Pattern Ghost

Suspected rhino poacher killed by elephant then eaten by lions in South Africa, authorities say

And so it begins . . .
 

Bunch of these. This one's my favorite so far:
 
 

So you basically haven't had a party for decades now.

So you basically haven't had a party for decades now.

So you basically haven't had a party for decades now.

So you basically haven't had a party for decades now.

When it comes to OCV/DCV... I still think it is possible to start out. "You want to roll low for hitting... high for damage." Done. They roll, you tell them if they hit or succeeded.
 
Funny how "Stealth is 14 or less" never seems to cause problems, but rolling low to hit is a nightmare.
 
Then, if they want to know "How does it work?" then you can say something like. "Because we use 3d6, 11 is the median score you are likely to roll... So 11 is base and add your OCV you have your Attack number. Write that down. Now, going forward simply subtract what you roll and that tells you the Defense number you hit. So a low roll... subtracting less... leaves you with a higher remainder."   But do NOT say all this unless they ask, and only do it outside the game.
 
I've played with plenty of people who are happy with "I rolled X... did I hit?" and are ok with nothing more than that for years of gaming. They are ok with maneuvers, too... because they get the basics... "This maneuver means more damage, or puts the guy on his back, but there are penalties to hit... this other maneuver gives me bonuses to hit, but lower damage... etc."  That intuitive stuff comes quickly, as long as it isn't buried in formulas and numbers... at least in my experience.

Also, it has been said several times here (myself, Killer Shrike, Deglar) that I don't want it to get lost... I really REALLY think the best way for newbies is to "Just describe what you want to do... and then I'll talk about the rule that best captures that maneuver. You'll catch on to what the rules are doing as we use them."  And do the same yourself as GM. "The bandit sees you draw you sword and is attempting to slam his shield down on your sword arm. Basically he is trying to knock the sword out of your hand rather than really do damage, so this is a Disarm maneuver, which some characters have. If he hits, instead of doing damage he gets a bonus to his STR vs. STR roll to knock your sword away."

That should lead to things like, "I don't have Disarm... can I do that?" and "Yes, you can try, but since you are untrained, it will be harder to do. It defaults to a Grab roll then STR vs. STR without bonuses." (the idea that most answers to "Can I try that maneuver?" in HERO is "Yes... you just might not be very good at it based on your skills, etc." 

And hopefully this leads to, "Can my character learn Disarm?" and now we off and running. "Absolutely... that kind of thing is exactly what EXP is for. Your characters learn new skills and maneuvers and knowledge, especially in cases like this where there is good reason for him to train/learn this maneuver."

Story and description first... make it cool... then bring in the rules. Personally, I often try to emphasize that I prefer "the rules to be invisible." I much prefer a dramatic, descriptive statement than looking in the rule book. "As you play, you'll learn a lot of the basics and start to realize when certain maneuvers are better than others, but the rules should never over-rule what is dramatically appropriate."
 
That might not be your play style, but I certainly emphasize it in mine and have found new players tend to respond to that well.

. . . and this is why Legends is my favorite CW Superhero show.

So, basically Infinity War was just Thanos going through a Phase.

So, basically Infinity War was just Thanos going through a Phase.

So, basically Infinity War was just Thanos going through a Phase.

We need a Thor poster that says, "You should have aimed for the head" to go with that one.

He might have thought you were trying to . . . wait for it . . . badger him.

The short answer is "no". The long answer, not surprisingly, is more nuanced.
 
1) A Congressman or Senator takes an oath of office "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
 
So her first duty is to the Constitution even if her constituents might want her to enact policies which would go against that.
 
2) The politician is also supposed to tell her constituents what she believes and what she wants to do once she's in office so that the voters are presented a clear choice between her and her opponent. Getting elected to office to a certain extent is the voters saying they support that candidate's agenda so it is certainly appropriate for the candidate to pursue that agenda once she gets into office.
 
3) Now going back to the founding of the nation, commentary on the proposed Constitution which was eventually adopted made it clear that national lawmakers were to be selected to use their own judgement to evaluate the issues of the day and apply that judgement to proposed legislation.
 
Now what the constituents want the lawmakers to do on various issues after she's elected to office is certainly important as part of the process of the lawmaker gathering information on those issues so she can make a wise decision. But she's not there to rubber stamp whatever whims might be foremost in the public's mind at any point in time.
 
If the public feels that her ultimate decision on various issues aren't reflecting their desires closely enough, that's what the next election is for.

LOL
 
As Thanos was portrayed in the comics at the time, his chest was so thick that it wasn't even a certainty that Wolverine's claws would reach deep enough to reach Thanos's heart if it happened to be in the part of Thanos's chest where Wolverine obviously assumed it was. And Wolverine made no effort to rip or dig around. He just stuck the claws in and struck a pose as if thinking, "Okay, you're dead now."
 
In contrast, you can actually see Thanos's arm and tell whether you cut it off successfully or not.

I can't do that all day because that container is way too small.

Maybe she'll show up for her job this time...
her phone's battery has to be getting low after her last attempts as Jane Foster

It was just a joke pointing out the other nerd rage gripe. They're both stupid gripes. I wasn't in any way supporting the Thor thing. I was mocking both gripes.
 
Edit: But I don't want to in any way shame you for your continuing nerd rage about the misplaced nerd rage about Thor not aiming for the head.

Thanks. I think I get what you meant. I thought you meant politically feasible in terms of getting people behind the idea, but it seems you meant it more in terms of actually getting something done.
 
 
I tend to think of it as a little bit of both. I also pay attention to gun control efforts (though perhaps for the opposite reason), and a lot of what I see is knee jerk reactions, stupidly banning features, and failure to address root causes. I also see plenty of lies, damned lies and statistics from each side, and that's for the same reason: Most people make decisions based on emotions, so emotional arguments carry more weight.
 
I mean, here's an example of the features nonsense from our state's AG, who seems to think he works for the Legislative branch. Some highlights:
 
On page 2, there's a picture of an AR15 titled "Anatomy of an Assault Weapon." It calls attention to the following features (direct quotes, but I'm not going to wrap them in a /quote tag) My comments in parenthesis:
 
Telescoping stock: more compact for better maneuverability (You can gain more here by simply buying a short barreled upper, but no mass shooters have to date done so, nor shown any concern for maneuverability. This feature does make it easier to fit the gun to smaller statured shooters, enabling them to have an effective tool for self defense. So, it's a feature that's more useful for law abiding citizens.)
 
Pistol Grip: Provides greater control during rapid fire. (Not really. Total nonsense. A traditional stock is just as controllable.)
 
Detachable High Capacity Magazine: Allows rapid reloading for sustained fire. (Winner winner, chicken dinner. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. THIS is the main feature that makes a weapon useful for mass shootings.)
 
Forward Grip: Provides greater control over recoil for rapid fire. (Again, not really true.)
 
Combination Flash Suppressor and Muzzle Brake: Reduces muzzle climb and preserves shooter’s eyesight (These are two different items. A flash suppressor doesn't do much for muzzle climb, and a muzzle break doesn't do much for flash.)
 
Here's a quote from a trauma surgeon, from page 1:
 
“I am a trauma surgeon, and I’ve seen what AR-15s can do... a typical 9mm handgun wound to the liver will produce a pathway of tissue destruction in the order of 1-2 inches. In comparison, an AR-15 round to the liver will literally pulverize it, much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete results in the destruction of the watermelon.”
 
This is true of ANY handgun round compared to ANY rifle round. The quote is from a legitimate expert on trauma, and it's entirely true, but it doesn't change the fact that this is also a very useful trait in a defensive weapon. If it takes less shots fired to down an attacker, then there's a lower risk of collateral damage to the general public, and better odds for a positive outcome for the defender. This may not seem important if you believe that home invasions with violent intent aren't very common, but they're far more common than mass shootings.
 
If you wanted to do something practical to lower deaths in mass shootings, you'd simply ban rifle caliber rifles with detachable box magazines over some arbitrary capacity limit. That's the one thing on the hardware side that would slow mass shooters down, regardless of caliber or action type. But you'd still need to address the contagious nature of mass shootings somehow, improve police response and tactics, improve reporting of disqualified people to the FBI background check database, and improve interventions on potential shooters.
 
Anyway, the entire flier is a symptom of what's wrong with politics. The AG here is constantly trying to put himself in the limelight with the left-leaning base here. He's not out to solve a problem, but to advance his career by scoring points with his political base.
 
 
 
 

Thanks. I think I get what you meant. I thought you meant politically feasible in terms of getting people behind the idea, but it seems you meant it more in terms of actually getting something done.
 
 
I tend to think of it as a little bit of both. I also pay attention to gun control efforts (though perhaps for the opposite reason), and a lot of what I see is knee jerk reactions, stupidly banning features, and failure to address root causes. I also see plenty of lies, damned lies and statistics from each side, and that's for the same reason: Most people make decisions based on emotions, so emotional arguments carry more weight.
 
I mean, here's an example of the features nonsense from our state's AG, who seems to think he works for the Legislative branch. Some highlights:
 
On page 2, there's a picture of an AR15 titled "Anatomy of an Assault Weapon." It calls attention to the following features (direct quotes, but I'm not going to wrap them in a /quote tag) My comments in parenthesis:
 
Telescoping stock: more compact for better maneuverability (You can gain more here by simply buying a short barreled upper, but no mass shooters have to date done so, nor shown any concern for maneuverability. This feature does make it easier to fit the gun to smaller statured shooters, enabling them to have an effective tool for self defense. So, it's a feature that's more useful for law abiding citizens.)
 
Pistol Grip: Provides greater control during rapid fire. (Not really. Total nonsense. A traditional stock is just as controllable.)
 
Detachable High Capacity Magazine: Allows rapid reloading for sustained fire. (Winner winner, chicken dinner. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. THIS is the main feature that makes a weapon useful for mass shootings.)
 
Forward Grip: Provides greater control over recoil for rapid fire. (Again, not really true.)
 
Combination Flash Suppressor and Muzzle Brake: Reduces muzzle climb and preserves shooter’s eyesight (These are two different items. A flash suppressor doesn't do much for muzzle climb, and a muzzle break doesn't do much for flash.)
 
Here's a quote from a trauma surgeon, from page 1:
 
“I am a trauma surgeon, and I’ve seen what AR-15s can do... a typical 9mm handgun wound to the liver will produce a pathway of tissue destruction in the order of 1-2 inches. In comparison, an AR-15 round to the liver will literally pulverize it, much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete results in the destruction of the watermelon.”
 
This is true of ANY handgun round compared to ANY rifle round. The quote is from a legitimate expert on trauma, and it's entirely true, but it doesn't change the fact that this is also a very useful trait in a defensive weapon. If it takes less shots fired to down an attacker, then there's a lower risk of collateral damage to the general public, and better odds for a positive outcome for the defender. This may not seem important if you believe that home invasions with violent intent aren't very common, but they're far more common than mass shootings.
 
If you wanted to do something practical to lower deaths in mass shootings, you'd simply ban rifle caliber rifles with detachable box magazines over some arbitrary capacity limit. That's the one thing on the hardware side that would slow mass shooters down, regardless of caliber or action type. But you'd still need to address the contagious nature of mass shootings somehow, improve police response and tactics, improve reporting of disqualified people to the FBI background check database, and improve interventions on potential shooters.
 
Anyway, the entire flier is a symptom of what's wrong with politics. The AG here is constantly trying to put himself in the limelight with the left-leaning base here. He's not out to solve a problem, but to advance his career by scoring points with his political base.
 
 
 
 

With Data, going for the head won't work. Someone will just dig up his head a few centuries later.

It was just a joke pointing out the other nerd rage gripe. They're both stupid gripes. I wasn't in any way supporting the Thor thing. I was mocking both gripes.
 
Edit: But I don't want to in any way shame you for your continuing nerd rage about the misplaced nerd rage about Thor not aiming for the head.

Maybe Thor got aiming lessons from Jayne Cobb.
 

Just watched Aquaman. I liked it. Couldn't really find anything wrong with it*, and liked the way they integrated comic book elements. "I'm going to need a bigger helmet."
 
*I'm giving it a pass for two Atlanteans walking across the Saraha nonchalantly and for the legs on the giant seahorses. Those seahorse legs were a little disturbing, though.