RDU Neil

For what it is worth, I saw Black Panther again, last night. It holds up remarkably well upon second viewing, with more time to really listen to every line, and what the characters are saying and how they are reacting. W'kabi, given just enough screen time to make the case for a certain faction in Wakanda that is already willing to project power outside their borders, overtly and with a mind to conquer, is very important. Killmonger simply taps into that particular drive, not being the lone aggressor by any means. In the end, with T'Challa realizing that each position has "some" truth and validity to its argument, he does, as Michael says above, "do it on his own terms"... avoiding continued isolationism, but not through aggression, through optimistic outreach. It is actually pretty clear that it is Nakia's position that he takes to heart and finds a way to implement. Other than noting one small plot hole (Did Killmonger really fly from South Korea to Central Africa in that crappy Cesna?) I found the movie even more enjoyable and moving than the first time I saw it. If Marvel movies tend to be "Genre x plus supers" then this was Shakesperean royal tragedy plus supers, done very well. I actually teared up a bit at the very end, on the basketball court, with the young boy asking T'Challa, "Who ARE you?"

Issue 18 of the current series has the biggest focus on that, but some of the issues prior, lead up to it with it small bits.

Don't know if you read Ms. Marvel, but they basically did this bit with Kamala's childhood friend and supporting cast super-genius... he got a scholarship to study in Wakanda. It was a great little sub-plot that played out the classic "high school hot shot gets to college and finds he isn't the top of the class anymore" trope in a funny way. Recommended reading, if you aren't into it already.

Heh... good line. I personally like the darker toned movies. I like serious action, with real life ramifications, and Winter Soldier and Civil War presented those amazingly well. The affects of "super violence", the ramifications on society of people with powers doing their thing... I love that stuff. I really like Black Panther because it essentially asked questions of a similar vein... what is the responsibility of super people (or in this case, a super nation) to actually affect change, to address historical wrongs of their own and others, to challenge the status quo. I never expect the MCU to dig too deeply into these the way I wish comics would and could, but at least they are addressing these logical extrapolations, like good SF should. Good stuff. Seeing it again, tomorrow.

I laughed so hard at that, and realizing that the overall movie version of M'baku was such a genius interpretation of "Man Ape"... wow. To see that Coogler didn't just ignore the stereotypical character from the comics, and instead reinvented him as such an interesting, badass and hilarious foil for T'Challa was one of those great moments in a movie full of them.

Hocus Pocus Focus = Wand Focus Hocus Pocus = min maxing points with the focus limitation while making it so it doesn't really limit your character

Agree... but by "flash bang" I meant the "disorienting" affect... not the need to simulate an actual flash-bang grenade. I think I got my answer on how to create a generic "disorienting/stunning" attack that could have several different, but doesn't require losing Stun to initiate the "Stunned" game state effect.

W Fixed.

Black Panther is excellent, both as an interpretation of the character and stories from the comics, and as a piece of modern story telling that does not shirk from hard social subjects. It is a movie that is as much about a depth of world building that I really, really enjoy, as much as it is a plot that essentially forces Wakanda out of the shadows, and makes it a relevant player in the larger Marvel universe. Th,e most important character in the movie is Wakanda, and they take the time to explore it and show that it is not "one thing" in some generic, homogenized abstract of a Afrofuturist nation. It is dynamic, spectacular, yet contentious and diverse within its own borders as well. I really love that they went fully into the sci-fi wonderland that Wakanda was made out to be, especially in early Avengers comics. (I can only add that in a larger picture, it is clear that the level of futuristic technology shown here will be essential to the battle vs. Thanos coming up in a few short months.) Bozeman's T'Challa is the calm center in a wide cast of vibrant supporting characters. Lupita Nyong'o just owns the screen as Nakia. The movie is really an ensemble cast, rather than a vehicle for Bozeman, but that is as much about the kind of story that is being told... one of a "people" not just one person. Oh, and the humor is spot on. It is a natural humor, coming at the right time in ways that feel grounded in the moment, often serving to reveal and build character in a very effective way. Action wise, the various fight scenes that did not have the full on Black Panther suit were much better than the scenes with them. My one "meh" feeling is that there was just too much CGI of the high-tech Black Panther suit, compared to how they filmed him in Civil War. I think the Russo Brothers just do better fight scenes. That being said, I'm always a fan of giant, armored war-rhinos. I would also have liked more time with Killmonger . He is an important villain, and complex, and they could have spent more time showing his operation. His plot felt too rushed. I can honestly see why there might be a 3-4 hour version of this movie, because you can tell Coogler had deep plans for a dozen characters, and not enough time to flesh them all out. Andy Serkis' relishes every second as Klaue, and it is unfortunate they kill him off. I'd put Black Panther in my Top 3 of the Marvel films, because it is hands down the most ambitious, the most fully realized as "its own thing" and it is the most loyal in many ways, to the source material. My personal rankings: 1. CA: Winter Soldier 2. CA: Civil War 3. Black Panther (but give it time... when I've seen it as many times as I have those other two, we'll see if moves up a notch) 4. Iron Man 3 5. Spider-Man: Homecoming 6. Avengers 7. Iron Man 8.Thor: Ragnarock 9. CA: First Avenger 10. Avengers: Age of Ultron 11. Ant-Man 12. Thor 13. Guardians 1 14. Thor: Dark World 15. Incredible Hulk 16. Iron Man 2 17. Doctor Strange 18. Guardians 2 (god I hated this movie)

I did, and maybe I'm bad at it, but didn't see anything reflecting a nice clean build of "Do this to Stun somebody" just a long discussion on how a Taser works. Maybe I missed what you were expecting me to see.

This is really where I want to go with this... as the "Stunned" effect I'm most interested in is basically the results of a flash bang type of attack. Rattles the brain, makes you a bit incoherent as you need to shake it off, but not really knocking you out. It really is what zslane posted above... an attack that has a "Stunned" as its effect, with a Stat roll to counter, -1 to Stat roll for every +5 points. Essentially an attack where your CON or EGO were the defense. Totally think that is the way to go... so with that in mind... I'd ask "How is this potentially broken, abusable, and/or violates some core tenant of Hero, would create weird scenarios, etc. more than any other power or build?" On the surface it seems pretty good. Would affect normals and lower CON/EGO characters, but would have little to no effect on supers who have very high stats, unless you spent a lot of points on it, and even then, all your getting is a 1/2 DCV and one lost action, which is what an Entangle gets you, but this goes away even if you miss the original role. Seems quite tame compared to how some attacks could be abused, and gets right to the heart of what we are trying to simulate. I like it.

This... "OAF of opportunity" is a great general limitation, often only worth -1/4 depending on how it plays out... but the idea is that "sometimes the thing I need isn't just lying around" and so is up to the GM to enforce when it gets taken away, lost, or just not available. Totally anecdotally, I've noticed that players with -1/2 OAF of Opportunity are WAY more ok with not having their focus available, compared to players with an -1 OAF (which by limitation should be unavailable way more often) but the Focus is a "special thing" (Caps Shield, etc.) that losing "feels bad man, feels real bad" In fact, I've come to dread PCs with special OAF equipment, because it invariably leads to grumpy players when the OAF gets taken/lost/limited, which should be basically 50% of the time. (Half price gets you half effective use.) Even when it is only like 1 in 20 times they don't have it, they still feel bad. Foci of any kind my biggest warning sign power builds, in that I make sure they are totally ok if they are without the use of the power quite often.

another four hours before I get to the theater, but most definitely afterwards

Oh, believe me, I get this. Creating a "pain attack" has always been just a SFX of a stun attack, like and Ego Attack or NND or something in the past. Keeping it simple. I was just wondering if, in 6th Ed, they had come up with some way of reflecting the title of this thread, "Stunned without taking STUN" It seems mechanically doable, whether you justify it as "pain and realism" or some kind of "disorienting attack" from a psionic metahuman, whatever. If it doesn't exist, totally cool. it is builds like Christophe Taylor just posted that I figured were the case... was just wondering if a base combat mechanic had been added to the game since 5th.

Yeah... for "realistic" games, grounded more in "normal combat" vs. "heroic combat" I can see such a rule, and rules on morale and such, being cool. Old Twilight 2000 had decent rules on that, IIRC... but again, was more about gritty combat than "heroic" actions.

What is APG1? Thanks.

Heo basically has four "effects" of combat damage on a character: Decrease in stun or body "Con Stunned" being unable to act/must recover for one action if loses more Stun than Con in a single attack "Unconsciousness" in that Stun is reduced below a certain number (usually 0) "Death" in that Body is reduce below a certain number (-10 or -amount of Body, etc.) While not perfect, it does a good job of providing game rule guidance for cinematic effect in play. What Hero doesn't really account for is being "Stunned" (I have to shake it off before I can act!) without being closer to unconsciousness. It is one thing to "have your bell rung" by a solid shot to the chin, and a couple more like that and I'm out. Hero handles that pretty well. What about "pain" though? What about, say, "A sudden searing pain like your arm is on fire" that flares for a second... make the target jerk and lose focus and gasp... but really isn't going to cause a cumulative reduction in STUN. You could hit them with it several times and they aren't going to go unconscious, but they do "lose an action" shaking it off? How do people rule on this? Is there a mechanical solution for this in Hero that I don't know about? (Another example: Say someone stuck me in the arm with a pin. I would holler and jump and gasp in pain and probably not be able to "fight back" or do anything for a few seconds while I shook it off... and they could "stick me with a pin" over and over, and I'd probably never be knocked unconscious by it... but I would get "stunned' over and over, most likely, but not really be losing STUN... so how would Hero mechanically rule on that?)

Yes to all of this. Great examples of exactly how PRE Attacks would be used and play out in our games as well.

Ok... you asked for it... (Seriously... only bother reading if you have any interest in an overblown perspective on science fiction and superhero gaming.) So, let me show a scenario that actually began to be explored in our game. Hopefully it demonstrates the kind of "science fiction" I think supers, or people with powers, can explore: There was a long running PC named Thermal. (Super scientist type with flame-on type powers)... years of playing the character, he went from an awkward guy running a soup kitchen and trying to figure out what to do with his powers and knowledge, to the leader of a nation of metahumans who had a seat on the UN, forged alliances with other nations to balance the belligerence of the US and Russian "super power" aggression... lead an army of supers into China to end WW3, etc. Along the way, Thermal's player was really into the idea that Thermal was contributing to the development of new and radical scientific theories and practices. He actually, over time, developed a comprehensive theory on the basis of meta-biology, and was awarded a PhD for his contributions. The Thermal Bio-Dynamics theorem eventually lead to the beginnings of bio-engineering and uplift technology. As the game advanced, and the world went through a massive alien invasion that lasted 10 years and wiped out half or more of the world population, Thermal brought up the debate that the only way to really save as many people as they could, and to enable people to survive and thrive and help fight off the invasion, was to begin offering bio-engineering for anyone who wanted it... and he'd actively push for it. He wouldn't force anyone to be uplifted, but he couldn't understand why anyone would want to remain "baseline." Also, by making the choice not to uplift, a person opted out of the society he was building. Baseline human had no inherent value. Not being uplifted was like choosing to not be vaccinated. You can do so, choose not to play by society's new rules, means you choose not to receive society's protections and support as well. It was a powerful philosophical exploration that grew out of the nature of "people with power" and what would happen if they really existed. (we never got to take it very far, because the campaign ended up with those characters on a galactic journey that, due to relativity, would essentially result in their never returning to Earth in the timespan of the game). This is the kind of sci-fi that I can get behind. These are the kind of questions that bubble up as a world grows around "people with power." This campaign had hundreds of PCs over years of various different teams, groups, time periods, etc. Characters grew up, aged, died, retired, or became something more than human which caused them to question assumptions of what "good" is, and what a moral, ethical use of power looks like. We had PCs who became major political players, lead a colonization of Mars (the presence of supers who could fly payloads into orbit for almost free vastly accelerated space programs, super science drove advancements in technology, etc. These developments also caused massive political unrest as the question of nations and benefits, and who gets access rose up.) We had a long running exploration of god-hood, with one PC actually 'crossing the threshold' and becoming divine (essentially evolving the PC out of playability, but it was complicated) and the realization of the true nature of the "gods" of myth. It was a long running campaign that hit its 30th anniversary last year, probably ending with "And a new Era had begun..." A literal next-generation of heroes (one PC was the daughter of another PC who grew to adult hood in real time in the game) trying to rebuild Earth after the devastation of the invasion... previous heroes dead or missing... the major PCs (Thermal, Vector, Locke) off on a galactic voyage of discovery, searching for the Progenitors. Essentially, I tell you all this because it meant that I wrestled with these "science fiction" questions for years, as primary GM of this world (the RDU, Red Dragon Universe, hence my login name). We had discussions as a playgroup (several playgroups over the years) about the scope of super-powers vs. technology... expectations of the players compared to source material and in the context of consistent world building. It was not always easy, and mistakes were made, and lots of meta-game discussions were had. What was the nature of interstellar transport? What was the nature of teleportation and what kind of technology could cause it? What were the economics of super-powers and super-technology? Where did VIPER get its money for hidden underground bases? How did cities handle the economics of rebuilding after a super-battle? What were the different levels of technology available, and why didn't the cops have blasters just like VIPER agents? What happens when the public realizes aliens are real, and how does that undermine traditional human social structures? Same with metahumans? What about magic and gods? One of the main things I wrestled with was "What is alien civilization like? What is the "known universe" when you realize just how (nearly) infinitely large the universe really is? I had to work out at least the basics of different alien life, societies, types of technology and species motivations that would be different from humans. How high level was the alien tech? How far did galactic federations and empires actually reach. (Like, for all its massive reach... the three main alien bodies... the Confederation, the Azure Empire and the Tresselaine Facet spanned enormous territory... but it all was contained within the Orion Arm of the Milky Way.) There were decisions to maintain the massive wonderful size of the Universe, and not just have people jetting between galactic clusters like they were taking a cab across town. The immenseness of space, the hostile environment that is space... the uniqueness of life bearing worlds... the scope of time that is way beyond human comprehension... we wanted to keep all that. It challenged what it meant to be super, because super is relative. In one meta-game play discussion, we talked about what would happen to those PCs who might be immortal. The concensus that Thermal would one day be a sentient star, a power and intelligence beyond our understanding who could affect change at the atomic level, and spend eternity learning what there was to learn, was really profound in understanding how the player viewed the game world and his charcter. I always wondered... would Thermal remember being human? Perhaps he created a a fold-space pocket dimension where he kept his encoded memories of an Earth long since quantum dust. Maybe in this "new universe" that Earth took on a life of its own... All this to me is what comes to mind when someone says "galactic champions" and all that entails. My source material is as much episodes of Cosmos as it is comics. That is why I'd say I'd be fascinated to hear how others play out this kind of game... what questions do you wrestle with? What do your games end up looking like?

I like the idea that the an "18" could be ruled this way (depending on the gun, as Hyper-Man indicated). I personally wouldn't over use it, or plan for it, as much as it is GM ruling in the heat of the moment that just fits the scene. I'd also argue that most of such movie scenes are with an unexperienced shooter (either doesn't really know how to shoot a gun, or has never done so in live combat, etc.). If the PC's concept is a well trained, combat experienced shooter, this seems an unlikely ruling. Also, with the "Luck" or "Unluck" ruling... I certainly wouldn't bring "Luck" (as a power) into it. Do you make a player roll a luck roll every time they attack? If a character has Luck, do they get a luck roll every time they are attacked? I certainly wouldn't recommend playing that way. As for "Unluck" that is one I'd recommend never having a player take, but if they did, defined as manifesting in a certain way "Police tend to think I'm the bad guy all the time" or something. Also, would you really have a PC roll unluck every time they pulled their gun, just in case? I'd personally find this use of Luck/Unluck as time consuming and very un-fun. Ultimately, that is my question... why is this scenario "Crap! I left the safety on!" important? Is it something you've seen in movies and just wish would come up in a game once in a while? Are you playing a hyper-realistic game of low level, generally unskilled/inexperienced PCs where this might happen? (Say early days Walking Dead type campaign?) Is this really a mechanics question, or more of a "When would it make sense to rule this way as a GM?" Personally, I'd go with the latter. As a GM, it would just be in the back of my mind, and when the right moment comes up, depending on the scene and dice and the flow of the game... go for it. ex: Current heroic game I'm running... well trained, almost "special" level PCs in basically the real world. (Think X-Files meets Jason Bourne) I could easily see a scene where a character gets in close to an enemy, pulls the opponent,s pistol from their holster and tries to shoot him with it. Dice roll goes badly. Say he needed a 13- to hit... I'd go with the flow... rolled a 14, 15, or 16, I'd say "You bring the gun up, but the guard twists, knocking your hand just enough to the side that the bullet punches the wall next to him." If the roll was a 17 or especially an 18... then maybe, "You bring the gun up and "CLICK." Safety is on." (Again, I'd do this because the scene felt right, the dice pushed it that way AND I would know that the players would find it as fun as I would.) Here is a scenario where I definitely would NOT rule that way. Same PC, sneaks up on a guard, pulls his silenced pistol and puts it to the back of the guys head. As GM in such a scenario, I tend to say, "Ok, just don't roll an 18" and usually don't even have the player roll damage. But say, "Oh crap... 18!" is what happens. Then I would not even consider making it a "you left the safety on" because that wouldn't be fun, that would be making the PC incompetent, and the player feel bad. In this case, a simple "Unbelievably, your gun jams. You have half a second to consider the incredibly low odds of that happening, as the guard turns around in surprise and a fight is on!" It is my feeling that it is a GM's job to take every die roll and action and weave it into a descriptive moment as part of a descriptive scene, to bring the action alive. It is never just "you hit, you miss, you fumble" etc. Every fight should play out in such a way that looking back on it, there is a very visual (mentally visual) replay, like remembering a great action scene in a movie. Gun with safety left on is just one possible cool description of how the scene and die rolls and player actions might be described.

Blue book, after the last adventure: Ryu (modern ninja, cold blooded assassin): Well, we can't leave town just yet, I have to go kill all of them since she called me a Koga. Can't let that secret get out... which inspired... #justRyuthings #NinjaDeepThoughts #KogaDon'tExist #KillEmAll #Don'tReallyCare #AlwaysBringaKnifetoaGunfight #BombMakingBros

death tribble was moved to tears during the scene in "Inglorious Basterds" where the film storage was set on fire, but he won't admit it

Don't you always have to declare this? I've always played this way. The whole concept of "intent" is important with PRE as well as anything else. I'd never allow "I'm just rolling PRE to see what happens!"... no... it is "I'm dropping out of the black night sky, right in the midst of the mob, and doing my best scary voice to scare them into dispersing away and not chasing the injured mutant any more!" Ok... that is the descriptive intent... PRE Attack in the mechanic... between GM and player, figure out any plusses/minuses to the number of dice... role for any added skill checks that could help (stealth and acrobatics to perfectly time the sudden appearance, etc.) Then roll for it... Now we are judging the result on what was expected, and logically agreed would be an a reasonable outcome. And yes... all PRE attacks take a combat action/attack action, just like any other attack... at least in my games.

At some point, in some edition of Hero... wasn't this the rule? That you could defend against a PRE attack with PRE or EGO, whichever was higher? I could be misremembering, but I've allowed that for years.

It was stylish, and had some good action scenes... it also bogged down at times... and I felt the ultimate "big bad's" rationale was inconsistent and ultimately blah. (The rationale of the big-bad's main lieutenant 'the ghost' was brilliant, but the final showdown badly choreographed so that he only loses by doing something stupid... I hate that.) My main beef was the lack of technological advancement over centuries. The setting takes place between two eras, 250 years apart, and very little seems changed, between those time periods. That made no sense to me. Weapons technology in a hyper-violent world like that would have accelerated far beyond tricked out slug-throwers. Yes, there were energy weapons, but they never explained why not everyone had them. Even if high-tech was completely controlled by the super-rich, showing they had massively superior technology that kept the plebeians in control would have been nice. With AI also a thing, synthetic bodies seemingly easily available... I never understood the need for actual human "sleeves" nor where all those "sleeves" were coming from. Also... did they ever explain how "the ghost" did his ghost thing? They seemed to just completely wash over that plot point. And the Envoy thing... they never really explained it... he was just "really cool and good at stuff." This is science fiction, which means there needs to be a consistent explanation, not just hand-wavey "he's the PC, so accept it" kind of stuff. I expect there is a lot more in the books on the Envoy bit, but it didn't come across in the show.