RDU Neil

Certainly BP isn't successful primarily because it is black.  However, it is more successful because it addresses an underserved audience.  Honestly DC already sort of did this with WW, addressing an audience that better relates to female leads as opposed to black ones.  To "replicate" this success, they just need to continue to make films that don't marginalize segments of the audience that are constantly marginalized.  Given DC's track record, I'd be happy if they just managed to put out a decent film that wasn't outwardly racist, sexist, or grimdark.
 
 
 
It's unlikely that each future film will be a historic moment in cinema, but all they need to do is be more inclusive so as not to drive away the audiences that are thrilled that Hollywood isn't ignoring them for the moment.

There is one angle to this whole "arm the teachers" suggestion that people are rarely bringing up. Just how mentally damaging it is to have teachers ready to shoot to kill 24/7 when their potential targets are, most of the time, students they are currently working with (trying to form a functional mentor-pupil relationship with, even!) or former students? Cognitive dissonance of the harshest extreme is the likely end result of such a policy being officially instituted.

To me, KIllmonger's actions were entirely in character with what we had of his past. His history is one of breaking the narrative - both in himself and of others. He moves from ghetto kid to military discipline, then breaks that again by going to the less-rigid special forces, then to CIA black ops, where he is taught the skills and abilities to break not just the course of individuals, but the narrative of nations. Then he breaks his own story twice more - moving from CIA to renegade mercenary, before violating his position there by killing his employer and heading to Wakanda.
What does he do there? Break the narrative! He kills the legitimate king by goading him into a duel he did NOT have to fight (the time of challenge being long over), then sidelines the council of the tribes, accepts the grudging loyalty of the royal guard, and gets the army pretty much completely on his side, upsetting the entire interlocking power structure. As Agent Ross says, just as he was trained to do.
Killmonger was a prisoner of his past, as was, in large part, T'Challa. This was a sub-plot I loved - two men, both haunted and empowered by the choices of the past made by others. Ultimately, Killmonger, despite his willingness to embrace change, cannot change from his predestined course. T'Challa, as expressly shown in his second spirit quest, can.

I laughed so hard at that, and realizing that the overall movie version of M'baku was such a genius interpretation of "Man Ape"... wow. To see that Coogler didn't just ignore the stereotypical character from the comics, and instead reinvented him as such an interesting, badass and hilarious foil for T'Challa was one of those great moments in a movie full of them.

I like the idea that the an "18" could be ruled this way (depending on the gun, as Hyper-Man indicated). I personally wouldn't over use it, or plan for it, as much as it is GM ruling in the heat of the moment that just fits the scene. I'd also argue that most of such movie scenes are with an unexperienced shooter (either doesn't really know how to shoot a gun, or has never done so in live combat, etc.). If the PC's concept is a well trained, combat experienced shooter, this seems an unlikely ruling.
 
Also, with the "Luck" or "Unluck" ruling... I certainly wouldn't bring "Luck" (as a power) into it.  Do you make a player roll a luck roll every time they attack? If a character has Luck, do they get a luck roll every time they are attacked? I certainly wouldn't recommend playing that way.  As for "Unluck" that is one I'd recommend never having a player take, but if they did, defined as manifesting in a certain way "Police tend to think I'm the bad guy all the time" or something. Also, would you really have a PC roll unluck every time they pulled their gun, just in case? I'd personally find this use of Luck/Unluck as time consuming and very un-fun.
 
Ultimately, that is my question... why is this scenario "Crap! I left the safety on!" important? Is it something you've seen in movies and just wish would come up in a game once in a while? Are you playing a hyper-realistic game of low level, generally unskilled/inexperienced PCs where this might happen? (Say early days Walking Dead type campaign?) Is this really a mechanics question, or more of a "When would it make sense to rule this way as a GM?"  Personally, I'd go with the latter. As a GM, it would just be in the back of my mind, and when the right moment comes up, depending on the scene and dice and the flow of the game... go for it.
 
ex: Current heroic game I'm running... well trained, almost "special" level PCs in basically the real world. (Think X-Files meets Jason Bourne) I could easily see a scene where a character gets in close to an enemy, pulls the opponent,s pistol from their holster and tries to shoot him with it. Dice roll goes badly.  Say he needed a 13- to hit... I'd go with the flow... rolled a 14, 15, or 16, I'd say "You bring the gun up, but the guard twists, knocking your hand just enough to the side that the bullet punches the wall next to him."   If the roll was a 17 or especially an 18... then maybe, "You bring the gun up and "CLICK."   Safety is on."   (Again, I'd do this because the scene felt right, the dice pushed it that way AND I would know that the players would find it as fun as I would.)
 
Here is a scenario where I definitely would NOT rule that way. Same PC, sneaks up on a guard, pulls his silenced pistol and puts it to the back of the guys head. As GM in such a scenario, I tend to say, "Ok, just don't roll an 18" and usually don't even have the player roll damage. But say, "Oh crap... 18!" is what happens.  Then I would not even consider making it a "you left the safety on" because that wouldn't be fun, that would be making the PC incompetent, and the player feel bad. In this case, a simple "Unbelievably, your gun jams. You have half a second to consider the incredibly low odds of that happening, as the guard turns around in surprise and a fight is on!"
 
It is my feeling that it is a GM's job to take every die roll and action and weave it into a descriptive moment as part of a descriptive scene, to bring the action alive. It is never just "you hit, you miss, you fumble" etc. Every fight should play out in such a way that looking back on it, there is a very visual (mentally visual) replay, like remembering a great action scene in a movie. Gun with safety left on is just one possible cool description of how the scene and die rolls and player actions might be described.

Finishing what I started before, the only social/political system that provably *doesn't* self-destruct is the hunter/gatherer band, which was humanity's (and pre-humanity's) sole form of social organization for at least a million years. On the one hand, this system owed much of its stability to the external constraint of next to no technology. Once somebody figures out agriculture, you get atom bombs in a comparative eyeblink. At least, we did.
 
I suspect (though I have no expert opinion to back me up here) that we are subtly gene-programmed with attitudes adapted for hunter/gatherer life in small bands, and the further we get from that lifestyle, the more unstable our societies become. Take away the physical and social technologies built to support them, and society quickly regresses to the primordial mode of tiny communities, all intensely suspicious of each other and prone to attack each other at the drop of a hat. See the Central African Republic, Congo or the rest of that neighborhood, for instance.
 
Shifting gears to Istvatha V'han: One of the more subtly creepy moments in Brave New World is where the World Controller explains that experiments have been made to create a better society with greater human dignity... but they all failed. The Brave New World, with all its horrifying inequities, is the best that humanity can ever achieve -- or at least, it is the only system found that keeps humanity contented and at peace with itself. Contnentment, he admits, might not sound like a very inspiring goal. But you might feel differently when anthrax bombs are falling around you.
 
Istvatha V'han could easily make a similar argument. Having traveled through multitudes of universes, seeing multitudes of societies at every level of developments, she has seen what works and what doesn't. And authoritarian, imperial rules has the best track record for keeping the largest number of people living in peace and prosperity for the longest period of time. It's just basic untilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest umber. PCs are unlikely to be in a position to challenge her based on their own experiences.
 
I hope at some point to contribute something actually relevant.
 
Dean Shomshak

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.

Don't you always have to declare this? I've always played this way.
 
The whole concept of "intent" is important with PRE as well as anything else. I'd never allow "I'm just rolling PRE to see what happens!"... no... it is "I'm dropping out of the black night sky, right in the midst of the mob, and doing my best scary voice to scare them into dispersing away and not chasing the injured mutant any more!"   Ok... that is the descriptive intent... PRE Attack in the mechanic... between GM and player, figure out any plusses/minuses to the number of dice... role for any added skill checks that could help (stealth and acrobatics to perfectly time the sudden appearance, etc.)   Then roll for it...
 
Now we are judging the result on what was expected, and logically agreed would be an a reasonable outcome.

And yes... all PRE attacks take a combat action/attack action, just like any other attack... at least in my games.

1.  Every villain ever.
2.  The one thing I liked about Iron Man 3.

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.

I agree with your implied assumption that Supers vs. Heroic campaigns have a different level of skill use. It has tended to play out that Supers would have less skills, more general skills and be fine with that, and Heroic level characters have more skill, and more detailed levels of skills. I think that comes down to differentiation of PCs. In Supers, the defining characteristics that set you apart are powers, or high level combat skills like martial arts, stealth, etc. In Heroic games, where everyone might be a version of ex-military private ops guy... then skill specialization is what makes one character different from another.
 
That being said, I basically follow the rule, "If it is important and you want it to factor into the game, then pay points for it, and it is my job as GM to make it relevant. If it is merely background, don't worry about it." It is really about what kind of story you want to tell. If you are playing Daredevil-esque character, the fact that Murdock is a lawyer and has multiple skills and knowledge areas reflecting that could be really important, if the game tends to end up in law offices and court rooms the way the comics often do. If the lawyer bit is more, "Explains why I'm around the cop station and have contacts with bail bondsmen, cops, etc." then that is different.
 
I agree with Doc's comments on skill fetishizing... if push came to shove, I would gladly go back to a single, generic "Science" skill, rather than detailing out 27 flavors of Physicist specialization, the way it tends towards today.

Took our six year old to see it with us.  He honestly cried when Panther went over the falls.
 
But at the end of the movie, with Panther holding Killmonger, he asked, "Do you think he'll be sad that his friend is going away?"
 
They NAILED this movie.
 
Chris.
 

Ok... you asked for it...
 
(Seriously... only bother reading if you have any interest in an overblown perspective on science fiction and superhero gaming.)
 
So, let me show a scenario that actually began to be explored in our game. Hopefully it demonstrates the kind of "science fiction" I think supers, or people with powers, can explore:
 
There was a long running PC named Thermal. (Super scientist type with flame-on type powers)... years of playing the character, he went from an awkward guy running a soup kitchen and trying to figure out what to do with his powers and knowledge, to the leader of a nation of metahumans who had a seat on the UN, forged alliances with other nations to balance the belligerence of the US and Russian "super power" aggression... lead an army of supers into China to end WW3, etc.

Along the way, Thermal's player was really into the idea that Thermal was contributing to the development of new and radical scientific theories and practices. He actually, over time, developed a comprehensive theory on the basis of meta-biology, and was awarded a PhD for his contributions. The Thermal Bio-Dynamics theorem eventually lead to the beginnings of bio-engineering and uplift technology. As the game advanced, and the world went through a massive alien invasion that lasted 10 years and wiped out half or more of the world population, Thermal brought up the debate that the only way to really save as many people as they could, and to enable people to survive and thrive and help fight off the invasion, was to begin offering bio-engineering for anyone who wanted it... and he'd actively push for it.
 
He wouldn't force anyone to be uplifted, but he couldn't understand why anyone would want to remain "baseline." Also, by making the choice not to uplift, a person opted out of the society he was building. Baseline human had no inherent value. Not being uplifted was like choosing to not be vaccinated. You can do so, choose not to play by society's new rules, means you choose not to receive society's protections and support as well. It was a powerful philosophical exploration that grew out of the nature of "people with power" and what would happen if they really existed. (we never got to take it very far, because the campaign ended up with those characters on a galactic journey that, due to relativity, would essentially result in their never returning to Earth in the timespan of the game).
 
This is the kind of sci-fi that I can get behind. These are the kind of questions that bubble up as a world grows around "people with power." This campaign had hundreds of PCs over years of various different teams, groups, time periods, etc. Characters grew up, aged, died, retired, or became something more than human which caused them to question assumptions of what "good" is, and what a moral, ethical use of power looks like.  We had PCs who became major political players, lead a colonization of Mars (the presence of supers who could fly payloads into orbit for almost free vastly accelerated space programs, super science drove advancements in technology, etc. These developments also caused massive political unrest as the question of nations and benefits, and who gets access rose up.) We had a long running exploration of god-hood, with one PC actually 'crossing the threshold' and becoming divine (essentially evolving the PC out of playability, but it was complicated) and the realization of the true nature of the "gods" of myth. It was a long running campaign that hit its 30th anniversary last year, probably ending with "And a new Era had begun..." A literal next-generation of heroes (one PC was the daughter of another PC who grew to adult hood in real time in the game) trying to rebuild Earth after the devastation of the invasion... previous heroes dead or missing... the major PCs (Thermal, Vector, Locke) off on a galactic voyage of discovery, searching for the Progenitors.
 
Essentially, I tell you all this because it meant that I wrestled with these "science fiction" questions for years, as primary GM of this world (the RDU, Red Dragon Universe, hence my login name). We had discussions as a playgroup (several playgroups over the years) about the scope of super-powers vs. technology... expectations of the players compared to source material and in the context of consistent world building. It was not always easy, and mistakes were made, and lots of meta-game discussions were had. What was the nature of interstellar transport? What was the nature of teleportation and what kind of technology could cause it? What were the economics of super-powers and super-technology? Where did VIPER get its money for hidden underground bases? How did cities handle the economics of rebuilding after a super-battle? What were the different levels of technology available, and why didn't the cops have blasters just like VIPER agents? What happens when the public realizes aliens are real, and how does that undermine traditional human social structures? Same with metahumans? What about magic and gods?
 
One of the main things I wrestled with was "What is alien civilization like? What is the "known universe" when you realize just how (nearly) infinitely large the universe really is? I had to work out at least the basics of different alien life, societies, types of technology and species motivations that would be different from humans. How high level was the alien tech? How far did galactic federations and empires actually reach.  (Like, for all its massive reach... the three main alien bodies... the Confederation, the Azure Empire and the Tresselaine Facet spanned enormous territory... but it all was contained within the Orion Arm of the Milky Way.)  There were decisions to maintain the massive wonderful size of the Universe, and not just have people jetting between galactic clusters like they were taking a cab across town. The immenseness of space, the hostile environment that is space... the uniqueness of life bearing worlds... the scope of time that is way beyond human comprehension... we wanted to keep all that. It challenged what it meant to be super, because super is relative.
 
In one meta-game play discussion, we talked about what would happen to those PCs who might be immortal. The concensus that Thermal would one day be a sentient star, a power and intelligence beyond our understanding who could affect change at the atomic level, and spend eternity learning what there was to learn, was really profound in understanding how the player viewed the game world and his charcter. I always wondered... would Thermal remember being human? Perhaps he created a a fold-space pocket dimension where he kept his encoded memories of an Earth long since quantum dust. Maybe in this "new universe" that Earth took on a life of its own...
 
All this to me is what comes to mind when someone says "galactic champions" and all that entails. My source material is as much episodes of Cosmos as it is comics. That is why I'd say I'd be fascinated to hear how others play out this kind of game... what questions do you wrestle with? What do your games end up looking like?

I don't know, I saw parallels with certain recent events in real life that made it seem less implausible.
 
 
Supposedly the original cut of this film was 4 hours long.  I agree that parts of the film seemed a little rushed.
 
 
Honestly one of the biggest triumphs of Black Panther is that they didn't eff it up.  Because it would have been really, really easy to eff it up.

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?"

I laughed so hard at that, and realizing that the overall movie version of M'baku was such a genius interpretation of "Man Ape"... wow. To see that Coogler didn't just ignore the stereotypical character from the comics, and instead reinvented him as such an interesting, badass and hilarious foil for T'Challa was one of those great moments in a movie full of them.

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?"

I liked it quite a bit. I thought the action was great and that Wakanda was wonderfully realized. The characters were solid and well developed, though I didn't really see much of a point to Ross' character other than to insert an otherwise cynical outsider into Wakanda and have him come around to who they are and why they are so hidden. Maybe to shine a light from the outside looking in on the isolated city and people. I dunno, it seemed a little off. The Wakandan tech was my favorite part. So cool and so fitting
 
I can't say there was anything I did not like and would personally rank it in my top 3 of Marvel movies (with CA: Winter Soldier and Avengers). It added to the MCU significantly and made every further instance where Black Panther shows up that much more meaningful.

Hocus Pocus Focus = Wand
 
Focus Hocus Pocus = min maxing points with the focus limitation while making it so it doesn't really limit your character

Killmonger is one of those villains who's "so right he's wrong" -- he sees a genuine problem (massive oppression of a particular class of people) and seeks to apply a terrible solution (ignite a global race war that would kill billions and leave the planet in ruins). In a sense he's reminiscent of Magneto, with his response to the hatred of mutants -- putting him in elite company among Marvel villains.
 

Issue 18 of the current series has the biggest focus on that, but some of the issues prior, lead up to it with it small bits.