RDU Neil

It is an interesting creative exercise, but I struggle with it because trying to rationalize some very illogical things just points out MORE why they are illogical. Ultimately, EVERYTHING that motivates people who are "human" (meaning, human drives, hierarchy of needs, etc.) is economics. Even irrational decisions (from an objective POV) are driven by a sense of "Is it worth it to me or not" evaluation, just often a flawed evaluation. Unless you change this baseline human drive, then none of these things make sense. Why would Daredevil continue to keep rescuing people that continue to put themselves in harms way because they are "super dependent?" Why is it worth it to him to do so? Also, while no one dies, you ignore the costs of damage to the surrounding areas, environmental damages, replacement costs, rehousing and relocation costs, mental stress from everyone living in the precarious position of "will the super save me next time?" etc. The fact that superhero comics almost NEVER address the real economic effects of metahuman existence is one of those things it is just hard to overlook. If you remove the economic driver concept, suddenly you are in a realm that is less and less "relatable" to the audience, because they don't accept the motivations and repercussions (or lack thereof) of the characters. I'd say you are better off just finding the right play group who is willing to suspend disbelief to the extent you want, and don't worry about explaining it. That only ruins the moment. I myself can enjoy the occasional silver/bronze agey game at a Con, a one shot, a post-modern deconstructionist adventure, whatever. Long term campaign... no way, as logical world building and character growth are important to me and they both quickly collapse in the face of too much nonsense.

I lol'd... but fantasy... for sure.

And for non-American supers... I'd love to see a high budget update of The Heroic Trio. Though nobody lives up to Michelle Yeoh and Anita Mui. I'd love to see a modern, less sexist take on what is essentially a great ass-kicking sisterhood movie.

Now you've got me thinking about the Ancient One, and the issues there. First I have to distance myself from the fact that I just really didn't like Doctor Strange as a movie much at all. (Hey, it is the same story as Iron Man, but with magic, and not nearly as funny.) So I look at Tilda Swinton's character and think "If there was no source material, and she was purely created for this film, what would I think?" Hard to do, but the movie allows for Kamar-Taj to be a multi-cultural receptical for mystics from around the world. (Arabic name, Nepalese setting, diverse students, etc.) It might have worked. Swinton does well as the asexual great master, if you view her in a vacuum. The problem comes from clearly holding on to the trappings of the dated and racist "mysteries of the East" concept... but more importantly, that Strange himself is just another "white savior" type of character. I hate the trope of "guy shows up and becomes best-of-the-best in five minutes, surrounded by people who have studied for decades" in the first place. Havingjthat trope also be a condescending asshat of a white guy only makes it worse. The "rules don't apply to me" attitude, and basically every other character is incompetent compared to him... why did they assign the New York stronghold to that guy, who clearly didn't know how to fight in the first place? Did Kaecilius really leave with the only three students who paid attention in Harry's combat class? Urrggh... getting so upset by all the small failures of that movie all over again. It is in this setting that not only KEEPING the white savior aspect, but then further undermining it all by white washing the Ancient One from the source material, just added insult to injury. It didn't help that Swinton seemed to be tone deaf to the whole concept as well.

Kamala Kahn, hands down one of the best teen superheroes ever created. (Her, Static from Milestone and the original Peter Parker are pretty much the best written, most fully realized teen characters in American supers.) Not to mention, Kamala's transition as a new character taking on an old name, was done perfectly. (As was Danvers taking over the name of Capt. Marvel, the writers just have never figured out what to do with the new Capt. to make her compelling in her own book.)

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/box-office-black-panther-continues-its-reign/

I haven't read this entire thread, so this might have already been noted... "The laws of physics are never an excuse."

Paleozoic instincts. Medieval institutions. God-like technology. We're well and truly F*****.

I loved IM3, but I'm a huge fan of Shane Black's buddy-cop style writing (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is the template for IM3 and a genius film). The fact that they took the Mandarin, a highly problematic, racist supervillain (Just go with Yellow Claw why not?) and inverted the stereotypes into "Mandarin is just a media build-up of every white America fear mongering stereotype, set up to distract from the real threat" in a hilarious way, to boot. Having just watched SM: Homecoming again, last night (it is on Starz right now)... I'd have to nudge Vulture over Loki at this point. As much as I was impressed the first time around, Keaton's role just grounds the movie so well, so when light hearted Peter Parker is nearly killed at the end, you really feel the pathos of his crying, struggling under the crushing debris... you get exactly how and why things got so serious, so quickly, and you never doubt why it goes down like it does. I think Homecoming notched up a bit on my overall list, seeing it again.

Back to your original post and comment about Luck... I use a house rule to manage Luck for characters. Instead of rolling Luck (which can still happen, but in specific situations) characters get a "Luck Chit" for every 5 pts. These chits are randomly drawn at the beginning of the game, and use 'em or lose 'em by end of game. The PLAYER gets to choose when to spend a Luck Chit to affect the game in their favor. The chits have differing levels of power... the lowest provide an extra defensive action or a reroll of the dice, and abort maneuver without spending an action, etc. The higher level chits let them have something dramatic or use a power in a non-defined way or get an automatic hit, etc. In this case I would easily allow a player who was about to get hit with a lucky shot by a guard to throw a chit (one of the high level ones) and say, "The guy was so panicked, "CLICK", he forgot to take off the safety!" Spending a high level chit to have a dramatic, scene appropriate moment go her way is what I built the system for, and "Safety left on!" could be a perfect description of one of those, if the player thought of it, and the table agreed. (Essentially, the table gets a "vote" on the described action as to whether everyone feels it fits the scene and is dramatically appropriate. Usually it is very natural, everyone laughing and saying, "Ok, that's cool!" or a noticeable shrugging and "eehhh, that doesn't feel right" and we discuss what would be more appropriate.) I feel "safety left on!" would be something that fell within this narrative mechanic for my games, or any game that uses a bennie/luck/hero point type system.

Unsuprisingly, Black Panther the Album, Song's inspired by/from... Kendrick Lamar. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube.com+sza+stars&view=detail&mid=EB6AC6DB80A572D4E2F3EB6AC6DB80A572D4E2F3&FORM=VIRE

And bringing this back to SF gaming... do you watch The Expanse, or read the novels? To me this is one of the best series out there in terms of "human scale" science fiction that really begins to address these hard questions. The idea of introducing supers into that level of technology would be really cool, because the fragility of space craft, harshness of space-life, etc. Now, four-color supers have "super-science" and force fields and energy weapons, etc., that undermine this type of world building, but you could find a happy medium between them. (I'd like to think that is what I was going for in my own gaming world, long before the Expanse was a thing... a mix of hard-sf and fantasy supers... not easy, but fun to try.)

That slogan is basically every political promise, ever. Yes, dictators use that, as Trump is doing now, to consolidate power and harm any who stand in their way. It could also be a legitimate offer from someone who can actually deliver. You act like the pattern of American society and government has been consistent and steady and a matter of linear advancement. Hardly. Most of what you and I know as "American" is a result of significant political/policy changes over the mid-20th century that forced change on the oligarchs of the 20's and "force" a middle class into existence. I think we are both of an age to have seen how fragile that system is, how violent the resistance to it can become, and how quickly it can deteriorate. And every leader rules by force in some ways. Duly elected leaders like every president rely on governmental authority, backed by the threat of force, to enact change. A hero wouldn't have to just upend everything over night, but might actually have a better chance of enacting long term change for the better. I understand your definition, but you make it sound like the "law" is some kind of pure, perfect thing... but the law is an imperfect set of attempts to transcribe behavior, written by people with agendas, interpreted by people with agendas, enforced by people with agendas, and therefore just as good or bad as anything else humans make. Laws change, and there is no need for the hero to "change the laws arbitrarily" if they are popular enough within the system and can rally support, then they could change things over time. And IMO, there are plenty of people who would follow a leader who offered real change, on the progressive side or the conservative side. We clearly see those willing to follow our current Cheeto-In-Charge right down the authoritarian hole, while overtly promising anti-democratic and fascistic policies... why would you feel a hero (or heroes) of power who offered an inclusive, progressive alternative would be "worse" and therefore, suddenly, they are a villain now? Is Superman, at the end of Kingdom Come, heading down a villainous path when he puts himself on the UN Council in order to work within the system? He certainly wasn't a legal representative of any nation? Conquering isn't the only way for a "person with power" to become a leader who shapes and changes the development of the world.

No, but it is certainly one way. And by taking over, why not become a candidate in the government process and work your way up in the system? Every person who does so does with the intent of changing the system to the way they think is better... why is that "taking over" and not "becoming a leader?" Sounds good to me (except for the entire premise of "conquers whole universes" since that puts things on a power level and scale beyond human comprehension and thus impossible to game... unless you reduce the idea of a "universe" down to something simply mirroring a scale humans can understand... except with spaceships. ) Here is where it goes villainous, when it doesn't have to. You can write four sentences that scream "villain" or you can write four sentences that say "Hero trying to make a better reality." i.e. "V'han realizes that not everyone agrees with her, but has created systems that allow for dissent and criticism and even opting out of her rule, as she realizes suppression will only build resentment. Being immortal, she engages in lengthy processes of negotiation and providing benefits to new societies, knowing that five years or five thousand, they will come around to realizing the benefits of her rule. V'han is the target of numerous assassination attempts, because there are always those who would destroy anything they can't control, but she has over a billion succession plans in place to cover eventualities that might actually remove her and has taken steps to allow the system to operate without her direct rule, allowing for it to evolve to something even more than she has already created." Nothing I wrote is any less ridiculous than what was already written, it just makes for less of an action adventure game, because she is just not so bad. Honestly, some being powerful enough to 'conquer universes" would be operating on some level of quantum consciousness at least, and be so far beyond empires and ruling or any human scale concept of society, probably merging with the substance of reality itself and shaping possibilities, not imposing some grandiose version of tin-pot dictator. This is why "scale" of science fiction matters to me, in that significant enough advances and technology to really expand through our universe, let alone multiple universes, that it would be beyond petty baseline human concerns or even comprehension. You have to stick to a much more 'realistic' scale and level of tech in order to make things fit baseline human concerns.

Just showed this to my wife, who "awwed" verbally at it. (She loves this movie as much as I do, and we joke about seeing it every week it is in the theaters.) Also, the first night we went to see it (Thursday, opening weekend) there was a young boy behind us, and he'd be calling out "Wakanda Forever!" whenever they said it. Or "I am your king now!" and other big lines. He was SOOOOO into the movie, and the entire theater was digging it when his little voice would pipe up in a big dramatic moment. He couldn't have been more than five or six (but I'm bad at kids' ages) but it was so much fun we commented the second time we saw it that we missed him.

And I would add, that democracy, by its very nature, has always held the seeds of its downfall and rise of tyranny within it. From Plato and Socrates on, this has been discussed... but is that to say that we shouldn't even TRY to bring about a democratic society, because we know it is doomed to end in tyranny? (A decent recent article that raises this point... http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html )

I don't buy this. If a benevolent leader managed an era of peace for fifty plus years, would you say it wasn't worth it just because MAYBE afterwards, it goes to shit? That is like saying, "Don't bother trying, ,it all falls apart in the end." What if they could create a moral and just society for a century... a millenia? Isn't that worth the risk of MAYBE it being corrupted somewhere down the line? And simply put, you are putting words in my mouth saying they would "force" their way on society. (Except that all humans who try to lead are, in their own limited way, FORCING themselves on us, so how is this different?) If a superbeing provided a new way of governing... "Live under the rules of my new society and you will benefit beyond all comprehension!" Sounds like a great political promise... and holy cow, what if she actually delivers? How is that different than today's politics in a democracy? How is this not rule of law and strength being used to protect the weak? I'd say that a hero is lesser for not even TRYING to make the world a better place, when they have the power, insight and ability to possibly do so? And what if she builds a powerful and peaceful and welcoming nation, but those who choose to live outside this society risk the long term viability of the planet with their continued abuse of resources, pollution and industry, which she has offered a better solution to? What if her new nation publicly supports the forcible annexation of the violent, destructive neighbors "for the betterment of all?" including trying lengthy negotiations and peaceful rapprochement? When do the reckless "individual liberties" of some, infringe on the right to be safe from threat for others? By the way, individual liberty and equality for all intents completely incompatible, as neither is a natural state, and both require a level of social enforcement diametrically opposed to the other.