bigdamnhero

I have no idea what I just watched. It was supposed to be the season premiere of Sherlock, but...I have no idea what I just watched.

Cool - not sure how I missed that...

My work here is done. Amen. And a great mix of action-adventure stuff alongside more thoughtful fare like Arrival or Interstellar.

QFT, man, QFT.

Definitely CSLs. Her defenses seem a tad light, at least for our games. If she has an energy form, it might be worth considering some sort of Damage Reduction and/or Negation? Maybe some Power Defense and/or MD? Ultimately maybe even some sort of Desolidification if that fits?

Yeah, Season 1 was fun, but the writing was a little spotty at times. I'm only 2 episodes in to Season 2, and so far I would agree they seem to have worked a few kinks out. Although [pet peeve alert] can I say how incredibly tired I am of seeing futuristic maximum security "inescapable" prisons with worse security protocols than any small rural county lockup today? I mean okay, over-reliant on technology, sure. But have literally no copies of Corrections For Dummies survived into the future?

Part of me is curious; part of me doesn't want to know... Either way, welcome to you both!

Huh, I never thought about putting it on the character sheet. Not a bad idea...

Right - if you want him to be able to ignore/bypass walls & barriers, then you need Indirect. If you don't care about that, it's just sfx. And regardless of whether or not it comes from him, if it's obvious he's the one causing it you don't need IPE. Sidebar: personally I'm not a fan of the cost structure for Indirect - I think anything beyond +1/2 is way overpriced for the benefit you get. I usually just go with: +1/4 for either Source or Path and +1/2 for both. But I guess it depends on your game.

Wow. I literally can't imagine Savage Worlds played that way - every Savage GM I've ever played with has thrown them around like dollar bills at a strip club. In most SW games I've played 4-6 per player each session is pretty typical, and I've seen it go even higher than that. I'm not saying that's a good thing mind you. For Hero I would agree. For our home games we tend to go through 1-2 per session; Convention games maybe 2-3. (We did have one PC in my last campaign who bought a crap-ton of Luck and could go through 4-6 Hero Points per session; but that was his whole shtick.) For SW tho, it's more deeply baked into the system - there are traits you can only use if you spend a Bennie; you can't soak damage without spending one, etc - so it's not just about re-rolls. Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing.

Yeah, there's a fine lien between "My Perk" vs "Your Complication." And like a lot of Social Limitations, it very much depends on where you're at. Being a villager isn't a Complication in your village; but if you're going adventuring amidst the nobility, then "Low Born" is certainly worth something. Here are the guidelines I wrote up for my current FH campaign. Note that this game is set in the year 1000 AD, when feudalism was still just getting going - I can see it being much more rigid in later centuries. Social class is a big deal in a proto-feudal society. At the risk of oversimplifying: Slave: Social Limitation: Very Frequently, Major, 20 points or more Serf: Social Limitation: Frequently, Major, 15 points Freeman/Townsman: 0 points Lower Nobility: Fringe Benefit Perk, 2 points Higher/Landed Nobility: Fringe Benefit Perk, 4-8 points, requires GM approval Your birth order within your family also influences one’s rank and social standing, but is not typically worth points by itself. Being illegitimate may decrease the value of the Nobility Perk. Note that serfs & slaves are not generally allowed to carry weapons. I can maybe even see a step above Serf but not quite Freeman that might be worth 5-10 points?

The only part of Injustice I'd actually like to see is a buddy road movie starring Green Arrow and Harley Quinn.

Right - the whole stated reason for Flash's costume is to reduce friction, wind resistance, etc. So adding lots of "fiddly bits" makes less sense than usual.

http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/20/justice-league-flash-batman-wonder-woman-photo/ Flash's suit looks...interesting...

Fair point that more recent editions can handle this better, especially when you add Feats into the mix. But even then: Robin wasn't just "not that great" with a sword, he had literally never held one before because commoners weren't allowed to own/carry swords. (He threw some XP at it later IIRC.) And FWIW Robin of Sherwood is worth checking out. It wasn't terrific overall, but had some really good bits. I liked the fact that Robin was a commoner like in the original legends, before late-medieval authors decided only nobles could be heroes. Mixing in pagan myth gave it an interesting flair. And Judi Trott is still the best Marion as far as I'm concerned. (And it's a minor thing, but it always bugs me when movies/shows have the Sheriff working for Guy of Gisburne rather than the other way around, so I really liked that RoS got that bit right.) Edit: At least that's how I remember it. Not having seen it in probably 25+ years, I have no idea how well it holds up today. Nothing wrong with GM fiat of course, but it presumes you have an experienced and savvy GM who know how & when to bend the rules without breaking them. And yet PF players will complain that Hero is too rules heavy... [sigh]

Not that hard; just reeeeely expensive. And we are talking Fantasy here. Your points are all spot-on. But the one thing I hate about the LotR movies is how Jackson reduced the noble Gimli to comic relief. [grumble grumble] Back on topic... One of the conversations that first led me to FH back in the 80s was about Robin of Sherwood (the 80s TV series) and how it was nearly impossible to model most of the characters in D&D. Robin (Michael Praed version) was a master archer and woodsman, but barely knew which end of a sword to hold. (Which made total sense because he was a commoner, not a nobleman.) Friar Tuck was a priest who didn't cast spells. And don't even try statting out Marion in a class-level-based system. Similarly, the first FH character I ever played was essentially a fantasy version of Brett Maverick. A gambler and con man who is competent with a sword and fairly dexterous, but not a thief per se.

Mark another one down for "Only if I know the player's up to the challenge." In our current FH game, one player has a build-on-the-fly VPP but he's a Hero veteran and can whip up a quick build in his head while it's someone else's turn, so it doesn't slow things down. Even then, we both prefer to have powers written up and approved ahead of time wherever possible. In our last Champions campaign, I let a player talk me into doing his power suit character as basically one big walking VPP he could modify on the fly. It was...shall we say, less than optimal from an efficiency standpoint? The player knew Hero reasonably well, but couldn't really do builds in his head and was math-challenged to boot. We eventually wound up creating 3 standard "load-outs" he could alternate between, with a few points left for the occasional "I want to make a _____." In hindsight it might've been much easier to do it as a Multiform or something like that. For the convention/demo games I run, I sometimes give low-level build-on-the-fly VPPs, either as "Miscellaneous Magicks" or mad-scientist type characters and the like; I try to give them a half-dozen sample builds they can either use as written or at least as starting points, and just assume I'm going to wind up building whatever they think up. I have Hero Designer running and 30+ years of building stuff in Hero, so I can usually ballpark something close without losing a lot of time. It can be a great way to Unleash Player Creativity as long as you're prepared to do the heavy lifting. Something I've found works well for a lot of fantasy settings is to use the VPP structure, but limit it as "spells must be invented or learned ahead of time." That lets you handle the learning/gaining of new spells narratively without tying them to XP.

Oh I get it. (And I do get that you're defending someone else's position, not arguing your own.) Nothing wrong with having a preference, nor with expressing one. And if that's the most important thing in a Wonder Woman movie for you, ok fine. But then be up front about that being about your tastes, rather than pretending it has anything to do with age or some deficiency on the part of the actress or filmmakers. To put it another way, if an athletic 30-year-old woman looks to you like she "still has some physical maturing to do," the problem is yours not hers. Don't find her attractive? Fine - no one says you have to. But that doesn't make her a child or childlike or immature or any other BS euphemism.

Then just say "Her boobz aren't big enough!" and stop dancing around with euphemisms that don't actually mean what you're trying to make them mean. Cuz there's nothing "girly" about Gadot that I can see unless you're equating maturity with cup size.

Lynda Carter was 24 when she first put on the tiara, 6 years younger than Gadot in BvS. Of all the things we can blame DC/Warner for - and they are Legion - "too young" doesn't seem like a valid one. Honestly I don't even thing we can compare the two. Lynda Carter was the definitive Silver Age Wonder Woman, much like Christopher Reeves was the definitive Silver Age Superman. It was the 70s; that was all we were allowed. Lynda's biggest strength was her ability to keep a straight face amidst all the campy silliness and always take the character seriously even when the writers didn't. Certainly Gadot is more athletic, now that women are actually allowed to have muscle tone outside of martial arts movies. And it goes without saying the stunt/fight choreography is going to be way better now even without allowing for movie-vs-TV budgets. But I don't really feel like we've seen enough of Gadot to say based on her minimal screen time in BvS. I liked her in BvS, but let's face it she also looked better just in comparison to everyone else in that awful festering turd of a movie. And yeah the WW trailer looks good, but trailers lie. Ask me again in June and I'll have an actual opinion. I suspect which version you prefer will come down to Silver Age vs Iron/Modern Age more than anything to do with the actresses themselves.

Especially since that would actually be shorter than "Standard Effect: uses same roll as (X)," which is how it appears in the write-ups. It's a custom +0 Modifier; no need to make it more complicated than that.

Hit Locations has been an optional rule in Hero for 30+ years, and have been essentially unchanged in that time.

The 100-page limit is strictly for spec scripts, ie - unsolicited scripts. As the article points out, blockbusters are almost never written on spec - they're assignments from the studio. Different set of rules, especially once the studio, producer, cast, etc all start adding their "contributions," never mind once you add a 3rd & 4th writer... Edit: Belatedly realizing zslane said as much in a previous post.

The STUNx multiplier is applied before defenses, just like normal with Killing Attacks (ie if you weren't using Hit Locs). The BODYx and N STUN modifiers are applied after armor. That somehow didn't make it into the MHIRPG text either, so I can see where you'd be confused. Honestly, this whole thread has been a depressing reminder of just how poorly edited this book was; especially depressing since Hero is normally really good at that sort of thing. I highly recommend picking up Champions Complete or Fantasy Hero Complete to make better sense of things. Or just keep asking questions here, of course!

tldr - The triumph of optimism over evidence and experience, aka "I Want To Believe."