armadillo

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
 
 

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.

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. 
 
 
 
 

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. 

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.

I also don't think we should underrate the effect that costumes and code-names have on the perception of superhumans. People with powers are just that, people, with all our inherent flaws. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of that. But when a person with powers takes on the guise of a superhero, they become a symbol of something greater, not judged by the same standard. So long as they continue to behave consistent with the ideals they espouse, the public will view them as a different category. Clark Kent would make people nervous if they connected him with what he can do; but Superman has proven repeatedly that's he's incorruptible and will always act for the good.
 
So, Spider-Man is simply Spider-Man, a single superhero. A whole species of "spider-men" would be a different matter, particularly if you family gives birth to some of them.
 

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 always thought it was overblown, I mean to the average citizen what's the difference between Spider-Man and Cyclops, or Captain Marvel and Storm?  Yet one is hated and the other adored?  The concept has its valid points, particularly as Stan Lee was trying to use the concept to teach young people how bad prejudice is.  But logically it kind of falls apart.

I would agree that the fear of the stranger, the "other," plays a major role in a psychological justification for that attitude. But IMO it would go much deeper, in that the other in this case can be your own children. These strangers can be "hiding" in the very bosom of your family. The people you're closest to, who you think you know best, could be concealing something alien and "monstrous." Those you count on to carry on your legacy, your name and bloodline, may be genetically "corrupted." I can see that concept terrifying some people to their core.
 
On top of that, in a world with superhumans, mutants aren't just different than you, they're more than you. They could have powers and abilities far beyond mortal men.   Every one is a walking loaded gun waiting to go off. Even more intimidating, they may show no outward sign of their abilities unless and until they use them. That's the ultimate concealed weapon of which they can't be disarmed. There's no way to prepare for what any of them might be able to do, so the familiar expectations of life that help us all feel secure go out the window.
 
IMO either of those factors could become normalized. But put them together, and you have a recipe for paranoia and knee-jerk reactionism. Of course part of the convention in Marvel Comics is that non-mutant superhumans often are treated differently. IMO that can be partly explained by them not necessarily sharing all the factors listed above. Mutagenic accidents are rare and like acts of God; deliberate experiments leave a recognizable and understandable footprint; advanced technology can be identified and isolated. The habit that superheroes and villains have of wearing distinctive identifiable costumes probably gives the average person a feeling that they can "see them coming."

It plays into the old fear of the stranger and having an enemy which is why we have the parable of The Good Samaritan

It wasn’t a big word you used per se, but more of a smarty pants one, but that’s where the “pedant my a$$” thing came in. Also if the fact that I was just doing a little good natured teasing didn’t come through then I’m sorry because that’s all it was. 😀
  As to the main body of your text...it sounds like you weren’t much of a fan of ST:TNG so I’ll skip much of the in show history of the Ambassador class and just say that it was only shown in one well received episode of the series and for its time was the flagship of Starfleet.  Neither that ship or any of its design had anything specificity to do with ambassadorial missions.  
  Many years later the writer Peter David had an idea for a series of ST novels which would feature a number of interesting characters who never got more than an episode or two. To this group he added the now adult characters he created for a young adult book series set at Starfleet Academy. The ship he put this on was of the aforementioned class.  That series and ship were what we had been discussing.
     Are we good?
 

Sorry; i just realized that I hadn't answered that.  I got distracted trying to figure out which word was the big offensive one.
 
But to the answer:
 
The Enterprise, ostensibly an explore and colonize ship (sorry; never made it past the first season- no; that's a lie,  I never made it _through_ the first season.  I tried, but I just couldn't.
 
Anyway, ostensibly explore and maybe colonize, and definitely fight: there was even a special "battle bridge" for when the big disk was _cast aside on impulse power_ while the rest of the ship flew away into fiery combat.
 
There was a big deal made more than once about how the ship carried entire families, and could even serve to train young cadets, there were schools, etc.
 
All this for exploration with a definite expectation of military action up to and  including combat.  Combat with their families and children  on board, or cast adrift in the sublight-powered saucer.
 
 
Anyway, some years later I would catch a rerun or two, trying to give it the best chance I could.  Unfortunately, the first rerun i caught involved "Q," bored and peurile space god; it didnt help raise my opinion any.
 
Then I caught a rerun of something from the NG era- dont really remember what it was, but it featured mention of an Ambassador ship,
 
Ambassadors, who are going perhaps into the uncertain, but not the unknown.  Who arrive as the result of invite or treaty-  way safer than "explore the unknown and prepare to get shot at."
 
Yet it was too dangerous to take their spouse or favored pet.
 
A grunt's entire family was welcome to die of who knows what out on the unexplored edge of illuminated space-
 
But not a politician's family; no,  that just doesn't make sense.
 
Thats what rankled me.

Which side of that annoyed you?  That the Ambassador class had no families or the incredible hubris (See, I know smarty-pants words too (pedant, my a$$)) of taking a load of civilians and children into dangerous situations.  
 Even if I were to concede that Starfleet were only an exploratory organization, the number of spacial anomalies and never before seen life threatening situations that Enterprise got into on a weekly basis should to any rational person (Oh well, that leaves Gene Roddenberry in his later years out) mean that little kids should stay somewhere safe.
   At least this time the tangent is somewhat related to the original topic.

And while I am not typically, my love of etymology does have a tendency to make me a pedant.
 
For example:
 
 
 
 
I will never be able to fully express just how much that rankled me.

Cahhoun’s first ship of the New Frontiers series was an Ambassador Class.  Basically the same same weapons, engines and sensors as the Galaxy class but smaller as it did not have the extra quarters and facilities to carry families.
    See, I’m a nerd!!!!     I can help!!!!!

Yeah, being the clean-up crew for the Dyson sphere would be pretty cool.
 
Either the interior or the exterior surface would be hugely greater than all the worlds of the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, and Gorn combined even if you counted in all the worlds that each of those civilizations just visited at least once.
 
The Enterprise didn't make anything like a concerted effort to explore the thing since it was way too busy trying to save itself. There could have been 40-50 existing civilizations still on the thing plus ruins everywhere.
 
Yeah, in theory the interior surface was scorched. But any civilization capable of building a Dyson sphere would surely either have (or leave behind) forcefield tech that could shelter cities or at least clusters of buildings. If nothing else, the inhabitants would have plenty of solar power.
 
And of course the exterior surface could be used just as any space station but with the additional advantage of having access to the interior to replace raw materials such as air.
 
You could put a TNG-era Constitution class starship like the USS Excalibur (Captain Mackenzie Calhoun's first ship) there and have more exploration, diplomatic, and rescue missions than a crew could finish during an entire career.

In my massive boredom, I’ve been building a DS9:TNG campaign in my head so I would love to hear about somebody actually running one. Do you know what timeframe you want?  During the series or after the movies?  On board a ship or a space station or planet? 
 If I can help with research or as a sounding board I’m at your service.
 

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!

I remember reading a lot about Shelley McTyre's Champions game that she did by email. I can't seem to find any reference to it in these forums or online, but there used to be a lot on the web IIRC.
 
Anyone have links or comments about her game?
 
I ask because I am running a play-by-email (see link below) and I was going to use some of her materials to help new players.

Armadillo! Talked to Bruce and he said to go ahead and send your questions for the article. Message me for my email addresss and I’ll forward the material. Good to go?

I too am like most old folks.  Born in 1964, worked for 25 years in a field I enjoyed till I couldn't compete in the nail-banging business, started doing retail arbitrage, got married in 2008, had my first child in 2009, 2nd in 2012, and 3rd in 2019.

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.

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

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.

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.