Duke Bushido

Yeah, nice try, but not even close. By demonstrating "if this is important enough to become a part of the story, we should role play it with as much gusto as all the other things that you want to make a part of the story. And of course there is the whole reversal of the frog / prince thing: hey, that gorgeous hunk of a tax collector is an unattractive sixty-one-year-old far guy.... Hmmm... And it works! I've been playing since I was introduced to Traveller in... The late 70s? I am not sure; its been a while. Anyway, in all that time, I have only had one player decide "to heck with it! I'm going to make out with him!" (Granted, I was younger and slightly prettier ) though I expect, guliven the group, it was done for laughs. But I digress; forgive me. I am willing to make a deal with you: you don't assume that I harbor animosity toward anyone (because, in my life, with three exceptions- none of them total strangers, mind you) and I won t assume you span any number of online communities swinging your scope, looking for an opportunity to fire on anything that can, with enough interpretative effort, be turned into some crime against against political correctness, striking a blow for social justice everywhere. Are we good?

And I got my second shot today! No; I am not laughing about getting the shot. I am laughing about having to erase the typo that read "shart."

That might explain why they are so hard to chew....

I use taverns, a bit, usually because most of my players over the years have come from games where "you are all gathered together in a tavern" was the starting point of every campaign, so they sort of unconsciously learned that "tavern = important." Before going on, though, I would really like to say that Archer has an excellent point, at least in allusion: If something has historically been a problem in your games, there is no mandate to fix it; leaving it out works just as well, and more than fixing ever could, it offers an immediate and definite solution. Similarly, if there is a reasonable chance that something is going to be a problem-- say any recent or recurring or just well-known "hot button" issue in the real world-- then a GM wanting to ensure that a game does not go in a direction he doesn't care to preside over is not just in his rights but well-advised to leave that out as well. And finally, before proceeding, I would like to double-down on LL's comment about his game world being "not unduly sanitized." So what if it is? If he elects to exclude sex slaves, what's the problem? _I_ don't use them, either. To the best of my knowledge (meaning "accepting that I haven't read every single thing and could be wrong." Now I have taken all the fun about lording a simple error over me ), Heinlein _never_ wrote a sex scene. I think the closest he ever got was a couple of people disappearing into a room and the story jumping to the next scene, and even then I can only think of one instance of that. It didn't weaken the story in the slightest. Frankly, I felt it served the story better that I didn't have to derail my interest in the actual plot while someone explained to me in lurid detail what some fictional character's armpit or butt crack tasted like. (I still tend to find sex scenes in fiction to be completely unnecessary filler, be it book, movie, or game.) I have found that one really great work around to to players insisting on going down the seduction path is role play. You know: unbutton my shirt to expose my hair pelt, brush my beard back, make moon eyes at him, puff up my lips and say "put those dice down. Go ahead, Nick. Seduce me. Let's get it on." (if that doesn't do it, delivering my lines while standing up and urgently rubbing my groin helps kill that mood, too.) I also find it unnecessary to this discussion any more than as an example, as it is an example of exclusion that does not weaken the story. We exclude all kinds of things: if I declare "flying saucers and revolving six-guns are excluded from my fantasy game," pretty much everyone is going to say "well _duh_--!" If I exclude JK Rowling's house elves, most people are going to say "good! That's got no place in proper fantasy anyway!" If I exclude Beholders, most folks will go "well that's fine. I don't use them much anyway, particularly after the weirdness that came out of the Beholders-in-Space thing...." I exclude elves, and people go nuts (in general; most of you folks have been pretty good about it) or they say "well, that's either Duke or Talislanta...." The entire crux of what's included or excluded in any GM's game is "this is how this particular world works." Magic works this way, or that way, or not at all, and it's all good. Everyone says "well, that's how this world works." So one guy has a world where tavern culture doesn't include prostitute slaves. _That's_ a problem? I don't recall Tolkien wasting a lot of words on prostitute slaves, and according to people who aren't me, he is the holy grail of fantasy, particularly considering how many fantasy worlds are straight clones of his stuff. Another guy declares that his world doesn't have taverns. Fair enough: the cultures of his world don't think you need a special building to gather around inside of and get drunk. Considering that I haven't been to a bar since I turned sixteen and didn't need a fake ID (it lost its appeal the moment it wasn't illicit), and yet I've still had considerable opportunities to drink with friends and loved ones, I find it pretty easy to envision such a culture. I realize that the initial question was whether or not slavery is something that occurs in your campaign, but I have to assume that everyone who didn't answer simply "yes" or "no" was inviting a more involved conversation; it makes sense that this conversation moved on to other things that are or are not part of someone's campaigns, at least not routinely, but I don't get the complaints or aspersions about what someone does or does not want to play. I am sure I will hear the term "realism" at some point, so I'd like to take a moment to say "elves, dwarves, dragons, magic" before that happens. The simple fact is that the games occur in fictional worlds-- worlds created entirely by one group of people, for the enjoyment of that one group of people. They are like any other form of entertainment: no one likes all of any given genre. If they did, we'd have more games about midwestern waitresses having sex with vampires in order to create the ultimate spell to throw sand into the eye of Sauron and get her sheriff ex-boyfriend to admit his lust for his hobbit deputy and they'd spend all their spare time under the neon lights of some motel in New Orleans, at least until the kraken came and they had to time travel back to find Captain Nemo and Jaques Cousteau to deal with this problem, all while trying to single-parent a surly teenager who may or may not be one of the many sons of Zeus. We play in worlds that interest us. How could it even make sense that we would play in a world that doesn't interest us? "Dude! have you seen this awesome new video game?!" Yeah. I played through most of it a couple of months ago. I really, really hated it. Setting was awful; art was dull. Characters were uninspired; graphics were so weak I couldn't tell my pack animal from the communal well. It just sucked, Man. "Cool! You should _totally_ play it! It's really the only video game ever made! Play it!" I did. It hated it. "Yeah, but you should totally play it. Any other game is just wrong." Well, this one has lasers and spaceships. I like lasers and spaceships. "It's wrong. It doesn't have elves; it doesn't have magic. This one does." Lots of games have that. I fact, I beat Magic Elves I and II last year. "Nope. Those games aren't this game. Only this game is worth playing." See? It doesn't make sense. Pulling from the published stuff: I have considerable respect (now, and mostly thanks to LL's thread on it some time back) for the "official" HERO System fantasy setting. I don't _like_ it at all, but I can now appreciate it, on a level or two, for the work and the quality of all the things I care nothing about (politics? Really? I want _escapism_, not a new version of what I am trying to escape from). I _love_ Tuala Morn, though. Alas, I am the only person in my group who grooves on it, so I will never get to use it, but there it is: the HERO System doesn't even have _one_ setting: Turakian Age, Valdoran Age, Atlantean Age, Tuala Morn-- and probably one or two that are escaping me. These are very noticeably not the same. So what's the problem with one guy's variant or even his homebrew being a bit different? I like hearing about the differences, honestly, but I am certainly not going to complain about or insult them-- they don't affect me _at all_ unless it's something that makes me think "ooh! I like that! I think I might try to work in a twist on that for my own game!" It'd be like me screaming foul because someone says "I really like David Drake's stuff!" I mean, I don't like it, personally, but when someone says that, the thing that _never_ comes to mind is "Eeeew! Really?!" What comes to mind is "Sweet! He's a reader!" followed by "Hello, fellow sci-fi fan!" And that's pretty much where it ends. Worlds are big, and they are a lot of work. The idea of your world not including something that doesn't interest you-- or perhaps personally offends you, or has proven to be a problem in the past-- saves not just the effort of having to build something you don't want anyway, then having to deal with the ramifications of something you weren't interested in personally, then having to play a game in a world that doesn't appeal to you-- but it saves games and possibly friendships. Let's say for example that I hate Tolkien elves (because I do, so it's easy to select as an example), but I decided to cave to the "well, it's just not fantasy without a race of too-beautiful-for-words nigh-immortal better-than-everyone-at-everything supermen running around!" crowd. Okay, fine. Elves are real. Have some elves. Let me just sprinkle a few here, a few there, a few more yonder ways.... before you know it, I've got six players who are elves, who want nothing more than to roam through the elven lands, doing elven things, learning elven lore.... Well, I'm going to have a blast, aren't I? Suppose I do the only thing I can think of worse than including elves, and decide "dwarven women look just like the men and have beards and everything" poppycock. Well, the only two players I have who play dwarves at all are both female (even though one typically plays male dwarves), and I have heard enough of their opinions on that subject to know that it's going to wreck their good time, so.... If I remove elves and dwarves entirely, have I customized the world to prevent problems, or have I somehow sanitized it? If I remove sex slaves, have I sanitized it, or have I created a world where people find such things unthinkable? Is removing taverns sanitizing? Or have I created a culture where drinking is an intimate thing, done only with close family members and the closest, most dear of comrades, and exclusively in the privacy of one's own home? Perhaps it's simply the culture that one _only_ drinks with friends, and only of the wine that he brings to the home of a friend? Is it something new and different? Perhaps fantastic? Or sanitized? And even if it is completely, hopelessly sanitized, or hopelessly ruined, or whatever-- these are the private worlds of a private group of people doing things that will never affect anyone who doesn't like it. Why the complaining? It's really easy to not get forced into such a game: just keep doing whatever it is that you have been doing up until this very moment, and it will never affect you. What logic is there in participating in what is essentially a "tell me this one thing about your personal world" thread and then complaining when others do the same?

It's not the chocolate. It's that tasty butter-flavored brick inside of it.

Now there's a person who hates their own teeth.... Also: Chris Goodwin needs this image, STAT.

Yep; that's the one! Thanks!

There was a city book by Gold Rush Games, and while I know it by heart, I cannot call the name to mind at the moment. Gah! At any rate, it, too, was filled with interesting NPCs and the roles they playwd within their world.

When I first read your opening post, I _leapt_ to something that has rankled me more than anything has in many years: Those ugly little "house elves" in Harry Potter: wrap it however you would like, those are slaves, and the normalcy assigned to having house elves--- well, I don't want to violate any rage speech rules, but suffice it to say that I had no idea how the series ended until it penetrated pop culture deeply enough that I picked it up from references and memes. Mind you: not slavery as concept, but specifically that it was just "done" that affluent people had these slaves. Gah-- I can't even talk about it. No: other fiction with slavery-- while it's never a pleasant thing-- doesn't work me up quite as much as seeing it normalized by a modern author in a modern work essentially marketed at modern children. And no: making them disgusting to look at didn't help me to accept their enslavement at all. I'm not sure if it was supposed to, but it didn't. That being said: I have several fantasy worlds in which indentured servitude exists; the legitimacy of this varies from culture to culture and even from person to person, but it's never applied as a racial thing. I have a couple of fantasy worlds-- and a couple of western worlds, actually-- where slavery exists. In these fantasy worlds, much like the indentured servitude, it's not a racial thing so much as-- just as was pointed out above-- something modeled on the ancient origins of war slaves: "we kicked your butts and trampled your city; we own you now." And, as in ancient times, this was really more about politics or a warlord amassing bodies to throw at the next enemy more than anything else: any race may take slaves, depending on their own culture, and any race can be slaves, depending on their circumstances. Aggressive Group A needs the resources currently held by Poorly Defended Group B.... there you go. Even in these worlds, though, there are usually circumstances that allow a slave to "earn" freedom-- mostly through exceptional service, and frankly, mostly posthumously in the darker settings. No; this is not done to justify slavery-- no; let me clarify: this is not done so that I may justify it to myself. It is done, again, as a model of things that were in times gone by actually practiced, and as a means of pointing out just who even those taking slaves understood on some level that "this is kinda messed up." All that being said, I do have one particular non-YATRO fantasy world where slavery is racial, kind of, in as much as there is only one race that keeps slaves. They are a hive-minded insectile race who absolutely do not accept the concepts of individual worth or even personhood of any other race, and accordingly view the other "people races" as being no more than any other sort of animal. I mean this quite literally, to the point where the slaves are those members of a prey species that have demonstrated a particular cleverness or trainable docility and have therefore been put to work. They will still ultimately be eaten, but it won't be until they do not perform their duties to the demanded standard. This extends to pretty much every animal, including weaker or underperforming members of their own race. The collective is the only "person," and everything is acceptable in the service of the collective. Of course, this _has_ caused a sort of racial tension in which these people are killed on sight, and are viewed (rightfully so, I suppose, seeing as how they are literally a tool-using ant colony) as brutal barbarians who are unable to participate in a larger society. They _can_, of course; it just has to be _their_ larger society. Unless it's that of a competing collective, in which case, there are no other collectives; these are prey animals and nothing more.

Sorry; my phone went back to that "tab groups" horse crap, making it completely useless for browsing the internet. Accordingly, I've been away from forum conversations for a bit. You wouldn't. "Reduced END" tended to by the most common "default" option for the early edition examples. And you're assuming I use Multipowers. Typically, I don't. We still use Elemental Controls, though, just because in my own experience over the years, they are a crap load easier for new players to get the hang of. And I was going to do a point-by-point reply, as it seemed the most polite thing, but I think "we rarely use Multipowers" probably answers the majority of your questions without filling the thread with a lot of "side quest" information.

I+t's a "variant option" for any Advantage. Add 1/4 to the advantage cost to gain "Armor Piercing, selectable" or "indirect, selectable." We have, off,and on, toyed with simply having a single advantage: selectable, to be applied to every advantagr on the power, at least in heroic games, as a reasonable simulation of weappns with different ammunition, etc, but as most of our needs can be met with "variabke advantage, selectable.... Well, we havent played with it as much as I would like before trying in supers, where multiple advantages per single power are the norm. the only real headache has been noting the effect of tuening the advantage on, which we usually do with a parenthetical notation akin to "-Xd6; +X END. Just run through that for everyrhing off and on- it isnt always accurate, but it suits out needs without having to list every possible permutation on the power.

We did the same, way back when. Frankly, sometimes we still do. Not often-- it's more a nostalgia thing. Anyway, we did it right up until we really got the hang of Multipowers (and a couple of Villains books) and saw multipowers with duplicate powers, save for the advantages. Then a light went off. To explain _that_: We didn't often use multipowers-- they were overly-complex next to the Elemental Control option back then (well, we still have that option, but I don't expect anyone else does), and the as-yet-inconcievable "thirty years later" moment that would have EC's being affected by adjustment powers as an "all at once" thing, and Multipower representing spiderman, etc...... Well, to be honest, way back when, we straight up read that the other way around. (We still do). If one did Spiderman as an EC (powers related through special effect), with today's -- more accurately, the most recent rules set with EC--, then "drain" would drain his "spider abilities" to include his purely mechanical web squirters. When one looked at Multipower characters such as firewing, etc, builds featuring multiple "copies" of a power with differing SFX suggested that the _multipower_ was in fact the mechanism by which a character simulated having one power, and only one power, that he could manipulate to use different ways, so it made more sense to us that using an adjustment power on a multipower would effect the whole thing. No; this is _not_ going to be a compare and contrast MP / EC thread. I simply wanted to explain why we did that for a while, too, and how we ended up noticing that it wasn't the "approved" method. At any rate, we do it today with a +1/4 Advantage: Selectable. From a Player's point of view, I totally get that an effectively "harmless" Limitation is the highly-desirable way to go , but as we had learned with MP that it wasn't "right," and if you recall the recent Davien example I posted-- using his AoE ranged attack in a crowded mall-- then it becomes easier to see the ability to turn a power on and off at will as a distinct advantage. It also doesn't fill the sheet up with two- and three-slot MPs for each power, which is the biggest advantage of all.

Thanks! I had gotten deep enough into the discussion I had forgotten the original question.

You're not wrong, at least in how a line works. A flame thrower, though, is more typically AoE: Line, No Range. It doesn't have to be, but it models them pretty nicely. An AoE starts at your target hex and grows from there. Thus, a regular Blast Attack with AOE: Radius starts the radius from the target hex, even if that target hex is at the maximum of your range. CAVEAT: If this changed in 5e, I missed it. If it changed in 6e, same thing. I know many of you have heard various tales of a former player named Davien. Davien was the sort of guy-- if I ever find the time to indulge my writing the way I used to be able to, I'd like to write an adventure campaign with him as the mastermind behind it all, just so that I know scattered around the world, hundreds-- perhaps _thousands!_-- of adventurers are beating the snot out of him.... Anyway, one of Davien's problems was his inability to grasp AoE as _anything_ other than extra range: What? he's eight inches out of range? I'll switch to my AoE attack! Davien, you are in a subway terminal! So he can't run, can he? Anyway, my original comment was this: We know that there is (or was) an AoE: "any shape" or "fills the room" or whatever it was. I don't know; I think the only player I ever had use that option put it on Change Environment to create freeze chambers and walk-in pizza ovens. The diagrams typically demonstrate an attack with the AoE Line starting from the target hex and continuing on in the same direction, etc. Is it spelled out specifically that the Line can't be perpendicular to the direction of the attack? Or any other angle? Given that all other forms of AoE (to include Explosion) have a default "every direction," and that things that have a default AoE like Force Wall / Barrier are typically cast in perpendicular lines, is it not justifiable that for the purpose of your build one could simply declare that "the Line for this power works thusly." We used to have a lot of things like that in this game. There used to be a lot of "must be defined at time of purchase" abilities. Now we have thirteen hundred pages of "must work this way." Just take a step back. Even if you want to one-hundred percent go "by the book," if you find room for interpretation (ie, "it's not specifically spelled out, but there are other existing constructs that work like my concept") then just declare it and be done.

Before I continue, let me state up front and clearly that I am not quibbling with you. (At least, not yet. ) I am merely curious as to the thinking behind this statement; I'd like a better understanding of what you're saying here. What is it you are saying here? Yes; I get the math. I am, however, unable to see the problem that you are reconciling. Thanks.

Dr. D beat me to it: you are technically attaching it to something; you are attaching it to a specific location.

I have been going out of my way to not comment in this thread-- mostly because, as I noted in the last thread, I will bend, break, ignore, and otherwise scoff at a rule if it causes any sort of "reduces the fun" issue. As such, I don't weigh in often on "I'd like to fix X" threads: in my own experience, most people are looking for something closer or at least sort of justifiable in RAW than some of the things I do. Don't get me wrong: I like to stay as close to the rules as possible, just for consistency, but then sometimes there really is just something away from the rules that works much, _much_ better for my and my group. This particular comment: is precisely what changed my mind about adding my own "solution" into the mix. Because I _agree_. Dispel is extremely limited, and the points / return investment ratio discussed above just keeps driving that point home. Fixed both of them a long time ago, at least for our groups, with a simple change that violates the rules, but works great for us, as well as adding "cost appropriate" utility for Dispel. We ignore AP and target the RP. Done. It stands as reasonable (again, without my own circles) simply because "well, you took three Limitations on that power; obviously it's not as "good" or "robust" as some other power; it makes sense it's easier to dispel than a power with no limitations. You've added nine advantages to that power of yours. Your power is so significantly intense-- so much more so than any similar power ever before-- that it makes sense it would be harder to dispel. Looked at another way, all Limitations come with a mandatory -0 "Easier to Dispel." Not "easy to dispel," mind you, but "_easier_ to dispel. You can take Easy to Dispel if you want, but it also comes with that "easier to dispel" at -0. All advantages come with a +0 Harder to dispel. You don't even have to write it down: buying an additional advantage makes it harder to dispel. Likely there are no quibbles here, because applying against the AP already does that very thing; it's only spelled out because its reverse was spelled out a couple of sentences ago. Yes; there is still the "I can turn it back on" thing, but now the wizard with the dispel doesn't have to waste so many points to make sure he can get enough dice to annoy you a little bit. Of course, if your spell or power or whatever is "costs END to activate," or "activation roll" or some such thing, that could get amusing. If you've built a Blast spell of some sort and have taken enough Limitations that your spell only costs 12 pts for 4d6, then your opponent only needs to roll a result of 12 to dispel it. If you've added enough advantages that your blast costs 32 pts for 4d6-- well, likely nothing has actually changed, really. It's worked really well for us, and solved a pair of problems: you don't have to pay near as much to get a better result from a power without a lot of built-in utility.

Sorry, Chris. That's just awful-- having players all excited to do it again.... Congratulations on the success, and the chance to play RW (color me as jealous as ninja-bear) again. (And I am really sorry that I may have accidentally done the same thing to your Barrier Peaks one-shot )

I do limit RSR, but fair warning: I am _not_ the best example, because I am the first guy here to defenestrate the rule book in favor of what works at the table and keeps the game fun. With that in mind, I am likely not the guy you really want to hear from. Things I have done in various Fantasy campaigns in the past regarding RSR: If your RSR was for a Skill with a level above 16-, the value of the Limitation was cut in half. If the Skill is is 21-, I cut the value in half again. (this works because despite the rules, I allow -1/8 Limitations (mostly for situations just like this) and +1/8 Advantages ( it seems to stop the quibbling over the -1/8 value Limitations). Anything attached to a Skill of greater than 21- is a -1/8 and _must_ take a second RSR at -0 (obviously not on the same Skill or Characteristic). In some campaigns, I have instead mandated an additional -1/2 Limitation. While it doesn't _stop_ theoretical abuse, it does make it significantly less attractive. One this it does is to help prevent over-powered starting PCs, as they are rebated fewer points to spend elsewhere. Yes, as the campaign progresses, a Player can spend his EXP wherever he would like, but I have found in practice that they tend to broaden Skills and abilities rather than deepen them, so the Skill upon which the RSR is based doesn't climb as much it potentially could. Again, it's not a cure-all solution; it simply makes that particular exploitation less attractive. In campaigns where RSR is mandated (and usually at -0), I have done something slightly different. Using the same or similar (sometimes I have started at above 14- instead of above 16-, depends on the "grittiness" of the campaign and the prevalence / reliability of magic in that campaign) and required additional side effects. To explain: A Character with an RSR on a skill of, say 13-, would not have to take this additional side effect. A character with a skill of 21- would. Before shooting this down, let me break it down a bit: Because of penalties inflicted by the AP of the magic being used, the 13- wizard is only able to manipulate a certain... "volume?" of magic. This lesser amount of magic is less troublesome against the physics of the world-- the universe can recover more quickly and more easily, in a manner of speaking. The wizard with a 21- roll can conjure a much greater volume of magic, one that is more difficult to control, and to which the world is more opposed, resulting in some sort of backlash. Further, (remember what I said about chucking the rulebook to keep things fun and moving?), I have no problem (in such a campaign, mind you) with the 21- guy announcing that he wishes to use a "smaller" amount of magic and voluntarily dropping his target number to avoid additional side-effects. (again, for the audience: I know the rulebook would sprain itself over this idea; I am not suggesting that it is remotely supported by the rules, unless you custom value the additional Limitations based on some sort of sliding scale, etc, and call it a "custom Limitation" that works, at certain skill levels, very much like some normal Limitations work all the time. However, I don't bother to do any custom pricing for them) I tinkered with an idea that there be a requirement to have two RSR rolls: one to determine how much magic you could wield, and one to determine how well you could cast it. That is, you could buy "manipulate magic" up to whatever skill level you wanted-- say, as I keep hitting it, 21-. The idea was that for every X points by which you beat your target roll, you could summon enough magic to cast Y real points of a spell. Then you would cast your spell against the "cast magic" or "cast this particular spell" skill (keeping in mind that there are AP penalties against this particular roll, etc). This never got off the ground for a couple of reasons: It required that the spell book be built so that each spell was written per "level." That is: per die, per line on the chart,-- such as that. No one minded it, but it was a bit of front loading that might bother some players or GMs, but for me it just didn't feel like "magic." I suppose I should say it felt _less_ like magic, because the "doesn't feel like magic" is sort of a long-running problem with me and HERO: when the spell is built the exact same way my horse is built, it feels far more like a utility than a mystic ability. Again, that's _my_ problem, and not anyone else's. The biggest reason it never got off the ground (we played with it in a couple of test sessions, but have yet to try it in a campaign) is that I am not really super-excited by fantasy. I am a science fiction fan at heart, with a healthy does of western fiction, a dabbler in good occult fiction (meaning "not Buffy" and "not VtM"-- both entertaining, but as-presented, occult was a backdrop, really, and not even necessary to tell the story), and _willing_ to run supers. Not a big fan of supers, but I am a fan of the players having a good time, and I am not really _opposed_ to supers. Fantasy just isn't my trigger-tripper, I suppose, and for the most part my Players are kind enough to go elsewhere when the just _need- a Fantasy fix. Perhaps one day we will give it a go, but who knows...? Again, I don't expect anything in there to really appeal, as most of it violates some significant part of the RAW, but perhaps something in it will get you thinking toward something that works for you.

Not exactly a picture, but I just feel so compelled to share it:

Thanks to you, too, Sir (I assume; forgive me if I am wrong). I wasn't attempting to influence anyone; I really wasn't. However, it is always a pleasant surprise to be helpful to someone. And you are very welcome.

Folks never gave her enough credit, because it wasn't too terribly long after that incident that people began to pay more attention to the accusations, and more and more things came to light.

I would really like to help you, but all I can do is state to you that I personally never thought it did work. yes: I understand the old "it's allegorical racism" reasoning, but for all the reasons you have pointed out and more (two heroes, even if they are both heroes, even if they have identical _abilities_ and _appearances_, yet one of them took a bunch of random drugs and became much loved, while the other just won the genetic lottery and gets hated) isn't even easy to rationalize. In a world with super powers being gained through drug use, radiation exposure, being raised from the dead, finding magical totems, being blessed by a pantheon of ancient gods, making the best of a curse, being an alien from space, having a parent who isn't human, being stuck with a glowing meteor, being taken apart and reassembled at a molecular level, surviving an extra-deep alien probe, and whatever else you can imagine, "being born with powers" is not only ridiculously easy to lie about (hence the >ahem< "need" for mutant detectors, etc, it just doesn't ring true, and can't by itself carry a narrative. There are mutants in the real world, today. People born with various deformities, Down's Syndrome, extra chromosomes, additional digits, heterochromia, and a thousand-thousand other things. Granted, in the real world, a genuine mutation (other than blue eyes) is unfortunate: rather than gaining abilities, people suffering from real mutations generally have to cope with having fewer abilities, or reduced levels of abilities. We don't fear them, and it takes a real rat bastard to shun them. To address what I think is the core of your question, though: "why does this work in the narrative:" Who is the "I" character in the narrative? Is he written in such a way as to offer appeal to the reader? Is he "super cool" or "badass" or some sort of devil-may-care, I can survive anything sort of character? Is the appeal that this character is a mutant? Or is it that "I would kinda like to _be_ this guy?" Or is it "I actually think of myself as having the same traits that I find positive in this character?" Can't lie: from what little bit of comic books I had exposure to (late 70s, early 80s, and even then: not many), I always that -- sorry; took me a minute to remember his name. Not that you can tell, as there will be no break in the post! Colossus was a pretty cool character: very friendly, yet private. Very concerned about his friends, and his manners were simple and up-front. Gracious and kind, in spite of being extremely powerful. That's a pretty cool concept to me, and I kind of liked the "fish out of water" aspect of a displaced communist living in an american mansion and sampling american life. But that's just me. There was another guy on the same team, and I'm trying to remember his name-- red-headed guy, sonic powers. Hated that character. Felt like he added nothing except for weird punctuation intended to show off an accent. Everyone gets behind a cool character-- well, a character they think is cool, anyway, for whatever reason that they think he is cool. Realistically, though, it's both: The character as written appeals to the reader. The character and his friends are by default of the setting "outcasts." This appeals to such a wide cross section of comic book fans that this fact in itself is worth discussing: Teenagers. _All_ teenagers feel like outcasts, or uncomfortable, or unloved at some point. It's probably the hormones ravaging their brains; it could be the zits ravaging their photos; I don't know. But being able to perceive this same problem in a character the reader already thinks is cool is going to lead to the forgiveness of a _lot_ of goofy, unworkable, or just odd things: like giant robots molded so as to include knit watch caps. Introverts: "this person is forced to trust only this tiny group of similar people. I can get behind that; I _understand_ that. I want to see this character persevere and even triumph, because I identify with him, and I maybe I just need the reminder that it can be done." Young adults: "It's us, fighting our way into a world that doesn't respect us." I mean, we could do this over and over, with easily a hundred more "types" of people, but the fact remains that the essential elements of the story are "cool character; outcast for reasons beyond his control" are always going to be absolute winners with comic fans, and the fact that typically, our tastes don't change that much as we age. _Those_, I believe, are the reasons that these stories are popular enough to continue on into the future. I do not believe it is because they "work" on any level. But, as I have said before: that is just the opinion of one lunatic.

Ah; got it. I state this from time to time, because new members roll in and out, and long-lost members fall back in, and as we are, with a few exceptions, strangers behind a screen, I don't expect anyone to remember any particulars about me: I know that I am just a stranger behind a screen. Still, I feel this is a good time to state it again: I have cut sarcasm completely from life; I did it years ago. After living some years without it (and it's really hard to stop doing it, but once you make that a habit, it gets easier), I realized just how completely disgusted I had become by the cultural notion that sarcasm is considered a sign of intelligence in most "educated" circles. I note that specifically because I used to be one of those people. However, almost four decades ago, I absolutely _destroyed_ the warmest, most sincere, most caring, most supportive relationship I ever had with anyone-- and when I say _anyone_, I _mean_ it: the relationship I enjoy with my own _wife_-- as fulfilling as it is, is still second place to this relationship of long ago. I destroyed it with sarcasm. No; that's not a joke (remember: no sarcasm?) I won't lie: there was a significant knowledge and education gap between us, but I never cared; I never even _noticed_. And, like most people who wield sarcasm as a substitute for wit, I _assumed_ (incorrectly, as we _all_ do, but that's a story for later) that this indicated a fundamental intelligence gap-- again, I didn't care about that: the relationship was incredible. But the sarcasm destroyed it. See, every time I said something sarcastic-- like I generously assume many people do, I don't really mean it to be hurtful (Again: I _am_ being generous), but as sarcasm is, at it's heart, saying something that is not true or mockingly stating something that holds a grain of truth-- it's far, _far_ more easy than most people will ever accept to "take it wrong." At the end of the day, _are_ they taking it wrong? I mean, sarcasm _is_, ultimately, pointed, and it is thrown rather vigorously, and all-too-often, when someone has exposed a particularly vulnerable part of themselves. I tried for four years to rekindle a relationship I ultimately had to accept was killed by my own hand-- well, my own tongue. What can you _say_ to a person when they have become used to the idea that a chunk of what you say is the exact opposite of what you wish to express? What words do you use to soothe and apologize to someone who has learned that your words cause pain? How do you describe the depth of your soul to someone who is used to the idea that any amount of honest pontification is merely the careful stacking of a set of stones that you are going to take great delight in knocking down with a single blow? No; it doesn't _matter_ that it's not directed at this person or that person or _any_ person, because how do they _know_ that? You can't tell them, because they know your words aren't really what you mean. I spoke at great length with my brother D, to whom I am have always been closest; I sought comfort, repair, and of course guidance--- Ah! This would have been immediately after realizing that it was over, of course. His response was, quite clearly: "What did you expect? You are an absolute @$$hole to pretty much everyone you meet." I was rather taken aback, as I have never tried to be a jerk to anyone save my clearly-defined enemies. I pressed him for explanations, and it all came back to one simple thing: Sarcasm. Sarcasm-- that "great and heady sign of a powerful intellect and a razor-sharp wit," is absolutely nothing more than pointless brutality to your fellow man. If you want to hit them, roll a shoulder and plow one through 'em. If you want to point something out, ignore your second-grade teacher and use that finger next to your thumb. If you want to make a joke, then tell a joke, make an observation, whatever. Sarcasm-- sarcasm is literally deciding you want to do one of these things, but with a grenade. It doesn't matter how "on-point" your joke is; blowing up your friends is never funny. It took me considerable time to realize that what D had told me was the truth: I had few friends, and when moving took place for one or the other of us, we never stayed in touch. Or least, _they_ never stayed in touch. It was the sarcasm: it takes a lot of work to tell if someone is saying what they mean, deciphering what they actually meant, and a lot of trust to accept that it isn't pointed at you. Even then, catch enough grenades, and you start to wonder if you really are the target, and that all the "oh, no! That wasn't meant for you!" was just to see how many times you would come back to catch grenades. It took me, in earnest assessment, about a year to realize that "D was right. I thought I was warm, gregarious, and funny, but I was just an @$$hole!" I certainly didn't _think_ I was one; I never _tried_ or even _wanted_ to be one, but by sheer dint of my chosen form of humor, I _was_ one, and I was the problem in almost every relationship that developed a problem. And the best one I ever had? I couldn't fix it. So I spent the next... maybe eighteen months? Working hard-- insanely hard; you don't have any clue how often you use sarcasm-- changing everything about the way I communicate, the way I make observations, the way I tell jokes. I worked my @$$ off-- and hopefully, worked out all the @$$hole I was-- in a vow that I would not use sarcasm to communicate ever again. No matter how witty someone else thought sarcasm was, no matter how much of a dullard someone might assume I was since I didn't use or "appreciate" it, I was done. I wasn't taking a chance on wrecking another relationship, and promised that I would never hurt another friend, even by accident. Now I told you that so that I could tell you this: If you _ever_ read something I say as being sarcastic, re-read it until it isn't, because there is no sarcasm there. I go out of my way to ensure that. Weird choices of vocabulary: that's on me (my passion for etymology developed during this self-imposed self-improvement); if I chose poorly, that wasn't sarcasm: that was crappy judgement. This is not to say that I won't be snide, or even insulting, rude, and condemnatory. I just don't do it sarcastically. For one, if I am irritated enough to insult someone, I want that person to specifically know that they are being insulted, and anyone else to know that they are not. I've also gotten much better at it, as I don't have the crutch of sarcasm to fall back on. As for people who do use it: you are not me, and you are not controlled by me. Do what you want, of course. Having avoided using it so long myself, I do get tripped up now and again by not catching it the first time, sometimes even the second. Just know that this is a thing. As for people who think it makes them intelligent: Remember that you are saying something that you don't mean, in a way you don't mean, to make a point that most people are going to assume is insulting or otherwise derisive, and they are not always going to be clear who your target is. You are literally throwing live grenades into the room to make what is generally a fairly trivial observation. Why does that make you feel like you are more intelligent than someone else? As for people who think it is a sign of intelligence, well re-read everything thus far. Is any of this intelligent? How did it work, long-term? Sometimes, when my work schedules permit, I will pick up one or the other of the kids from school. I will overhear parents being parents, and in some cases praising or scolding their children. Quite often, the scolding includes sarcasm, and you can literally-- not "facebook literally," but genuine "this is a real thing that can be observed" literally-- see the child cringe each and every time such a comment is made. It makes me uncomfortable, and it makes my children uncomfortable. My son once, when he was smaller, just hugged my leg tighter and later asked me if his friend Jonah was "being abused." I had to tell him very honestly that I really didn't know. I didn't know, but I knew it couldn't be good just by the way he wilted under it. There is an old, _old_ proverb-- I _believe_ it's Turkish, but at this point I no longer remember. My grandfather taught it to me once (there's a great example: this man literally _wrecked_ his own children with abuse both physical and verbal, but he didn't know it until it was far, far too late. He became the greatest parent ever to his grandchildren, but died alone and unmourned by his own kids) and until my brother prompted me think about my use of sarcasm, I really didn't appreciate just what it meant: An axe remembers nothing, but a tree cannot forget. Literally, it refers to the way a tree heals (if it heals) and the scars, knots, etc that are the result of damage to that tree. There will never be a point where that past damage is not obvious. Figuratively-- well, you know where that is going. Considering how messed up people have gotten since we decided that tight collars and tight-lipped etiquette were the only correct way to deal with one another, I have to give it considerable credence. Who have any of us wronged that we can remember? Who have any of us wronged that we _cannot_ remember? Who here can honestly say he has forgotten a wrong that was done to him? In fairness, I will still, from time to time, find a temptation far too juicy to resist, and crack wise with a sarcastic comment. On such rare occasions, I try very hard to ensure that everyone understands it is sarcasm, and _precisely_ where it is directed, even if I have to label a diagram. Now, as to the rest: It did; don't fret that. (You noticed that laugh I gave it, right?) It is simply that, as I noted above, I don't always catch it the first time through, simply because I have that most common of foils of logic: the tendency to use myself as the yardstick of humanity. Seriously: sometimes I forget that sarcasm is as common as it is, and I don't look for it. I genuinely spent fifteen minutes thumbing through my dictionary to make sure that one of the words I had used did not have a negative connotation of which I was unaware. Then it hit me: Ah; a joke. Duh! I missed it, but I got it now!. I tagged a laugh to it (as it was amusing), but I totally forgot to answer the actual question. That's all. You are not wrong. I _wanted_ to be; I watched several episodes before "I just can't watch another one" forced me to stop. I have never made a secret of it, but in what I have learned is horrible internet etiquette, I don't go around bashing it every chance I get, either. Right about the time I figured out that our main villains were going to be a race of intergalactic used car salesmen, I kind of wrote it off as something I just wasn't going to appreciate. (Yes; I am aware that as the setting evolved, the used car salesmen became allies, etc, and in a huge nod to multiculturalism over racism, even the Klingons became allies, and we created the Borg so that the enemy could be everybody. (See? That was sarcastic ) (and tagged as such) ). I am genuinely sorry to have put you to this concern, Tjack; I really am. (again: as a conscious choice in my life, I don't use sarcasm.) I had thought the little laughing rep guy expressed it: I got that you were being funny (eventually), I found it amusing, and we have _never_ not been good.

Tried. Sun was way too bright and autofocus plus zoom just washed it out. Essentially I fot the soundtrack of a diesel forklift and a Western Star with a bad fan clutch and two guys screaming "what the #@&# is WRONG with people?!" And lots of grey, white, and yellow blur. Contrary to popular belief, I do the rare youtube videos with an actual camera; it deals with lighting issuws way bwtter than the phone does. Weirdly, I have to uoload it thorough the phone, bevauae the computer hates the camera. :😆