RDU Neil

I brought this discussion up specifically with the group at last night's game. Immediately the players said, "Oh man... that's easily a Blue Chit use of Danger Sense!" which referred to my chit rules... a version of luck that allows limited expenditure each game that can modify a power use (do a power stunt), add plot points, etc. It really does help when you have players who 'get it' and are looking to create a fun, dramatic game/story... and understand the rules are in service of that end, not in demonstrating some powergaming/show-off/competitive need.

Exactly... I tried (really, I did) to watch Justice League, but I kept throwing the remote at the TV in disgust. After several thousand dollars of replacement TVs, I just couldn't try to watch they horrible "action figure posing" that keeps getting shown in DC movies. When will they realize that not only did every panel of a comic being a crotch-shot splash page turn out horrible comics... translating that to movies is even worse!

Actually a good example of this in my bi-weekly game last night. Three PCs infiltrated the penthouse of a Milanese mob boss, got into a shoot out with some hired killers... named bad guys. One of the killers was surprised, out of combat, by a PC, who hit with 2 9mm rounds, one in his chest one through his arm... no Combat Luck as it doesn't apply when surprised out of combat. Bad guy was badly wounded but alive, but CON Stunned, so the follow up two shots to the head were, again, no Combat Luck applied (character incapacitated, even temporarily) and bad guy is gone, dropped without getting a chance to act. In another part of the Penthouse, another bad guy made his Danger Sense roll and was prepared... started blowing holes through the walls with a .460 S&W. None of the characters had body armor, but all named characters have 1 level of Combat Luck. In this fight, the bad guy got one good look at a PC (lots of dodging down hallways, grenades going off, blowing through cheap interior walls going on... took a while for the fight to get face-to-face)... and hit... it was a leg shot, rolled badly... so with CL and 1/2 damage for hit location it ended up being a 2 body damage "nick" rather than blowing the limb off. Later, when the combat got in close, a PC got his 9mm close up and headshotted the big (very big) bad guy, but he had CL, so instead of likely dead and at least CON stunned, it was a bloody crease across the scalp and not enough to CON stun. This fight was one of the most cinematic and fun fights, and it worked because we had nominally "unarmored" characters simply not going down with the first lucky hit. Nobody "wanted" to get hit and a decent roll to a dangerous hit location would still be really bad, but the difference in CL vs. non-CL is huge in actual play.

X2 at the time was good. It has clearly been outclassed by Marvel movies, since then. First Class as well. The problem is that they are still stuck in the old school "comic book movie" formula, and haven't grown as the genre and audience have evolved. Logan was great because a) it wasn't an ensemble, and b) it DID evolve and was a powerful finale that did away with "I pose with the hand clenched while stuff floats around me" theatrics, and presented a more brutal, personal movie. If nothing else, the X-Men need to do away with the "every demonstration of my power is a grand pose with stuff swirling around for five minutes while I grimace!" type of thing... because what the best Marvel movies do is show super powers being used quickly, effectively and casually to make them seem really super. Quick, fluid, dynamic, clever uses of powers... not clenched and constipated. (Like one of the things I hate is the use of Quicksilver, who clearly can move so fast that none of the other characters matter, but only gets his "one scene" when he decides to turn on his power and go. The Avengers II version was a much better portrayal of superspeed at a balanced level. The X-Men Quicksilver gets these "humorous" scenes of superspeed that are visually interesting and such, but in the context of the plot and story are utterly ridiculous. "Hey, this guy is so fast he does everything before anyone can blink... but we'll leave him behind because he had his one scene and if he really used his powers, the rest of the movie wouldn't work." In the comics, the X-Men were the original team of combatants who worked together to have the clever, combined use of abilities where the sum was greater than the parts, and they have never portrayed this in the movies... while every fight scene in every Marvel movie is way better.

I wish I cared, but I just don't. No matter what they do with sfx, they still seem stuck in 1980s dialogue and soap opera drama that, yes, back then was definitive of the X-Men, but is dated and tedious, now.

I Googled CLiCoSmaGONT and got this... I am duly terrified.

I'm that too.

I'm a social democrat, which seems to terrify a lot of people.

I'm old enough to have read them first in the '70s, but I can honestly say I'd never heard that particular criticism until the movies came out and later "How It Should Have Ended" did a thing with it. I'm sure there were old school fan groups for decades before that, but never in my circle of geeks who all read the same books. (You started with Andre Norton and C.S. Lewis, graduated to Tolkien and Burroughs, then Howard, then Moorcock, then Asimov and Niven and Heinlein, Mccaffrey, Cherryh, etc.).

I've always... I mean, I think always since 1st/2nd Edition... used EGO as the defense to PRE attacks. Either that was an old original rule, or we houseruled it way back when I was 14 and I've played it and taught it that way ever since. It just never made sense that This, totally.

I just found my wife's birthday present. Thank you!

We use PRE attacks all the time, and yes, there are times it is used on the PCs... moments when they are surprised and shocked outside of normal circumstances, a huge power is demonstrated, etc. I've often found it useful to get across my point as a GM... "The PC knows, whether they player agrees, that they are outclassed and in great danger" or whatever. Forcing a lost 1/2 phase or full action can be a very effective way of "attacking" the PCs in a cinematic way that isn't just damage dealing. My only issue with PRE is that it is one stat, and only one stat, for all non-damage dealing/social combat. It probably is too cheap for the "always hits, area effect, mind control" it theoretically could be... but just because it MIGHT be abused doesn't mean I'm going to throw out one of the favorite mechanics at the table. Personally, I'm working on building a "social martial arts" based on PRE for attacking vs. EGO for defense, that breaks PRE down based on the various PRE skills. Like there is a Charm maneuver and a Persuasion maneuver, etc. To give those PRE skills more heft and make the PRE attack less "all encompassing." Not sure how it will work, but we'll see.

Yeah, I just did the same and it is a list of some of my favorite titles over the last few years... Ms. Marvel, Daredevil, All-New Hawkeye, Carol Corps (the best Carol Danvers portrayal of the recent runs), etc.

I tend to do this. As GM I say, "Build your character as you feel they should be viable, critical CSP (Characteristics Skills Powers) that define the character. Don't worry about background skills or nice-to-haves. Use 400 pts (or whatever)." Then once those characters come in and we review them for group balance, I say, "OK, everyone now has 20 points for background skills, flavor contacts, etc. that may or may not be relevant to play but are nice to have written down as fleshing out the character.) Been doing that for years.

Everything Tech said. Absolutely. I feel that putting your expectations out there is absolutely important, because most difficulties comes from conflicting expectations. For example: If I was one of your players, and you said your "intent" and "expectation" was a game that could switch genres, I would be scratching my head. Genre's aren't about mechanics, to me... they are about stylistic, setting, content and narrative "expectations" (that word again) and switching those things mid game/campaign seems problematic if not impossible. Again, my expectations are that internal consistency is critical to a game. If the initial genre is Afghan War era special-forces team encounters monsters in the desert (and I'm building a semi-realistic soldier PC with modern weapons and tactics)... and the next play session, my PC finds himself in an oddly colored, washed out old Musical Western, and all his war-torn monster hunting weapon specialties mean nothing against the the smiling cowboy in the big white hat with a song on his lips who shoots the M-4 out of his hands with a wink and rhyming lyric... well, I'm not so sure as a player I'd enjoy that very much. Now, maybe that is just me. It sounds like it would make for an entertaining novel or movie, but as a game where PCs are built a specific way to work a specific way, this kind of thing undermines the whole deal. Let's say I played a gunslinger in your campaign. If my character suddenly encountered another PC or character who defied everything my character understood about the way the world worked... this would require very logical extrapolation to get me to buy in as a player. 1)If it is possible for people to move and bend their bodies faster than bullets... why are gunslingers even a thing at all? 2)If only a select, rare few can do this, is there a clear campaign/narrative exploration about why? How do you get such superpowers? 3)How is the world changed by the appearance of super-martial artists? 4) Why don't they just wipe out the gunslingers (anyone who can move their bodies faster than bullets can do horrific amounts of damage with attacks moving that fast as well, so... )?? 5) Are these martial artists like supers, rare and dangerous and elite, but gunslinging is something non-elites can learn and do more easily, so a larger number of gunslingers can keep a few super martial artists in check? 6) Is it a matter of gunslingers using the equivalent of a 19th century cavalry revolver, but if they invented a 20th century Glock 19 that can sling significantly more bullets and do it significantly faster and more accurately... does that help maintain the balance? Or is there some weird physics that says, "No matter how good the gun technology, the martial artist is faster" then... ??? etc., etc. I played Torg a bit back in the day, and had this problem. If you take a character out of the genre they were intended for, they are often diminished andn unplayable. It makes for a fun narrative (a'la Enter the Spider-Verse, which is a must-see movie), but likely a very difficult, if not disastrous game. On a smaller scale, I remember running into this issue when playing Star Hero where we were working to simulate sci-fi in the semi-hard, Space Merchants/Merchanter Alliance kind of world, but there was a desire to have sword play be a worthwhile skill in a universe with advanced slug-throwers, body armor, even beam weapons, etc. We spent a lot of time, bending over backwards to write up a world where this made sense. We basically tried the tactic of "stations and ships are highly vulnerable and precious, so shooting guns was dangerous to everyone, and boarding combats and such were classic hand-to-hand so as not to cause deadly collateral damage." Of course, we quickly realized that even rubber bullets and concussion rounds and tasers and sonic disruptors were all still way more effective than a sword, and accomplished the same thing. It still made no sense for sword play to be a "thing." It made no sense because we were trying to merge genres. We wanted hard s-f tropes AND swashbuckling space pulp tropes... and the two didn't work well together. Can HERO as a system (or GURPS, or whatever) handle both hard-sf space marines AND swashbuckling Flash Gordon/Starslayer types? Yes. Can both characters be made with the same rule set and exist in the same game? Yes. Does the resulting narrative/story/play actual "feel right" and make sense and work out as a good RPG campaign? Not really. I'd say it was unlikely at best, though a short, goofy one off where a noir detective, a wizard and a LEGO kitten have an adventure could be hilarious. Basically, you are using a task resolution mechanic (OCV and capping it) to enforce Narrative play (genre mashing). That can get really hinky.

Bullets on Ryugu (my next album title and a cool little bit of science)

Totally off topic, but I always hated this "dig" at LotR because it was very obvious that the Giant Eagles or any openly moving force, could not make any headway into Mordor while THE EYE was still blazing. The entire trilogy is rife with examples of "any time we do anything open and obvious the Eye sees it and plans are crushed, we must sneak and hide and ultimately distract the Eye if we have any chance." The Eagle assault would have never worked, or even been considered under these clearly known circumstances. It was a bad internet meme that became a bad critique.

Finally binged the third (final?) season of The Expanse when it appeared on Amazon. Damn that is a good show. Any attempts to do semi-hard SF will always get my attention, and to do it well, with good acting, writing, plotting, character growth and great political and alien-first-contact drama... SO GOOD! Oh... I just went and looked it up. Amazon is actually producing a 4th season. Hot damn!

See this thread on Danger Sense as another example of where 6th Edition (and 5th) went too far in the "internal consistency over playability" issue.

Yes... this is what it WAS... but is no longer in 5th and 6th. Now it is a sense and sort of, but not really, follows the rules for senses. Hence why I started this thread, as the new builds (from cost to described mechanical effect to vague narrative effect) are quite confusing and incoherent. Edit: And to your point... the source material use Danger Sense as a narrative tool, narrative McGuffin in a way... so mechanizing it in HERO causes serious problems. The less it is defined the better, and that is counter to 5th/6th philosophy of deconstruction.

I've not seen them all, but what I have (Star, Roma, Black Panther, Bohemian, Favourite) I would choose Roma. It is the most powerful and moving use of cinema of those. My favorite movie of last year was "Sorry To Bother You" followed by "Mandy"

Them's fightin' words!! Heh... seriously, the movie was bad, but I never understand how it always gets used as an example of bad. There are infinitely worse movies out there. I would rate the original Howard the Duck above Guardians of the Galaxy 2 any day.

They are a joke, and I don't watch them, but they are a social touchstone, so often worth discussion. I find a really interesting question would be... say a movie came out that, out of nowhere, displayed technological and craft developments that utterly transform how movies are made, the same way talkies, color, the steady-cam and CGI transformed movies. (I have no idea what this would be, just theoretical). Unmistakable is the notion that, say, the editing, special effects and cinematography would utterly transform how movies are made going forward. Now let's say that these miracle achievements were developed while making a movie that was a murderous screed depicting actual incidents of killing, rape, torture and cannibalism while presenting the institutionalized torture-slaughter of people and kittens as the highest social virtue. (I mean... just imagine the absolutely most hideous aspects of humanity presented as the greatest virtue.) This movie is so powerful it inspires waves of genocidal violence across the globe. But holy crap, the technical achievements are AMAZING! So what happens at award time? Would this film still be recognized as a great work in the areas of technical/craft achievement, even if millions suffered and died because of it? Even if you take it down several notches, and say the movie is just a plodding, badly written, incompetently directed buddy movie with '70s era racist overtones. Does it still get nominated for Editing and Cinematography or whatever? At what point can you separate the craft of movie making from the end result of the particular movie being made? Seems a fools game, at best.

It doesn't "have to be" (those are your words and show up nowhere in the article) but it is certainly a reason to be considered. The merit of an artistic work is as much the message it is conveying as the technique and craftsmanship in producing the message as well sa the artfulness and effectiveness of presenting that message. How that art transforms (the whole point of art) is absolutely worth considering.

I had a twinge of "no no no no" at this (mainly because I was mentioned above), and stopped myself to wonder why I had this emotional reaction. I realized I was reacting to semantics. I don't "Play 6th" any more than I played "5th"... I use(d) those rule sets to help inform the system I actually use - RDU HERO - for the games I actually play, which are Red Dragon Universe (31 year supers campaign), Secret Worlds (12 plus year modern action conspiracy campaign), etc. What my gut tells me is that the reason I personally gravitate back to 4th ED, was because that was when I played the "game" of Champions. I played "Fantasy Hero" and played Cyber-Hero (though my god that had some awful cludge rules). Prior to that I played Champions and Danger International. I "used" 4th Ed to "play" Champions, etc. but the two were very closely related. The system functionality strongly shaped the game. Again, it may be purely anecdotal and personal perspective, but I still felt that 4th Edition HERO still had "games" to play, and that seemed to go away with 5th. I think, ultimately that is my difficulty with 5th and 6th... the system became more and more distanced from the "games" I was playing. Today I use 6th Edition but I don't play it. I also "use" 4th Ed and Danger International, etc.