Duke Bushido

Love the other guys; I thought this was something you were working up to publish. I...uh.... I'm actually just a little disappointed we won't get to see it... still: nice characters.

Stearica: I suspect its because Williams' next of kin may be maintaining his copyright on the Champions character of the same name.

I wouldnt want it any other way.

That's the spirit! I have already confessed that I have done it. I regretted it upon coming to the realization that-- well, what you said. I learned that you can go back and undo it, so I did. Have made a point not to do it since, though. Although I confess that I _love_ finding them, and upvote / liking the thing that got downvoted, even if I _rabidly_ disagree wirh that thing, just to balance out the downvote. Does-- Does that mean I'm special? That I belong do an exclusive group?! I feel so blessed. Id like to thank God, and the Academy, and Rolo- my personal trainer, and the good people at Folgers......

To paraphrase something I saw earlier today and can't quite remember perfectly: It's like watergate, if everyone involved was mentally handicapped.

My thanks, too, Spence! I was never aware of that, so I went back and checked. I can confirm that even if you have given downvotes (see the relevant post above), when you go back and remove them, they are removed from your activity as well. Excellent! (also: I'm ahead of Hugh: I've got _eight_ downvotes! (though I know that four of them were from that thread where we were just downvoting each other for fun and games).

I rather like the shade of red / brown you've got in that one. I won't lie, I'm partial to the orange and want to make the chest piece white, but I can totally see why you wouldn't want to do that, _particularly_ if super-stealthy Batman or sneaky Phantom is part of the homage. But I do like the group-photo colors a bit more than the original you first presented: Still more-or-less color-accurate, and still dark enough to play the sneaky stealth game. Well done. I had made that exact suggestion, considering the sword aspect, but honestly, I think the lighter, billowy cape he has now is a solid compromise and still meets the potential for the cape gadgets he described. Glider cape especially: then he could be a Flying Fox! Hmm... what's the other name for those? In all seriousness, though: I like where you've gotten him, JmOz.

At the risk of another demerit for verboten language, a couple of my previous groups (offshoots of one of the earliest groups I played in) adopted the phrase "Chaotic Dickhead" for this sort of player. I mean, character. Definitely player. I mean character.

Kit?

Gotta level with ya, Steriaca: My tow favorite characyers in Uresei Yatsuta were Sakurambo and Mari. The idea that a super-powerfully muscular woman would look just as muscular as a super-powerfully muscled man-- well, this was the first time I'd seen it done- but it just made so much more sense to me. I started kind of researching it (it was the 70s; there was no internet, and barely any women's sports) and discovered (seriously: it wasnt as popular culture then) that yes; while its more difficult without chemical assistance due to Testosterone production being generally lower in women, women can become just as muscular and powerfully built as men. Mock my ignorance if you must, but it was the 70s; I was in my teens, and had never heard of female body building. At any rate, I have been quite disappointed with artists and writers who refuse to allow their female bricks (non-magical bricks, anyway) be presented they way they should look.

You know, even when I was a kid, I just assume those were cheerleaser skirts, with the shirts underneath. And I would _like_ to think the Great Scott would arrive at a similar solution. I really, _really_ would....

That particular problem is the reason I am in the habit of making absolutely pointless rolls compltelty at random. I find that the Pavlovian response does have an effect on nit just the players, but the game, and I work to prevent it from happening.

Things strapped around your thigh that we are supposed to believe stay there while you make any movement at all.

As an aside-- something I have wondered about but never remember to ask-- Is the comic book Mark Miller that same as the Traveller Mark Miller?

See? Same problem _I_ was having! "Ooh! How about-- Dang it! Not fictional. Oh, there's always-- Crap! Also not fictional...."

Sweet! Yes indeed! I think _that's_ more in keeping with a fox, personally. I love the headgear tweaks. the dark fox-like "points" of boots and gloves, ad the re-worked mask. The shorter cape, with the full billows, looks _way_ less oppressive and far lighter; it doesn't give that "I'd really hate to sword fight with _that_ on me!" vibe (okay-- no one saw it because I caught it and fixed it, but my autocorrect just tried to convince me I meant to type "dwarf fight" instead. Too funny not to share. ). The re-worked headgear sends the same sense of character as the first one, but without that "re-purposed SWAT gear feel, and the little black edges on the "ears" of the mask? Excellent tie in to the costume and the inspiration. I love what you've done here, Sir. (So, did you download Hero Designer while that was still an option? Is that how you're able to still do this?)

I use them for several things. First and foremost, I use them for things where the character likely wouldn't _immediately_ know the outcome: Using your own Stealth as an example: You peer ever-so-slightly around the corner, keeping yourself to the shadow and trusting that the light bulb behind the guard's shoulder is affecting his ability to see into the darkness on this end of the warehouse. "Okay; I wanna slip carefully over to those crates you mentioned. I'm going to low-creep, so I can stay in front of the dividing wall an in its shadow, and take my time, making sure I don't trigger him with too much motion or that I don't bump something noisy. You said it was only ten feet, right?" In this case, I'd have him make his Stealth roll. Why? Because he's going to know the results immediately, both as player and as character: should he succeed, he has effectively spent an entire Phase making a half-move. If he fails, the guard will either challenge or move to investigate. Either way, he can see that the guard has become alert. If the guard challenges due to a failed roll, it's easy enough to say "he spots you as you happen to move past a break in the railing, which caused your shadows to go squirrelly, and the character still has his half-Phase to do _something_. When would I roll it? There is a pair of floating guards, along with the stationed guards. The character (and perhaps the player, but it doesn't matter) is unaware of the floating guards but does know where the guards are stationed. He wants to make a multi-Phase advancement through the facility with a particular destination in mind. According to the route he announces and the movement of the floating guards, he will pass through their perception at point P. The floating guards have been tasked with investigating the intruder, but do not capture him unless it is necessary. We must ascertain if he is working alone, or if there are others. See if he meets up with anyone. _I_ will make that roll. It's not a matter of "don't trust the players;" I feel I need to state that up front. I will allow him to continue to make his other stealth rolls (seriously: only the floating guards are aware that there is an active intruder, and have been tasked with letting him roam about while they study his activities. Ironically, now _they_ are making Stealth rolls against the character! (yes: I find pre-generated 3d6 rolls to be most helpful in non-combat situations for NPC activities). It is simple psychology: for even the _best_ player, it's hard to not have the character act on player knowledge. In this instance, had the player made the roll or had I made it openly, and he _failed_ the roll... Well, a good player-- that player we all want to be-- would have his character continue to creep his way through the facility, looking for Thing X. _However_, it also makes sense for a character to think "Man, I can't believe I've been this lucky for this long! Something's going to give. I better just draw out my weapon, just in case. And hey, while I'm at it, I should double-check behind me to make sure I haven't been spotted." It might be a Phase or two _after_ the blown roll. And it _does_ make sense; it _is_ a reasonable action. But would it have happened at all if the player didn't know he had blown a roll? I like to think it would have-- my own motto is "if I can't trust them, I won't let them sit in to begin with," but how do any of us-- not just _me_, but the player himself-- know that he would have done this otherwise? So you see, it's not a matter of "don't trust the player," at least for me. It's a matter of "don't _tempt_ the player." Let him tell his own story the way he wants to, with as little outside influence (on the player) as possible. So, variations on that sort of thing-- where the character would immediately know if he was successful-- I will roll. I will also use hidden rolls when I want to double-check myself. I want to be as fair and honest as I expect my players to be, and if I have any doubt about the fairness of something I am about to do-- was _I_ influenced to institute a change based on the Character's action, or is this _really_ a reasonable outcome? if I am not sure, I will let a die roll decide. It doesn't completely absolve me (would that situation have even had a chance to exist had the character not X ?), but if I have any question as to the reasonableness or fairness of something I am considering, hidden die roll. I also try to do no-real-purpose die rolls randomly, just so players don't go all pavlovian on me. Remember wandering damage in D&D? Uhm, I mean "random encounters" and "wandering monsters?" "We travel through the forest. We will rest for an hour at noon, and prepare a meal. Then we will continue on, and try to gain the foothills before sundown." "okay, you've been traveling two hours...." GM rolls a die behind the screen "I call for an arms check! Everyone dismount and inspect your weapons!" Okay, you've been traveling for two more hours We need to stretch our legs! Everyone, dismount and run for your weapons! That sort of thing. Random, pointless die rolls really help to prevent that. Probably.

I stand by my statement that it's far more important that _you_ are happy with the character's look than it is that anyone else is happy with it. I only restate it as assurance that the next question is nothing more than a request for enlightenment: Your comment "I have to keep with his IRL primary purpose (as a showman for gadgets)" has left me a bit confused: while I _think_ you're talking about the belt-of-many-pouches that gadget guys are known for, I am curious to know if you see some sort of cape-gadget guy relationship. Thanks.

Welcome back, Brian! It's _glorious_ to see you out and about again! There's a big laugh coming your way, as soon as my buttons are recharged again.

Ditto. Same with authors and their works. One is not the other. Jackasses can be brilliantly creative, and the most dynamic, charming, energetic people can be downright simple-minded. Oh my God! She was absolutely adorable her entire life!

Yep. We had a plow horse when I was a kid that enjoyed grasshoppers and jerky. (the green, in the grass type grasshoppers. Not the drink. Though we had a sheep that liked a nip of bourbon if you left a bottle where he could reach it.)

It's your creation, of course, Sir, and you must go with what makes you the happiest. Like TJack, I feel the character looks much more "foxy" without it, though: the cape is heavy and oppressive. Foxes and lithe and almost fragile in appearance. And to be honest, I can't imagine trying to even fake sword fight at anything about SPD1 with a floor-dragging quilt pulling on my shoulders and wrapped around my knees and elbows. WIthout the cape, he _looks_ quicker, and more dashing.

You don't, at least not as part of a convenient dashboard (which I take as more proof that whoever set up these fora initially-- presumably Dan, but I don't know) didn't find upvote / downvote ratings any more important than I do). The only reason I happened to notice is because of this very thread. Up above, I wasn't kidding when I said the ratings thing doesn't matter to me: I know who I have fun discussing X with, and who I enjoy discussing Y with, and have a rough idea what things are which persons "buttons" and I _try_ to not push them. That's about it. If you've ever noticed, when you're out here reading and posting, you can't even see your own numbers. (Right now, I can see Tribble's and Scott's above me, but not mine). You can log out, find a post by you, and see them that way, or you can go to your profile and see them (and really, I rarely go to my profile, what with all those handy buttons at the top of the page to go directly to where I want to go on the board). _However_, for the sake of this conversation and an answer I gave earlier, up above, I _did_ open my profile to check my numbers, partly because the question made me curious, and partly because I was really expecting a way-lower number, and I had hoped that I could use that information and my continued enjoyment of discussing things with you folks as a reassurance to the original poster that "crackers don't matter." I had a bug-eye moment when I saw what the total was. Anyway, when someone reacts to one of your posts, or quotes your posts, or does one of those "at so-and-so" thingies, you get a little pop-up (and kudos to whoever designed that: it's the first non-obtrusive, easy-to-ignore pop-up I have ever seen on a forum. Good work; have and Attaboy as a sign of appreciation ) if you're currently on the board, or, if you're just logging in, you get a different notification message-- anyway: when that get happens, I do get curious-- not about the vote itself, as I _genuinely_ do not care if someone who doesn't actually know me has decided to dedicate himself to absolutely _vilifying_ me to entire world: For one, he's not bothering some other person who I may actually like or someone whose skin may be a lot thinner than mine. For another, there is no better "reward" for that kind of pettiness than getting yourself worked into a tizzy so powerful that you are willing to waste time-- even one precious second of the only life you will live on earth-- being 'that kind of guy.' All in all, I find it to be quite balancing, and sort of a proof that your own existence isn't that important to you, either. So if you're not important to _you_, who the Hell do you think you should be to _me_? Gah--! I'm sorry, N-B: when something is really funny, it's easier for me to get side-tracked into enjoying it. My apologies. Back on track: Just a day or two ago, I had looked at my actual whatever-it-is-you-call-that-green-number-under-your-avatar. Last night, as I was cruising the board before I logged in, I noticed that number had gone up by 1. I found a thread I wanted to reply to and logged in, at which time I got a notification that I had three notifications. I clicked the little bell at the top of the screen and got the notifications: three different people had reacted to three different posts. As my little green number had gone up by 1, clearly there had been two positives (a "thank you" or a "like" or a "laugh" or anything that was not a "sad" or a "downvote," both of which deduct from that number) and one negative. I also noticed that one of the replies was both in one of the MHI threads-- about the book itself, not the game-- _and_ was by someone I had never heard of. Since the entire "it was a hoax / it was a travesty / it was a fraud / it was real / it was the people proving what they want / your-nonsense-here situation that invariably becomes the focus of any thread dealing with the author of that book brings out the pettiness of people unable to accept that time moves forward without cessation, and the person posting the reaction was someone I had never heard of, it was really to determine both where the downvote was _and_ just how many craps I gave. The other two were Lord Liaden and Spence, both in current threads that I was still participating in, so I opened both of those threads in the hopes that they had posted and added someone to the conversation. . Why? Why, when I claim that crackers don't matter?! Well, it's true: crackers _don't_ matter. However, those are both people I enjoy conversing with, and the _silent_ notification you can pull from the written one is "someone whose opinion, even when different from yours, usually proves quite insightful is currently interested in and may have added to a conversation that you are currently enjoying." What's not to love?! Honestly, that's the part of the ratings / voting system that _is_ important to me! Hugh, this is one of those times when I am in _total_ agreement with you, Sir! it didn't take long, way back when, to realize that you only get-- I don't know: let's say ten (see my comments on this up above) or so of these every 24 hours. I started to get _stingy_ with them! "Oh, these things are important! Super important!" Then two things happened: We had a couple of people who were- to be generous-- potentially bipolar, who would swing from participating in every conversation to just attacking and downvoting every post that disagreed with their own. That was Thing One, and I confess, those couple of guys were the only people I ever wasted a slot on-- not for me, mind you: I can't over-stress how much I am not bothered by "this guy doesn't like me!" I've got twelve younger siblings, for Pete's sake! I don't have any feelings left! They were burned out _decades_ ago! But Thing One did lead me to use downvotes on occasions when one of these two guys would just tear into someone else without any provocation. I think I'd passed out about 4 downvotes when I thought "this is stupid. If they don't bother me-- a typically upbeat, social, outgoing and well-adjusted person, why do I think someone who clearly has a legitimate psychological problem is going to be bothered? And whatever kind of thing might be helpful to such a person, _this_ isn't it! I mean this _really_ isn't it!" So I quit. This was actually hard to do. Obviously, none of you were part of my youth. It's a pity, because we'd have had _so_ much time to game together! I used to get in _lots_ of trouble at school as a kid. I got in my first fight in third grade, and by the time I got out of high school-- well, I couldn't tell you how many there were, but Sam (yeah: I was in front of the principal often enough that he got tired of me calling him Mr. K__ and we moved to that first-name relationship) showed me my "discipline file." It was impressively thick-- nearly two inches. We had a long talk that particular afternoon, because he wanted to know how I could end up in so many fights and not actually _start_ any of them. The only reason I hadn't been expelled was because _no one_ had ever seen me start a fight. It's pretty simple. I'm an anti-bully. The high school councilor tried to use the phrase "hero complex," so I spent days in the library looking into that (because I have that problem, too), and proved to him that he was completely wrong. I have no need to be a hero or to be acknowledge or anything like that. What I have is a complete unwillingness to let someone attack someone else. Maybe it's because I've been a de facto parent my entire life, and just in the habit of looking out for those I consider to be close to me or under-defended against an attacker; I don't know. But seeing someone else get attacked for no reason (seriously: if you're getting your butt kicked because of something that you did, I don't care if you're Steve Buscemi and the guy jumping you is Mike Tyson, you had it coming) just flips a switch in me, and that made it really hard to swear off the downvotes. What finally did it was the realization that the guy (well "guys;" at the time there were two of them) I was pegging with downvotes really did show evidence of actual _problems_. Downvotes weren't going to do anything to stop the behavior, and the implied insult of them might make it worse. (for what it's worth, I haven't see one in _years_, and the other in months. I hope they got help, or at least found healthier places to hang out. I've read that online social media can lead to and worsen depression and other problems in some sorts of people.) Hell, there's a still a few semi-regulars-- folks that drop in, make a big splash, then disappear for a while-- that trigger me. I got one of my [gothic voice] Permanent Demerits[/gothic voice] for refusing to be insulted by one known to bully those whose opinions differ from his own. Oddly, he's got an extremely high green number. Given the backhanded insults-to-posts ratio, he's also the greatest proof on this board that crackers absolutely do _not_ matter. It's not a hero complex; it's an anti-bully complex. Remember, kids: bullying is wrong, and you will be punished for refusing to allow it to continue (I know: I've been in trouble for standing up to it my whole life). Now go out there and write those articles and blog posts and news stories complaining that we don't understand why it continues even to this most-enlightened of all days. I didn't, either! Then, the same time I realized that downvotes had only two outcomes: worsening someone who might actually need help, or as a tool to spread animosity (or a tool of actual bullying), I also realized that a limited number of votes of any kind imbued them with a special property. Think about it with a comic book example (this should be awesome, considering that the majority of things I know about comics came from spectating conversations on these boards ) In all the universe, there are like eight people who can use Thor's hammer (apparently. Unless it's ten thousand. or Two. Or whatever the story needs at that moment.) There are ten (maybe) votes I can spend in a day. I opted to use them as a means of saying "This content is worthy." I also use them as "thanks for participating in something we are all enjoying," but I make it a point to spend _all_ my allotted points. Those that don't go as "I really appreciate this" go to posts specifically to say "This is worthy. Please keep doing this. Be a solid example." That's why I don't have them on tap all the time: So many worthy people here.

So... does it say anything horrible about me that as badly as I have wanted to contribute to this thread since it went up five days ago, I still can't come up with anyone? Fictional, I mean?