Earlier vs. Current Editions of Champions

[fdw3773]

When I first introduced superhero RPGs to a friend who's coming with me to a local game convention in late July, they were Champions and ICONS. She easily picked up on the rules-light ICONS within a few minutes and Champions (5th or 6th) made her head spin from all the number crunching and variations of game mechanics. Later on, she took one of my comments to heart about how 5th and 6th Edition books often read more like textbooks versus an actual game book. She then asked me something along the lines of, "Well, when was the last time Champions was fun for you?" My answer was 3rd Edition. 🤔

 

Has anyone else experienced that awkward realization? I remember a few members of this forum using much earlier editions like second while incorporating some of the mechanics from later editions like MegaScale or Unified Power, and am curious if there are more who experienced that moment.

[Jhamin]

I would also say that Icons is a very narrative focused game where as Hero is a very crunch focused game.  There are different schools of gaming and people tend to have very strong opinions about them.

It makes a lot of sense that someone who loves Icons would hate Hero.

 

As for Hero: I feel like the later editions started to have a "The correct way" about them.  This is a special power, that is a standard one, this can or cannot be in a framework... it got tedious and while mechanically more consistent and going a long way to define edge cases, it wasn't making anything better to game with.

 

Personally, I'm all in on 6E but don't let it get in my way either.  I feel the actual mechanics have gotten better but the presentation has gotten dryer, which is the real problem.

I also tend to house rule away the pedantic stuff.  I let the undead hunting martial artist buy "affects desolid" for his Str and let it apply to his maneuvers so he can punch ghosts even though the Ultimate Martial artist is very clear that he has to buy that for each maneuver separately.  Whatever.  Handwave.

 

That said, I think 6e is a lot more coherent that the older editions, which is why I use it.

 

I also think there are a lot of people who love 1 or 3 or 4 because that was what they learned when they were 14 and you never love anything as much as something you discover when you were 14

[Christopher R Taylor]

6th edition plays exactly the same as 1st edition, just has more power options to build with.  The combat works the same, the movement works the same, the role playing works the same.  At some point you have to ask what you're having fun with if more options in character building ruins the fun of the game for you.

[Jhamin]

33 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

6th edition plays exactly the same as 1st edition, just has more power options to build with.  The combat works the same, the movement works the same, the role playing works the same.  At some point you have to ask what you're having fun with if more options in character building ruins the fun of the game for you.

 

Long ago on another board I remember someone reviewing the 2nd edition of a board game.  They were a superfan of the first edition and claimed to have played it over a hundred times.  The review was full of stuff like "I can remember every rule of the old edition, but have to look up how do do things in the new edition" or "the old version had simple line art and this has full color illustrations and I have to re-learn which picture goes with what card".

 

I gotta say, it was frustrating to read.  The entire review was "they changed it now it sucks" but he never had any actual critiques of the changes.  The reviewer was just mad it wasn't the same.

 

I'm not saying that is what people are doing here.  Just a couple posts up I lodged some complaints about presentation, but I really agree with Christopher.  Hero 6 is 85%-95% the same as Hero 3.  Rules are better explained and quantified, but back back in the day that is what we wanted.  If you don't like Hero 6 I"m not sure what changed from Hero 3 that made 3 good and 6 bad.

 

To try to bring this back in a more useful direction:  What about 3e does 6e not do?  What do people miss that a hypothetical 7e could get back too? 

 

Other than include the group you played with in High School?  Hero probably can't help you there

[Sketchpad]

1 hour ago, fdw3773 said:

When I first introduced superhero RPGs to a friend who's coming with me to a local game convention in late July, they were Champions and ICONS. She easily picked up on the rules-light ICONS within a few minutes and Champions (5th or 6th) made her head spin from all the number crunching and variations of game mechanics. Later on, she took one of my comments to heart about how 5th and 6th Edition books often read more like textbooks versus an actual game book. She then asked me something along the lines of, "Well, when was the last time Champions fun for you?" My answer was 3rd Edition. 🤔

 

Has anyone else experienced that awkward realization? I remember a few members of this forum using much earlier editions like second while incorporating some of the mechanics from later editions like MegaScale or Unified Power, and am curious if there are more who experienced that moment.

 

Icons struck me as "FASERIP meets SAGA meets FATE" in its construction. Not a bad game, but a bit quick and interpretive. 

 

My favorite version of Hero has always been 4th ed. The rules were a tad less crunchier, the game had a slew of content, and it was when I ran it the most. 

[Jhamin]

6 minutes ago, Sketchpad said:

My favorite version of Hero has always been 4th ed. The rules were a tad less crunchier, the game had a slew of content, and it was when I ran it the most. 

 

4e was my introduction to the system, so clearly the Big Blue Book was a winner for me.  I feel like the rules crunch was more about presentation than complexity though.  Compare 4e to Champions Complete, they are pretty similar.  6e admittedly hasn't got the content that 4e did, but it has a lot and 5e had more than either, but very few people point to 5e as their favorite.

 

other than "it was when I ran it the most", was there something specific we have lost?  Or is it just nostalgia?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

To try to bring this back in a more useful direction:  What about 3e does 6e not do?  What do people miss that a hypothetical 7e could get back too? 

 

I agree, and I have some thoughts on that, but its a better approach than just stubborn grognardism.

 

To help with this, I give you Chesterton's Fence as a starting point:

 

Quote

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

 

[Jhamin]

Just now, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I agree, and I have some thoughts on that, but its a better approach than just stubborn grognardism

 

Well, lets hear your thoughts.  I for one am curious.

[Joe Walsh]

2 hours ago, fdw3773 said:

Has anyone else experienced that awkward realization? I remember a few members of this forum using much earlier editions like second while incorporating some of the mechanics from later editions like MegaScale or Unified Power, and am curious if there are more who experienced that moment.

 

On other boards, I've seen quite a few former fans attest that they stopped playing HERO System at some point because the game's presentation was becoming the opposite of what they wanted.

 

HERO fan that I am, even I would never hand anyone I've ever known 5e or 6e -- or even my own favored edition, 4e. None of those books presents a game. They present a toolkit, from which a game can be assembled. Most people aren't interested in doing that, and even if they were, they don't have time for it.

 

Instead I'd go with Champions Complete, which is the closest thing to 1e/2e/3e's presentation that there's been in a long, long time. Plus it's a current product that gets support.

 

That said, there's nothing wrong with using 3e if that's what your situation calls for. I use plenty of older RPGs because they still work best for me and my group.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

6th edition plays exactly the same as 1st edition, just has more power options to build with.  The combat works the same, the movement works the same, the role playing works the same.  At some point you have to ask what you're having fun with if more options in character building ruins the fun of the game for you.

 

Okay, I hear that a lot, but I have to object. Combat and movement work the same in some ways, but so much else changed between 1st and 6th. Endurance costs. Range modifiers. Martial Arts. The way a host of Powers actually work. Vehicle rules. How to calculate the cost of multiple Disadvantages and Enhanced Senses, and in 6E, even Characteristics. Not to mention the names and prices for half of everything.

 

Some people may say those changes are superficial, and they may seem so to someone familiar with multiple iterations of the rules, but I say they aren't. IME you can't take someone only familiar with 1st Ed. Champions and just drop them into a 4E Hero game, or vice versa, without them facing vast confusion. Practically speaking these are similar but different games, and they each have to be learned on their own terms.

 

All that being said: My first edition of Champions was 2E, and I've been through every incarnation of Hero since then. 4E hit the sweet spot for me between fluff and crunch, but I welcomed 5E for its clarifications and options. Those two editions really are about 90% similar, such that it's easy to used characters, gadgets, etc. from one with the other, and/or blend their respective rules. I have more material for those two than I will ever need.

[Spence]

For me 4th was the sweet spot mostly because of presentation.  As many have pointed out there is little real change between all the versions on game play.  Right now 5thR is my go to version, not because it is "superior", but because it is available. 

For me 4th presented a Super-heroic game with a soul.  5th and on are dry and read like a textbook.

 

I also believe the textbook feel has moved people from using Hero as a creative toy box to something that actually resembles a D&D style straight jacket.  All the time I read threads were people have thought of something they want to make, and instead of simulating the intended effect, they find "powers" that "sound  like something near" and then try to hammer the round peg into the square hole.

 

I was reading a thread recently which I could never find again where someone was trying to make a hammer like Thor's. They wanted it to return to hand after being thrown and not be able to be taken away.  So they were painfully grinding away at things using focus and trying to find the "power" that made things return instead of building the intent.

 

Hammer -

multipower

Xd6 HA (PD physical bludgeoning)( I hit you with my hammer)

Xd6 HKA (ED Hammer wreathed* in lighting)( I hit you with my hammer that is wreathed* in lightning)

Xd6 EB (PD physical bludgeoning)( I throw my hammer and hit you)

Xd6 RKA (ED Hammer wreathed* in lighting)( I throw my hammer and hit you)

 

Done.

 

Question: But where is the hammer and how does it come back.

Answer: being a hammer is a special effect.  You can just make it appear in your hand or look like it flies back like a boomerang. Up to you, it is a SPECIAL EFFECT.

 

Plus, unlike a focus, no one can take it from you. 

 

That is issue with Hero that I see.  A person that picks up a Hero book today just doesn't have the mind set to think outside the box, they will still see the "creation rules" as being rules similar to other games. There is only one Telekinesis and it is the one named Telekinesis.  They will not think of "Strength at range" which can also simulate Telekinesis or many other possibilities.

 

But this is not a "edition" based issue, it is the way players look at games.  When many of the games like Hero came out everyone was used to RPG's having gaps in the rules, including outright unusable ones.  So we were all used to tinkering and house-ruling things as a normal course of play. 

Current gamers are used to either well established games where 30+ years have allowed them to fix all the issues (or pretty close) or newer games that go super simplified or have leveraged off of 50 years of gaming to write a tight rule-set. 

 

For me, even though the game has not changed very much at all in its run of play.  Since I started with 1st edition, the "big" changes that occurred between 5th and 6th made 6th edition creation counter-intuitive.  

Intellectually I know that there really isn't much that changed.  In my gamer "gut" and "gamemaster feel intuition" 6th is just "wrong".  As much as I have tried, I just can't enjoy it. 

 

 

 

[Sundog]

I think 5th is a great system, and for me the first one I really loved (though I started with 3rd) was 4th. I'm still of two minds on 6th - it's a purer system with everything equalized as far as stats go, but I don't find it as fun to play.

[Spence]

25 minutes ago, Sundog said:

I'm still of two minds on 6th - it's a purer system with everything equalized as far as stats go, but I don't find it as fun to play.

I'm no longer of two minds, but I think I get your meaning.  I can't point at any one thing in 6th as the "reason", but I just don't have the same fun.  Building, running or playing 6th.  5th and earlier?  Game on

[Duke Bushido]

6 hours ago, fdw3773 said:

 "Well, when was the last time Champions fun for you?" My answer was 3rd Edition. 🤔

 

Has anyone else experienced that awkward realization? I remember a few members of this forum using much earlier editions like second while incorporating some of the mechanics from later editions 

 

 

I started with 1st edition.  I bought into second edition.

 

I own every single edition (because I am dumb like that, but in the interest of transparency, let me state up-front that I bought 3e Champions at some point in the last ten years; my game store at the time never carried it; I didn't know it existed until 4e came out, which my game atore stocked deeply).

 

That includes both versions od 5e, as well as both versions of Sidekick and I own HERO System Basic (no idea why we stopped calling it Sidekick:  there is a universe of distance between the appeal of those two names).

 

I own Espionage (the fist non-Champions game to use the Champions engine, which would become in 4e "The HERO System."  I own DI, Fantasy HERO, and even Lucha HERO and MHI-  if it uses the 'HERO System," I own it, even PS 230-whatever the heck it was, and Champions Complete, - Dude!  I own the weird ones, too:

 

new Millennium (odd man out: I kind of liked that one, but I already had Bubblegum Crisis, so I could find all the missing bits that New Millennium seemed to have skipped), Champions Now, and the LARP.

 

I have read every single one of them multiple times (except the LARP:  I have made many attempts, but without fail, I am sound asleep before getting thirty pages in, which is weird, because I generally,enjoy Watt's style, but there is something in that book that is the absolute cure for insomnia: it is better than every Microbiology textbook I ever read! )

 

All that being said, I have never found within any of these a solid reason to move beyond 2e.

 

Don't think that I am badmouthing the new stuff!  I am not; I just dont seem to have ever encountered any of the problems that later editions claim to fix.

 

Now the next is one-hundred-percent opinion; I don't want anyone to think I am trying to claim this as a fact or even that I think,it is a fact-  for what it is worth, I didn't used to think this way!  A few too many discussions with  the diehard core of the fandom kind of pushed me to thinking this:

 

I don't think that _most_ people have ever had the problems these editions are meant to fix.  I really think most of the endless revisiins and options come out of the endless discussion hunting the snipe of mathematical perfection and total equality.

 

Moreover, I think a sizeable chunk of problems that folks have encountered over the years (and no: I am not going to be discussing them- got tired of rehashing the same discussions over and over) come more from an inability to let go of a preconceived notion than an actual lack of something in the rules.  That is, failing to catch a variation or broader application of an existing option.

 

Short answer:  I play 2e because it meets my needs.  I don't play newer editions because I don't have the additional needs those new rules are meant to address.  The changes to rules- for the needs of me and my players- are nowhere near worth thumbing around through all those books to double-check something.

 

 

[Sketchpad]

2 hours ago, Spence said:

I was reading a thread recently which I could never find again where someone was trying to make a hammer like Thor's. They wanted it to return to hand after being thrown and not be able to be taken away.  So they were painfully grinding away at things using focus and trying to find the "power" that made things return instead of building the intent.

 

Hammer -

multipower

Xd6 HA (PD physical bludgeoning)( I hit you with my hammer)

Xd6 HKA (ED Hammer wreathed* in lighting)( I hit you with my hammer that is wreathed* in lightning)

Xd6 EB (PD physical bludgeoning)( I throw my hammer and hit you)

Xd6 RKA (ED Hammer wreathed* in lighting)( I throw my hammer and hit you)

 

Done.

 

Question: But where is the hammer and how does it come back.

Answer: being a hammer is a special effect.  You can just make it appear in your hand or look like it flies back like a boomerang. Up to you, it is a SPECIAL EFFECT.

 

Plus, unlike a focus, no one can take it from you. 

 

But the hammer can be taken away from Thor. For a while, it was a pretty reoccurring event. I'd taken a page from Mutants & Masterminds and created a modifier on Focus called "Restricted" that is either +1/4 for a wide restriction, or +1/2 for a narrow restriction. 

[assault]

All my Champions characters, regardless of edition, are 2e characters at heart. My Heroic level characters, regardless of genre, are essentially Justice Inc. characters.

The biggest time soak for me is coming up with Disadvantages/Complications. That's where you get to the heart of "who is this character?". Even there, though, you can do a rough draft version, and then go back and fill in the details.

I'll resist the temptation to build a character in real time here. Let's just say that a 2e character, built on the suggested 225 points, consists of: 100 points of characteristics (mainly Dex, Spd and Con, with anything left over going into PD or ED), 100 points of powers (Attack, Defenses, Movement and maybe a miscellaneous one), plus 25 points on "other stuff" (I generally include Int, Pre and a Skill).

You might need to look at your endurance usage, and do a bit of optimization, but you can get a good first draft in a matter of minutes.

Then there's Disadvantages. See my comments above.

If you keep it simple, and a more complex character is not a more interesting character, and you are past the initial learning curve, 2e Champions characters are actually pretty easy.

Subsequent editions don't really change that, although they have more fiddly bits to muck around with.

A couple of things from later editions can help - the lower endurance costs can save you some time, and the toning down of the highly swingy Stun lottery from Killing Attacks makes "bulletproof" characters a lot easier - but the tactical quirks of endurance management and "lucky hits" can be features, rather than bugs.

 

My point: 2e does what it does perfectly well. There's not a lot of benefit in the later "improvements". (1e works too, but you have to choose not to take advantage of the gaping loopholes.)

[Spence]

1 hour ago, Sketchpad said:

 

But the hammer can be taken away from Thor. For a while, it was a pretty reoccurring event. I'd taken a page from Mutants & Masterminds and created a modifier on Focus called "Restricted" that is either +1/4 for a wide restriction, or +1/2 for a narrow restriction. 

You did notice what I actually said? 

They wanted a hammer "like" Thor's and they wanted it to return to hand after being thrown and not be able to be taken away.

So I don't know why you would bring up that Thor's hammer could be taken.  We are not talking about Thor's hammer.  We are talking about a similar hammer that cannot be taken. 

Not trying to be antagonistic. 

Just confused...

[Christopher R Taylor]

What I'd like to see in a new edition are some of the things I said should be in 6th in the old boards when it was being discussed, and some other stuff that arose because of 6th.

 

First, it should be two books, but one should be small and compact for players with few examples and almost none of the "how does this power work with this limitation?" stuff.  The second book should have all the exceptions and fiddly bits, trimmed down to a minimum for the GM or more serious player.  You can compact the Hero rules down pretty well as the "Complete" books have shown.  That way you get the best of both worlds: all the rules, but none of the intimidation.

 

Second, the rules could be looked over closely for trouble, such as Damage Negation which is sketchy as hell in cost.  Its kind of questionable as for need to begin with but the way its structured right now, its just not right.  Change Environment needs more work as I posted on earlier, and expand it to allow things like "minor environmental effect" such as lighting fires and creating light.  Making a glow should be cheap as dirt, not based on Images.

 

Third, "Meta-builds" like talents should be included, such as Transfer, Instant Change, Mental Entangles, Suppress, all that kind of thing that is a subsection of an existing power.  Allow people to just grab those to use for super basic simple no-frills builds and to act as short hand.

 

Fourth, Recost Endurance and recovery which are insanely too cheap at the moment, especially Endurance.  I have a very strong suspicion that the push behind making END essentially free was by people who don't like it and don't use it in their games and damn it Captain Neutron couldn't keep his force field up while he flew in that one game and that will never happen to me again.

 

Fifth, reexamine combined attack; is it really viable in the game to allow someone to make multiple attacks with everything they have with zero drawbacks or limitations?  Every single other construct in the game where you can hit multiple times or multiple targets there are all these DCV and time and OCV other penalties to make up for the advantage of a flurry of attacks... except Combined Attack.  I get it, you saw that martial arts movie and said "we should be able to do that!" But that's why you build powers and special maneuvers for martial arts to do it, not just "hey everyone can do that for free!!!"

 

Sixth, re-examine Martial Arts for how its built.  I know its a beloved Aaron Allston creation and few are bigger fans of the guy than I am, but does this really work well and fit into the game?  I have brought it up several times here but I think a new power framework that allowed building martial arts and stuff like talent trees and nested "gotta get this before you get that" types of constructions would be extremely useful for the game.  And no, I don't know how that would be done yet.

 

I have some other minor things but those are the ones I think that would result in a better game.

[Spence]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Short answer:  I play 2e because it meets my needs.  I don't play newer editions because I don't have the additional needs those new rules are meant to address.  The changes to rules- for the needs of me and my players- are nowhere near worth thumbing around through all those books to double-check something.

 

1 hour ago, assault said:

My point: 2e does what it does perfectly well. There's not a lot of benefit in the later "improvements". (1e works too, but you have to choose not to take advantage of the gaping loopholes.)

 

I'd have no problem playing 2e.  I play 5thR because I have six copies of the core book and 5 to 6 copies of each of the "extra" books like Character Creation Handbook, Combat Handbook, etc. Plus the "collection copy" bagged and stored of each book. 

For 2e I have one copy and it is my stored one. 

 

I simply lack the ability to prep games and make characters without a paper copy in my hand.  I guess the look, feel and even the smell of a real book triggers my creativity.  

[Spence]

7 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Fourth, Recost Endurance and recovery which are insanely too cheap at the moment, especially Endurance.  I have a very strong suspicion that the push behind making END essentially free was by people who don't like it and don't use it in their games and damn it Captain Neutron couldn't keep his force field up while he flew in that one game and that will never happen to me again.

 

I never had a problem with END.  I never stopped using 1/5 cost for everything.  It is the way I started playing and running out of umpff at the most inopportune time is basically a trope for supers and heroes of all kinds.  You can't heroically push through the exhaustion if you never get tired. 

 

And how dare you insult Captain Neutron, the was GM was railroading me....

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

That includes both versions od 5e, as well as both versions of Sidekick and I own HERO System Basic (no idea why we stopped calling it Sidekick:  there is a universe of distance between the appeal of those two names).

 

Personally, I'm in full agreement with you. But I remember Steve Long posting in an old discussion about the upcoming Sixth Edition, that one of the most frequent complaints he got about the 5E books was that their subjects often weren't clear from the titles, which caused prospective buyers to bypass them. So when he was developing the 6E line he resolved to give them titles "so clear a baboon could understand them."

[Scott Ruggels]

My preferred is 3-4th edition.  The most fun I had as a player was the Fantasy Hero playtest.  Followed closely to a couple of Aaron Allston con games.  As a GM, it was running Fantasy Hero 1st edition and second, but back then the settings were deeply home brewed, relying on history, cheap and cheesy fantasy novels I bought from the College book store for the bus ride home, and long conversations with othe local GMs.  
 

those editions encouraged discounts on package deals to give players a deal, and to give set lists of spells and characteristics and powers to produce a member of some fantasy race, or job, or magic style. You would have points left over to individualize your character, and package disads didn’t count for halving.  If I were to run Fantasy Hero for new players, I would go with the early editions and inform them that D&D emulation I would consider in very bad taste.  there are far fewer pages in the early b editions of FH, and Danger International is a fun read. This is a lot more surmountable than 6th Edition. 
 

Those that say the play is the same are wrong.  Movement is halved, and divorced from beloved 25mm hexes representing 6 feet or 2m on tan Chessex battle maps. Turn mode has been added for characters. Endurance costs are different, and while most powers have been made more granular, and proscribed, barrier has uselessly combined effects. It used to be Forcefield would transmit stun from an attack to a character, similar to armor or rPD, whereas nothing was transmitted through a force wall, unless it was blown through, like a brick wall or tank armor. It was very easy to conceptualize the differences mechanically and build to spec.

Then Com was removed, and replaced with striking appearance for bad reasons.  COM was the stat that generated so much roleplay. Comeliness was taken as positive attractiveness. You paid points the higher you went. Was Sue Storm more attractive than Mary Jane Watson? If you had two very attractive team members, that often generated a lot of non combat interactions. Negative attractiveness paid you using distinctive looks. Large humanoid made of orange rocks, gotta be The Thing.  Then there was how growth and shrinking is handled now.  It used to be you would buy X levels of growth, to get the size you wanted, then you would buy off the END with appropriate Disads like can’t go through single doors, and others. You then had a character, other people around the table understood as “large”, without the 6th edition hand waving, reducing a power to a mere special effect. When l first started playing Champions with the first edition, it was 200 points plus Disads. I would take fewer disads than the other characters, and while I didn’t hit as hard as the others, but I was often the last one standing. Now the point totals are astronomical, and Dis-er- “complications”, if I understand correctly, are a fixed amount for the campaign(?), so everyone is the same number of points(?). As such the current edition’s strict enforcement of balance and getting what one pays for has removed the previous editions’ mercantile transaction between players andnGM and have replaced it with a Tax audit interaction. As such the 6th edition reference rules read like a tax accountancy text book.  Gone is the breezy information and sly humor of Bruce Harlick, or the cautioning notes l, the depth, and occasional dark humor of L. Douglas Garrett, or the confidence building good cheer of Aaron Allston.

 

Champions Complete does not have the tax problem but it lost the organization of 4th edition and it could use a revised layout with no change to the text.  Still, it has the aforementioned flaws of being a 6th edition rule set. D&D 5e acknowledged that there were imbalancing things in the game but those things could be compensated for  (Fireball as a 3rd level spell). But 6th edition has little wiggle room and tends to over complicate builds. The skills are a prime example of that.
 

I think I have already talked about the skill specialization where a 2-3rd edition character would have Doctor. A 6th edition character would have to take biology, anatomy, thoracic medicine, cardiology and would be a dandy heart surgeon, but not as useful setting bones or plugging bullet holes. The specificity also effects the cost of skill levels, and once again making the point costs astronomical, and character generation immensely slow, unless

one buys Hero Designer which is like having to buy TurboTax to file your taxes.

 

I expect some of you to come to the defense of 6th edition, and that’s fine, but it is to me, not fun. I may have to learn it, but it puts me to sleep. 
 

Champions Now, while inspired by 3rd Edition Champions, is a bit too modern , a bit too idiosyncratic, and too narrative focused, to feel like Champions of old. The wargame roots of the old game are gone. To me, it’s not Champions without a 12 segment speed clock. I see narrative is what you tell after the game, but what is most important is putting together a solid character personality because it should be characters that drive the plot, not the other way around. 
 

So if I wanted to teach new folks Hero, Duke may be the most correct, starting with second edition Champions. 
 

Scott - proud Grognard. 

[DreadDomain]

15 hours ago, fdw3773 said:

Well, when was the last time Champions fun for you?

To answer the question directly, the last time Champions was fun for me was 6E. Do I think 6E is perfect? Of course not. Do I approve all the changes that 6E brought? No. Do I believe it's a bloody good game. Hell yeah!

 

What is my favorite edition? Probably a blend of 4, 5 and 6. Given a choice between all editions, which one would I choose? 6E.

 

But if I could, I would play 7E

[Duke Bushido]

Scott, I regret that I can only give you a single trophy for that.

 

The changes to Endurance alone- both in how the End cost is calculated and in the pricing and mechanical changes to Reduced End- have radically altered gameplay in terms of short and long-term strategies, and have taken away the fine-tuning granular trade-offs between END conservation and overall cost of a particular build.   Sometimes, you just opted for 1/4 or even 1/8 End, either because of the cost, or for your concept.  That build, in turn, affected how you played the character and the decision he made.

 

Yes:  "you can still go ahead and charge him some END even if he paid for zero end"--  so the one guy at the table who believes that strongly in concept will do it.  The other five guys are trying to figure out why on earth they should feel inclined to do that if "free" is the exact same price.

 

There is so much more to be said about Endurance _alone_ before going anywhere else, but suffice it to say that Scott is quite correct:

 

If "roll 3 dice and compare against OCV/DCV" and "this is how you count and record damage" and "these are the two different types of defenses" is, for you, the sum total of gameplay, then no; it hasn't changed much.

 

Outside of that, most of it has changed considerably.  Given that above, in this very thread, is the comment "endurance is way to cheap," I dont think all those changes are inherently better.

 

 

[vindeishi]

A lot of the points above are the reason Champions Now exists.  Ron Edwards argues in the text and on his comics blog that Champions/Hero System 4th edition is a discontinuous jump from early Champions, edited by a different person than the original authors and with different priorities in mind.

 

I think you could play 6E with an early Champions mindset and design style, but you would have to change a lot of dials, so to speak.  It would also not mesh with the published write-ups. (This isn't a problem for your home group, but it is a big problem for a new audience, cf. every other thread where this has been discussed ad nauseum.)