RDU Neil

"Oh no not another white boy to fix."
 
The other best joke of Black Panther.

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.

Saw that one coming.
 
For what it's worth Daniel, I think you gave him every chance to say "Sorry, that wasn't what I meant", or at least absent himself from the boards until he cooled down. But he just wouldn't back down, not even a inch.
 
What happened as a result was his own fault.

Read my post.

"No offense, but..." is generally a lead-in to something offensive.

"This isn't racist, but...." is generally a lead-in to something racist.
 
Without any context for your opinion other than "I haven't seen it," your statement applies to Black Panther in specific, and is viewed as a reflection on what is known about the movie.
 
Now, if you preface your statement with other reasons/explanations it becomes significantly more palatable -- just like any other review (from those that have seen it).  "I really don't like Marvel movies, and while I haven't seen this one yet, I can only assume that it will be the same poor acting, poor cinematography, etc."  That explains your opinion as a general opinion of Marvel movies and not specific to Black Panther.
 
So, again, I would strongly suggest that you explain your statement a bit more thoroughly.  Unless, of course, you actually meant to be racist...in which case I would strongly suggest that you quit posting entirely.

Probably should've stopped there.
 
I saw it Saturday with my wife, who typically avoids MCU films like the plague, but she really wanted to see this one.  Both of us loved it.  It is a visual feast, it touches on relevant social themes, and the villain is relatable.  It's a fun movie.
 
 

If I may, I'd like to add to this with my own personal anecdote...
 
I've been a comic book fan for nearly fifty years. I've been collecting reading, trying to write them, and certainly playing out superhero fantasies for close to 40 of those. This current wave of superhero pop-culture dominance is something I couldn't have imagined even ten years ago, especially having been a kid who had his comics torn up by a "friend" who thought they were silly, and was punched in the mouth for liking Star Wars in 1977. To have us comic nerds having "won the culture war" in this way still baffles me... but I can say that when I sat through Winter Soldier for the first time, I felt an inkling of what others might say about representation. I finally saw on the screen everything I'd seen and felt in comics since I was a kid. Here was a couple of serious movie makers, taking classic characters, and doing them right on nearly every level, while telling a serious spy-movie, with serious actors taking everything I'd ever enjoyed... seriously.

I certainly didn't need to see more white guys on film to feel represented, but I did feel a touch of "Yes... they get it. They understand why this can be so damn cool" type of validation. It felt good.
 
My wife, her own type of nerd, enjoyed it, but didn't really get why I was so enthused.
 
Then she saw Wonder Woman.
 
Both of us went in a little leery... me because DC movies suck (usually)... and her because she understood the stakes of WW being good or not. At the end, I was happily, very pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable WW was.
 
Beside me, my wife was weeping openly. So were many women in the theater. She looked at me and said, "We have to see that again. Right away."  The movie was a religious experience for her. I'd bought her GNs of the classic Perez' run (she hates reading floppies) and she'd begun enjoying them... now she devoured them. We've seen the movie several times, and she and her friends have watched it. We don't buy movies, but I bought her WW for Christmas. She devoured the Perez' issues, read the current YA Wonder Woman novel (loved it) and is in the middle of Rucka's first run on WW, and can't get enough. She has read and shared every article about the movie. It moved her. It inspired her. It meant something to her sense of self, far beyond being an enjoyable superhero flick.
 
Obviously it did the same for many others, and that is why Wonder Woman is important.
 
It has been fascinating to be so close, and get to experience (second hand at least) what "representation" means and looks like, and how it really affects someone.

To Lord Liaden's point... it doesn't have to effect me the same way to be a great movie... and certainly the impact on me is not the judge of its importance. I can at least understand now, on a more visceral level, not just intellectually... how Black Panther "means" something way beyond what I can personally experience, and that my opinion of the "meaning" of that movie is correctly and deservedly "less" than other people's. I have a feeling I will love Black Panther in my own way... Coogler's "Fruitville Station" and "Creed" are both tremendous films, and I've been reading Black Panther since Jungle Action and the Avengers in the '70s. (Sadly, do not have a FF #52 in my collection.) I also understand that this movie means WAY less for me than for a lot of other people, and that's ok... good in fact. Important things have meaning on many different levels.
 
My wife and I bought tickets within twenty minutes of pre-sale, and we'll see it on the 15th, and hopefully enjoy it. We'll discuss it, pick it apart, and debate it, like we always do.

Then we'll go home and watch Wonder Woman again... most likely.  

If it makes you feel better, since you last ran it.... I've gone to college, grad school, gotten married, bought a house, and started what might be a career?
 
And I feel old myself now...

I am indeed. Over the past few months, got a couple of the originals back, and recently added a new, old friend.  Ran six episodes (games sessions) of Book Five, set in 2008 (original game was 2004/2005) and retired that swordsman. Just ran Episode 2 of Book 6 last night, now in 2017, set in the middle of Trump, Brexit and the Catalonian independence movement.
 
High school?  Jeeze... I'm an old, old man.
 
Impressed you remembered... as I'm back to writing those SW shorts again, though sporadically... don't have the energy and time to be as complete as I would like.

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.

I actually love the use of PRE in my games, but I make PRE Attacks actually take time and need to go off just like any other attack. And I give players an "Ego Roll" to shake off the effect, (with minuses or after time passes if high enough) though I can't remember whether that is in the rules or not. I've done it that way so long.
 
Also, I encourage appropriate PRE attacks by players... beating down several thugs then pointing at the rest "Who's next" and they all start running away, whatever.
 
The concept of PRE attacks is awesome... it is just the RAW is grossly broken.

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.

You know your life is going bad when Ragnarok comes twice.

There's a puzzling tendency for HERO players to believe that the existing power set is always the best way to build any and all things. However, there are cases where the mechanics you are after aren't really covered by the existing skills/talents/powers/etc. without a lot of torturous, highly indirect application of what's available in the RAW. This situation is hardly unusual; new powers have been added to virtually every edition of the game in order to cover various concepts more directly/elegantly, and there's no reason you can't as well. You'll have to decide if obtuse builds based around Entangle, Mind Control, Flash, or Change Environment are better fits for what you're after than a simple Stun Target power that you come up with yourself.

I guess I have to look at this the way I'd look at any other attack... how does it stack up against the accepted defenses and level of play the group has accepted?  24d6 Pre Attack is crazy powerful if you know that 1) even at 700 pts, the players have never bought PRE defense to match their other defenses, and never were lead to expect to need it... and 2) with their actual PRE stats being 40 or less... that is like having 40 or less stun.
 
So, not only are PRE attacks END free, can happen in 0 phase, and have no RAW way to recover from them except time... oh, and also Area Effect for free as well... and automatically hits... the attack was against people with no defense and very little "stun".  Would you have hit the team with a 0 phase, automatically hits, 0 END, are of effect 24d6 Energy blast against a team that had practically 0 defenses and 40 or less stun... and call that fair? Oh... with the added effect of a near permanent side effect of mind controlling one of them.
 
hmmmm...
 
I mean... I get it... everyone games differently... but I'd feel it totally justified if my players punched me in the face real hard and quit the game if I did that to them.

Invent a new power:
 
10 pts - Stun Target
Upon a successful to-hit roll, target must make a successful EGO Roll (or CON Roll at GM's discretion) or be Stunned.
Adder: for +5 pts target takes a -1 penalty to their EGO Roll score.
 
Adjust point costs as you see fit for your campaign.

I've built effects that cause no damage, but cause a secondary effect.
 
For example: Drain Stun 4d6; only to stun (does no actual stun damage, just compared to CON to stun)
2d6 RKA, double knockback, does no body, does no stun (only causes knockback)
 
However, its worth considering an advantage that does extra stun only for the purposes of stunning a target (something like increased stun multiple for KA).  +½ advantage to do double stun, but the increased amount causes no damage, for instance.

In my game PRE attacks are used often by the players and at times by the villains (especially Supervillains).  I do require that the player state what they are going to say before they roll their PRE attack.  If they have Oratory they can roll that ahead of time to add the appropriate dice to the roll.  I do use the table to determine if there are any additional dice to add into the roll.  In my game the players often use PRE attacks as a way to stop a fight with a bunch minions after killing the leader.  In one case the characters were dealing with a large number of bandits and one of the characters had stunned the leader with an excellent hit.  The player got to move before the Stunned character and decided "I am taking a called shot for his head", which resulted in the bad guy's head being separated from his body.  In the next phase the character could move he picked up the head and said "Surrender or run away otherwise we will kill you".  He made a great PRE attack and at least 1/2 the bandits gave up and the rest ran for the hills.  Good thing too because the players had some wounded characters and if they had been pressed by the bandits the PCs might have lost the fight.
 
On the flip side Black Paladin used a PRE attack on the players to cause them to hesitate long enough for him to trigger his NPC death trap ;-)...  That caused a bunch of characters to act outside the plan they had for taking out Black Paladin and his cohort ....

At some point, in some edition of Hero... wasn't this the rule? That you could defend against a PRE attack with PRE or EGO, whichever was higher? I could be misremembering, but I've allowed that for years.

I guess I have to look at this the way I'd look at any other attack... how does it stack up against the accepted defenses and level of play the group has accepted?  24d6 Pre Attack is crazy powerful if you know that 1) even at 700 pts, the players have never bought PRE defense to match their other defenses, and never were lead to expect to need it... and 2) with their actual PRE stats being 40 or less... that is like having 40 or less stun.
 
So, not only are PRE attacks END free, can happen in 0 phase, and have no RAW way to recover from them except time... oh, and also Area Effect for free as well... and automatically hits... the attack was against people with no defense and very little "stun".  Would you have hit the team with a 0 phase, automatically hits, 0 END, are of effect 24d6 Energy blast against a team that had practically 0 defenses and 40 or less stun... and call that fair? Oh... with the added effect of a near permanent side effect of mind controlling one of them.
 
hmmmm...
 
I mean... I get it... everyone games differently... but I'd feel it totally justified if my players punched me in the face real hard and quit the game if I did that to them.

I can't believe I'm looking at the picture.  Thirty years ago comics were the opposite of mainstream and it was humanly impossible to make a good superhero movie.

I'm in agreement that it is a presence attack with a skill roll modifier... conversation, charm, persuasion... any of which could work. 
 
Edit: Actually, it really depends on the extent of what they are trying to do and the circumstances. If the target of the stall doesn't really know they are being stalled (keeping the nurse at the desk while someone slips into the patient's room) then that is a skill roll, conversation or charm... but the target is actively being stopped from acting... (Hold on! You don't want to shoot me because...!" to get the villain to not pull the trigger on a raised gun...) then THAT I'd say is an active "attack" on an opponent and needs a presence attack... skill roll to help.
 
Circumstances are important in how I'd rule this in a game.

Well done folks, thanks for the votes, our boy gone and won it...
 
http://bamfsies.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/2017-bamfsies-awards-announced.html

The first 10 years. Can you name them all?
http://www.superherohype.com/news/411661-see-the-marvel-studios-10-year-anniversary-class-photo-and-video#/slide/1
 

I wonder if they specifically did NOT do that, because most movie goers would react like, "Oh... is that Hela? Why does she have big horns, too?" kind of thing. Unlike comic book readers who tend to differentiate on details... "No, Proxima is blue, and her windvane antlers are gold, not black, and..."  that kind of nuance is lost on movie goers. In fact, the more I think about it, I'm thinking it is highly likely they had the, "No, she'll look too much like Hela... but we can't have her look like Nebula either" conversation quite a bit in costume production.