massey

The problem with developing the Champions setting is that theoretically, you're just enhancing the value of something you don't own. I'm sure Cryptic would be perfectly happy if Hero Games poured a bunch of time and money into the Champions setting and made it really popular again. That would make them more money. Now, I don't know the terms of the sales agreement, but it may be possible to separate Champions the game from Champions the setting. The company could possibly decide to create a new setting from scratch, something that they would own. Of course that means leaving behind Dr Destroyer, VIPER, and a lot of the other pieces of the Champions history. It might even mean leaving behind the idea of a team named "The Champions". That would all be determined by the conditions of the sales agreement between them and Cryptic (which, obviously, I don't have and haven't read). I think you could still create a well done Marvel/DC combo universe, but who knows how well that would do in the modern RPG environment. -- I see a few possible avenues if Hero Games really wanted to get back in the game. All of these, of course, would require a significant investment. 1. Find a well known IP that is somewhat stagnant at the moment, but that might have some appeal to fans, and that you can get for cheap. (Is anybody doing anything with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre at the moment?) 2. Try and guess the next big thing. Get an IP that hasn't hit yet and hope it blows up big. (Find some Young Adult book series that hasn't had its movie deal yet) 3. Pick a genre that appears to be underserved, and do a generic version of it. (All Flesh Must Be Eaten did this with zombies -- can you find the next zombie craze?) With all of these, I think you need to be willing to run a bare bones version of the Hero System. Use only the most needed parts, ditch the rest, and produce a slick book in color that's customized for your setting. If you're not willing to do that, don't waste your time.

What would I do? I would play 5th edition where this problem doesn't come up. But really, we're talking about a very small number of points. It's easy enough to save like 6 points by cutting costs in other areas. This is one that seems to set off certain GMs, and if I had one of those GMs, I'd cut costs in a different place. For instance, if you've got 50 meters of Flight, why do you need all 12 meters of Running? You could sell it down to like 9 meters and save a few points since it's not your primary method of movement. But I really don't see it as a big deal, particularly in a superheroic game.

Rainbow Archer had a 35 Dex. But isn't that also kind of the point? Stats will vary tremendously based on what genre you're in. So, let's take Slasher Movie World. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. In Slasher Movie World, everybody has straight 10s. It doesn't matter if you're the star athlete, the nerdy kid, or the slut. The only person who can put up any kind of fight against the killer is the Final Girl. The biggest, brawniest guy will flail about ineffectually as soon as the killer shows up. In such a movie, the physical differences of the normal human characters are diminished. Maybe they might range from an 8 to a 13, but that's it. Everyone is stuck in an ultra-low powered genre, except for the killer and the Final Girl. They're the only ones who really deserve real stats. However, think about the original Spider-Man movie. Specifically, I'm talking about this scene (1:10 into the video): Flash Thompson punches hard. He dents in the locker. I remember people at the time commenting that he might have killed Peter with that punch. To properly portray Flash, you should probably give him a 15 to 18 Str, and maybe a couple of martial art maneuvers.

I'm sorry, but I think you're never going to get agreement on this. It's heavily dependent on genre and people's own campaign standards. For instance, people are arguing about real world weight limits, and completely ignoring Seeker's 25 Str. That's certainly their privilege to do so, but it shows we've all got different preferences.

I can't tell if he's hitting anything or not, but that's an awesome way to store your arrows.

The Ultimate Brick from 5th edition says that your lifting amount represents the weight that you can barely pick up off the ground, stagger for a step or two, then drop (page 9). Same page they say that a deadlift gives you 90% of that. So that maybe gets you to a 22 or 23 Str as a real life max. Now again, that's the really real world. Characters in action movies and other cinematic heroes could still be "normal" and go higher than that.

Once upon a time, there was some discussion about building characters from the Marvel "Puny-verse" -- that collection of 1970s and early 80s TV shows and movies. Lou Ferrigno, that guy who played Thor, the TV show Daredevil, Spider-Man from the Electric Company show, etc. They'd have an hour long adventure where they stop a guy from stealing a little girl's horse before the big show, so she could save the family farm. Personally I think you could do all those characters on 250, easily. Almost everyone they face will be in that "extremely normal" category, with no stats higher than a 15. Bad fight choreography and zero budget means it's pretty easy to do on the cheap. But where do you set the standards in your games? The published CU seems to have one set of standards, the MCU has another. Some characters in the Marvel comics seem more powerful, others less so. I think standard Marvel Comics Cap is more agile, and less strong than his cinematic counterpart.

I think we have to recognize that each "universe" has its own benchmarks. This Captain America: is not the same as this Captain America:

Every member of the Avengers has at least a 20 PD. Forget real world benchmarks, these guys survive long falls and horrible impacts that would splatter a normal person. Within the MCU, apparently you can do that and still be a "normal" human.

I think there's a difference between routine everyday life, the real world, realistic action, unrealistic action, and comic book. And probably several gradations between those. The highest stat you're likely to encounter in your everyday life is a 13 to 15. These are normal people. Normal normal people. Even if the pharmacist at the local drug store has a higher Int than a 15, she's probably not actively using it everyday. Example characters: The Office Then you've got the real world. Here the normal stats begin to go up to 20, and in extreme cases can go above it. Generally these people are in challenging careers that require them to maintain their high stat with constant work. The athlete with a 20 Str only keeps it as long as he's working out two hours a day. The process of using a high stat actually requires effort and discipline (yes, even Intelligence -- there are lots of examples of smart people doing really dumb things when they don't use their brain). Example characters: Big Bang Theory, live sports Next we get realistic action. This is what people with decent stats can achieve when they've got stunt coordinators, fight choreographers, and the ability to try something 50 different times and use the best take. The ability to cut and splice different takes together will convincingly add +5 or +10 to a stat (when Arnold flipped over a car in Commando, they'd stripped the engine and transmission out of it). 25s are easily achievable here, maybe a little higher. Example characters: Die Hard, Predator, Bruce Lee movies Unrealistic action is completely unconvincing. It may look good, it may be entertaining, but we know there's zero way that a human could actually do that stuff. Everything is ridiculous and over the top. Stats up to 30, and maybe even higher can happen here. Example characters: Anything starring The Rock or Jason Statham, The Fast and the Furious sequels Comic book action has no upper limits. The justification is the person has super powers, and isn't at all limited to what a person could do. Sometimes it can look good, and sometimes it can look fake, but there's no attempt to even pretend that it's realistic. Example characters: Winter Soldier, Superman

So Tony Stark noticed how Thor looked like Lebowski. Did he also notice a similarity in appearance to his former business partner?

To be fair though, if you shoot Eric Bana, he just changes into the Hulk.

It's a game and we use abstractions in it. I am utterly mystified by those of you who think that Comeliness must be subjective, but Presence is something that's the same to all of us. When we get right down to it, I don't know how "striking" I'd find your person with Striking Appearance.

Yeah, over the course of the entire series, we see significant character arcs from everyone. But within Endgame itself? Everybody is pretty static. The closest you could say to a real arc would be Hawkeye, but really we only get a minute and a half or so of him being "loving father" before his family disappears, and then he becomes "vengeful ninja" in his next scene, and then after that he's "buddy cop" with Natasha. Nothing is really explained, but it doesn't have to be within the context of the larger universe. I was just thinking about how I'm going to buy the complete set when Marvel releases it on BluRay, but I don't know that I'll ever really sit down to watch Endgame again. My wife still hasn't seen Infinity War, so I've been catching her up over the past few months (she's got Guardians 2 and then she'll be ready for IW), so I'll probably watch it once more with her. After that though, the movie is a huge time commitment, and only works in the context of the entire series. It'll probably be a "watch it once every 10 years" kind of film. I still really liked it, but it isn't self-contained at all.

No it isn't. I gave some examples earlier -- I consider a 20 Comeliness to be the classic Hollywood idol look. Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly. You want a 30, we're getting into Helen of Troy "face that launched a thousand ships" territory. That's off the 1-10 scale. George: 10 Comeliness John and Paul: 12 to 14 Comeliness (depending on who you ask) Ringo: 8 Comeliness Then add lots of dice for Wealth, positive Reputation, some successful skill rolls by manager Brian Epstein, and some good PS: Musician rolls by each of the Fab Four. Off the top of my head, I can't even name each of the Stones. Though right now Keith Richards is hovering somewhere between a 4 and a 6. Snoopy is a 10 (nobody ever comments on the dog being particularly cute or ugly). I have a hard time judging Tom Jones. He was probably about a 14 back like 45 years ago. J'onn Jones? Depends how alien you want to draw him. I'd probably put the traditional Martian look (i.e., the non-monster version) somewhere between a 6 to 8, but I might go all the way up to a 10. He's clearly non-human, but he's got symmetrical features and it's clear he's probably supposed to look like that. It's really the player's prerogative. Just like some people thought the blue girl from Avatar was attractive, she's a hot actress who had CGI morphing done to her. Or Ron Perlman as Vincent (the Beast) was better looking than Ron Perlman as Ron Perlman. Shapeshift to any humanoid, I've always played that you get to pick whatever Comeliness you want. That's part of the Shapeshift ability. That's going to depend on each campaign and each GM. Comeliness doesn't have much of a mechanical effect at all -- that's why "cute" to "plain" is only 1 point. 6th edition made a lot of changes, many of which I thought were not good. The change in Comeliness was, I believe, just a matter of personal preference. I don't think anyone has argued that the change to Striking Appearance somehow patched a hole in the game.

I’ve seen it twice, and I realized something about it today. Endgame isn’t a movie. It’s the series finale of a beloved TV show. Endgame doesn’t work at all as a stand alone film. You have no idea what is going on, no one is introduced and nothing is explained. No character goes through any sort of growth or character arc. Nobody learns anything about themselves. As a movie, it’s pretty bad. But as a TV finale, it’s pretty awesome. We already know these characters. They don’t experience a character arc in this film, they’ve already experienced it over the previous 21 movies. This is a loving farewell to these characters that we’ve grown to care for. Some characters take their bows, and others come back for what will surely be the coming spinoff. They don’t have to explain who Sam and Norm are because we’ve been watching Cheers for 11 years. I don't think I'll want to rewatch Endgame the same way I do certain other Marvel movies. The original Avengers, Iron Man 1, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Thor Ragnarok, and several others are great movies on their own. I can watch them and have the full "movie" experience, with character arcs and all that good stuff. Endgame won't have the same lasting rewatch value, just like people don't go and rewatch the last episode of MASH. But it's a great event movie.

1. Comeliness tracks well with a real life standard that most people are familiar with. If you say "she's a 10", everybody understands what you mean. In Hero, you just double the rating and that's your Comeliness. 2. It allows for a lot of small gradations that isn't really appropriate for Striking Appearance. A 12 Comeliness is cute, but it's not really enough to qualify for a skill bonus. If the girl next door gets a +1D6 on her PRE attacks because she's cute, then Kate Upton could stop a super fight in progress with a suggestive glance. That's too much. 3. Comeliness is a legacy of the game system, and regardless of what Hugh has said, there's value in retaining older aspects of the system.

I think you missed the joke there.

I'll give you my benchmarks that I have in my head for Comeliness. I like this better than Striking Appearance because there's more granularity, and it's still pretty cheap overall. Basically you take the "1-10" scale that people use in normal conversation ("she's at least an 8...") and double it. But, for a visual aid... 0-2: So ugly that he is almost inhuman or frightening. Horrible deformities, burns, or scars. Children run away and women gasp. The Elephant Man, Freddy Krueger, Deadpool, Two-Face (bad half) 4: Freakish looking. May have deformities or scarring. Children point and laugh. Rocky Dennis, the cast of the movie Freaks, masked killers under the mask 6: Butt ugly. Nothing looks right, lots of negative features (bad acne, crooked nose, missing teeth) and no good ones. Clint Howard, Michael Berryman, Anne Ramsey 8: Homely. Below average. Either very plain, or something is a little off. Steve Buscemi, Bill Murray, Roseanne 10: Average. Most everybody you see around you. The good looking person in your gaming group 12: Cute. A little better than average. Girl or boy next door. A pretty actress dressed down with ugly glasses and out of style clothes. Pam from The Office, Janice from Friends, young Tom Hanks 14: Nice looking. Some good features and nothing too negative to take away from it. Matt Damon, Molly Ringwald, Reese Witherspoon 16: Sexy, hot. Some great features put together in an appealing way, but not perfect. Stereotypical head cheerleader or handsome athlete. Ben Affleck, Chris Evans, Penny from Big Bang Theory 18: Extremely good looking. Could be a model or actor famous for their looks. A definite head-turner. Scarlett Johansson, Kate Upton, Matthew Mcconaughey 20: Timeless movie stars, heart throbs and bombshells. Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Marylin Monroe, Brad Pitt Now obviously some of these examples are personal preference, but I think you get the idea. It offers a lot of levels of gradation without costing much at all. There doesn't have to be a game mechanic, it just lets you know who is better looking than who.

We use it for roleplaying purposes, and a little bit of one-upmanship. "What's your character's comeliness, Billy?" "18" "Wow, talk about a real Predator face. Do small children run away from you crying? Mine's a 24."

Low average or high average? I figure that an 8 includes people who have let themselves go. A 10 is somebody in reasonably good shape and active.

That's still not something that's easy to visualize. "You're 3 standard deviations above normal" is still more math jargon. That's like saying an 18 Int "gives you a 13- Int roll". Let's try something else instead. Int 0: Profound mental retardation. Completely unable to function, requires constant care by others. Int 1-3: Mentally retarded. Can be taught to do simple tasks, and function somewhat in a supervised environment. Int 5: The dumbest kid in your class. Should probably be in special ed courses. A solid D- student. Int 8: A regular dumb kid, who grows up into a regular dumb adult. Homer Simpson. Int 10: A normal person, perfectly average. Int 13: An average honors student. Reasonably bright, gets good grades easily, average college student at a decent school. Int 15: Above average college student, average engineering/math/science geek. Noticeably smarter than average. One of the smartest kids at your high school. Int 18: High school valedictorian without really trying, aces all standardized tests, full ride college academic scholarship. Would be "the smart kid" on a realistic TV show. Int 20: College dean's list, good grades in really hard majors. Smartest person you're likely to ever interact with. NASA scientists, nuclear engineers, surgeons. Int 23-25: Unrealistically smart. Would be the smart kid on a slapstick comedy TV show ("Did I do that?", can build a robot). Good at any intellectual task they try. Hannibal Lecter. Int 28-30: Comic book super-scientists. Builds arc reactors, learns new fields of expertise in one evening of study. Super-detectives, solves mysteries no one else can solve. Tony Stark, Sherlock Holmes. Int 33+: Pure bragging rights, smarter than the guy under you. Doctor Doom, Mr Fantastic, Batman.

Yeah, I don't think IQ needs a direct correlation to INT. IQ seems like a fairly arbitrary number for gaming purposes -- you've just replaced one set of numbers that need examples with another set that also need examples. What does 150 IQ mean anyway?

I think they’ve gone out of their way to avoid offending any religious conservatives. I appreciate that — I can watch their movies with my mom with no worries. Odin: We are not gods... Captain America: There’s only one God, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that. Quill: You’re a god? Kurt Russell: Small “g”. Having Adam Warlock get crucified on the ankh and then rise 3 days later would be a reversal on that. I still like the character, I just think they’ll steer well clear of the counter-earth stuff.

I think there's a difference in expected audiences though. People in the Bible Belt don't freak out over Game of Thrones either, but they aren't expecting to see titties and wieners in a Marvel movie. It's a question of whether the content matches your expectations.