Christopher R Taylor

Yeah but d4 hps, and +4 per level isn't going to make up for that. And you couldn't wear heavy armor (for the AC), so you weren't a bruiser that could take a heavy hit and keep going. And that THACO was terrible.

Well, there's a difference between worldbuilding and the overwhelming compulsion to find a scientific answer for how everything works. Its one thing to say "Dragons were once rulers of the land and all died out, but are coming back to life because the king dragon, banished in time, has returned" *COUGHskyrimCOUGH* Its another to say "dragons were evolved from smaller lizards and experimented on by aliens so they have a gland which produces flammable gas allowing them to fly yadda yadda... The former has a good feel of magic and wonder and fantasy that takes you to another world and feels special, like when you were a kid and around that corner there might be a pegasus, based on that shadow and the forest has faeries in it that hide when you come but if you sit quietly enough.... The latter is just another blah place with different shaped animals working exactly like ours.

I think the word "believable" or "plausible" is better than "realistic." As in internally consistent and reasonable based upon certain assumptions like "magic exists" and "dragons can talk and fly." To me, the modern need to inject scientific explanations or quasi-scientific explanations into every single situation and setting is a silly concept that is going to be very dated when people look back at the books from this era. Who cares how dragons got here, why do you need to explain what evolutionary process gave orcs tusks? Its going down a rabbit hole that does not need to be explored and for me at least robs magic and fantasy of its wonder and charm by delving too deeply into parts that are best left unexplained.

Yeah I don't really associate Danny Rand with anything in particular. He's a blonde California like guy in the comics, but whatever, its the concept of the character that works for me. He's a martial artist without that martial artist persona. I would love to see Shang-Chi, he's great, but he doesn't really stand out particularly as a character. I'd love to see White Tiger (the hispanic guy version) though, he's kind of interesting and distinct. Especially if you start him out as one of three guys with the amulet who eventually learns how much powerful it gets with all three.

Yeah Zslane, we all know that, but now someone will trot out some nerd academic that can bench press 900 and pretend that's not abnormal.

I think you could definitely appeal to players along those lines: try the real thing. I've had some success with that in the past, its true.

I think its more that more immediate, visual and tangible methods of this sort of entertainment are available without as much trouble to attain. Computer games, fantastic films, console games, etc all fill the gap in the past which we filled with imagination and being together in person. True, the imagination/in person model is superior, but it is something you can do only once in a while, when people have the time and schedule to do so. I can play a MMOG any time I can log on to the game, and don't need anyone else. Playing a nice session of Champions or Fantasy Hero requires at least one other person, time, and a particular location. Someone has to put in a lot of work to prepare the game, and it is minimal in its visual presentation. So: its just easier to play computer games, even if they aren't quite as satisfying or deep. Educations are roughly the same, reading has gone down hill significantly, but is still out there. But attention spans and demands have changed. Role Playing Games are too much work for the level of personal satisfaction and pleasure.

Yes, you can, if you try hard enough, on a planet with 6+ billion people, find exceptions to the rule. That's what makes it a rule: the fact that you can find rare, extreme examples that are different - their rarity and extreme nature make the rule the standard.

I just want to be able to blind myself with fletching when I roll badly firing an arrow. That there is the Rolemaster experience.

Oh yeah, its awful seeing what people do with swords in films. Perhaps the worst is that they aim at each others swords when fighting, instead of their opponent. And there's a lot of blocking with the edge, which is a good way of cutting notches in your blade, or, as we have discussed, even breaking it. Swords will not, unless enchanted, slice through a chain easily, if at all. For that matter its really, really hard to decapitate someone with a sword unless its built for it, they're really exposed, and you get a heck of a swing. But it looks cool, so we have a choice as GMs: do we want gritty, Medieval-accurate swordplay, or cinematic badass swordplay? The same thing goes for weapon and armor damage. If you want a game where the heroes never have to worry about fixing their armor or swords, their equipment doesn't break or degrade, and they can wear their armor all day long, well cool. If you don't, its time to have some mechanism to make things go wrong. I prefer this latter sort of game, myself.

Some maneuvers are exclusive, that is, they cannot be used with any other attack maneuver. Thus, you can't do a sweep/dodge maneuver; its one or the other. Haymaker is one that I would consider exclusive, and the rules seem to as well. For multiple power attacks, I agree with the rules: Haymaker is by its definition an all-or-nothing complete attack in its self, an all-out blitzkrieg that negates any other maneuvers or attacks.

Supers is probably the easiest open field even with M&M and other knockoffs out there. Hero is still best known for Champions and its the standard for superhero games, even if its perceived as being a bit clunky and creaky these days. A killer intro and a series of great campaign arcs like Pathfinder games would go a long ways toward making it the gold standard again. We already have a campaign setting, all that's needed is the stuff to make it easy for GMs to jump right in.

I like them once in a while, and I like villains with vulnerabilities a smart character can exploit, but yeah, I'm with you overall.

Sure, just the more powerful and outrageous you make them, the more blatant and annoying it becomes. And there's a big difference between a fit academic (sort of easy to do, lots of down time in academia where you can exercise) and a brick academic. Someone like The Rock does not have time to do any heavy reading or thinking. Someone like Einstein doesn't have time to get ripped. A really great mage has no time or energy to become also a really tough front line bruiser that can take the hits, unless he uses magic to buff himself up.

Its time for a 6th edition version posted here as an homage!

Yeah Anime gives characters like 350 points to build a fantasy hero character then somehow they're still challenged by low powered stuff as the plot requires

Yeah I did the same thing, a heavily modified Champions universe with my own timeline rather than the official one (no Detroit disaster, for instance)

Yeah, but that was the writer's version, not the real guy. He doesn't count. I have Crusader in 4th edition champs, and rebuilt him for 6th, but Marksman, Gargoyle, Rose, and the rest :/ No such luck.

I have long wanted to find those old Guardians character sheets but nobody seems to have them around.

Yeah I took over a guild once because it went inactive. The guild maker eventually showed back up and I gave it back to him, though

Very cool Something I've envisioned having similar to for a gaming room I never could afford.

You can hit the button that looks kind of like a square window that has a mouseover label of "image" and just type in the URL to a picture somewhere else and it will show up too, which is what I did.

Yeah, nobody will ever be better than JK Simmons in that role. It just can't be done.

There is no particular reason in Hero system that Mages should be less able to take a hit than fighters, simply because there is no such thing as 'a mage" or "a fighter" in terms of mechanics. Well I guess in a fantasy game you can kind of abandon all this but... The average person has only so many hours in a day and energy to focus on training. So a mage who studies their whole life to be great at magic is not going to have nearly the time they need to build up the endurance and physical durability to take a hit like a warrior who spends their day doing just that. Its not a matter of rules, but rather concept and reason. Its why your average academic is a milquetoast and your average MMA/bodbuilder type is not particularly well educated. In hero terms: you only have so many points to spend, so you can't be great at both at the same time.

Again, its going to depend on the quality of the armor and the tactics used. Almost all armor has vulnerable points that can be attacked, not to harm the wearer, but to weaken the armor's support and cohesion. Chopping a few straps off that breastplate will make it sag, slip, and even fall off. And a poorly constructed suit of armor will have more of those kinds of weaknesses than a very well made suit. For example, here's an early suit of armor, roman style with visible exterior straps that can be attacked And here is a much later extremely high quality plate armor style with rivets ad almost no gaps or places to attack The construction and quality really makes a difference. For simplicity's sake, I use adjustments to weight (to represent poor distribution and awkward wear), defense, and body of armor if its not made very well or is a really quality piece. Armor I'd guess - I have no practical experience or hard info - would be less likely to wear out than weapons simply because its designed to take blows and is more durable by its nature. Weapons are thin and light as possible while still retaining function to make them more useful.