Checkmate

As a player I hate the GMPC. As a GM, knowing how much I hate them as a player I don't use them. An occasional team up with a hero every now and then is fine, but nothing with any regularity. If a niche is missing, I design adventures that don't require that niche. I make sure to use the skill sets the players have to solve the probelms.

Not saying you're wrong, but if you have a group, and you let 87 out of every 100 in, you can't say that group is banned. That's not what that word means.

Because the US trusts those governments to properly vet their emigrants. They have systems in place that can track things like criminal records. There's also a provision that if more need to be added they will be. Here's a link to a video from an immigrant that explains it much better than I do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36ihkP5ZTzU Itzu the Evil - All of that may be entirely true, and I may even agree with you. It doesn't change the fact that if you let the vast majority of Muslims in, it's not a ban. And my analogy is entirely apt: Every serial killer has a mother = the countries selected are predominately Muslim, You just have to ignore all the non-serial killers with mothers = you just have to ignore the 87% of Muslims that aren't "banned".

Using your logic I could come to the conclusion that having a mother makes you a serial killer. You see every serial killer that ever lived, had a mother. Now to buy into that all you have to do is ignore all the people with mothers who aren't serial killers... or, in other words, ignore all the VAST majority of Muslims who aren't effected by the "ban"

As has already been explained, it has nothing to do with who has attacked the US and has everything to do the background checks from the "sending" country. Does it really walk and quack like one? It targets 7 out of 50 Muslim nations. I mean you can call it "Obama's Grand Plan", just because you call it that doesn't make it true, and will probably cause you to lose credibility.

I mean if I drive drunk and kill someone, I have to pay for the consequences of that action. If a woman consents to having sex, and gets pregnant, that's the consequence of the choice she made... Does that make it more clear?

So let's look at the actual problems: Keeping out legal Immigrants: This has been clarified/fixed, green cards and dual citizens are back in No business ties: If Trump picked the countries, this would hold weight. He didn't. They were countries of concern chosen by the Obama administration. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama wanted to institute a travel ban on these countries, but his administration identified them as being concerns. This is important when you consider that people coming into the country get a background check. The country that they come from does that background check and provides that information to the US. That's all we have to go on. The current administration doesn't trust the background checks are being done properly from those countries. I do agree the religious bias should never have been included.

Completely disagree. A ban is when you say "none of this group of people can come in" letting in 87% of the "banned" group is not a ban on that group. The 13% that are banned aren't banned because of their religion, so no it isn't any kind of Muslim ban, partial or otherwise, and saying it is is using misinformation to spread hate and fear. The ban is for countries that the US doesn't trust to do proper background checks It's not "rounding up" it's not letting them in. I do agree though, the order was hastily done, but the green card and dual citizenship has been cleared up. I was actually referring to before the election though, how up in arms people were when Trump said he was going to deport 2-3 million illegals. One bragged, used words, one actually did it. I would say the latter is much, much worse, why wasn't there women's marches about it what Clinton did? And please don't say it was "consensual". Clinton used his position of power to humiliate and sexually assault at least one woman. And my personal feelings are once a woman makes the consensual choice to have sex, she should have to suffer the consequences of that choice, just like everyone else who makes a mistake, but let's not go down that road. I agree, but I guess my point is, how do you justify demonizing one side for doing what you do? After doing a little more research, I may agree with you on this. I don't think she was "following the constitution", as everything I've read so far the E.O. was legal. My initial thoughts were the AG was required to enforce legal orders, after further research, it looks like I was mistaken, so I withdraw number 4. Thanks

I try to be non-tribal. I do lean more to the right on a lot of things, but am very capable of pointing out the flaws in Republican party, and am not offended if anyone say, calls Donald Trump a petulant child who is unfit for office. Right now though, I'm having a very difficult time seeing things from the Democrat/Liberal side of things. I find myself becoming more and more tribal as time goes on. It feels like Democrats aren't attacking the polices as much as the man, that no matter what he says, they're going to protest it. If he cured cancer, they'd protest that he put doctors out of work. Some examples of the sheer hypocrisy that I'm talking about: 1. Trump is a racist because he wants to deport 2-3 million illegals. Obama deported more illegals than every president from 1900-2008 combined, wouldn't that suggest he's more racist? 2. Trump is a sexist. Do you remember Bill Clinton? He stuck a cigar in a woman's lady bits in front of his friends just to show how powerful he was. Democrats were defending him then, and calling Trump sexist now? 3. Republicans "rule" through spreading fear. If you have ever called the Travel Ban a "Muslim Ban" you have spread misinformation to create hate and fear. 4. Republicans were saying Hillary was evil because when she was a lawyer, she defended a child molester. Democrats came back with the fact that she didn't want to do it, but she had to because it was her job and did it despite her moral objections. Now Democrats are treating Yates as a hero because she didn't do her job because she had moral issues with it. So are you a hero for doing your job or for not doing it? You can't have it both ways. I've tried to discuss these things in more politically oriented forums, but people on the other side just ignore them. They'll say "Muslim ban" and when you point out that 87% of the Muslim community can enter the US exactly as before, they ignore that inconvenient fact and continue to call it a Muslim ban. I really would like to discuss this and I want to feel less tribal again. I want to see the other side of this argument, so if anyone could provide counter points that deal with the facts, I would so appreciate that discussion.

I haven't run champions in a LONG time, but my favorite setting was Champions:The New Millennium. Didn't care for the system, but the background I thought was awesome.

So you finish those 4,000 pages yet? It's been two days. Strike Force is a lot about nostalgia for me. I haven't found anyone who plays heroes for more than 3 sessions in decades (literally), let alone Champions.

I'm not sure those lists are fair. Bonuses from flanking aren't character specific. In Hero, they'd have to keep track of facing. Power Attack, while it may be character specific, it's a maneuver. In Hero, they'd have to remember penalties from a Haymaker, plus any skill levels they may have, plus any martial maneuvers that may be applicable. Maybe I used a bad example, let me try it this way: In Pathfinder you have a number you need to hit the bad guy. You hit that number you roll your damage dice, add damage modifiers and that's what you do. In Hero, you have a number, you hit it, he may block you, you may not get through his defenses, he may dive for cover, etc. If you do hit him you roll your damage dice, count body, roll STUN Multiplier, apply defenses. It's a much more complex system and takes a lot longer to get through. The other advantage to Pathfinder is that you start simple. At first level you don't have a lot of options and things mucking up the work. As you get more familiar you gradually get more options. In Hero you're in the deep end from the start. I don't want to make this sound like I'm complaining, Hero is my favorite system, and Pathfinder my second favorite, but combat in Hero can be a LONG affair.

This thread has taken me a few hours to read in between distractions, and there's a lot I wanted to comment on, but then realized I'd probably never get around to it. I decided to do random quotes and comments and hope I get to everything I wanted to say. I'm not a huge fan of this. I would like players to have in their head where they want their characters to go with XP, I wouldn't want mechanics written down. Something I learned a long time ago, if you give players 500 points and tell them to build characters, those same characters would look vastly different than if the players built on 400 points and got 100 XP over the course of time and adventures. In the former you'll see 14d6 and high defenses and they'd most likely be in a higher "power category". In the latter you'll see more Contact: Police Chief, an increase in the Computer Programming skill, their flight may get better, and they'll get different defenses, all based on things that gave them issues, or they wished they had over previous adventures. Some characters may have started out as say a Martial Artist, but gradually shifted to a gadgeteer to fill that niche the party needed. I much rather the XP over time versions of characters. I wish I could remember who, but someone posted a Wiki-like article called House Rules for Champions Mush. What an incredible document. It is incredibly long, and probably a little intimidating to newbies, but tell anyone new to just start with the charts. That alone will give them a jumping off point. I realize the thread has moved on greatly since the first post, but...Hero System combats are very long in comparison to a Pathfinder or D&D game. There's more to keep track of (HP versus STUN, BODY, END) things are usually harder to kill because of all the defensive options. Killing attacks take two dice rolls (either Stun Multiplier or Hit Location), then you have to subtract defenses from damage, it's a lot and takes a long time. Not saying it's bad, but it will never be as "math free" as a Pathfinder or D&D.

The picture of Sagittarius is missing, was wondering if you still had it. She was always one of my favorites. On another note, this thread is awesome. All your work is much appreciated.

If you like the body of magic idea, you could add stretching, growth, shrinking, desolidification, density increase, etc. One of the things I've always liked is sort of a Tactile Telekinetic, like Superboy used to be. People think you're a brick, you what you're really doing is putting up a "micro" force field, and you're actually levitating heavy objects, but you can't project your magic anymore, so you have to touch it to levitate it. While it looks like you're punching the bad guy, you're really releasing a magical blast on contact. If your need were REALLY dire, you could project your energy, but it would cost you BODY to do it... Hmm if you don't want that idea maybe I'll use it