RDU Neil

I think shields, in my mind... do three things... and the GM and player have to decide which one applies for each attack. A shield can a) Deflect a hand to hand attack (stop all damage) thus provide plusses to Block, b) Give a character the Missile Deflect power against defined attacks (thrown objects, arrow, of a certain mass or less), or c) Give a character "Cover" in terms of increased DCV... but that cover can be subject to "blow through" For each attack, the best option is chosen (against a sword strock, plusses to Block, vs. an arrow fusillade, Missile Deflect... against an arrow targeted specifically at them by a highly skilled archer, maybe "Cover" is better) ... and against some attacks, the shield is essentially useless (that tactical plasma rifle... COVER... but blow through means your head is gone anyway).

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play." For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem. Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person." It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet." Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes. So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?" To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons. 1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability. 2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability. 3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game." In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO. 4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules. 5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

I didn't find this man-bashing... just a tired, cliched, "saw it coming a mile away" joke just like most of them. That was my main problem with the movie is that it wasn't remotely funny or clever at all. everything was so predictable, even the jokes were canned and stiff. It felt like a bad episode of a 90s TV show that went on too long. It was severely dumbed down, which I find shocking. Even if I found Infinity War to be bad, they were at least trying to up-end audience expectations and do something different with their story telling. The writing on Captain Marvel felt like what I expected Iron Man to be, eleven years ago... safe, cliched, predictable and bland. For all the faults, no Marvel movie has been this until now, which is why I was so appalled.

I'm probably echoing what Pegasus said, but... 1. what do you think is the best genre for teaching the 6e rules? Purely IMO, but I'd say grab Champions Complete and keep rule use to that book. The other option is to run a heroic genre that your players like... Low Fantasy or Zombie Apocalypse or something that is very resonant. Most importantly, you as the GM should enjoy it 2. Is it best to start with pre-gen characters? Without a doubt, for two reasons. You want you players to "play the game" not "work the system" right off the bat... and two, your character designs will go a long way toward setting the standard for games going forward. They will look at these characters as examplars and tend to follow them. Teach your players to play HERO the way YOU want them to play HERO. 3. Which parts of the rules are most important to teach first? To me, HERO is about task resolution (bellcurve 3d6) and simulating action adventure combats. That is what the SYSTEM is designed to do. Note that it isn't enough to create a game. A game requires the reason/purpose for playing in the first place, goals for what you want to achieve in play, etc. With HERO you are creating the game you want, so you need to be clear on those. "I want this game to simulate great episodes of a zombie apocalypse show, where it is about disparate people banding together to survive and maybe, maybe rebuild!" which is very different from, "I want this game to simulate Fallout 4, so you all feel like a group of Vault Dwellers exploring the surface!" which is very differnet from, "I want to play a D&D like game, but with HERO rules" which is altogether different and sets different expectations. 4. What's the best way to start playing? If you have pre-gens, and I again suggest that, one thing I like is to leave a couple things open... like "Important Contact" and "Important Person (DNPC) and have the players come up with those things, knowing they will be immediately part of the game... that the player is creating part of the world by inventing people who are meaningful. Then I like to do a "shared story telling" session designed to set the groundwork on how the PCs all know each other and why they are together. Do NOT role play out the difficult, awkward, grinding of getting the PCs together. The game starts once they are all "on the team" so to speak. I like to have each player come up with a very short, three sentence origin. Lots of details left open. "Major Magma was a mutant whose powers were really dangerous. He almost ended up in prison or dead, but the Army approached his parents with a training and powers support program. He has excelled in the Army and become one of a select few military supers." Then go around and have the next PC do the same. Once done... go back and go around again, asking leading questions. "OK... how did Major Magma become a well known hero during the California earthquake?" And give each PC a scenario. Then go around with, "How did Major Magma get assisted by Quiet Fury during the gang war?" and each player makes up a story that connects their charcter with another. By this time, most players are using other stories to feed their own. End with, "What brought you together four months ago, and why have you continued to team up?" or whatever is appropriate. The players get to tell stories and therefore make up part of the world and are bought into "being a team" and that doesn't have to become a grind of the early sessions. 5. What's the best way to introduce combat? IMO, the very first scene of the very first game should be "in medius res" and start with, "The zombie stumbles from the alley with a snarl reaching for you with rotted, grasping hands. What do you do?" or whatever is important. Put them right into a very descriptive, action scene against enemies they should do well against... and let them react to it. IMO, I always tell players, "Don't look through the book for rules on what you can do... put yourself in your charcters shoes and react accordingly, and we'll find the rule that best simulates that. You are a ex-truck driver with a sawed off shotgun and a machete, scrounging for food... a zombie is coming for your brains. What do you do!" As they describe it, you can apply the appropriate ruling. "I go for an all out swing, trying to cave the things head in with my machete!" (Great, that's an attack, targeting the head, here's how we do that...) or "I jump back, trying to get way, (Cool, we'll call that a dodge, here's how we do that...) etc. 6. What sort of handouts? eh... I'd keep these minimal. Character sheets, maybe a quick guide to key stats/numbers on the sheet. I'm not a big handout guy. 7. Have you ever tried teaching 6e using the 3e games? I don't think of it this way... more of a larger concept, "HERO enables all kinds of action adventure characters to be built with a base set of rules. Not all rules/powers/abilities/skills etc., apply to all games, but are there IF they are applicable for the kind of characters, genre we want to play. The idea is to use the parts of HERO we all feel best create the game we all want to play. (I'm personally really big on everything being group oriented and integrated, to avoid players coming to the table with their individual expectations already baked into their character, rather than building up those expectations together with the group.)

Ronin, the first Bourne, Heat... anything by Michael Mann really, even his bad stuff... pretty much my milieu. The fact that Netflix will produce a high quality bit of action/drama like Triple Frontier makes me very happy.

Are you/have you watched "When Heroes Fly?" on Netflix? An Israeli based action/suspense series that also screams Danger International, especially the dramatic but overly convoluted plot. I really like it.

My problem is that the comics don't display enough of the arrogance and extreme competence she should have. Heck, as ham-fisted "this is what old men think a feminist is" as it was, the '70s Ms. Marvel gave her a lot more decisiveness and confidence. I was really disappointed in the comics after the shift to Captain Marvel where they failed completely to have her demonstrate rock solid competence, and instead spent time dealing with crap like "living in a brownstone with normal people and a cat and trying to make money"... like WHAT? That's what a strong, independent woman is about? And when she was finally in charge of Alpha Flight as space-defenders, it was again a series of catastrophes and self-doubt, rather than Carol kicking ass, taking names and running a tight ship. I'll give the movie the thumbs-up for making her extremely competent... it was just the movie sucked otherwise on every level of movie making.

I watched it. It was more of a "personal journey" story and less "action movie" than I was expecting... which made it better than I expected. Some nice twists/role reversals with the two primary characters. Heck of a cast for a Netflix film. Shows the kind of clout they have in producing new work, these days. Solid thumbs up, but not "WOW!" for me.

Flash did have to be recosted back to 4th Edition costs, and it is 1 action per body rolled... so if a flashed character has two actions, they "shake it off" faster than someone without. It has worked well (or at least feels right and hasn't been an issue in play this way.) Adjustment powers... I always have to look them up as they aren't used a great deal, but we usually translate segment/phase/turn into action/Round/Turn... and as I said, four of my rounds equal a Turn that is equivalent to RAW, then after that, time segments are the same. Basically in play it comes down to, "How many rounds are you "pumped up" or "drained" in general.

Are you really being this literal, or are you just trying to argue for arguments sake? I didn't say the actors had to absolutely align their ages with the characters they played, but that as time passes the movie going audience is going to expect the characters to grow, assuming the shared universe where they continue to have time clearly passing between movies. Sure, Tom Holland can pass off as a HS student, and maybe could for a while... the point I was making is that the audience wouldn't expect him to if the overall MCU continues to advance like it has. They would expect Spider-man to grow up, rather than an everlasting series of high school adventures. As for Grimm and Reed... they actually did try to explain the big age difference between Reed and Sue during the Byrne years, and it retrospectively is creepy as hell (she was a child infatuated with this man until she became "old enough"... seriously creepy). And I've already indicated that they weren't perfect in their attempts at change over time, but they TRIED to keep it in mind and had an overall sense of growth and change. IMO, they could have done even more... like clearly Reed and Ben aren't human any longer. Reed is an energy being or something inside a pliable form. Ben is... whatever the THing is. The best stories would be played out over years, IMO, where Johnny and Sue, who are still nominally human if you want them to be, continue to age, but Ben and Reed stay the same. THAT introduces real pathos to a long term arc that I'd love to see. Those are powerful themes to run in the background of the sci-fi, super action plots. That kind of thing can bring real gravitas to stories that are otherwise shallow, trope filled, self-referential fan fiction.

I'm actually stating that this is true, and it is what I love about the MCU. Because we are dealing with real people (the actors) and real time passing (the movie chronology has basically aligned with real time)... we are getting a version of the Marvel Universe and characters who do actually "grow" (up and old) and a universe that does have continuity of time and resonance of consequences. These are things the comics have long since lost, and thus why the MCU is my current favorite version of Marvel. If you look at the first 25 years of Marvel, up to about the time Shooter took over, and definitely before they were sold, there was a strong continuity and a general sense of development over time. Look at Scott Summers between first appearance and the height of the Claremont/Byrne/Austin era... he went from a skinny teen to a grown man, dealing with significant relationship issues, etc. Look at Sue Storm becoming Invisible Woman, of the birth and raising of Franklin Richards (granted, he didn't grow up enough, but)... Look at Peter Parker going from skinny high schooler to a post-grad, then in the working world, becoming an adult, etc. Look at how they treated characters from earlier times (the Invaders and such) most/all aging and or dying, only Cap still young because of freak freezing, or Namor because he wasn't human. They killed Thunderbird, Captain Marvel, Jean Grey... and they had not brought them back, yet. It was NOT a perfect year-for-year alignment, but the Marvel Universe tended toward growing up as it expanded. Think of all the classic *See Issue #44 of the FF! type of blurbs that showed stories were being written with a conscious, shared history. I know that there are many market forces working against this kind of thing, but Marvel's original take was a purposeful shared universe in a way that had never been done before. It always promised more than it could deliver, but at least it tried in the first era. It has long since given up on that. The MCU had creative aspects that actually forces this to be the case. I also think the audience market would NOT stand for a casual reboot the way the Spider-man movies kept doing. Clearly audiences had tired of that, and once Spider-man was part of the MCU, I think that kind of "James Bond just keeps going, embodied by new guy over and over again" motif is played out. At least it will certainly be a much harder sell for modern audiences. (And it only worked when the main character/property existed solely on their own, not in a shared universe.) If the MCU supposedly continues, and ten years from now, they are have a third or fourth new actor playing Spider-man and he is still a teenager in high-school, I do NOT think audiences will go for it. If somehow the MCU continues and Spider-Man has five more movies over the next decade, I'd expect, and I think audiences would expect, that Peter Parker grows up with Tom Holland and we see that growth over the course of the films. THAT is the difference I think the MCU has made that the comics have long since abandoned.

If they actually go the Kate Bishop takes over Hawkeye route, I will forgive a lot. That would be awesome.

So you can hold an action until the end of a countdown... so if you initiatize 10, you can hold until 1 the use it or lose it. I also tend to expect more than just "I hold" but "I hold most likely ready to fire if I see movement" or whatever. Then, if the held action becomes something very different than what was intended, I make a INT or DEX or PER roll, whatever makes sense. If a player holds and then responds to a declared action, it can result in a DEX off, or whatever roll off makes sense... again, situational. So "First actions... any held first actions are done at end of held first actions... then Second actions (if any) and the count down starts again." If a player wanted to technically hold to Dodge or Block a second action attack, and somehow got all the way through first actions without using theirs, they could just declare at the end of 1st actions "I go defensive" and the Dodge bonuses carry over, just like they do. Now... maneuver modifiers do NOT carry over between initiatives. If you Dodged in round one, it covers first and second actions in round one, but the mods "clear" at the start of Round 2. The only thing that does carry over is the Block lets you go first thing. If you are hand-to-hand with an opponent and block on Round 1, no matter what your initiative, if your action on Round two is a follow up attack, it will go first. Any other action goes on that ROund 2 initiative.

1. Kept the 10 point cost per the same, and it has been fine. In fact, I've noticed a different spread of SPDs in our supers games. (IMO it makes 10 points a much more fair cost than the single most undercosted thing in HERO when you use the SPD chart. 2. We don't play traditional END, (i've mentioned our END rules other places) but getting rid of Post 12 and all the was one of the main points. All these false stops and starts and awkward timing structures... having a more organic flow to combat... it starts and goes until it ends 3. Lightning Reflexes have been tested and basically just aren't worth it in this system. It is rarer than with the SPD chart that two characters roll the same initiative and have the same DEX... but it could happen and Lightning Reflexes would help one go first. We have one PC in the current game, a quick, two gun guy, who has it... but it has only come up once. A test, but if he finds them not worth it, happy to put the points elsewhere. We've also been doing the rule since before Lightning Reflexes were a thing (5th right?) and so no one ever really took them... just one of the Talents not used, and in fact I didn't notice for years until the recent player asked about them.

Interesting... so the idea is: GM makes up "cards" that have prebuilt powers, or skill sets, or whatever. Card has a name like "GI Joe Basic Training" or "Electro-Rad Powers" or whatever works, because the cards represent a specific manifestation within the game. Card has a set cost. Players choose cards that add up to the "point level" of the campaign. So you could, to make it easy... just say you have a 30 point game. Select cards of skills ,powers, perks, whatever (I know this game has no powers, but a game like this could...) and when they add up to 30, you've got your character abilities. Seems like a lot of work in prep for the GM, but could make for a fun Con game style thing, as the players have fun building characters by selecting cards. heck... you could make it interesting by having players "draft" cards... like each one is dealt 30 points in cards... picks the ones they want and hands the rest to the next person. In the end, you have to build from what is available and is passed to you, and then make a sensible character from the selection. That would be a hoot!

I love Iron Man 3 and the whole Stark/Little Kid part was pure gold. My favorite of the IM movies. (Huge Shane Black fan, so what can I say...)

One of the reasons I like the movies is that they were NOT doing the "no one ages, nothing changes" crap that happens in the comics. I really DO want to read about the next generation of the heroes and see characters die of old age, retire, what have you. The pathos of Vision being unchanging while Wanda ages and dies would add the gravitas I want, for example. To have 75 years of comics be truly continuing... and be reading Thor and him reminiscing about Jane Foster, when those of us who read the comics also remember watching her grow old and die... how powerful would stories like that be? To see Peter Parker grow up, and old, and have kids and whatever... not in some What If? but in continuity. To not still be reading about Tony Stark... but maybe Happy and Pepper's grown up daughter having taken on the mantle... whatever. Sam Wilson as the aged, OG hero comparing his time in the 70's to the Black Lives Matter era Falcon... not still be the same age as he was in the 70s. That is what I want in my comics more than anything... but never get. Real, literate, consummate world building that encompasses change over the decades. Edit: Think how powerful and resonant the scenes with Cap and the now aged and failing Peggy Carter were. THAT was powerful story telling. That was epic tragedy. That gave us a reason to really care about the characters. When you divorce them from repercussions, from the human elements of time and aging and change... they become pointless. That the MCU necessarily has to let things change and grow, and time pass in a way the comics never do... that makes them so much better IMO, than the comics every have been since the early 80's. (The last time they held to continuity and advanced the characters, and were willing to evolve the Marvel universe under the guidance of a strong editorial direction.)

Obviously you can do what you want, I was just trying to understand the rationale... like... 3 pts for the above? Everything in there is completely valuable. What is the cost break rationale (not yours... but the generic package deal rationale) for getting a discount on any of that? (Sorry to distract from your thread, but I'm intrigued with understanding what your benefit is by having these cost division calculations).

Well, I'd like to see it, if/when you decide to post it. I don't necessarily feel like I have to force my players to expand. Usually their request is, "I really think my character should have Conversation in his skill set based on how we've been playing him" and I'm like "Sounds good! You have it!" In fact, had a player set a character aside last night, because he wanted a more combat oriented character for the type of scenarios being planned. Rather than just "get better at fighting" with one character, who, in his mind, was not that kind of guy, he wanted to move to a character who WAS that kind of guy. The personality, history and Story of the character drives how they are built, not just "I've got some points? Let's spend 'em!" Very different play styles, but having a way to calculate "combat wise... how do the PCs all stack up with one another" is a good idea.

It has been so long since I ever read Package Deal rules, and I never used them back in the day because they made no sense... pay for the skills you have... why are some discounted and others not. I just don't understand the whole "Divide by 5" thing that is going on.

Wait... did you post your variant? Maybe I missed that post in this thread? I'd be interested in seeing that. (Got to remember to dig out that AC#3 tonight when I get home.)

Or MCU Hank Pym's design, as they all look like expounded Ant-Man suits... which goes along with the implication that the Quantum Realm is the answer. I am REALLY leery of the "The only choice is to start over" line. Are we getting a reboot? That undermines my entire interest in the MCU. They have been so good with actually "living with the implications" of what has happened before. There are consequences that resonate throughout the series. If they kill off half the universe, we need to see the MCU continue with half the universe gone, not just "oh that never happened." It undermines the credibility of everything they've ever done if they do that.

This is where you were mistaken a bit. 1. No one gets to go more than once before everyone gets at least one action... 2. ... and unless you are playing demi-god level speedsters, even the chance for second actions is uncertain (you'd have to have a 10 SPD to always guarantee a second action) 3... and the order of actions changes, so there are possibilities of "slower" characters going before "faster" characters at times. (which is typical of initiative systems) This moves away from the set pace of the SPD chart where every round, every time, everyone acts in the same order, and players can calculate optimized "game actions" rather than respond to the immediacies of combat that shift in the moment. The ultimate benefit I've found is that in game play, the higher SPD characters just don't dominate play time as much (or at all) which happened all the time with the SPD chart.

Always a fun game... 1. The Winter Soldier 2. Civil War 3. Black Panther 4. Spider-Man: Homecoming 5. Ant-Man and the Wasp 6. Captain America: First Avenger 7. Thor: Ragnarok 8. The Avengers 9. Iron Man 3 10. Iron Man 11. Age of Ultron 12. Thor 13. Thor: The Dark World 14. Guardians of the Galaxy 15. Doctor Strange 16. Ant-Man 17. Iron Man 2 18. The Incredible Hulk 19. Avengers: Infinity War 20. Guardians of the Galaxy V2 21. Captain Marvel I realize that many/most of the Marvel cosmic movies are at/near the bottom, because I despise how they've turned their cosmic storylines into brightly colored farce. Ragnarok only gets the high marks because it was truly funny without sacrificing drama. I really wanted Captain Marvel to turn this around and be the Winter Soldier of the cosmic movies, but instead we got pedantic weak sauce. The top and bottom movies are pretty easy for me, but the middle are really me asking myself, "If I had to watch one of these two now, which would it be?"

I have all the Adventurer's Clubs... I'll have to dig that one out. Haven't looked at 'em since the '80s or whenever they came out.