KA.

I just watched my first, and probably last, three minutes of Batwoman.
 
I have not been following the "Arrowverse" for a couple of years, and I haven't seen or heard anything to really make me want to watch Batwoman, but I also didn't have anything against it.
 
So, I was flipping channels and I saw what I think was the first few minutes of tonight's episode.
 
A train was gaining speed and flying through the stations instead of stopping.
 
It appeared that the computer controls had failed.
 
A man in a control room (Luke Fox? at least according to a quick google search) was trying to reach Batwoman, who was basically ignoring him while she talked about how much she liked her motorcycle.
 
She finally caught up with the train just before it crashed.
 
She launched a grapple (which appeared to be about four inches across) through the thin-looking metal on the back of the last car, then fired the other end into the ground, tie, something, causing the train to stop instantly about an inch from the barrier it was going to crash into.
 
Then, the anchor that had been fired into the ground came loose and came flying toward Batwoman from behind and a guard, policeman, something, tackled her out of the way.
 
I think this would have been laughed out of the first script meeting in the Adam West Batman show.
 
Bat Shark Repellent was more realistic than this crap.
 
Wouldn't stopping the train instantly do almost as much damage as a crash, unless you were in the engine itself?
 
Could any sort of grapple, no matter what it was made of, stop a train just by punching through the metal of the last car?
 
Even if the anchor at the other end was strong enough to hold, wouldn't it just tear back through the metal?
 
I have always been a four-color kind of guy, and I don't expect comic books the follow all the laws of physics, but this was just ridiculous.
 
I have no problem with Superman catching Lois when she falls off a building without hurting her.
 
But if he caught her by one hair of her head and that supported her whole weight,  I would have to cry foul.
 
This was just goofy.
 
Just my first, and likely last, impression.
 
KA.

This is slightly off topic, and not addressed at anyone involved in this thread, but reading some of the comments has brought something to mind that I have been thinking about for some time.
 
Also, if the tone seems a bit heated, I apologize in advance, but this is a topic that has been bothering me for a while, again, none of this is addressed to those posting in this thread.
 
Over the many years of my sporadic RPG career, I have done a roughly equal amount of time as a GM and as a Player.
I enjoyed both.
I enjoyed playing because all I had to do was show up with a well-prepared character, or some good ideas if we were creating characters from scratch, and enjoy playing the game.
I enjoyed GM'ing, because it gave me the chance to try my hand at creating an adventure that the players would enjoy, find challenging, and want to continue into a campaign.
 
That is not the only difference.
 
GM'ing is a metric buttload of work.
 
I started out DM'ing AD&D.
You had to create a plot, maps, monsters, treasures, traps, NPC's, atmosphere, background information, interesting things for each character to potentially do (traps and locks for the thief, appropriate stuff for the fighters to fight, people for the cleric to convert or heal, interesting magic stuff for the magic user to find, etc.).
It might take a day of work for each hour the players were going to spend at the table.
 
Champions is a little different, not as much "treasure" but way more NPC's and combat and plot.
 
And I admit that I did enjoy the work I put into creating an adventure, mostly, but it was still work and took up a lot of time, which all of us seem to have less of as the years go by.
 
I also enjoy cooking, and from time to time I invite people over for dinner.
If I invite someone who does not like spicy food, I have no problem accomodating that.
If I invite someone who loves baked beans, I will do my best to work them into the menu.
However, since I am the one buying the ingredients, playing the host, and doing all the work preparing the food, I expect to get a certain amount of apprectiation for going to all the trouble.
After all, there are plenty of restaurants that will cook the food you want, pretty much the way you want it, you just have to pay for it, and the more demanding you are, the more you usually have to pay.
 
There are times when players, and I hope it is mainly players who have never GM'ed, give off a vibe like:
"I want you to go out and buy every possible ingredient for every possible dish.
Clean them, prep them, and have them waiting for my arrival.
When I get there, I expect you to produce exactly the dish I am in the mood for, even though I may not know myself what I want.
You think that you have to right to have some input into what you cook?
How dare you!
You can't bully me into accepting something that you enjoy too, this is all about me!"
 
That example may be a little extreme, but I find the concept that the GM is just another player, with no more right to have the game suit him than anyone else, to be ridiculous.
Maybe everyone else lives in a world that is crowded with GM's begging players to enter their games, but that has never been my experience.
I always felt lucky that someone else was willing to put in all that effort so I didn't have to.
That doesn't mean I would put up with a GM that was rude or abusive, but other than that, I was happy enough to be in a game to cut the GM some slack.
 
I am not saying that the players are just there to act out the GM's play so he can sit back and watch it.
But as much as the word "railroad" has been maligned in the RPG world, it is a great way to get a group of people to the same place at the same time!
Perhaps the concept of "carpool" is more appropriate.
Everyone is trying to get to the same basic place, at around the same time.
If one of the group wants to stop off to pick up some drycleaning, or drop something in the mailbox, that is fine too, as long as everyone gets where they are going in time.
But, if people are saying that if the guy who owns the car, buys the gas, and does all the driving, likes to stop off for a doughnut every morning, he doesn't have that right unless all the passengers want one too, that sounds like B.S. to me.
 
After all, if someone just wants to come up with a story where their character, and all the faceless drones that follow it around, does exactly what he wants in a world made to accomodate him, they can do that.
They call it writing a story.
But to expect someone else to spend their time writing one for you, that exactly matches your desires, with little to no input from them, seems a little selfish.
 
For one thing, if the GM is not the guiding the plot, who is?
 
I always see comments about "the players", but if you think about it, would all the players want exactly the same thing?
I mean obviously, if you start out with a bank being robbed, and one player wants to kill off the robbers by beheading them with her power sword, and one player wants to use his negotiation skills to talk the robbers out of a life of crime, and one player wants to go to the library across the street and research the history of the Federal Reserve, and the final player wants to have their character strike up a romance with one of the "rough-edged but dangerously attractive" bank robbers, you can't pursue all of those threads at the same moment, especially since the bank robbery is only being staged as a distraction while Viper is stealing the McGuffin across town and the players probably need to figure that out, if not now, at least soon.
 
So, do you stop for a vote after each turn so see which direction the players want to jump?
 
I believe that the problem is often not "The Players are not able to have Their characters do the things They want to."
but instead,
"I am not able to have My character do exactly what I want to, (and have all the other players and the rest of the game world go along with me)!"
 
I have never seen someone suggest that the players should take some sort of vote, or express their opinions on which direction the game should go, it always seems to be assumed that if that power-mad GM would just get out of the way of the person who is talking, everyone else could follow them to the promised land.
 
After all, if you are going to only please one person at the table, it might as well be the person who does all the work, not the person who does nothing but complain about the work that has been done, without actually contributing anything that would also make the other players happy.
 
For some reason, many players seem to think that if the game was just run the way they want it to be, every thing would be great.
 
And that's fine, if someone thinks they can do a better job than the GM, they should give it a try.
 
Do the work.
Spend the time.
Come up with the kind of plot you like.
Guide the game in the direction you see fit . . .
 
Oh, but wait, isn't that railroading?  
😁
 
ka.

This is slightly off topic, and not addressed at anyone involved in this thread, but reading some of the comments has brought something to mind that I have been thinking about for some time.
 
Also, if the tone seems a bit heated, I apologize in advance, but this is a topic that has been bothering me for a while, again, none of this is addressed to those posting in this thread.
 
Over the many years of my sporadic RPG career, I have done a roughly equal amount of time as a GM and as a Player.
I enjoyed both.
I enjoyed playing because all I had to do was show up with a well-prepared character, or some good ideas if we were creating characters from scratch, and enjoy playing the game.
I enjoyed GM'ing, because it gave me the chance to try my hand at creating an adventure that the players would enjoy, find challenging, and want to continue into a campaign.
 
That is not the only difference.
 
GM'ing is a metric buttload of work.
 
I started out DM'ing AD&D.
You had to create a plot, maps, monsters, treasures, traps, NPC's, atmosphere, background information, interesting things for each character to potentially do (traps and locks for the thief, appropriate stuff for the fighters to fight, people for the cleric to convert or heal, interesting magic stuff for the magic user to find, etc.).
It might take a day of work for each hour the players were going to spend at the table.
 
Champions is a little different, not as much "treasure" but way more NPC's and combat and plot.
 
And I admit that I did enjoy the work I put into creating an adventure, mostly, but it was still work and took up a lot of time, which all of us seem to have less of as the years go by.
 
I also enjoy cooking, and from time to time I invite people over for dinner.
If I invite someone who does not like spicy food, I have no problem accomodating that.
If I invite someone who loves baked beans, I will do my best to work them into the menu.
However, since I am the one buying the ingredients, playing the host, and doing all the work preparing the food, I expect to get a certain amount of apprectiation for going to all the trouble.
After all, there are plenty of restaurants that will cook the food you want, pretty much the way you want it, you just have to pay for it, and the more demanding you are, the more you usually have to pay.
 
There are times when players, and I hope it is mainly players who have never GM'ed, give off a vibe like:
"I want you to go out and buy every possible ingredient for every possible dish.
Clean them, prep them, and have them waiting for my arrival.
When I get there, I expect you to produce exactly the dish I am in the mood for, even though I may not know myself what I want.
You think that you have to right to have some input into what you cook?
How dare you!
You can't bully me into accepting something that you enjoy too, this is all about me!"
 
That example may be a little extreme, but I find the concept that the GM is just another player, with no more right to have the game suit him than anyone else, to be ridiculous.
Maybe everyone else lives in a world that is crowded with GM's begging players to enter their games, but that has never been my experience.
I always felt lucky that someone else was willing to put in all that effort so I didn't have to.
That doesn't mean I would put up with a GM that was rude or abusive, but other than that, I was happy enough to be in a game to cut the GM some slack.
 
I am not saying that the players are just there to act out the GM's play so he can sit back and watch it.
But as much as the word "railroad" has been maligned in the RPG world, it is a great way to get a group of people to the same place at the same time!
Perhaps the concept of "carpool" is more appropriate.
Everyone is trying to get to the same basic place, at around the same time.
If one of the group wants to stop off to pick up some drycleaning, or drop something in the mailbox, that is fine too, as long as everyone gets where they are going in time.
But, if people are saying that if the guy who owns the car, buys the gas, and does all the driving, likes to stop off for a doughnut every morning, he doesn't have that right unless all the passengers want one too, that sounds like B.S. to me.
 
After all, if someone just wants to come up with a story where their character, and all the faceless drones that follow it around, does exactly what he wants in a world made to accomodate him, they can do that.
They call it writing a story.
But to expect someone else to spend their time writing one for you, that exactly matches your desires, with little to no input from them, seems a little selfish.
 
For one thing, if the GM is not the guiding the plot, who is?
 
I always see comments about "the players", but if you think about it, would all the players want exactly the same thing?
I mean obviously, if you start out with a bank being robbed, and one player wants to kill off the robbers by beheading them with her power sword, and one player wants to use his negotiation skills to talk the robbers out of a life of crime, and one player wants to go to the library across the street and research the history of the Federal Reserve, and the final player wants to have their character strike up a romance with one of the "rough-edged but dangerously attractive" bank robbers, you can't pursue all of those threads at the same moment, especially since the bank robbery is only being staged as a distraction while Viper is stealing the McGuffin across town and the players probably need to figure that out, if not now, at least soon.
 
So, do you stop for a vote after each turn so see which direction the players want to jump?
 
I believe that the problem is often not "The Players are not able to have Their characters do the things They want to."
but instead,
"I am not able to have My character do exactly what I want to, (and have all the other players and the rest of the game world go along with me)!"
 
I have never seen someone suggest that the players should take some sort of vote, or express their opinions on which direction the game should go, it always seems to be assumed that if that power-mad GM would just get out of the way of the person who is talking, everyone else could follow them to the promised land.
 
After all, if you are going to only please one person at the table, it might as well be the person who does all the work, not the person who does nothing but complain about the work that has been done, without actually contributing anything that would also make the other players happy.
 
For some reason, many players seem to think that if the game was just run the way they want it to be, every thing would be great.
 
And that's fine, if someone thinks they can do a better job than the GM, they should give it a try.
 
Do the work.
Spend the time.
Come up with the kind of plot you like.
Guide the game in the direction you see fit . . .
 
Oh, but wait, isn't that railroading?  
😁
 
ka.

This is slightly off topic, and not addressed at anyone involved in this thread, but reading some of the comments has brought something to mind that I have been thinking about for some time.
 
Also, if the tone seems a bit heated, I apologize in advance, but this is a topic that has been bothering me for a while, again, none of this is addressed to those posting in this thread.
 
Over the many years of my sporadic RPG career, I have done a roughly equal amount of time as a GM and as a Player.
I enjoyed both.
I enjoyed playing because all I had to do was show up with a well-prepared character, or some good ideas if we were creating characters from scratch, and enjoy playing the game.
I enjoyed GM'ing, because it gave me the chance to try my hand at creating an adventure that the players would enjoy, find challenging, and want to continue into a campaign.
 
That is not the only difference.
 
GM'ing is a metric buttload of work.
 
I started out DM'ing AD&D.
You had to create a plot, maps, monsters, treasures, traps, NPC's, atmosphere, background information, interesting things for each character to potentially do (traps and locks for the thief, appropriate stuff for the fighters to fight, people for the cleric to convert or heal, interesting magic stuff for the magic user to find, etc.).
It might take a day of work for each hour the players were going to spend at the table.
 
Champions is a little different, not as much "treasure" but way more NPC's and combat and plot.
 
And I admit that I did enjoy the work I put into creating an adventure, mostly, but it was still work and took up a lot of time, which all of us seem to have less of as the years go by.
 
I also enjoy cooking, and from time to time I invite people over for dinner.
If I invite someone who does not like spicy food, I have no problem accomodating that.
If I invite someone who loves baked beans, I will do my best to work them into the menu.
However, since I am the one buying the ingredients, playing the host, and doing all the work preparing the food, I expect to get a certain amount of apprectiation for going to all the trouble.
After all, there are plenty of restaurants that will cook the food you want, pretty much the way you want it, you just have to pay for it, and the more demanding you are, the more you usually have to pay.
 
There are times when players, and I hope it is mainly players who have never GM'ed, give off a vibe like:
"I want you to go out and buy every possible ingredient for every possible dish.
Clean them, prep them, and have them waiting for my arrival.
When I get there, I expect you to produce exactly the dish I am in the mood for, even though I may not know myself what I want.
You think that you have to right to have some input into what you cook?
How dare you!
You can't bully me into accepting something that you enjoy too, this is all about me!"
 
That example may be a little extreme, but I find the concept that the GM is just another player, with no more right to have the game suit him than anyone else, to be ridiculous.
Maybe everyone else lives in a world that is crowded with GM's begging players to enter their games, but that has never been my experience.
I always felt lucky that someone else was willing to put in all that effort so I didn't have to.
That doesn't mean I would put up with a GM that was rude or abusive, but other than that, I was happy enough to be in a game to cut the GM some slack.
 
I am not saying that the players are just there to act out the GM's play so he can sit back and watch it.
But as much as the word "railroad" has been maligned in the RPG world, it is a great way to get a group of people to the same place at the same time!
Perhaps the concept of "carpool" is more appropriate.
Everyone is trying to get to the same basic place, at around the same time.
If one of the group wants to stop off to pick up some drycleaning, or drop something in the mailbox, that is fine too, as long as everyone gets where they are going in time.
But, if people are saying that if the guy who owns the car, buys the gas, and does all the driving, likes to stop off for a doughnut every morning, he doesn't have that right unless all the passengers want one too, that sounds like B.S. to me.
 
After all, if someone just wants to come up with a story where their character, and all the faceless drones that follow it around, does exactly what he wants in a world made to accomodate him, they can do that.
They call it writing a story.
But to expect someone else to spend their time writing one for you, that exactly matches your desires, with little to no input from them, seems a little selfish.
 
For one thing, if the GM is not the guiding the plot, who is?
 
I always see comments about "the players", but if you think about it, would all the players want exactly the same thing?
I mean obviously, if you start out with a bank being robbed, and one player wants to kill off the robbers by beheading them with her power sword, and one player wants to use his negotiation skills to talk the robbers out of a life of crime, and one player wants to go to the library across the street and research the history of the Federal Reserve, and the final player wants to have their character strike up a romance with one of the "rough-edged but dangerously attractive" bank robbers, you can't pursue all of those threads at the same moment, especially since the bank robbery is only being staged as a distraction while Viper is stealing the McGuffin across town and the players probably need to figure that out, if not now, at least soon.
 
So, do you stop for a vote after each turn so see which direction the players want to jump?
 
I believe that the problem is often not "The Players are not able to have Their characters do the things They want to."
but instead,
"I am not able to have My character do exactly what I want to, (and have all the other players and the rest of the game world go along with me)!"
 
I have never seen someone suggest that the players should take some sort of vote, or express their opinions on which direction the game should go, it always seems to be assumed that if that power-mad GM would just get out of the way of the person who is talking, everyone else could follow them to the promised land.
 
After all, if you are going to only please one person at the table, it might as well be the person who does all the work, not the person who does nothing but complain about the work that has been done, without actually contributing anything that would also make the other players happy.
 
For some reason, many players seem to think that if the game was just run the way they want it to be, every thing would be great.
 
And that's fine, if someone thinks they can do a better job than the GM, they should give it a try.
 
Do the work.
Spend the time.
Come up with the kind of plot you like.
Guide the game in the direction you see fit . . .
 
Oh, but wait, isn't that railroading?  
😁
 
ka.

This is slightly off topic, and not addressed at anyone involved in this thread, but reading some of the comments has brought something to mind that I have been thinking about for some time.
 
Also, if the tone seems a bit heated, I apologize in advance, but this is a topic that has been bothering me for a while, again, none of this is addressed to those posting in this thread.
 
Over the many years of my sporadic RPG career, I have done a roughly equal amount of time as a GM and as a Player.
I enjoyed both.
I enjoyed playing because all I had to do was show up with a well-prepared character, or some good ideas if we were creating characters from scratch, and enjoy playing the game.
I enjoyed GM'ing, because it gave me the chance to try my hand at creating an adventure that the players would enjoy, find challenging, and want to continue into a campaign.
 
That is not the only difference.
 
GM'ing is a metric buttload of work.
 
I started out DM'ing AD&D.
You had to create a plot, maps, monsters, treasures, traps, NPC's, atmosphere, background information, interesting things for each character to potentially do (traps and locks for the thief, appropriate stuff for the fighters to fight, people for the cleric to convert or heal, interesting magic stuff for the magic user to find, etc.).
It might take a day of work for each hour the players were going to spend at the table.
 
Champions is a little different, not as much "treasure" but way more NPC's and combat and plot.
 
And I admit that I did enjoy the work I put into creating an adventure, mostly, but it was still work and took up a lot of time, which all of us seem to have less of as the years go by.
 
I also enjoy cooking, and from time to time I invite people over for dinner.
If I invite someone who does not like spicy food, I have no problem accomodating that.
If I invite someone who loves baked beans, I will do my best to work them into the menu.
However, since I am the one buying the ingredients, playing the host, and doing all the work preparing the food, I expect to get a certain amount of apprectiation for going to all the trouble.
After all, there are plenty of restaurants that will cook the food you want, pretty much the way you want it, you just have to pay for it, and the more demanding you are, the more you usually have to pay.
 
There are times when players, and I hope it is mainly players who have never GM'ed, give off a vibe like:
"I want you to go out and buy every possible ingredient for every possible dish.
Clean them, prep them, and have them waiting for my arrival.
When I get there, I expect you to produce exactly the dish I am in the mood for, even though I may not know myself what I want.
You think that you have to right to have some input into what you cook?
How dare you!
You can't bully me into accepting something that you enjoy too, this is all about me!"
 
That example may be a little extreme, but I find the concept that the GM is just another player, with no more right to have the game suit him than anyone else, to be ridiculous.
Maybe everyone else lives in a world that is crowded with GM's begging players to enter their games, but that has never been my experience.
I always felt lucky that someone else was willing to put in all that effort so I didn't have to.
That doesn't mean I would put up with a GM that was rude or abusive, but other than that, I was happy enough to be in a game to cut the GM some slack.
 
I am not saying that the players are just there to act out the GM's play so he can sit back and watch it.
But as much as the word "railroad" has been maligned in the RPG world, it is a great way to get a group of people to the same place at the same time!
Perhaps the concept of "carpool" is more appropriate.
Everyone is trying to get to the same basic place, at around the same time.
If one of the group wants to stop off to pick up some drycleaning, or drop something in the mailbox, that is fine too, as long as everyone gets where they are going in time.
But, if people are saying that if the guy who owns the car, buys the gas, and does all the driving, likes to stop off for a doughnut every morning, he doesn't have that right unless all the passengers want one too, that sounds like B.S. to me.
 
After all, if someone just wants to come up with a story where their character, and all the faceless drones that follow it around, does exactly what he wants in a world made to accomodate him, they can do that.
They call it writing a story.
But to expect someone else to spend their time writing one for you, that exactly matches your desires, with little to no input from them, seems a little selfish.
 
For one thing, if the GM is not the guiding the plot, who is?
 
I always see comments about "the players", but if you think about it, would all the players want exactly the same thing?
I mean obviously, if you start out with a bank being robbed, and one player wants to kill off the robbers by beheading them with her power sword, and one player wants to use his negotiation skills to talk the robbers out of a life of crime, and one player wants to go to the library across the street and research the history of the Federal Reserve, and the final player wants to have their character strike up a romance with one of the "rough-edged but dangerously attractive" bank robbers, you can't pursue all of those threads at the same moment, especially since the bank robbery is only being staged as a distraction while Viper is stealing the McGuffin across town and the players probably need to figure that out, if not now, at least soon.
 
So, do you stop for a vote after each turn so see which direction the players want to jump?
 
I believe that the problem is often not "The Players are not able to have Their characters do the things They want to."
but instead,
"I am not able to have My character do exactly what I want to, (and have all the other players and the rest of the game world go along with me)!"
 
I have never seen someone suggest that the players should take some sort of vote, or express their opinions on which direction the game should go, it always seems to be assumed that if that power-mad GM would just get out of the way of the person who is talking, everyone else could follow them to the promised land.
 
After all, if you are going to only please one person at the table, it might as well be the person who does all the work, not the person who does nothing but complain about the work that has been done, without actually contributing anything that would also make the other players happy.
 
For some reason, many players seem to think that if the game was just run the way they want it to be, every thing would be great.
 
And that's fine, if someone thinks they can do a better job than the GM, they should give it a try.
 
Do the work.
Spend the time.
Come up with the kind of plot you like.
Guide the game in the direction you see fit . . .
 
Oh, but wait, isn't that railroading?  
😁
 
ka.

I just watched my first, and probably last, three minutes of Batwoman.
 
I have not been following the "Arrowverse" for a couple of years, and I haven't seen or heard anything to really make me want to watch Batwoman, but I also didn't have anything against it.
 
So, I was flipping channels and I saw what I think was the first few minutes of tonight's episode.
 
A train was gaining speed and flying through the stations instead of stopping.
 
It appeared that the computer controls had failed.
 
A man in a control room (Luke Fox? at least according to a quick google search) was trying to reach Batwoman, who was basically ignoring him while she talked about how much she liked her motorcycle.
 
She finally caught up with the train just before it crashed.
 
She launched a grapple (which appeared to be about four inches across) through the thin-looking metal on the back of the last car, then fired the other end into the ground, tie, something, causing the train to stop instantly about an inch from the barrier it was going to crash into.
 
Then, the anchor that had been fired into the ground came loose and came flying toward Batwoman from behind and a guard, policeman, something, tackled her out of the way.
 
I think this would have been laughed out of the first script meeting in the Adam West Batman show.
 
Bat Shark Repellent was more realistic than this crap.
 
Wouldn't stopping the train instantly do almost as much damage as a crash, unless you were in the engine itself?
 
Could any sort of grapple, no matter what it was made of, stop a train just by punching through the metal of the last car?
 
Even if the anchor at the other end was strong enough to hold, wouldn't it just tear back through the metal?
 
I have always been a four-color kind of guy, and I don't expect comic books the follow all the laws of physics, but this was just ridiculous.
 
I have no problem with Superman catching Lois when she falls off a building without hurting her.
 
But if he caught her by one hair of her head and that supported her whole weight,  I would have to cry foul.
 
This was just goofy.
 
Just my first, and likely last, impression.
 
KA.

Those terrible companies trying to make money and giving us cell phones and computers and air conditioning and tasty food at low prices and stuff while providing jobs for millions of people!
 
I'd rather talk to rocks and sweat in my electricity free cabin by golly gosh.
 
What'll happen next?  People will look out for their own self-interests by trying to make enough money to feed themselves and their families?  Where will this lack of altruism end!?
 
Sarcasm aside.  It's an interesting spoof on how mainstream D&D has become.
 
I'm old now so I prefer a meal my daughter and I cook together, but I have nothing against Wendy's for trying to make a dollar and coming up with a very creative advertising gimmick that will engage potential customers for far longer than any TV or radio commercial could ever hope to do.  Good on them.
 
 

Amen!

KA
 
I get you.  The big reason I prefer 3rd, 4th, 5th over 6th is 6th removed most of the specific elements that actually sold us on the game in the first place.
 
But we had a lot of things we had adjusted for our games.  Everyone adjusts for their likes.  Nothing is actually wrong. 😁
 
 

Amen!

Okay, I am not a fan of the Patriots.
That has nothing to do with this observation.
Just now, watching the game, I saw Bill Belichick's son, who is the coach for the Safetys, for the first time.
Bill is not what I would consider a handsome man, mainly because he looks very weathered and always seems to be squinting or scowling.
But his son is downright scary.
Bill always reminded me of Darkseid, maybe in part because of the hoodies he always used to wear, and, again the kind of weathered, stony face he has.
His son Steve looks like one of the "less humanoid" inhabitants of Apokolips , possibly DeSaad.
 
Just saying . . .

Thank you both for the input.
Again, I wasn't trying to say it was wrong, just that it was very counterintuitive for me.
The idea of holding an action also helps a lot.
I think that in my mind I have been merging "able to shoot" and "ready to shoot".
Especially at the start of combat, you may be trying to figure out what is going on, who the threat is, and what your response should be.
If, at that time, you have a weapon or attack power ready, you are at that point "able to shoot", but not "ready to shoot".
It will take a certain amount of time to decide on your target and what you are going to do.
Which would explain the person with higher DEX getting to attack you first.
 
However, if you are using a Held Action, you are at that point "ready to shoot".
"That guy in the Skull Costume looks like trouble, if comes at me in a threatening way, I am going to blast him!"
 
So if the Skull guy uses his Phase 12 to take a shot at someone with his Skull Blaster, and you hold your action, then on his next phase you don't have to stand there flat footed while he runs across the football field and smacks you. You can use your held action to blast him.

Okay, I am not a fan of the Patriots.
That has nothing to do with this observation.
Just now, watching the game, I saw Bill Belichick's son, who is the coach for the Safetys, for the first time.
Bill is not what I would consider a handsome man, mainly because he looks very weathered and always seems to be squinting or scowling.
But his son is downright scary.
Bill always reminded me of Darkseid, maybe in part because of the hoodies he always used to wear, and, again the kind of weathered, stony face he has.
His son Steve looks like one of the "less humanoid" inhabitants of Apokolips , possibly DeSaad.
 
Just saying . . .

Currently watching Season One of The Wild WIld West.
Recently bought the DVD's for 3 dollars.
The show still holds up.
This is the 40th Anniversary Edition and has lots of extras.
Good stuff.
 
KA.

Currently watching Season One of The Wild WIld West.
Recently bought the DVD's for 3 dollars.
The show still holds up.
This is the 40th Anniversary Edition and has lots of extras.
Good stuff.
 
KA.

Arise and walk the earth again, oh Zombie thread!
 
Actually I was thinking of starting a thread on Daniel Bryan, and when I remembered this one, I thought it might be the better place for the post.
 
For those who have not been keeping up, Daniel Bryan has been having a feud with the Wyatt Family.
I can't say that I watch every week, so I may have missed the really great stuff that this group has done, but I just don't get it.
Are they Vince's idea of cashing in on Duck Dynasty or Swamp People or what?
You have a couple of big hillbillies, and one fat hillbilly with greasy hair and a hat, that sits in a rocking chair and occasionally says something that makes no sense.
 
I think we are supposed to see them as some kind of weird redneck cult or something, but I just don't get any "heat" from it.
They are just annoying.
 
I know they keep beating up Daniel Bryan, which is okay, getting beaten up is in his job description, but now they appear to be going with the "You can't win" angle.
Not the "Get beaten up and finally beat the heel group by overcoming the overwhelming odds." angle, but the completely hopeless "No, you really can't win no matter what you do." angle.
 
As I have stated previously in my posts on "realistic" comics, I don't really like entertainment that is so "realistic" as to be depressing.
Everyone struggles against things that cannot be overcome.
The death of loved ones, our own mortality, illness, accidents, these things affect even the most wealthy and privileged.
 
The vast majority of us face many more struggles:
financial worries, job loss, abusive bosses, relationships with the wrong people
all of these things can put us in situations that can seem "no win" at the time we are going through them.
 
I, for one, turn to entertainment for some respite from the things in my life that are getting me down.
 
So watching fictional scenarios where the hero really cannot win, does nothing for me.
 
So now, Daniel Bryan has joined the Wyatt family, based on the idea that if you keep beating someone down they will bow to the inevitable and become your slave.
 
I am not denying that this can happen.
Sadly, human history is full of this story, from battered women who won't leave their abuser, to entire nations that have been subjugated by an overwhelming force.
 
I just don't find it entertaining.
 
And I can't imagine it will be good for Daniel Bryan's career.
The group he is joining is boring, and I don't think he will be enough to lift them up.
Instead I think they will drag him down.
 
KA.

Re: Ideas for a hero name ?
 
Oh, by the way, the translations above came from:
 
http://dictionaries.travlang.com/
 
They have English to _______ dictionaries for quite a few languages.
 
You may try things like Blizzard, Snowstorm, Snowblind, etc. translated into some other languages.
 
KA.

Re: HERO 5E and D20
 
Gadodel,
First, welcome to the boards, and to Hero!
Second, don't take the following as a criticism of D20.
I have played, and occasionally still do play it.
It is just the best example I can think of.
 
Imagine that you eat a ham sandwich every day for lunch.
One day, the deli you usually go to is closed, but there is a buffet nearby that is having a special. The buffet will cost you what you usually pay for a ham sandwich.
It would certainly be possible to find some ham and some bread on the buffet, and make yourself a sandwich, but you would also be ignoring a lot of great possibilities. Not to mention the fact that the combination of ham and bread you came up with might not be as satisfying as your "usual" due to slight differences in the bread, the mustard, etc.
 
As others before me have said, try not to get too caught up in the idea of a strict mathematical conversion process. You will end up with characters that feel like poor imitations.
Instead, try your best to capture the concept of the character, and then create that concept using the Hero system.
Otherwise you are likely to "shave off" aspects of the character that don't convert well, without replacing them with other things that the character lacked in D20, but can have in Hero.
 
One great way to get started could be this: Post some Concepts.
(You may want to do it in the Fantasy Hero board, since the posters there are more used to doing spells.)
But rather than starting out trying to convert your characters over from D20, present the concept, and perhaps a few key abilities, spells, magic items, etc, and see how people who regularly build that type of character in Hero, do it.
You may not find that any particular conversion is exactly what you want, but you will get a much better idea of the "Hero way" to do some of the things you want to do.
Once you have a grasp of that, converting your own characters will be much easier.
 
KA.

Re: A view from outside
 
irond_will,
First, welcome to the boards.
I found myself in the same position you are a few years ago.
I had played Champions in the early 80's, lost contact with all the people I knew who had played, and then many years later, happened upon the previous version of these boards while searching the internet for a place to buy Champions stuff.
 
On to general considerations.
 
I don't really consider your questions to be trolling, but they were somewhat like picking up a stick, walking over to a dead horse, and saying:
"Did you guys see that? He tried to kick me! We need to give him a good beating!"
 
The points you brought up have indeed been discussed to death, but that does not mean that they are totally invalid.
I think the problem is, some people see them a bit like laws.
Not that they cannot be changed, but that changing them may very well have unintended consequences, throwing off game balance in worse ways.
I don't think that everyone is "resistant to change".
But, I have seen cases, not necessarily on the specific points you bring up, where someone will say:
"I think rule Z is broken, here is how I am going to fix it!"
People who know the system inside and out (I don't claim to be one of those ) will start posting questions:
"Do you realize that your change is going to change the balance of X?"
"Do you know that under your rule, construct Y is now possible, which is more abusive than the problem you are trying to solve?"
I do not mean to say that all changes should be "shouted down".
But most things that people see as "flaws" in the system work fairly well when used properly.
And since any significant change in the rules will invalidate a huge amount of existing material, there should be really compelling reasons for these changes.
 
The fact that something is "open to abuse" is not necessarily a system flaw, it is more like "user error", or "deliberate misuse".
 
Think of even the most basic games.
 
Checkers:
"It would be possible for someone to put a Checker up their sleeve and place it on the board.
They could use this Checker to create a "King" or to replace a piece that had been taken by the opposing player.
There should be a specific rule that all players must submit to a strip search before play begins.
Also, before the start of each turn, a referee should count the Checkers on the board, and those that have been taken, to assure that no player has hidden a Checker on their person."
 
Now I am sure that there is a rule in Checkers, or at least an implied rule, stating that you can't just add in an extra Checker on your side when you feel like it.
But some immature players are going to fall back on: "Well, you didn't do anything to stop me from putting in an extra Checker, so I did! The rules are broken!"
 
Now you did say that when you were playing that you and your fellow players were not very mature. I understand that completely. We came up with some ridiculous stuff in my group too, back then.
 
But a lot of the "problems" in Hero really come from GM's who are too weak to stand their ground when players are creating characters.
 
The rules are pretty clear about sticking to your concept, not being abusive, etc., many people just choose to throw their hands in the air and let the players have whatever they want.
 
Why doesn't everyone in a Fantasy Hero Campaign buy a STR of 20?
 
Because unless you are a very strong fighter-type, that is probably not in your concept.
 
How does a wizard, who spends most of his time doing spell research in a dusty lab, justify being as strong as the Strongest Normal Human on Earth?
 
Sure, it is possible if that is your concept, but there had better be really compelling reasons for it, and you may be considered a misfit because of it.
 
How will the other small wimpy wizards react to your over-muscled behemoth?
Do you think they will be as willing to share secrets with someone who looks so different from them?
Someone who looks like the brawny fighters who pushed them around in their youth?
 
And, while it may be great to buy the high STR to get the benefits of it, their may be other repercussions for the Weightlifting Wizard.
 
He may have the STR, but not the other skills to participate in Hand to Hand combat.
 
What happens when he bumps into the local tough guy, spilling his drink?
Usually Tough Guy would have looked down and seen the Wimpy Wizard, and just let it go with a grumble.
But when the guy in the robe is built like a tank, he may ask him to "step outside".
What are you going to do?
Fry an unarmed man with a Fireball?
Cast some other spell to end the fight?
Now people are going to consider you an obnoxious bully.
You looked plenty strong enough to fight like a man, but you chose to "cheat" and use a spell.
Not really great for the reputation.
 
I am not saying that every character that does not fit some pre-existing "class" should be punished for being "different". The beauty of Hero is being able to create whatever you want.
 
It gives you a great deal of power to be able to put together whatever kind of character you want.
 
But with great power . . .
 
The GM has the right, and the duty, to look at a character sheet and say "NO!".
 
No, you can't have a 20 STR just because you like the figured characteristics.
No, you can't put twenty attacks into a Multipower just to save points.
No, you can't have an "Obvious Accessible Focus" that is the size of a grain of sand and implanted into your cerebral cortex.
No, you can't have a "Cool Powers" Elemental Control and put that inside of a Multipower.
 
Because Hero allows you the freedom to create virtually anything, it is almost impossible to anticipate every possible avenue of abuse, and cut it off without taking away flexibility. That is where the GM, and a little maturity on the part of players comes in.
 
On a few specific points. (Sorry this is so long, I must have some pent up posts or something )
 
1) Diminishing Returns - In a well run campaign, Mr. Massive One-Shot Attack is going to be the number one target of every opponent. If the character is constructed properly, according to the rules, and good sense, he will not have massive overall defenses. Which means that he will get to blast someone in the first fight he is in. After that Viper, Villain Groups, etc. will start thinking about how to deal with him. That is not "GM screwing" that is the natural evolution of a campaign world. I would let a player know that when they were creating the character. But, if they insisted on that concept, they would end up as a target. If you were the cops, and you were called to a scene, and one guy had a handgun and the other had a rocket launcher, who would you have the snipers trained on?
 
2) Killing Attacks - Already discussed by others. Just a few key points.
a) Stun Lottery - the best thing about them, in my opinion. Just like a bullet or a knife. A "good shot" can take someone down. A "nick" does almost no damage at all. There is nothing like seeing a player who needs to CON Stun a Villain with a nasty attack looking down at 5 Body and a x1 Stun Multiplier.
Perception - I am sure that Thor's hammer would do way more damage than anything the Punisher is carrying, but people see guns and think "bad guy". It sounds like your GM started with this idea, but didn't carry it through.
Killing Attacks that could CON Stun a Brick, are going to flat out kill a normal.
And I don't think mutilating an innocent, even if you can heal them back up, is going to sit well with the public.
 
3) The cost of Strength - Hey, this is a game. We are supposed to be playing Heroes. The Heroes of fiction, of nearly every genre, tend to be stronger than normal people. Strength is cheap so that you can have a character a little more "buff" than real people are without putting a load of points into it. Same thing with COM. That doesn't mean everyone should be a weightlifting champ, or Miss America. It is all about the concept. Just because it can be abused does not mean it is broken.
 
4) Heroic Campaigns - Haven't played them that much, but I would definitely use things like Higher Dex goes first, Higher INT notices first, etc. There would be a difference in how the numbers played out so that everyone would not be exactly the same.
 
5) Power Frameworks - Again, back to the GM. You just don't allow the kind of cheesy constructs you are talking about.
 
I don't mean this as a criticism of you or your past group. But it basically looks like you all went out of your way to "rape" the rules, and now you are claiming that the rules were "asking for it".
 
That doesn't really hold water.
 
Hero describes itself as a "Tool Kit".
 
If you choose to use a torque wrench for a hammer, you shouldn't complain when it gets "broken".
 
KA.
 
P.S. I tried my best to discuss your points. I had no intention of "attacking" you. If anything I said was offensive, please accept my apologies in advance.
 
Really, Truly, Welcome to the Boards