bigdamnhero

Admittedly, at this point dumping on Batman v Superman is piling on a dead horse with an elephant gun, or some similarly mixed metaphors. But the guy who does the Really That Good videos (well worth watching!) did a series dissecting everything wrong with BvS. There was SO MUCH wrong that it took three 1-hour episodes to go through it all! But hey, it's way more entertaining - and more well-thought-out - than actually watching the movie. What I like is that while he's clearly a fanboy, he comes at it from a filmmaking standpoint. In other words, as I've said before, the problem isn't (just) that they make a dark & gritty Superman, the problem is they made it badly.

From a fan standpoint, I think his best insight comes from examining what Snyder got right and what he got wrong with Watchmen. Basically Snyder understood what worked in Watchmen, but not why it worked. Paraphrasing here: Watchmen was meant as a cautionary tale about why superheroes in the real world would actually be a Very Bad Thing, but Snyder saw it as an instruction manual.

On 12/23/2017 at 11:43 AM, Sociotard said:

I had fun. Really best if you don't try to map any real world class/race problems or commentary on it.

Yeah, the ham-fisted racial allegory was as ham-fisted as most Hollywood attempts at racial allegory, but no worse than most. It seems like most of the people I know who hated it did so because they tried to take the racial allegory more seriously than the writers ever intended.

On 12/23/2017 at 11:32 PM, Beast said:

total ripoff of shadow run

Like that would be a bad thing? But honestly the only thing it had in common with Shadowrun was "fantasy creatures in the real world."

On 12/26/2017 at 3:41 AM, Starlord said:

What about disliking it because Will Smith plays Will Smith, instead of Will Smith playing a new character in a movie? 

Actually I liked that Smith wasn't playing his usual quip-driven persona. Granted, it wasn't exactly a huge departure...

On 12/26/2017 at 11:52 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

The only magic in the entire film was by the maguffin.  That's it.  There was no magic at all except that one item and mentions of other, duplicates of it.

Yeah, it wasn't entirely clear to me if the elves (or some elves) have any magic of their own apart from the wands? It it something that's being actively suppressed by the government/elves/corps/whoever? Or just something that's largely been lost? But I'm okay with them leaving that vague, rather than trying to cram in more exposition.

On 12/26/2017 at 12:31 PM, Spence said:

It was a made for television TV pilot more than a made for TV movie.  And yet 90% of the negative commentary is of a type aimed at a 200 million dollar plus block buster.

You're not wrong, but it's a testament to Netflix's success that their films are no longer graded on the Made For TV scale.

My $0.02: It was entertaining. Not great art, but an entertaining way to spend an hour or two. "District 9" meets "Training Day," which isn't a bad concept, as such things go. Yeah, the plot was a tad simplistic. But I actually liked that they didn't have an 11th hour plot twist that Changed Everything You Thought You Knew! That trope has been overused to the point where it's become a parody of itself.

And you know what I absolutely loved? That it didn't feel the need to open with a 5 minute voice-over monologue explaining the history of this world and why there are orcs and the Dark Lord's backstory and blah blah blah. Instead the opening credits sequence takes us on a tour of LA where we *see* how this world is different, mostly through really clever use of graffiti, and assumed we were smart enough to fill in the blanks. Goddamn brilliant, that was. I hope the rest of Hollywood was paying attention.

On 12/30/2017 at 7:57 AM, GM Joe said:

We watched Jumanji at one of the theaters with recliners, an enormous screen, and an awesome sound system. It was a very fun movie, and I look forward to seeing it again when it's available for streaming.

Finally saw it - WAY funner than I expected!

On 1/4/2018 at 9:28 AM, Christopher said:

There is a decent chance that even if we had one, it would be too powerfull for any genre. De-armoing mooks is not even that relevant. Against those it is just a support spell. But once you get to Player or Important Characters, things can backfire really quickly.

That's why I like using Drain or Dispel; they'll be effective against mooks in VIPER powered suits, but Defender's armor is going to be too high-tec (ie too many AP) for most people to affect.

This is the only gaming forum I'm on; sorry.

Last night's Historical/Fantasy Hero game. The Heroes are trying to find a way through a partially-collapsed building. So they turn to the Priest, whose VPP is primarily modeled after recorded Biblical miracles:

Alchemist: "Wasn't there anyone in the Bible who walked through walls or moved a bunch of rocks or anything?"

Priest: "Well, I can think of one example. But it'd take three days and we'd have to die first."

Alchemist: "...OK, but aside from That Guy...?"

3 hours ago, DasBroot said:

I really liked how badly the trailer 'lied' - it didn't tell the story at all.  I think that's part of the backlash, though - people made their own movie based upon what they'd seen and the real thing didn't match it.

Word. "We didn't know every plot detail going in! How do you expect us to enjoy something like that!"

So it's Tarantino's story idea, but he apparently realizes his um, unique writing style isn't really suited for Trek. So they're bringing in another screenwriter, the guys from Revenant (which I haven't seen but is supposed to be great), but Tarantino's still directing. OK, that sounds somewhat less like a horrific train wreck in progress.

Ralph Bakshi's Wizards. Or at least the first 20 minutes or so. I vaguely remembered trying to watch it 30ish years ago, and didn't get much further then; now I remember why. [shakes head sadly]

From a conversation last night with a non-gamer friend who is super-outdoorsy. Gaming came up somehow...

Me: "I know it's geeky as hell, but I do enjoy it."

She: "Aren't all hobbies a little geeky tho? I mean what do I really get out of my hiking obsession?"

Me: "Besides good exercise, being really healthy, looking great, getting lots of fresh air, connecting with nature..."

She: "Well...yeah."

Me: "I mean I appreciate what you're trying to do. But not all hobbies are equally geeky; I'm cool with that"

She: "OK, fair enough."

On 12/16/2017 at 6:14 AM, Pattern Ghost said:

This thread needs a punch montage.

That was oddly cathartic, thanks!

Hathaway was the only bright spot of that movie IMO. If only they hadn't muddled it by trying to cram in a second love story with Talia...

A friend ~dragged me to a concert last night, and now I have a new addition to my list of favorite Christmas songs.

Also a less-serious song (in a slightly different style) by the same group:

Sidebar: I actually enjoyed Valerian. Don’t get me wrong, it was an objectively terrible film. But I was in just the right mood to completely turn off my brain and watch the pretty pictures. And they sure were pretty: the whole time I kept thinking how much I’d love to play in that campaign. Honestly if they’d cast a couple of competent  actors for the lead roles, and tightened up the script a bit (losing the so-dated Pepe le Peu hostile-work-environment subplot) they could’ve had a decent movie on their hands. Coulda shoulda woulda...

This seems like as good a place to ask as any: is the character art from GAC available anywhere? (Other than in the book, obviously?) I'd like to add them to the character sheets I'm putting together for a convention game, ideally in color if such beasts exist? Thanks again for an awesome book!

Yet another double-post. Sorry.

11 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

It is significant to me that the government steps in to control or stop mergers of corporations but does not seem to care that every single entertainment outlet on planet earth is controlled by an ever-smaller group of massive corporations.  Literally everything in the USA that's entertainment or media is split between like 3 huge companies.  And each merger, they get bigger.

It's not just the media. 4 airlines control 83% of air travel in the US. 3 rental car companies control 90% of car rentals. 2 brewery companies produce 70% of our beer. Etc. The US government has largely given up even pretending to enforce antitrust laws. John Oliver recently did a bit on it recently:

On 12/10/2017 at 3:12 PM, LoneWolf said:

How does having it be a DNPC affect what the player uses it for?  

<snip>

As a DNPC it would occasionally cause problems.

You just answered your own question. The player doesn't want it to cause problems; he wants it to be more useful than burdensome. So making it a DNPC is counter to the player's concept.

And again: does that mean I should make all their horses DNPCs too?

On 12/11/2017 at 3:34 PM, dsatow said:

If the bird is mostly helpful, it should be bought as a follower.  If it ends up more of a liability than a help, its a DNPC.  If its neither, the GM is free to interpret it either way.

Personally I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. The Book says you can't have the same character as both a Follower and a DNPC "unless the GM permits it," but I don't think it's a problem if done correctly. The cost of the Follower Perk represents how useful they are, while the savings from the DNPC represents how much of an inconvenience they are. Robin is actually a perfect example. At the start, he's going to be a pretty cheap Follower and his DNPC "cost" is going to be pretty high. As he gets better, the Follower cost goes up, and eventually he buys the DNPC value down, both in reduced frequency and in increased competence.

The legal way to reflect that would be to buy Robin as a Follower, but add Complications on his character sheet like "Hunted By Everydamnbody, 14-, Wish To Use As Bait" or just "3d6 Unluck, Gets Captured A Lot." But either way can work, depending on the exact concept. Again, GM permitting.

56 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

But Feige's advice sounds a lot like what we've been saying here: focus on character, story, and making a movie, not making a franchise and making money.  Look at the successful franchises out there.  How many set out to be one?  None, that I know of.  They just tried to make the best film they could, and when it worked, decided to make more.

Yeah, if you're hoping to build a franchise off it, fine. But start by making Good Movies and let the larger story develop around them, rather than starting with The Franchise and then trying to shoehorn everything into those constraints.

57 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah he started to fall into a bit of a rut.  His best work was with Byrne, who helped with plotting when he was doing the art.  Byrne has his flaws as well but his run on the Fantastic Four is one of the best in comics history.

And to be fair in his early days Claremont was writing strong female superheroes at a time when the Wasp & the Invisible Girl were still mainly there to get knocked out or captured every other issue. I agree his work went downhill, but introducing characters like Storm & Kitty Pride? Can't fault him there.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of speculation about whether DC/WB shot themselves in the foot by leaving Superman out of all the trailers. I don't know how open a secret that was outside of geek circles, so I don't know how many more people might've gone if they'd known Supes was in it, let alone whether or not he was "the real Supes."

To me, the trailer just screamed more of the same Suicide-Squad-meets-300. If that's not fair to the movie (and it sounds like maybe it wasn't), they have no one to blame but themselves. Edit: We can't even blame Snyder for the trailer; that's all on the studio.

11 hours ago, Surrealone said:

All the more reason for it to cost points (be they resource points that have been awarded or what have you), right?

If I was making players pay points for mundane equipment, horses, etc. But since I have repeatedly said I'm not doing that, no I don't feel it's appropriate to make a lot of fuss over one bird. Don't get me wrong: I understand your argument, I see the logic, and it's a perfectly sound way of running a game. But it doesn't really fit how I tend to run my games, and I certainly don't feel like retooling in the middle of an existing campaign.

The nature of this campaign in particular would make implementing a points-for-everything policy difficult. Early on, they had use of a ship, but then they went inland and had to leave it behind. Later on, they captured another ship and sailed it around for awhile...until the crew mutinied and abandoned them. They've gone through multiple horses, either buying them (Money Perk) or convincing a friendly monarch to give them as rewards (accomplishments + Persuasion Skill), but in all cases have had to leave them behind sooner or later. At one point, they were captured by the bad guys, lost all their gear, and had to escape with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs. Keeping track of the point cost of all those would add a great deal of unneeded complexity and IMO distract from the point of the campaign. Again, all YMMV, etc.

15 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

BDH have you come up with a solution then? I also like Mallets idea.

Yeah, as long as we're just talking about adding a CSL or the like, I'm going to let it pass for free. If he tries to turn it into Super Bird or something - which I know is not the player's intent, but hypothetically - then I'd most likely charge him for anything over ~110% of the bird's baseline cost. I think that allows it to stay focused on the roleplaying of training the bird, while keeping a safety valve to prevent it from getting unbalanced.

I forgot to mention there is one special ability that is on the PC's sheet, which is that he can develop a Mind Link with any bird he's had long enough to train up. (He's currently looking at buying that up to Clairsentience, Only Through The Bird's Eyes.) We specified it was a PC ability, not something special about the bird itself, precisely so if the bird ever got killed he could buy & train a new bird and eventually use  the Link with it. Which is exactly what happened: he let the bird get too close to a battle, it got shot down, and he went without for several sessions until his new bird was sufficiently trained.

5 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Surrealone is on the right track.  Treat the falcon as a DNPC instead of a follower.  Even though the falcon is there all the time the frequency is how often it causes problems. 

Well, except that's not what the player wants the bird for...

Yeah, that movie had many, many problems, but Routh himself was fine.

"Mad Idolatry" was officially the most Star Trek thing I've seen since TNG went off the air. Well done. I also got a genuine belly-laugh out of the opening with lonely-Ed trying to find someone to drink with. I'm glad I stuck with this show.

The Crown, season 2, on Netflix. Only 2 episodes in so far, but definitely hasn't lost the momentum from the first season. And Matt Smith is really throwing himself into the role.