RDU Neil

Daughters of the Dragon... yes. Luke Cage Season 2 was good, but Misty Knight: Season 1 was better. heh. Would love to see more of Misty/Colleen. And he was better in the team-up, though in general I feel they've toned the "super" down too much for Luke and Danny to really be as cool as they should. My one slight of Luke Cage: Season 2 was that they fight scenes were just badly directed. Even Bushmaster's amazing screen magnetism could not save the bland, staged fights. They really need a good fight choreographer and action director for the TV series. Daredevil did it right, but none of the others did.

I'm out of likes, but I would like this list a lot. I think I appreciate more the movies that challenge the status quo a bit more. I guess with Doctor Strange I was hoping for more of the mid-70's Gene Colan era, horror aspect of the character, less of the snappy banter more recent Jason Aaron version (which was fun in the comics, but came across as formulaic in the movie.) There was a time when Thor and Thor: Dark World were much higher on my list... the latter more so. I found in eminently rewatchable. Iron Man 3 is absolutely one of my favorites because of the Tony/kid relationship, the Tony/Rhodey buddy cop movie aspect, and I loved the twist with Mandarin/Trevor. That was brilliant. GotG, the first, I didn't like immediately, because I'm not a fan of comedies, but I appreciated its audacity in turning 3rd rate (10th rate?) characters into a viable, compelling original. By the second movie, it was a cliché parody of itself. Thor: Ragnarok I loved for the same reason of audacity and taking an unexpected path (and I actually find Waititi's absurdism a more refreshing brand of humor) but I agree, they slighted the drama and pathos too much, or it would have been much higher on my list. Homecoming I love because it melds the best, most traditional take on Peter Parker (updated from the 60s of course) with a grounded, gritty, excellent new take on the Vulture that turned out to be one of Marvel's best villains ever. The movie was hilarious in the right moments and sincere and serious in the right moments, and it works. I like it more with each re-watching. (Glad it is on Starz for now.) Iron Man, while I don't rewatch it much, it still was the ultimate challenge to the status quo... the ability to do a good super-hero movie.

I agree, they would have been dinged, but then, I was hoping they'd take a risk here... and with Iron Fist on the show... and really challenge the colonialist, white savior trope. Iron Fist is my childhood favorite character, but I'd have been happy to see him updated. Not to be, unfortunately.

Always interested in seeing a good list.

Many things... 1) The silly cape "wiping tears" stuff (and the general, lowest common denominator, simplistic, forced humor) 2) The classic "white savior" essentialism (especially the "white man becomes a master magician in like five minutes compared to everyone else" bit) 3) The arrogant, sexist white man on a redemptive track (hello, Mr. Stark?) all over again 4) The flat out simplistic plot... Kasellius (sp?) having decent motivation and still not interesting as a villain 5) Dormamu looking like Max Headroom 6) Time Turner shenanigans 7) the fact that all those assigned to protect that major Magic locations were inept, they knew Kasellius was coming, but didn't send dozens of mages to each location, etc. Strange to save the day when he, in no way, was trained in magical combat, etc. There was little that I liked, to be honest.

Since this gets revisted after every new release... here's how I feel about the 20 movies tonight. 1. Captain America: Winter Soldier 2. Black Panther 3. Captain America: Civil War 4. Spider-Man: Homecoming 5. Iron Man 3 6. Ant-Man & the Wasp 7. Avengers 8. Iron Man 9. Thor: Ragnarok 10. Captain America: The First Avenger 11. Avengers: Age of Ultron 12. Guardians of the Galaxy 13. Thor 14. Thor: Darkworld 15. Iron Man 2 16. Ant-Man 17. Incredible Hulk 18. Doctor Strange 19. Avengers: Infinity War 20. Guardians of the Galaxy 2

Yep... basically all of this what I have in play, though it isn't about point costs for me, since I play Heroic level. I don't currently use the -1 for Autofire, just for MA, since the minuses add up beyond the first... but maybe for close range, -0 range mod, 1-3 meters, that is the right thing to do. Up close and personal, multiple shots should be really, really scary deadly. As soon as it gets into -1 range (4-6 meters) or beyond, back to -2 per shot to hit. Probably making it too complicated, but yeah... been enjoying thinking about how these little tweaks really work. If we were to go further... what if you got a +1 OCV for every 2 shots expended, when using autofire for added chance to hit, rather than multiple hits. Still can only hit once, but a 10 round autofire fusillade would be +5 to hit? hmmm... maybe, maybe not... I could tweak things forever...

Honestly hasn't come up, but I'd say, kneejerk ruling, either same as large caliber revolvers, or at best, as normal revolvers. The kick on them is just big enough that bringing them back on target takes more time, even if just fractions of a second, but it is significant. (At least my very limited experience firing a Desert Eagle .50, made the Berretta and Sig I normally fired feel positively like pop-guns when it came to recoil. But that was 20 years or more ago.) And when it comes to revolvers, I'm talking double action, cocked to pull off multiple shots. I may be being generous to give revolvers even 2 shots, let alone 3... but have fired .38 special loads from a .357, I could see a skilled shooter pulling it off. Not me... but a skilled shooter.

So, since I am using many of these suggestions, (many implemented independently) I can say that I feel I've been successful in actual play at creating more of a "feel" that captures both the cinematic "hail of lead" and realistic "more shots increases likelihood to hit" sense we've been talking about. I did NOT change to the 10- base, as I don't think we'd remember that basic change in the heat of combat after 38 years of playing Hero based on 11-. But I did lowere Multiple Attack minuses to -1 (simple change), but limited the number of MA that can be attempted based on type of attack (complexity here, but that is fully on me as GM to officiate. If you are fighting with a short knife, yes, you can do up to 3 MAs... you are fighting with a Halberd, nope... ain't happening. For guns, automatics get up to 5 shots, revolvers only 3, larger load .44 and up, only 2. Any increase beyond that means -X to every shot, where X is the number of shots fired. So you can theoretically try to fire 6 shots with your Berretta 9mm, but it will be at -6 per shot. Whereas 5 shots would be -4 per shot, etc.) I also factor in different skill levels and the OCV bonuses on guns, so that you get a cool swath of different CSLs applying in different situations. (I rule that inherent OCV modifiers on a gun only apply when braced and set and/or to offset MA/Autofire penalties). I also double range mods (and already use more strict Danger International range mods) when doing a MA or Autofire. Unless braced or set, which encourages bi-pod or other emplaced weapons when firing AF at range. I also encourage the use of +1 OCV for every 3 rounds of Autofire, only able to hit once, if firing on a "position." So at medium range, braced, going full auto (10 shots) is a +3 to hit, offsetting the range mods, increasing hit probability, etc. None of these are perfect, but they work. Yes, they require "training" the play group as well. We've needed to run a few firefights, and one PC died (not because of these rules, but dead nonetheless) but the group has started to embrace them. They see the added benefit to multiple shots, and also appreciate the danger of trained opponents firing back. These things, in general, have the players much more likely to be firing multiple shots in close quarters, absolutely finding cover when fire is returned. Using multiple shots and spending clips (if not as fast as I'd like, then faster than before), etc. By the way, the +3 for 10 shot burst is a great equalizer for lower skilled bad guys taking on the higher skilled PCs. It gives them a chance to hit, and creates very cinematic scenes where often the players are dodging, diving for cover, while bullets tear into the surroundings, etc. Fun stuff!

I understand everyone has an opinion, and I agree AoU was highly flawed in many ways... but to say it got EVERYTHING wrong? It got Hawkeye right in everyway, especially his bit with Scarlet Witch. I loved the scene with his family. It nailed the Vision, and made him an incredibly compelling character. The Iron Man vs. Hulk fight was absolutely spot on. They may not have given Pietro enough of a personality, but they used his speed really well, keeping him powerful, but not out of control, nor needing to do stupid things in order to not be infinitely powerful. Super speed is one of the most difficult things to manage in a balanced way, as it really is the ultimate super-power, but how they showed him using it in bursts, and being exhausted afterwards... that was well done. I personally don't mind the "downfall of Stark" as a meta-theme, and the tension between him and Rogers has been there since Avengers 1, the ego is always there. And I personally thought the first half of Ultron's portrayal was brilliant, but the second half made no sense. But to say it is the worst portrayal of Ultron? I'm assuming you've read the originals? The later 70's appearances and Jocasta? I mean... I loved those as a kid, but c'mon... they are pretty darn ridiculous. Again... AoU was flawed in many ways, but not everything was awful. To see everything awful, check out GotG2. Ugh.

I wondered about that, and it could have been better addressed. The one thing they demonstrated, but never made it super obvious or had someone explain it for the audience, is that while small, they can move really fast in a limited area and fly and such... they are a smaller scale and long distance movement is limited. A wasp may be fast and darting in a room, but it can't outrun a car, or travel very fast or far in comparable distances. They showed that a lot, how long distances, normal cars and such would outrace them, so they couldn't stay shrunken and expect to make it out of the city. Granted, they just could have hidden until everyone was away, when small, and then left, but...

Have we seen one with the head-wings that isn't the USO? I get it that it isn't smart design, and maybe would look dumb, but I'd like to see them try. Small, relatively close to the head, extended wings. Even if they were just raised, silver, wing shaped bumps near the temples? I have to imagine the costume designers have tried that in various ways behind the scenes. I'd like to someday see the attempts.

Yeah... my favorites are the third and the fifth... though the seventh, Civil War, is great. It will be really telling how they decide to costume him in Avengers: 4, which is likely his last portrayal by Evans. Still, like 'em or not, every single one of these evokes "Captain America." The fourth one just looks silly (in some ways sillier than the USO version, to be honest).

If Evans' discomfort came through in the first Cap movie, it came across (to me at least) as essential to the character of Steve Rogers being uncomfortable with the showmanship and notoriety of Cap, rather than any issue of actor and outfit. I never felt that the WWII movie Cap had a real "costume" as much as a cool, modified army uniform. (Not referring to his USO stage costume.) The fact that Evans pulled off the terrible Avengers costume as well as he did is a credit to his ability to project Cap/Steve no matter what he's wearing.

This is also why Chris Evans works so well as Steve Rogers. He inhabits that psyche and projects it so damn well on screen that the costume doesn't even matter. I remember when I watched Winter Soldier for the second time (out of twenty or so since) and was surprised when I realized that the first fight between Steve and Bucky under the bridge... Cap is not in costume. He has the shield, but he is fighting in a jacket and jeans, but in my mind's eye, he was Cap and I almost, psychologically assumed the costume. That is an amazing portrayal... and one of the things that I like a lot about the movie version of Cap... in that Steve/Cap are really the same guy... just different clothes. Evans is Steve/Cap every second he is on screen, and he owns it. There is a reason that he and RDJ and Hemsworth and Johansson (and I'd add Boseman to that now)... are worth their weight in gold to these franchises. They just imbue the screen with the presence of character, in or out of costume that is compelling in every scene. Gadot did that in Wonder Woman, but you could argue that is another issue with DC... none of the other actors in any way make that work.

This is the excellent baseline I was looking for... not that I want "pure realism" but that I want to dial back the much higher hit potential that Hero tends toward (the game is, by default, leaning to more likely to hit than miss with equal 0CV vs. DCV)... moving away from the gamer mentality of counting every shot, and maximizing every round, that doesn't at all capture either the reality or cinematic flare of gun play. They game doesn't incentivize multiple attacks (mostly because it was devised for super-hero combat where actions were, big single dramatic actions), and so players fall into the mode of maximizing every attack, and seeing more disadvantages to "throwing lots of lead down range" than positives. I've generally been looking to incentivize the latter... one, because it "feels" more real (if not realistic), and two, it is way more cinematically cool to have scenes of bullets hitting all over, shattering windows, punching through walls, mags being emptied and "cover me! reloading!" moments, etc. Hero, in its standard form, doesn't play out like that, with each round being the perfectly maxed out single shot, everyone counting bullets, rarely needing to reload, because a 17 round clip is seventeen attack actions... and rarely do combats go that long. Bullets are spent at a maddeningly high rate, in both reality and cinema... and Hero wasn't reflecting either of these. That was my primary motivation for this. In talking to my players, they voiced the emotional dissatisfaction with 'missing' in combat. That it seemed to suck, so combat rounds spent firing but not hitting seemed wasted. To some extent this was understandable, even though I would emphasize that bad guys tended to do things like blow actions taking cover and reacting to being shot at, etc. What I needed was game mechanics to make the "players feel like they were doing something effective with their action" if they fired several shots, but missed with all or most of them. They don't want to a) feel their action is wasted, or b) feel that they get punished for missing, because Hero is a game that incetivizes "defense is bad, overpowering offense that takes them down faster is good" (which is true in general). So I've basically been looking for house rules that can make the players feel like it is appropriate to fire more shots, use maneuvers like Suppression Fire, Multiple Attacks, etc. because they are effective, that autofire and lots of shots is an effective attack strategy, not a waste of charges, etc. I think we are getting there, as the "one shot, one kill" expectation has dropped, unless it is by surprise, sniper, get the drop on 'em, etc. In that case it should be easier to hit. (I halve all hit location modifiers if the target is unaware, unless they are moving erratically). And yes... I agree that point blank range isn't ideal because allowing anyone to close when you have a ranged weapon isn't good... but if you are within CQC range of a room or short hallway, autofire is likely to hit a lot more in a tighter location, than even slightly farther away... say beyond 6 meters. Looking to see what reflects CQC (within 6 meters) appropriately.

I agree on the second part, and would have agreed on the first part, but Winter Soldier came out since then, so...

The obsession with costume detail is weird to me. Do you look at that costume and see Captain Marvel? I sure as heck do... what else matters? Stitching? Foil embroidery? What is this, a sewing club? People argue over different Batman costumes, etc. Is it dark blue, or black, or what. Why does it matter? It is iconic and has a certain "vibe" or feel or general look, that is all that matter. Pointy ears, generally dark blacks (blue was just how they colored things back then) ... bat symbol... you have Batman. Same with all the rest. Costumes in movies need only do two things... evoke the basic concept of the character look... and not look stupid. Sometimes you can make both work, but the latter is WAY more important than being "faithful" (a horrible, conservative word). And faithful to what exact artist, at what time period, with what particular coloring scheme based on paper weight, available inks, etc,?? Cap in the first Avengers movie looked stupid. Tolerable for one movie, but not good. At least with the helmet/cowl on. Going forward, they've done a much better job, and in no way does he lack in being a proper visual representation of Cap brought to life. Most comic book costumes were designed by immature artists with minimal skills, rushing simplistic work out the door quicklky, without expectation to do anything more than create simplistic drawings with awful color combinations that set the main character apart from others. To hold to that tradition as some kind of ideal is... weird at best... angrily obsessive at most. Spider-man is full CGI, and works for the most part, but just because one costume translates relatively well, doesn't mean every one should.

Yes to essentially all of this. I already halve the range (or double the range mods) for multiple attacks and autofire attacks. I always assume 3 or 5 round bursts, depending on the weapon... but I'm less concerned with autofire at range, rather than close quarters. House-to-house... submachine guns, PDWs, etc. are critical and extremely deadly. I feel there should be a real bonus to hits and likely to hitting from a full pull of the trigger at six meters or less (essentially point blank to close range, -0). even if you count for doubling, let's say nearly point-blank... 1-3 meters distance (like within a room of a house). The idea of being close enough to just pull a trigger and likely get several hits, assuming your are focusing on a person size target, not just spraying around.

Really interesting on arrows not even doing a full d6 killing, since that is less than half what they typically stat a long bow out in Fantasy Hero games, etc. I'll have to look again, just to be sure. You aren't saying 1d6-1 then adding STR damage as per compound bow, right? You are saying 1d6-1 total damage? I'd always ruled 2d6 (1d6 is AP) in the past... roll two different colored dice, choose one to be the amount that is also subtracted from armor. That puts the damage in the same range as a 5.56NATO round, which seems about right in terms of expectations of damage done to target. (Which raises another question... the 5.56 is generally not allowed or considered good for hunting deer or large game, but a compound or crossbow is... so what is going on with a bow/arrow that it does more damage/kills a medium or large animal more effectively, than a rifle round? I wonder if, in the case of arrows, damage is done by more than just the energy transfer. There is the penetrating/cutting/twist of the arrow, and the head and shaft actually imbedded in the body. Hmmm... worth thinking over. If a modern hunting bow ends up doing less damage on average than a 9mm pistol, that just doesn't reflect reality. We are missing some factor in this formula.

In my Secret Worlds game, our last big session was about five hours of a running gun battle, from the basement of an office tower to about the seventh floor (invading a PMC corporate HQ). The PCs are all above average, Jason Bourne levels, vs. trained, well armed, but much more normal troops. The dice went incredibly bad for them all night long, including one PC who had a 3 rolled against him on the very first burst from a bad guy of the game, and had to spend half of his luck chits just to take a heavy wound, rather than be greased, then rolled an 18 himself near the end of the fight, so that he failed to take out a shooter, and died subsequently (all out of chits on his end by that point.) At least two other "3s" were rolled against the PCs that evening, at least these were bad guy perception rolls and such, so didn't directly kill a character... but that was four rolls of 3 or 18 in one session, where we usually go multiple sessions without either coming up. Also, at least 5 times, a roll massively in favor of the PCs went against them. Once, a character had the drop on a bad guy with a shotgun. Granted he was untrained with guns (master hand to hand, not so much with guns) and nearly missed, then only hit the Hand (6) on hit location... then rolled 2 1's for damage. He essentially blew the guys fingers off and pissed him off so bad that he began just hosing the area with bullets for the next several rounds. Another guy needed a 15- to hit one shot, rolled a 16 and the return fire was really ugly. At least twice the bad guys needed a 7 or less to hit... and rolled 5s with automatic weapons, hitting twice! It was so ugly. The players were both really into it and amazed only one of them died, but also dispirited. They weren't blaming me, but every roll was like, "OH COME ON!" as the "bad beats" (in poker terms) just kept coming. It was in the nature of the game for things to be this bloody, and honestly they actually secured their objective (place a hack and rescue a captured comrade) but the fight was a loss by all gaming standards, and they lost one. I felt bad, but as the guy who lost his character said, "It's just math. You can't be mad at math."* - - - - - - - * He was really mad at math, actually.

From my wife (who I sent your words above) "you can't make emotional shifts like that without warning when so many viewers of whatever media (books, movies, etc.) are invested emotionally and it is what drives them to consume said media, it feels like a betrayal that stuff demands set up so we can adequately prepare"

Uh... you want to KEEP him? <feigned sense of naiveté>

I also couldn't help compare The Wasp and Ant-Man (as my wife insists it be called) to the Incredibles, and found it held up well. Both are movies driven by character and setting motivations rather than overt plot. Both have their emotional heft residing in the interpersonal relationships. Both are generally light hearted, with just enough seriousness not to be campy. I enjoyed Wasp/Ant-Man much more than the first one... and was very pleased that this movie didn't really have a villain in it. There were generally three competing agendas, none of which were purely evil, nor purely heroic (one greedy criminal, but hardly villain status, one tortured metahuman, but not out for villainous motivations, just trying to survive, and the Pym's who mostly good, but operating on the shady side) all after the same technological McGuffin. Lang gets caught up in this, of course, and we are off to the races. It works really well, as there is no clear "us vs. them" set-up... nor does there have to be a culminating "fight scene" as much as a culminating confluence of actions, many downright hilarious. The use of size-changing for humorous effect, based off a faulty regulator was laugh-out-loud most of the time. The Ghost was dangerous but sympathetic. Bill Foster was his own, conflicted character and always fun to watch Lawrence Fishburne. While it worked, I actually felt let down by the tie-in to Infinity War. My wife was upset. "That movie was fun! Why did they have to bring it that dusting crap!" and felt that scene left a bad taste, after really enjoying the movie.

Wasn't this founded by the younger brother of Soze? I mean... what do you expect. running away now