bigdamnhero

6 hours ago, Starlord said:

Honestly, in my experience, X-Men is only a good property when Chris Claremont and Stan Lee are writing them.

I also like Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men. But generally speaking: yeah.

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

...whereas at DC the creators of specific properties have been allowed to follow their own visions, while disputes and infighting between studio executives has pulled the franchise in contrasting directions and diluted the resulting product even more.

I confess I don't really see that. With the obvious exception of Wonder Woman, I feel like all the DCEU movies since MOS have very much been following Snyder's "vision". And the only executive meddling I've heard about seem to be the studio trying to tone down Snyder by splicing in jokes and such based on the reception to BvS & SS.

1 hour ago, Jagged said:

I think at least part of the problem is that DCs "grim dark" isn't that great a version of grim dark either.

This right here. It's not my personal preference, but you could absolutely make a good grimdark superhero movie. But "tone" aside, the Snydermurderverse films have been incoherent messes on all sort of levels.

9 hours ago, Starlord said:

Well, unlike the Affleck Batman, the Logan story also worked because it was essentially a standalone movie...

I think this is also a key point. People like a little bit of grimdark now and then, but it doesn't make for a good franchise that people want to return to over and over.

9 hours ago, Greywind said:

Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries s1

We've been watching this too. I'm not really a murder mystery guy, but the clever writing and charming acting make it worthwhile. I think the next Pulp character I play is going to be a Miss Fisher homage.

4 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

Try this:

 

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/dc-films-justice-league-1202632214

Called it.

2 hours ago, zslane said:

As long as the DCEU movies continue to be a patchwork of disconnected ideas, the entire franchise will remain a mess, drawing little more than lukewarm audience enthusiasm.

IMO, the problem wasn't that they were disconnected, the problem was the stuff connecting them sucked.

6 hours ago, Bazza said:

I think you mean a curse. 

Per Wikipedia:

Quote

The Cassandra metaphor (variously labelled the Cassandra 'syndrome', 'complex', 'phenomenon', 'predicament', 'dilemma', or 'curse') occurs when valid warnings or concerns are dismissed or disbelieved.

So take your pick I guess.

The Enemy Guns, by DeVotchka with the Colorado Symphony. My wife was there the night they recorded this, and I will always regret that I missed it.

Wow, I figured they’d blown the budget on the big crossover, and assumed this week would be heavy on drama but light on CGI. They definitely surprised me. Looking forward to seeing the Legion suit up after the hiatus!

Informal poll. Which was funnier?  J’onn’s Hall & Oates love, or his Dad’s “This brown liquid is far superior!”

38 minutes ago, Bazza said:

Well I guess Cassandra was mostly right. But did anyone listen? Nooooo. 

It’s almost like there should be a syndrome for that...

On 12/3/2017 at 9:05 PM, mrinku said:

In the specific case of Justice League, it's probably more important for them to have a hit than to make a profit.

From the fans' & critics' perspective, maybe. But the studios and the folks who throw money at them to make these movies aren't in it for the sake of art. The previous movies were supposed to be the ones that established the brand: JL was the Big Tentpole Moneymaker that everything was leading up to. And so far, it's only made $269M beyond it's absurd $300M budget. By comparison, Ant-Man is the lowest-grossing Disney/MCU film, and it made $389M past budget. Meanwhile, Marvel has had three movies net more than $1B after budget. Heck, BvS is WB/DC's biggest post-Nolan success, and while it made $623M past its budget, that wouldn't even make it into the top 5 MCU films. Netting $269M (so far) certainly isn't a disaster, but JL was supposed to be the Cash Cow, and so far they haven't even out-grossed Logan, which was made for less than $100M.

I would be very surprised if they don't use Snyder's family situation as an opportunity to move him aside in favor of...someone else. Personally I doubt it'll be Joss - he's been very public about being tired of studio-driven franchises and wants to create something original again. It should be Patty Jenkins, but we all know they won't give that much control to a girl. [grrr] So who knows who they'll bring in, but I suspect it'll be someone meant to send a clear message of change.

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

To be fair, Zephrosyne, did say that he was very pro-active in setting out build rules ahead of a campaign.

Oh absolutely! I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with that approach - just observing that there are other approaches.

Yeah, if it's something that takes a lot of time off-site to change slots, that's going to be less unbalancing.

On 12/2/2017 at 3:06 PM, g3taso said:

Variable Power Pool (Skills), 3 base + 1 control cost, (4 Active Points); all slots Skills Only (-1), Powers Must Be Changed By Operator (-1/2)

I think the way you're doing it works pretty well. (Subject to GM approval, obviously.) Although if you want to be able to buy a 3-point Skill, you need to up the Control Cost to 3 as well. And depending on how fast/easy it is to swap Skills, consider "No Skill Roll" and/or "Can be changed as 1/2 (or 0) Phase Action."

My group had talked about something similar to model the Intersect from the show Chuck. The problem is it becomes a very cheap way to know, basically, everything you want to. Expect some resentment from other players who actually spent point to learn a bunch of Skills the normal way. Use with caution...

I think a lot of this goes back to where you fall on the old Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist spectrum. "This is how it should work" is a very Simulationist attitude. "How do we want it to work?" can be either Gamist (if you're going for power/effectiveness) or Narrativist (if you're going for what makes a better story). Neither approach is inherently better than the others, of course, nor are they mutually-exclusive. Just depends on what gives you & your players the most fun. Personally, I used to be much more Simulationist, but have become much more Narrativist as I mellow in my old age.

There's no question that Hero is one of the best Simulationist tool boxes in gaming. And there's certainly plenty for the Gamists to play around with. But you can also use those same tools to drive Narrative choices. I look at Limitations and so forth as one way for the players to have meta-level in put into what kind of games they want to play. Say a character wants to have a big hammer with lots of cool powers. But they don't want to have it taken away from them all the time because that's not fun for them. So they just don't take the Focus Limitation and technobabble their way into a justification for why it can't be taken away. ("See, it always returns to my hand after I throw it...") It's the inverse of the character who has family, but doesn't want them to become hostages every other episode; so he lists them under his "supporting cast" but doesn't take them as DNPCs.

As for the specifics for what protects someone from being teleported out of their armor, the usual comic-book answer is "It's shielded." Which can mean Power Defense, or "Blocks Teleportation" or whatever you want it to mean.

Edit: For me, it also varies from genre to genre & game to game. I used to run a modern-day monster hunter game for a bunch of engineers that was very Simulationist. Superheroes tend to be more Narrativist to me, because the logic of "how" things work is so flexible anyway. YMMV

11 hours ago, Hermit said:

heck, it's in some ways a direct rip off of LaForge heading from helm to Engineering. But it does look bad from a certain POV- It's like Yaphet got passed over because someone did well on a SAT score back at the academy

I wouldn't even of minded that so much, if they hadn't gone directly from "I'm placing a letter of reprimand on your file...WHOA, I didn't realize you were an under-performing smart person! I guess we'll promote you and put you in charge of other, more qualified people, included the one you just assaulted." Yaphit's got a helluva EEO suit, is all I'm saying.

It actually reminded me of the TNG episode where they introduced Barclay (who, granted, in time turned into an interesting character). When Geordi complained that he wasn't sure what to do with this smart-but-clueless f**k-up, Picard's advice was "Make him your best friend!" We all literally fell out of our chairs laughing so hard at that one.

11 hours ago, Spence said:

I think everyone is reading too much in to this. 

 

It's Orville........

Heh. Yeah, `cause fans overthinking things would be unprecedented.

But you're right, there is something freeing about a show that so openly says "We're not taking this too seriously; you don't have to either."

Yeah, I’m not thrilled that they’ve decided to follow the Jean Luc Picard School of Leadership & Personnel Management, but it is in keeping with the theme. 

Thanks Bazza! (Seems obvious when you put it like that...)

As someone who doesn't normally have much use for most big comics crossovers, I have to say I've really enjoyed the CW's crossovers to date. Plot holes notwithstanding (I've come to just accept that as a natural part of the Arrowverse), they do a good job of bringing what each show does best. Most characters get at least One Cool Moment, in most cases doing something new & cool. And unlike too many comic crossovers, they actually manage to ground the Big Spectacle emotionally, while also managing to advance the poltlines of each show rather than just putting them all on hold while everybody punches everybody for a couple issues/hours. Granted, that's gotta be much easier to do when you "only" have 4 series to tie together and the writing teams are as closely integrated as the CW's. But still, not bad.

I had a few spoilerey thoughts, but I can't figure out how to do spoiler text with the new system??

13 hours ago, massey said:

Or you could Major Transform him to glass and then shatter him.

 

When looking at optional rules, you need to keep in mind that you shouldn't make a lesser effect more expensive than a more powerful effect.

Fair point. 90 AP buys you 6d6 of Severe Transform, which is enough to turn him to glass, stone, etc. Dude needs some Power Defense.

On 11/25/2017 at 11:30 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

No Cantriped as per CC an object which is Dispelled can be considered broken And no longer functioning until repaired or replaced. Therefore logic states that it would take Defender longer than a zero phase action to turn it on.

I'm with N-B on this one. CC p58 states (emphasis added):

Quote

Dispel is more effective against powers that are difficult to turn on or take a long time to activate, or against objects (which must be repaired, recharged, or rebuilt).

631 p195 goes into more detail and gives possible examples:

Quote

If a character Dispels a power in a Breakable Focus, look at the special effects involved to determine what happens. For example, if the Dispel is defined as “breaking small objects,” the Focus probably needs some repairs — maybe just quick field jury-rigging, maybe something more — before it will work again. If the Dispel involves sucking all the battery power out of the Focus, the Focus needs recharging.

While specifics vary by sfx, the common thread is that when a Power in a Focus is Dispelled, it can't just be immediately turned back on again - that's one of the main points of the Focus Limitation. The object/power isn't destroyed outright, but it will take more than a 0-Phase action to get it working again. In some cases, I've just required the PC to make a 1/2 or Full Phase Mechanics Roll. In the case of an OIF suit, since it takes a Turn to take it away from the character, saying it takes a Turn to put the suit back on doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Shoulda bought Instant Change...

On 11/28/2017 at 3:54 PM, Cantriped said:

The wording on that section is a little janky in 6e1. But you appear to be correct. CC also stipulates that "When granting abilities with Transform, (CP Granted)/5 is added to the targets BODY..." (It omits the bit about Complications, but the important part is that it never mentions Removing abilities). I must have misread it earlier. Thanks!

Thinking about this some more, this might actually be the best way to go, even tho RAW says you don't need to when removing abilities. Defender has a total of 163 RP in his suit powers, which is a decent proxy for your powerful the suit is (and therefore how hard it is to "bypass" it). That works out to +33 BODY, giving him an effective 43 BODY. You'd need around 13d6 (potentially over multiple rolls) to beat that, but I agree since the armor is already OIF, a Minor Transform would be appropriate, so you can get 13d6 for only 65 AP.

Edit: OK, it would be a bit more than that; I missed that Defender's suit-enhanced CHARs aren't included in the 163 points I cited. So add another ~86 RP which is another +17 BODY, which gets him up to 60 BODY total. That's going to take 17d6 worth of effect so you'll probably need two rolls.

Interesting idea, Knightgoblin. And not one that I remember coming up before, so props there.

I agree using Teleport UAA for the Power doesn't seem like a good approach, because the only defense against it would be to build the armor with Blocks Teleportation. Among other problems, I dislike "I win unless you took this specific defense" attacks. You see that a lot in the comics & shows, but players hate them. (Justifiably IMO.) I thought about Desolid UAA, but that has the same problems as Teleport UAA. Tunneling UAA is no better, and RAW specifically forbids using Tunneling against vehicles, which IMO goes double for using it against a Foci.

Dispel seems like it ought to be the right approach. The defense is Power Def, and the effect roll needed is based on the suit's AP, which is a reasonable proxy for how powerful/advanced the suit is. But 6e1 p195 specifically states that Dispelling one power in a multiple-power Focus does not affect the other powers. So mechanically, Dispelling Defender's Resistant Protection doesn't prevent him from using his weapons array, which really doesn't fit the concept. (Unless he can control the suit remotely, which could be entertaining.) So BTB you'd have to buy it with Variable Effect (+1/2) and Expanded Effect x8 (+3.5) to affect the whole suit, which puts you at 15 AP per 1d6. So the 18 dice you'll need to affect Defender's 60 AP with one shot is  going to run you 270 AP! Maybe instead slap Cumulative on there, so it requires multiple Phases? For 103 AP, you could get 6d6 with Cumulative at +1 Level (+3/4, 72 points max) which means it'll take ~3 rolls to pop the man out of the can. If you're trying to stay within a 60 AP cap or Framework, the best you could do is 3d6 with Cumulative at +2 (+1, 72 AP), but it'll take you ~6 Phases.

I don't see Drain working any better. The only advantage is it works as Cumulative by default, but even without that it's going to cost 50 AP per 1d6!

Maybe Transform is the way to go after all. I would call "Person in power armor to squishy unarmored person without all their best powers" a Major Transform. Power Def is a defense, which is good. The effect roll is against the target's BODY, but unless they bought a lot of additional BODY for the suit that's normally only going to be the character's base BODY, regardless of how tough/advanced/expensive the suit is. Not crazy about that part myself, but it depends on how you see the sfx working. Defender only has 10 BODY (in the CC writeup anyway), so for 60 AP you could get 6d6 of Major Transform, which means an average roll of 21 will take Defender out of the fight with one shot, not to mention probably revealing his SID to boot. That seems a tad overpowered IMO. Maybe toss on a Limitation stipulating that the armor's BODY (calculated as an Object, not as a Focus) adds to target's effective BODY?

(And yes, per the letter of the rules, Transforming the suit from an OIF to an OAF and then hitting it with a TK Grab or something would probably be cheaper; but there's a little too much cheese on that one for my taste.)

2 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Not sure if this has been brought to your attention, but it seems the updates for this forum has established lots of notifications as default. I was quite surprised to have probably over a hundred HERO emails in my inbox recently. I think I have managed to kill the notifications. Going forward (or potentially now if possible) establishing a default of no-notification would be a welcomed edit.

Yes, there are several posts about this earlier in the thread.

Re trailer: "This does put a smile on my face."

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I'm a YGWYPF (You Get What You Pay For) kind of guy, so I'd charge the 43CP.

I get that. So when you run heroic games, do you make characters pay points for their horses, vehicles, etc? If not, why do you feel this is different? (Not saying you're wrong - just thinking it through.)

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

You've given 37 CP to someone for making some skill rolls ... without giving that to everyone ... and your other players haven't called that out?  Wow. 

Well, the other characters have all had various horses and such, which are built on a similar number of points. And quite frankly I don't think anyone at the table feels like the falcon has done anything worth a fraction of 37 points.

5 hours ago, mrinku said:

I'm assuming the players don't need to pay for their mundane equipment like regular bows and swords and armour?

 

That's your fair comparison for normal animals.

That's exactly the same thing I was thinking about it.

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

I mean, the swords and armor and other loot that have been found have been added to other characters' sheets as write-ups in as-they-go fashion, right?  If so, the falcon is no different from any other loot ... when using your loot analogy.

Yes, but "added to the character sheet" isn't synonymous with "paid points for it." This is a Heroic game, remember.

OK, one more stupid question. The old Advanced Search function used to have the option of searching Active and/or Archived content. It appears the new function only searches for Active content? I was trying to find a post from a couple years ago, and wasn't able to find it. Are those threads gone for good, or is there some way to find them?