zslane

"Roll Killing Damage" Procedure: roll dice, total of this roll is BODY damage. Roll separate d6-1 and multiply BODY damage by this amount to obtain STUN damage. Note that the details for determining the STUN damage has evolved slightly over the various editions, but the above procedure is its most basic form. I'm not sure what "name" and "procedure" is meant to refer to apart from a description like I've provided above.

Carpenter became pregnant during her run on Angle, and that's when things got really bad for her.

Jane becoming Thor is right out of a fairly recent comic book storyline, with Gorr the God Butcher at the center of it all. We have Christian Bale as Gorr and Natalie Portman reprising her role as Jane. I am cautiously optimistic that Thor: Love and Thunder won't turn into some sort of woke diversity play with a woman adopting the mantle of "Thor". Mostly because it has Taika Waititi at the helm again, and that just doesn't seem like his style.

For future reference, the rules explaining how to roll Killing Damage can be found on: Hero System 5th Edition (Revised): p.405 Hero System 6th Edition Volume 2: p.98

Tell us which book you have and we'll tell you which page the explanation of (rolling for) Killing damage appears on.

Hey, drunken douchebags deserve representation on the screen too, y'know. It's 2021 and everyone gets their own superhero. Even the much maligned, often marginalized, and frequently ridiculed drunken dad bod douchebag.

Wasn't Gal Gadot pregnant at the time of those reshoots? Maybe Whedon just has some irrational enmity towards pregnant women (ala Charisma Carpenter).

I don't mind the occasional legacy character. They do make sense to a degree. Look how many actors come from a family of actors. Same with military families, or musician families. Passing the baton of a superhero career to a younger generation is completely plausible. However, in most cases I would still expect the new generation of heroes to at least have their own costumes, names, and possibly powers. Kids aren't clones. But what we're often seeing today is all together different. For instance, taking a woman from South America and calling her Wonder Woman just to check off a box on a corporate diversity agenda sheet is not, IMO, worthy of praise. Nor is taking the name Superman and sticking it on whatever non-Caucasian "Kryptonian survivor" happens to pander to the current social justice climate. Just make these characters into their own superheroes, like Marvel did with America Chavez (Miss America). Marvel wanted a character that ticked three minority boxes off the diversity agenda sheet: Hispanic, female, and gay. Instead of making her the new Captain America, they re-used an old, obscure hero name from the 1940s that nobody remembers, essentially reinventing her from scratch.

You're right, being risk averse and profit-driven is not "the same" as being lazy and un-creative; rather, the latter is (too often) the result of the former. One begets the other, which is a shame. And worse, it's not necessary. For any creator (or publisher or movie executive) who thinks making Superman black is the best (or even just a good) way to make superheroes popular with black audiences, I offer Black Panther, Falcon, Storm, Blade, and Luke Cage as far superior alternatives.

Indeed. In my view, he deserves his own superhero name and a costume that isn't so obviously just a derivation of the Spider-Man costume.

I would argue that what makes them interesting is their personalities, and maybe their personal histories, not the costume they wear or the superhero name they have. They could have, and should have, been given new costumes, names, and maybe even powers. In other words, entirely new characters. The only reason to call them Blue Beetle, Spider-Man, and the Atom is to cash in on their recognition factor and existing fan base. But, like I said, that is lazy and creatively empty; it happens only to hedge bets and exploit a known "name". These characters, if they are really any good, deserve to be their own superheroes, and not just inherit the name/mantle of an already popular one.

Hollywood is loathe to take a chance on anything new and unproven. So they hedge their bets by making a movie with a black superhero in the title role, and calling him Superman in order to create fan interest that wouldn't otherwise be there. From what I can see, every race-bent or gender-bent version of an iconic character is a lazy, creatively bankrupt way to add diversity and representation while claiming it is a "fresh, new take" on the character.

Tony Stark could, and quite probably will, continue to live on in the form of a Jarvis-like hologram A.I.

The Marvel Superheroes RPG was originally designed/intended to be played using the vast stable of Marvel characters. Players weren't expected to create their own superheroes. The custom character creation rules were basically tacked on almost as an after-thought. It is no wonder they are among the weakest aspects of the system.

I sympathize completely. However, banning smartphones and tablets for players is one thing (and mostly a good thing), but the GM should not be similarly banned from using incredibly useful computer tools to help run the game and keep everything organized. My first introduction to RPG assistance tools was back in 1982 when the dungeon masters for the AD&D group I played with used software they had written on a Honeywell mainframe to track monsters, characters, treasure, and combat. Given the complexity of the games we're talking about here, computer assistance for the GM is a real no-brainer. I don't think players need computer assistance during play anyway. They are only controlling one character (maybe two, if allowed to play a sidekick or important DNPC), whereas the GM is typically having to manage far more characters at once.

As an aid to the GM I guess this has merit, but aren't there computer tools to help manage all this during play? Players, even new ones, shouldn't need anything more "stripped down" than what you find on an old 2E Champions character sheet. Obviously for something like Fantasy Hero where you've got more adventuring equipment to track, and possibly lots of spells to keep track of depending on your chosen magic system, you might need more than what a single-page superhero sheet provides, but I think the essential premise is the same: keep it as simple as a 2E Champions character sheet in terms of overall information density (which, BTW, included the maneuver table and a line for circling your Phases during a Turn).

Several years ago I made my own deluxe edition of the original Marvel RGP, along with all the guidebooks. They look great on my bookshelf but I have yet to actually use them. It's difficult to really get into any other superhero game when Champions exists.

Iron Fist was rushed into production without a coherent plan for the series, and was saddled with a misguided casting strategy. Anyone who had been following the behind-the-scenes drama knew it was doomed from the start.

You can tell by the stop-and-start journey that Iron Fist took to get to production that Marvel didn't really want to do it. Their heart just wasn't in it, and it showed.

Kevin Feige has spoken with Hugh Jackman about doing exactly that. If they reached any kind of agreement, they've been completely silent on the matter.

We don't know the point in time--from the timeline of the "Raimy dimension"--that Molina's Doc Ock comes from when he crosses over into No Way Home. One must presume it is from before he dies in Spider-Man 2.

I think a book that re-prints characters from all their editions is of great academic value, but probably of little practical game value. But that's what I find so compelling about it. As a student of the system since 2nd edition, I find the evolution of the game to be truly fascinating. There's probably no better way to see that evolution in action than through character design (and presentation).

I think you may be confusing Rob Liefeld with Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee. Liefeld was responsible for revamping New Mutants, not the X-Men, and it was McFarlane who created the new Spider-Man design that breathed new life into the title and made him a comic book artist rock star.

Agreed. But over the years Dark Champions became this catch-all genre space for anything born from action cinema, like espionage/spy thrillers, military action, dystopian future action/adventure, etc. simply because there was no place else within the brand to cover all of that. Dark Champions in effect became Action Hero without having the name to match. It's focus became blurred, in my view. Splitting Action Hero off from it would allow Dark Champions to re-focus itself on the dark, street-level vigilantism that was its original charter, while allowing the broader category of action cinema its own vehicle within the overall brand.