This list includes members of the original Brotherhood of Evil Mutants and the Byrne/Claremont "new" Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

I left out Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, as they were reluctant villains who reformed. And I left out Magneto cuz he seemed like a shoe-in to win.

You forgot the most evil mutant of all; Charles Xavier. 

He formed a school where he indoctrinated young kids, sometimes even brain wiping their own parents, into forming a well armed terrorist group.

He taught this group to flaunt the law, harbor criminals, assault law officers, threaten normal humans, break and enter into government and or military computers, tamper with evidence, and build unregulated, alien (and repeatedly explosive) power supplies.

And he did this all while using his mental powers to make them think they were the good guys.


And if that wasn't enough, he a so called teacher lusted after his under aged students.

I think Raven is gonna win, but Mastermind almost got my vote because of how he effed with Wolverine and Mariko.

Display Name wrote on Feb 27^th, 2015 at 1:21am:

I thought that was her original costume!

Wyngarde got the vote for being more powerful than he was through manipulation and truly toppling the all-new, all-different roster.

Raven is Mystiques name. I am not sure if its her real name, but its the name Destiny always used for her.

John wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2015 at 10:29am:


No idea.  Never was into X-Men much.

If I had to pick.. I'd pick Mystique.  She had vision, style and some level of honor to her.  I HATED Mastermind... he was sniveling dweeb who got off on hurting people who his little-minded ego felt were 'better' than him.

Though I'm a huge X-Men fan (and have been for over three decades), I have to admit that I'd rather have teeth pulled than have to read Claremont's dialogue.  One can only handle so many "with a speed that belied his massive bulk" or "he's the best he is at what he does" or "the sum total of her psychic energy", etc. before wanting to pull one's hair out! 

Don't forget all the "no quarter asked--and none given," calling bad guys "butchers," everybody's idea of a vacation destination being the British Isles, awful Southern accents...

I haven't read too much of the X-Men mainly because the whole "people hate mutants but have no problem with others with super powers" didn't make much sense to start with (how can a man on the street tell that Iceman is a mutant but the Human Torch is a regular human?) andwas beaten worse than a dead horse.

The whole thing never interested me much as I like crime fighters like Spider-Man.

Majestic wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2015 at 4:13pm:


My personal least favorite: "We take care of our own."

Quote:

Klystron: you have actually hit upon a V&V issue, as well as a comic book problem. A lot of players just want to win the fight, so they make up astonishingly powerful characters with utterly no depth. It rapidly turns an excellent and entertaining RPG into a dull slug-fest. It's not a problem with the rules, though some bemoan the lack of any "Balancing mechanic" in the game. That's not the problem here... What it is is an issue with the player and GM. Remember, there is no limit on how powerful an NPC may be so no matter how powerful a player-character is, the GM can always make an NPC designed to kick his butt. Make a good character with some flaws, and you'll have more fun than you will with an Uber-Character with no flaws.

Edited:

"the GM is the balancing mechanic": I so wish more folks would read, digest, and understand this instead of moaning on about character points and drawbacks and what not being necessary for a "balanced game." I can tell you from experience that a 250-point Aquaman-inspired hero is no match for a 250-point laser-blaster IF THE GAME IS JUST ABOUT COMBAT AND WE'RE NOT IN THE OCEAN. That's what GMs are for, isn't it: to make sure every player gets a chance to do cool stuff with his character? Or to at least tell you up front, "Hey, you might not want to spend a lot of points on powers that only work in an aquatic setting as this campaign is going to spend a lot of time in outer space."

The whole "Balanced" system thing has been done already. One was "Living Legends" by Mister Dee. I don't know if it sold or not, but there is not room in the market for two versions of "Living Legends". Another was "Big Eyes, Small Mouth" by Guardians of Order. This game is defunct and no longer supported.

To me, it seems as though a "Balanced System" is a path to V&V's demise. I for one would rather see some expanded rules to help get players and GM's started down the right path and open their eyes to the endless opportunities to be found in V&V.

I admit that V&V is not "Perfect" but it's so close as to be indistinguishable from perfect.

So, what I meant by "balancing mechanic" is that the GM must run the game to present difficult but surmountable challenges to the players and sometimes the players must taste the sting of defeat.

I also think teams should be balanced, not too heavy in a any one thing, but like any team set up for success, diverse and able to build off each other. Sure, a team of all Ben Grimms would be great in combat and wonderful to have with you on moving day, but when dexterity or stealth is required, not so much.

The thing about balance is the GM needs to tailor the scenario to the limitations of the player characters and not the strengths. IMHO, a good game forces the players to think outside the box and penalizes them for not doing so.

For example, I just started a new game with a group of players I have never played with before. It has been a long time since I ran or played a game, so I decided to buy a few adventures, use them as a reference for recreating some of my old stuff, create new stuff, do the heavy thinking while I got used to the game again and introduce people who had never played this game before to how it is supposed to go. I made some changes, however, that will fit into my long game.

The players did well but missed several clues that would have helped them tremendously in future adventures because the first villain they met will become the major recurring baddie they must contend with in coming adventures. 
They missed the clues that would have helped them figure out his next move because they were too busy asserting their dominance during combat and got caught short when the bad guy hit the priest hole and left behind a nasty surprise to slow their pursuit.

Now, they are going to have a helluva time when they meet again and have to spend some time discovering what they should already know. They do not know what his major offensive power is, what his motivation is, how he can be neutralized and what his overall goal is.  In fact, at some point, one of the team will have problems with his powers as an effect of his origin and other factors.  They will be forced to seek out their arch-enemy and work with him to repair the damage because he is the only person on earth with the knowledge and experience to deal with the problem.

This is a clear case of what they don't know can kill them and just might. Now, they have a long road to travel and a few more fights to lose to make up for what they could have known just by getting the villain to monologue and picking up the papers on the floor.

What makes being a GM fun for me; the players unraveling the mysteries, outsmarting me and defeating the scenario if not the villain(s).  Of course, it is up to me to enable their success without handing it to them on a platter.

Very much agree with what you guys have said about the balancing factor of the GM.

Quote:


Personally, I've always been a huge Marvel fan, and barely dabble with anything from DC.  I'm not criticizing Marvel at all.  I just tired of Claremont's clichés is all (tried picking up his recent X-Men book and couldn't handle it any longer).

Still, the Claremont/Byrne X-Men run is one of my favorite in all of comics, and I've re-read it many, many times.