold War Commie-Crushing heroes of the 1950s:- let the player characters meet Joe McCarthy, and easily form a true and negative opinion of him. Being real Cold War warriors not caught up in the corruption of the Red-baiting era puts them in a more heroic light, appropriate to heroes. That way they can have all the fun of blazing away at those rascally Reds, while enjoying even greater confidence that neither history nor their consciences will ever shame them. Having the heroes want to gripe occasionally about how loud-mouth Joe is at it again may be well worth it for the long run. Of course you don't have to do it that way, but I think you can. The problem is not in having a pre-American Civil War character with Abolitionist views. That's good, for a shining hero. The reason not to do this, in my opinion, is the one I already gave: it's not worth the grief.

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games OddHat: "The catch is that you are going to be role-playing outsiders intervening in someone elses civil war, and unless you're running an unusual group you'll be role-playing rich Westerners intervening in a civil war among people with whom you have minimal ethnic or cultural connection. Unless they are a very high powered group, this will end badly." I did have a high-powered group in mind - but I didn't say so, so now I will. This should not be attempted by half a dozen ninjas and Wolverine clones, and a blonde megalomaniac with a huge gun and oversized shoulder-pads. For the people in the team who really are Westerners come to do good, I think the ideal character type is Supergirl (as she was in the Crisis of Infinite Earths). For a team of characters mostly on the level of Supergirl, and with that extremely high level of morality and personal pleasantness, I think this would be a long-term challenge with fantastic potential. What's going to challenge Supergirl and friends in the long run? But this would, it would be a continuing struggle - just what a gamemaster wants. However, that is just my perspective. OddHatt: "However, your world your story. You can make it Kipling or Boroughs rather than Somalia or Vietnam, if that's how you choose to tell the story." I like Kipling, a whole lot. However, to make this work, you can't be playing The Man Who Would Be King, as Rudyard Kipling would be the first to agree, you have to play something like Black Panther Returns To Wakanda (with friends). I don't think you need more than one player character (or if need be a gamemaster-supplied native character) to convincingly say "I am not just here doing good on my summer vacation, this is my home". But you do need that one. (And more is better.) Without him or her I agree: there is a catch. However, the reason I would not do it is not because of any catch in the game reality. After all, if I am the gamemaster, "reality" is just my best effort to imagine and communicate things fairly and in a structured and genre-appropriate way. Since I think Supergirl and friends, including the relevant Black Panther, can have a terrific (and hopeful) long-term struggle with this, that would be true in my world, though not in anybody else's world. The reason I would not do it is in my first post - I don't do controversy. I've never seen the players I could sit around a table and do this with without it becoming a disaster, and I never expect to see them. One or two, sure, but a team, including people who may join later? No way. It's going to be a "racist!" issue, and just as with abortion and a lot of other real world issues I think superheroes could, should and inevitably would get involved in (at least as to advocating their views, the way Hollywood actors do on every topic in the news), I think it's not worth the grief. Look at how bitter and nasty people get over these issues. It's quick to start, and slow to heal if it ever does. I'm convinced it's not worth it.

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

Re: Help me with my Champions plot PS: Even if the Morbane (with or without DEMON Agent help) gets away with the Seal, or even if VIPER gets away with the seal, the Kryptonian should still be able to read the seal's message from the photos of the artefact, so you still have the lead-in to the next scenario, unless your heroes don't care whether VIPER or DEMON awakens "the Beast". (I think they will care.) Also, whichever bad guys get the seal, the other bad guys will still want it, which can give the player characters a second chance to catch onto the hunt, if that is necessary. But it's probably more fun to have the heroes win this one (if only because the heroes should usually win) - and then have both VIPER and the Morbane hunting them, while still taking shots at each other.

Re: Help me with my Champions plot I love to help people with their Champions plots. Let me try this in reverse order. Gilgamesh was on Earth looking for the secret of immortality. (Assuming even Kryptonians can eventually age and die.) He found it - and lost it. But that's another story. A top DEMON agent, a Morbane (with nasty mental powers), is present to steal the Seal. He insisted that he be there to do it, because the legend of Gilgamesh relates to immortality, and if it's anything related to immortality, he wants it, nothing that may confer immortality is going to go off in the hand of some worthless DEMON Agent. Unfortunately, delaying the snatch till he could be present gave VIPER time to react to what a traitor in DEMON's ranks told VIPER: a top DEMON, a Morbane, will be there. Viper is not there for the seal, or they'd just go straight to it. All they know is a hated enemy is there - and they have agents on hand to lock the whole place down, find the Morbane, and capture or kill him - no matter what they have to do to civilians in the process. As soon as they find out that this is about the Seal of Gilgamesh, and one way or another they will find out soon, one of their experts on mythology will tell them the tale:- Gilgamesh found the secret, but a serpent stole it. So he had endured his mighty labours only to make serpents immortal. To Viper, that can have only one meaning: the secret of immortality belongs to them alone! The Morbane, who knows from the legend that the serpent will steal the secret of immortality, is not a happy DEMON agent at this point. How much does VIPER know? And can he cheat destiny? He wants to grab the seal and run, first chance he gets, he won't take the chance that if he leaves without it VIPER may know what to grab (or take the right thing just by random looting and getting lucky) and his shot at immortality will be gone. Cool. OK, you need something for each of these guys to do. They all need to fight of course. (Don't insist they do it this way, because players always baffle you - these are just examples of cute ideas you should cooperate with if the players come up with them.) The Telekinetic probably needs to get the Seal out of there while the Ninja leads VIPER and the DEMON Morbane on a wild goose chase. (An illusion of the Seal should be very easy and convincing - the bad guys probably don't even deserve a perception roll to detect any difference between the illusion and a seal they've never seen before anyway.) The Kryptonian will be able to decode the Seal (in Kryptonian) at the end: "By this seal, awaken the Beast!" And the time guy needs to have and find clues or remember prophecies that will put his team-mates ahead of the game so they can do clever things at the villains' expense. "The Serpents servants will seek to steal the seal from the hero they robbed before and always will again; the eye of the DEMON is ever covetous: beware its cloaked malice." Well, that's a start anyway. It doesn't have to be epic poetry, just as long as the team gets enough information so they can do this scenario. Does that help?

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games PS: then discover a rich mine. That will give hope of making the country prosperous, and also call the vultures big time. Foreigners will want to dominate that resource, whatever it is. Stir up the natives in the area to demand independence, subtly get some paybacks and preferably a lasting tribal feud going, call in some supers to protect the heroic people's independence movement and bingo! You've got a mine - and enough natives on the ground to act as a fig-leaf, not sharing the income with the rest of the nation. Unless the heroes win. If I can see more or less endless opportunities for a positive, forward-looking game here, with plenty of combat, I'm sure you do too, and more than me. So what's the catch?

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games Why would there be a lack of Evil to hit in this campaign? You'd have villains wanting to take over, non-player heroes assuming the player characters heroes are racists lording it over Africans and flying in to beat them up or at least make them look bad, global terrorists trying to set up infrastructure and recruit agents as they usually do, pirates and slavers and all the people the Phantom usually fights, foreign countries stirring up trouble and perhaps hiring mercenaries, illegal hunting, witch doctors good and bad, coup plotters, and just plain armed idiots. You'd also be stretched out, moving food around, fending off disasters, negotiation things. Your high-powered characters could have lots of opportunities to be at a heroic disadvantage for the sake of protecting innocents. What am I missing here?