RDU Neil

You have some good advice there.  
 
If I was to add anything it would be to find ways for heroic actions to succeed.  If the players try to do something heroic and the dice don’t quite make it work then find a way to say that the action worked BUT...  and then come up with a downside.
 
For example, the hero wants to use his power to distract the villains long enough for a hostage to break clear.  The dice don’t work out, so instead of just saying it doesn’t work, you say it does work but the hero has not just distracted the villains, he has drawn their attention to him, along with several others.  He has saved the hostage but left himself in a perilous position...
 
Doc

The current alt-right has shown that they fully intend for their "protests" to break out into melee combat, given the wide dissemination of plans for "flagpoles" that are fully intended to be used as batons and "signs" that are functionally medium shields. They also seem to attract more than their fair share of open-carry types, openly carrying in what can only be either a threat or a fervent desire that they'll actually get to shoot someone.

One clarification: Burning a cross in the woods or an open field somewhere is not a directed, implicit threat, and is protected speech.  Burning a cross on someone's front lawn uninvited, however, is impossible to interpret in good faith as anything else than a threat of violence.

I found the ending of Luke Cage Season 2 to be excellent, better than Season 1. Though again, they tend to drag out the last few episodes longer than need be. 10 would be good. Bushmaster was such an excellent, charismatic and relatable villain. 

Disney has a "brand identity" as a purveyor of family-friendly entertainment.   Marvel Studios, while they may have a freer hand than, say, Disney Animation, nonetheless has the shadow of that brand ID looming over their heads.  
It wasn't political correctness or "SJWs"(hate that term) who got Gunn fired.  It was running astray of corporate standards and practices and most likely violating contractual clauses.  It's messed up that it happened over tasteless jokes made years ago,  but it happened nonetheless. 

The distance from the wall thing is likely just a cinematic Hollywoodism.  I say this because while it's true the bullet will have more velocity closer to the muzzle … the extra fractions of a foot per second would have little (if any) impact on how well the bullet travels through material or whether or not the impact with material causes the bullet to deform and/or tumble.
 
Semi-automatics return to battery as part of their recoil-based operation. An out of battery condition exists when they fail to do so. If I recall correctly the phrase has its origin in the artillery world … specifically pertaining to a piece of artillery that is fired before being pulled back into position.  Think back to wheeled, towable cannon that would move (even when chocked) and you'll have the right mental image for the origin of the term, as each such artillery piece had to be repositioned after every shot.  So why is a wheeled gun that fires from the wrong physical position out of battery?  Because it's not firing with the rest of the artillery pieces that comprise the artillery battery; it is, instead, slightly off-target compared to the rest of the battery.
 
In more modern recoil-operated artillery pieces, the same term came to be used to describe a state where the moving parts of the gun were in the wrong position (since the gun, itself, no longer changed physical position when fired from land).  This was actually appropriate since such a state usually resulted in the inability to fire with the rest of the battery.  The term also made its way to semi-automatic small arms for hopefully obvious reasons, despite the fact that one isn't usually firing such weapons as part of a battery.
 
The origin of the term 'battery' as applied to artillery units is also somewhat fascinating (to firearm nerds like me, anyway) … and also goes back to cannon use.  And cannons have been around since, what, the 12th or 13th century?  Heh.

You aren't worried about the magmarantulas, then?  OK.

Very good book, I agree... and I agree the Democrats have failed to effectively mandate effective tax reforms. But... when there is zero chance of Capital Gains Tax being raised to appropriate rates, due to GOP blocking or whatever, that doesn't mean I'm going to toss them all and refuse to support particular individual democrats who support social platforms and discourse that seek to protect women, minorities and other traditionally disadvantaged groups vs. those who demonize, scapegoat and otherwise attempt to harm those groups for their own advantage.
 
And yes, scarcity is real and there is never enough to go around... but I will always support policies that attempt to give more to those who have less, over policies that encourage the consolidation of wealth and power for the few.

Please define "our nation' and "our values" as you see them, so we can discuss. Thanks.

Very good book, I agree... and I agree the Democrats have failed to effectively mandate effective tax reforms. But... when there is zero chance of Capital Gains Tax being raised to appropriate rates, due to GOP blocking or whatever, that doesn't mean I'm going to toss them all and refuse to support particular individual democrats who support social platforms and discourse that seek to protect women, minorities and other traditionally disadvantaged groups vs. those who demonize, scapegoat and otherwise attempt to harm those groups for their own advantage.
 
And yes, scarcity is real and there is never enough to go around... but I will always support policies that attempt to give more to those who have less, over policies that encourage the consolidation of wealth and power for the few.

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.

Talia necessarily means Ra's al Ghul is included in the story (and while he might have somehow escaped the ridiculously destructive train crash in Batman Begins, he's probably dead).  I'd like to see Anne as Catwoman again, but the problem is timing.  She only showed up when Batman was old, crippled, and basically retired at the end of his career, which was a pretty dumb move on DC's part, but it would be odd for them to ignore that or do yet another reboot.
 
If they did somehow put her in the film, I want her to be actually Catwoman this time, not just a hawt burglar with goggles that kinda look like kitty ears when she's not wearing them.  DC has been good about costuming and such, except for the Batman movies where they tried to avoid much of that.

Anne Hathaway made a fine Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises; for that reason they might not want to use her for the upcoming movie. Likewise Talia al Ghul. Maybe Lady Shiva or Huntress would work.

I am not disagreeing.  But the 'leftist' "messaging" is far from 'poor people are lazy'.  It is extremely easy to run a campaign that attacks 'big money', but (as we've seen with the progressive shift) it undermines itself.  I would much rather have a rhetoric that doesn't bank on undermining poor, because that makes itself more powerful (and historically, is even more dangerous than just undermining political opponents).
 
And yes, it is still pretty painful to see.
 
 
I did just post a financial article that outlined how Obama increased the deficit the most out of recent history.  Of course, he did inherit two wars and a "banking crisis".  I think some of the estimation took this into account, but I would need hard data and methodology information.
 
Are the voter rolls unclean?  Is eligibility a major issue in the voting polls?  So far there's nothing to indicate that it is.  If you have any information otherwise I would be very interested.   As I said, I've already re-evaluated my thoughts on medicare vs military cost (and before, on gun control) based on this very long thread.
 
With gerrymandering, though.  There's a rather... impressive history with gerrymandering, and there is an interesting discussion from Extra Credits on how gerrymandering may be raising extremism in politics.  We can see a clear, discernable impact from it.  If there is a huge problem with bad voter rolls, then we should definitely fix that.  But is there?
 
 
 
I'm not talking about personalities.  We literally have a political party who's ingrained in the belief that global warming isn't real.  Not even as personal belief, as political message.  That political message is then broadcast on the most popular news network in the country, and spread to conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts where it is further reinforced.
 
We are the only modern country.  In the world.  That treats global warming this way.  So yes, I compare it to someone saying "your cancer isn't real".  Yes, it was rhetoric, and I apologize over being livid on that topic.
 
If we want reasonable, real policy, we need a country that actually talks about it.  This isn't a personality issue, it's that no one is going to create practical policies until we are well past the stage of climate change being political.  Sure, I hate the democrats for making it this way, but they aren't the ones who need to give in over that.
 
 
The democratic party needs to be broken up, and I'm hoping the recent changes in politics may change that.  But bad economics aside, that's not what's making my hair go white.  The reason you are getting so much opposition is the problem not of comparing two crap sandwiches, it's comparing a bad flu to an ultimately lethal disease, or what people perceive to be.  There is some illegitimate fear mongering, but nothing makes me sicker than hearing that "people are too entitled" when working with coworkers who work 3-4 jobs.  If you want to talk to people and convince them of your position, then, let's talk about the current financial situation.
 
 
If we want to talk about taxes and not high-level political ideals, I'm fine with that.  The current financial system isn't helping the working class.  If you think that can be fixed by lowering taxes across the board, I'd be interested in knowing how.  The "treasury" is not just what is held by the government, but what is siphoned off by the second estate (or the merchant class). 
 
The past-super-rich are being outstripped financially by a new generation of them.  It's understandable companies like Apple and Amazon are taking heat in politics now.  But the way Amazon workers, Tesla workers, and even Google employees are treated is not good.  I honestly do not know how to regulate the power of the new era of corporations other than higher taxes and greater regulation.  How would you go about this?  All I got in my hand for this is taxes and regulations.

Just saw the article on the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel.  I don't normally follow cutting edge 'sciency' news but I just wanted to say (yes, this may be a bit hyperbolic) that I think those things are gonna work out swimmingly for all humanity.  Just my opinion though...YMMV.

You misunderstand, or misrepresent. I'm not voting Democrat to spite the Republicans; I'm voting Democrat to stop the Republicans. If you can't see a meaningful difference between the policies and goals of the two parties, then your understanding of the world is so different from mine that I don't see how we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject.

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.
 
This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.
 
If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.
 
If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:
 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
 
 
Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?
 
If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

If they are truly new to Hero, and new to RPGs, character creation can be tough.
 
1) Ask them if they could describe the kind of fantasy character they want to play... you can build it for them... and show them how their character concepts are represented in the rules.
2) This helps them jump right in and see how their ideas are able to be translated into characters.
3) You get to shape their interpretations of Hero, so they inevitably build to your biases... always important for a GM to have players who fit a style.
4) You can teach them by saying, "After a couple sessions, we can talk about what you like, and don't about the characters, and we can tweak them so you learn how to make characters.
5) Or they can make a new character after they've seen how the game plays, from the ground up.
6) I think it would be a good idea to allow the players ideas about their characters to shape the world. If one of them wants to be all Avatar: Last Airbender... then now your world has elemental clans in it, or some such. If another wants to play a noble house, second daughter who loves to duel, then now a certain part of society is heavily shaped by dueling culture. Make their interests part of the game, and they'll be happy to learn the system.
 
Just my opinion, but game play and character dynamics first... system and process second.

The ending was excellent*, but the trip there was often padded with filler. That's been a problem with most Netflix Marvel series as of late, however.
 
*If I could work the spoiler tags, I'd make a comment here about the real villain of Season 3.

Yes.  The "incident" you refer to was a pair of sock-puppet accounts that purported to be a "hot lesbian couple" named Rachel and Kara created by a cat-fishing troll named Fred Bittick. Some of us had figured it out fairly early on (the photos, personas, and anecdotes were improbable), but even gentle attempts to point it out resulted in some extremely nasty blow-back from board members who had bought it hook, line, and sinker. You either had to ignore Fred or play along so as not to be labeled all manner of nasty names. Ignoring him was not as easy because he was a very active and aggressive poster and would sick other people onto you if you didn't respond to him. It was like an Orwellian social experiment.
 
To compound matters, Fred tried to insert himself into people's lives beyond the boards via private messages and instant messaging, and attempted to draw out intimate and private information from board members while sharing fake information of his own. His first attempt to do that with me was when I concluded my initial doubts were correct. I think that intrusive and falsely obtained intimacy was, more than anything, is why those who let Fred in and became "Rachel and Kara's" most defenders / advocates were so deeply hurt by the whole thing. I kept my "I told you so" at the end very low key as a result.
 
Personally, I formally take everyone on the boards at face value until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Its simply easier (and mannerly) to work from that premise. But, I keep my eyes open, and I'm sensitive to the fact that some people cynically construct Internet personas that gives them social leverage in interactions / debates. I do not assume that is what is going on here. You can't go through your days suspecting everyone all of the time. I want everyone on the boards to be comfortable being themselves and to give one another goodwill, friendliness, and grace irrespective of who they may be. The only person any of us can represent is ourselves. I encourage everyone to do just that. 

Some people would probably say I resemble my avatar, but most would have to be taking some serious reality altering drugs.
 
Glad you felt comfortable enough to come out here. Gamers are an odd mix, we are an average slice of the human race with all the good and bad that implies. Hopefully you mostly find the good here.
 
- E

Since US news seems to be focused only on the missing Malaysian Airlines flight and the Crimea, here are some other stories not seen in US television.
 
Ebola in Guinea, up to 59 people dead   Anti-austerity protest in Madrid turns violent   Venice seeks independence from Italy in unofficial poll   Egyptian doctor on trial for female genital mutilation death   Feel free to post other stories here.

I think the question posed in the OP is best answered with: What do you want?
 
I am a hopeless simulationist when it comes to sci-fi gaming, and you can't simulate something unless you have a decent handle on what you're trying to simulate.  In my gameworld philosophy, the situation your players are gaming in has to follow logically from the initial assumptions made about your world and what operates in it.
 
Science fiction in particular encompasses such a blinding variety of different atmospheres, different "feels", that you have to have a clear picture as a GM of the style of universe and the style of RPG that you want before you try selecting mechanics.  Are you in a future still purely Earthbound?  Are you interplanetary in the Solar System?  Are you interstellar, and if so, are a couple dozen worlds in play, or the billions likely to exist in the Galaxy?  What speculative tech are you taking for granted: power sources, space drives, weapons systems?  How much of known physics are you going to handwave away, and how much of it will you take as unchallengeable, and how will you reconcile the contradictions that spring from those choices?
 
Now, if you have a specific published setting in mind, then lots of that is sort of chosen for you, and you can take whatever game mechanics set that tickles your limbic system.  
 
Me, I'd like to create a workable 3-D space combat system, emphasis on 3-D. But even then I have lots of question I have to consider from the outset.  What strategic situations will impose peculiar victory conditions on space warfare?  How big must spaceships be in order to be viable weapons platforms capable of achieving the strategic missions of a space conflict?  Do you want one big one, a hundred thousand little ones, or or something inbetween?  If multiple ships are indicated, how do those operate together?  Does a squadron in a cone formation have a tactical advantage over one in a hollow sphere or hemisphere?  Can a fleet ever plausibly threaten an inhabited planet at the same tech level? 
 
If you aren't a simulationist, then you are appealing much more purely to the flavor of the gaming session, and you choose to overlook perhaps gross inconsistencies in the backstory, backgound physics, background economics. Then you can have Space Westerns like Firefly, for example.  (And I admit: you can have a perfectly enjoyable game in such a setting.)  But more pointedly, you have to choose up front a game flavor you want, and then choose the mechanics that let that happen.

This is a very tough question that is keeping me awake when I should be sleeping.
 
So, I think you have to start with "what defines Science Fiction as a genre?" and then how do you best evoke that in game play? 
 
If you are thinking of mechanics as purely the kind in Hero, I think you'll struggle, as that style of mechanic was designed to be generic, and while Knockback is clearly something primarily evoked in superhero comics, it still applies in a lot of over-the-top action genres.
 
Now, if you go outside of such mechanics, you can look at things like classic D&D spells as a type of mechanic. It is a stylized way of organizing rules that evokes a specific genre feel... a wizard with her spellbook. Leomund's Tiny Hut is not just a name stuck on a mechanical effect, it is a unique set of effects combined in a unique way, including the structure of what level of spell it is, etc. It can't be  deconstructed and pieced together differently without just making stuff up, the game just doesn't allow that.
 
Now spells in D&D are a crappy way to do it IMO, but they do evoke the "magic" sense for fantasy in a specific way.
 
What could that look like in Science Fiction? Perhaps knowledge/skill trees that reflect abilities of science, engineering and technology? Perhaps character abilities that are defined in context of the world?  I think setting is SO important to science fictcion (the fact that it is, at core, an extrapolation of current social and technological trends to a possible future state) that the rules/mechanics have to evoke the setting in them.

I really can't disagree more with this. The "values" discussion about some abstract notions that represent America is pointless. There are specific social outcomes that represent fundamental beliefs about the nature of humanity and the role of society vs. the individual that are at stake, and political policy outcomes are where the rubber hits the road on beliefs and values. What are you actually trying to get done? How are you actually trying to move social activities? How do you have a statistically significant affect on the social order that makes up your community, county, state, country... the world?
 
I've read your post several times, and while I get the sense of what you are against, I'm not sure at all what you are for? Some philosophical purity of concept? The parties may be pursuing their short term goals, but those pursuits affect the everyday lives of people across the world, and if supporting one over the other has significant ability to get closer to outcomes you desire, and oppose outcomes you loathe, then that is what you work towards. 
.
I'm not even sure what it means " to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American." What does that look like? How do you play that? What do you do, and how is it different than trying to get policy enacted? 
As far as I've ever experienced, the only people who espouse some kind of platonic ideal of pure "values" (whatever that is) are people who have traditionally been privileged enough to be at the top of the social order, where their "values" are just assumed to be correct and universal, thus morally superior to anyone who chooses to value anything else.