Duke Bushido

Sorry; i just realized that I hadn't answered that. I got distracted trying to figure out which word was the big offensive one. But to the answer: The Enterprise, ostensibly an explore and colonize ship (sorry; never made it past the first season- no; that's a lie, I never made it _through_ the first season. I tried, but I just couldn't. Anyway, ostensibly explore and maybe colonize, and definitely fight: there was even a special "battle bridge" for when the big disk was _cast aside on impulse power_ while the rest of the ship flew away into fiery combat. There was a big deal made more than once about how the ship carried entire families, and could even serve to train young cadets, there were schools, etc. All this for exploration with a definite expectation of military action up to and including combat. Combat with their families and children on board, or cast adrift in the sublight-powered saucer. Anyway, some years later I would catch a rerun or two, trying to give it the best chance I could. Unfortunately, the first rerun i caught involved "Q," bored and peurile space god; it didnt help raise my opinion any. Then I caught a rerun of something from the NG era- dont really remember what it was, but it featured mention of an Ambassador ship, Ambassadors, who are going perhaps into the uncertain, but not the unknown. Who arrive as the result of invite or treaty- way safer than "explore the unknown and prepare to get shot at." Yet it was too dangerous to take their spouse or favored pet. A grunt's entire family was welcome to die of who knows what out on the unexplored edge of illuminated space- But not a politician's family; no, that just doesn't make sense. Thats what rankled me.

Considering that just a couple of weeks ago, I was sitting in a forklift and watching a guy across the street pump gasoline into a CARDBOARD BOX, I don't think I can afford to _not_ have one of these......

I have always been the first to admit that I know diddly/squat about comic books, but even I know Shield stood for Supreme Headquarters for International Espionage, Law Enforcement Division. Of course, I also knew that those words really don't make a lot of sense together, and that someone really wanted it to spell "SHIELD."

And while I am not typically, my love of etymology does have a tendency to make me a pedant. For example: I will never be able to fully express just how much that rankled me.

Before we do, I would like to find out if you and I are going to argue about being in complete agreement again. Let's not do that if at all possible: it's tedious, time consuming, and I am sure annoying to the spectators. I agree: you _DO NOT NEED_ all the dozen or so rulesbooks. (all caps for clarity; not for yelling) I _POSTULATE_ that adventures and scenarios _SHOULD_ be written with _only_ the very core rulebook in mind. I _OPINE_ than this makes such writings more attractive by providing something useful to every GM from the completionist who hasn't played since college in the 80s to the budget-minded new group that isn't dropping five hundred bucks on a game the don't know if they will enjoy until they have played it a bit to the time-crunched GM who simply _can't_ fit that much reading and referencing in to his current life of job, home, two kids coming out of diapers and two parents going into them to the GM who has very much decided that the simpler, the better and more enjoyable who is going to play games from the one or two books he already has-- the guy who is willing to throw nickels at the company for an adventure he can use, but not to throw twenties at it to get the three "best when used with" books the adventure requires him to have. I _STATE_ that I do not like "must have book X, Y, and Z to pull P, Q, and R from, as you will need those / them to use this one single product." I will, if needbe, go on to state that I find thirteen hundred pages of "core rules" ludicrous for any game, even one that I like. I _CONCLUDE_ that there are _no_ resources for anyone who doesn't have or isn't willing to buy more than the one (or two) core rules books, as even this thread mentions "pull villains from X" or "refer to material in Y" and so on. I _ENCOURAGE_ that we as a fandom _stop_ replying to questions with "Oh, there is a clarification of that in this other book" or "you need to do it the way it says to do it in this Guide" or respond to a question in any way that doesn't _first_ pull an answer directly from the rules book with which the querent (small "Q"; no astrology here) is working, and only then offering material from other books. I _STATE_ that if we want to attract new life to the game or to prove that "you only need this very core set of rules," we must _stop_ starting the answers to various questions with things like "Well, according to APGII, you need to..." and instead move to a format akin to "since you are using the 5e rulebook, check p 306 and you will see that in this case you need toX" or "Your Champions Complete book covers that on page X; according to the paragraph about Y, you should most likely Z," followed by, if you just can't help yourself but to be as complete as possible (no shame there, at least not from me) any external sources you might want to suggest "There's a character in Bricks, Brutes, and Bashers on page 398 with a build very similar to what I think you're going for. If you have that book, you can check him out and see what you think. If you don't have it, the store has a PDF" That sort of thing. Our current typical answer format is "Really? That's the only book your have? Piker." followed by the helpful stuff. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but it seems a bit off-putting to a new entrant, and it does precious little for proving the idea that the game is just as good with only the one (or two) core books. Rather, every time it is done, it reinforces the idea that they are _all_ core books. If your only market is completionists, then this is certainly a way to spur them on, but it's not especially helpful to anyone else. And with our current answer template being "check this book, check that book," and "the answer is plainly stated in this other book" and "Well according to Additional Book," I _PROCLAIM_ that _yes_, "OMG LOOK AT THOSE HUGE BOOKS FOR 75 EACH!!!!" is not only accurate, but _enforced_ by a creeping egalitarianism that has infested the fandom with the idea that if an answer-- _any_ answer-- exists in print in _any_ of the books, then it is the only correct answer. Nowhere is this more obvious then answering questions for new players or GMs: "Well, according to the Character Building Handbook" or "in the APG, it states," etc, etc. If we continue to reinforce that these printed rulings are the only correct-- or even the _most_ correct-- answer for these questions, we are doing _nothing_ more than we are saying "this is core rules, Bubba. Suck it up and open your wallet. What you derived from your one book is wrong, and you'd know that if you ponied up." And finally, I _GRANT_ that this entire problem likely stemmed from the human hubris that social media has termed the "humble brag," in which the very phrasing of the answer-- Not so much the inclusion, but the opening with "it's right there in book 9," allows the poster to casually and softly state "I own that book. I have read that book. I have the disposable cash to have ponied up for that book, and the disposable time to have read it. Suck it, Noob" even while loudly and publicly stating "this is the rule, and it's in another book." "OMG LOOK AT THOSE HUGE BOOKS FOR 75 EACH!!!!!" is not _just_ accurate, and it is not _just_ up to date, it is the _CULTURE_ of the fandom in recent years, and while it is not a genuine physical barrier to buying a core rule book and playing a game with friends, it _is_ a physical barrier to using materials that require those other books, and it is a _social_ barrier to getting any assistance from the assembled fandom. Absolutely! The same goes with supplements that included everything you needed to play: all the NPCs, all the locations, all the special-circumstance rules (remember drowning? Those rules were written specifically for an adventure supplement in which drowning was a possibility. You had them right there. 4e happened, and they got pulled into the big rules book. As I understand the current rules for writing supplements, you can't reprint them (and please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong, or if there are special circumstances that would allow you to do this), but if someone is working from a "core rule book" that for whatever reason doesn't have drowning rules in it, he won't be able to use a supplement where they are critical to the action. At least, not without having to buy a whole other book. To be fair, I believe I recall drowning in both CC and FHC, but I don't think they were in Lucha, I can't remember if they were in MHI, and I have yet to find time to finish reading PS238. Either way, I'm going to have a hard time drowning Luchadores....) Yes: I think it would be ideal if supplemental material contained the needed NPCs for that material. I'm an easy sell, though: I don't give a red-rolly crap about the "official" universe (in the long run, I think that might be good, since HERO doesn't actually own it anymore). I never really did, and I find each reiteration of it from edition to edition to be less appealing than the last. NO! No, I am _not_ trying to insult _anything_. I don't like mayonnaise or Audis, either. Is saying that "more mayonnaise is even less appealing" somehow extra insulting to mayonnaise? Of course not. The "official universe" with the Guardians started out pretty close to appealing, but not quite what I liked. Then it got further and further away from -- you know, there is no reason for me to have to justify not liking something. It doesn't appeal to me; done. Getting back on course: Yes: I agree with N-B, and I think that a product that has everything you need is always going to be better. Throw in those bad guys and good guys, at least the ones you need. I think it's a good thing for the company if you throw in some "official universe" replacements for these characters as well, and even note the books in which they can be found. I also think it's better for the players if you were allowed to include those official characters in the product, and contrary to the popular thought that it "precludes the need to buy these NPC books!" I think six official universe characters across two or three supplemental scenarios might _encourage_ sales of those books, but I have only the anecdotal evidence of myself to go by: I do _not_ buy character books. I don't. I have enough characters, and I can make more easily enough. Toss in "I really don't like the official setting and most of the official characters" and the end result is .... I don't buy character books. Wierdly, I have all or most of them thus far ("Duke, is there anything you would never buy for yourself?" Sure: Character books. "Happy Birthday! We got you a character book!" uhm.... Thanks.....! -- then there is the obligatory scanning of the index, picking three characters, and dropping them into an adventure to 'prove' I read it and love it ) The couple of character books I did buy, on purpose, were Enemies and Enemies II, and I did it on the strength of the little booklet of characters included with Viper's Nest. I used the crap out of those villains until our own universe began to take shape and we needed more villains to capture. I don't think I ever used anyone from Enemies II, as by then we had our-universe-tailored villains showing up, but still: those character books were bought on the strength of the "official" characters packed in with a product. I can't be the absolute only person to play this game who works that way. I might be the only one on this board, but I can't be the only person playing this game.

HAHAhahahahhaahaa!!! Oh, God! D&D! Balance monsters! Dude, you had me there! For a minute, I thought you were serious.... There are so many edges to this sword that is has spikes. First, with 6e, you'd better assume he has at least two, because those two are the core "book." And in this fandom, you can't really ask for help, because you will invariably be pointed to six other "core books" that folks either think you already have or think that you should. 5e wasn't that bad; there were only three "core books," in spite of all the rules being in one. If you didn't have "the combat handbook," then you didn't have what the fandom decided was critical essential rules; don't dare play without it. And of course, if you didn't have whatever it was that the character book was called, well then you really shouldn't be trusted to make a character. Again, it's not accurate, but it's the impression the fandom tends to give anyone asking for help: "I really need a bit of help parsing the specific meaning of these five hundred pages of rules." Ah; well, that's because you didn't read _these_ four hundred pages of rules. Read that, and it will make more sense. What? That, too? No; that's in those four hundred pages of rules over there; sorry. To be fair: Yes; I have those books; yes I have read them. But I am also perfectly willing to accept that they are not required, and that products tailored just to the one (or two, for 6e) rules books, and answering questions by referring only to things pulled from the one rulebook is not just acceptable, but ideal. And then we hit that "monsters and murderers" problem: Since we, as fans, expect them to have eleven hundred pages of rules, should we not refer the possible customer to appropriate parts of them? Encourage them to buy them? Eh. Yes; it's good for the company in terms of "hey! They might want to know that this product exists!" It's also bad for the company in terms of "Good God! _Another_ three hundred pages of book?" Oh-- sorry; no one.... no one was expecting a perfect answer, were they? I mean, _I_ certainly don't have one..... I can say this, though: when I write up adventures or vignettes or scenario compilations, I make it an absolute point that when I am providing details or specifics, any questions that may arise are easily answered by the _one_ "actual rulesbook," just because it seems like the right thing to do. Sure; I'd like them to buy the other stuff, too (side-track: I tend to write short stuff for a couple of my players who run their own groups, when they ask. Sorry for any confusion that lack of information may have caused), but I am not going to stack the deck against them using what they have on hand. My own perspective is that if it is going to market itself as a complete system, then it really has to be all you will need. If something is ambiguous or open to interpretation in the rules, I don't try to answer it; I simply write with my own interpretation of it in mind, as assume that anyone else reading the rules and the scenario are intelligent enough to have drawn their own interpretation, and change it if they disagree. Or they can come to a resource like this to get pointed toward additional material (though I do try to mention things like "options can be found in Book X", etc). Same with monsters and villains: if I have someone in mind from some published work, I will state "designed with the idea of Character X, from Book Z," but I also tend to include an "optional character" in a "complete-enough" write up, along with strong encouragement for the GM to substitute an NPC of his own. Like I said: I don't have a good answer for a very real elephant in the room, but I am not going to pretend the elephant isn't there. That's my own answer, but honestly: selling a book that says "Buy also" isn't the best option, and writing adventures that say "intended for X, but you can use Y (partially included), and feel free to take an hour to build your own Z, and here is a list of options for scaling power up and down for X and Y and some suggestions for fine-tuning your customized Z" isn't a good answer, either. You could easily double the size of the book! Well great. I've made myself sad. Here's something that works disturbingly well for non-supers games: Write up one character-- agent, informant, whatever. Get a few other character sheets out. Roll D4 for each characteristic. On a 1, subtract 2 from the value of that characteristic and record it on the next guy's sheet. On a 2, add 1. On a three, re-roll and go "plus one." IE, if your next roll is a 2, then subtract 3. (SPD should only ever go up or down by 1) Create a list of six-to-ten skills a person in that category should have. Roll a d6 (or 2d6, if you want a really skilled operative) to see how many that character has. Roll a D-however-many-entries-you-have-on-your-list to determine their skills. Multiples make that skill better. You can knock out an army of agents in ten minutes or less. "Oh no! That's terrible! That would never work! They will never been seen as individuals!" That's totally incorrect. It's worked for me since the late 80s, and I don't think I have ever had a player catch on, to this day. Making them individuals isn't about their character sheets; it's about role-playing. That's on you, as the GM. Mooks are even easier: all you have to change in their SPD and CV, because that's all your players ever actually notice anyway.

I find Ghost Rider (at least as I understand the modern character-- let's remember I'm not really a comic book guy) to be the perfect example of this, _especially_ if you look at the example from the movie with the turn mode thing: The bike in the movie has quite possibly the most ridiculous rake and trail angles I've ever seen ridden. Yes; there are trailer queens that are as bad or worse, but they aren't really ridden. Why? Because they absolutely _can't_ be steered in any effective manner. Yet in the movie, high-speed turns and ducking down alleys, etc (and up walls?!) just happened, period. The bike wasn't going to work for anyone else, either. In the case of GR, it's something he summons (usually by turning some other bike into this bike, I think, but I'm also not sure that this is absolutely necessary. Can anyone tell me of an instance where he couldn't summon his bike for some reason? If so, I _might_ go with Focus of Opportunity as a requirement, but even then.... The problem with these discussions-- not this particular one or any particular person, but the "what do you think of my idea" conversations-- is that they are seldom treated as "what do you think" or "would you allow," but instead a litany of "what you did wrong" or "what you should or must also do." Maybe this bike isn't going to require a turn mode. Maybe it's not going to be something anyone else can operate. Maybe it isn't able to carry more than the character himself can carry. For example, if he had told us that the "focus" is the Amulet of Hermes worn 'round his neck, absolutely none of these "requirements" and "must haves" would have come up. None of them. The focus is a motorcycle? No; that means that--- It doesn't. It doesn't automatically mean anything. It opens options that the player or the GM may wish to consider in terms of "this might be an interesting way to represent what you're going for" or even "this is a logical problem you could accept in exchange for a reduced price," but that's really it. Certainly, remind him to consider these things, but assuming that these have to be actual issues in the game at hand is a bit out of place. Granted, this is just the opinion of one lunatic.

Well great. Now I want more than anything to know what your favorite line is.....

I'm going with Hugh's "super cycle" explanation. Maybe it's not a gas tank at all. Maybe it's for deuterium.....

Also: As a life-long motorcycle rider, please let me know when a six-hour fuel range becomes a reality on anything without a custom tank or very little power.

People who say things like that are, by several orders of magnitude, underestimating my willingness to go home. I mean, its where all my family and my posessions are, amd it is where I have sunk the biggest part of my income over the years. There is nowhere more in harmony with my spirit or soothing to my soul. as for Christopher updating old stuff, I think its a good thing. New 6e GMs (if any inexperienced gamers decided to pick up the gake with two college text books or rules and two more worth of additional material scattered across several thinner volumes) may not be able to intuituvely update older material, or know how to work in some interesting angles using some1 1of the newer rules since the original book was published. besides, if Christopher's Isle of Dr. D was anything to go by, there will be fresh new stuff woven in. If you havent read it, I recommend it to you just for the new stuff and the radical switch in feel from "spandex commandos" to "superheroes."

Id like to say "I would allow it," but I will go you one further and say that I have, and continue to do so, allowed it. Ultimately, its a vehicle you always have with you. Sounds pretty superheroey to me. Yes. There are vehicle rules. There are also Hit Location rules and Damage Negation rules. Nowhere in any of them is there a proclamation that they are mandatory. Do what is the most fun for you and your group.

Wait! You mean that you're going to update Escape from Stronghold, _and_ include an escape? From Stonghold? I don't know, Christopher... It's got to be pretty hard to do. I mean, the original guys missed it completely....

It might help to have a more precise explanation of the concept. If the character is simply difficult to teleport but still takes normal damage or other effects from teleportation-themed effects (or Teleport Usable as Attack), then it's essentially a Disadvantage: he's difficult to bring with you when you want to teleport somewhere. If he is resistant specifically to teleport-themed attacks, then you're going to get lots of answers, because the newer the edition, the more it demands precise mathematical builds with decreasing amounts of lip service to sfx. What you would have here is defenses-- whichever you chose: PD, ED, Resistant, Reduction, etc-- with those defenses themselves being limited to only working against teleport-themed attacks. Where it gets really wiggy is being resistant to Teleport: Usable as Attack. I say "wiggy" because there really aren't pre-built powers that deal with this. There are _accepted_ builds that we have used over the years: x inches of Flight, only to counter Flight: Usable as Attack, for example. When used in gameplay, if you have 15" of Flight: UaA and the defender has 10" of Flight: only to resist Flight: UaA, then subtract the "resistance" from the attack and that is the total you've moved. Don't get too hung up on pricing, either: "Only to resist this one specific movement power being used as an attack is an _extreme_ limitation. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd start looking at -2, then compare the frequency of "movement useable as attack" in my games and, in all likelihood, would end up in -3 country. However, that's for _my_ games: custom limitations are going to vary _considerably_ in relation to the campaign world. Just as an example, if I was doing it today, in any of the groups I am involved with, it would probably be -4 or better, since I haven't seen "Movement: usable as attack" in my games since the 90s. You could consider going with the 4e Trifecta of Cobble, and lean heavily on Desolid: only versus teleport: UaA and teleport themed attacks. You know: if you want to just pass out aneurysms to your GM. Beware, however, of Teleport: Usable as Attack, Affects Desolid. You know: I'd back up just a bit further: I'd take a hard look around the campaign universe-- even directly ask the GM-- if there is anyone or anything or any chance of T-port: UaA rearing its ugly head. You're going to have to know this anyway to determine the value of a relevant limitation. Seriously: there are a number of people, even on this board, who flat disallow it based on things like "It's raining men" and "let the bodies hit the floor." Oh, and according to youtube, there's a scene in one of the X-Men movies that's hilarious / horrific featuring this very same build as well. If you get a "No; that's not allowed in my games," then just declare that he is hard to teleport, take the Disadvantage so that he is hard for his allies to teleport as well, and call it good with defenses limited only to attacks with teleport themes. Oooh! Here's a screwy one: Density Increase, increase mass only, Triggered (attacked by Teleportation: Useable as Attack, etc-- buy enough levels of "mass increase" to startle the crap out of any would-be kidnappers and chuckle when they try it. If your guy happens to be a teleporter, consider holding a Phase in every combat specifically to use your T-port to counter someone else's. Doesn't do much out of combat, but perhaps your GM can work on a Lightning Relexes / Quick Draw / Power Skill thing that allows you to "abort to teleport Dodge" wherein you pit your T-port against the opponents, capped by the amount of T-port being used against you. Kludgy, but really and truly, anything to defend against "non attack power used as an attack" is going to be kludgy unless you just buy limited inches of that same movement power only to defend against that movement power. You get tangled up anyway, because limited inches _is_ an attack action, though Triggered _might_ fix that? I don't remember for certain..... Ha! Christopher and I posted at the same time, and with the same idea about Density Increase! That's the mood-lifting thing I needed today.

You are correct: you are _allowed_ a back up copy, but that backup copy has to be legally-acquired as well. What this ruling did do, though, was declare it perfextly legal to make your own back-up. Specifically, I am saying that it does not say that if you bought a cooy you can download a bootleg copy as a "back up." That being said, however, I dont know if such an instance has been challenged. Further, I cant tell you how a judge would rule if you opted to do so. Ultimately, I suppose it would be up to the cooyright holder to prove you sis not already have a legally-acquired copy and /or prove that you did or intended to distribute the bootleg to others. I wobt call it a gray area, as there are clearly-defined legitmate back-up copies. I will say that a lot is going to xome down to precedent and thw whim of the judge, shoukd you decide to put yourself in a position to test it. (I wouldn't, at least not when it is so easy and perfectly legal to make one of your own, but that's me,)

I cannot quote you any specific case law (because I didnt bither do remember it) but back in- I think it was the 90s- it was ruled that anyone with a legal copy of something has the legal right to have _one_ back-up copy per purchased copy, be it digital or print. However, the creation of that copy is on you; no one is obligated to provide it for you; you are simply entitled to create it. That ruling is the driving motivator behind my collection of 2e rulebooks: when I am ready to have some nice clean reporductions made, I can make as many as I already own. You are not entitled to distribute them; keep that in mind as well. The biggest feather ruffling came from the fact that your original must be legally acquired, but you are not required to have purchased it from a copyright holder or particular publisher, nor does it have to be new. So if you found a copy of a book at a yard sale and bought it legally, you are legally allowed one backup copy. This ruling, if i remembrr (I am old, not a lawyer, and it was a long time ago) that led to EULA putting in writing that you could make a backup copy of your software (prior to this, many companies expressly forbade it) and began to enact unique codes and such that would make a copy useless without all the little info that came packaged with it. So yeah: if you live on the US, at least, youre good to go on making a legal back-up.

okay, so it's not even remotely as classy as anything that's been up here lately. But I have had _hours_ of fun with this one tonight: https://i.imgur.com/dzCPtpT.mp4

What LL and N-B said: There are PDF features that i have, grudgingly, come to appreciate, such as printing a page of reference material- like a chart, for example- and searching for a quick reference during a conversation. As far as reading or using at the table, though, I have to be workinf from dead trees.

Gotta level with ya: from the picturea ive seen of him, i'd'a thought cigars would"ve done him in by now. I dont even know if he smoked; ive just never seen a picture of him without one.

You know what? Screw that. I'll be a Transformer.

I'm not expert, but from what I know, Kryptonian seems like a pretty safe bet.....

Go with the most cliche uninspired thing ever and call it "he who cannot be named" or some variation of that nonsense. I mean, that hat cant possibly get any older....

Not really helpful, I suppose, but I used to use my grandfather and great uncles for references for historical settings. Yes: I'd drag through the libraries and my encyclopedias and even really old repair guides and catalogues and whatever else, but it's way different reading "this is how it worked and what it did" than it is getting an understanding of how it was viewed, interacted with, and how it impacted day-to-day life. Back just before the turn of the century, I'd figured I'd waited long enough for Hero Games 2e much-advertised title "Privateer," and had a hare-brained notion to write it myself. Bought up several old books on sailing vessels-- their use, customs, maintenance, etc--- Never did find the time to write it, and I have long-since sold the books to nautical collectors.

Not really too much activity: too _massive_ a PITA to navigate on a phone (my antique computer doesn't Discord at all), and I seem the be the only person even near my timezone being active with it, or I am the only person who can't dabble on social media all day at work; I don't know which: I just know that the damned alerts during the working day made my life feel like it was being lived in a pinball machine. Turning the the alerts off stopped the noise, but it didn't help the navigating to what you wanted to read a single bit. I am like most old folks-- I came up on library nets way back when, and graduated to chat rooms, etc-- and when forums starting popping up, I never looked into another chat server. Discord feels exactly like those old chat servers to me: don't stay in it from minute to minute, and it's whole different language when you get back to it. Is it a bad thing? Nope; clearly not. Lots of people doing it. It is just a long, _long_ way from anything that appeals to me. Which is too bad: i was rather excited, as I had heard that voice conversation groups were a typical thing on Discord, and I can get behind that. Messed around with it for three weeks and never found one, so I just dipped.

You might try talking to Scott Ruggles via PM. He gamed with some of the original crew. He helped me answer a question I'd had for a while. Easy going guy; great to get along with. Shoot him a PM, as I think the discord is his current weapon of choice. (I had to bow out of it; too unstructured for my tastes)