austenandrews

Ack! Please add a spoiler warning to that, joe! -AA

For some reason I haven't been able to finish A Game Of Thrones. I've tried twice. Weird, because it's masterfully written. I'm not one who separates supernatural horror from fantasy & SF. Given that, I just finished Crota by Owl Goingback. 4 out of 10. Cliched, mildly racist and full of dei ex machina. -AA

Meh, it's just semantics. The "pulp genre" has no fixed definition, though it trends toward a few (distinct) ideas: - Works actually published in the pulps of the 1910's-40's (which would include Lovecraft, obviously) - Works inspired by or in the style of those pulps - Overdramatic or lurid genre work (westerns, "noir," etc.) of any time period (Tarantino's use of the word) - Low-budget genre work for a mass audience (I tend to think of licensed novels as "modern pulp") - Nostalgic high-cheese adventure set in, or conceived in the spirit of the early 20th century (such as Indiana Jones, even though the IJ movies were inspired by movie serials and not the pulps as such) The last definition seems to be the most frequently referenced, but they all apply. -AA

I tend to agree with Treb. However my philosophy takes it one step further. As a GM, for the most part I tend to run NPCs in a relatively straightforward fashion. Let's face it, if I've got fifteen henchmen charging the PCs, I can't "metagame" every one of them to maximum efficiency. Not only is that against most genres, but my memory's just not that good. However, I do "metagame" really savvy or dangerous NPCs. "Gaming the system" is my way of separating them from the masses, of representing an opponent who's very smart in combat. As Treb said I don't have any combat training, nor does the system really allow many applications of real-world knowledge (without significant on-the-fly tweaking). But I do know Hero. That's how I differentiate levels of skill and experience. (And as every video gamer knows, it can make all the difference in the world.) And of course the players are welcome to do likewise. For the most part, mine stick with what their characters know or are quick enough to deduce. -AA

I like terrain hazards too. In combat they provide tactical interest, so battles become more than just "I swing/I block/I dodge." Just as importantly they provide an opportunity to put non-combat abilities to good use. Suddenly Clinging, Climbing, Leaping, Survival, Riding, etc. become very valuable, even lifesaving. -AA

Totally. -AA

That's a laudable goal in general. Unfortunately when I try this with my players, I start to see some real-life frustration if the battle goes south for even a Turn. I begin to think I should pull out some overwhelming odds against them, simply to bash home the point that a loss is as much of a plot beat as a win. But then I feel like I'm railroading. Anyway. -AA

Only on a Hero board could we expect such accusations, and Hallelujiah for that. I agree, fun is the ultimate goal. I've played out battles that essentially amounted to board games using Hero rules. Know what? They were a blast! As long as everyone involved enjoys the game, it's all good. -AA

Every GM has his own preference, of course, and can make his own call. For my part, though, I like to watch professional basketball; and in that context I regularly see people "delaying" to respond to an opponent's actions. That includes specifically delaying decisions, to tailor one's offense to the actions of the defense. In my view, to remove the flexibility of Delay is to penalize characters for having a high DEX. -AA

I agree. In my game an "average shot" is calculated as a chest shot, which (besides the head) is usually the location with the best armor. -AA

Not only did I get Tom Baker, but my secret crush is Sarah Jane. I nailed both of my favorites, and I had actually thought my answers doomed me against getting either one. Cool. -AA

Woo-hoo! I got Tom Baker. I rule. -AA

FHC2 has rules for ship combat, based on the mass combat rules from FHC1. I know 'cause I wrote them. To be honest, I don't recall what else was in FHC2 besides a bunch of spell colleges and probably some magic items. FHC1 was largely composed of spillover material from FH -- tons of spell colleges, magic items, etc. I don't recall what else. Sometime in the last decade I lost my only copy (and also my copy of FH, which is the real bummer). -AA

Yep, as GM I have no compunction about sacrificing an NPC's Phase to set up a nice little standoff. Provides good tension. -AA

Re: Re: Da Master List (any editing would be nice) What comic were Electra Woman and Dyna Girl from? I've looked but not found any references other than the TV show. -AA

1. Yes, it happens. 2. No, it's not a problem. By aborting the player has sacrificed a Phase, which is an acceptable tradeoff in my view. In my experience, players don't like to give up Phases like that unless their backs are up against a wall (which happened to be the case in my game the other night, at which point that very tactic was used). One thing that I don't allow, though, is for someone to say "I act after everyone else on the Phase." If someone else has a held action, that person can always choose to act after the first person. So in this instance if two guys with held actions face each other, one can't say "I attack last in Segment 5 and then abort to Dodge in Segment 6." He can wait till the end of Segment 5 to attack, but his opponent can then use his held action to counterattack before Segment 6 arrives. If that makes sense. 3. You're right, it's only a problem if it detracts from the game. "Gaming the system" is fun for me and my players, and it doesn't detract from roleplaying, so we're good. -AA

Absolutely. Golden Age is my favorite way to do Champions. Mostly I run rather than play, though, more's the pity. (Though last summer I did get to play in a GA villain game. That was a serious hoot! I played the Chinese criminal mastermind Yellow Tiger, with my beautiful daughter/lab assistant, my four shirtless minions and an endless variety Oriental super-machines. Hahahahahaaa!) I've never written up any existing comic book characters, though. Much of my enjoyment as a GM comes from creating my own. -AA

Yeah, I've had 3's and 18's change the conditions of battle either minorly or greatly, depending on what's the most fun at the moment. Last night a player rolled an 18 to hit. He made a DEX roll to avoid dropping his weapon out of the tree he was in. It was a reasonable risk for a casual situation. The same player has spent the last few games blowing his skill roll to cast spells, to the point of frustration. Last night, as the group was beginning a large and grueling battle, he rolled a 3 for his skill roll. I ruled that he finally "found his stride" and gave him a pass on skill rolls for the next 2 Turns. The way it brightened him up easily justified the ruling. In a previous game the group was facing a giant lizard that could possibly have slaughtered them. They stood on a bridge over a river, while the beast crouched on a nearby waterfall. When it leapt onto the bridge, I threw an 18 for its DEX roll. The monster landed wrong, scrambled to pull itself up, took a couple of free shots from the PCs and then plopped into the river. The PCs made an easy escape and a potentially deadly battle turned into a funny story. I like 3's and 18's. They're a fun random element, making me do things that normally wouldn't occur to me as a GM. -AA

Maybe a non-sequitur, but I've always assumed that the GM can impose other conditions to reverse a Transform, beyond those specifically listed when the power is bought. So if you have a magical Transform, presumably a powerful wizard can figure out some previously-unstated way to reverse or dispel the effects. That leaves open the possibility of future adventure scenarios and cuts down on rules-lawyering. -AA

In my game, weapons enchanted for sharpness don't get a higher damage class, but a bonus to their minimum damage. I run it the same as using CSLs to raise the minimum damage. In general it works out better than just raising the DC, yet it cuts down on obscenely high-damage lucky shots. -AA

Since human language has a strong biological component, I'd say an alien language might even have other requirements to learn, such as a minimum INT, or maybe even an INT roll to use it. For a complex but human language, I agree with just adding an extra point or three to reflect the difficulty. Unless knowing the language has some other inherent benefits that need to be factored in. -AA

But Lovecraft was published in, um, the pulps ...? I believe the point is not that the modern versions of romance and other genres existed back then, but that those genres are the descendants of the pre-WWII pulps, just as those old pulp magazines were descendants of penny dreadfuls and whatnot. -AA

Sounds to me like what you need is an Uncontrolled EGO Damage Shield, the attack for which includes a UAA version of itself. I shudder to think of the recursive nature of the Advantages, though. I agree, a house-rule Contagious is probably much easier. -AA

In my current game there's not a lot of stratification. Basically there's a small class of rich people and a large class of not-rich people. Money is the measure that divides them, but it's really a spectrum rather than discrete social classes. Some of the rich people have the title "lord," but the setting is a theocracy, so the perks of nobility are fairly few and the temple can strip a person's title at will. When the PCs eventually get to other lands, they will encounter more feudal and clan-based societies. But they are starting out in a relatively idyllic, homogenous and isolated country. -AA

If it matters, I'm contemplating this issue because I may introduce a monster into my game that is particularly susceptible to fire. Since there's two archers in a group of three PCs, fire arrows will come up, and "plot-devicing" it won't be sufficient. I like Outsider's subtraction of Damage Classes. That does my usual version one better, giving disincentive for a high-OCV character to use a fire arrow, except when necessary. -AA