RDU Neil

Sad truth.

I have my theory on this... (and I'm of the mind that letting it into the open only spreads it, not drains it. The internet has done nothing if not allow the isolated and hateful to become the organized and hateful.) On "white anger"... well, generally... 1) Humans have a psychological need to position themselves and their self-worth in social hierarchies. It is part of our social evolution. 2) No matter how enlightened we try to become, when pushed, stressed, devalued, etc., the human condition is to instinctively take out our frustrations on someone perceived as lower on the social ladder. We look for someone worse off than ourselves to make ourselves feel better. 3) In America, traditionally, even the poorest, most beaten down white man could still look around and find any non-cis gendered white male to put their boot on, to reassure them of their preferred place... and that preferred place was just assumed... what is called "privilege" these days. 4) In the past, when a NCGWM advanced, gained influence, social standing, power, etc., it could all be viewed through the lens of largesse on behalf of the white male. Psychologically, white males "let" the NCGWMs have their little slice of the pie. 5) But "these days" that privilege is not only being called into question, but the NCGWMs are taking power for themselves. Obama was the big change. This was a black man with real power. No one "let him" be president... he had actual, social changing authority... not a token nod from the white man. That was too much to take, because now all the other NCGWMs were "gettin' all uppity" and expecting... gasp... actual change! So all that anger that simmered in the bellies of the white males (and those co-opted by their patriarchy... I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter, etc.) no longer has its traditional 'release'... psychologically, those white males and traditionalists can't vent their frustration and anger on the traditional "lower down the rung" targets. They have to face the truth... they are just as f***ed as everyone else that isn't the 1%... and they can't handle it. Their anger is being used, inflamed and manipulated by those in true power to keep that power, and keep it directed at the traditional targets, rather than at who deserves it. That is "what is wrong with Kansas." That is why so many people act/vote against their own interests. Pure, Machiavellian social manipulation... creating the packs of hunger dogs to be used by the Koch brothers and such to undermine social change and operational government that would threaten their oligarchy. It isn't a conspiracy... it is right out in the open... because they've learned that most people can't be sophisticated enough to really analyze and understand their predicament. They can provoked and nudged and do all the work for those in real power. The internet, like all technology over the past century, is just accelerating this exponentially. Remove the buffers of distance and time, pour on the gasoline... hell, the bastards will light the match themselves.

I could see them trying something like this... an "in continuity reboot" since so many of the stars are moving on... but I'll be most interested in how the public reacts if they do it. Comic book readers seem willing to put up with a lot of absolutely shite writing and plots and reboots for some reason. I wonder if the general movie going public is so forgiving.

I agree, the late '70s rosters were the best, and I liked the Falcon in there, but I don't think he served (at that time) with Wonder Man... he quit because he felt the government only put him on the team as "token black man" and when he quit, Wonder Man rejoined. The Nefaria Trilogy is still my favorite Avengers story of all time... Cap, Wasp, Yellow Jacket, Beast, Vision, Scarlet Witch... vs. Power Man, Living Laser, et al., who'd been enhanced by Nefaria, etc. Jim Shooter writing, Byrne art before he got lazy... ah, my childhood.

I'd ask how you did that, but I'd never understand it or remember how. Cool.

I agree that poor Simon Williams has been poorly written over the past decade. Coming from a "I died and came back" and "brain copied" origin... I personally really liked his'80s incarnation where he turned into a generally nice guy who wanted to be an actor... actually matured and got over his Wanda obsession, etc. Whatever he came back as after dying again and again and coming back... and his "I hate the Avengers" thing that was never really addressed and just dropped... sad ending. I really liked Pym as Yellow Jacket, and his downfall was actually good drama. I have never found Banner Hulk to be at all interesting, except the Peter David era... Smart Hulk, the Pantheon, etc. But he still never felt like an Avenger there. She-Hulk whether by Byrne, or the great 2004 starting run where she was a super-human lawyer, were really strong character stories. Looking back on the history of the Avengers, they were very clearly a PC group in somebody's Champs game. Second issue, one quits (Hulk) and the other changes (My shrinking guy is now a Growth guy!), and then a new player wants to play "This old character of mine who I loved... a WWII guy!" and only a few issues later, half the players have new characters (Speed guy... Focus multi-power guy... Power Pool gal...) etc.

Oh, I purely put together my selections based on "Which personalities make this feel most like the Avengers!" and that is why I debated putting Wonder Man and Beast, because their bro-mance is a great, historical piece of the Avengers. That is why I like She-Hulk over Banner Hulk, as she was always more of a quality team player, both Odinson and Jane Foster made for excellent Avengers in that roll. Rhodey vs. Tony was a completely different dynamic, but one I like just as much (assuming they unkill Rhodey one of these days, as they do with everyone).

First three episodes in and I totally agree. It is a great cast that develops in an organic way, but the show hasn't lagged, while being very much focused on "living the life" of a super, not just the big events. Bushmaster is both scary and charismatic, with an intelligent, if criminal, agenda that is personal to him. Really well done, so far.

Hawkeye (Clint Barton) Black Widow (Natasha Romanov) Vision Scarlett Witch (Wanda Maximoff) Captain America (Steve Rogers) Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers Iron Man (Tony Stark or James Rhodes) Wasp (Janet Van Dyne Thor (Odinson or Jane Foster) She-Hulk (Jennifer Walters Black Panther (T'Challa) Quicksilver (Pietro Maximoff) Twelve is a big team, but it covers the key bases. Leaving out Wonder Man or Yellow Jacket (Hank Pym) is a tough call on my part, and I'm personally a fan of the line-up during the 70s/early 80s with Beast. But thinking about the team as the premier

This, a thousand time. All the ability to make the charater you wanted, to me, intuitively meant better story telling, less "the rule book says that in this instance I do this particular thing" and the constrictions of levels, classes, etc. It was transformative. In our original High School group... 1981-85, we certainly embraced this, with a lot of copy cat characters that were only slightly different than Marvel and DC characters, but it was fully in the vein of the Bronze Age comics at the time... and NOBODY "ran the math." When I got to college and taught friends there Champions, and later Hero 4th... I certainly influenced a certain playing style based on world building and characters and story telling, not "mastering the system." No engineers, no programmers, no lawyers... but people who wanted to create cool superhero stories. It has been a constant battle since them, for the past quarter century, to find the right playgroup, to avoid the Gamist mentality players, and realizing how Hero has become a system that ENCOURAGES that min-max, "run the math" bullsh!t (with 5th and 6th in particular). This is why I'm backing, but not too optimistic about, Champions Now. By returning to figured characteristics, and maintaining the labored point build aspect, it will just encourage the point shaving, n3 point breaks and all that crap. Like, I get, theoretically, why Edwards like END in the game (I dropped it 30 years ago and never looked back) as the idea of doing somehting big and splashy, but at an exhausting cost is cool... but too much damn math. I was hoping for something that focused on the in game of effect of exhausting the character (missed turns, vulnerable moments, dramatic decisions on whether to go "all out" or not) rather than going back to adding and subtracing incremental points over and over, calculating average END spend over a turn, etc. BLEH! And the fact that he is still using the Speed Chart. Something else I dumped decades ago, and it was a revelation how much more organically combats ran, while not making characters have to max their SPD or be left out of play much of the time, etc. Bringing characters back to an easy to read, simply built 250 points, etc, is really good. But bringing back a lot of the mechanics that led to the undermining of the play intent (we'll be back to mini-bricks with martial arts being the most efficient builds, and every character having their powers through 0IF and such) seems like a step backward into the bad stuff, not the good stuff. Still, I backed it, and am interested in Ron's narrative set of rules for play, to see where he goes with that.

Well, the Canadian nation certainly has its own scandals to live down. ?

Fun conversation (and I really appreciate Brian's goal of bringing it up in the first place), but I doubt we'll ever have a perfectly comprehensive definition of "indie." To me, I can't help but relate it to indie as a description of music... Indie Pop, Indie Rock, etc. The term is used to cover a lot of different music, and it has a certain historical connotation, coming out of the arc of Punk DIY in the late seventies, post-punk into alternative in the '80s and then a significant independent, creator owned movement in the '90s and on (Indie as a label really took hold in the 90's though it has been used throughout)... but at the same time, there is a particular aesthetic associated with indie beyond just the economics of it. Indie rock/pop has a certain angular, off-kilter sound to it. The lyrics and content tend to be less mainstream, and the sound considered less than radio friendly (even though there are often break through hits). The overall aesthetic eschews mass appeal, down to its marketing, etc. Applying this to any other business, in my mind, brings that aesthetic question. Is the game being produced to be a mass market product line (D&D) or is it being created as an expression of play and experiential design? I'm not saying the creators wouldn't love to land upon a popular product line that actually made them lots of money somehow, but that isn't the driving force behind it (which clearly is with the classics, D&D, or White Wolf in the '90s, etc.)

3 - Face, 4 - Noggin (skull), 5 - Neck

Indie, rightly or wrongly, also tends to implied stripped down, modern design... a game designed for a unique experience rather than a "system" to be applied in many different ways with lots of support material. I think it is this, and its past as a major product brand (as zslane pointed out) that make it "feel weird" to consider Hero indie, even though right now, it probably is. Like, there is a lot of "Fate" play and games and uses out there, so that it doesn't really feel indie to me, even though each individual example of a game designed with Fate behind it is/could be. Powered by the Apocalypse is a good example of open source "common axiomatic design" but the games that use all or parts of the PbtA 'system' are very much indie. Hard to say, but clearly the community and current support are very much indie in nature.

The movie was slightly less emotional impact for me, in that it never felt as high stakes as the first one. There was no scene to equal the "talk" Elastigirl gives the kids on the beach from the first movie. "You know those Saturday morning cartoons where the bad guys go easy on them because they are kids?" Nods from the kids. "This isn't like that. These men will KILL you." (to paraphrase) That scene is one of the best parent child moments in any movie, any time, the utter truth without fear, competence and trust in their ability to handle the harsh realities of the world, etc. It is one of my favorite moments in cinema. That being said, the clever use of powers (Elastigirl and her electro-cycle "It's torquey!" was pure genius.) and the well done, but not over done superhuman battle on the boat were outstanding, and the general sense of "realness" of the family characters and dynamic carried the emotional weight of the film, as it should. You see the villain coming about ten seconds into the movie, but that is never the big reveal. Instead, the movie asks the hard questions about the co-existence of "normals" and "supers" just like the first one does, and yet doesn't preach. All in all, a truly excellent film, if not quite up to "Parr" with the first. Edit: (Ooops, just realized someone else already made that joke.)

Agreed, as I'd like to understand the POV expressed here, as it is the exact opposite of how I feel. I have not ever, in my 40 years of gaming, enjoyed a pre-built adventure, and certainly never used anything more than a rough outline from one, like "Road Kill" for a one off "not everyone showed up for the game" type of thing. To me, the experience of a game evolving and being defined "during play" is the real enjoyment I get... not spending massive time trying to create everything beforehand. Entirely different philosophies of gaming, so I'd like to read more about what is being expressed here.

I heard nothing about any author death threat... it was Pride Weekend, and there was a lot of security on hand for the parade and events, and that takes place basically right outside the convention center the same weekend as Origins.

You were the best of us.

That was where it really fell down (pun intended) for me. It was another cliché, "bad guys tactics work only because initial good guy forces are dumb/incompetent..." Like running out on to the front porch of the White House, directly into a hail of automatic gun fire (and the fact that so many well equipped attackers could get so close to the White House front gate in the first place... seriously... c'mon.) Yes, the evil-bad Korean's had tactics, but they ultimately only succeeded due to asleep-at-the-wheel Secret Service, which is just bad writing and reduces any dramatic impact.

I agree with ease of use as a key, and probably THE key, criteria for a ruling, but I don't see using Impenatrable or or anything like that as necessary... just use the "hard target reality sniff test". Just ask, in the moment, is it realistic that a rifle round would penetrate effectively vs. this particular barrier/substance/defense? If yes... apply the Light AP, or full AP rules as I've defined (subtract half body or full body rolled from defense, then apply damage). If no... then just apply body as rolled vs. the defense and body of target. It is that simple in 99% of the cases. Basically my sniff test is "will half AP or AP apply realistically" since these are not "bought powers" but campaign rules. So the caveat is on the rules Light AP or full AP except where it doesn't realistically apply... done. Again, 99% of the time, that is just the rule that flashes through my brain as I make the GM call... go with it and keep gaming.

In my game, I ruled it was 2d6+1 based on just an initial "It is supposed to be like the 7.62 Soviet"... and I'm inclined to do that, rather than 2d6 with +1 Stun multiplier. Purely from a "game play" perspective, I find the increased stun multiplier to often scale out of control and give odd results that don't "feel" right. Saying this, and finding great success with rulings that can add body damage, but only up to the max possible with the round (2d6+1 can never do more than 13 body, even if you roll extra dice from Weaponmaster or some such to increase it... this really helps someone roll higher average damage, without scaling damage out of control)... with that in mind, I'm wondering if some ruling with stun could do the same. +1 Stun multiplier can only add Stun up to the max for that hit location... so chest shot with 2d6+1 is a max of 39 stun... so you can multiply x4 with a +1 Stun multiplier, but you max out at 39... head shot it would be 65, etc. I kinda like that ruling as well. This "only to max of normal damage" is a really nice governor on increased damage adders/multipliers... at least when it comes to adding damage to "real weapons." hmmm... good conversation... if a bit off topic here

Cool... and this time grandmastergm, I'll make a point of seeking you out IRL to say hello, and maybe join one of those games.

An interesting article on why opioid addiction is such a much bigger issue in America than anywhere else... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41701718 But my favorite quote (of the various reasons why)... Some Americans, says Professor Keith Humphreys from Stanford University, believe that life is "fixable". "I'm 51," he says. "If I go to an American doctor and say 'Hey - I ran the marathon I used to run when I was 30, now I'm all sore, fix me', my doctor will probably try to fix me. "If you do that in France the doctor would say 'It's life, have a glass of wine - what do you want from me?'" In 2016, a study compared how Japanese and American doctors prescribed opioids. It found that Japanese doctors treated acute pain with opioids in 47% of cases - compared to 97% in the US. "There is obviously a willingness, and a habit, of giving opioid pain relief that is not shared elsewhere," says Professor Feinberg. "Other countries deal with pain in much healthier ways."

It is the Soviet x39, which is more around 2100 joules, so not the full 7.62x51 NATO. In that case, it still isn't making the grade, but not as far off... only that AAC is more consistently at the 1800 joules range than standard 5.56 which tends to be 1750 or so. And now I'm trying to figure out how realistically effective the steel core of the 7.62 Soviet is at making the round AP, or is it just increasing damage via fragmentation. Any thoughts on that?

So on this subject... looking up .300 AAC Blackout, it says it was developed to deliver 7.62 damage in a M-4 configuration, with size of round enabling similar capacit to 5.56 in a STANAG magazine. But when you look at the joules of the .300 AAC they are equal to or less (depending which chart you read) to the 5.56... but they are still claiming 7.62 stopping power, when that is still almost x2 as much energy. How does that work?