rjcurrie

What I noticed from the Speed Force episode is how much Peter Parker dwells within young Barry Allen. Motivated by guilt over failure to save a close relative; certainly feels the "great power/great responsibility" schtick to the point of holding himself responsible for far too much that is not his fault.

 

Also noted that he gave up his speed because "I wanted to be a hero", not "to save a life", or "because I thought it was the right thing to do", but to look like a hero.

Interesting that you equate wanting to BE a hero with wanting to LOOK LIKE a hero. They seem to be two different things to me.

Gee, you mean the TV and movie versions of characters are different than the comics version?

 

The show runners don't ignore the comics. They constantly drop references and Easter eggs. They also purposely deviate from the comics to keep the story fresh, even for long time comics fans.

 

The speed force doesn't have to be sentient or come from Barry or  . . . whatever. It could all have been a dream or hallucination. (In the context of the show, I actually like this explanation the best.) But that doesn't mean that the show runners weren't referencing Barry's close relationship with the speed force.

Yes.  My comment was not in opposition to your argument. It was more or less agreeing with it. Perhaps I should have quoted your post  and started mine with "I agree". Sorry for the confusion.

I was simply trying to say that while there be something (for example, the speed force) that appears in both the comics and the TV series, they may not be the same.  So, you cannot necessarily use information from the comics when discussing how the TV show version works. That's all I was saying. 

Oops. Duplicate Post.

People should ignore comics when looking at the TV or movie versions of characters and vice versa.

And who knows if the speed force was sentient or not? The whole thing may have simply been in Barry's mind as he worked through his issues -- essentially a dream.

Bummer. Plus my understanding is that Calista Flockhart has said she's not interested in moving to Vancouver, so no more Cat.

According to this article, she has changed her mind.

http://www.tvfanatic.com/2016/05/supergirl-renewed-for-second-season-moving-to-the-cw/

It's official. Supergirl is moving to the CW for season 2.

http://tvline.com/2016/05/12/supergirl-renewed-season-2-moves-the-cw/

That "renewal" article was from March and was based on a comment that Moonves made at the time which said something to the effect that CBS was looking at renewing all five new series they launched this season. So, some in the comic book/superhero media took the renewal as a done deal and reported it as such.  

Here's an article that better discusses the state of Supergirl's renewal (as of May 11, 2016):

http://deadline.com/2016/05/supergirl-cw-move-cbs-renewal-decision-code-black-limitless-bubble-1201752684/

He includes himself in that assessment. If I recall correctly, he says we.

He could have easily meant a reliable way to get to other words. Sure, he could keep running fast and hope he ends up on Earth 2 before ending up in a universe that either kills him or has no way of him getting back. But is that useful?

So, do the people in this thread arguing about balance issues due to selling back OMCV really think that a 6 or 9 point (depending on whether or not the GM allows OMCV to be bought down to 1 or 0, respectively) difference in character points is going to be unbalancing?

Do you honestly believe that the HERO System is that finally tuned?  I certainly don't. I believe that character points can give you characters that are roughly around the same level of effectiveness (although CV levels and attack DC classes probably has more to do with that than total points). I also believe that the tactical abilities and creativity of a character's player also play a big part in the effectiveness of that character. So, frankly worrying about a small difference in points just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I've seen this logic before hiwever it doesn't make sense unless your players tell you upfront. I've seen too many builds and i've built too many that the mechanics of what I bought doesn't match to the concept in my mind. So just by looking at a sheet and not talking to a player can lead to a frustrating game experience.

Well, to be honest, it's an approach that needs to be made to players before the game.  Basically, tell them that if they want something to show up in the game, put it on their sheet. If they don't want it to show up, don't put it on the sheet. For example, if you want a character to have a secret identity but don't want to deal with plot threads dealing with that secret identity, don't take the Complication.

Similarly, if you take PS: Chef, then you're telling me that you want your skill as a chef to play a part in the game.

As a GM, to me, a player's character sheet is an indication of the types of stories that player is interested in for that character. So, by buying back OMCV, the player is telling me that he wants stories about the character's weakness in offensive mental use. So, some kind of alien or ancient weapon or device that uses OMCV is bound to show up. And if the whole party sells back their OMCVs then it will probably be a major issue they will need to deal with.

Also, as a GM, it's on me to make sure that my game's stats reflect my game's world. So, for example, if there are no mental powers of any kind, I should probably simply remove the stats from my game. 

As I understand it, Champions and various characters may be used by Hero Games as they have co-ownership with Cryptic (but probably different spheres, such as print being Hero and computer gaming stuff Cryptic).

 

I want to avoid danger room style scenarios just because I want the setting to establish and enforce heroism and doing good deeds at personal expense, rather than practicing against stuff without anything to gain or lose.  If its a game inside a game, players do not learn to be heroic or enjoy the various themes of comic books.

There is no co-ownership. Cryptic/Perfect World owns the IP outright. Hero Games has a license in perpetuity to publish RPG products using the IP but like all licenses, such products need to be approved by the owner of the IP. Now, if the product does not use the Champions name or the Champions Universe IP, then I believe the product does not require Cryptic approval. Note, for example, that the Kickstarter material on Aaron Allston's Strike Force only mentions the Hero System not Champions.

At least, that's my understanding of the situation but as I mentioned earlier, you probably want to clarify the situation with Jason Walters.

You may want to avoid using the name Champions and any part of the Champions Universe such as UNTIL and VIPER. I believe any product using those would need to be approved by Cryptic Studios/Perfect World since they are the owners of those items.  But I could be wrong about that -- you should probably check with Jason Walters about what does and does not require Cryptic approval. 

Shouldn't Fantastic Four be discussed in a different thread since this one is supposed to be about Marvel's Phase III movies?  

LOL Martin has no heroes.

I think the Great and Powerful Turtle counts as a hero.  The man has written more than Game of Thrones.

This could be a fun game.  If you set the game in a city then playing a rogue type character would be perfect.  You just need to create scenarios where if the PC is in combat that if there are a bunch of opponents they are easy to put down - one good hit and a PC might be stunned or knocked out and then that would be the end of that character.

 

I could see spying, stealing, infiltrating, etc being a big part of the game.

Combat Luck would be a good ability for a solo character.

Plus, it might be worth creating a "Hard to Stun" talent (4 points for a +5 CON [Only to prevent the character from being stunned, -1/4]).

Shapeshift is the way to go here. The character doesn't intrinsically become another character. The character stays the same, only the powers and gender change. Lockout and other limitations such as side effect and activation rolls (With a possible gender switch to the wrong set of powers for the situation) can be your friends here.

I still don't think you need Shapeshift. The change in appearance is simply the special effect  of activating the given set of powers.

Note that I am talking about the rules as written and not any house rule interpretations that you may use in your own campaign.

Yeah, you could put "Always On" on shapeshift to help keep from reverting. But as Shafeshift requires END and is not a persistent power, if you run out of END or get Knocked out, you automatically revert. So the build would need to be Shafeshifting + No End, Always On, Persistent. THEN you can have the character has a Psych Lim "Doesn't remember original form" for maybe 5 or so points. 

 

La Rose. 

Do you need the Always On?  I believe that Persistent + No END accomplishes the desired effect.

Beyond one's sense of self, changing gender will also effect other characters' perceptions and expectations of the PC.

 

But how much or how little depends on what kind of game you want to run.

Yes, but isn't that the same thing with any physical change?  If, when you activate your powers, you bring a polka dotted cat man, that's going to also affect other character's perceptions and expectations.

In general, I agree with the two sets of powers (one in Male ID, one in Female ID) with no power needed for the gender switch. After all, changing genders is just the special effect of activating the appropriate set of powers. However, this assumes that the Complications are the same for both the male and female forms. If the Complications are different for the different forms then that would seem to call for Multiform.

I would allow both of those examples to be built as Compound powers and placed in a multi power slot.

As would I. 

Yeah, they had three non-scientists they could have given that line to.

 

Also . . .

 

 

 

I was thinking it was a huge waste to get rid of Tom Cavanagh. He was great as Wells/Thawne.

 

On the up side, Eddie erasing Thawne means Wells wasn't murdered. (And neither was Nora . . .) So Cavanagh could be back next season as Wells. I'll miss his evil smirks, but would still welcome him back as non-evil Wells.

Of course, Thawne could be back, too. But no reason for him to disguise himself as Wells.

 

On the third hand, if the status quo is maintained somehow, there's no reason for Wells to be around.

 

Ah .  .  . a pox on time travel!

 

 

I'm still watching too, and like Hermit, it's my favorite of the current batch of superhero shows. 

The thing to remember with Traveller is that character generation took about only took a few minutes, so if you died, it wasn't that big a deal.

Okay, I'd add "Watched" by Bat-Mite. Depending on what kind of Batman we're talking about.

 

 

 

Remember when you could take "Hunting" as a disadvantage?

Hunting someone is simply a Psych Lim.