armadillo

Some new openings in this game. It has evolved into a more traditional 2022 campaign (not 1981). There are some elements of classic Champions; VIPER is playing a big part.

Contact me on the forum with your character idea. We are focusing on 5th Edition.

Just to be clear, I've used Professor Muerte and his crew a lot over the years, but I have a hankering to do them right instead of shoehorning them in like I have in the past. I actually bought Enemies II in the Eighties when it was new.

I have a campaign set in the 1980's right now so I'm going back to the beginning. That's where this is coming from. (Not sure if it helps, but I just didn't want anyone to think I was a newbie!)

Is there a module starring Terror Incorporated? (Professor Muerte, Giganto, Scorpia, Feur)

I have read a few threads discussing this villain group. I'm just looking for a module or detailed adventure laying out how they operate(d).

If there is no module, how would you set up a multi-session storyline involving this group?

Haha. These were Dennis Mallonee's characters, according to the module. I didn't see the Aaron Allston article, but now I gotta read it!

2 hours ago, Tech said:

The super speed villain known as "The Dash" was in the 'Great Supervillain Contest' along with few other villains, including the megavillain. I still use "The Dash". You can get a PDF of it in the Hero Game store, in 3rd edition Champions.

Yeah, I used The Dash a lot. Yes indeed, from the Great Supervillain Contest.

On 6/3/2021 at 11:22 AM, Derek Hiemforth said:

(Not really a question, but this forum seemed like the best place to provide feedback.)

 

To quote Popeye the Sailor, "Garsh... this is embarasskin'!" 😳

 

So, I uh... I was using Champions Complete last night, and happened to notice a not-inconsiderable error I made in it, lo those many years ago...

 

On page 20, when describing Pushing in Heroic campaigns, it says, "Pushing in Heroic campaigns requires an EGO Roll ... The character gains 1 CP to the ability per 1 point he makes the roll by, to a maximum of +5 CP."

 

That is just flat-out incorrect. That second sentence should read, "The character can add up to 5 CP to the ability if the EGO Roll is successful, +1 CP for each point he makes the roll by."

 

Sorry everyone!   

C'est rien, as the French would say.

I was slow to warm up to 6th Edition, but your book made me finally get it. Don't get too hung up on these small things--we need you to make more stuff like this!

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Ah; got it.

 

I state this from time to time, because new members roll in and out, and long-lost members fall back in, and as we are, with a few exceptions, strangers behind a screen, I don't expect anyone to remember any particulars about me: I know that I am just a stranger behind a screen.

 

Still, I feel this is a good time to state it again:

 

I have cut sarcasm completely from life; I did it years ago.  After  living some years without it (and it's really hard to stop doing it, but once you make that a habit, it gets easier), I realized just how completely disgusted I had become by the cultural notion that sarcasm is considered a sign of intelligence in most "educated" circles.

 

I note that specifically because I used to be one of those people.  However, almost four decades ago, I absolutely _destroyed_ the warmest, most sincere, most caring, most supportive relationship I ever had with anyone-- and when I say _anyone_, I _mean_ it: the relationship I enjoy with my own _wife_-- as fulfilling as it is, is still second place to this relationship of long ago.

 

I destroyed it with sarcasm.

 

No; that's not a joke (remember: no sarcasm?)   I won't lie: there was a significant knowledge and education gap between us, but I never cared; I never even _noticed_.  And, like most people who wield sarcasm as a substitute for wit, I _assumed_ (incorrectly, as we _all_ do, but that's a story for later) that this indicated a fundamental intelligence gap-- again, I didn't care about that: the relationship was incredible.

 

But the sarcasm destroyed it.  See, every time I said something sarcastic-- like I generously assume many people do, I don't really mean it to be hurtful (Again: I _am_ being generous), but as sarcasm is, at it's heart, saying something that is not true or mockingly stating something that holds a grain of truth-- it's far, _far_ more easy than most people will ever accept to "take it wrong."  At the end of the day, _are_ they taking it wrong?  I mean, sarcasm _is_, ultimately, pointed, and it is thrown rather vigorously, and all-too-often, when someone has exposed a particularly vulnerable part of themselves.

 

I tried for four years to rekindle a relationship I ultimately had to accept was killed by my own hand-- well, my own tongue.  What can you _say_ to a person when they have become used to the idea that a chunk of what you say is the exact opposite of what you wish to express?  What words do you use to soothe and apologize to someone who has learned that your words cause pain?  How do you describe the depth of your soul to someone who is used to the idea that any amount of honest pontification is merely the careful stacking of a set of stones that you are going to take great delight in knocking down with a single blow?

 

No; it doesn't _matter_ that it's not directed at this person or that person or _any_ person, because how do they _know_ that?  You can't tell them, because they know your words aren't really what you mean.  

 

I spoke at great length with my brother D, to whom I am have always been closest; I sought comfort, repair, and of course guidance---  Ah!  This would have been immediately after realizing that it was over, of course.  His response was, quite clearly: "What did you expect?  You are an absolute @$$hole to pretty much everyone you meet."

 

I was rather taken aback, as I have never tried to be a jerk to anyone save my clearly-defined enemies.  I pressed him for explanations, and it all came back to one simple thing:

 

Sarcasm.

 

Sarcasm-- that "great and heady sign of a powerful intellect and a razor-sharp wit," is absolutely nothing more than pointless brutality to your fellow man.  If you want to hit them, roll a shoulder and plow one through 'em.  If you want to point something out, ignore your second-grade teacher and use that finger next to your thumb.  If you want to make a joke, then tell a joke, make an observation, whatever.  Sarcasm-- sarcasm is literally deciding you want to do one of these things, but with a grenade.  It doesn't matter how "on-point" your joke is; blowing up your friends is never funny.

 

It took me considerable time to realize that what D had told me was the truth:  I had few friends, and when moving took place for one or the other of us, we never stayed in touch.  Or least, _they_ never stayed in touch.  It was the sarcasm: it takes a lot of work to tell if someone is saying what they mean, deciphering what they actually meant, and a lot of trust to accept that it isn't pointed at you.  Even then, catch enough grenades, and you start to wonder if you really are the target, and that all the "oh, no!  That wasn't meant for you!" was just to see how many times you would come back to catch grenades.

 

It took me, in earnest assessment, about a year to realize that "D was right.  I thought I was warm, gregarious, and funny, but I was just an @$$hole!"  I certainly didn't _think_ I was one; I never _tried_ or even _wanted_ to be one, but by sheer dint of my chosen form of humor, I _was_ one, and I was the problem in almost every relationship that developed a problem.  And the best one I ever had?  I couldn't fix it.

 

So I spent the next... maybe eighteen months?  Working hard-- insanely hard; you don't have any clue how often you use sarcasm-- changing everything about the way I communicate, the way I make observations, the way I tell jokes.  I worked my @$$ off-- and hopefully, worked out all the @$$hole I was-- in a vow that I would not use sarcasm to communicate ever again.  No matter how witty someone else thought sarcasm was, no matter how much of a dullard someone might assume I was since I didn't use or "appreciate" it, I was done.  I wasn't taking a chance on wrecking another relationship, and promised that I would never hurt another friend, even by accident.

 

 

Now I told you that so that I could tell you this:

 

If you _ever_ read something I say as being sarcastic, re-read it until it isn't, because there is no sarcasm there.  I go out of my way to ensure that.  Weird choices of vocabulary: that's on me (my passion for etymology developed during this self-imposed self-improvement); if I chose poorly, that wasn't sarcasm: that was crappy judgement. 

 

This is not to say that I won't be snide, or even insulting, rude, and condemnatory.  I just don't do it sarcastically.  For one, if I am irritated enough to insult someone, I want that person to specifically know that they are being insulted, and anyone else to know that they are not.  I've also gotten much better at it, as I don't have the crutch of sarcasm to fall back on. 

 

As for people who do use it:  you are not me, and you are not controlled by me.  Do what you want, of course.  Having avoided using it so long myself, I do get tripped up now and again by not catching it the first time, sometimes even the second.  Just know that this is a thing.

 

As for people who think it makes them intelligent:  Remember that you are saying something that you don't mean, in a way you don't mean, to make a point that most people are going to assume is insulting or otherwise derisive, and they are not always going to be clear who your target is.  You are literally throwing live grenades into the room to make what is generally a fairly trivial observation.  Why does that make you feel like you are more intelligent than someone else?

 

As for people who think it is a sign of intelligence, well re-read everything thus far.  Is any of this intelligent?

 

How did it work, long-term?

 

Sometimes, when my work schedules permit, I will pick up one or the other of the kids from school.  I will overhear parents being parents, and in some cases praising or scolding their children.  Quite often, the scolding includes sarcasm, and you can literally-- not "facebook literally,"  but genuine "this is a real thing that can be observed" literally-- see the child cringe each and every time such a  comment is made.  It makes me uncomfortable, and it makes my children uncomfortable.  My son once, when he was smaller, just hugged my leg tighter and later asked me if his friend Jonah was "being abused."  I had to tell him very honestly that I really didn't know.  I didn't know, but I knew it couldn't be good just by the way he wilted under it.

 

There is an old, _old_ proverb-- I _believe_ it's Turkish, but at this point I no longer remember.  My grandfather taught it to me once (there's a great example: this man literally _wrecked_ his own children with abuse both physical and verbal, but he didn't know it until it was far, far too late.  He became the greatest parent ever to his grandchildren, but died alone and unmourned by his own kids) and until my brother prompted me think about my use of sarcasm, I really didn't appreciate just what it meant:

 

An axe remembers nothing, but a tree cannot forget.  Literally, it refers to the way a tree heals (if it heals) and the scars, knots, etc that are the result of damage to that tree.  There will never be a point where that past damage is not obvious.  Figuratively-- well, you know where that is going.  Considering how messed up people have gotten since we decided that tight collars and tight-lipped etiquette were the only correct way to deal with one another, I have to give it considerable credence.  Who have any of us wronged that we can remember?  Who have any of us wronged that we _cannot_ remember?  Who here can honestly say he has forgotten a wrong that was done to him?

 

 

In fairness, I will still, from time to time, find a temptation far too juicy to resist, and crack wise with a sarcastic comment.  On such rare occasions, I try very hard to ensure that everyone understands it is sarcasm, and _precisely_ where it is directed, even if I have to label a diagram.

 

 

Now, as to the rest:

 

 

 

 

 

It did; don't fret that. (You noticed that laugh I gave it, right?)  It is simply that, as I noted above, I don't always catch it the first time through, simply because I have that most common of foils of logic: the tendency to use myself as the yardstick of humanity.  Seriously: sometimes I forget that sarcasm is as common as it is, and I don't look for it.  I genuinely spent fifteen minutes thumbing through my dictionary to make sure that one of the words I had used did not have a negative connotation of which I was unaware.  Then it hit me:  Ah; a joke.  Duh!  I missed it, but I got it now!.   I tagged a laugh to it (as it was amusing), but I totally forgot to answer the actual question.

 

That's all.

 

 

 

 

 

You are not wrong.  I _wanted_ to be; I watched several episodes before "I just can't watch another one" forced me to stop.  I have never made a secret of it, but in what I have learned is horrible internet etiquette, I don't go around bashing it every chance I get, either.     Right about the time I figured out that our main villains were going to be a race of intergalactic used car salesmen, I kind of wrote it off as something I just wasn't going to appreciate.  (Yes; I am aware that as the setting evolved, the used car salesmen became allies, etc, and in a huge nod to multiculturalism over racism, even the Klingons became allies, and we created the Borg so that the enemy could be everybody.  (See?  That was sarcastic )   (and tagged as such) ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am genuinely sorry to have put you to this concern, Tjack;  I really am.  (again: as a conscious choice in my life, I don't use sarcasm.)  I had thought the little laughing rep guy expressed it:

 

I got that you were being funny (eventually), I found it amusing, and we have _never_ not been good. 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Duke. Your treatise came at a good time for me. I was trying to figure out some stuff in my own life and this really helped me put things into perspective.

27 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

From a human perspective, the idea of Magneto conquering the world to benefit mutants definitely justifies a very strong reaction but its too arbitrary for me; without basis or justification.  People cannot tell the difference between mutant and scientific experiment and bitten by radioactive spider by looking at someone.  All they know is "has powers," and prejudice is based on some perceivable source of animosity.  You speak different, you look different, you believe different, you're from that town instead of my town.

 

Mutants aren't distinct enough to choose to hate just them and not every person with superpowers.  Sure, there would be small groups (like Genocide) that would hate and fear mutants for genetic reasons and so on, but the general public, the masses would not draw that kind of distinction.

The Magneto thing makes sense to me (I'm not saying that you don't think so too--you just made me have a realization). Magneto sees his people as Homo Superior, and sees the humans trying to say that mutants are subhuman, and he's saying, no, they're the opposite. So he's working towards wiping out the Homo Sapiens to make way for the Homo Superior. (David Bowie said it better.)

So it's this angle that makes Magneto more admirable as a villain. He sees himself as preventing genocide by wiping out the mutant-hating humans.

I think that's why I always liked Magneto--his agenda made sense.

5 minutes ago, Tjack said:

     I think you may have misread me a bit.  Everything you’ve said will make for a wonderful and interesting game. If I helped you clarify your own thoughts then I’m quite happy to serve. But I was talking about the sorry state of our own all too real world. 

Sorry, Tjack. I thought I was taking your ball and running with it. But you did indeed clarify my thoughts, then!  Thank you!

33 minutes ago, Tjack said:

  Prejudice does not and never has needed a logical reason to exist.  All the psychology and sociology in the world can’t explain it.   Look at the guard/prisoner experiments.  Or the one that became known as “The Wave”.

All arbitrary, all completely artificial and random separations of a group and over the course of a three day weekend you get violence.  It’s the ugly part of human nature.  Look out for it, root it out, never tolerate it in yourself or others and stomp it to death whenever you get the chance.   But don’t waste your time trying to understand it.

I think a lot of good points have been made so far. Liaden and Christopher are circling in on it. But the word that triggered an "aha" moment for me was "arbitrary." That's it. That's exactly what I was grasping for. The Marvel mutant thing feels very arbitrary, but also very...authentic? 

The guard/prisoner experiments do have that same feeling, IMO. Maybe it's just that Tjack and I are on the same wavelength? Or is it more?

So if Tjack is on the right track, it would kind of imply that someone has planted this idea, that there was anti-mutant propaganda that preceded the prejudice? Does Marvel explore the roots of mutant paranoia? Is there an agency that started the rumors and fans the flames?

I know that there's the government agency that has the Sentinels (you know, those giant mutant-hunting robots that Chris Claremont stole from Genocide's Minutemen  ). But is it part of that secret agency's agenda to promote hatred? Weren't they just trying to capture mutants to experiment on for military purposes?

Or wait...maybe that is it. The agency would have to sow the seeds that the mutants were subhuman in order to justify their agenda. So if you had a child, as Lord Liaden mentioned, and it started exhibiting superhuman abilities, you'd turn in your own child because it has been dehumanized by the propaganda.

Whoa!

First let me say that I was always onboard for the idea of mutants. In Marvel, there are all these people with powers but for some reason mutants are singled out to be feared and hated.

But, to me, it always worked. I bought into it. Captain America could be high-fived in public by a little kid, but someone suspected of being a mutant wouldn't be allowed anywhere near that kid, even if that mutant just saved the day.

I guess what I'm asking is, What is the psychology of this situation? Why does it work and ring true narratively?

21 hours ago, armadillo said:

Here's a Starfleet Officer written up (from page 204 of the pdf linked above)

 

HUMAN STARFLEET COMMAND OFFICER

Value/Characteristic/Cost/Roll/Notes

13 STR 3 12- 2.5d6; Lift 130 kg

14 DEX 12 12- OCV: 5; DCV: 5

13 CON 6 12-

10 BODY 0 11-

16 INT 6 12- PER Roll: 12-/

13 EGO 6 12- ECV: 4

17 PRE 7 11- 3.5d6 PRE Attack

10 COM 0 11-

4 PD 1

3 ED 0

3 SPD 6 Phases: 4, 8, 12

6 REC 0

26 END 0

24 STUN 0

Total Characteristic Cost: 45

 

Powers & Skills

Personal Development: Starfleet Brat

5 SS: (INT-Based; choose) +2

5 SS: (INT-Based; choose) +2

Professional Development: Star Fleet Command

9 Bureaucratics +3

2 Tactics (Starship) INT 12-

5 Fringe Benefit: Membership - Lieutenant

3 Computer Programming

3 Deduction

1 SS: Astronomy 8-

3 SS: Physics (INT)

6 Electronics: (Communications, Sensors, Transporter) +1

5 Mechanics +1

4 Systems Operation: Communications, Sensors, Transporter

2 SS: Warp Drive Theory 11-

5 SS: Starship Engineering (INT) +2

2 WF: Starship Weapons

2 WF: Advanced Small Arms

1 KS: Federation History 8-

1 KS: Federation Law 8-

2 PS: Star Fleet Officer 11-

4 KS: Carousing 13-

Species/Cultural Abilities

[6] Adaptable: choice of +3 to CON, +2 to DEX, or +3 to EGO at time of character creation*

3 The Human Spirit: 1d6 Luck, only when performing courageous deeds Professional Abilities

6 Starship Command Duty: +2 with all Leadership/Command skills

[5] Commanding Presence: +5 to PRE at time of character creation*

Edges

Lieutenant JG (already included as part of Star Fleet command package)

[2] Fit: +2 STR at time of character creation*

7 Resolute: +1 with all skills, Only when performing heroic deeds (-1/2)

Other Skills

5 Mediation +1

5 Oratory +1

96 Total Skill Cost

141 Total Cost

 

* Items in [ ] already counted in CHA cost.

 

Disadvantages 75+

10 Psychological Limitation: Reckless

5 Distinctive Features: Star Fleet Uniform (Easily Concealable; Noticed and Recognizable)

20 Social Limitation: Subject to Orders (Very Frequently, Major)

10 Psychological Limitation: Pacifist, v1 (Won’t attack to kill, or leave others to die, but will defend self) (Common, Moderate)

21 To Be Determined

 

 

The base character makes sense, but I'd be tempted to forego the micromanaging and just tell the players "You have 75 points to spend and up to 75 in disadvantages" and let them have at it. Anything that was Starfleet protocol would be a free PS. Maybe a 20-point Social Limitation disad "Restricted by Starfleet protocols" which would include the Prime Directive and having to follow orders.

27 minutes ago, Jhamin said:

 

This is kinda sorta the plot for the "Lower Decks" animated Trek that aired last year.

"First contact is a delicate, high-stakes operation of diplomacy. One must be ready for anything when Humanity is interacting with alien race for the first time. But we don't do that. Our specialty is second contact. Still pretty important. We get all the paperwork signed, make sure we're spelling the name of the planet right, get to know all the good places to eat." - Ensign Boimler, USS Cerritos
 

I'm not so sure. I thought Lower Decks was about lower-rank crew members on a ship called the USS Cerritos. They don't seem to be following behind the Enterprise in TNG to tie up loose ends...? I haven't seen any of the episodes yet, but I intend to try it out. Then again, since I haven't seen the series, I could be wrong.

Are they "damage control" for the Enterprise?

Here's a Starfleet Officer written up (from page 204 of the pdf linked above)

HUMAN STARFLEET COMMAND OFFICER

Value/Characteristic/Cost/Roll/Notes

13 STR 3 12- 2.5d6; Lift 130 kg

14 DEX 12 12- OCV: 5; DCV: 5

13 CON 6 12-

10 BODY 0 11-

16 INT 6 12- PER Roll: 12-/

13 EGO 6 12- ECV: 4

17 PRE 7 11- 3.5d6 PRE Attack

10 COM 0 11-

4 PD 1

3 ED 0

3 SPD 6 Phases: 4, 8, 12

6 REC 0

26 END 0

24 STUN 0

Total Characteristic Cost: 45

Powers & Skills

Personal Development: Starfleet Brat

5 SS: (INT-Based; choose) +2

5 SS: (INT-Based; choose) +2

Professional Development: Star Fleet Command

9 Bureaucratics +3

2 Tactics (Starship) INT 12-

5 Fringe Benefit: Membership - Lieutenant

3 Computer Programming

3 Deduction

1 SS: Astronomy 8-

3 SS: Physics (INT)

6 Electronics: (Communications, Sensors, Transporter) +1

5 Mechanics +1

4 Systems Operation: Communications, Sensors, Transporter

2 SS: Warp Drive Theory 11-

5 SS: Starship Engineering (INT) +2

2 WF: Starship Weapons

2 WF: Advanced Small Arms

1 KS: Federation History 8-

1 KS: Federation Law 8-

2 PS: Star Fleet Officer 11-

4 KS: Carousing 13-

Species/Cultural Abilities

[6] Adaptable: choice of +3 to CON, +2 to DEX, or +3 to EGO at time of character creation*

3 The Human Spirit: 1d6 Luck, only when performing courageous deeds Professional Abilities

6 Starship Command Duty: +2 with all Leadership/Command skills

[5] Commanding Presence: +5 to PRE at time of character creation*

Edges

Lieutenant JG (already included as part of Star Fleet command package)

[2] Fit: +2 STR at time of character creation*

7 Resolute: +1 with all skills, Only when performing heroic deeds (-1/2)

Other Skills

5 Mediation +1

5 Oratory +1

96 Total Skill Cost

141 Total Cost

* Items in [ ] already counted in CHA cost.

Disadvantages 75+

10 Psychological Limitation: Reckless

5 Distinctive Features: Star Fleet Uniform (Easily Concealable; Noticed and Recognizable)

20 Social Limitation: Subject to Orders (Very Frequently, Major)

10 Psychological Limitation: Pacifist, v1 (Won’t attack to kill, or leave others to die, but will defend self) (Common, Moderate)

21 To Be Determined

Thanks. I'd set it during the timespan of TNG but have them not cross over with the Enterprise or any of the established characters. Maybe there would be a few instances where an established canon character would be involved, but I'd try to avoid it. So everyone on the USS Canterbury or whatever hears about the exploits of the Enterprise but they're not in awe because they're doing the exact same thing elsewhere.

It just occurred to me that it would be funny to have a campaign where the PCs are the "clean-up crew" for when the Enterprise leaves loose ends. You'd have to know the TNG episodes pretty well for this. 

But I just want a game where my intermediate level of knowledge is enough and the players have enough pre-loaded info to play the game without too much preamble.

I actually found this in a thread on our own forums:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040603010804/http://www.starherofandom.com:80/h_trekhero/index.php

It's TNG focused, which is how I would go anyway.

But my new question:

Has anyone ever been a part of a Star Trek campaign of any kind that was ongoing? What made it successful?

(There are lots of group writing Star Trek games online, but they don't have a combat system, rules, etc. The success of these group-writing games makes me think an ongoing Star Trek campaign could be fun. So I would also want to hear comments about these group-writing games.)

What works in making an ongoing Star Trek campaign?

Hokay, I have to close applications on this one--I got more responses than I thought I would. I posted the game in a few other places. 

Maybe in July I could look at adding people again, if some don't pan out, but for now I will close new applications. Thank you!

3 minutes ago, Opal said:

Wizards o/t Coast could barely get anyone to buy modern/balanced/accessible 4e D&D, but as soon as they brought back the familiar brokednessity of 80s D&D and recycled the Red Box cover, they had a full scale comeback on their hands and D&D sold faster than ever.

You said what I wanted to say but you said it first and you said it better.

PS: I love your avatar. Just started re-watching Space: 1999 since watching it when it was first broadcast. Still great.

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

So, Armadillo, what is your goal?  To nail down the characters for 6e, or produce a history about the beginnings of Champions?  As far as I know, the Guardians were the Playtest group of Heroes, and use of the characters was sporadic after the publication of Champions. I will probably  be going to the "get together" on July 4th Weekend this year, at Steve Petersen's house, with the Heroes, for the 40th Anniversary of the Launch of Champions, and I could ask a few questions. (Unfortunately, there are no conventions in the Bay Area this year, due to California COVID-19 restrictions still in place mostly.)  Other than that, it's up to them if they want to be forthcoming with campaign information or not.

Messaged you, Scott. The goal is more about posterity; just a history of the beginnings of Champions but from the angle of reporting on the Guardians as though they actually existed. My approach would be a documentation of the beginnings of Champions and how the Guardians were used to playtest the rules (a fact I learned from you), but I think a fun second angle would be to report on the Guardians in a style that made it seem as though the Guardians were real. I would combine these two facets into one article.

5 minutes ago, steriaca said:

Seems to me that most of his Kickstarter stuff is "help me find a printing of a comic book". Of course neither Marvel or DC ask Kickstarter people to fund the next issue of Superman, Batman, or Spiderman. 

 

As for your vibe, remember that it was originally Dennis' take on those characters, not the original takes on the characters. So your not actually reading a hit by hit game session made into a comic book. In fact, there was a Flair story which told of an Icestar fight which went out of their way to give the middle finger to Hero Games combat (he attacked then move, as opposed to move then attack).

Totally (I didn't know about this scene). But the idea that it's giving the middle finger to Champions is what I would argue still makes it about Champions!

1 hour ago, steriaca said:

I believe Dennis was the other person, Icons was the system, Kickstarter was the funding, and the Kickstarter campaign a failure.

Dennis Mallonee seems to have some success on Kickstarter:

https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/heroicpublishing/created

There is a certain feel to his comics and to the Champions comics from way back. It's a different vibe from mainstream comics and I dig it. It may be an acquired taste in the sense that maybe it helps to play Champions first and get introduced to the characters kind of peripherally, and then you also get the angle they're coming from. Like, a story based on how a plan for a Champions campaign went is different than planning a story the traditional way. 

When I read comics in this sub-genre (comics that are byproducts of rpgs), I kind of get a running subtitle in my mind of how it would have gone in-game. I know that many of the stories were not transcribed gameplay, but the fact that some of it was and these are offshoots of those "real" characters and their decisions is what gives it a special flavor for me.

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

You might try talking to Scott Ruggles via PM.  He gamed with some of the original crew.

 

He helped me answer a question I'd had for a while.  Easy going guy; great to get along with.  Shoot him a PM, as I think the discord is his current weapon of choice.  (I had to bow out of it; too unstructured for my tastes)

 

 

 

 

This is a fantastic idea. I will send Scott a message. 

My understanding is that The Guardians (Marksman, Gargoyle, Icestar, etc.) had their HQ in the top floor of the Henderson Electronics building (or top two floors). 

I'm trying to use their real history for inspiration. Did they have a team transport? (Like a quinjet or X-Men's Lockheed?) Some sources say they were based in San Francisco...?

I have found write-ups for them on this forum, which is cool, but I'm looking for trivia around details about how they operated day-to-day.

Anyone got any intel?

Game has started! First threads have been sent out!

Look at me, I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl...

I'm doing a play-by-email campaign set in 1981. I find that Hero Machine 3 makes it easy to whip up a character image, and it easily fits with the vibe of 1981.

(The Hero Machine 3 site is harder to use now with Flash being discontinued. But you can run it using a Flash debugger--it only took me a few minutes to get it going and the official Hero Machine site walks you through it: http://www.heromachine.com/heromachine-3-lab/)

Anyone have any images to share that would fit with a 1981 campaign? Here's one of the player characters: