Duke Bushido

Nah; not so much. I mean, no more than the rest of us. It's just annoying when someone takes it on themselves to point out how we're doing it wrong, in spite of the fact that we are doing exactly what was requested.

It's been a day or two since this happened, so I think it can be taken as the general annoyance statement it's meant to be instead of being taken as a direct finger pointing: That guy.... When someone posts to a thread, looking for work-around or alternate builds that aren't exactly rules-as-written... Then everyone's creative juices get flowing and suggestions come flying in, hot coals, fast as missiles, thick as mosquitoes--the conversation just starts to really get rolling and everyone is having a great time pitching and arguing methods of rule-bending as means to achieve a particular end... It's just awesome. Then that guy shows up... To be fair, there are more than one; I chose "that guy" as an abbreviation for "that guy who sucked out all the fun by completely ignoring the conversation and using it as a springboard for why everyone is wrong because none of it is by-the-book and we're all horrible people for delving into these black-arts constructs... Then he won't let it go, replying to and attempting to refute everyrhing said thus far.. That guy who gets his jollies by killing everyone else's good time. Major a-smurfing-noyance.

Yep. I just picked up the current BOH for nostalgia. Not that I have ever even _heard_ of this Dungeon Under the Mountain, the whole "mega dungeon" thing brought back memories of the seventies, when all the nerdy kids were going through entire tablets of graph paper to create "the ultimate dungeon" or just outdo each other with size and complexity. Though some good came of them, too. My original Champions GM kept lot of the ones he had made, as had a couple of other friends. When we first figured out that Champions could be used for any genre, and when 2e came out and I bought my own boxed set, I bummed a seventeen-page super dungeon map from my buddy Jay G, who was an avid D&D junkie, and after a great deal of folding (he had taped it together) I finally got it all copied at the library, for the princely sum of eighty-five cents. I gave Jay back his map, went home and laid out my copy of it. I applied white-out here and there, drew some lines here, here, and over here, upped the scale from one square = ten feet to one square = twenty miles, and boom! My entire continent-under-the-surface-of-the-earth was roughly mapped. As you have probably noticed from other conversations, I love Pulp adventure stories, and for many, many years hollow earth stories were absolute favorites. I still enjoy them, to the point that I believe I have read or watched every variation on the original Journey to the Center of the Earth story, including that awful comedy one with Will Ferrell. I had so much fun, planning the entrance, picking the chambers, and creating the sub-maps for each chamber.... I don't think I ever finished even a tenth of the chambers in detailed maps.... Of course, I didn't really have to: we spent a year and a half (real world) adventuring in the first three rooms.... Curse you, BOH! Curse you, Nostalgia! I hope you are each enjoying your respective share of my hard-won dollars! Duke

, I can't help you with characters or story for the 6e universe, or even the majority of the 5e universe (after deciding the rules set was a bit more oppressive than I cared for- but was easily backwards-adaptable, I focused on genre books and a couple of settings (I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Tuala Morn, considering it was Fantasy, but I liked it a lot). I just wanted to encourage you, because this can be a lot of fun. Back in the Era of the BBB, I was inspired by the Murder in Stronghold adventure in Champions Presents #2. Not for the adventure, but for the backstory of the character Salamander: the super-criminal who, though never caught, had a very short career before deciding to fight the good fight. Moreover, I liked his tendency to let the criminals go if they surrendered their ill-gotten gains and promised to become better people. Sure, it rarely worked, but I got to thinking about those times that it _might_ have worked. What would those people do with their lives. So I played with it. I didn't think of the "let's start a new campaign where the Pcs are all reformed villains.". I wish I had, because I can see lots of potential there, too. Judge Leroy Colton was voted into office shortly after moving to Campaign City. Historically, before coming to Campaign, he had been one of those" go to jail or enlist in the service" judges when dealing with first-time offenders (or at least first time _caught_ offenders). Then one day he was presiding over a trial that involved super villains and noticed that one particular lower-powered individual had, in all the scenarios for which the group was being tried, had seemed to go out of his way to not injure non-combatants. In fact, he really hadn't even done much property damage, compared to his associates. He smashed a few things, fought some superheroes, but only enough to ensure his getaway. Mostly he just menaced the crowd with displays of power and threatening speeches. So Colton, when passing sentence, gave this one individual a choice: spend the next sixteen years in Lockdown (we already had a prison for supers before Stronghold was published, I'm afraid. It was actually the very first thing we needed outside the core book: we fight supers, we catch supers... Where do we _put_ supers?) or serve as a special officer for SWAT. Eventually, two other villains were given a similar choice. Public outrage--particularly from law enforcement--made this a high-profile fiasco, and three years later the program was disbanded, with the three former villains looking at serving the rest of their time in Lockdown. Blockbuster, the first villain given this opportunity, had come to find that he _liked_ what he was doing, and after a drawn-out and impassioned session with the state senate, was given the OK to create a charitable organization for the purpose of reforming super-villains. I'll spare you the rest of the history specific to our world, but suffice it to say that there were successes and failures, and the focus of this plot device in our world was the constant suspicion of the Pcs, and the often-questionable moments when the paths of the Pcs and the Redeemed (guess who?) would cross. Of course, every success story was questioned, and every failure--particularly recidivism--called the entire team and the program itself into question. The best story arc we had was when a mentalist who had been with the team six months had slowly begun to mind-control the rest of the Redeemed, and lead them on covert criminal missions... That one nearly lead to the destruction of the entire program and cemented, in the minds of many other characters, including two PCs, that reformation was impossible for villains with powers: the temptation to use them for personal gain is simply too strong for weak individuals, etc, etc. Short version: the Redeemed still pop up from time to time (and updating the team is as easy as thumbing through your file of mid-to-low level villains you haven't seen in a while) and not only did we have _lots_ of fun in the early years of this new plot device, it's still fun to break out every once in a while... I hope you have as much fun with it as we do. Duke

Just stumbled across this in the store. And I'm something of a sucker for technomancy, as it plays into-- well, I suppose we all have it: that one campaign we've always wanted to build, but never had the time, or resources, or player interest, or extensive-enough knowledge---- it doesn't really matter the reason: for GM's with a particular longing, it's that one campaign that "got away," as it were. But never mind all that. My question is about it's actual existence: there is no image, no blurb, etc-- is there actually a product there, or not? I'd really love to read it, but I've already paid for a PDF I can't download without shelling out another ten bucks for Dropbucket or whatever the hack that's called. I'm not exactly a skinflint, but everyone yells at the Coke machine when it takes fifty cents from you, you know what I mean?

Is it for HERO, or something else?

There you go. All fixed, and far more accurate. Liar! Agreed. They don't seem to realize that not only is there more than one southern accent, there is more than one in any southern state. They seem to pick the most backwoods bits of everywhere and throw it into a bucket and mix it in with vocabulary that is seldom used with any of the donor-accents and I just spend the whole movie (or show) cringing and feeling so awful for the actor that I tend to miss what they are actually saying. One a note related to both of these post: Does anyone remember Tom Bosley's attempt at a down-east accent in Murder She Committed? Man, that was just _painful_.....

Yep. And if the conversation is about someone who isn't present, then "Aww.... Bless his heart..." (usually shortly after his name is mentioned) means "I am not saying this to be ugly (another southernism meaning intentionally insulting or demeaning), but the fact is that we all know he's just flat stupid"

Definitely this! Not saying "everything must be such-and-such;" But there should definitely_ be some kid / family friendly adventures. Right now, I've got two groups set in the home-brew campaign background my original group fleshed out starting in '82. (Yeah; I'm old). We were younger, and had time and energy to spare. Those groups right now are pretty much an "autopilot" set-up: we all know the setting intimately, and everyone an help initiate the occasional (and rare) new guy get acclimated. Stamping out villains and plots is super-easy, because I know what they like, what they expect, and when and how to toss them a surprise ("Wait a damned minute. Are you saying this ancient Aztec emperor they've been struggling to bring back to life is.... a LUCHADOR?! What the Hell, Man?!") The youth group-- the fun lark I got conned into (and have thoroughly enjoyed)-- that's stinkin' _hard_, Dude. I haven't been a kid in a long, long time, and I find it's actually become difficult to keep things from getting... stabby. You know: underhanded deals, over-sophisticated plots, and truly twisted lunatics as villains. Don't get me wrong: I don't run a grim and gritty anything, but have spent a few decades running for _grownups_. I find myself getting just a bit too "Spongebob" with the youth group, and am working my butt off in my very little spare time trying to find something in that "sweet spot" of family-friendly but not childish. In my prime, I would have mocked anyone telling me that I would one day say this, but the fact is I would stack up some pre-generated pre-published family-friendly material right now, just to reduce my workload and the strain of keeping it where it needs to be.

Thank you for summing it up so much more succinctly than I ever could. And yes! I agree _totally_ with that.

Oh, definitely UBO. Buy the appropriate attack and tack "Usable by Others" on it. If it's worth the effort, you can work "OAF" into it such that the wielders can be disarmed, but if its's only going to last 5 Turns, I wouldn't get too deeply into it. Remember to do something about your END cost, though. Maybe an END reserve specifically for this Spell?

Okay, this is the part I was talking about at the very bottom (that would probably make more sense if I liked Doctor Who): I wanted to have put this in at the very top, but I didn't think about it until I was done. Not having posted it yet, I still had the option to do so, so I will in just a minute so that it's here, at the very top: First and foremost: This isn't argumentative or dismissive or personally directed at _anyone_; it's for _everyone_ who hasn't really had the chance to enjoy the old stuff, and I'm only putting it here to take advantage of a question asked by Ninja-Bear by using that question as an opening into what turned out to be a much larger look at the philosophy and feel of the old stuff. So let me up front say "Thank you, Ninja-Bear, for this opportunity." Thank you, Ninja-Bear, for this opportunity. There we are; all done, courteous and fun. I'm done now, but here's the stuff I wrote before I wrote this lovely closing: By declaring it at the time you buy the power: your t-port is "velocity-free." If you want the option of doing it either way, use a multipower (personal suggestion) or, since it's still legitimate in 3e, an Elemental Control. Now let me justify this: There is in those older editions no rule that says you can't determine your facing at the pop-out end of a T-port, and no adder or advantage to buy so you can, so it stands to reason that nothing prevents you from choosing your orientation when you T-port. Frankly, given that you can do it with _all_ other movement powers, it'd be a real shank in the eye to suddenly add "except for tele porters,' wouldn't it? That being the case, it occurred to us early on that a character can teleport so that he is moving "up" with that velocity. So there's no reason that you can't teleport so that you're moving up, and when gravity has neutralized your momentum, *pop* and there you go. Still two miles in the air and can't teleport that far even with your NCM? Do it repeatedly. And for the first couple of times it came up, that's how we handled it. Lots of fun at first (Oh, I must concentrate! Must time this perfectly! etc, etc-- exciting bit of role-playing, the first couple of times) Given that this is rather irritating and slows things up a lot (hilariously funny, but after a the first couple of times, the drag on game time does get irritating) we just ruled "declare that you can or can't when you buy T-port." The take away here isn't the idea of "how to solve this problem with T-port," or even "you don't need a two-page write up fix this." The thing to remember when we get caught up in all the "freedom" (not derisive; I'm really floundering for grammar as my eldest daughter is in the shower giving us all a concert. Not only is her taste in music beyond questionable, there's something about being in the shower that makes her almost exactly eight-and-a-half times louder) of the newer editions is that super hero concepts have _not_ changed. To put it more simply, let's take a moment to remember that all 4e did was gather each and every rule or interpretation from _everything_ that had been written so far and put it all into one binder. Then we played for twenty years. Then Steve wrote 5e, which included rules and rulings of interactions, etc-- I remember shortly after I read my copy commenting that "it reads like I just paid a boatload of dollars for someone else's house rules." And I did. I did exactly that. At first, I confess, I meant that derisively, as I was extremely frustrated. I wanted something new and wonderful, and I got "how to do shape shift for only two hundred points or so." But then I thought about it. It's what we do. It's what we _all_ do-- no. I'm sorry. It's what we all _did_, prior to the modern day internet. We all had house rules. We all ran into situations that weren't expressly covered by the rules. We made rulings: sometimes on the fly, to come back and change later, sometimes interrupting the game for a few minutes, or character generation, or whatever. But whatever happened, we were making, by default, a house rule, because there was no published rule. The example I have given most consistently is vehicles, because I really believe that was an early issue for a _lot_ of us old farts: it was a couple of years before there were "official" vehicle rules (Champions II, if I remember correctly). So did we not drive? Did we not have crime mobiles or Army Jeeps or space ships or whatever might go with our adventures? No. Of course not. We made rules. In fact, to this _day_ I use those home-brewed vehicle rules because I like them _better_ than the official ones. First and foremost, they require _no_ special rules. You make a vehicle on a character sheet, using the same exact rules you'd use for making a character. Frankly, I think this does a _much_ better service to the "universality" of the basic rules than does an entire set of special rules for this special circumstance, etc. The thing that I dismissed (at first) as someone else's house rules is _not_ a bad thing, on it's own. It just ensures that I am making characters the same way _you_ are making characters. It ensures that you can take a character from _your_ table and play him it _my_ table. Let's not take a minute to realize that it's never going to happen, or wonder why, given that we don't know where each other lives and likely it's on opposite ends of the continent from each other, it's remotely important that we are playing the exact same way. Let's not consider that no two GMs are going to rule the same on every subject, or even allow the same bits of the actual published rules. But I digress: After 5 came re-5 ("we have the technology. We can make it bigger, heavier, bulkier than before"), then two books worth of 6, then a whole book of martial arts, then _two_ whole books of "more rules when these two things combine or collide or interact in any way" and talk of a third book featuring more of the same for new combinations or situations. Or we post in the "ask Steve" section-- don't get me wrong; I think it's damned generous of him to give of himself in that way-- and the minute he speaks BAM! New rule. What did we do _yesterday_, before Steve said "do this?" When Joey GM or Peter Player posted this question last week in the discussion forums, what was my response? How did I suggest handling this? How did the other folks suggest handling this? What did I do last summer, when that came up in my campaign? So... I have to change now, right? There's an official ruling on this, and eventually it will end up in another tome of official rules, if Steve can find the time and the money to get it put together... So now we have a question to ask: What do we do without a rule? There's been a steady progression, as the "core rules" become more and more complex, as they delve deeper into the minutiae and micro-managing of every possibility of the game. That progression seems to slowly be leading toward the growth of the idea of "you can't do that because there's no rule that says you can." Once upon a time, you could do it because there was no rule that said you couldn't. (not the Teleport / velocity thing: there _is_ a rule (p62, Champions 2e) that says you can't remove velocity. I mean this in a general sense). Now I have _never_ met Steve, or Bruce, or _any_ of the big names in the history of HERO. Not _once_. Given my age and my status and my life in general, I don't think I even have to _look_ at a limb to state as irrefutable fact that I likely never, ever will. But I'm absolutely _certain_ that there is not a one of them that wouldn't, even as voluminous as the rules are today, who intended us to get to a point of "you can't do that because there is no rule for it." There is a word that escapes me right now-- probably because of the horribly off-key concert that won't get out my thinking space-- that perfectly sums up my disappointment with 5e (though I would play it a thousand times before I considered 6): each time you say "this aspect can be done thusly" or "you can add this feature for x amount," you are not adding a new thing. You are taking away a thing that was always there. Oh-- you know what? Let me just scroll up and add it at the beginning, where it belongs. Thanks, NB! You're a gentleman and a scholar. Duke

Let's be completely honest: By strictest definition, "martial arts" is the "art" of combat or art of regimented military tactics. Taken more loosely, a martial artist is someone who has spent a great deal of time learning and practicing the techniques associated with a particular fighting method-- usually, but not always, a form of hand-to-hand combat. So really, it's open for anything from a skilled boxer to some sort of alienese sword fighting to what we typically think of: asian fisticuffs. Or Footsticuffs. Of whatever. In HERO terms, it's "here's some combos you can use in HTH combat. Some are sketchier than others."

Ah. I was under the impression it was something he could "cast" on multiple people: i,e; arming a crowd via "creating" weapons magically that he could then pass around.

Thanks, Starlord, but Richard Moll in makeup is _one_ thing. Deciding to make a cartoon villain that looks like Richard Moll -- and in _particular_ , Richard Moll with the goofy facial expressions that made the Bull Shannon character so memorable-- Dude, that was just freakin' _weird_.....

Totally off the subject, but if I may ask: Darren: Is that luchadors in suit coats in your avatar? If so: Awesome. If not, don't tell me. It's going to be luchadors in suit coats forever.

Ah ,well. Maybe they'll get around to releasing the updated adventure as part of some other sourcebook. (not holding my breath ) Thanks for the info, though.

My thanks to the both of you. I don't (yet) have UMA for 4th, only Ninja HERO (because everything turns into it, eventually). I wasn't about in time to hear about the 4e Bundle of Holding, so I'm having to acquire the PDFs for books I don't have from the HERO store. I don't want to buy them too rapidly, simply because experience has taught me that I will stop working on my scanning project (which is important to me) to read my new book. So I'll have to make sure UMA4e ends up on my "to do" list, just not real fast. And as for 5e-- well, I knew when I first starting reading that thing I wasn't going to change over to it. I did adapt a bit from it here and there, though: it is far more useful to me than is 6e. But as neither me nor my players are much in love with the way HERO does martial arts, I just sort of skimmed through everything related to it.

I don't know the book-legal answer, or even the answer in that other thread, but off the top of my head, I would think a Gadget Pool would work. Barring that, modify T-form to whatever works for you. (Not a big fan of that last one, myself, but it's there). The thing with gadget pools and "create" power is that rule: don't make weapons! I tend to think that it's primarily for game balance: you wouldn't want someone running around who can constantly create the most perfect weapon for every situation; it would wreck the fun. But if you're making something like "a spell that creates a mystical sword composed of the souls of the righteous" or any one or two _specific_ weapons, so long as those weapons abided by the campaign limits, I really wouldn't have a problem with it personally. Even if you could cast this spell on twenty people at once, I still don't see it as being a major problem _for me personally_. I have no doubt that there will be some disagreement on that.

So what was this updated version of the adventure published in? Or was it one of those "you had to be in the right place at the right time" kind of things?

For what it's worth, I allow abort to movement as a defensive option for the character himself (I gotta git outta the way of that!) or another character (good lord! That blast will kill her!) It incurs all penalties related to the movement, but you _do_ have the option. If you need to get out of the way, you can choose between taking a movement penalty and keeping your feet or getting a DCV bonus and laying on the ground. Honestly, "flying dodge" doesn't bother me as a construct, since it's a martial arts thing, and being better with the technical skills of combat and pre ision movement is part of their schtick. It's just not something my groups have ever really had a need to invent before 6, so we don't really use it.

Short answer: Westworld isn't really a western. It takes place in a western setting, but the characters are weaker and more social, and the morality archetypes aren't there. Longmire was more of a deconstruction of the western, and I don't think I've ever heard of Deadwood. I'll have to check it out.

"loyal" could be disadvantageous. After all, if it's taken specifically as a disadvantage, then I feel compelled to focus on the downside: If the hero is trapped, beaten, and bleeding, with urgent news for his teammates or the police, the disadvantageously loyal follower isn't likely to leave his side to either pass on the information or summon help, but instead stay and try to bandage his internal injuries or comfort him as he dies. It's still fiercely loyal, but something of a disadvantage. Granted, that's just one thing out of hundreds of examples you could have used, so I am not trying to say there are no "advantageous" disadvantages (as I shudder remembering Davien trying to use "nymphomania" as a disadvantage for a sidekick (an adult sidekick, to be sure!)). All I am saying is to keep in mind that if the player took it as a disadvantage, then discuss with him first that this means a focus on the "downside" of whatever that trait is. For example, I thought marrying a woman with OCD tendencies would mean that my house would better-organized than it is. Turns out cleaning is almost impossible for her without direction: she can't decide where to start, where to go next, or when the job is actually "done enough to be done." She's not a slob, by any means, but organizing anything is something she just can't do without guidance.

Have your assistants sort them by flavor. It's more fun to watch.

Think nothing of it; I didn't take it that way at all.