zslane

I also think it is easier for teenage boys to step into the role of your typical murderhobo adventurer out to kill monsters and take their stuff, getting more powerful along the way, than it is for them to step into the role of your typical superhero with a substantially more mature moral compass and a driving need to selflessly help others. Of course, there are characters in both genres that subvert these norms, but the general perception of these genres is largely shaped by those two archetypes (the murderhobo and the do-gooder).

The way I look at it, "character concept" is a set of flexible guidelines that shape a character's behavior and the actions the player takes when taking on that role. It isn't some kind of holy writ that rigidly limits what the character is allowed to do. Most GMs I know (who care about such things) will let players do what they want as long as it fits reasonably well within the established character concept.
 
Personally, I've only ever used character concept to make sure players aren't doing things that are wildly inconsistent with the established ideas for their characters. There's a lot of interesting conflict and drama inherent in the boundaries painted by character concept, and I feel the benefits of benign enforcement of "character concept" outweigh the associated loss of total, unconstrained freedom such enforcement might impose on the players.

I also think it is easier for teenage boys to step into the role of your typical murderhobo adventurer out to kill monsters and take their stuff, getting more powerful along the way, than it is for them to step into the role of your typical superhero with a substantially more mature moral compass and a driving need to selflessly help others. Of course, there are characters in both genres that subvert these norms, but the general perception of these genres is largely shaped by those two archetypes (the murderhobo and the do-gooder).

I also think it is easier for teenage boys to step into the role of your typical murderhobo adventurer out to kill monsters and take their stuff, getting more powerful along the way, than it is for them to step into the role of your typical superhero with a substantially more mature moral compass and a driving need to selflessly help others. Of course, there are characters in both genres that subvert these norms, but the general perception of these genres is largely shaped by those two archetypes (the murderhobo and the do-gooder).

The way I look at it, "character concept" is a set of flexible guidelines that shape a character's behavior and the actions the player takes when taking on that role. It isn't some kind of holy writ that rigidly limits what the character is allowed to do. Most GMs I know (who care about such things) will let players do what they want as long as it fits reasonably well within the established character concept.
 
Personally, I've only ever used character concept to make sure players aren't doing things that are wildly inconsistent with the established ideas for their characters. There's a lot of interesting conflict and drama inherent in the boundaries painted by character concept, and I feel the benefits of benign enforcement of "character concept" outweigh the associated loss of total, unconstrained freedom such enforcement might impose on the players.

We know that there are certain release dates that Marvel reserves, more or less, each year for the release of their MCU movies. It becomes a fairly simple matter of making educated guesses as to which films they will slot where/when after Spider-Man: Far From Home.
 
As for mutants in the MCU, I believe Feige has intimated that they already exist but they haven't been explicitly called mutants (yet). Scarlet Witch, for instance. It will eventually be revealed that the Mind stone unlocked her X gene. Future Phase 4 movies will re-introduce the Celestials and further develop their role in planting the X gene in humanity long ago (the Eternals movie could very well be where this development happens).
 
Regardless of how they decide to bring mutants (and the X gene) into the MCU, they will not use any of the previous X-Men franchise actors. I think people should just wipe that notion from their minds. And you know what? I am perfectly fine with that. A clean slate here gives Feige a chance to cast Storm and Jean Gray correctly for once, and to finally cast a Wolverine with the same physical stature as the one in the comics.

I hear you. I'm just trying to clarify and focus the frame of discussion. To my mind, narratively isolated sessions that test character builds in combat are basically wargaming sessions not roleplaying sessions. On the other hand, when characters are earning XP from multiple, ongoing, narratively connected adventures and using it to simulate character progression/development, that's when you have a roleplaying campaign. And I just feel that RPG campaigns ought to, you know, feature roleplaying, right down to the way players spend their XP. In that context, roleplaying (i.e., doing that which fits the character's concept) ought not to be thought of as optional.

I hear you. I'm just trying to clarify and focus the frame of discussion. To my mind, narratively isolated sessions that test character builds in combat are basically wargaming sessions not roleplaying sessions. On the other hand, when characters are earning XP from multiple, ongoing, narratively connected adventures and using it to simulate character progression/development, that's when you have a roleplaying campaign. And I just feel that RPG campaigns ought to, you know, feature roleplaying, right down to the way players spend their XP. In that context, roleplaying (i.e., doing that which fits the character's concept) ought not to be thought of as optional.

Sure, roleplaying is optional insofar as nobody is going to come to your home and take your Champions books away if you don't engage in it, but in any campaign I play in (or GM) it would not be treated as optional. Anyone is free to call their roleplaying-less Champions campaign an "RPG" but I would not agree with them.
 
Having said that, I would argue that even when players do engage in roleplaying, Champions essentially becomes a tactical wargame the moment you go into Phases and minis start moving around a hexgrid. Just the same, there is lots of room during combat for character personalities to take a central role in events and to shape outcomes. All the good Champions campaigns I played in featured good, strong roleplaying throughout the game, even during combat when playing "in character" fell at odds with tactical efficiency on the battlemat.

I sorta feel that "good role playing" is what keeps an RPG from being reduced to just a tactical wargame, and I don't personally regard it as optional. Now, if a group isn't into roleplaying that's fine, but I know from many discussions with Steve Peterson back in the day that "good roleplaying" was always envisioned as an integral element of the Champions game playing experience (as I think it would be for any RPG, really). Yet outside of the genre sourcebook, they didn't devote much material in the rules to explaining how good roleplaying ought to fit into the game. They pretty much assumed you knew how to do that instinctively, and would do so without being told to.

That also reeks of "We're bored with conventional game mechanics, so let's invent some really off-beat mechanics nobody's ever seen before to wake us out of our funk."

That was a very common practice in the 1990s, with Vampire: the Masquerade being particularly guilty of this. I see precious little value in coming up with new terms for things like characteristic, skill, advantage, disadvantage, experience point, game master, campaign, and so forth. It's not like anyone owns trademarks on these generic terms, necessitating a search for unique replacements. RPGs should use the established terms unless there is a profoundly good reason not too (which, in my experience, is almost never the case). The pure metagame terms used during play don't need to be drenched in setting sauce (let your skill and spell names do the heavy lifting there), and I find it annoying when they are.

That was a very common practice in the 1990s, with Vampire: the Masquerade being particularly guilty of this. I see precious little value in coming up with new terms for things like characteristic, skill, advantage, disadvantage, experience point, game master, campaign, and so forth. It's not like anyone owns trademarks on these generic terms, necessitating a search for unique replacements. RPGs should use the established terms unless there is a profoundly good reason not too (which, in my experience, is almost never the case). The pure metagame terms used during play don't need to be drenched in setting sauce (let your skill and spell names do the heavy lifting there), and I find it annoying when they are.

That's one of the things the two have always had in common. I don't think the DCEU's crappy portrayal of Superman has anything to do with their decent depiction of Wonder Woman.

I am accustomed to campaigns where in order to spend XP on an ability, you had to have been using it a lot in play. Alternatively, you could tell the GM that you were studying or training a particular ability during the "off time" between sessions. But you couldn't just spend your XP without some sort of in-game justification. I don't think this requires any formal mechanics, just a simple campaign statement akin to the previous three sentences.

Yep. It is nice that the director wanted the comic book brought to life and keep its aesthetic. Though I'm still unhappy with the adaption of the Grandmaster. 

So. Much. This.
 
I feel exactly the same way. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a reckoning somewhere on the horizon for all the studios who want us to separately subscribe to their streaming services in a craven attempt to grab as much of the digital entertainment pie as they can, without regard to the hard reality that splintering the marketplace into a thousand tiny pieces rather than being part of an ecosystem that flows through aggregators like Netflix will likely end in failure.

The cancellation of Luke Cage and Iron Fist was a kind of shot across Disney's bow, letting them know that Netflix has no intention of doing anything that helps Disney make more money. Punisher season 2 has wrapped shooting and Jessica Jones season 3 is shooting now. Once those are done and aired, expect to hear Netflix announce the cancellation of all the remaining Marvel shows, including Daredevil.

I have similar tastes as you, Scott, though I'm not as fond of "merchant captain fiction" as you are (which is one of the reasons I could never quite warm up to Traveller). If I were to summarize what I would and wouldn't like in a sci-fi RPG campaign it would be:
 
What I like:
Space opera rubber science FTL and the ansible Massive starships and weapons systems, including planet killers Super-tech gear, including powered armor and mecha Psionics Artificial Sentience Alien races, some of which aren't even remotely humanoid High adventure with a serious tone and a military focus What I don't care for:
Post-apocalyptic or dystopian settings Magic/spellcasting All Grimdark All The Time Low-level, gritty "losers in space" or "fugitives from society" campaigns Transhumanism (i.e., cybernetics and genetic enhancement) I guess in retrospect I like the essential feel of original Star Wars (the first two films in particular), but with a good dose of Starship Troopers and BattleTech, and a dash of Warhammer 40k thrown in.

I sincerely doubt Disney will continue any of the Netflix Marvel shows after they have been cancelled. All the existing episodes belong to Netflix, and Disney won't be able to stream them on their own service. They will see little to no value in owning only part of a show, and I am confident they will only pour resources into new shows they get to own and stream all the content of. Moreover, these are shows that did not have strong enough data metrics for Netflix to keep them, there's no way Disney would want Netflix's sloppy seconds.

That's a real shame. Both Luke Cage and Iron Fist improved substantially in their second seasons, and now we won't get to see that improvement carry over into a third, potentially stellar season. Has Jessica Jones been renewed for a third season? I feel like its second season was a real disappointment after the amazing first season it had, and if anything it was the one show (of the four) that was going to have to put in the most effort to pull out of its creative nose-dive. If Punisher doesn't deliver an impressive second season, I suspect that it too will get axed before it gets a third.

I refuse to believe that could be real.  Tony Stark would have arranged something far grander than a simple headstone.  I'm thinking the Tony Stark Memorial Cemetery, with a giant mausoleum in the center.  Around the periphery of the mausoleum are several dozen statues of various Iron Man armors, each with eternal flames burning.  Daily fireworks shows.  Maybe even dancing girls. 

So here is a side-by-side comparison of 1e (on the left) and 2e (on the right) character sheets. As you can see, they differ noticeably in layout, typeface, and the style of the figure illustration.
 

So here is a side-by-side comparison of 1e (on the left) and 2e (on the right) character sheets. As you can see, they differ noticeably in layout, typeface, and the style of the figure illustration.
 

Mark's illustrations had a certain charm that gave Champions 2e a distinctive look, and carried a workman-like quality that let you know you weren't going to be getting into a game that was all glitz and no substance. I much prefer Jeff Dee as an artist, but the overall presentation of Champions 2e was much more inviting and visually accessible than V&V. Little did I know when I bought it, that I'd bought the best RPG system ever invented (you can't tell that from the artwork, unfortunately).