massey

A large part of that was my fault, for which I apologize. So let me see if I can get it back on track, with an observation raised by massey:
 
 
That could be. It's certainly what was on my mind when I saw that now-infamous scene. But it might also have to do with the way most people have come to learn about these characters. Superman and Batman in particular have had the highest profile among non-comics readers due to previous movies; and their principles against killing are probably well established in the cultural zeitgeist. OTOH the majority of people were introduced to Marvel's heroes as presented in the MCU. Tony Stark was an arms manufacturer, and was shown killing recognizably bad people in his first movie. Steve Rogers was a soldier during war time. Thor was a warrior from a warrior culture. Hulk was a raging but innocent monster. Black Widow and Hawkeye were literal professional assassins. The standards established for them in those appearances didn't include unwillingness to kill.
 
OTOH the MCU heroes have repeatedly been depicted going out of their way to protect innocent civilians, something the DCEU heroes had generally neglected, at least in their first few movies. That has reinforced the impression that the Marvel crew don't treat life lightly.

Yeah, that's my feeling on it too.  I accept that people survive things that should be fatal in the Marvel films.  They've got a more comic-booky type physics going on.  Even though bad guys die, often frequently, a lot of people survive falls or hits that should kill them.  So if Iron Man slaps some dude while wearing his suit, I don't think "oh he's gotta be dead".  I can basically accept that some villain goon will wake up in the hospital in a few days with his jaw wired shut.
 
It's strange that the Marvel heroes are generally far more lethal than their DC counterparts (Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye... all of them have huge body counts), and yet I don't see any of them in the same "Casual Killer" light that I do Zack Snyder's heroes.  Maybe it's because Superman has like 80 different ways that he could stop that terrorist, and he chooses the one that looks fatal.

Depending on the player, sometimes one is too many.

Depending on the player, sometimes one is too many.

Depending on the player, sometimes one is too many.

I've run games that numbered from 1 player to too many.

Yeah, it's just a scene change power.  Think of it like a movie.  You're in one place, you cut, now you're in another place.  It doesn't matter how long it takes to get there, you're just there.
 
It doesn't matter if you're Super Rich Guy, and you got to Paris in a private jet.
It doesn't matter if you're Drunk Tourist Guy, and you got to Paris riding in coach.
It doesn't matter if you're Superspeed Guy, and you got to Paris in an instant with your superspeed.
 
Exactly how you do it isn't important, because nothing important happens between scenes.  The GM knows the limits of your powers.  If it's important for you to get to Paris before the terrorists strike or something, and he doesn't give you the opportunity to do so, then it's not that your character failed, it's that he wasn't allowed to succeed.  If we are relying on Drunk Tourist Guy to save the day, and he's got to get to Paris, then the terrorists have to wait for him to catch a regular flight.  Otherwise the character just isn't allowed to participate in the adventure that is going on elsewhere.
 
 

Well... Psychologist Jonathan Haidt does find distinct patterns of thinking in self-described liberals, conservatives and libertarians, and the differences are more pronounced the more strongly they self-identify ("very conservative," "very liberal," etc.) But yes, there are people who don't fit neatly into the categories; the same "moral foundations" can lead to different conclusions (for instance, Loyalty and Authority matter more to conservatives than to liberals or libertarians, but loyalty to what group, obedience to which authority?); and different systems of moral reasoning can lead to the same result. After laying out his research in his book The Righteous Mind, Haidt urges people on all sides to try using other systems of moral reasoning as a way to persuade people of different viewpoints, instead of just yelling at them and preaching to the choir.
 
So I'd say, that viewpoints and policies on different issues are not getting lumped together by pure accident. But the connections may not be obvious, and "poaching" of issues from one camp to another may be possible. I'd nominate same-sex marriage as an example: mIt began as a liberal issue of compassion for an oppressed minority, but became a majority viewpoint with support from libertarians who didn't want government telling them who they could marry, and conservatives wanting to stay loyal to family members and mollified by seeing LGB people showing reverence for the institution of marriage.
 
Dean Shomshak

Yeah, it's just a scene change power.  Think of it like a movie.  You're in one place, you cut, now you're in another place.  It doesn't matter how long it takes to get there, you're just there.
 
It doesn't matter if you're Super Rich Guy, and you got to Paris in a private jet.
It doesn't matter if you're Drunk Tourist Guy, and you got to Paris riding in coach.
It doesn't matter if you're Superspeed Guy, and you got to Paris in an instant with your superspeed.
 
Exactly how you do it isn't important, because nothing important happens between scenes.  The GM knows the limits of your powers.  If it's important for you to get to Paris before the terrorists strike or something, and he doesn't give you the opportunity to do so, then it's not that your character failed, it's that he wasn't allowed to succeed.  If we are relying on Drunk Tourist Guy to save the day, and he's got to get to Paris, then the terrorists have to wait for him to catch a regular flight.  Otherwise the character just isn't allowed to participate in the adventure that is going on elsewhere.
 
 

Oh I am confident if you look hard and far enough you can find someone outraged that the spinkles on ice cream aren't organized by color.  That doesn't mean it was widespread or remotely significant as a cultural event
 

I don't even think "left" and "right," "Liberal" and "Conservative," are useful categories for discussion any more. So many viewpoints on entirely different issues -- economic, social, religious -- get routinely lumped together into each camp, when individuals can subscribe to some of them but not others. It's become a tactic to simplify complex debates, and slap labels on huge swaths of the populace for the purpose of denigrating any position they might have that someone else disagrees with.

I wish I could like your statement more than once.
 
A moderate degree of tribalism is natural and healthy. 
I care about my child more than other children.
I care about my family more than other families.
I care about my city more than other cities.
I care about my country more than other countries, etc.
 
I don't think you can remove individuals from a healthy degree of self-interest (Captain America!) without doing the kind of damage that lead to the death of 200 million people last century.
 
Moderation really is the key.  Too far left or too far right and you're in the ditch.

Didn't Iron Man kill about 50 terrorists in his first movie?  Not to mention nuking the chitauri space army in the first Avengers.  Why are we suddenly talking about his kill ratio?  Perhaps I don't understand the discussion.
 
PS:  Superman doesn't kill...and he also doesn't mope around like an angst-ridden emo teen depressed about his life as a god or deliberately try to cause as much property destruction as possible.  There's more than one problem with the Snyderverse.

Not wrong
 
But I personally don't think 6th took it as far as it can go. 
 
I believe it was a step too far. 
 
An RPG has two parts. 
1) The rules and their internal balance. 
2) Intuitive fun factor. 
#1 is self explanatory, while #2 is not something that can be objectively defined, but truly exists. 
 
In the obsessive quest for some kind of mathematical purity, they literally dumped the "feel" and "fun" that made Champions, Espionage, Justice Inc. and the other games so great for so many years.  For me 1st through 4th was a roller coaster of fun packed fun.  5th was where Hero began to get that antiseptic feel.  But it also had some of the best books they ever put out, just no actual playable adventures.  It was like they were trying to bleach the game out, but the game was resisting the attempts to kill it. 
 
6th completely changed the "feel" of the game.  Even on these boards, threads like this one endlessly argue about opinions of the purity of the math and completely ignore the primary attribute of a game.  Fun.   Instead of the endless point cost discussions or whether Comeliness is a stat, maybe a discussion of why the greater gaming world doesn't even realize Hero exists anymore. 
 
While I know that my points will be labeled "straw men" or whatever other terms currently use for burying unpopular opinions.  But there are three very real things being done by literally all of the current successful games.
1) Playable settings.
2) actual adventures and campaigns that only require the GM to read them to run.  In other words playable "out of the box".   One or two 6-10 episode campaigns a year are more than enough, especially when you have #3.
3) Some form of open license that allows people to create adventures without needing a specific license.  That allows anywhere from dozens to hundreds, depending on the game, of low cost or free adventures to be available for people who do not have time to spend building games but want to play.  They may not be top shelf master works, but they are more than sufficient to play.
 
I normally don't really post much anymore, especially in threads like this.  But sometimes I just can't help myself.  It's like seeing a house on fire and the firemen are arguing over the color of its paint while it burns.  It is just frustrating as well as disappointing.
 

While I would not use EDM, is it not possible he could enter a dimension (The Speed Force) from which he can exit anywhere on Earth?  Anyway, 25 gives you "any physical location in a single dimension".   GMs option allows for such powers to travel and return to any location.  Practically, any power like this will be GMs Option anyway.
 
How useful will it be?  If negligible - just a parlour trick - a small cost is reasonable.  If it will have a significant impact in-game, a higher cost is warranted.
 
Or, I suppose, he could buy Time Travel - 20 points + 1 for any point 1 turn before or after, +10 for any single location in the physical dimension.  31 AP, and Limited to "only travels to one count down on the DEX count; physical locations limited to the planet he is on". 

That would solve nothing.
 
Normal Human Maximum is not even a solution in search of a problem; it's a problem pretending to be a solution in search of a problem.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
What was it Markdoc said about applying to Pixies and Ogres but not to Pachyderms and Palindromedaries?

Looks like a clear cut case of self defense to me.

The implications of changing the past in such a profound way are enormous, though. What about everything that happened to everyone over those five years? The things they accomplished, the lessons they learned. What about the children who were born (including Tony's own daughter)? Would the Avengers have the right to just erase all that?
 
For my part, I think Tony finally learned the lesson that led him to repeated terrible mistakes in his life: no person has the wisdom to play God.

I built something for my wife's sorceress, but I can't recall where I saw this concept.
 
Basically, running with the idea of Naked Advantage I gave her the D&D equivalent of Sorcery Points to be able to use her spells without their normal limitations.
 
Base powers are a Multipower with 60 active points and shared limitations of (Incantations -1/4, Gestures -1/4, Full Phase - 1/2) for a cost of 30 points plus 3pts per fixed slot.
 
I modeled the Sorcery Points as Naked Advantage (+1 on 60 Active Points to remove the limitations) with the limitations of 6 charges per day, costs endurance, costs extra endurance (x3).
 
Is there a better way to model this?

Yes, there is a Stark Contrast between the two

One thing that's worth considering is that while as a GM you can tailor the bad guys to match special defenses and there is a theoretical infinite number of bad guys that you can create to face the PCs, they only have their limited set of powers and xps to spend.
 
So if a player buys a weird attack that requires some special defense like impenetrable resistant flash defense vs taste, well the agents can all have pocket taste flash shields next time.  But if you pull that on a PC, they're NEVER going to have that unless they spend xps on a defense that nobody will ever need expect against your nifty attack.  And as a GM you can build attacks against what the PCs lack but the PCs can only build against what the average enemy isn't likely to have.
 
So the players really should be given a bit more leeway with powers like this than the GM, is what I'm saying.  If the player is really trying to job the system and create something that's cheating, that's one thing, but if someone is just creative or comes up with a neat powerful build, well find a way to work that into the game.

Exactly.  Now instead of cluttering the book with annotation and melting the brains of new players that just want to actually play a game. In the back you add an appendix the shows the build annotation for the builds in the front so people that care can see how things were built.
 
Hero really needs to get people to play enough that they will then want to learn how to build/customize things. 
 
It's kind of like a house. 
 
When someone buys a house for $350k, they expect something they can actually live in.  That is 99% of the successful RPGs.
 
Now if they show up to their "$350k house" and discover it is stacks of lumber and hardware and they are supposed to "assemble it themselves" they will be pissed and probably sue. But this is Hero right now. Here are some design rules, create the game yourself.
 
Back before internet and streaming and the modern 24 blitz of things to do, we had enough spare time to actually be bored. In the 80/90s I had hours of free time with nothing to fill it.  I loved Hero and spent hours building.
 
Now people seem to have far less free time and given the choice of number crunching or watching a stream, well they watch the stream.
 
A common theme for Hero these days is something like "oh god, don't do a generic high fantasy world like D&D and Pathfinder.  There are too many of them."
 
But that is exactly what Hero needs.  A rulebook on Playing, not building. People trying to learn a new game want to be able to grab a standard concept a play.  Use characters designed using pre-built capabilities, spells and gear with NO DESIGN ANNOTATION.   Close to D&D, buy characteristics, buy pre-built abilities, spells and gear from lists.  Include a suitable selection of creatures and treasure plus an introduction adventure.
 
In the back of the book include an appendix with just the build annotation for the stuff on the list with an introduction that directs you to Fantasy Hero Complete and how to build anything.
 
Heck, you could make the current Fantasy Hero Complete the second half of the book.
 
The first part allows people to PLAY  Hero. The second part shows them how to create their own material.
 
All of the successful RPGs are like a three legged stool.
Leg 1 = Rules and supplements
 
Leg 2 = Setting Books, Creature/Treasure/NPC books, etc.
 
Leg 3 = Adventures and Campaigns so people can play.
 
Hero ignores the 3rd leg and wonders why the stool keeps falling over.

This is not cynicism.  This is you being aware of human nature and how the price of things are set.
 
Government subsidizes college and makes student loans available.  What happens to the cost of college relative to wages?  It skyrockets.  The price of college increases by the amount of government assistance.
 
And you're right on the money ( 3 BOD 11 PUN ) about what would happen to rents if they provide this Universal Basic Income.  The cost of rents would go up by the amount of "free" money being provided.
 
Also, where would this money come from?  Income and payroll taxes (i.e. our money) provides the vast majority of government income.  Corporations are able to launch an army of tax loophole lawyers at the problem and pay next to nothing. 
I'm looking at you Apple and Amazon.
 
Giving away free stuff has had some radically bad social impacts as well.  Single parent homes have risen dramatically since social programs made it much easier to survive without having to tolerate your spouse.  The results for the children are catastrophic.