RDU Neil

I'm assuming you mean... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bellairs I'd honestly never heard of him. The rest, of course, but he was brand new to me. Interesting stuff.

Indulging in adolescent power fantasies that lean toward simplistic solutions (a good right hook) for complex problems, actually. The problem is when these natural tendencies toward righteous fantasy begin to affect actual social and political stratagems we start to form fascist ideologies. It is always interesting how people get resistant, dismissive and angry when something they love is shown to have a dark, complex, and not always positive side to it. Instead of resisting and dismissing these aspects, why not embrace this complexity and nuance instead of acting like it somehow doesn't exist? I shared those same adolescent power fantasies when younger, and can still feel the atavistic pleasure in them, but I love supers even more when the concept is used to wrestle with these deeper, more difficult challenges to what we think is right and good. Literature, comics and gaming are great vehicles for exploring these more complex aspects of life in a safe environment that is also a whole lot of fun. I feel it is important to really reflect on why we feel the "satisfaction of a well placed fist in a threatening face" (if I remember my Tony Stark quotes correctly), or at least the comic/gaming simulation of such.

Mark Millar is not someone I'm particularly enamored of, but his comments here have an element of truth to them, IMO. https://io9.gizmodo.com/mark-millar-has-an-interesting-about-theory-why-marvel-1823282223 The first part, about how DCs characters are about "their powers" and Marvel's are about "the character" really makes sense. One of the reasons Wonder Woman worked as a movie, is that it was about Diana, not "super strong, lasso of truthiness, god killer". She was extremely relatable to many movie-goers... the way the new Peter Parker or Steve Rogers or Natasha Romanov (as portrayed in the movies) really connect with the audience. The more I think about it, the character they've chosen to portray in DC... the big 3, Aquadude, Flash, Cyborg... none of them ever really connected with me as a reader... Cyborg being the closest, and Flash only once it was Wally West (post-Crisis). Now, if they'd been forced (as Marvel was) to use B-list characters... maybe a Nightwing, Raven, Black Lightning (LOVE that show, currently), etc., then maybe they might have had better luck? I mean, even on their shows, Supergirl doesn't work at all if you pay the remotest critical attention to superpowers and how they are used on that show... but it is great to watch because Kara Danvers and her sister and Jimmy and Cat Grant and J'onn J'onzz are amazingly fun CHARACTERS to get to know and watch.

The issue is not whether another device could have killed more or less people, but a) the ease of which a device made ONLY FOR KILLING is available, b ) the sexification of the gun as an object of masculinity, c) the cultural fascination and hype of the media with this type of event, d) the pathetic myth of some kind of armed resistance to an oppressive government... all of which glorify these events and actually feed a base human instinct to lash out (especially for an underdeveloped teenage brain), making it seem like a possible option, and often the easiest option. I personally am a gun owner (pistol, shotgun), and completely in favor of much more restrictive controls and even bans on personal ownership of firearms. I feel the fundamental reason no action has been taken is that the NRA (basically a terrorist organization by this point) has made it abundantly clear that their members would actively start killing people with all those guns, if threatened with having them taken away. No administration is the one who wants to take the blame for hundreds of armed militia style insurgency and a massive rise in individual assholes crying "my dead fingers" as they shoot up their town. Even if (and it could) the US military crushed all of these uprisings, the bloodshed and constitutional crisis it would raise is certainly a high cost to pay. We are essentially hostages to the NRA and their members threat of violence in a way that is far more pervasive than any imagined oppressive government action. The call for bans on bump-stocks and picking away at specific, highly defined weapons (the AR-15 or whatever) are just distractions, and obsessions by those whose heart is in the right place, but can't figure out what else to do.

Would like to know what your take on authors like Peter Hamilton and Stephen Baxter are, as I feel they start (especially Baxter) in the hard realm, but then really push the "What if?" aspects. One of my top 10 favorite authors, C.J. Cherryh, eschews delving into the exact physics of some of her science, but keeps it well grounded in what it would be like to actually live on a space station, experience high-g burn maneuvers in extremely hazardous space travel, etc. She crosses the line from hard SF with her myriad of fascinating alien species, but grounds the stories in very realistic day-to-day life and socio-political events, etc. based her knowledge of linguistics, archeology, sociology, etc. Love her stuff, but could understand why someone would say it isn't HARD science fiction, but I'd still definitely call it science fiction, not fantasy. And your thoughts on Kim Stanley Robinson? Especially his Mars trilogy?

It is an interesting question... "When does sci-fi become fantasy?" If science fiction is usually based on "take a sound, scientific concept and extrapolate What if?"... at what point does "What If?" become so ridiculous as to become fantasy? Take the X-Men. The idea of genetic mutation is a clearly established scientific fact. The idea that mutations could provide a "beneficial advantage" has pretty much been established as a part of accepted evolutionary theory, etc. In that mode, the "What if?" mutations created people with super-powers?" question is science fiction. Except that most folks of any real knowledge would understand that "beneficial advantage" is really more like "slightly more likely to regurgitate toxins faster" and not "LASER EYES!" and that going "too far" turns s-f into fantasy. But that line of "too far" is what is hard to define. A fourteen year old with passing science knowledge might feel X-Men is s-f, but seven years later, graduating with a degree in molecular biology, they don't think that any more. Sci-fi tends to deal with "what could be" if even not especially probable... and it is this acceptance of what might be "probable" that is pretty personal... based on a person's own experience and knowledge of the subject. Alternate Earth's is another good one. (Anyone watching the brilliant new show "Counterpart" on Starz? JK Simmons in an excellent political action thriller between two versions of Earth) in that the Many Worlds theory is pretty well accepted, but it also pretty much defines the fact that those many worlds can not interact. So is a show like Counterpart fantasy, by asking "What if?" they did interact? To me it is science fiction, but I'm sure some hard core physicist would disagree.

Fascism is obsessed with notions of rebirth, notions of victimhood and notions of superiority... all of which are found as underlying themes of supers. Comics are full of the righteous individual who is "reborn" after suffering some kind of tragedy, and becomes better than everyone else, using the power to operate outside the law as a self-appointed doer of good (and they get to define what good is.) All of that simmers in the background of most supers, and what is referred to as the Iron Age is when that bubbled to the top, and the power fantasy of bad-ass, male aggression, but it has always been there. Just because an adolescent "dream of someone who is so good they can deal with the injustice and evil" isrelatively innocent and naïve in many cases, doesn't make it less similar to the populist concepts that give rise to fascism.

I dunno... Lysenkoism is pretty damn dark. Seriously, it would be exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from a specially appointed Trumpist, especially in a second term.

The more modern artistic takes on the Bee Keeper really emphasized the "clean suit" aspect, and made them seem almost functional. Though what I really liked about the lengthy AIM reinvention, was that there were clearly different types of AIM guys, some very much engineers and scientists, and not just generic, gun toting thugs. You actually got to see AIM doing super-science in a way that, other than MODOK, never really was shown in past Marvel stories.

And from that excellent article... "I would argue every single one of these movies loses its nerve when it comes to truly exploring these thematic questions, but that they’re even interested in asking those questions is a big step up from a lot of superhero cinema." Which reflects my motivation as a GM and using Hero to create a "super world." I may fail to really examine every possible nuance of what how supers might actually address real issues, but I will ask the questions. "The very idea of a superhero, someone whose very being is just better than everybody else, carries certain fascistic overtones. After all, in a world with superpowered humans and other creatures, might literally could make right. The best superhero stories, consequently, are aware of this troubling undertone and either examine it or deconstruct it in interesting ways." And this... so much this. I've basically found that the MCU is doing a much better job of telling the kind of superhero stories I want to experience, than the comics traditionally have. edit: And this... "Perhaps that is inevitable. These are, after all, big-budget movies, created within the American studio system, designed to make as much money as possible. People don’t like to be told their way of life is unsustainable. But Marvel’s movies stand in for the United States in one other, deeply uncomfortable way: They’re interested in questioning themselves and what they stand for, but only to a certain point. Actually doing anything might mean having to change radically, might mean finally understanding all of the things broken inside the bright and shining city." Because I don't logically expect Marvel movies to really tackle ramifications and change too deeply, but I do expect my games to try. Not always, and not always very well, but to definitely try examine what is broken, and how it might be changed, if not fixed.

The classic bee-keeper is nothing to be trifled with! Tremble at my... uh... my... well... uh... ... nevermind.

I don't remember that specifically, but likely I did steal this idea, as in my world, Dr. Destroyer was known to target advanced technology. He was a truly dangerous, mass killer, who would happily level a university campus if he suspected advancements he didn't like were taking place. A lot of technological change had to go underground, and certainly couldn't be mass produced, as he was essentially a tech-terrorist of epic proportions, with an army of superhumans to help. When he was finally killed in a the epic battle at the end of the first decade of my campaign, it ushered in the second decade which was marked by an explosion of radical tech growth, that really began altering the nature of the world. (Space travel and colonization, teleportation tech, nanites and cybernetic mass production, etc.) I'd also used this as an excuse for how VIPER was powerful from the late 70s into the 90s before finally being (pretty much) eliminated. It grew out of the underground network of tech development and funding that had to happen on the downlow and was illegal, as most nations passed laws limiting such development out of fear of massive Dr. Destroyer attacks.

Economics isn't about money (money is just a medium of exchange). Economics is about perceived cost value comparison. How much time, effort and funds is it worth expending for what you get? If you do volunteer firefighting, you probably do it because you've determined that it is worth your time and effort to do so, instead of doing something else. There are plenty of benefits to supporting volunteer firefighting, providing a more stable social structure and community support where there would otherwise be none, and the commensurate benefits of living in a place where fires get put out instead of allowed to burn. Every decision we make (however flawed by bad data, or corrupted by our particular irrationalities) is a cost/benefit analysis... is it worth it?... and that is economics.

I agree. The US Avengers (and what preceded it) was an underrated book. It took seriously B (and C) level characters, and did something interesting with them. I missed enough of the 2000's X-Men to really understand how Sunspot went from '80s classic hotheaded cliché to genius, Tony Stark II, but more Machiavellian. However that particular shift happened, his leadership strategies and characterization were really well done.

They did a great job with Reyes in the Young Justice cartoon. I wish the DC movies had half the characterization of that show.

I tried to like this, but I'm not allowed. I've always wanted to really get into "post-uplift" or "transhumanism" in a supers game. Flirted with it, but never got to dive really deep.

Great truth to this. Sci-fi requires a deep understanding of reality, so you can extrapolate logically from it. (SCIENCE!) Fantasy allows you to simply stipulate a certain thing exists, and then require internal consistency to that stipulation. (Well, good fantasy requires internal consistency.) Sci-fi requires a lot more rigor and expertise in SCIENCE!, while Fantasy requires rigor in imagination. I know the latter is easier for me.

This is obviously where you and I differ, because that kind of discussion of real world issues and implications is EXACTLY what I want. Granted, when the game world started in 1987, we were just creating a fresh, new superhero world (ditching the original game world played in high school) and there were plenty of standard superhero tropes going on. It was just that we enjoyed playing with ramifications. After a team's HQ was attacked and destroyed, the players enjoyed working out what it took to rebuild, and where to put it... creating a much more defensible type of building in a location away from population centers. There was a bit of issue with making nice with the city government and accepting a member who was an actual police officer (in a cool tech suit) on to the team, etc. These little things spiraled over the years... destruction of particular locations in battles that became famous, and had long running ramifications. Sometimes the players would come up with things they wanted (like eventually a series of PCs drove for autonomous nationhood for our version of Sanctuary, involving UN membership, political alliances with others (the Island Nations Alliance), etc. New York team lead a political protest action against a Registration like act that spawned out of the growing political nature of superheroes, etc. Love that stuff... and yes... the world changed drastically over time. In the first decade, the growing numbers of metas, knowledge of aliens, prevalent super-tech, etc., culminating in a near take-over of the world by Dr. Destroyer (he almost got his hands on Progenitor Technology that would have made him unstoppable,) involved an army of Mechanons invading all over the globe (he was always a construct of Destroyer in my world), at least two different nuclear strikes, stressed governments and economics, and in the final battle, caught on tv world wide, the nature of metahuman abilities and other physics-avoiding technology became known. (A particular MacGuffin we called Crystal Tech.) This started a series of plotlines around arms races for the stuff, started religions, began a push for off-world colonies (driven by the PCs... their idea, not mine) etc. It wasn't perfect, and there were plenty of times we just had straight up "stop the villains" situations, but they were in a larger context of an evolving and changing world. We'd have meta-discussions about where we thought certain world events might lead, or what events might change, etc. I lead a lot as primary GM for most of the sub-campaigns (others would GM sub-campaigns or sessions at times) but it was almost always a group effort in "feeling out" what seemed like a logical change/shift in the world. Eventually most of the planet was laid waste in a decades long alien invasion (not all played out, as much was metagamed over email, etc.) but the world eventually ended up in a semi-post apocalyptic, Gamaworld-esque type of environment, with a third generation of supers working to rebuild. I love this stuff, and epic change over time is my favorite thing.

I do agree with this. I can just imagine how much money Wonder Woman would have made, had it been a Marvel property. (It would fit right in, no problem, as it was showing within the confines of that movie itself.) If WW had the Marvel label, it had the general good will that comes with Marvel's track record, if it could ride the wave of "Yes! Another one!" instead of fighting the "Ugh, not another one..." attitude, if it was part of the best things Marvel does, which is allow movies to be their own thing and be able to flex from the formula... I think it would likely have done even better. Man... now I want Marvel to retcon Wonder Woman into their MCU, and can't wait to see her "come out of retirement" to lead the Amazons against Thanos... sigh... I also wonder if Marvel benefits from "FIRST!" because they were able to get their "meh" movies out, and work through how to do a connected universe... while the whole idea was still fresh. People still flocked to early movies, despite some less than stellar entries, because they were doing something new, and it was mostly working. DCEU comes along, and people are simply less inclined to tolerate mediocrity, let alone flat-out-bad, because it isn't new, and the audience doesn't need to go through the learning and development process again.

I would agree, which is why we see them as feudal monarchs or leaders of banana republics... where strong men have often demonstrated an ability to rule. Whether or not that rule is good and just... well... I honestly have a hard time seeing any other outcome, barring a true, singularity style paradigm shift in technology... any other outcome of super-beings existing that wouldn't lead to a re-shaped society very reminiscent of feudal structures, where baselines would ally with/support/follow/serve the metahuman best able to keep them safe from all the other metahumans. The "good" supers would be doing their best to protect and provide and create a stable, inclusive (often opposed concepts) society within their sphere of influence. The "bad" supers would be forcibly ruling those they could and destroying what they couldn't, and looking for opportunity to remove rivals from the game. Most would fall somewhere in between, usually believing that their way was the best way. Baselines would simply get swept up in this new, degraded, warlike political structure. It is what you would expect if there were powerful beings who tended to solve every problem with a punch or blast. Is anyone reading Lazarus? (One of the greatest comic series every written. Greg Rucka/Michael Lark, Image.) His near future world is one fractured into warring "families" who have risen to power as old nation states have fallen. I would see the same thing forming around supers and groups of supers who form alliances, rather than around wealth and technological power of human oligarchs.

These are well stated for the type of game/SIS you are trying to develop. I think this kind of thing is excellent, because your players either buy into them, or they don't and find another game. I'd definitely be on the "Have a nice game. I'm out," side of things. Your second principle/axiom, that super beings are seen as stabilizing, I could just never buy into. YMMV, and obviously does. While I didn't state them as bullet points, my long running campaign had its own thematic guidelines. It is about power and responsibility. It is about heroism and evil and all the gray areas in between. It is about the question, "If you had the power... how would you change the world?"

The mysteries of the East thing, I phrased that poorly. The "mysteries" not being as much the racist part as the "white savior" who is better at those mysteries than all the originals... The Shadow, Batman, Iron Fist, Doctor Strange... all examples of white men learning from the "noble savage" and thereafter being the only one given agency to enact change. That said, the "mysteries of east" and the general "exotification" of non-white cultures is part and parcel with general attitude of "stereotypical magical THEM" vs. "us." It also very much has a history of "what mysterious resource can be exploited for the betterment of western societies and furthering of white western traditions" rather than an acceptance and understanding of the different cultures and practices as valuable in and of themselves, not as something to be piecemealed and assimilated. Part of the whole "cultural appropriation" continuum. Take their things and ideas for your own gain, but not value the people or a culture as a whole. Any even if it was 2 years... I'm pretty sure Wong had grown up in the sanctuary and been studying for a lifetime, but no, Strange is quickly making a fool out of the goofy side-kick very early on in that training. Yes, the audience can fill in the blanks, but it is a horrible trope, either way. Your #2 is exactly what Matt the Bruin was commenting on, as did I. Yes, they tried to adapt the problematic, outdated character, and it didn't work out.