RDU Neil

Some things should just remain on the pages of a comic book. Also... interesting idea posted here by an author... Thoughts? Edit: I think there is some merit to this, more from looking at the "most comic-booky" of all the Marvel films... Age of Ultron. Walking out of that movie I was like... "So, this felt like a series of Avengers and single hero issues all building up to a big climax in an Avengers Annual... and it totally didn't work." I kept wanting to like Age of Ultron because I could see exactly how Whedon was bending the three act/five act structure to fit a classic "escalating events in multiple comics leading to big blow out issue" type of thing... but ultimately it fell flat because it lacked a strong narrative flow, just like all those cross-over event comics lack good narratives. Age of Ultron was the current high point of Marvel studios messing with the creators and forcing certain editorial elements/control... which is very much like putting "big event" comic books on the screen.

Watching Black Lightning pretty regularly. Looking forward to today's episode. Probably the best, straight up Superhero show, with excellent acting and character building, but full on colorful costumes and powers. Deals with a level of gritty street crime and truly mean villains, but has a great family dynamic that is the real heart of the show.

You should. Several times. Disney's "Digital" age has been the best since the classic era, IMO. Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, Zootopia and Moana are excellent movies. Frozen was the least good, IMO, clearly having too much studio interference in the script. They were doing better than Pixar for a while there. Edit: Yes, I know Disney owns Pixar,but they didn't originally... and Disney Animation Studio is a separate creation entity still, so that is what I'm referring to. oh, and forgot Big Hero 6 in there for Disney... another great one. Except for Inside out and Coco, it seems all the good writing ended up back at Disney, because Pixar has been on a slide.

Snagglepuss?

I actually think you and Sinanju are on the same page here, though I may be wrong. What feels "wrong" about adjustment powers comes from the divorcing of SFX from the mechanical power. When a "Drain Flight" works equally well vs. wings, tk thrust, boot-jets, and riding cosmic essence... that just feels completely wrong. The "power suppressing ray" or "power scanner" that somehow targets... well... what does it target? That kind of thing makes no sense and really break verisimilitude. Your point on needing well defined SFX is important, as it makes or breaks the use of adjustment powers. An "MGH steroid boost" to STR should not have any affect on Wonder Man, whose body is composed of Ionic Energy (to use a Marvel example)... but this requires a lot of prep on the GMs part to define which SFX work in their game. I had a very similar McGuffin for powers in my game. It was called crystal-tech or crystech in its macro form, a kind of morphic crystalline structure that reacted to conscious thought, becoming a variety of different powers/power source. Originally was the justification for super-tech that defied physics/couldn't be easily reproduced, but over time, was discovered to be a manifestation of any underlying structure of the universe, more concentrated in some areas/planets than others, but existed at the molecular genetic level and was the source of all physics defying powers. (It was a manifestation of fifth dimensional energy, which was eventually discovered to be the source code of the universe, so manifesting powers was how a limited, three-dimensional being "hacked" the universe.) This kind of "universal SFX" in a way would justify a "drain" of kind, even though they were rare, and never universal or easy to come by, in my game. It just needs to be recognized that sometimes the SFX separation from mechanics really undermines the rule and play levels of Hero games.

With Black Panther going over $1Billion at the box-office, and that it might surpass Civil War next, it got me wondering about the "post Box Office" income of films. Civil War is still on Netflix (I've watched it several times there myself), so how much do these post-venues (streaming, Blu-Ray sales, etc.) actually factor into the profitability of a movie? What is Disney raking in from all the steady streaming licensing of the Marvel films? Anyone know?

Alien: Covenant... absolutely horrible. WTF Ridley Scott? Really enjoying Counterpart, on Starz. JK Simmons in a suspense action drama with the s-f twist of alternate Earths. Hands down my favorite show right now.

You basically described me, completely. Nothing I hate worse than reading an instruction manual. A game should inspire and invoke a desire to play, to experience... and the rules flow from that. I'll probably never get to play Polaris, but every time I read it, I want to.

I agree. Those tropes were solidly "not" part of my world. They never made sense. I do feel that there are certain times when a drain or suppress effect does make sense, but only when a specific ability is understood, perhaps has a commonality, and a specific attack is created... say, injected nanites programmed to collect in the brain and disrupt any psionic abilities... if such abilities were common enough to be studied and understood and the science to create such made sense, etc The whole "Captain Stronger-Than-Average is a mutant, and is somehow detected and suppressed while Ms. Goes-To-The-Gym-A-Lot with the same stats is somehow ok? In my world, Binder's ex-wife and ex-development partner parlayed their advesive development into Foam-crete TM, and made millions creating an entire line of non-lethal capture/restrain products that were used worldwide by law enforcement and military. Her husband rotted lin jail after a short criminal career (ended in the early '90s)... because he was insane, and she was practical. Heroes with access and Stronghold agents, etc., would regularly be seen using Foam-crete products to restrain downed villains for transport. Nearly all powerful supers who were arrested were also kept in a drugged and electrically stimulated coma until trial, and during incarceration. This lead to a long sub-plots of ACLU law suits against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Even just taking the lightest pass at "Just what do you do with super-criminals?" beggars significant social, legal and technological questions. Love those things in games.

Building off this idea, lets look at "a character's innate senses" as stated in the book as inherently Inherent. We do have ways to temporarily disable these senses, but it isn't an adjustment power. It is called Flash. It is an attack that temporarily, but completely, disables an inherent aspect of the character. Do we need to rethink Adjustment powers with this in mind? What about an attack that temporarily, but completely, enhances an inherent aspect? Most of Hero has both sides to every things, why not this? For every Body rolled on my Reverse Flash attack you get +1 to your Perception roll? I'm not really advocating this, but I'm pointing out that we are discussing issues of internal game design conflict that are deeper than the mechanical level, and need to be addressed (or just ignored most of the time, as usually happens with inconsistencies) at the axiomatic level where core assumptions are defined. To Hugh's point about legs being Inherent, but Running with them is not, this is again and example of a situation clearly running up against the axiomatic assumptions of the game as well... there are no absolutes, but you are absolutely a baseline human and have legs by assumption, etc.

Yes... this does make things more complicated... more in the idea of "What about the base 10 STR" that characters start with? Is that not inherently part of who they are? It can't be aided? We are very quickly in a really weird place here. Mainly based on how Adjustment Powers are working, less so than Inherent in and of itself, or inherently? Like, if Angelic Strongwoman has Inherent 100 STR, does that mean she can't put on power armor that gives her +30 STR more? No, because that is not an Aid to STR as per the rules. So maybe Aid is the wrong way to go about it? If we want to keep that concept of "base human plus extra on top" then shouldn't any Aid to STR be built with just some version of "STR" that is somehow usable by others? Or maybe, what really needs to happen is that every ability (Characteristic or Power, I'm assuming Skills and Talents can't be affected by adjustment powers) has to be thought through at the beginning "Is there any situation where the ability could be enhanced or decreased in a way that isn't fundamentally transforming the character into something else?

This is actually a big part of this discussion. I remember haggling over it years ago as 5th was being debated. As Hero became a toolkit for building "any character you wanted" there was a lot of discussion about "Really? Any character?" Because, as Sean mentioned, what was being assumed was "any baseline human, action adventure based character that may or may not have additional abilities layered on top." My question is, has that every been formally declared? Because I do think it is axiomatic to Hero. (While you can try to play a game where everyone is a sentient virus, or even just non-action based humans like the cool new Jane Austen roll playing game out there, you really aren't being supported by the core rules of Hero, because they weren't built to play that kind of game.) Because if declared, then Inherent really is a way, maybe, to break that axiom... but it is also implying a limitation to the kinds of characters you should play, which is an interesting game design challenge.

At home and reading the Inherent rules, I came back to this concept. It says "and if applicable have the Limitation Always On." So... is it as simple as making the "Flight" part 0 END, Persistant... but Always On is NOT applicable here (there is no limitation to the power in this way and it isn't really Always On) and then Inherent is fine. The "if applicable" is essentially GM ruling based on the character concept? Though in this case, the Inherent "Always On" is maybe replaced with a -1/4 Dependent on Extra Limbs or something?

I similarly find drains and adjustment powers very rarely used over the past 37 years of Hero... but they are useful for dramatic purposes, when appropriate, and usually targeting a specific known character with a known power set "Negative Ion Man will be surprised when he is bathed in my Free Electron ray, which will cancel out his powers!" or some such nonsense. Usually cutomized drugs or nanites designed to attack a specific person or system, etc. There are just times when it surfaces, more during character construction, and players wondering about how certain abilities or powers play out in the game... just thought I'd see what people thought. For example... a Thing (from the FF) type character. Is his rocky form (the basis for all his powers) something that can be drained, so temporarily he is back to Ben Grimm, or has he become that rocky form, and it is what he is now, and it would require a "transform" to make him Ben again. I personally lean toward the latter, and there was a PC who fit that description for the most part, and that is how we both agreed to play it out, but I never made him buy Inherent on all his powers. Seemed like a lot of cost for something that would very rarely, if ever, come into play.

I'm very comfortable with nuanced rather than literal interpretations of rules, but you are getting to what I started this thread for... finding out how others might rule... getting opinions on this. Thinking about it, I'm just wondering if "Inherent" vs. "Non-inherent" needs to have a cost associated with them. Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure... but if there are just as many benefits and downsides to Inherent and Non-Inherent, it should just be a qualifier of a sort, maybe. So "I am the Archangel! My wings are part of my holy self! But my might Smite blast is a blessing from She Who Is Above All and would disappear if my connection to HER is severed!" One power is inherent, the other non-inherent. I'm just wondering if Inherent really is such a benefit as to imply a higher cost. Could be. I'd need books in front of me to reference to figure that out.

Basically I agree with what you've written here, minor interpretations aside. So what about the "Always On" aspect of Inherent? I would agree (and feel appropriate if I was GM) if almost every mutant was Inherent in their abilities, as they were born with them, and seeing them as something separate that could be "drained from them" didn't make sense. As compared to a person who's abilities are from some outside source layered on top (like Dr. Spectrum, who gets abilities from a stone grafted into him that enhances him, but is an external source that could be justifiably affected separately from his "self.") But "Always On" would mean that Angel was always flying and Beast is always leaping and Cyclops always blasting (well, ok, we've got that one sort of). Has the "Always On" aspect of Inherent always been there? Am I misremembering? (I don't have my books with me.) Because I honestly see the concepts of many super-characters have abilities that are mixed bag of inherent and not, and it adds an entire layer of complexity to have to start defining at that detail. (I will admit that some of the issue here for me is that I've never liked adjustment powers, as they should be SFX based, not targeting a specific game mechanic power. And that things like "Mutation" is a single SFX, since that makes no sense for Wolverine and Cyclops and Scarlet Witch get drained, while it somehow knows that Cap and Spidey aren't Mutants? What? People hate mutants, but guys jacked up on steroids and irradiated freaks are A-OK! What? So many silly inconsistencies in those false differentiations, or poorly defined at least.) Edit: Oh, and does a mutant draining ray temporarily "cure" someone with Down Syndrome, or a genetic predisposition for Alzheimer's? So many inconsistencies... makes my head ache.

Seeing that there are questions on the mechanical application of Inherent in the Steve Long only threads, I thought I'd ask in general... how do you all interpret what "inherent" actually means in your games? To me, the existence of "Inherent" vs. "non-inherent" in the game applies a core assumption that powers and such are "separate" from the character somehow, thus can be affected separately from affecting the character. The classic trope of "I've had my powers drained! I'm just a normal human now!"... and Inherent was there for times when that just didn't make sense. e.g. I am Flying Guy! I can fly because I have the power of flight! And if my power is drained, I no longer can fly! vs. I am Angel. I can fly because I have wings, and if you drain my flight... wait... what? Do my wings temporarily disappear? Do I flap them but they just don't work? How does that drain work anyway? Like, Inherent vs. non-Inherent is really a way to define the SFX of a character, in a mechanical way. Essence Woman!, who is normal but imbued with magical essence, and that gives her strength and flying, but if you strip the essence, she is normal. Ok, that has an internal logic. But what about mutants... born with powers... how are Cyclops eye-beams something that can be drained, even though they are a natural part of him? Do you have to buy Inherent for all mutant powers? Now this ignores the "inherent equals always on" concept, which I don't believe was part of it, originally... was it? I've always though inherent was a way to buy, say, Growth - Inherent, to make your hill giant character. He doesn't have a "normal" size and gets bigger, he is just naturally 20 feet tall, etc. You can't drain a hill giant and make him a "normal human sized." Just like you shouldn't be able to drain Angel's wings, and suddenly he doesn't have them any more. Like I always hated that Wolverine's "healing factor" was apparently something separate from his natural self, because it could be "turned off" by various plot McGuffins. Wwasn't it simply a natural part of him? How does something magically "turn it off" without changing his body at a molecular level into something else. Could that same thing turn of any normal person's ability to heal, which is essentially saying you've stopped cellular growth and all that implies. Can you drain his "hairiness" or "shortness" and suddenly Logan is tall and svelte? Those are natural aspects of his physical self, just like rapid healing... right? When is a power something separate from "who the character is" (Steve Rogers vs. super serum adding abilities), and when is a power simply "who the character is" i.e. Forge... I'm a really, super-intuitive technological gadget designer... can you drain that?

whoops - seriously, if you accidentally make a post, and weren't trying to... is there any way to completely delete it?

Ah... a Dragonball reference. I remember, summer of '89, watching some bootleg Japanese VHS tapes of it. It had a look, full of extreme violence and cool super-martial arts visuals... but it made no sense. When it finally got ported over to the states, I heard that it scrubbed out a lot of the blood and violence, and remember being asked to watch an episode... and it had this guy with big hair getting all glowy... and after I went and made lunch, he was still just yelling and getting glowy... and then I went to work, and came home... and he was still getting bit brighter in his glowing... ... and yeah... never watched it again.

I think the idea that "reading the rules" as a way to draw you into the game is really interesting. It is what defines, in many ways, the last decade and a half plus of indie game development. The idea of rules built to specifically evoke a particular setting and expected SIS experience was probably on the way out by the mid '80s as the move toward 'generic system rules" was underway. (Of course, nobody was really thinking about game development that way, back then.)

I will lose some geek cred here, as I'm admitting that while many of those words appear to be English, and are aligned in something that partially reflects a sentence about ancestral dung and vegetables, the particular order and intended content of that reply are lost on me. Or... to be more succinct... "What?"

I totally agree with this... as I could watch "On your left..." over and over again... and have. My main question is "what is the pill we are being asked to swallow?" What is the Russo bros' intent here, as they are too smart to just handwave it. It is hard to separate what is being shown on screen from what strongly-invested viewers are seeing on the screen. I'm ok with it, but it is a question I have. Is the perception of Captain America as "Cap!" purposefully unclear... is it just more realistic "some people like him, some don't, some really have no idea who he is?"... or are we supposed to bring our comic book attitudes of "Cap! he's perfect, never wrong, always on the side of right, people who don't listen to him are villains!" to bear? Is the movie expecting us to bring our preconceived notions, or not (especially since most movie watchers will not have those notions). I find artistic intent really interesting, and wondering whether they expected a certain "reading" of events from the fans, or were just happy to allow for different interpretations, staying true to their internal vision of the movie Cap, and not really caring what any particular audience brings to it. Both of those are important artistic decisions in how character and content are framed for an audience.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/08/scientists-truth-fiction-twitter-bots?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lab+notes+2016&utm_term=266836&subid=24646434&CMP=ema-3242 Political in its implications, not content, but since we are seeing the clear effects of the new era of muckraking/yellow journalism/outright lying in media with less and less focus on media literacy and education... just wondering what thoughts this thread has on this trend. As in many things, the internet didn't create new problems, but has the effect of vastly accelerating and expanding the problem.

tl;dr version (I need some commentary from any gun/military/law enforcement/body armor experts on how actual gunfights play out... to compare to how Hero simulates them.) So I've long been a fan of the "Heroic" level of Hero system, playing out the cinematic and closer to "real' levels of combat. I've never found a system that works as well for detailed (but not TOO detailed) resolution of attack maneuvers, defense maneuvers, hit locations, damage effects, etc. For all Hero's flaws... this remains the coolest "combat action resolution" system out there. That being said, last night I did a side adventure in my Secret Worlds campaign, where I gave my players "Pre-gens" of three US Marshall SOG team members, and put them in the position of hitting a boarded up ranch house where three fugitives had been tracked down... gunfight chaos ensued... it was loads of fun. The characters were 125 points, built using BATF template in Dark Champs, a few more points spent to tweak them out... none had more than two combat levels, 3 and 4 SPDs, 5-6 OCV max... no super powers... keeping it pretty "real"... as much as a game can without becoming totally unfun. I gave these characters full tactical body armor, based on the 5th Ed stats... Level II Kevlar (covering 9-14), ceram plates (+3 to 10/11), Helmet (covering 4), with arm and shin guards (covering 7-8, 15-16)... max armor was 10 hrd (covering 10-11) based on how the book established it. The point was to play out a chaotic gunfight clearing a house, see how the dice go and if the "feel" of it is right. Over all it was fun and felt scary and dangerous and full of chaos and bullets punching through drywall and awkward misses and lucky hits and a lot of blood. One great moment right at the beginning was a panicked meth-head started the whole thing firing from a bedroom into the living room at one of the PCs. Hit in the lower leg, but rolled badly and it "spacked!" off his shin guard. Return 3-round burst from a 7.62 Galiil punched through the half-open, cheap bedroom door and hit gut and thigh, basically insta-killing the unarmored guy. Felt very accurate for the moment. Later though, one of the guys got hit by three high velocity .357 rounds... thigh, chest, shoulder (I rolled really well for the main, well trained bad guy). Even with slightly higher damage than standard .357 rounds... not a single round penetrated (ceram chest plate, ok... but Kevlar shoulder and thigh?) while on the other hand, the stun was massive and put him from full to negatives, after all defenses... due to the built in +1 Stun Multiplier (which almost every assault rifle has, and certain other guns). There were many times where it felt like "not enough body is being done, but way too much stun is getting through" as in one shot to the vitals with a CAR-15 that only did 2 body, but dropped the PC to negative 15 stun due to stun multipliers on gun and hit location. That was one thing that felt "not quite right"... while the other thing was the "assured" nature of the body armor... that if the hit location was covered it always gave full defense... for example, the ceram plates don't cover every inch of a chest or back, so what about a bullet just half and inch to the side of the plate, or hitting between plates, at a seam, etc.? I guess I'm wondering if there are people on the boards who have law enforcement/military experience... and whether or not there is information on how well body armor works. Is it really that good? Do 5.56 and even 7.62 rounds get generally stopped cold by today's body armor? High velocity magnum rounds? Is it really a matter of shooting an armored guy until they are unconscious? Is armor that reliable, or does it have more seams and chances for bullets to penetrate? All in all the adventure was a blast (literally, in many ways) but there were some things that felt "whoa, that armor is way too good!" and a helluva lot more stun than body being done, that just doesn't seem to be quite how bullets really work. Again, i'm not looking for perfect, realistic simulation here, but just getting a sense of what real gunfights, between armored/semi-armored opponents, actually looks like. Thoughts?