Christopher R Taylor

Its more than brand connection like Kleenex, its just the only RPG they know exists. Its like Reggae, if you ask most people, to the extent they have even heard of the music, they only know Bob Marley.

Fafhrd and Gray Mouser as well as Elric, Nine Princes in Amber, and Conan all rejected the medieval serf-lord structure for their stories. Lord of the Rings, Narnia, and other classic fantasy stories had no such culture. I agree its very common and typical, but isn't the necessary benchplate.

Having popular and famous people play the game in streaming helped a lot, too. So do shows like Stranger Things that feature it.

D&D has a reputation of being easy to play and learn. To the extent people have even heard of Hero, it has a reputation of being horribly crunchy and difficult to learn. The things I listed are where that myth comes from, which new players are told all about if it comes up. I don't think D&D is more complicated than Hero, but easily as complicated.

Yeah part of what makes D*D magic feel special is the fire and forget and chaotic spell listing. However, I think you can simulate that with Hero by hiding most of the guts, the build behind a wall where the players only see the effects and how to make it work, and not the sausage-making part.

Yeah each person has a specific idea in their head when they hear this but I think most people known what I mean when I say "not with a twist" like "My orcs are 9 feet all and use rocket packs!" or "My dragons are actually terrifying Cthulhuian monsters!" etc. Its not a faux western, its not sci fi with swords, its not fantasy + steampunk. Its just low tech some magic and some monsters. I know what you mean, and I don't think you're trying to be a jerk here. I'm not sure you're capable of being a jerk. When I say "don't explain your magic too much" I don't mean "have no structure or system" I mean "leave some of it to imagination and mystery." You don't need a scientific explanation for how every possible aspect of the spells work and how the exact mechanics behind the scenes function like its a nuclear reaction or a scientific formula. You need the mechanics for how the game runs magic, and the limits (magic cannot do this, etc), but don't go too deep or it stops feeling magical.

I think the idea of classic fantasy has more to do with genre than age. Winnie The Pooh was written over a century ago, and it has fantastical elements but nobody would consider it classical fantasy. You can write classic fantasy today; its about the themes, concepts, setting, and events, not the date it was written. Classic fantasy is what you get when you don't try to put a "twist" on it like all the stuff in the original post, or focusing on humor and mockery of fantasy, etc.

Right. People view D&D as simple for one of two reasons: 1) familiarity; its easy because you have been playing it for a long time and are very used to it 2) nostalgia to when it was actually a simple system back 40 years ago. Hero is simple to play, if a bit crunchy to build a character.

It is my belief that mages, good ones, will be in good physical condition simply because of the physical demands of casting spells -- not END or physical exertion but stress and complex gestures, etc. If you are feeble, you tire quickly and that will affect your ability to do anything. And casting spells badly ends very badly. So I don't think mages should be below normal stats. And that to me is the key. 10's are considered heroic: normals are 8's in primary stats. A 13 STR is someone in very fine physical condition, it takes a lot of strength to lift just 100 kg over your head, even doing it once. 160 is quite impressive. Superheroes laugh at 10's but normal people see that as better than average, gifted. The perspective is tough to grab when you're used to building people with at LEAST 13 in everything, because +1 to rolls and so on.

AEMH was one of the best animated series ever, and it had amazingly fine depictions of nearly every character. I'd never liked the Wasp before and she was great in that show. Even Kang was less crappy than he usually is.

I agree with all of the things in the original post. All of them ruin fantasy for me. Another is this: Treating magic as just technology or science we don't yet understand instead of... magic. Its not science its outside science. If it loses that magical feel of the supernatural and the impossible brought to life, it stops feeling magical. Don't explain it too much or the magic goes away.

It is an interesting discussion with good thoughts on all sides. I haven't really decided one way or another: people are taller and bigger now, so innately greater strength, but usually soft and with little exercise.

I liked her Binary persona a lot more than her Captain Marvel one. She was actually interesting with that powerset, if a bit OP. But now she's OP with a boring power set.

Like I said, it varies campaign to campaign, but its cheaper even in 5th edition to buy up your END than buy up your CON to get END. Assuming that's the system your GM uses, of course.

Sure, they don't need to be, but as I said, you only have so many points so you can choose between "physically fit" and "has magic." Warriors are buff and fit because that's what drives their main purpose and abilities, that's good point spending for that character. Wizards have spells to buy, INT, magic skill rolls, maybe END if that's what fuels your magic, etc. In Hero terms at least, that means you are going to tend to have lower physical stats in order to be good at your main purpose and abilities.

I like the idea of the Rust Monster, but its a daffy looking creature with a propeller on its tail. I mean, everyone's campaign and experiences vary but I never bought a spellcaster huge CON and STR, because I needed those points for magic. You CAN be a buff wizard but you're going to be a crappy spell caster. If you buy each spell with points, all those physical stats just make you have fewer spells.

Owlbear is such a bizarre combination it had to be either random rolls, combining two favorite animals, or a figurine. I like owls, I like bears but combining them?? Some stuff makes more sense to me like bat wolves or human horses. But an owl plus a bear just feels really random. Roll on two tables for animals and combine!

I think they have handled her poorly but the truth is, she's never been characterized very well or interestingly in her nearly 50 year history. Her one interesting characteristic as Ms Marvel was not being aware she was a superhero. She was her most interesting when she was depowered by Rogue and had to be basically a super spy. I never did understand how she went from being a reporter (I think??) to an agent of Shield other than "we gotta give her something to do". She's always been kind of a nobody, with not much personality. Trying to turn her into Clint Eastwood lately hasn't made her interesting either. She needs more personality than "grim faced toughie" and "shows no emotion." Ms Marvel as Kamala Khan is interesting, likable, and distinct, largely due to the actress playing her. I know nothing about this version of Photon/Monica Rambeau except for how she sabotaged an attempt to stop a berserk Scarlet Witch, then supported and praised said witch's torture and mind control of a whole town.

I have played a bunch of other modern systems and while each has their nice features or ideas, none of them are superior to Hero overall for me, at least. I see no reason why on earth I would ever change to any other game except to just try it out or for a specific play session.

Typically spellcasters have not spent their points in stats like a warrior sort. So yeah you can have great defenses, but not the CON and Body and Stun of a warrior. What gets through hurts worse.

I always thought super pets or animal companions were lame and cheesy, but I think it could be done right. Falcon's hawk was not annoying, and Lockheed was pretty cool.

I like the classics, I like the idea of a wizard in a robe with a wand or a staff, so I worked on reasons why they might be that way in my campaign: you techically can wear armor, but encumbrance reduces your magical skill roll, so its impractical. You wear robes because they are loose and easy to move in; messing up a spell has consequences, sometimes severe ones. That kind of thing. Now, in the distant past, a wand was a symbol of power and authority, and robes designated power, wealth, and especially learning: academics wore robes. So that's what people associated with wizards. But I wanted practical, not simply cultural reasons.

Sadly its largely forgotten but it could be an excellent TV series, if the creators could get past the strong Christian overtones. Kurz is still alive, so if someone were to reach her, probably a sourcebook could be written. I am pretty sure I saw some Deryeni books written by someone other than her as well.

A lot of cops have said that Barney Miller is the most realistic cop show they have ever seen, for what that's worth.

The main drawbacks to summoning are the delay when it appears, the need for control, and the disorientation. The Summon takes a full phase to accomplish, requires an EGO Roll to control the being, and it shows up stunned and takes a full one of its phases to recover from that. So those features might make the power not work as desired. Oh, also unless you buy it desolid etc, people can attack and destroy your cloud or tornado