RDU Neil

I'm not seeing new ones. I got a notification of a reaction, click through to it, and I see nothing on that post. Has happened several times, and old posts that I know were liked, even recently, show nothing.
 
(I'm going to like your post above. Let me know if you can see it.)

At least it isn't just me, though. Thanks.

I have seen it... but it took a long time, and the players had to learn that they were very powerful, and that they didn't get punished for holding back... nor did they get punished for cutting loose when the situation called for it.
 
One thing I always try to emphasize with supers games is just that... the characters are super... and they should get the chance to feel that way. Maybe a group of heavily armed thugs were a challenge when first starting out... but later, the same situation is a piece of cake. Unlike D&D where all the creatures have to level up to the PCs... I love situations where experienced supers run up against thugs or lesser villains and just easily trounce them... because they should. The game aspect of 'every scenario has to level up to the PCs' concept... that isn't ROLE playing, IMO. Powerful heroes should get the chance to show how powerful they are... often by getting to hold-back and be confident and competent... but this requires the PLAYERS to feel that way, and not like everything is a "gotcha moment." Got to get rid of the GM vs. player mentality to let the PLAYERS feel confident and cool.
 
And it is important to realize the mentality of players who DO NOT know what is going on in the GM's head, and some of them never really learn to trust. I had one long term player who's character was one of the big three, and on track to become an immortal, godlike, and he NEVER felt confident going into battle. Not the character, but the player, because he was so used to every other game being "screw the player" by the GM. One time, he said, "I always feel threatened. I wish we had some easy fights."  I looked at him and said, "Just this evening, you took on a small army of 350 pt cyborg-killing machines. You one shotted several of them and literally out raced the rest, leaving them stranded behind and unable to stop you, practically ignoring them on the way to the big bad. Each one of those was a lesser supervillain, and you destroyed them!"
 
"OH," he said, looking surprised. "But the way you described them... they were so scary!"
 
Seriously.
 
After that, I made it a point to explain exactly what kind of threat and really emphasize where the PCs were more powerful, less powerful, etc., for every adventure. It became abundantly clear that having a meta-conversation about the game and their perceptions of it was absolutely essential for them to feel comfortable in the world, and this lead to much more confident role playing as well.

You have to address the PLAYER mentality... not the characters.

..and Captain America looks like Chris Evans, and Vision looks like Paul Bettany, and Ronan looks like Lee Pace, and Ultron sounds like James Spader, etc, etc, etc....
 
Thanos is pretty old...maybe Josh Brolin looks like him.
 
 

I've been seeing the same thing. New likes are showing up, though. I get the impression that the website is dropping older ones over time.

Here are the optional maneuvers:
 
Maneuver            Phase OCV DCV Effects
Multifire               1          -2     -2      Use multiple shots to increase the DCs of the Firearm, only with non-autofire weapon (for every "hit" as if it were an autofire                                                                 attack, add +1 DC)
Precise Autofire 1          var    ½      Gain bonuses to hit single target once with Autofire (for instance +1 to +5 if you have auotofire 5)
Rapid Fire            1          -2/x   ½     Shoot one or more targets multiple times (works like multiattack and rapid autofire)
Ricocheted Shot ½         var    +0    Use CSLs to “bounce” a shot to hit protected target
Snap Shot            1          -1      +0    Lets character duck back behind cover after shooting
Strafe                    ½        -v/6    -2     Make Ranged attack while moving
Suppression Fire  1        -2       +0 Continuous fire on area, only with autofire weapon
 
Consult pages 204-205 of the MHI Handbook for details

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

Several years ago, when my engagement became "Facebook official" I started getting ads for "Get your Ketubah Here!" in my feeds.
 
I had no idea what that was. I looked it up. So... I learned about a cultural practice I never would have before, but I always wondered what part of online history made the algorithm think I was Jewish. (And it wasn't like one ad... it was a string of them, for weeks.)
 
I'm sure they are better these days at profiling... but then I'm off most social media that, well, isn't this site.

Yeah this is something that both writers and GMs often do not seem to understand.  In order to establish someone as heroic or give them some sense of power or growth, characters have to face things that they can easily handle and revisit weaker creatures.  Most computer games, the world levels up with you so you never really feel particularly more powerful, just slightly different.  Letting the players steamroll a few things with their characters, particularly stuff that used to be tough for them, is very satisfying and helps give a sense of what they can really do.

I have seen it... but it took a long time, and the players had to learn that they were very powerful, and that they didn't get punished for holding back... nor did they get punished for cutting loose when the situation called for it.
 
One thing I always try to emphasize with supers games is just that... the characters are super... and they should get the chance to feel that way. Maybe a group of heavily armed thugs were a challenge when first starting out... but later, the same situation is a piece of cake. Unlike D&D where all the creatures have to level up to the PCs... I love situations where experienced supers run up against thugs or lesser villains and just easily trounce them... because they should. The game aspect of 'every scenario has to level up to the PCs' concept... that isn't ROLE playing, IMO. Powerful heroes should get the chance to show how powerful they are... often by getting to hold-back and be confident and competent... but this requires the PLAYERS to feel that way, and not like everything is a "gotcha moment." Got to get rid of the GM vs. player mentality to let the PLAYERS feel confident and cool.
 
And it is important to realize the mentality of players who DO NOT know what is going on in the GM's head, and some of them never really learn to trust. I had one long term player who's character was one of the big three, and on track to become an immortal, godlike, and he NEVER felt confident going into battle. Not the character, but the player, because he was so used to every other game being "screw the player" by the GM. One time, he said, "I always feel threatened. I wish we had some easy fights."  I looked at him and said, "Just this evening, you took on a small army of 350 pt cyborg-killing machines. You one shotted several of them and literally out raced the rest, leaving them stranded behind and unable to stop you, practically ignoring them on the way to the big bad. Each one of those was a lesser supervillain, and you destroyed them!"
 
"OH," he said, looking surprised. "But the way you described them... they were so scary!"
 
Seriously.
 
After that, I made it a point to explain exactly what kind of threat and really emphasize where the PCs were more powerful, less powerful, etc., for every adventure. It became abundantly clear that having a meta-conversation about the game and their perceptions of it was absolutely essential for them to feel comfortable in the world, and this lead to much more confident role playing as well.

You have to address the PLAYER mentality... not the characters.

I have seen it... but it took a long time, and the players had to learn that they were very powerful, and that they didn't get punished for holding back... nor did they get punished for cutting loose when the situation called for it.
 
One thing I always try to emphasize with supers games is just that... the characters are super... and they should get the chance to feel that way. Maybe a group of heavily armed thugs were a challenge when first starting out... but later, the same situation is a piece of cake. Unlike D&D where all the creatures have to level up to the PCs... I love situations where experienced supers run up against thugs or lesser villains and just easily trounce them... because they should. The game aspect of 'every scenario has to level up to the PCs' concept... that isn't ROLE playing, IMO. Powerful heroes should get the chance to show how powerful they are... often by getting to hold-back and be confident and competent... but this requires the PLAYERS to feel that way, and not like everything is a "gotcha moment." Got to get rid of the GM vs. player mentality to let the PLAYERS feel confident and cool.
 
And it is important to realize the mentality of players who DO NOT know what is going on in the GM's head, and some of them never really learn to trust. I had one long term player who's character was one of the big three, and on track to become an immortal, godlike, and he NEVER felt confident going into battle. Not the character, but the player, because he was so used to every other game being "screw the player" by the GM. One time, he said, "I always feel threatened. I wish we had some easy fights."  I looked at him and said, "Just this evening, you took on a small army of 350 pt cyborg-killing machines. You one shotted several of them and literally out raced the rest, leaving them stranded behind and unable to stop you, practically ignoring them on the way to the big bad. Each one of those was a lesser supervillain, and you destroyed them!"
 
"OH," he said, looking surprised. "But the way you described them... they were so scary!"
 
Seriously.
 
After that, I made it a point to explain exactly what kind of threat and really emphasize where the PCs were more powerful, less powerful, etc., for every adventure. It became abundantly clear that having a meta-conversation about the game and their perceptions of it was absolutely essential for them to feel comfortable in the world, and this lead to much more confident role playing as well.

You have to address the PLAYER mentality... not the characters.

"I guess the guy is a war criminal now or something... whatever..."
 
Classic.

Finished the final episode of Season 1 of "Counterpart" last night. New series on Starz, last episode aired yesterday. A very solid character drama / spy thriller / science fiction piece starring the inimitable JK Simmons. Highly recommended.
 
Now for the long sad wait for Season 2. 

I highly recommend that you use the MHI rules for firearms.  The Monster Hunter International setting for HERO has a list of firearms maneuvers that really help the game, especially the Multifire rules which make pistols far more useful than in the base game.
 
The book series by Larry Correia is also excellent too.

If you play together, rather than online I find a rolled up newspaper and a spritz water bottle are good tools to inform players they're being bad.

While a lot was reprinted from the original SF, a great deal has been added, primarily in the extended description of Aaron's campaign timeline -- where it took off to after the date of the original SF -- and in describing the world, the universe, and the multiverse his games took place in. His campaign was truly vast, diverse, and fascinating.
 
A few new characters from the setting are added, or given full character sheets and backgrounds where they had only brief synopses before. Artwork is IMO good to great, much of it by original SF artist Denis Loubet. It's all full-color on glossy paper.

Hopefully one of these will do.
http://www.herogames.com/forums/files/file/446-hero-gm-screen-6e-3pg/
http://www.herogames.com/forums/files/file/373-hs6e-gm-screen-portrait/
http://www.herogames.com/forums/files/file/271-hs6e-gm-screen/

Avengers: Infinity War: Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany Interview
http://www.slashfilm.com/elizabeth-olsen-paul-bettany-interview/2/
 
 

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

Agent Coulson circa 1991. Casual day at SHIELD. 
 

I think of these things as one of 3 concepts.
 
Reboot, Re-imagining, Retcon
 
Reboot: negates previous canonical details to take an established setting/character in a new direction. (Crisis on Infinite Earths, the old stories don't count anymore)
Re-Imagining: takes ideas/concepts from the original, but tells its own stories without interacting or conflicting with previous source material (Marvel comics versions vs. the movie versions, both exist separately)
RetCon: exists WITHIN the source material canon, but provides "new evidence" that canonical events didn't play out like it was believed, but doesn't negate them. (The "You thought Sharon died, but really she faked her death to go deep cover!" type of deal.)
 
Re-imaginings are great things. Marvel primary AND Ultimate Universe AND Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc. Each does its own thing with similar ideas, but none of them negate the other.
 
RetCons used to be great dramatic vehicles, but are so overused, and no one even tries to make them seem plausible anymore.
 
Reboots can be done well, or horribly... usually the latter, because they never make a clean break.

The MCU has had a very "low key" response to supers and aliens and gods, that make it feel like "super stuff" is at least accepted to an extent. Sure, a new Hero pops up ("Ok... I am Iron Man!") and it makes a big deal... but so do new Pop Stars or a big athletes in the real world, and we've had them before. This is a world that handled "the Event" from Avengers as another 9/11... not something that undermines fifty thousand years of religious and social dogma around humans being the center of the universe. Clearly this is a world where "out of this world" stuff is at least known. I'm sure it has its "chemtrails" and "false flag" crackpots as well, and those opinions of the Event or Sokovia would be interesting, I'm sure.
 
Ultimately, having heroes that have existed in the past that aren't well known or referenced every day is completely fine, IMO. Most people don't keep detailed records of every event that happened in the past, and if they were even mildly obscure, people could easily have overlooked or forgotten them.
 
Real world example... I was recently talking to a couple young women at work. In their 20's, smart, educated... and neither of them had ever HEARD OF the Beatles or U2.  I'm not saying they didn't listen to them... they had never HEARD OF THEM!
 
If it is possible for a generation in the US or UK to have no idea about two of the largest pop culture/rock bands ever to exist, it is easily possible for a series of off events twenty or more years ago to have been missed.

There are people who don't know about 9/11, or have very vague ideas about it at best.
 
IMO, it would be fully understandable for most people in the MCU to not have a super detailed history of every person in a costume for the past fifty plus years as a common reference point. Unless you spend time researching stuff, I'd say most people these days couldn't tell you much about the Syrian war, or the fascinating facts on the YPJ's role in battling Syrian rebels and Turkey, or the current War in Donbass, or the status of Brexit, or the Catalonia separatists... or even much about the shooting in Florida a few weeks ago and the resulting protests, etc.

The world is a big place, with a lot going on, people get on with their lives if not directly impacted, and it is very easy to not know a lot about the world. I'd assume the same is for the MCU.

I think of these things as one of 3 concepts.
 
Reboot, Re-imagining, Retcon
 
Reboot: negates previous canonical details to take an established setting/character in a new direction. (Crisis on Infinite Earths, the old stories don't count anymore)
Re-Imagining: takes ideas/concepts from the original, but tells its own stories without interacting or conflicting with previous source material (Marvel comics versions vs. the movie versions, both exist separately)
RetCon: exists WITHIN the source material canon, but provides "new evidence" that canonical events didn't play out like it was believed, but doesn't negate them. (The "You thought Sharon died, but really she faked her death to go deep cover!" type of deal.)
 
Re-imaginings are great things. Marvel primary AND Ultimate Universe AND Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc. Each does its own thing with similar ideas, but none of them negate the other.
 
RetCons used to be great dramatic vehicles, but are so overused, and no one even tries to make them seem plausible anymore.
 
Reboots can be done well, or horribly... usually the latter, because they never make a clean break.

I think of these things as one of 3 concepts.
 
Reboot, Re-imagining, Retcon
 
Reboot: negates previous canonical details to take an established setting/character in a new direction. (Crisis on Infinite Earths, the old stories don't count anymore)
Re-Imagining: takes ideas/concepts from the original, but tells its own stories without interacting or conflicting with previous source material (Marvel comics versions vs. the movie versions, both exist separately)
RetCon: exists WITHIN the source material canon, but provides "new evidence" that canonical events didn't play out like it was believed, but doesn't negate them. (The "You thought Sharon died, but really she faked her death to go deep cover!" type of deal.)
 
Re-imaginings are great things. Marvel primary AND Ultimate Universe AND Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc. Each does its own thing with similar ideas, but none of them negate the other.
 
RetCons used to be great dramatic vehicles, but are so overused, and no one even tries to make them seem plausible anymore.
 
Reboots can be done well, or horribly... usually the latter, because they never make a clean break.

Drax could be a kleptomaniac. He takes everything literally.