Squall

Re: Secret IDs: In or Out?

AGain' date=' I would argue that it depends on the character. Some characters who have been around a long time, the break point is fairly clear.[/quote']

Yeah. Like spilling Wolverine's beer or snagging a fry off the Punisher's plate.

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

I don't have much to add -- at this point -- but I just wanted to chime in and say this is a neat discussion. Cool thread. Two thumbs up.

Re: Susano's Song-Based DC NPCs

People should feel free to send me lyrics of stuff they think might make a good character. I'll see what I can do.

PM sent.

I mean, c'mon, man. How can you not come up with a cool tough guy from A Boy Named Sue?

Re: Genocide

Bah. I quit. I'm tired of misunderstanding you and looking stupid. I'll just be over here, eating crow.

Re: Genocide

Stupid of Reed and Sue' date=' of course. I would have thought that the nature of my arguments to the defense of my position would have left little doubt of that, but having gone back over them, I'll concede a small possibility that somebody could have misinterpreted my position in such a manner.[/quote']

Uhh, seing as how you very recently spent the better part of a post ranting about stupid writers and pointless "Western" comics (and how the writers twist the heroes around and break characters all the time), maybe there's more than a "small possibility" that that could have been your position.

 

But, hey, way to be a big condescending jackass while someone tries to apologize for a misunderstanding.

Re: Genocide

I never said that the decision was impossibly unlikely' date=' just monumentally stupid.[/quote']

Do you mean "stupid of Reed and Sue," or "stupid of the writers," though? I was under the opinion you were expressing distaste for the concept itself, and those who made it happen in real life -- IE, the creators of the comic broke character by letting something dumb happen, etc, etc. My argument to that was "sure, it might be stupid, but stupid happens, so it's perfectly in character."

 

If that's not what you were saying, though, well, nevermind.

Re: Genocide

My point is that some instincts -- wanting to breed -- trump IQ. It's not breaking character for a married couple, even a married couple where one of them's a supergenius, to want to have kids. If you stop and think about it in a purely rational, logical, cold, sense, then sure. Maybe they should've looked into adopting or something.

But rationality, logic, and cold sense don't have much place in the hearts and wombs of people in real-life, so why should they in comic books?

Re: Genocide

Where do I begin? How about at

1) I didn't say that Reed and Sue wanting raise a child was stupid.

2) I did say that the two of them having offspring is stupid.

 

Why? Simple. The accident that gave them their powers left their molecular structure rather unstable, and without understanding exactly what had happened to them (and I haven't heard of Ben having been cured for good yet), it's grossly irresponsible and (as I already stated) monumentally stupid for the two of them to have a child together. They're rich. They're famous. Let them adopt some third world child, like any normal celebrity.

Since when do words like "smart" and "stupid" have any place in a conversation about a married couple wanting to have their own children? You're thinking about it all too rationally, when it's a decision most (if not all) couples make (if they make the decision at all) with their hearts (or other body parts) instead of their brains. Yes, even supergeniuses.

You're basically saying they shouldn't have the right to make babies, because they've got superpowers. Using that same logic and applying it to real life, it sounds like you feel anyone with any sort of medical history shouldn't have children, no one with a family that's got a history of birth defects should ever dare want to have their own children, and (taken to the extreme) mixed-race couples should always adopt a child of one ethnicity or the other, instead of messing around with genetics by making a mixed-race baby. Even if it's only just applied to the false realities of Marvel and DC, aren't you (at the very least) arguing that no superhuman, ever, should be allowed to have children?

The simple fact is, broadly speaking, it's human nature (or, rather, the nature of ever species) to want to reproduce. "Smarts" have nothing to do with it.

Re: [interest in a HeroCentral game]

Go ahead and pull me outta this one, Kirby. I'm plenty interested, but I don't want to jump into too many new games (just signed up for two in the last few weeks), and spread myself too thin. Have fun, though!

Re: Genocide

Eh' date=' I think the CU can do with having either no dedicated antimutant group, or a weak one. The schtick is weak at best even within its own subgenre, and massively over done.[/quote']

So you don't think "the normals" would be concerned/worried/afraid/enraged enough about people being born with ridiculous powers, enough that a few people might want to band together against them? To be honest -- and I'll admit, maybe I'm just cynical -- I've always thought anti-metahuman groups have been among the genre's most realistic trends.

 

I can far more easily believe the masses of humanity rising up against people with super powers, than embracing them.

Re: Best and Worst Costume/Appearance Changes

Power Girl doesn't belong in any costume that hasn't got a Magic Cleavage Window.

Supes belongs in red and blue. Period.

Let us not speak of disco-Nightwing.

And -- for the love of cheesy-poofs -- I wish they'd just pick something for my boy Arsenal. I don't care if it's the "Red Arrow" look we saw on a few recent JLA covers, I don't care if it's the old Navajo-inspired thing they wrapped up his miniseries with five years back, I don't care what it is... but they need to decide. At this rate, the kid's changin' duds more times than Kitty Pryde. Costumes are meant to be iconic; that means you need to stick with one long enough to be an icon.

Re: Char: Power Girl

I remember that. He had her picture on his undies didn't he?

Pfft. Who doesn't?

Errr, I mean, "Hey guys, what's up? Nice write-up. That image has been my desktop for the better part of a year, hah-hah, small world, huh?"

Re: Secret IDs: In or Out?

A lot of that varies by state (and, out of the US, I'd assume by nation). Quite a few states still (sadly) have a "duty to retreat," which is almost the exact opposite of "duty to act like a decent human being." In quite a few areas, you're legally required to do everything you can to placate and/or avoid a criminal (even in your home), and any violence that comes about from that person breaking in and wishing harm to you and yours is your fault (because, apparently, you didn't run away fast enough).

Perverse, but true.

And even in the areas where the law does work as described (stop a felony, citizen's arrest, use non-excessive force), the definition of "excessive force" can vary wildly based on the whim of the judicial system. And don't forget, even if The People Versus Hero X finds Hero X to be innocent of any crime, the civil suit from the criminal (or the criminals next of kin) will often bankrupt Hero X (assuming the initial trial didn't).

It's tough enough being a law abiding concealed-carrier, in today's society (and I'm in one of the more gun-friendly states of the union). I can't imagine trying to jump through the legal hoops that'd be required to actually actively fight crime, with superpowers.

Re: [interest in a HeroCentral game]

Damn you, Kirby! *shakes his fist* Why do people keep starting up games when I've got so much other stuff to do?

Put me down for an "interested" slot. Don't hold a space for me if it fills up otherwise, but I might toss a character your way if time allows and you can use another player.

Re: Dark Champions the Anime Series

+1 for Gunslinger Girl. I just found that series a few weeks ago, and was hooked. I'm sorely disappointed it's as short as it is (c'mon, three disks?! Argh!). Top notch stuff.

Re: How do you use Surbrook's Stuff?

I use that site (and have put up links to it in several of my on-line games) mostly as an "Ohhhhh, I see!" resource. My friends and I are still pretty new to the game, and character creation's pretty intimidating sometimes -- it's been a huge help to be able to check out every character from Ryu to Spike Spiegel, Superman to V, and get a feel for what some of the numbers represent. While many of the characters aren't doable in your standard 350 game, it can still help to be able to see some stats for them, and get ideas. I've gotten lots of inspiration from how a certain power's set up, gotten ideas from disadvantages from characters I'm familiar with, and that sort of thing.

If you know a character and don't know the system, it's a great way to get a feel for what power level some stats/powers/numbers represent. Two great big fat thumbs up, from me!

Re: Which characters would you enjoy playing?

I don't have a large stable to pick through, myself (what's a good book for tons of NPCs, anyways?) -- but for heroes from Champions and Champions Universe, I've gotta say Kinetik looks like a pretty cool guy. As far as bad guys go, I don't know why, but Green Dragon has always struck me as a neat character (it's hard to go wrong with kung fu guys).

Re: Power And Name Help - Holocost's Brick Servent.

As for Fever...thanks for the corection. I must be the worse speller on the board.

Hey, uhh, since someone else brought it up and now I don't have to feel like a big fat jerk... Holocaust, Tongue (unless Thung was intentional), and Blasphemy (unless "blast" was intentional tossed in there, too). Just tryin' to help out.

Re: What is Munchkin?

And, see, this is kind of what I mean. (a) It's a great thread, thanks for the answers, guys. But also ( even the answers I just got are kind of contradictory with one another.

Learning the ropes felt a lot easier when I was 12 and trying out D&D for the first time, than now when I'm 29 and acting confused about HERO.

All three questions were on my mind, since they're for a character I made yesterday for an on-line game. If no one minds, well, heck. I'll keep going.

The GM actually suggested Independent to me, since in his mind the primary piece of text in the description of Indepenent is that "anyone can use it." My character's bow is just a nice bow, nothing supernatural or even super-high tech -- so by his reasoning anyone that wanted to use it, could use it. Similarly, if someone swiped it, my character would have to go looking for it to get it back (that sort of thing). He pointed me towards it, but I felt like I was stacking an awful lot of disad's onto a multipower when I saw how low the total cost was getting.

Acrobatic Leaping I selected because I saw it in the sidebar under leaping, and my character's a not-really-superhuman fella, so it sounded cool. Batman, Bullseye, Nightwing, Daredevil, etc, all make superhuman jumps all the time, right? Well this character's kind of in that vein, and I wanted him to be able to get around allright. So this seemed like a decent justification for his better-than-your-aver-age-bear leaping ability. I tossed on the "requires an Acrobatics roll" without thinking about it, and it wasn't 'till later in character creation I sank some points on Skill Mastery (DEX), which gave me a pretty high Acrobatics skill. I felt a little wiffle-waffley after that, the GM asked me about it, but didn't shoot it down (but he noticed it, and asked, so I figured it might be worth bringing up).

And the DEX thing was just something I noticed, putting this guy together. He's got a 26, which I figure is pretty good, make no mistake. But it just occured to me as I watched CSLs and Lightning Reflexes and stuff eat up points (and when I remembered all those DEX skills I have) -- I might have been, numerically, better served with just raw DEX. But would it have been "lame" for an archer/martial artist to go that route instead of sticking to a specialization (primarily ranged combat)? As written (just in case anyone's still reading this far) he's got a 26 DEX, a 6 SPD (purchased up from, what, a 4 base, right?), a +3 with his Bow multipower for Lightning Reflexes, a +2 Ranged CSLs, and a +3 Bow multipower CSL's. That's...what? 24 points for Speed, 3 for LR, 19 for CSL's? Am I a big dummy for not just sinking all that into DEX and calling it a day, maybe with one level extra in some CSLs or something to show his "knack," and in the process becoming a better martial artist, getting better skills, being harder to hit, and all the rest? There's no Normal Characteristic Maxima in effect...I tried to stick to a concept, and just feel kinda dumb for doing so.

Ah well. I could also just be worrying too much. In most games I know right what I'm doing, and maybe I'm just paranoid 'cause this is the most complicated guy I've made so far for this one. Either way, it's still been a cool thread to read.

Re: What is Munchkin?

This has been a pretty interested thread to me -- I'm still pretty new to the game, and whenever you see a character creation chapter that's as thick, alone, as most RPG books, it's easy to get a little intimidated. I had one two-hour session of Champions at Gencon (eight or nine players, one GM, very rushed) and other than that I've only really played on-line a few times, so I still feel pretty freakin' new to it.

One thing I've been worried about when making a character is just what this discussion brings up -- I don't know the "unwritten rules" of the game, so to speak. I'm still trying to find out what's efficient versus what's munchkinny. How lame is it to have a trick archer with a OAF and Independent and "Requires Two Hands," for instance? Is it cheesy to buy a power (Leaping, in this case) with "Requires an Acrobatics Skill Roll" and also have Skill Mastery for a 17- effective level in Acrobatics? When is it better to put points into an increased Speed, Lightning Reflexes, and a bunch of CSL's instead of just sinking those same points into DEX for largely the same effect (only, y'know, better)?

Is the GM going to roll his eyes when he sees my new character? If he rolls his eyes, is it because my character's weak and pathetic, or because I'm being greedy and abusive of the rules? Am I creatively getting the hang of the rules and making a good character, or am I squeezing blood from a stone and making a munchkin on accident?

In other, simpler, games it seems a lot easier to tell what's what. It might be that Hero's character creation is so (potentially) complex, it might be that I'm still getting the hang of it -- but threads like this one are neat to read.

Re: Just For Fun: Cartoon Network All Star Team Ups

Who is Brock Samson?

Heretic!

He's a man's man (in fact, an over-the-top-parody of every man's man ever) in the show The Venture Brothers. Just put in the word "Venture" on Youtube, watch any given five-or-six-minute clip, and you'll see all Brock's glorious badassery revealed.

Re: x3

I enjoyed the movie but the whole franchise has me somewhat miffed. I was an X-Men fan back in the Silver and Bronze Ages.

 

My favorite X-Man = Cyclops

My least favorite X-Man = Wolverine

 

Based upon that you can probably see why I am a little miffed.

Ditto. One of my biggest problems with the movies is that, in order to make Wolverine so "cool," they had to go out of their way to make Cyclops the opposite of that. Cyke gets his bike stolen, his car stolen, his team stolen, his place at the mansion stolen, and his girl stolen. Who does all the stealing? Well, supercool Wolverine, of course! He's the new big brother to all the kids, the driver of Scott's personal vehicles, the guy ignoring orders in the field, and the one hittin' second or third base with Scott's gal!

One of my favorite things, conversely, with the Ultimates universe is that -- last I checked, I'm a little behind on the Ultimate X-Men -- they managed to create friction in the team without cutting the nuts off Cyclops to do it. Where he's been completely emasculated in the movies, he always holds his own (at the least) in the Ultimates series. Wolverine shows up, there's some alpha-male sniffing and nipping going on, things come to a head...and Cyke eventually ends up top dog, but with Wolvie still a valued and dangerous member of the pack. Neither one looked womanly, neither one was neutered by popular opinion: there was friction, and conflict, and both characters came out looking human and three dimensional by the end of it.

Win/win, as far as I'm concerned... and the more I read the Ultimates line, the less I like the movies.

Re: [Online Game]New 'Marvel: Next Generation' game

Stilt-Girl...

I just wanted to say that BG's making me already regret not having time for this game. Top notch stuff!

Re: [Online Game]New 'Marvel: Next Generation' game

Allright -- much as I'd love to get in on this one (and had lots of fun tossing together a 600 point character), I'm actually gonna go ahead and bow out. My wife and I just got a puppy yesterday, and there's a big difference between keeping an eye on our old 10+ year old Dachsund, and keeping an eye on our new, 4 month old, Collie/Shepard mutt. When both the physical capacity for destruction and the energy level go up a hojillionfold, these little furballs require a lot more attention.

So, rather than get into another game, and then find myself short on time to post and do it all justice, I'm gonna just sit on the sidelines of this one. Maybe I'll try and get into your next Next Generation Marvel game, or something.

Re: [Online Game]New 'Marvel: Next Generation' game

I don't know why I'm only just noticing this -- but is it just me, or is there little by way of "middle ground" when it comes to Marvel's X-Characters and their foes? They're either completely human/fragile/normal "one trick pony" sorts (Cyclops, Banshee, Pyro), or they're well-nigh unstoppable gods that would take a hojillion points to realistically portay all their tricks (Magneto, Phoenix, Exodus). Anyways, that's kind of off topic, but it's been bugging me while I'm perusing my comics (and Wikipedia) for mutant-villain inspiration.

On topic: some questions for the pro's.

Right now my only idea is an heir to Sebastian Shaw's powers (and to a lesser extent, his fortune). He soaks up incoming attacks without being harmed by them, and just gets faster and (especially) stronger the more you hit him, right up until some ridiculously powerfull attack finally manages to "overflow" his ability to absorb the damage. So, easy enough, I'm thinking -- Absorption time!

I've never seen Absorption in effect in a Champions game, though, and I'm not sure how effective a character it'd make. My basic idea would be for him to have moderately above-human stats (30s-40s for physical stuff) all the time, some Armor (and/or maybe some Damage Reduction), and then Energy and Physical (both) Absorption both dumping into, say, Strength and Dexterity.

To those with a bit more experience with Champions (including the GM, of course), how feasable and effective a character would this be? Also, how acceptable, to have (for instance) like 20d6+ of both Physical and Energy Absorption (Shaw seems to be, well, pretty darned capable of soaking an awful lot of damage)? Would that be too powerful? Not powerful enough? Maybe just about right?