RDU Neil

If... within that 10 years, they were loyal to the continuity... characters aged, changed, died, and the editorial direction and meta-story was maintained and consistent, I'd be all for that.
 
I personally don't like the "100 years of continuity*!!"
 
 
* don't look closely at all the things we changed or ignored from early times just because we assume our readers forgot or don't care, and the characters don't age or grow
 
If you are going to do continuity... do it right... or I'd  be happy with 10 to 20 year periods that reboot... as long as they are hardline internally consistent during that period. 

This is just like the comics, in a bad way, though. Not specifically with Thor, but the classic "Writer #1 has implements big changes as part of their story. Writer #2 comes in and comes up with throw away "reasons" to undo those changes for their story."
 
That kind of thing has always driven me crazy, as the characters are clearl "properties" and not legitimate dramatis personae with continuity of growth and development, etc. One thing I always strove for in my games is that something that happened twenty five years ago in game, is still there, and may very well be relevant to something in a current storyline. History matters. Creating that history over time is one of the great pleasures of RPG playing and world building.

This is just like the comics, in a bad way, though. Not specifically with Thor, but the classic "Writer #1 has implements big changes as part of their story. Writer #2 comes in and comes up with throw away "reasons" to undo those changes for their story."
 
That kind of thing has always driven me crazy, as the characters are clearl "properties" and not legitimate dramatis personae with continuity of growth and development, etc. One thing I always strove for in my games is that something that happened twenty five years ago in game, is still there, and may very well be relevant to something in a current storyline. History matters. Creating that history over time is one of the great pleasures of RPG playing and world building.

I'm bummed that so far Marvel will show deleted scenes, but not do "Director's cuts" that expand the cut down movies. In some cases unneeded, but like with Black Panther, the Okoye and W'Kabi scene in particular, and the fact that there is a finished four hour cut of the film... I really wanted to see that done, fully. The expanded editions of LotR are heads and tails above the theatrical releases, and I think certain Marvel movies should get that treatment. Maybe I'd like Infinity War if there was more... even though these scenes still don't imply the scenes I really wanted to see.
 
Ultimately, I realize the thing I hate most about these big "event crossovers" just like in the comics... is that they change the rules. For 99% of the time, in their own comics, for decades, these heroes stand fast, rise above, and win or lose, they earn their reputations. Then these big events come through, and the heroes aren't heroes anymore, the rules change, they are suddenly discarded mooks and chaffe. And it isn't like they just kill off one or two in highly dramatic ways... no... they just toss them aside like no big deal.
 
Like they make it so obvious that the writers are just doing whatever they want, rather than the characters and the world having any internal consistency and verisimilitude. That has always irked the writer and gamer in me, and I don't like it any better on the big screen. You are going to kill off Heimdall and Loki? They deserve an entire movie to make those death as dramatic and meaningful as they should be, and demonstrate that Thanos earns his rep. You think the player's of those characters would stand for such a reversal of the established social contract of what is permissible in the game?
Loki:  "Wait... you just killed me off in the setup scene?" 
GM:  "Yeah... you are dead... say something clever right before you die." 
Loki: "Wait... what? I'll come back right?" 
GM: "Nah... I have to establish how cool my villain is, so you die. Oh, and you too, Heimdall."
Heimdall: "Hey!" 
GM: "But you do get a last chance to help Hulk run away."
Hulk: "Are you... Uh, what about running away? I mean, I'm going to pound..."
GM: "No, you just get beat down and humiliated for no reason and can't use your powers for this entire adventure."
Hulk: "What? eff you, man!"
 
seriously 

Yeah, I was never a fan of the Binary character design. I much prefer the current Capt. Marvel costume design, even over the black swimsuit.

Blech.  I'm sorry, but I just can't do anything with that hair.   ?

Personal Defense Weapons are in many cases shortened versions of Rifles or Carbines.  Some PDWs use the full sized rifle cartridge while others, like the ones that you mention have shorter rounds designed specifically for the weapon.  In the cases that you present the Muzzle Velocity is somewhat slower than the full rifle cartridge.  I would suggest putting the actual numbers into the formula and getting a Damage from there.  Due to the shape of most of the bullets and the relative high muzzle velocities I would say that they would act as rifle rounds.  After a lot of thought I am starting to lean toward using Semi Armor Piercing to represent rifles (rather than my stated adjustment of Body Armor).  It just seems to be cleaner and could easily be bought in the weapon itself.
 
For example here are some of the damages for the cartridges that you have up there.  I again use the FMJ numbers if possible.
FN 5.7x28mm - 1d6+1 Semi AP
HK 4.6x30mm - 1d6+d2 Semi AP
6.5x25mm CBJ - 1d6+d2 Full AP (depending on the actual round)
5.56x30mm MINSAS - 1 1/2d6 Semi AP
 
Actual availability varies widely but as you can probably imagine the full rifle cartridges are more readily available.  I wouldn't think that most of the others are available at your generic gun store.  You might want to assign an availability roll to each of them (the 6.5x25mm might have a 5-).  With some preparation they would be fine but are unlikely to find their ammo on others (another reason to stick with standard ammo).
 
As for Armor Piercing on pistol rounds, it would be full Armor Piercing but the DC may be a step lower.
 
Just my $.02,
 
T

Fixed

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/30/minimum-wage-maximum-wage-income-inequality
 
This will not happen in America in my remaining life time
 
but I wish it would.
 
 

Fixed

I prefer to take the tact of asking the player "What are you intending by taking Money as a perk/being rich, etc. How do you want it to affect the game?"
 
Everything is intent. So, once you understand what the player is hoping for, you can figure out whether that makes sense for play, and if Money is the right way to do it. 
 
As with everything in RPGs, group consensus at every step of the way, beginning with campaign direction and character creation, really answers most of the "problems" by getting in front of disagreements, etc. No one person decides what Money means for the game... the play group agrees on how to make Money cool in play.

I do hope exactly that.  At the very least, I hope it helps me find more people to play the earlier versions with.
 
 
I too can respect their concerns, but Jason also has more interest -- by which I mean financial -- in success or failure of the Hero System, and more knowledge about how to do that, than I do.  
 
Also a lot of people -- myself included -- have put forth armchair solutions to The Problem, but very few -- and I am likewise not one of those few -- have taken any initiative to write the kinds of products we'd like to see.  If any of us had put our keyboards and time where our mouths are, maybe this would be one of our projects we'd be discussing here instead.

True, but it's absolutely the place to be in winter.
 
FWIW, the wind hasn't been blowing much in Toowoomba. We had fog this morning for the first time this year. Pretty nice for people who aren't hothouse flowers.
 
I recommend Toowoomba as a place for people from the US to escape to. There's even an underutilized GM here...

Assuming you want this to be easier, this rule seems like a precedent that 1d6 Healing can remove the Stunned condition.  It could be as simple as saying that 1d6 Healing Stun can be redirected to remove being Stunned, at the cost of getting no other benefit from that 1d6.  If that's too cheap, then make it more dice of healing sacrificed to remove being Stunned.
 
Given the Healer is losing his own action to let the stunned target get his phase back, this doesn't seem unbalancing.

I prefer to take the tact of asking the player "What are you intending by taking Money as a perk/being rich, etc. How do you want it to affect the game?"
 
Everything is intent. So, once you understand what the player is hoping for, you can figure out whether that makes sense for play, and if Money is the right way to do it. 
 
As with everything in RPGs, group consensus at every step of the way, beginning with campaign direction and character creation, really answers most of the "problems" by getting in front of disagreements, etc. No one person decides what Money means for the game... the play group agrees on how to make Money cool in play.

And on another subject of elected officials (or ones trying to be such)... this is a trend I heartily support.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-future-democratic-party

Sure... he has all the money in the world... and trying to bribe the agents works sometimes... and as noted above, sometimes it doesn't. And when the news gets ahold of the fact that his companies are employing known criminals and murderers (the villains let them know) and some take his money and stab him in the back, etc.
 
Also... infinite wealth does not mean, buy anything he wants without repercussions. Also... this is role playing. Doing it once in a while is dramatic. Min-maxing is not, so it doesn't happen. If players don't know how to control themselves for the betterment of the drama, you shouldn't be playing with them.
 
Edit: Or, if he wants to abuse wealth as a power, hit him with a custom power Drain: Infinite Wealth, and suddenly he's broke!

Chris,
I would "like" your post because I appreciate all the detail, but I'm out of "likes" for some reason. 
 
So many things you described, like all the different campaigns (OMG we played the hell out of Danger International!) and such from the '80s... but I never had the issues that you described when we translated to 4th. It could come down to differences in expectations. I never tried to spell out huge campaign limits and write down significant house rules, and it wasn't until 4th Edition that we began playing Fantasy Hero in depth. I think that, while there were times where certain applications of powers broke the feel of the game (the use of force field by a mage and a character with wings, both of which were really over-powered), but I never ended up with player push back or frustration on that, as the "table" generally agreed pretty quickly that "whoa... that just isn't right" and we changed things.
 
With supers, we felt the 4th Ed expanded skill list was cool, but not necessary. It wasn't until 5th that I felt the expectation had changed from "General broad skills, and you can get specific if you want" to "Must deconstruct all skills into fifty different knowledge skill specifics for every possible situation"

The whole separation of Heroic level vs. Superheroic really worked for us. Over time, there were always questions of "Is this balanced?" but I never felt that it was up to a rule set to proscribe the kind of game to be played, but that Hero let us find our own.
 
Perhaps it was that I always wanted my Champs campaign to actually do away with most comic book tropes (or at least question them) and move more into the "people with powers in a chaotic, dangerous world" type of campaign. On the surface, you had costumes and code names, but wrestling with issues of the law and vigilantism, killing or not, how to use your power to change society, not just beat up bad guys... what were the ramifications for normal in a world of supers, etc.  Those things were essential to the game, and I don't think could have been done with Champions as it was originally envisioned, that enforced tropes like secret id's, DNPCs, etc.
 
Ultimately, I always found that rules and systems only went so far, and nothing in the book was ever considered absolute. What happened at the table determined what was right... work it out in play... then capture any change that meant to the rule set. This type of thing lead to dumping END as too much boring math in game, dumping the Speed Chart because it made SPD not just powerful, and the chart resolution clunky, but enforced some players as having more face time in the game than others.

Eventually, it is all about the players. I found a good test. Give a prospective player the BBB, have them read through it a bit, and then, "Tell me what you think?" If they say something like, "So it seems like I can play any cool character... like this guy who fights occult crime like the Shadow, but with magical trinkets instead of guns" and I'd feel they have a good chance in the group. If, on the other hand, they say, "So it seems that the character I should play has desolidification and ego attack, affects real world, because then I can attack everyone, but never be touched, right?"   Then I take the book back and say, "Effort appreciated, the exit is over there."
 
It was a good test about whether people wanted to role play, or game the system.

They were both on the team briefly for those stories set on Wundagore Mountain and at the Russian nuclear reactor, though maybe Wonder Man wasn't in an official capacity.
 
The Nefaria Trilogy is one of my all-time favorite superhero stories as well. It had just about the perfect action scenes. (Though I think Byrne's early art there was a bit shy of his peak on the title in the 180s, and his Fantastic Four work.)

I think Byrne's FF run is the ultimate trajectory of his art, from its peak (which I personally felt was Uncanny X-Men 108 - 142, but paralleled that time period) to his initial decline by the end of that run, lines becoming sketchy, sloppy layouts, etc. Byrne always needed Austin as his inker to excel, but I do think he had similar impact to comic art and design as Steranko did in his short but seminal Nick Fury issues.

RDUNeil's point about Stealth hits the target for me.  A hypergranular skill and knowledge system guarantees that most skills and  knowledges are too narrow ever to do you any good in a game.  I admit I've had bad luck with GMs, but I am not sure I've played in a game where skills other than Stealth etc. have been worth the investment.  (Sure, buy the everyman package so you can drive a car competently, surf the web and get something besides malware and cat pictures, and attend a cocktail party without telling an obscene joke to the parson's wife, but nothing more.)  If I had a dollar for every session where the Skill Monkey was worthless (ditto the Detective, other than his CSL's with firearms) and the Ninja ruled like a god, I'd be able to buy the pizza every Friday for the rest of my life.

So I was thinking about skills and their use in game play, the way they've changed over the years and editions... realizing one of the things that bugged me about the trend to micro-deconstruction of every skill (Not enough to have PS: Lawyer... now you have to have 47 sub-skills to represent all the things a lawyer knows). I realized what bugs me, is that the game is now inconsistent. Some skills are broad and general and supposed to cover a variety of situational applications... others are really constrained.
 
It came from looking at the Talent "Environmental Movement" which is a Talent for no apparent reason. Isn't the ability to move through certain impeded environments something you can learn... i.e. a skill?  Whatever on that, it is the design difference between it and Stealth that jumped out at me.
 
First... Stealth is 3 points, and is used by almost every character, every game, multiple times. And if the character concept doesn't call for stealth, the lack of it is just as meaningful to the game. Stealth is vastly under costed for its utility in action/adventure (i.e. every Hero game) scenarios... especially as it covers "being sneaky" in any and all situations. Want to sneak past the guard in the dark? Stealth. Want to move through a crowded party without being noticed? Stealth. Want to move across an old attic floor without causing loud squeak? Stealth. Give some situational modifiers (really creaky floor or plentiful blindspots or lots of stuff you have to climb over) and you are good to go. Quick and easy.
 
But then you look at Environmental Movement. Not general, but highly specific, in that you have to buy it separately for every environment. And each environment is nearly as expensive or more than the all-powerful Stealth. 4 Points for Crawlspace Ace.  Really? Four points for the once in a decade of gaming where a character has to move through a cramped space quickly? Really? Talk about overpriced for utility, even if there is no skill roll, that is four points that is almost never going to come into play, and when it does, the action could have been easily covered by a Dex roll with minuses.
 
It is also inconsistent design. While tentatively "realistic" in saying "Knowing how to move through cramped spaces doesn't also allow you to move through underbrush, or over rocky terrain, etc." the question then comes up... if that is the design philosophy, why isn't it applied to Stealth? Moving quietly in the dark is different than moving surreptitiously in a party is different from knowing how to move in an old house without creaking... but you don't have to buy 3 kinds of Stealth.
 
I'd much prefer to see a single skill Environmental Movement 3 pts. "YOur character knows how to move across difficult terrain, through crowded and cramped spaces, etc. Make a roll... "   Boom... GM throws in situational modifiers like any other roll... "This is cold and icy and slippery and you haven't really done this before, so -3 to your roll!" and we are good... quick and easy.
 
Costs aside... Talent or Skill aside... it is the inconsistency in the design that really bugs me. While I personally prefer skill lists that are broadly comprehensive vs. narrowly defined... at least be consistent. It is the fact that similar aspects of the game have fundamentally different design concepts behind them.
 
---
 
On a completely different note... what skills encompass "Hot wiring a car" Sure you could say mechanics, but plenty of people who fix cars have no idea or couldn't effectively hot wire a car, and plenty of car thieves would have no idea how to fix a car... so mechanics seems wrong. I was just scratching my head that such a common action/adventure skill isn't clearly covered anywhere. I PDF searched "hot wire" "Hotwire" "Hotwiring" in 6th ed and came up with nothing
 

So I was thinking about skills and their use in game play, the way they've changed over the years and editions... realizing one of the things that bugged me about the trend to micro-deconstruction of every skill (Not enough to have PS: Lawyer... now you have to have 47 sub-skills to represent all the things a lawyer knows). I realized what bugs me, is that the game is now inconsistent. Some skills are broad and general and supposed to cover a variety of situational applications... others are really constrained.
 
It came from looking at the Talent "Environmental Movement" which is a Talent for no apparent reason. Isn't the ability to move through certain impeded environments something you can learn... i.e. a skill?  Whatever on that, it is the design difference between it and Stealth that jumped out at me.
 
First... Stealth is 3 points, and is used by almost every character, every game, multiple times. And if the character concept doesn't call for stealth, the lack of it is just as meaningful to the game. Stealth is vastly under costed for its utility in action/adventure (i.e. every Hero game) scenarios... especially as it covers "being sneaky" in any and all situations. Want to sneak past the guard in the dark? Stealth. Want to move through a crowded party without being noticed? Stealth. Want to move across an old attic floor without causing loud squeak? Stealth. Give some situational modifiers (really creaky floor or plentiful blindspots or lots of stuff you have to climb over) and you are good to go. Quick and easy.
 
But then you look at Environmental Movement. Not general, but highly specific, in that you have to buy it separately for every environment. And each environment is nearly as expensive or more than the all-powerful Stealth. 4 Points for Crawlspace Ace.  Really? Four points for the once in a decade of gaming where a character has to move through a cramped space quickly? Really? Talk about overpriced for utility, even if there is no skill roll, that is four points that is almost never going to come into play, and when it does, the action could have been easily covered by a Dex roll with minuses.
 
It is also inconsistent design. While tentatively "realistic" in saying "Knowing how to move through cramped spaces doesn't also allow you to move through underbrush, or over rocky terrain, etc." the question then comes up... if that is the design philosophy, why isn't it applied to Stealth? Moving quietly in the dark is different than moving surreptitiously in a party is different from knowing how to move in an old house without creaking... but you don't have to buy 3 kinds of Stealth.
 
I'd much prefer to see a single skill Environmental Movement 3 pts. "YOur character knows how to move across difficult terrain, through crowded and cramped spaces, etc. Make a roll... "   Boom... GM throws in situational modifiers like any other roll... "This is cold and icy and slippery and you haven't really done this before, so -3 to your roll!" and we are good... quick and easy.
 
Costs aside... Talent or Skill aside... it is the inconsistency in the design that really bugs me. While I personally prefer skill lists that are broadly comprehensive vs. narrowly defined... at least be consistent. It is the fact that similar aspects of the game have fundamentally different design concepts behind them.
 
---
 
On a completely different note... what skills encompass "Hot wiring a car" Sure you could say mechanics, but plenty of people who fix cars have no idea or couldn't effectively hot wire a car, and plenty of car thieves would have no idea how to fix a car... so mechanics seems wrong. I was just scratching my head that such a common action/adventure skill isn't clearly covered anywhere. I PDF searched "hot wire" "Hotwire" "Hotwiring" in 6th ed and came up with nothing
 

I find it difficult to rustle up sympathy for elected officials that willingly create or support policies which discriminate against non-Caucasians/whites, women, homosexuals/bisexuals, the poor (and even the middle class, these days), non-Christians, etc. Basically: individuals who make life harder for anyone that isn't a middle class or higher heterosexual W.A.S.P. (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) male. All of a sudden, now that people are pushing back with the First Amendment and their rights as private business owners, these politicians are crying foul? Boo-frickin'-hoo.
 
Performing a root canal on an ornery Allosaurus fragilis sounds more appealing and infinitely more realistic.

Didn't Blue Beetle and Booster Gold get hit by that drain A LOT?