ShinHakkaider's page

I've been running a Curse of the Crimson Throne game with my players off and on for about 3 years now.

We use the Paizo Critical Hit and Critical Fumble Deck.

They have been the recipients of critical hits and they have been the recipients of critical fumbles. I dont have confirm rolls for either. In three years there have been about 4 character deaths one of which was a player making a conscious decision to put her PC in an almost certainly fatal situation to save the life of another PC.

None of those deaths have been the direct result of a critical hit or fumble.

On the other hand one of my players critted and one shot killed an enemy with a critical hit card.

And despite the time where I as the GM rolled something like 8 criticals in ONE during the duration of one session and me rolling something like 10 critical failures during another? It didnt ruin the game nor were my players ready to revolt.

Has a result from a critical fumble card made things difficult for the PC's during a combat? Absolutely. Has it done the same for my NPC's or monsters? You betcha.

There's also the fact that any spell cast that requires a to hit roll can be a critical hit or fumble as well.
My players like the randomness of the cards and look forward to what happens next.

I'm so thankful for my players. I REALLY am.

Well all the people complaining are right.

Reaper should have fulfilled their responsibilities to those people who gave them money for the Kickstarter in a timely fashion. For whatever reason they havent yet and people are upset.

Me personally? It was still so great of a deal and I'm not that impatient that I'm not willing to just simply wait to get my minis. Having worked in retail and done some shipping myself I know it's not as easy to get out that many orders as people think it is. I know that customers generally dont care about details and logistics and they want what they want and they want it now. I get that.

But to say that Reaper should have cancelled their con in order to get the Kickstarter orders out was...special. Renege on their responsibilities to one group of customers to fulfill obligation to another? Yes, because that always works.

If I were a different kind of person and dissatisfied with how Reaper is running their business I'd send them a strongly worded e-mail and ask for my money back and be done with them. I'd do THAT instead of going on a message board and laying into them in a public forum.

Hey wait that's EXACTLY the kind of person I am. Not so much with some others though.

Franko a wrote:

But how hard would it be to have an annual compilation of all the setting material produced that year? You wont loose any of the crunch stuff or any AP material, it would be usefull as reference materials.....

Almost a copy and paste.

That "almost" would still mean it requires two editing passes, which takes time.

And that's after the text is laid out (even if that means block-copying it from another book and pasting it into this book), which takes time.

And that assumes the layout doesn't change in tiny ways (the books aren't all typeset exactly the same way... there are slight differences that identify a book as a Companion, Campaign Setting, Bestiary, core line book, etc., and they layout/typesetting for a compilation book would have to be updated so it would have a consistent look throughout), which takes time.

And the compilation book would need a new Table of Contents and title page, which takes time (and which has to be checked by an editor), which takes time.

And the compilation book would still have to be made into a PDF for print and PDF, which takes time.

Any any additional time spent on such a product is time we're not spending on other, new products.

And publishing an annual compilation book would mean fewer people would buy the books that material was taken from, which means reduced sales throughout the year.

Basically, if it were easy, we'd be doing it already.

I find that no one really appreciates the work that goes into something until THEY have to do it.

This is true with almost everything.

(Except for me, but since the kids were born I've only GMed for my kids, so I don't think that counts.)

You better BELIEVE that it counts. I think that fact that you GM for your kids counts MORE. If you have a boys their first GM was their MOM. If you have girls their first GM was their MOM. Their mom is passionate about this creative endeavor there's a high likelyhood that they will at least be interested in the hobby.

That counts for a lot. At least it does where I'm standing.

I think one problem is the fact that not everyone can agree on what makes a character compelling.

Don't know how many agree with me here, but I find that "compelling" can be seen as something subjective rather than objective.

Yeah, definitely subjective. This type of discussion came to the fore recently in a discussion I had with a Harry Potter fan about Severous Snape:

So for me in light of those revelations Snape became a very compelling perhaps the most compelling of the Potter characters next to my other favorite, Neville Longbottom.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Can only members of an ethnicity play characters of that ethnicity?

Of course not, just look at Tropic Thunder.

Contextually there's a big difference between that and say casting white actors to play Latino/a parts in something like House of the Spirits or West Side Story. Tropic Thunder was done in good natured humor. Poking fun more at the actor who would so to the extremes that Kirk Lazerus (Robert Downey jr.) does for the part than the ethnicity of the character. People understood that and there wasn't a black person that I know, family or friends, who were offended by RDj's performance or the character.

On the other hand for all of the people who like to complain about color blind casting the OVERWHELMING majority of parts cast for feature films are white actors. Solid black parts are pretty few and far between still. Granted, it's better now than it was 20-30 years ago.

Again there's context. Casting Brad Pitt as the patriarch of a black family isn't going to work sight unseen unless there's some sort of in film explanation. Likewise for casting Morgan Freeman as a fictional member of an IRA terrorist cell. But casting Brad Pitt as the adopted child of a black woman, can and does work. Just like casting Morgan Freeman as a "generic" jaded older detective in a nameless city works.

Basically context matters. Is blackface still acceptable? No. But you cant deny that Laurence Olivier doesn't give a powerful performance as the moor Othello (1965-6?). Was there a black or Middle Eastern actor who could have played that part? Of course Paul Robeson comes to mind, but white audiences felt more comfortable with a white man (in black face playing a black man. I know hard to wrap your head around it but that's the way it was and for some still is. It's why R&B, Souls and Pop albums with black singers had white people on the album covers at first...) and please dont bring up the Wayan's Brothers "WHITE CHICKS" as a counterpoint as if everyone loves and accepts that movie. It's a piece of buffoonery at best and might be excusable as satire if it were actually, I dont know, funny? But it's crap. I wouldn't wipe my butt with that film.

Last time I checked (which was just moments ago), FMA: Brotherhood was not streaming on Netflix. When they did have it, only 39 of 64 episodes were up. That equates to 3 volumes out of 5. Then, before it was taken down, they only had episodes 27 to 39 up (or volume 3).

Yes he's right about this Netflix NEVER had the full run of FMA:Brotherhood up. I know this because my 11 year old became a huge fan of the show and blew through all of the episodes and was waiting for the rest to show up on NEtflix.

When they didnt he watched the rest of the series on HULU. But the last time I checked they had even fewer FMA:Brotherhood episodes. They had the full run of the the original FMA though.

Re: Terminator.
I'm a huge fan of the first movie not so much of the second. But in terms of Sarah Connor as protagonist she's much more relatable in the first movie. As quickly as things happen to her in the first movie she adjusts and adapts really quickly because she has to.

Her character arc in the first movie is more obvious and youre able to really empathize with her and this short lived but intense bond she has with Kyle Reese.

The second movie? Yeah she's buff yes she's tough and bad assed but she might as well be a robot herself in that movie. I felt no compassion for her as a protagonist and would have been fine with her dying during the course of the film. When the KILLER CYBORG is looking at you sideways at the cold way you talk to your child? Something is wrong.

As an action film the set pieces are larger and well executed, but emotionally as far as where the female protagonist goes T2 is kind of a step back. It's a good film though.

In ALIEN Ripley is pretty hard nosed before they realize that they're dealing with something that is really, REALLY over the Nostromo's crew's heads. You see it in her dealings with Parker and Brett in engineering. She doesn't back down from Parker one inch in their exchange. You also see it in her refusal to let Dallas, Lambert and the now face-hugged Kane back on the Nostromo.

Once she and Parker stumble across the fully grown Alien dragging Brett into to the vents, EVERYONE (with the exception of Ash) is shaken up and scared. Once things grow even more hopeless (Dallas failed attempt to lure the Alien out of the vents, Ash's revelation about his real motivations) the remaining survivors are in a state of BARELY restrained panic. And when it's just Ripley and Jones left it's her in full on scared out of her mind mode.

So I dont get where her behavior is inconsistent with someone being in a situation that she's in. As the situation gets more dire, she gets more scared. Seems realistic and simple enough to me.

And lest we forget that in ALIENS she very clearly DOES NOT WANT TO GO BACK OUT THERE. It's only the persistent nightmares and her realizing that she needs to somehow face the threat again and get past it that pushes her to join the marines and Burke on the Sulacco.

Even when on LV-426 she's in in survivor mode and pretty jumpy. The Marines and Burke aren't jumpy because they have no idea what they're dealing with. Even after the first encounter with the aliens, what does she suggest doing?

"...Take off. NUKE THE SITE FROM ORBIT. It's the only way to be sure."

That's not a tough gal talking. That's a PRAGMATIC gal talking. She DOES NOT want to be face to face with these things if she can help it.

As things get more and more dire she goes in the opposite direction that she did in ALIEN primarily because she has something to protect more than her own life and that's Newt. Even without the the missing scene of Ripley mourning her own daughter, the mother/daughter dynamic is still very much in the forefront in this movie. That missing scene drives it home a little more but was hardly necessary.

In fact the only other time that you see Ripley in a near state of breakdown and panic is when she thinks that she's lost Newt in the sewer.

Ripley: They dont kill you! They dont kill you! She's alive! She's alive....
Hicks: Okay!! I believe you! But we've got to go!! NOW!!!

When she jumps into the powerloader at the end to face the Queen Alien its not just to have some tough gal fight fest, it's pretty specifically to PROTECT NEWT.
The themes of mother as protector are pretty strong in that movie even down to the scene when Ripley and Newt get turned around trying to make their way out of the cooling tower and wind up in the egg nest and meet the alien queen for the first time. The deal is Let me and my cub go? and I dont flash fry your precious eggs and even though they are two completely different species with no shared language this alien THING understands the threat to her eggs and tells the alien warriors blocking Ripley and Newt's exit to BACK THE F**K OFF.

Of course Ripley realizes that she cant let this hutch survive and torches it anyway which sets the Queen off to come after Ripley and her Cub.

All in all I think that Ripley is my favorite female hero BECAUSE of her pragmatism and because she gets afraid and she over comes her fear not soley for personal reasons but for something greater than herself. She's awesome.

Who makes up the vast majority of Congress? Rich people.

Who makes up the vast majority of upper level corporate echelon in America? Rich people.

Who makes up the vast majority of the judiciary and local elected officials still? Rich people.

Who makes up the vast majority of the military, police force? Poor people and the working class.

Who makes up the majority of people in prisons? Black Males

Who makes up the majority of people who commit violent crimes? Black males

Who makes up the majority of people least likely to go to college and most likely to end up in prison? Black Males (actually I think Latino males may be catching up here...)

and none of the above has EVER stopped the majority of white america from viewing Black Males negatively.

Yes even today. So lets be real here people lump other people into GROUPS because it's easier to do and less messy and in some cases (like the aforementioned black and latino male) it's more convenient to dehumanize the "other".

And the vast majority of the police force in this country is made up of white males. The fact that they are poor or middle class means nothing when they are harassing a group of young dark skinned males for no reason while a group of white guys from the local collage are walking across the street with OPEN BEER BOTTLES.

When white men have to deal with the stigma of being viewed as a criminal and treated as such for no reason on a semi-regular basis or being seen as unemployable because of your skin color on a semi-regular basis or basically the blame for everything that's wrong with civilization on a regular basis then talk to me about fair.

Women definitely have a viable beef and have since probably THE BEGINNING OF TIME, the LGBT community has a viable beef as well.

White men? When you can be a white felon and still have the same chances of being hired as a black male with NO RECORD?

Yeah, sorry I can hear you over the sound of YOUR OWN DEAFENING DOMINANCE OF THE WESTERN WORLD.

If you've walked on the streets of New York as much as I have, the idea that women aren't a significant population of the homeless, gets walked on it's face.

I'm not trying to undermine you here, but I live and work in NYC. In fact I work just off 34th and Park Avenue. I walk from Penn Station every day. I live in Queens along the E & F line and I'm sorry but the overwhelming amount of homeless people that I see are MALE not female.

Yes, training is important.

But at the point a monk has begun adventuring, he has already snatched the pebble from his master's hand. He las learned everything a master can teach his pupil. Now the pupil must go and learn what life has to teach, and refine his art for himself.

Why do you think there are so many different Chinese styles of Kung Fu?
They didn't all sit around and learn the same stuff. They learned some basics, enough to defend themselves from the untrained, and went out and refined them into new styles based on their own observances and practice.

You're talking exception here and not the rule.

If everyone did what you just pointed out then there would be many more styles of martial combat than there are now. EVERYONE would have their own style or technique.

When someone sees the example of your monk with his new fighting style and wants to learn how to do THAT style? he's gonna seek out that monk for training right?

Anyway I think we're all kind of talking about variations of the same thing to different degrees. Except for the people who are saying that any kind of training or tutelage is lame. That I completely disagree with.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With a teacher, you will only learn the patterns.

Oh there is a lot more to it than that my friend. You must practice outside of class yes, but there is a lot of little things that make up a big part of the art.

Exactly. I dont understand why people dont get this. It's not just the teacher saying "here. Do this 25 times." and walking off. A good teacher is going to say "here. Do this 25 times." Then observe you and your classmates to see what you're doing right and correct what you're doing wrong.

When I first started learning how to box, I would jab, jab and then throw the cross but I would drop my guard during the cross. So my trainer would tell me that I was doing it because he saw something that I didn't. When I would train with him, EVERYTIME I threw that cross and my guard would drop he would POP ME right through that weak guard until I got tired of getting hit and started keeping my arm up.

If a real fight with no training? Yes, I know how to set up my cross but against an opponent that knows what to watch out for (because presumably he was trained in a similar fashion?) I'm kissing canvas.

I've been in fights. I've been in ALOT of fights when I was younger.

I've sparred with Karate practitioners, Wing Chun proponents, Capoeria practitioners, Boxers and BJJ proponents.

I'm not what would be considered formally trained in any of those arts (the closest I'd say is boxing which I've studied the longest) and to say that training with a mentor or teacher isnt important? I'd say that it depends on the fighter and the the teacher/mentor. I'd say that the most important thing that experience provides is that you wont freeze up in a real fight. Experience does give you a certain mindset including whether you should be engaging with a particular opponent AT ALL.

I've rolled with women BJJ fighters who are half my size and who's total fighting expereince has been in the gym. And when I tell you that I would NOT want to full on fight these women when they've turned it ON? I really, REALLY wouldn't. They know exactly what to do to break my arm, shoulder or ankle with minimal effort and they got that skill through training. Repeated, constant training.

Also experience will teach you certain things but without a foundation? Without someone telling you what you're doing right and more importantly what you're doing WRONG. I dont know if having some experience is enough to be called proficient. Before I actually started learning how to fight, I was IN plenty of fights. Some worked out great others not so much. The fights I had the most trouble with weren't against the bigger guys or the so called tough kids, it was against the people who had some form of training (whether it was dojo training or their dad or uncle teaching them) mixed with having fought before.

There's a difference between being a basement brawler and a proficient fighter. In short I absolutely respect formal training and dont discount it or disrespect it at all. I have a close friend who has been taking Kali Escrima for about 10 years now and he will tell you that he could have all of the experience in the world in knife fighting. He would not want to go up against someone who was trained by his teacher. YMMV.

Since I started playing I've always been under the assumption that Wizards spent years studying in order to be able to use a wide breadth of magical spells.

I've always thought that whether it was under the tutelage of a hedge mage or a formal apprenticeship or at an academy that it took years for a student to finally be able to cast those 1st level spells (maybe a little earlier for Cantrips and such).

Now it seems that assumption is that ANYONE should be able to peek over the shoulder of another Wizard PC and be able to learn how to cast spells.

In my own games I'm not a huge fan of multi-classing but I dont disallow it especially if a player has an actual concept and backstory.

So a player with a rogue PC who wants to multi-class to Wizard says: My character actually started out as a Wizard but couldn't afford to keep up payments went into a life of larceny in order to pay for his tutelage. He found that he enjoyed the meticulous planning and research in order to commit crimes as much as he enjoyed studying magic, except..you know...CHEAPER. He never forgot his foundation and has been studying with (Random Wizard PC/NPC here) to solidify his base. Fortunately for him, he wasnt far off from mastering those 1st level spells, which makes him wonder if his old teacher was fleecing HIM. Stringing him along to hamper his progress for a larger payday..

That's great and that's not even something that needs to be written. It can be TOLD. As a GM (who is in fact ALSO a player at the table) that's all I need to help enhance my fun at the table. If youre a player who cant even bother with that much minimal effort? Then I'd just as soon as you find another table that will accomodate your style of play.

It's a game. Of course it is. But (and I'm looking right at the cover of the Core Rulebook as I type this) is a ROLE PLAYING game. If you cant even be bothered to meet half way then as much as people get called out on this board for being bad DM's? Then that's the sign of a BAD PLAYER.

NOTE: That background for the rogue PC multi-classing to Wizard? From an actual player who wanst the biggest or best role-player at the table. But still thought that coming up with a justification for his new abilities was important enough for the OVERALL game.

Yeah it's just a bunch of people talking past each other on that thread.

And some of the same people who are deriding others and accusing them of imposing BADWRONGFUN on others are pretty much doing the same thing in a somewhat dismissive fashion.

I'm really glad for my own gaming group right now. It seems that if the gamers I see on message boards were the example for all gamers I would give up gaming because gaming with jerks is really no fun.

Like I said, so thankful for my group and thankful that the boards are (hopefully) just a small sampling of gamers.

This is moving to a broader point, but:

If the players don't think it's fun to bring the effort to roleplay characters, then a GM who is in it for the roleplaying instead of the tactical battle aspect isn't going to have any fun building a world for them to not roleplay in, and that's pretty much the end of the campaign.

THIS.

This is pretty much it.

@Werthead - I work in IT and have for the past 15 years. At one time everyone in our shop was either in the process of building, tweaking or upgrading a gaming rig. When newer games that came out required more RAM? You had to buy more RAM. Your Video Card wasn't powerful enough to run the lastest game? Had to upgrade your Video Card. If your processor wasn't powerful enough that meant over-clocking what you had IF possible or buying a new processor or worse replacing your entire motherboard to accomodate a newer processor.

So please dont tell me that "at no time in history has it been necessary" because it has for someone. Please try not to speak in absolutes about my experiences. Because it comes across like you're calling me a liar and that's not cool.

Also, I've never had to wait for an update for 10+ minutes for every game. I'm not saying that YOU havent, but that hasn't been the case for me.

And as for ELITE I'm talking about attitude. I've had co-workers make that same argument that you just did usually while smirking. Giving off the air of "Stupid Console Gamers paying more for less" "I've got endless mods while you're stuck on whatever they give you on the Xbox or PS3" and whatever else crappy justification they have for being a maladjusted douche for that day.

Granted it's no better than PS3 owners making fun of people who own Xboxes and pay for XBoxLIve but then again I dont get that either. Just like I dont argue about who's exclusive games are better. I just want to play the games. For me it's been easier and more rewarding to play games via console. I've done PC gaming. I did it from 1998 to about 2003-4 and aside from a few games (looks longingly over at StarCraft) I really dont miss it.

I have three different consoles in my home. I bought my PS3 about a year or two after it was first released.
I bought the Wii the day after launch.
My wife bought me the Xbox 360 for our 10th Anniversary.

I stopped playing games on computer at least 7-8 years ago. Partially because all of our home PC's were Mac's but for the longest while I held onto my custom built PC. Until one day I realized that I hadn't turned it on in SIX MONTHS.

After that I junked it for parts and got rid of it.

I dont miss having to go upgrade video cards to play certain games. I dont miss tweaking or overclocking you setup or processor to get it just right in order to play a new game. I dont miss any of that crap.

You know what I like?

Being able to walk up to any of my three consoles, putting in the disc, firing it up and PLAYING THE GAME.

I will NEVER return to PC gaming. I dont need to be ELITE. I just want to play the games. That's it.

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I've always kinda hated the impact that fiction books have had on certain RPG lines (*looks at Forgotten Realms*)...

Ouch! ;)

D00d I had no idea who you were until something told me to google your name.

I still stand by my statement though and hope you honestly dont take offense. I havent paid much attention to FR since 2008 and honestly probably before that as well.

I have fond, FOND memories of that first Grey Box though. In fact I still have the books and maps and clear hexgrid overlays from that first boxed set...

So just because I'm a guy I am a potential rapist threatening all women around me?

YES.

It's just like being a black man in this country. I am automatically assumed to be a hostile or potential threat to all white people around me. On the street. In elevators. In building hallways. EVERYWHERE.

Welcome to my world.

EDIT: Not playing the woe is me lottery here or whatever it's called. I'm being serious here. This is my life and probably the life that my son (who is 11 now) is going to have to grow up and deal with.

I should also ammend and say that it's not just white people who have this fear and leeryness of Black men. But most people would probably just say "Deal. That's the price you have to pay..."

Cyclops never Wavered?

Two words: Maddie. Pryor.

Three more words: NO. MORE. MUTANTS.

When faced with the fact that the woman that he loved committed suicide in front of you (to save the universe of course but still) that's gonna mees you up.

Then you meet a woman who is almost an exact copy of her and you fall in love with her only to discover that she IS a clone of Jean Grey? Then you ABANDON her to go back to your newly resurrected girlfriend?

Never mind the revelations of your mentor really being a really manipulative bastard. And then having your species almost wiped out to the point of extinction?

Scott has been broken since Jean died on the blue area of the moon. The fissures have just only recently turned into full sized cracks. And not for nothing I agree with his most recent actions, well maybe not the actual actions but the thoughts and desires driving them.

Turns out that Magneto was right all along. The idea of mutant Integration WAS a Joke. Protect your own.

Jason Nelson wrote:

P.S. Agreed on Paul Smith - brilliant! The first X-Men issue I ever bought was #172. Loved his Kitty Pryde. LOVED HER!

Yes,Paul Smith was great!Great clean art,imo,but for me the best was Byrne.

Right now I don't read Marvel comics,I tried several times but I just feel disconnected from these titles rushing from one "great event" to the next(with more often than not no lasting consequences,how long do you think Xavier will stay dead?One year,maybe two?).
Right now,I think Marvel looks lost. Understand,back in the Beginning of the 00's when Quesada was hired as editor in chief,some bold changes were made(dropping the comic code,hiring indie writers and TV writers to write mainstream books,just to name a few)and the purpose of this was to create great stories,writers had the upper hand(just remember Milligan's X-force run)and Marvel was successful.It's been a few years that writers are no longer kings,what is king is the concept.I think it began with Civil War.
They look more interested in the next "concept" they can throw at you,drowning the reader in a sea of events,from civil war to secret invasion to dark reign,and so on!
When they gave freedom to their writers to let them tell good stories,you had Bendis's Daredevil and Alias,Strazinsky's first spiderman comics(remember that verything went wrong when editors put their fingers on his run),Milligan's X-Force,Ennis's Punisher,just to name a few!
But I think if Marvel hires bold writers and give them free reins on relevant series just to try to write good stories instead of preparing the next event or what the editor staff thinks the readers want,things will become good again.
Oww,I miss the 00's!

The events are annual (except for the year between Secret Invasion and Siege where Dark Reign was more of a theme than an actual event) and are used to build from one to the next. The events // blowback from Civil War (Anti-reg heroes vs Pro Reg heroes) lasted until the end of Siege. That was four ACTUAL years. The events from House of M (the lowered almost extinct mutant population) lasted until just recently in A vs. X. That's eight ACTUAL years.

As far as Marvel's writers? Bendis IS an indie writer. Brubaker same thing. Matt Fraction? Same thing. Jason Aaron was a writer from DC's Vertigo Imprint for Pete's Sake. Sam HUmphries? Indie Writer, Christos Gage, TV writer. Jonathan Hickman? Indie Writer. I'd say that Marvel has a pretty deep bench in terms of writing talent.

And if you think that there was no editorial oversite in the 2000's you're crazy. There's always going to be an editorial mandate in the big two. There are always going to be over arching stories in a shared universe. It's like you people have NEVER actually read comics. CRISIS. SECRET WARS, SECRET WARS II, ARMAGEDDON, ZERO HOUR, INVASION. I mean come on. They've had this structure since the late 80's but NOW it's a problem?

Their writers do have freedom to tell their stories and you know what if they didn't they probably wouldn't be on the books as long as some of them have been.

Matt Fraction was on Iron Man from 2008-2012. No fillins. All FRACTION.
Ed Brubaker was on Captain America from 2004 -2014. No fill ins. All BRUBAKER. That's 8 years.
Brian Bendis was on New Avengers from 2005 -2012 8 years.
Daredevil from 2001 - 2006 5 years.
Ultimate Spider-Man from 2002 - 11 years and counting.

They dont just UNLEASH a writer on a company owned property. There's always going to be editors who shepherd a title or a line of titles. Especially with the stars of the big two. The only time you get that kind of freedom is with a second or third tier title that hasnt been doing that well.

That's what you got when jonathan Hickman was "unleashed" on the Fantastic Four.
or when going back even further, Peter David was "unleashed" on the Hulk.

I dont miss the 90's leading up to the 2000's. That's when I stepped away from comics (about 5 books I was reading as opposed to the 20 or so from before) for the most part and I came back into comics with the Bill Hemas / Joe Quesada regime. I'm not a fan of Garth Ennis OR the Punisher so I never touched that book. Same with Peter Milligan. Grant Morrison is hit or miss with me. Really didnt care for his X-men run but LOVED All-Star Superman, his JLA run, DC One Million and 52. The less said about J. Michael Straczynski the better. I liked the first two volumes of Supreme Power and that was it.

And of course Christopher Priest's woefully underrated Black Panther. I will love Quesada forever for giving the book the chance that he did.

I'll say this again Marvel isnt perfect. But I just dont see the disconnect and awfulness that alot of you see in this thread. The BIG changes in characters dont seem all that big to me because I've been reading these characters and books again for over the last 10 years or so. I suppose that I'll keep reading them until they finally do something that alienates me from these characters. But until then? Make Mine Marvel.

I'm a charter subscriber. I've been getting the AP's since the beginning. In fact between the RPG line and the AP line I'm starting to run out of space on my bookshelf.

Anyway I've never read the fiction in them until recently and the fiction while not pertaining directly to the AP's DO help flesh out Golarion in MANAGABLE portions for those of who dont want to read full on 200+ page fiction in a book form.

I've always kinda hated the impact that fiction books have had on certain RPG lines (*looks at Forgotten Realms*) I hate the fact that players often looked to their knowledge of those books to bludgeon thier DM's into doing things "like in the books".

The fiction in the AP's help me visualize and get a decent idea of what certain things look and feel like from the perspective of someone else and that's a very different viewpoint than just reading a bunch of facts in what might as well be a text book at times.

Eando Kline's travels through the Hold of Belkzen is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The map is not the territory. From his point of view I got a better understanding of how rought travelling through an orc encampment out there really is. And ultimately that helps me visualize better.

So yeah, I'm for keeping the fiction.

Civil War was a damn good idea badly badly handled, possibly by too many cooks in the kitchen or possibly not enough(some people need good editors).

There's one person at fault for how bad Civil War was and that's Mark Millar. While I love the two arcs that he did on Wolverine I pretty much dislike everything else that he's done in the Marvel U proper.

That being said, there are also players who, for their private reasons, usually end up trolling. These are the 'I'm going to kill the offical because you need him to monologue an important part of the campaign.' players. For whatever reason they look for ways to break your game in goofy, witty(drudgingly so) or annoying ways. These are the guys I let hang themselves with their own rope, since it's all I'm allowed. If I were to actively attack those characters/players, then none at the table would trust me to keep it above board when they need it.

And oddly enough on a board that seems to be mostly populated with threads that are pretty much DM bashing in nature none of these people seem to address this player. I've run into these types more than I've run into overcontrolling GM's.

With both of these people they really should understand that just because you CAN do something doesnt mean that you SHOULD do something.

Alright, I've been trying to keep a lid on this but I keep re-reading this thread and there's something that honestly bugs me about some of the responses to Marvel Comics.

Mostly I think it's the misinformation (Marvel Now is a REBOOT! Just like Flashpoint! - Hey It actually isn't but keep tell yourselves that to make it easier to bash it...) or maybe its the complaints about character deaths (REALLY? you people really expect Capt America/Thor/Professor X/Johnny Storm to STAY dead?).

I'll just lay out how I view these things.

I love superhero comics. I love them more than I do Fantasy RPG's. Although I mostly run Fantasy RPG's I'm at my best when I run Supers RPG's. I'm just more familiar with the plots and character beats of that genre than anything else. I've been reading comics since I was 6 or 7 years old, really getting into them when I was 11-12 and I really (as side for a few breaks here and there) never stopped reading them. And When I say a few breaks that's more like me dropping my pull list from 20 books to 5 or 6 during a 2 -3 year period.

What I see often and what I really see in the statements of the OP is that he stopped reading for years and then started reading again and expected everything to be what it was when he had stopped reading (or even before that). To me that's just unrealistic and just not fair. It's also not how comics have worked in a very long time. Having a few conflicts and then having everything returned to the status quo like nothing really happened isnt what ANY superhero comics are like these days and thank GOD for that.

The idea that these characters (THESE PROPERTIES) are going to remain dead is a level of naiveté that is stunning to me. I hear it on line, I hear it on-line at conventions and I hear it in comic book stores. I look at these people and I'm like "Have they been reading super-hero comics AT ALL? EVER?" For me these hero (or even in some cases villian) deaths are the BEGINNING of the story. Not the end. The whole Death of Captain America was EXCELLENT. We got a Bucky at first as the reluctant hero then as a very different Captain America. I thought the Bucky run was so good that when they were bringing Steve back I was a little annoyed. Not because of the resurrection but that was going to mean less Bucky Cap!

It's a way to see what these worlds become when a vacuum needs to be filled. Johnny Storm's recent demise at the hands of the Annihilation wave was an AMAZING way for that character to go out and really emotional within the context of the story. But it seems that to a lot of readers, the context ISNT IMPORTANT. and if the context isn't important? WHY THE HELL ARE YOU READING IT?

Go watch CSI or NCIS or LAW AND ORDER where it's basically the same thing week in and week out and NOTHING really changes.

It's like watching the first season of LOST and coming back for season five and going "OH MY GOD EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED!! I HATE IT!!!! GGGRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

Or BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

Or THE WIRE

Or BREAKING BAD

or SONS OF ANARCHY

or any story with a continuing narrative.

Is everything that Marvel or Superhero comics in general does great? HELL NO. and I sure as hell have my own personal biases. I thought that DC's New 52 was clumsily done and was too much too soon. Which is why when people especially in this thread start talking about Marvel basically doing the same thing it only goes to show that they have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

The changes, whether you like them or not were not just dropped into existence. They were done gradually over a period of months, years in most cases really. SHIELD as an over arching influence in the Marvel U has arguably been in place since a little before Bendis started the NEw Avengers in 2005. Nick Fury going dark after his little Secret War with Latveria only really started to get fleshed out when you realize that HE realized that the earth had been infiltrated by Skrulls YEARS later in the pages of New Avengers.

The beef and ultimate break between Cyclops and Wolverine has been building for I want to say AT LEAST a decade now. The only issue I think that people have is that everyone thought that Scott would be for integration and Logan would be the one being more militant. But with everything that's happened to both of those characters where they are right now makes perfect sense. I'm not as self centered to think that just because those characters should be where I want them to be that they are in the wrong place. Or that I cant enjoy the story that's being told with the characters.

I HATED that Geoff Johns brought back Hal Jordan. HATED. IT. But When I spoke to Johns at NYCC briefly back in 2010 he said he understood but that I should just give it a chance and pick up the first trade. I did and I can admit that I loved everything up until the end of the Sinestro corps war. Johns addressed issues that I had with Hal's return and even though I'm still not a huge Hal Jordan fan and feel that the Yellow impurity (ie. Parallax) while valid within continuity was a bit of a cop out, it didn't stop me from enjoying the overall story being told.

I've already expressed how I feel about the whole "these new people dont hold a candle to Byrne, Miller, Claremont and David" thing. I have the omnibuses and trades from these runs on my shelf. They are great no doubt but they are not perfect. NONE OF THEM.

I contend that Claremont's run on the X-Men ran out of gas after issue #175. ALl of his best work existed before that when he worked with Byrne, Cockrum and the HUGELY UNDERRATED Paul Smith.

MIller's work on Daredevil was it's most solid when the story focused on his own creation Elektra. When the story strayed from Ben Ulrich and Elektra and The Hand it was weaker. The sole exception being the Born Again arc which is for my money the best Matt Murdock story in print.

Peter David is the one I agree with the most as I'm presently rereading his Hulk run from beginning to end. He's pretty shaky at the beginning of that run but it feels like once he starts to set up where he wants the book to go and the characters? He's rock solid.

I'll continue this later discussing the newer crop of Marvel writers that people seem to like crapping on...

** spoiler omitted **

I agree. I've been playing (mostly running) RPG's since 82.

I think that to expect ANYONE to know any complex ruleset backwards an forwards is unrealistic. I dont memorize everything. I dont have to. The rules are are a reference.
Part of prepping a game is knowing that what I'm going to needing to reference or use during a game and making it so that I can get to it quickly or having it on hand ahead of time.

The fact that the CEO or Paizo has trouble remembering all of the rules isnt a slight against the company unless you feel that a CEO should be intimately familiar with all of it's products. I dont think the designers have all of the rules memorized and I'm pretty sure that they have to consult references from time to time.

and that's the way I feel it should to be.

The amount of weight that's put toward rules mastery in this particular game isnt due to the rules themselves but due to the obsessive compulsive nature of some of the people who play said game.

I've been running Pathfinder since it came out and 3.5 before that. I've been running a Curse of the Crimson Throne game for the past 3 years with mostly the same players and it's very rare that we have to completely stop a game to look up something rules related. Either myself or one of the players either knows the rule off the top of our heads or we know where to find it in the book or on through an app like PFR or PFRPGrd.

The only reason that I would cancel any of my subscriber lines which are right now the AP line and the RPG line is that I'm slowly starting to run out of space on my bookshelf.

Seriously.

Right now I'm trying to figure out where I can sell/get rid of some of my 3.5 books to make room for more Pathfinder stuff.

That and the AP's taking a complete tank in quality and subject matter might do it.

I'm reading:

All of the Valiant Titles (X-O Manowar, Harbinger, Archer and Armstrong, Shadowman and Bloodshot)

Image: Up until 7 issues ago I had been reading Walking Dead from near the beginning but the death of one of the remaining longstanding characters and how this death was executed made me finally drop the book for good.

Still, love INVINCIBLE though.

Reading both Manhattan Projects (Jonathan Hickman) and Thief of Thieves (Hickman / Nick Spencer) in trades.

Fatale, next to Sleeper, might be the best thing that Brubaker / Phillips has ever done. And that's saying ALOT with the fact that those two also did Criminal.

On the Marvel Front:
Avengers, New Avengers, All New X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, Uncanny Avengers, Captain America, Wolverine and the X-Men and Thor God of Thunder. Also Powers.

In trades? Ultimate Comics Spider-Man, Daredevil and probably Indestructible Hulk.

No DC titles. I may pick up the second Batman trade, but while the first one was decent it didnt wow me.

I pick up Usagi Yojimbo trades when I can. Picked up the Fear Agent Omnibus vol 1 by Remender, Opena and Moore. Real good Pulpy Sci-Fi action.

I also picked up the first trade of THE SIXTH GUN by Cullen Bunn from Oni Press. I've never been a fan of Deadlands but I'd totally run a Deadlands game based on this comic.

I agree about Civil War, it's the one event comic in the past 10 years that I hated and while I own the singles (because I read them as they came out) I didnt buy the trade for my bookshelf as I have with most of the others. I thought Mark Millar was writing the Marvel Charaters as Mark Millar Characters. Too many people acting out of character with no real instory explanation.

It took a one shot by Christos Gage, to really get me to see why Tony Stark was behaving the way that he was and although I STILL didn't agree with his stance it made me see that he was really between a rock and a hard place as opposed to the flippant dick he was being in Civil War.

For me, as a rational adult as well as an almost lifelong comic book reader, the event is a catalyst. The event itself should be entertaining and get your attention but the stories that come out of the event are what usually shines.

Alot of longtime comics readers seem to have really short memories about this sort of thing because back in '85 Crisis had all these crossover books and their entire universe was basically rebooted. Secret Wars (which doesn't really hold up that well) did almost the same thing sans the full on reboot. But a lot of stories were generated out of Secret Wars (most notably the Thing deciding to stay behind on battle world and the Venom suit bonding with Spider-Man).

These events have had the same templates for years.

And as far as older creators being better? There are a lot of people who are looking at these books with rose colored glasses. Granted, I'm a big fan of Miller's Daredevil run, but the book was STRONGEST when it was focused on Elektra. His ACTUAL best work on Daredevil was when he left and came back to do the Born Again arc which is, to my mind at least, THE definitive Matt Murdock story.

Byrne? Same thing with Fantastic Four. I LOVE that run but it wasn't as perfect and pristine as people like to believe. He was at his best on stories focused on Doom and Galactus. And I'll argue that Jonathan Hickman's run might be the best run on FF since Lee and KIrby's run. It has a long running plot arc and hits all of the right emotional beats and is consistently good throughout his 2-3 year run. It's actually BETTER Byrne's run in my opinion.

Look I get it. Most people wish that they had the same comics that they read as they did growing up. Hey, guess what? GO READ THOSE BOOKS. I actually like to see the characters change or grow. I dont want to read about the same exact stale characters I read when I was 12. I like that because of everything that's GRADUALLY happened to Cyclops he's skewed more Magneto than Prof X, so much so that even Magneto is saying "Uh D00D...".

I dont read DC anymore because they did a full continuity wipe. So all the characters and stories that I read as a child are basically gone. That's fine and I dont hold it against them. In fact, even with me being more of a Marvel guy, I wish them the greatest success. But those books are not for me anymore. I'll pick up a trade here and there but for the last year I've pretty much been DC free. As I said before it's not that I dont like change, I do, but the way that it was done in a pretty abrupt manner didn't sit well with me.

Do I enjoy everything out of Marvel. HELL NO. But right now I'm reading more X-books than I've read in over 20 years. Remender's Uncanny X-Force was fantastic. Aarons Wolverine and the X-Men I was very skeptical at first has really won me over. And Bendis All New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men are damn solid. Remender's Captain AMerica and Uncanny Avengers are great in different ways (Making Arnim Zola an actual threat and what Remender has done with the Red Skull in terms of making HIM an actual threat? Geez. Poor, poor Chuck. I cant wait to see what Magneto does when he finds out what the Skull has done. That's gonna be UGLY).

Hickman's Avengers and New Avengers are a slow build but I expect that this time next year we'll be knee deep in full on CRAZINESS like we were during his run on Fantastic Four and it's sister title Future Foundation.

Long story short. I'm not that much of a traditionalist where I cant appreciate new things when I see them. Even with New 52. The only trade that I've picked up has been Batman: Court of Owls. And while I really dont see what the big deal is about Scott Snyder I do like what he's done with the title and while I've never really been that big of a fan of Greg Capullo this is the best art I've seen out of him EVER.

Anyway bottom line I guess is that I just felt the need to step in here and point out that someone here in Paizo land feels differently about Marvel Comics. Ultimately read what you like I guess.

Ninjak has been in XO for an issue or two. He will probably end up getting his own book. Personally, I've never found the character deserving of his own book. I probably would want to see a new Turok or Magnus Robot Fighter before a Ninjak reboot.

Unfortunately I think Dark Horse still has the rights to the Gold Key characters that appeared in the original Valiant Comics (Magnus, Turok and Doctor Solar). This is why those characters are notably absent from the recent relaunch.

Easier said then done, I know. However, I find it is better to not game at all than to game with a group I dislike or conflict with.

Yup this part especially.

I love my hobby. Especially the good parts. The bad parts I want nothing to do with and will just as soon as not game than to game with people who are going to make the experience less than pleasant.

Wow. It's pretty different thing when you get both sides of the story isnt it?

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I just found out that two of my players may be moving away in the coming year or so. My gaming group as of right now is filled with 5 people who's company I enjoy as gamers and as people very much. They are BY FAR one of the best groups I've had the pleasure of running games for.

No divas, no spotlight hogs, no hygene issues, no power-gamers, no obnoxious rules lawyers. Just the most helpful, considerate, fun group I've had in a long time.

I fell ass-backward into the core group when their regular GM had to bow out. I took over the group 4 years ago and haven't looked back since.

I know eventually I'm going to have to replace the departing players and I'm not looking forward to it because there are many more awful, selfish, powergaming, obnoxious players out there and I dont want anything to do with them.

UGH.

Maybe we can come up with a screening tool. Match.com for gamers :)

LOL. Even if we could do that I've heard some pretty interesting (ie HORRIBLE) stories of online dating profiles that just went awry.

If gamers/players can game a system like 3.5 and Pathfinder they could definitely game the hell out of a screening application.

I just found out that two of my players may be moving away in the coming year or so. My gaming group as of right now is filled with 5 people who's company I enjoy as gamers and as people very much. They are BY FAR one of the best groups I've had the pleasure of running games for.

No divas, no spotlight hogs, no hygene issues, no power-gamers, no obnoxious rules lawyers. Just the most helpful, considerate, fun group I've had in a long time.

I fell ass-backward into the core group when their regular GM had to bow out. I took over the group 4 years ago and haven't looked back since.

I know eventually I'm going to have to replace the departing players and I'm not looking forward to it because there are many more awful, selfish, powergaming, obnoxious players out there and I dont want anything to do with them.

UGH.

ciretose wrote:

I agree on the Pre-Gens. Unless it is a one off and you just want to be able to pull out quick characters, if you aren't going to let the players decide who they want to be, what are they playing?

That being said, you need to check in with the GM to see if your concept fits the setting, and if it doesn't, either decline or come up with something else that does.

I had a DM pull a cute one about a year and a half ago; he had us roll up characters. Didn't give any guidelines. So, I roll up an Elf Ranger.

"Uh, you can't be an Elf in this game."

"Do they exist?"

"Yeah, they exist, but you can't be one. And Rangers are different, they are only from cities and use guns."

"Um... okay. How about a Gnome Sorcerer?"

"Can't be a Gnome either."

"Why not?"

"Same as the Elves."

"Okay, fine. Human Magus?

"Sure."

So, after ditching several other ideas, I get to go with my 5th-string choice on a human magus. I don't mind certain campaign settings having odd race restrictions outside of Core, but for crying out loud at least tell us prior to rolling up characters. Anyway, once we start the first session, he tells us the following:

"Okay, it's actually 27+ years later, your characters are just waking up from having been brainwashed into being evil war generals the past 27 years and have been captured for all the war crimes you've don and are about to be executed. All of your gear is gone. Also, you have to escape and find a special mage who can change your face and your identity, your previous lives are gone."

"So, we're basically NOT playing the characters we rolled up? I now have middle-age penalties to my stats? Awesome."

Situations like this, might as well have gone with pre-gens.

See now this would have made me want to HATE VISION the hell out of that GM. All that time wasted and for what? That's time we could have actually BEEN PLAYING.

Things that make me leery are:
1) House rules that make me completely question a GM's sanity.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.

1) This sort of a broad statement to cover. Some of my house rules make perfect sense to me as I feel they help my PC's survive longer at lower levels. But to someone else they may seem like over kill and may have them questioning my sanity.

2) As a GM when the PC's are about to hit an especially dangerous encounter I try to drop hints and even sometimes outright tell them that it's is about to get ROUGH. We've had enough character deaths now where the players take it seriously but are still game. Which is why I LOVE MY PLAYERS. While I dont cackle with glee over character deaths, I do enjoy seeing my players go "HOLY CRAP, that totally wasnt what I was expecting." or seeing them seriously considering fleeing from a creature / encounter. Which is something that they've done more than once. If THAT makes me a dick DM then I'll wear that tag with pride.

3) I'll agree that that sucks. I hated it as a player and I dont do it as a DM.

4) when teaching the game to new players as not to scare them off? Pre-gens are a must for me. More experienced groups, especially with players that I DON'T know? They get a sheet of character creation guidelines. Because as much as we hear about bad GM's and dick GM's on these boards I've run into many, MANY more AWFUL, douchebag, game destroying, inconsiderate bastard players.

In my experience it's better to start with a narrow focus and expand it once trust has been built. I usually start off with Core rulebook and APG only and feats on approval. Once I know I'm not dealing with a-holes I'm usually very good with letting players play what they want within reason.

5) I've explained my stance on this above. My restrictions have more to do with abusive players than actual broken crunch. As a GM I'm not out to screw you. But please don't be a dick.

Artanthos wrote:

"10. Do Over! Ready for something different? Wish you hadn't taken that one suboptimal feat at first level? Eager to test out the newest base class? The choices you made yesterday don't have to sour the game you're playing today now that you have complete rules allowing characters to retrain class features, whether they be feats and skill ranks or entire class levels!"

No. Just no. People min/max enough already without allowing them to tailor low level characters without long term consequences.

If those "consequences" are an unenjoyable character I think I'm okay with my player choosing some new skills & feats over rolling a new character and having to integrate a whole new character in the plot.

Yeah, I dont get the resistance to this as well. I allow the players to tweak their PC's feats and abilites up to a point because I feel that after a certain point in a character's progression you should kinda know what you want. The PC's in our groups Curse of the Crimson Throne Campaign are 8th level and I think the feat swapping has pretty much ended.

Granted there have been more than a few deaths which provides for new PC's but that's par for the course...

Personally I dont want to see ANY adaptions from the books or expanded mythology.

I want to see something different. And fun. and Different.

Did I say different? Yeah THAT and FUN.

I saw the 3D trailer for this when I went to see The Hobbit and I'll be going and taking my 11 year old son with me. He's seen Jurassic Park before at home but on the big screen is an entirely different thing. He's gonna love it.

Set wrote:

I found Jean Grey's resurrection, solely so that they could use her in the new X-Factor title, similarly annoying. It messed with her characterization (and they ended up getting bored with her and killing her off again anyway) and it messed with Scott's characterization (and he didn't recover from that until post-Jean, with Emma, only to be more recently dragged back into the mud and left there, IMO, pretty much unsavable, in the same way that Civil War, again, IMO, left Reed Richards and Tony Stark pretty much unsavable).

AvX pretty much left every major player beyond redemption.

If Hal Jordan was redeemed then NO ONE is beyond redemption...

magnuskn wrote:

phantom1592 wrote:

Marvel had a reboot somewhere in the late 90's to early 2000's.... they just didn't announce it. There have been so many retcons and character changes, I simply don't recognize these characters anymore. Sometime between Civil War and Secret invasion it came to a head for me and I just dropped out. Daredevil taking up leadership of the Hand was a final straw on a book I've got two long boxes FULL of...

No, they had no reboot, you are using the wrong word. It's called "continuity", as in they had on-going storylines which <gasp> changed some of their characters through story.

Not that all those changes were great, but to say "reboot", when what really happened is just characters evolving through story events seems quite wrong to me.

That was mostly tongue in cheek... but still, Retcon is when you go back, change something in their past, and then claim it was ALWAYS there.

Marvel has been doing that for Decades. If you change the history of ONE character... it's a Retcon.

If you change EVERY character... it's a reboot ;)

There really aren't any 'main' characters that are still the same character/personality that they were in the 80's... or even the 90's. Everyone's gone dark and gritty and worst of all, they've been retconned to where they ALWAYS were... >.<

I was a fan for YEARS.... but eventually they just went too far and became too unrecognizable :(

Marvel isn't the only one to do this. And if you're seriously trying to make that argument I'd argue that retcons are pretty much a staple of superhero books, Period.

DC has done this as well. Time Trapper and the Legion of Super Heroes anyone? Mon El and Superboy?

Hell, Hal Jordan's return is based on one HUGE retcon. He was "infected" by Parallax which caused him to go bad and do what he did? Please.

I'm also thinking about the changes in a few Marvel characters that have made them completely different than they were. Daredevil which is a great read isnt really grim and gritty anymore. Spider-Man? The Hulk? Wolverine has actually lightened up a bit depending on what book he's in of course. Cyclops? You can say that with everthing that has happened to mutant over the past 8 or 9 years that it was a matter of time before he became this militant style extremist leader. When Magneto is telling you "Uh Scott youre beginning to sound like me." and not in a good way then well...

Alot of this, with a few exceptions (I agree that One More Day was soooooooo un Peter Parker like that it put me off 616 Spider-Man for a long time) the characters have changed and grown with the times. Not only ours but the changes and times in their respective universes.
I dont want things to stay the same that they were when I was 10 or 14 or 18 years old. The characters should change. relationships should change. And to consider that change a reboot? Well I disagree.

RE: HEAT haters.

I have to agree. I dislike Dan Dido's (gods it's hard to not intentionally misspell that name!) seeming hatred of Wally, Steph, and Cass. It's not even shelving the characters, it's the active hatred. Smallville was going to have a female 'nightwing' and Brian Q Miller (who I LOVED on Batgirl) was going to use Steph. Once that leaked, editorial clamped down and said it had to be Barbara. One of the (lame) defenses of regressing Babs was that Barbara Gordon was the most recognizable Batgirl because of other media. When it was pointed out that Wally was the most recognizable flash (because of JLU/Superman/Batman etc) and that Dick or Tim would be the most recognizable Robin (again, because of the media) they said that was different. (And don't get me started on the awesomeness of John Stewart in the alternate media) But I don't want him dead, or his family dead.

Likewise, I don't like the whole OMD/SpOck business, but don't wish harm on Dan slot. I just spend my (limited) money elsewhere.

What scares me? The people you see on Forums who support Scott going all supervillian. Especially in A v X. "Look, they're feeding the world! They've brought world peace! Sure there's no free will, and if you oppose them you get taken out, but they've made the world a paradise!" Um... no.

EXACTLY. You hit the nail right on the head.

I dont agree with all editorial decisions made on books that I read or properties that I enjoy. Hell I hated how Civil War was handled in the core book. I didn't recognize how half those characters were acting, ESPECIALLY Iron Man. But I did enjoy the hell out of the stories that came out of Civil War. But that doesnt mean that I'm going to start picking fights and physically threatening the editors and the writers.

I just spend my money on stuff that I like and want to support. Hell, that's one of the reasons that I'm here on Paizo's boards and not elsewhere.

I'm not a big fan of Hal Jordan and never was, except in the case of Emerald Dawn which was a pretty decent story. Kyle Rainer was MY Green Lantern just like Wally West was MY Flash.

I started reading DC with New Teen Titans. Then other titels like Batman and the Outsiders, Warlord, Omega Men and Legion of Super Heroes. After Crisis I started buying DC regularly mostly because I used to be a huge John Byrne fanboy and he was doing both Action Comics AND Superman at the time. George Perez was on Wonder Woman and I was a huge fan of his as well.

But the Legion of Superheroes turned out to be my favorite post crisis book BECAUSE so much had changed and for the worse. Anytime there is a bad situation there's a hero / heroes to dig themselves out of it. The deeper the hole? The better the story.

New 52 was a jumping off point as far as I was concerned I dont hate DC or their creators. I just understand that it wasn't for me anymore and it started well before New 52 when the decided to bring back both Hal Jordan and then Barry Allen Who still has one of the BEST and most meaningful heroic deaths (Crisis on Infinite Earths #8) EVER next to Phoenix (in Uncanny X-Men #137).

It wasn't like Wally West was some substitute, he was a true Legacy hero (which was another thing that I used to love about DC) and had been The Flash for over 20 years. Just to go and bench him in order to bring back Barry. UGH.

And dont get me started on Hal Jordan. When Johns brought him back the only thing that I could think of was "Well, those HEAT nutjobs won. You've just validated every disgusting thing that was said from them to Ron Marz and his wife and child. Thanks alot."

If you dont know who HEAT was, it was a loose organization of Hal Jordan fanboys who were very vocal about Hal jordan going bad and being replaced by Kyle Rainer. They proceeded to threaten the writer at the time (Ron Marz) and even went as far to threaten his kid. When I say that I hate these people? I mean it in a way in that I wouldn't piss on these people if they were on fire. I feel the same way about the same pieces of excrement who were threatening Dan Slott over Spider-Man a few weeks ago. If you're making threats to someones life or their child's life over a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER? There is no hope for you. Throw yourself into Mount Doom and spare the rest of us from your existence.

Ah, and that's where we split. :-)

I'm not a 'Granmt Morrison is g_d' fanboy, but I liked how he wrote BatDick. He made it clear that Dick had his own style and was still himself under the cowl (well, after some growing pains).

It was much better than the attempts for Donna to take up Diana's lasso.

Agreed I also loved the "tension?" between Dick and Damien and how Damien challenges him at every given opportunity. Is he a brat? Yes, but he honestly felt that he was a better example of what his father's legacy should be (he was wrong of course).

I had been thinking about it for a while, and I really loved supporting my friendly local comic store, but first DC did it (though the only DC series I followed were the two main Green Lantern books) and then Marvel copycatted the whole reboot thing. Maybe it's the thing that will bring in new blood, but this old blood has had enough.

Marvel's relaunch is NOT a reboot. All of the titles are following up from things setup in earlier stories whether those stories are crossovers (Avengers vs. X-men) or the prior volumes of the regular titles. It's not a reboot. DC is a reboot where they have literally rebooted their universe and that most of the characters that exist now in the new 52 are not the same iterations that existed five years ago.

I've been reading Marvel again regularly since the introduction of Marvel Max (Black Panther, Daredevil, Fury, etc) and Avengers again since Bendis started on the book. And the characters are the same characters for the most part.

Marvel has a penchant for relaunching titles frequently to get new number ones out in the world. It also helps that Marvel usually is able to keep one writer/creator on a book for the entirety of the volume of a book. Bendis was on Avengers from 2005 to 2012 (2 volumes) Fraction was on Invincible Iron Man from 2008 to 2011 (1 volume). Hickman was on Secret Warriors 2009 -2011, Fantastic Four and FF from 2009 -2012. Peter David has been on X-Factor since 2005, and that's not including his late 80's early 90's run.

The Marvel characters go through changes and the status quo changes for years at a time but they arent reboots. I personally like when things go all sideways. I'm not a fan of reverting to the status quo without ramifications. So yeah, MAKE MINE MARVEL.

Kthulhu wrote:

I wish Ultimate Spider-Man had lived, and 616 Spider-Man had permanently died instead.

Bumped for irony.

What are everyone's thoughts on Superior Spider-Man ?

I'm waiting to see where this story goes and not jumping to conclusions.

I follow Dan Slott on twitter so I got to see first hand the death threats and the all around obnoxious behavior of some so called comic-book fans. I also got to see the support from his peers and the fans who love his work on Spider-Man and are willing to trust him and see where this goes.

I just want to point out that whill I have a few trades from his Spider-Man run, I havent gotten around to reading them yet but have heard nothing but good things about his run.

On the other hand I have read almost every issue of Bendis Spider-Man for the last 8 -10 years or so. In my mind at least THAT one is the Spider-Man title to beat. Peter Parker's death in that title was one of the most emotional things that I've read in comics in a while.

The new kid Miles? I was a little skeptical at first, not because he was blackarican (I'm Black, without the Puerto Rican) hell I'm glad that my son when and if he starts reading comics is going to be able to see someone who looks like him as a hero. No I was skeptical because I REALLY liked and KNEW Peter Parker as a character and was going to miss him. But Miles story has proven to be interesting as well and one that I'm willing to follow.

I have to admit I'm half and half on character deaths and revival.

On one hand I WOULD like for certain characters to stay dead.

On the other hand a good revival story is a good story PERIOD. and in a lot of ways that's why I read comics for the story.

Case in point, as a teenager I HATED that they bought back Jean Grey / Phoenix as that was the defining character death of my youth next to Captain Marvel.

I hate that they bought back both Hal Jordan and Barry Allen. Kyle Rainer and Wally West werent some bloody place holders, they were MY Green Lantern and MY Flash. Hell, Wally was Flash for 20 years REAL TIME. to this day it sticks in my craw that they bought them back and shunted Wally and Kyle out of the spotlight.

Other other hand, I was one of the people who hated the idea of bringing back Bucky from the dead.

Until I started reading the actual Winter Soldier story arc and was like HOLY CRAP this is actually good. It was so good that when Steve "died" I was hoping that he WASNT coming back because I was loving Bucky As Cap. It was something different. It was Captain America the symbol but as a man he wasn't exactly squeaky clean like Steve was. This Cap has blood on his hands in a big way and old enemies who knew this and would be gunning for him.

I mean we're all grown ups here. So when people say things like I wish people would stay dead, especially if they are major franchise characters they're not going to stay dead.

if you really think that Marvel is going to kill Wolverine, Capt. America or Deadpool? That's just wishful and totally unrealistic thinking. And yes, people, more importantly KIDS know who Deadpool is. My 11 year old who has never read a Marvel Comic in his life knows Deadpool from the Ultimate Alliance video Game and loooooves him.

So I guess that I can see both sides. But I will say that if there's a good story to be told with either death or a character's revival I'm usually (except in a few instances) fine with it.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

If you are not a member of "a regulated militia", then I don't see how you should be allowed to have a gun. That amendment has been twisted beyond recognition and people need to start acknowledging that.

The state of mental health care in the USA is terrible. People need to start acknowledging that.

There's a whole lot less child massacres in countries with stricter gun control. Those numbers don't lie.

Scott's point is valid, and I think it's time to stop letting the gun control folks be the grief police. Some people grieve by trying to fix the problem.

That's how Batman handles it, and maybe we should all be a little bit more Batman about this.

Ironically, Norway has some of the strictest gun laws and also had the bloodiest massacre than any event in the US that I'm aware of.

Frequency is also a factor here I think. It seems as if we have shootings like this at least once a year now. I know we have shootings MORE than once a year. This year alone we had the movie theater shooting in Colorado, the shooting just a few days ago in Oregon and now this. We had the Virgina Tech shootings a few years ago and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch between now and then.

If we're not going to regulate the guns, then we have to do something about the culture and the people because it seems to me at least that Americans seem to be more prone to picking up a gun and KILLING PEOPLE than sorting out whatever issues that we might have in a constructive manner.

So if all these pro-gun advocates are against taking away guns period, then it's the PEOPLE that need to be dealt with. Unfortunately my fellow Americans are not the most rational or peace loving people on the face of the earth AND they are heavily armed. So I'm guessing we're going to see many more innocent people getting killed efficiently with firearms...