Duke Bushido

That would still be a house rule. Per every edition since the creation of NND, the defense cannot be a lack of something. If you want to house rule that it works in this case, that's fine- it is your game after all. If are worried about what the books say, it's no good.

4e. The only rules ever published specifically creating spirits and noncoporeal boojums. They are essentially AI with extra options. You wanr to stab your ghost with a coat hanger, by all means: use the 5e bestiary ghost.

That is pretty much the teigger I use, unless someone is attacked with a weapon intended to cauae infection (spears smeared with... Stuff... That kind of thing). Then I handle the health effects akin to poisoning, but slower, and with reductions in REC and CON as time,goes by.

Seems right. On a related note, I got to work this morning and everyone kept perstering me,about it being too cold to ride. I didnt think much about it until I saw the strip of ice down the top of my helmet..... The hazards of of living where the roads don't ice, I suppose.

When it is relevant (gritty western, for example), I use a variant of the poisoning rules: ultimately, the effect (at least game-wise) of poison and the effects of system infection arent different enough to bother coming up with new rules. The biggest difference is that I allow infection to eventually reduce Recovery as well.

To quote Strongbad: "Do you use your powers for good, or for awesome?" To quote Strongbad: "Do you use your powers for good, or for awesome?"

I agree about tired old origins- it came to the point that I had a character bitten by a radioactive ninja (No; seriously) just to have something make a blip with the other players.

Try the Swarm rules,in I-don't-remember-which issue of Adventurers Club.

Two things: No; you didnt bother me. As one of the people who was already aware of it, I figured you'd get the ribbing. I missed. It doesn't bother me because I got lucky: I became a _better_ person; I won the lottery. Can't be upset about that. Second: As,you said, _you_ don't see a thing to be insulting a given group. _I_ dont see it, either. Probably lots of people don't. It is a distinct possibility that a lawyer is aware of other potential problems, though, as he writes for a small cash-strapped company. And, as also offered, it is also qyite possible that he is going through his "powered armor" phase right now. That it is something that he is enjoying playing with- or at least was, at the time of the writing. I can't fault him for that, either. Now I have seen people in the past discuss changes they have made to published villains (quite recently, in fact) to make them more to their liking. I have been cajoled,for stating that i only buy a single published villain book to have as examples of character building, because I dont generally like Steve's published characters. I was told how easy it was,to make them something I _do_ like. Brain remodelling is easy enough to remove: have them be born evil, if you prefer. Or mistreated, or natural psychopaths- whatever. Or go my route and don't buy them. But then you lose the right to complain when more of them,dont get published.

Getting into "personally uncomfortable" territory here, Sir. If you had asked me as recently as an hour ago, I would have told you that I could not imagine myself defending Steve's ideas about HERO and Champions. Now before any Muskrat-esque condemnation of me starts again: I am _not_ denigrating_ what Steve has done. I am not blasting it, insulting it, or anything else. I realize that in this general ambivalence about what Steve has done with the properties has not stopped me,from being dumped on for not being a rabid fanboy of it, which leads me,to wonder why I bothered with the disclaimer once again. Okay, so for total disclosure: I have never kept secret that I don't like the bulk of what Steve has done to the game and to the setting, even goinf back to his earliest stuff back in 4e. I am _ambivalent_ about it, though, because I know I don't have to use or even to accept it. I make my purchases because I want to do what I can to support the company as best I am able. I will continue to do so as I can even if Steve is the only guy who ever writes for it again. Not liking something is not the same as hating it. I understand that there is an increasingly-large percentage of western culture that has lost the ability to understand that there are more than two positions- worship or destroy- on any given thing. It's a shame, but I am not here to address that. I also want to point out that while I do _not_ like what Steve has done, I still very much _appreciate_ what he has done: if only for a few more years, he kept the game alive; he injected fresh life and fresh ideas and even got the game back in front of the gaming audience for a while. No one else had done it in a couple of decades. He slowed the death spiral, at least for a moment. All that being said, I have to defend this "lazy writing" technique of someone having their brain altered and becoming evil. First: a small number of people here today are still here from the time i opened up about this: Ir happened to me. I had a traumatic head injury that resulted in a complete personality overhaul (and considerable difficulty in judging the passing of time. Can't have a total win, I guess). If the mods will forgive this: Once upon a time, I was a straight up "unforrunately our content filters will not allow you to honestly describe yourself." There were probably all kinds of influencing factors from my life that combined to result in that, but let's not play Freud right now: I was a self-centered, spiteful, hateful, violent bastard who may or may not have had a deathwish. (For the record, in spite od being acused of it, I never saw it that way. I just wanted to keep pushing- pushing every thing, all the time, until the universe submitted, and I did not care how big the challenge was. I only tell you that as someone may be wondering what goes through the head of someone accused of having a 'deathwish;' it was, for me, nothing more or less that deciding that God Himself was going to have learn his place in the pecking order.) In defense of Steve: Right off the bat, we know that this is quite possible. I am not the only case of getting new life through brain damage. Typically, it _does_ go the other way: subjects lose emotional empathy; some lose the ability to experience sociable emotion at all. Sociopathy has been reported to develop, and the tendency for recurring violent and tantrums are know to be life-long results of brain trauma. Certainly, there are many other outcomes- I went the exact opposite direction, for example, and the fast majority lose some degree od higher brain function- maybe just a don't bit (say the inability to remember if something was last week or last month or last year, like yours truly here. (Dont fret: I have learned a lot of tricks that make this much less problematic than it once was. )) The General trend, though, is results that are to varying degrees detrimental to the individual. The second most common outcome is detrimental to society: loss of empathy, loss of an ability to maintain or even formulate attachments, all the way to becoming routinely violent, combative, and solipsistic. Sociopathy, as stated above, is a known (if less-likely) outcome. Now these are from,"real world" causes of physical change to the brain, the staggering majority of which can be lumped into the category of "skull pinata"- massive or repeated blows to the head resulting in blunt force trauma to the brain. There is also piercing of the brain (bullets, knives, bits of pipe, railroad tamping rods, and what-have-you. Anyrhing that manages get physically into the brain that probably shouldn't be there- tumors are in this category as well). Then we have changes inbthe brain brought about by prolonged psychological factors such as routine abuse, long-term job stress, and myriad other things. These we are more familiar with resulting in psychotic episodes or "breaks" such as the infamous post-officw massacre from which we derived "going postal" and still mock the term "disgruntled" somethinf on the order of three decades later. More common than breaks, however, is nothing. That is, no massive release. The brain changes slowly; the peorsonality is subsumed,and altered quietly, and the subject lives forever in misery. We tend to say "quiet misery," but this isbonly to make ourselves feel,better about looking agter our fellow man, because few of these subjects do not find relief in creating patterns of abuse and ill-will to those around them. Perhaps it would be better-termed "quiet violence." As horrible as it is to accept, those who have a single,violent break are much healthier inbthe mind, and more likely to be treatable: their survival mechanism- though admittedly poorly- has made an effort to effect a change to make their encironment more positive. Those who don't will continue to get worse, and never come up on the radar as needing help. We as a society _really_ dont want to admit that the guy who "went postal" was likely the most sane person ("most sane" is not the same as "sane;" let's notbput words in my mouth) in such a situation because that would require us to admit that not only has society failed that person, but that it failed far, far more far, far worse, and somethinf should be done. We are busy, and don't really want to take on anything else right now. As long as the suffering is silent, there is no problem, right? Again, these are the real-world causes of physical changes to the brain that result in alterations to personality. There are lesser-studied sources: pollutants, chemicals (outside of recreational drugs and some anti-psychotic, of course), heavy metals, and so on. Steve is writing about a stylized comic book universe where brainwashing works perfectly and the Manchurian Candidate is real. He is writing about magic that recreates anything on a whim, hypnosis makes a soft VOOO-vooo-VOOO-vooo-VOOO sound when the enslaved character walks past the camera, and a small vial of serum turns cowardly Albert Snapankles into the hulking stone-jawed Captain Courageous, defender of the downtrodden and hero of the people. Accidents result in super powers. Doctor Pilsby stands before a rack of OSHA-violatingly-stored and uncataloged chemicals, which explode and bathe him in an unknown mixture of.. Well, all of rhem, yet he does not lose his face and massive chunks of flesh to acidic dissolution; no! He gains the abilty to read minds, peer through walls, and implant his will directly into the minds of others. Terry Hawthorne goes for a dirtbike ride through the desert and takes a shortcut across that old "abandoned" 1952 airforce base only to find himself at the center of a nuclear explosion! Yet he isn't vaporized! Instead, he rides out from the other side of the explosion astride a mechanical tyranosaurus, built from the wreckage of his bike and the bomb through sheer force of will and his new cyberkineric superpower! How is he foinf to explain to his mom that the green probably isn't going to wash off? Lance Valiant is bitten by a snake during a drug binge while on a camping trip, yet he doesn't die a horrible, painful,death. Instead the venom interacts with the various drugs and mushroom toxins and he gains super-powers! He can spray a sleep-inducinf neurotoxin from his eyes, spit the most powerful acid known to man, and melt his legs into a twenty-foot serpent's tail that lets him race across the ground at over one hundred miles per hour! A baby alien crash lands on earth, and rather than dying because our atmosphere is phlogiston-poor, he discovers that the phlogiston of his native world works to supress his native superpowers! Against all odds, he looks exactly like us, too! Of only there was some way for him to learn how to- holy crap! An older couple- in mid-lament of their childless marriage, no less!- just happens to be passing right at this moment! They instantly adopt this godlike infant, and,somehow they manage to raise him without accidentallycgetting killed by a temper tantrum. Not only that, but he understands that he must willingly let his tormentors torture him (and he must also really,want to save these horriblenpeople when they are in danger-you know: because he is the only,one who can keep his personal,demons alive, even though no one would fault a 'mere,huma' for being unable to save them) -- somehow they instill morals so powerful that space Jesus doesn't take over the world in a fit of teenage angst. And so on, and so forth. What I am getting at here is that it is impossible to overstate just how stylized and 'perfect' the comic book world is--- But there are criminals and plots and misdeeds at every turn---! Yes. And there are _always_ super heroes on the case, just in the nick of time, to thwart them over and over and over again, because it is a stylized and perfect universe. Even those "big looming plota that threaten us all" like the anti-mutant thing and... Crap! Who was that oil company that Iron Man used to fight all the time? They made that goon squad of snake people.... Anyway, even those threats are completely static. They never get better; they never get worse. They just _are_. Galactus never eats the earth, and he never stops trying. The fiant robots-with-watchcaps never kill all the mutants, and the powers that be never stop funding them. Tony Stark loses his company, and,he gets it back. Superman dies, but only for little while. (For what it is worth, the constant mandate to return everything to this idyllic status quo is one of the larger turn-offs for me with regard to the supers genre. There are others, but that status quo thing is maddening.) Thus far, we have established brain trauma creating villains is, at least in theory, quite plausible on the outside fringes of the results-of-brain-damage diagram. We have established that rhe comic book universe is heavily idealized. I think we can take it as given that thw Champions Universe we know and some,of you love today is in its entirety the creation of Steve Long. Something that we don't discuss a lot here is the shift in our social attitudes about bad guys. We have discussed it with regard to Fantasy more than anything- we all seem,to be happy with the shift away from the concept of "evil by nature" as applied to "evil races" and,"good races." Once upon a time, we were perfectly with "all orcs are evil." The thing is, culturally, we know that evil exists, but we also grew up, and we finally understood that the filundamental - well, not even a flaw, not even a mistake, but the evil inherent in the assumption that evil is tied to ethnicity. We grew up, and we are still growing. As there are daily fewer people our age and even fewer older, we dont really appreciate (or notice) that we are still growing. Now all this beinf taken into a single conversation on a single topic: Steve is a modern person with all that entails. He is a comic book fan, an,RPG fan, and by all accounts I have ever heard, a genuinely likeable person. He has created a comic book universe- stylized universe with clear cut good and evil and an overall status quo of "things are okay; people are generally decent." It is _hard_ to breathe life into something and not, on a level, come to love it. You create a character, and you like him. His sesrint is to,be a villain. As you develop him, you realize that you don't like that he is desrined to be a villain.,,you feel that. You are doing him wrong; you don't want this to be his fault. Make it not his fault. You can go the "life of trauma" route, but it is overdone, and in truth, it has become as tedious as evil races. Sure, we know thatvlife of trauma is a real thing, but at this point we have been aware of it real-world long enough that we know we don't get world conquerors; we get school shooters. We don't get criminal kingpins, we get serial killers. Worst of all, we know that the majority of people in these circumstances dont react this way, and that they are not beyond help. In short, we have matured enough that it only works in a stylized idylic world when used _very_ sparingly. Even then, we as an audience are more inclined to expect that character to be a goon of some sort, even if he has powers. We _want_ that villain to be a goon of some,sort: not clever enough to get help; not motivated enough to be his own person. Why? For whatever reason, that _satisfies_ us. Is it the fate we wish on our own tormentors? Does it reflect what we, as we have grown, have done with the worst of ourselves within ourselves? Locked the bits of ourselves we have abandoned into,the dead-end of,non-existence in the backs of our minds? Or does it just makenit easier to ignore that the problems,that creatwd rhis villain are _real_ problems ans that we are _still_ more comfortable not axknowledfinf that? Better for the audience to avoid it; better to give him,someone who ultimately is the victim od something _totally_ out of his control, something he could not be expected to have had diagnosed and to have worked out in therapy. Also, there is fascination-of-the-moment. Not the best term, but it works well enough. It is a term for "getting wrapped up in the exploration of an idea." Let's look at my earliest super characters. After my first character (a brick), I went for a couple of years where all my supers- all of them- where powered armor users. Why? I was not a comic book kid, and I was really uncomfortable with the "I was bitten by a radioacrive chemistry set and now I can fly and breathe fire." Technological sources were much more palatable to me then. Even after powered armor they tended to be gadget users of some sort From there I went to "magic amulets" (fantasy gadgets) rhen to aliens. It seemed,more reasonable to me that aliens should have unusual abilities than it did that they would look like humans: i had a harder time making them humanoid than I did giving them telekinesis. _eventually_ I got comfy with xomic tropes, but it took aomethinf on the order of decade. I am not saying that this is what what ia going on with a guy who has been doing superheroes for decades, but at them moment, all other factors _outside_ of supercillainy considered, it might just be that this is an idea he is currently,stuck on exploring until he is comforrable with other reasons for an idylicly-stylized character to become "evil." Now: As I have said, I dont like the vast majority Steve's contributions to the game, rules, included. I have done all of this to defend his choices. I hope his few Muskrats here will leave me alone about not liking his stuff. I still appreciate that he did do _something_ when no one else did.

KYou can do that either by GM fiat (simply declaring there are two type of Killing Attack, and requiring players to define theirs at the time of purchase), or with the advantage "Attack Versus Limited Defense: Ego Defense." This still requires a bit od fiat-- "and it does damage to EGO," but ir also makes players pay a bit more. While I dont believe that points are truly up to the job of creating balance, it seems fair that an attack against a significantly lower defense (on average) that damages a significantly lower characterisric (on average) that has no book-defined method of recovering itself should cost a little more than a normal attack. Similarly, requiring "Based on EGO Combat Value" raises the cost and brings EGO into the equation. However, it also means using ECV but targetint BODY and normal defenses, etc- Unless you use GM fiat to declare that you target normally (OCV, vs PD /ED, etc, but does damage to EGO instead of BODY. Essentially, you are in the middle,of chosing GM Fiat or a custom modifier for the power you envision. It is pretty easy: find an existing modifier that almost has the right feel,and cost, and use it as the bltemplate to build what you specifically desire.

As most of this conversation demonstrates, you don't have problems until you start trying to add granularity. I dont remember precisely- I _think_ it was made core rules in 4e, but the inclusion of PS, KS, BS, and Familiarity is when the HERO skills system just fell completely apart. Because the guidance is so poor (and necessarily so, as the idea was to make any possible thing a measurable skill of some sort or other) that there isn't going to be a universal consensus- ever- which just leads to a hot mess regarding "the correct way." I participated here because advice was asked for; not because I believe I have the One True Way to do skills HERO style. I also feel that most of the participants were like-minded: participating because "this is how I do it" offers an example of how it could be done as opposed to "the correct way to do it." I believe that because there has never been enough guidance to support any One True Way. The closest you are likely to come is to pick and choose feom what you have read here, or come up with something entirely different _that works for you and your players_, and just respectfully disagree with everyone else, the way the rest of us do.

The tradition has begun: Nothing but Star Trek TOS from now until Christmas Eve.

Thanks. I will get it fixed nexr break.

Just Foxbat and company. I have already been over that ?hopefully in this thread). .they are rhe only published characters I have ever used, so...

All fixed I have gor to get to the bottom of this....

Man, I did not want to get more into this, but this is exactly the thing I am talking about as far as some people will require you to spend X pts; some people will require you to spend 3X points. This is a great example. At my table, if you have Professional Skill: Pilot, then yes: you can fly an airplane. Give me some idea what kind (big commercial jets, small propeller planes; helicopters Yes; it's my profession. I have the skill to do that for a living. It is my professional skill. I fly big cargo jets for the BTP (Brown Truck Parcel). Can you fly some other kind of plane? I could, if it was similar enough. Might be a bit challenging at first. Can you fly something radically different? Like a high orbital shuttle? No; like something that actually exists. Like a helicopter. No; I am not at all familiar with those. I would have to take some specific courses, most likely- develop some level of familiarity. Okay. And your big cargo jet- can you fly it in combat? Can I what, now? Combat- jinking and barrel rolls and immelmans and evading gunfire and avoiding missile locks? Are you on drugs?! So you cannot fly your cargo jet in combat conditions? Man, I don't even _go_ to Chicago. Why would I need to be able to do all that? I don't even think the plane could take it! Because you can't fly it without knowing how to pull a reversal on your opponent and avoid missile locks. Really? I can't be the only pilot who does it every day. Can you drive? Of course I can; I drove here. Can you deive in combat conditions? Yes; I am from Chicago. Of course you are. Look, see that high school over there? Yes. How many of those cars do you think were driven here by sixteen and seventeen year old kids? I don't know. Maybe a hundred? How many of them do you think can drive in combat conditions? Clearly all of them, or they can't drive. Are we in Chicago? New Jersey. Ah. Same thing, really. But can you concede that someone can drive a car without being Sgt. Rock or Joey Chitwood? I supose it's possible. Doesn't make a lot of sense, though. How about a nice Winnebago. You suppose that Grampa Octogenarian is capable of swinging that thing around, charging the trenches while dodging machine gun fire and bazooka shells? He better be, if he wants to drive in this state. How about a boat? You know: Joe Yuppie gets a cushy job, and after a few years, decides he doesn't have enough long-term problems, so he buys a nice cabin cruiser to take his family out on three-day weekends three times a year. Must he be capable of great feats of boatsmanship to do that? I suppose not. He should be, though. We are living in an adventure game. He's a background character. I am sure it's fine. But you think I can't fly a winged apartment block unless i am Manfred von Richtofen? Right. Sure, not everyone is going to go that far, but _someone_ is, and more than just one, simply because it is possible with HERO. I was really trying to avoid saying this, because I don't want anyone thinking I am bagging on the whole thing, but frankly, the introduction of familiarity, knowledge skills (other than area knowledge), and professional skills and the "okay, kids; that is all you need!" Is really when the Skills system really went to crap, just because there is no way to pin it down that everyone can agree on, and the system itself is designed in a way that prevents any one authority from saying "this is the one correct way" without countermanding some other part of the system (in particular, the "it is perfectly open-ended and works the way you say it does" part). For what it is worth, I have (and always will) assume that a character, barring magical interference, got familiar with _something_ on his way to becoming a pilot (or driver, or sailor, or space captain, or whatever), and have never (and will never) make them buy another skill in order to use the skill they just bought. I just ask the player to define a reasonably-related group of vehicles they can fly and assume this is what they practiced on until they became competent enough to be professionals at it. Shorter version: my games assume there is one familiarity built into being a pilot or a driver, or whatever. Want to use it with a different group of reasonably-related vehicles? Buy that second (or third, or whatever) familiarity to apply your extant skill to that. And I never require combat anything. Maybe you don't see your character having a background that provides this oddly-specific bit of training. I am fine with that. Though the "or" statement confuses me. For clarification, are you saying that a helicopter pilot must either buy familiarity with Airbusses _or_ be able to fly the helicopter in dangerous situations in order to fly the Airbus? (Not being sarcastic: long-timers here can confirm that I don't do that. I am genuinely puzzled about what you meant to say here) See? I find those to be unrelated to pilot: I find that Pilot reders to being able to make the vehicle takeoff, fly, land, and do so safely under relatively moderate conditions (rain storm? Yes. Mortar fire and barrage of missiles? Probably not, at least not without lots of planning and preparation. Dogfight? Definitely not). The other things you describe I would put into a knowledge skill, or even a specialized Beureaucratics roll: with or without that particular knowledge, you can make the plane fly. My appologies for the late arrival; this is still in my editor; I thought it had already posted. As to how often will you have multiple scientists: I play primarily not-superheroes. It happens quite frequently in games where bullet-proof flying humans arent real.

Sorry for the confusion, Hugh. I was putting forward the idea of how one _might_ use a generalist skill. The first idea was roll to see if this is a field,about which you have general knowledge (familiarity, in HERO terms). If yes, roll again (at penalty) to see if you have excellent knowledge of it (or a KS, in HERO terms). Roll a third time at greater penalty to see if this particular aspect of the subject is something with which you have solid personal experience that will let you comfortably address the problem at hand (a PS in HERO). As a model, it is fine. I then pointed out that personally am not a big fan of rolling three times on the same skill in the same moment, and offered the suggestion of "reading the roll" to immediately determine what you do or do not know: if your roll succeeds even after all applicable penalties, then _in this instance_, you have PS- type knowledge-- again, as it applies to this particular problem, unlike a real PS, it doesn't mean you can immediately handle a similar problem; you just happen to know what you needed to know for this problem. Beating the roll by enough to clear the first modifier but not the second would allow you roughly Knowledge skill type understanding of the situation. Beating the Roll, but not by enough to clear any modifiers allows you general relevant knowledge, or maybe even a familiarity-type understanding. That was all I was saying. Right; I understood that. And while I do not usually disagree with Scott (seriously: for the most part, we seem to have similar sensibilities about gaming), I not only agree with the above, I enforce it in my own games already: if someone wants to be a specialist, then he deserves some benefit to that. Similarly, Generalists and Family Practice doctors don't do kidney transplants: the specialist is _expected_ to be far more knowledgeable about that subject in which he specializes. If my choices for my heart transplant were world-renouned thoracic surgeon Johhny Whatiznaym or Jack Elam from the ambulance in Cannonball Run, I am going to have to go with Doctor Johnny for my heart surgery. Similarly, if my problems require a proctologist, then I not go with Jack Elam again. He is an actor. He only played a proctologist in Cannonball Run. If Scott is watching: I enforce this because I played in one or two (score) too many Traveller games were half the PCs were "the greatest pilot in the universe. " Sorry; forgot the "!". (Sort of forgot. Okay, didn't forget). While the event in Gaurdians of the Galaxy 2 ("Expanding Universe! There is now more to guard!") With Rocket and that other guy both going "good thing I am" after "you'd have to be the greatest pilot in the universe" was extremely funny..... A couple hundred hours of gaming that problem is.... Less so. So I instituted a "no stepping on toes" policy that actually brings a lot of discussion and cooperation during the character generation party (everyone wants to the best _something_, so there is a lot of negotiating. Works out great!) I have _zero- issues with overlap: you can _all_ be pilots, and damned good ones! But only one of you is going to be the best that has ever been. Agreed. The idea I was trying to put forward (and I think I did it better this time) was that the more specific the success, the more specific the expertise as well: the Scientist may have incredibly good understanding of the situation at hand- loads, batteries, circuits, quartz, and rubies, but not necessarily because he knows as much as the geologist about quartz, or the engineer about circuits, or the electrician about circuits-- but because in this one situation, he happens to know a _boatload_ about quartz lasers: enough about each aspect to be a whiz-bang quatrz laser guy. When approached with a situation where that same quartz is being used a repository for billions of terrabytes of information and stored in a class ring, he might come,up completely dry: "well how about that! I have never seen such an amazing thing! How do you suppose they do that?!" (Because he didn't "succeed enough" to have any useful or relevant information), while the quartz guy is busy pointing out everything they got wrong and able to make the system more efficient just based on what he knows of the crystal structure of quartz. Also agreed. I tend to prefer broad skills because they allow a freedom in the game that every level of specialization draws away. There is an economy of concept, design time, and play options if I allow "medical doctor" instead of seven kinds of "-ologists" that require Familiarities or expertise in order to become a general practitioner. I don't go so far as "scientist,' mind you, but I am not entirely above considering it with a good argument.

Until the Dean Shomshack _what_, exactly?! ("Gets cured" is high on my hope list, but I just need to be sure...)

I think stopping there makes this better. :D

Sir, there are religions, philosophies, and entire sciences that are founded on words less true than these. Simply for saying it out loud, you should be able to look behind shadows. For understanding it as true, you should be able to pull the strings on the venitian blinds of the cosmos, and cast away all semblance of darkness (until nine-thirty PM or so; I like it dark when I sleep).

Why thank you, Sir (presumed. Apologies if I have made a mistake. If it makes it easier to accept, I peomise you I will continue to make them. Mistakes, I mean. Points are a matter of random chance ans the law of large numbers applied to word count. ) It is very kind of you to say. No, Sir (see above); I was not so fortunate. I was born and raised in Circle, Alaska, descendant of Irish horse thieves who fled to Maine to avoid prosecution, whose grandchildren then fled to Alaska to avoid taxation. I left the farm (we grew cabbage, potatoes, and rocks, in equal portion) in '79 or so, and swore to myself that I would _never_ eat another biscuit so long as I live. I was 19 or 20 then; I am 62 today. Thus far, I have kept that promise. I ended,up in Georgia a year or two later, and upon noticing that it qas possible to ride a motorcycle year 'round here (provided you had coats from Alaska), I have remained here ever since. I can only tell you about the coast and the rural areas , however. I do not go to Atlanta for the same reason I rarely go to Florida: I do not like to leave the south.

I don't generally get into silly, per se. I dabble in Foxbat here and there, but mostly as a foil throughout an adventure. I don't do the "thinks he is in a comic book" thing; I generally use him as a reasonably capable villain who generally fails because of his delusions of his own grandeur. I also tend to make him just a bit crazy- not the dangerous, unhinged kind, but the kind that suggests a supposition of extreme intelligence and superior cunning, to the point that a lot of his percieved "goofiness" is actually him daring his opponents to see through his plan / charade / disguise-- which they do, because he is niether as cunning as he believes himself to be, nor are his opponents as unintelligent as he believes them to be. Think "gifted high school kid who, thanks to a computer foul-up, ended up starting the year in a remedial class." If you have ever seen it (or been that guy), it's pretty ugly: you (by which I mean me) aren't mature enough to realize that it isn't possible for anyone to be as stupid as you think they are (and you think that they are because for ten years, your teachers have taught you that they are). Sas2 state of affairs, public education in this country), and you just make a complete ass of yourself, all the while incapable of figuring out why you aren't getting away with it. That is about how I use him (when I use him). He _is_ crazy, and he is a very real threat, but eventually he will screw it up on his own. I never used him much, but I broke him out for a long arc with the youth group because I needed a "safe" villain- one I knew I would not take too "dark" as the adventure progressed. And when it comes,to superheeroes and spandex, I really have to force myself to take it seriously. Sometimes it's... Difficult. That difference alone probably explains why I don't mind using him. I don't use him much, because ultimately, he makes himself incompetent, even in my versions of him. When I use a more serious villain, I try to plan a _challenge_, and it is never a guarantee that the players will be victorious. Ultimately, with Foxbat, you go into the game knowing that if they were so inclined, the players could just wait. He will screw himself up eventually. Hey! I know who one of those guys is! And I hate him! Though I am pretty sure I can figure out who She Hulk is, too. The name is kind of a giveaway. It's a Hulk, but female, right? What'd I win? A car? It feels like it should be a car..... And that is why I don't use him quite that way. If his plans were really,all cliches, he would be even _easier_ to foil, which would make him even less appealing to select as a villain. I do the master plan thing, sure, but because it fits the way I use him. However, his schemes are not cliche, even if they are _weird_. I also enjoy having him commit "capers" that are perfectly legal, because it drives the players nuts, and it also fits the slightly-unhinged version I use to think that he _is_ comitting yet another perfect crime. As an example, he was in need of some fast cash. What would most low-level villains do? Knock over a liquor store? Rob a bank? No! He started the Church of Everybody Else is Going to Die, Evangelizing three times a day, six days a week (closed on Sundays), and made _huge_ stacks of cash. One of his greatest capers! So what if it was legal. Uh, Boss, when does the caper start? Ain't we got enough money yet? First, Leroy, I dont ever want do hear such disgusting filth come from your mouth! Caper? Enough money! Sorry, Boss. So when do we start the caper? This _is_ the caper! Runnin' a church? I think that's legal, Boss. _Ahh_, but your forget: we are _not_ paying taxes, and I am _impersonating a preacher_! Yeah, but I think that's all legal, too. Joel Osteen been doin' it for years. Yeah; I know. I wish you'd take better care where you leave the Master Plan, Leroy. He probably found it at that Waffle House where you forgot it that time. That was years ago! And how long has he been doing it? Years.... See? I was studying-! And you've really come a long way, too. Any day now, I am going to let you help me with an update to the plan. Really? Yeah; you're almost ready... Confession time! That is the only book I ever burned. No; seriously. Trying to get the fireplace started (I once lived in a house where a central fireplace was the only source of heat), ran through my little bit of tinder (wasn't expecting the cold snap, so i hadn't dried anything beyond the little bit in the bucket), and thought "well, I ain't gonna miss _that_" and began gleefully ripping out pages, crumpling them up, and lighting them. Once the fire caught, I realized that I don't like to give up on a good idea, so I tossed the rest of the book in after it. I can't begin to describe how good that felt...., I never really got that sense from them. I thought 'Dozer was just a contemptible human being that you might actually _want_ to beat on a little bit, but never thought he was comic relief. Or funny. At all. Pulsar I took to be a high-end low-powered guy: he thrashes your heroes a few times, then gets his comeuppance once your players start to gel as a team. Actually dangerous, for a but, but not funny. I have no idea who Zigzag is. Same with Foxbat, really. You don't even have to reinvent him: _any_ psychiatrist will tell you that a real disconnect from reality is dangerous simply because it exists. The patient doesnt see this as reality, and is likely to become dismissive or even combative with what he may or may not see as distractions, illusions, or even actual insanity. He may even try to cure himself of his delusions by "proving" he can destroy the illusion. Moreover, he is living in a reality where behavior patterns may be entirely different: perhaps in his mind universe, it is _normal_ to set fire to hospitals. We have seen official scenarios where FB has decided he is a good guy, where he becomes smitten with one of the team members, and even where he attempts to imitate /become one of the heroes. We have official documentation that who he is and how he sees himself is fluid (as it often in in real cases that involve breaking from reality). There is nothing stopping him from waking up and deciding that he is now some other age of comics, or the Punisher, or even God, here to wipe out all life and reset the universe. There is no such thing as a safe psychosis. Look at his weapon: a 20d6 NND _is_ a dangerous thing. It is also not necessarily a stopping point. The only reason people play FB as "overall harmless" is because they want him to be. I use him from time to rime (rarely, but it happens) because I need a villain whose MO can be bizarre enough to be terrifying, yet change randomly. Yep. You are correct. Bur as low as it is, it is still higher than my interest in Mechanon. I know: he is one of the originals. I even liked his new look on 4e (after I Xeroxed it, whited-out those Galactus-like bat ears, and Xeroxed it again). I think I used that art for a Rom pastiche (as a villain), but even the new look didn't make the character any more interesring to me.

Stupid auto Correct, That was supposed to say Darkon. I wouls have been more interested in the inner machinations of Darkon.

You might be onto something, Hugh. Maybe make a double roll for a broad skill: do I know it? Can I do it? Or perhaps use the Familiar / knowledge / Professional set up as an example: For a General skill, you have your will to have a General knowledge about the specific subject. At a prescribed penalty, you can have specific knowledge about the specific subject. For a further penalty, it happens to be something with which you are intimately familiar. Myself, I am not keen on making three rolls on the same skill to answer the question, so here is an alternative: I have Scientist as a skill. Let's say it is decided that have a knowledge-skill type knowledge on... Geology? Sure. I have to make my roll (14-) at a penalty of -3 (11 or less), and to be intimately familiar- say I have a specialty there, or apent a couple of years helping research a paper with a couple of geologist friends-- whatever, then I have to take and -additional -4 (I am literally pulling these numbers from the air, okay?), which means I have to roll 14-7 or less, or 7- to have a professional geologist familiarity and ability with the field and the equipment and whatever else. Sure, we could go deeper, but since I never will (it's a game, and depriving players of the chance to know, do, or affect something isnt especially fun- for them or for me), I am not going to. I would have the player make a single roll (assuming I adpot this ( Doc Democracy, you may recognize the logic here from my "Mook Sweep" Maneuver), I would then look at the roll and see what the level of success was: Okay, you rolled a 6; yes, you are reasonably experienced here, and given a few minutes, you can probably determine where the mineral is most likely to be exposed, or at least close enough to dig. Okay, you rolled an eight. Yes; you have considerable knowledgw about this, and you know that these are the conditions in which quartz is found, but you dont really know how it might be used in a laser. And of,course, you might will spectacularly well: Guys, I think our villain is Kevin Spelnik. Why? You see how the Einman vircuit has been modified to increase the impedance to a ridiculous degree? Well, Kevin waa my college roommate. He qas playing around with quartz lasers- really, back then, who wasn't? Anyway, he refuswd to add additional,circuits; kept swearing it would work fine if he upped the impedance. Dqmned,near took out thole dorm building,when it blew, and the imoes2nce wasnt a tenth of this. So you can deactivate it? Oh yeah. ,just turn it on; it should,melt,completely before it gets close to charged.