A Look At The Evolution of Champions/Hero

[Nemblamenchisus]

For those who are interested in such things, in response to a question from Ron I just posted a 1,400 word "comment" detailing my personal gaming experiences that gave rise to Dark Champions.

Having just read Steve's guest post and the long "comment" I feel like I have just attended a master class or seminar on Hero...

[Joe Walsh]

For years I felt this way about Vampires and Werewolves. I was so fed up because of popular fiction and the RPG community wanting to go angst on me. Now I like vampires as villains again.

 

Totally understandable! Good thing there wasn't an awesome rules supplement called "Vampire and Warewolf Hero".

 

Zombies must be affecting people that way these days. They were totally off my radar until iZombie, though, so I enjoy that show a lot.

[Steve Long]

For those interested:  Ron has posted a blog entry about HERO System math and some of his approaches to it:

 

https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/math-is-not-hard/

[Steve Long]

 

 

Mister Long how does having not played The Harbinger of Justice in a Dark Champions campaign after so many years make you feel?

 

Jonesin'. I haven't gotten a hit of that sweet, sweet vigilante justice in ages.

[Steve Long]

 

 

Good thing there wasn't an awesome rules supplement called "Vampire and Warewolf Hero".

 

There's a PDF called Bloodsucker Rampage with lots of different vampire write-ups.   I have yet to tackle were-things in-depth, though. Perhaps I should add that to the list. Everyone needs a were-crocodile character sheet!

[Joe Walsh]

For those interested:  Ron has posted a blog entry about HERO System math and some of his approaches to it:

 

https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/math-is-not-hard/

 

The ratio is interesting, but I enjoyed the essay on focuses even more. It brought back memories of being literal with our builds back in the 80s. If it was an object, it was a focus.

[Scott Baker]

I remember the ratio. I remember going through all our characters at the time and working out that ratio. Unfortunately I, and the others I played with, didn't see the value. It really seemed like an extra step to what we already were looking at: Active Cost.

 

In those early days, the Real Cost (Total Cost) was pretty much fixed. Not by the rules, but because no one was leaving points on the table, so-to-speak. So if Real Cost is static, simplify the equation and get rid of the division. Comparing Active Cost to Active Cost gave you the same comparison.

 

Now, it may be that I've just been at this for too long, and have internalized much of the math over the years, but I still don't see any great use for the ratio in a game today. Regardless of whether everyone uses their full 400 points (for example), if all I see is 2 characters'  Active Costs with one at 450 and one at 750, I'm likely to give the nod to the 750 having the edge.

 

(NOTE: Neither the ratio or comparing Active Costs accounts for the balance of combat vs. non-combat abilities which is a much bigger possibility in 6E than it was back in 1E-3E days. So I'm still comparing apples to apples.)

 

As a side note, I have my paper Champions materials clear back to 1981 (some electronic stuff failed to jump the technology upgrade chasms). The papers recording all of those ratios is not among them. That's how highly I valued it back then.

 

 

Now, jumping to present time, I think the ratio is possibly useful when comparing across the different versions, as Ron did in the article. With differing base costs, changes to Advantage/Limitation values, etc. it provides a more accurate representation. However I still won't use it myself for 2 main reasons: 1) It doesn't account for combat/non-combat abilities which I could use for balance; and 2) I don't have the time or need to compare characters across the different versions.

[Chris Goodwin]

I once played in a game (4th ed) where the GM gave us a total maximum Active Points, and then we just had to cover the total Real Cost with Base + Disadvantages.  I don't recall how Multipowers were calculated into that, though.  

[Altair]

Reminds me a bit of John WIck's discussion of his Champions games in Play Dirty. Basically, doubling down on the social contract aspect of disadvantages, which I think is more important in Hero than in a lot of other games. In Hero, if it's not disadvantageous, it's not worth points. Explicitly. Ergo, a Focus limitation that doesn't wind up limiting at all isn't worth any point reduction. If it shows up, it's a request from the player that "this thing being a Focus" is to be a part of the game. If that's not going to be fun -- if they don't want The Thing taken away, and everyone's game will be worse if it happens -- then they probably shouldn't take a focus limitation.

 

If they need the points, then the character should be built on more points. But people taking limitations that spoil the game for them serves no one.

 

One of the things I dig about Hero is how explicit some of that stuff is. If I have an RKA 2d6 Pile O' Guns - beam limitation, maybe charges for ammo, but no focus? I am now a John Woo Hero, and I will always have a gun. Gets knocked out of my hand? I draw the piece on the small of my back. Lose that one? I grab an uzi from an unconscious henchman. No guns around? I've always got guns around, homie. 

 

Being able to clearly say "Ms. GM, keep your grubby hands off my gun," vs. "Ms. GM, please put your grubby hands on my gun; I want to see this character struggle without it" in character creation is COMPLETELY RAD. That it is said with CP makes it feel ironclad; solid.

 

...

 

Unrelated: Would "John Woo Hero" be Dark Champions, essentially? Where's my gun-fu at?

[Ndreare]

Steve Long wrote some really awesome gun-fu stuff up for his Storm Lords. I don't know if he ever shared then our not.

Hopefully he decided to finish it as a setting book and Publish it through Elven Song Press.

[Steve Long]

 

 

Steve Long wrote some really awesome gun-fu stuff up for his Storm Lords. I don't know if he ever shared then our not.

Hopefully he decided to finish it as a setting book and Publish it through Elven Song Press. 

 

I have actually be thinking about polishing that stuff up and publishing it as a PDF. It depends largely on whether I decide to make a serious push to get STORMlords into shape to publish, since I'd rather keep the material in context if I can.

 

 

 

Unrelated: Would "John Woo Hero" be Dark Champions, essentially? Where's my gun-fu at?

 

Yes, that'd absolutely be Dark Champions. And you can already find a good many Gun Fu abilities in the "Super-Skills" section of Dark Champions for 5E.

[IndianaJoe3]

Unrelated: Would "John Woo Hero" be Dark Champions, essentially? Where's my gun-fu at?

 

There are also a couple of firearm martial arts in Hero System Martial Arts.

[zslane]

Equilibrium Hero anyone?

[Altair]

Equilibrium Hero anyone?

 

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Steve Long]

My Gun Fu article certainly includes ways to do all the tricks in Equilibrium. You'd just have to rename 'em.

[Lucius]

I think the benefits of using HERO for the Heroic genres have often been overlooked. In Fantasy particularly, the ability to create one's own magic systems and spells is tremendous compared to the "use what we've put in the core book" approach most games take.

I don't so much mind people crowing that Hero is the best system for superheroic comic book adventure. After all, it is. But it baffles me that it seems to be overlooked that it's also the best system for fantasy. And for most other genres too.

 

I think the problem, as I've observed before, is that Hero really isn't a game, it's a build-your-own-game-kit, and that makes it confusing to people in a market full of pre-built games in which a lot of choices are made for you. Like being the one and only supermarket in a city in which most of the population get 100% of their meals from McDonalds.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I get 100% of my taglines from Palindromedary Enterprises

[Joe Walsh]

Even though the largest portion of my RPGing has been with Hero over the decades, I have enjoyed many games and can understand folks who prefer one or the other approach. Certainly it's easier to grab something off-the-shelf and run with it, rather than using a toolkit like Hero. I appreciate a well-crafted game that represents its gaming style, genre and setting well. But I also know that some of my best, most satisfying RPing experiences have been when I used a toolkit game to craft my own, unique mélange of style, genre and setting. There's also the benefit that comes of long-term use of any system. Once you and your players know it well, it steps out of the way. And unless your group's thing is learning new systems all the time, it's nice not to have to do so in order to switch gears completely.

 

I wish more people were open to toolkits, but they do require a bit more work to understand and use properly. What's most frustrating is when I encounter folks who don't actually have any experience with toolkit RPGs and just dismiss them out of hand. (It's sad when I encounter folks who were burned by a poor experience with a lousy GM or misfit gaming group, and have turned away from toolkit RPGs as a consequence.)

[Lucius]

(It's sad when I encounter folks who were burned by a poor experience with a lousy GM or misfit gaming group, and have turned away from toolkit RPGs as a consequence.)

I have friends who felt this way about Pathfinder for a while, because of some bad experiences. They eventually got over it.

 

I have mixed feelings about Pathfinder I suppose, but it's not fair to hate a game or system because of how one or two people misused it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

With the occasional backandforthtrian tagline

[Ndreare]

For me the number one attraction of hero is the ability to customize my world. I can create a magic system or monster race and have a solid grounding in what it will do or how the world will interact with it.

 

What you are saying Lucius is true, Hero is a tool kit for creating my own game and I love that.

[Altair]

Toolkit systems have become much more popular in the second tier of gaming these days. You have the D&D/Pathfinder juggernaut, but what are the big, popular games after that? Savage Worlds. Fate. Apocalypse/Dungeon/Whatever World. Lots of other things too, but those three have massive* followings.

 

The market has really shifted in support of toolkit systems, which I think is exciting for the future of Hero. I'm a "big toolbox" kind of gamer - when I run or play in a game, I want options. For my Mass Effect game, we looked at a bunch of different systems - Fate, Savage Worlds, a Shadowrun 5 Hack - before deciding on a Fantasy Flight Star Wars hack. One could argue that Star Champions does Mass Effect pretty seamlessly; if I'd known about it, it certainly would have been in consideration for the game.

 

More tools! Yay tools!

 

* Relative to the size of the RPG market, and their status as "second tier" systems, of course.

[Joe Walsh]

That's interesting. I suppose the huge number of RPGs available these days skews the way it looks in online discussions, but as I think about it, what you're saying sounds right.

 

And, yeah...big toolboxes are awesome. Hero has a pretty huge one (as does GURPS). There are so many options in the Advanced Player's Guides alone that it sort of boggles my mind when I step back and think about it. (Looking at APG II, I really want to use some form of Social Combat in a Hero campaign, one of these days...)

 

I bet we must come off as kooks to some people, with our answer to "What system should I use for..." being an endless refrain of "Hero!" or "GURPS!" or whatever our favorite flavor is. I try to be careful about that and answer with a single-purpose system if it makes sense. But it's just so hard when your toolkit really does do a lot of things better than most!

[Nolgroth]

Hero is an overall good balance system. Despite the misconception that it cannot be made lethal, I have done so. On the reverse end, I have seen characters endure godlike levels of damage. Obviously there are middle grounds to that. Of course there is the power toolkit. That alone makes for an awesome experience. Hero is not the perfect system for me, but it is pretty darn close. Of course, I can tweak Hero to be even better (condense stats from 1-20 to 1-4, use a Roll High system that simply mirrors the roll low system, and tweak a couple of other things) for me. It isn't quite as simple as all that, but Hero is flexible enough to do all sorts of things.

 

If there was one major drawback to Hero (and I suspect any comprehensive toolkit system) is that it takes a lot of time and effort to tweak a setting. There are prefab settings available for most genres (super heroes, fantasy, space opera, and urban fantasy). Pulp is just a more fantastic reflection of the real world. If there is one drawback to Hero specifically, read the 'Are Tanks Really That Tough?' thread. It shows how hard it is to balance the fantastic versus the realistic. In distinct settings/power levels, it's not so hard. Trying to retain fidelity between multiple setting types (a Rifts or Torg setup) is a little more difficult. You sort of have to just run those at the highest denominator, which is Superheroic.

 

Still, Hero is my fallback system of choice. I'll still play others, but Hero has been the system I've turned to since 1989.

[Altair]

I know I'm a bit of a broken record here (age notwithstanding, "Skipping CD, or "MP3 on repeat" just don't have the same cachet), but I'm really big on the feel of a given system. With video games, you could say that the original Mario Bros. and Portal basically accomplish the same sort of things mechanically - you're given tools to traverse an environment. But the experience of using those tools is very different. 

 

Hero has immense versatility, but I'm more invested in its specific feel. I forget who pointed it out to me first, but combat has a very "comic panel" feel. I like that; it's different. Obviously, you can model all sorts of characters, but it's the way you model them that's interesting to me. Hero comes with a default flavor, that you can then season to taste. More lethality? Easy enough. Less bookeeping? House rule away. 

 

But the feel, both in play and in creation modeling - that's some good, unique stuff there. Solid. Goofy - but consistent - internal physics, and most of the complexity is front-loaded. 

 

I bet we must come off as kooks to some people, with our answer to "What system should I use for..." being an endless refrain of "Hero!" or "GURPS!" or whatever our favorite flavor is. I try to be careful about that and answer with a single-purpose system if it makes sense. But it's just so hard when your toolkit really does do a lot of things better than most!

 

I tend to answer with an endless refrain of "tell me more about your setting!", which might be just as bad

 

Having just finished writing a product for both Fate & Savage Worlds, there's a lot of similarities, for sure. But the campaign is likely to be different based on which system it's being rendered in. And I love that.

 

Not actually related to said product: what kinds of things do y'all look for in a Hero supplement? I haven't read a lot of little adventure or campaign things, looks like a lot of Big Settings (Champions, or newer stuff like The Day After Ragnarok). Is that just a function of the generic nature of the system, or is it that Hero tends to attract people who do very custom things, and therefore have less use for that kind of product?

 

Just curious

[Joe Walsh]

Yup, it's a great thing that each system has a flavor. HERO defaults to cinematic/comic book, GURPS to realistic, Savage Worlds to pulp, etc. There are options to make each of them more like the others in feel, but you have to work at it and IMO they get clunkier the further you get away from their default. With the campaigns I run, having both Hero and GURPS at hand makes my life easier. (It helps that they're both 3d6 roll under systems.)

 

Not actually related to said product: what kinds of things do y'all look for in a Hero supplement? I haven't read a lot of little adventure or campaign things, looks like a lot of Big Settings (Champions, or newer stuff like The Day After Ragnarok). Is that just a function of the generic nature of the system, or is it that Hero tends to attract people who do very custom things, and therefore have less use for that kind of product?

 

Just curious

 

I buy everything Hero puts out there, but when it comes to third party support I look for high-quality POD supplements. I'm much more likely to buy a genre book than anything else, especially if it includes a model campaign. Next would be interesting rules expansions like you see in the Advanced Players Guides or some of the GURPS PDF supplements (GURPS Social Engineering being one example). I'm unlikely to buy adventures.

[Lucius]

I don't so much mind people crowing that Hero is the best system for superheroic comic book adventure. After all, it is. But it baffles me that it seems to be overlooked that it's also the best system for fantasy. And for most other genres too.

 

I think the problem, as I've observed before, is that Hero really isn't a game, it's a build-your-own-game-kit, and that makes it confusing to people in a market full of pre-built games in which a lot of choices are made for you. Like being the one and only supermarket in a city in which most of the population get 100% of their meals from McDonalds.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I get 100% of my taglines from Palindromedary Enterprises

Having spent some time at RPG net lately, let me modify that:

 

A city where most of the population get 100% of their meals from McDonalds, much of the rest from a huge number of struggling mom-and-pop restaurants....and then most who don't fall into those categories are out there trying to run their own small farms making their own meals starting from dirt. And very few see the value in a supermarket.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I'm accustomed to very few seeing the value in a palindromedary.