Jump to content

Earlier vs. Current Editions of Champions


fdw3773

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Barbarians of Lemuria does the same thing. It works well for what the game is.

 

/

Not sure what you mean by "post it here," but in case it needs to be said... Don't post blocks of rules from games. Ever. Respect the copyright and the effort for which writers and developers were paid. If they wanted it given away for free, it'd be Open Games License.

 

Sorry, sore spot. I've been in the biz.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I should have mentioned, Honor + Intrigue is based on Barbarians of Lemuria, modified and customized for swashbuckling.  I'm not familiar with BoL, so I can't list the differences.

 

Don't post blocks of rules from games.  Absolutely! 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I mean, this is a valid point (easily remedied with a house rule) but the others are just "you can do it but the rules don't tell you to".  I think you've suffered from bland campaigns more than Hero being weak at these points.  Just because you had GMs who only had games where you were just in fights does not mean there were not other games where more happened.

 

I mean you say complications are "added on" but they were a groundbreaking part of the original rules that gave mechanics for roleplaying and character design that no other game before had considered.  Mechanics encouraging role playing and interaction based on the character's personality.  That's hardly an "add on".

 

Not sure where to go with that. 🙂 "I think you've suffered from bland campaigns" kind of writes off my experience with the game I've played for about 40 years...


Anyway, I think I actually said HERO was indeed ahead of the game in 1981 with its disadvantages scheme. Those have, as someone said upthread (Scott I think), been diluted over time and I would say they are no longer groundbreaking.

 

I agree, complications encourage roleplaying and interaction.  These other systems drive interaction, mandate roleplaying, bake in genre conventions. Of course I am tempted, I appreciate the use of evolving gaming "technology" to deliver better gaming experiences. 

 

You asked for examples of what I meant, I gave them.  I am not judging your games, would be nice if you did not leap to judging mine.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Judge whatever you wish, I'm just trying to puzzle through how you managed to play so many decades of Champions and not run into anything but combat.

 

I did not play games that were nothing but combat.  I am saying that other games now deliver more game out of combat and seek to do more to drive genre emulation in combat than HERO does.

 

I can do things to make HERO deliver more but it does not do these things out of the box.  I can throw out house rules and tell players what I want out of the game. That does not help new groups and new players. 

 

I have played lots of Champions in my time and, while playing round with these other systems, there are things, out of the box, that feel comic book in ways HERO does not.  I can see players, driven by the system, play in a more superheroic way.

 

I am not telling you I feel my HERO games are lacking, I am saying there are lots of places where I need to put in effort and in these other games, I put in much less for the outcomes I want.  In short, the system supports the gameplay better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been looking at building a compressed Hero based game on and off for a couple of years. It's very hard to cut down the crunch without creating a hopelessly crippled version of the run time game.

 

That's with a "here are your character options, pick one" approach to character generation.

Partly, though, it's because I have been looking at the fantasy genre. Superheroes, with the simpler set of optional combat rules, might work better - but of course it's harder to set a satisfactory range of character options.

 

A lot of my problem is that I have set myself an impossible target in terms of page count - I want it to be readable by someone with a very short attention span.

The funny thing is that the Fuzion spinoff, Wildstrike!, has the kind of page count I am looking for. But mechanically that's a bit further than I am willing to go.

I'll mention Champions Now as a near-miss in terms of being a "to the point" version of Champions. It has a lot of the "how to play superheroes" in it, but buried it in lots of superfluous prose, and accompanied it with examples that makes it seem like a game of tedious play of low-powered anti-heroes. Mechanically, it handles 60s Marvel, and DC series like the Doom Patrol, perfectly. But you would have to have seen the playtest drafts to appreciate that. So a game perfectly suited to Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four looks like a game of "roleplaying" business meetings...

I'm currently looking at a game that isn't directly Hero based, but which is designed for drunk people to read, and which has art, poetry or both on every second page, and a one page summary of the rules at the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure you can compress Hero, unless one does start walking back through the editions. You are correct about Champions Now, as a near miss. For me, it felt off and felt oddly constrained, in a way Champions 2e and 3e didn’t. Those two made possibilities seem not only endless, but attainable with a pencil and a character sheet.  Champions Now seemed to have constraints, and a bit of the “one true way”-ism that removed a lot of those feelings of possibility. 
 

I could suggest, you go back to an edition of Champions that is close to your page count, and just adjust the calculations to suit? Then rewrite and reorganize from there?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I did not play games that were nothing but combat.  I am saying that other games now deliver more game out of combat and seek to do more to drive genre emulation in combat than HERO does.

 

I can do things to make HERO deliver more but it does not do these things out of the box.  I can throw out house rules and tell players what I want out of the game. That does not help new groups and new players.

 

I'm going to swing this back to "social combat", which is not a great name, but que sera.  To me, this is a granular mechanism for resolving non-physical conflicts that do not end with one side unconscious or dead.

 

Examples might include:

 

 - actual social conflict, be it Royal Court or High School.  Yes, your character might, in fact, be persuaded to do something that they later regret, and that you, as their player, consider undesirable. The character is persuaded to a different viewpoint, conned into a bad decision or pushed into a purchase they regret making.  That is called "losing a conflict", and is a possibility in games (and real life).  A single opposed roll feels very anticlimactic if such conflicts are central to the game.

 

 - a legal battle, in trial, with both sides attempting to get the judge/jury to their desired result.  Again, a single opposed roll does not cut it.  And should that be an Oratory, Charm, Persuasion, KS: Law, PS: Lawyer or some other roll?  Which others are complementary?  Are different judges, juries and/or jurors more or less influenced by different types of roll?  In a Supers game, a single opposed roll (or "just role play it") will work fine.  But not if this is a campaign focus.

 

 - Medical or scientific research.  "Roll 8- and you cure the patient; otherwise he dies" doesn't make for a great game centring around a mysterious illness.

 

To the Supers element, Champions has the Power Skill and detailed, granular rules for pulling off a one-time stunt. As I recall, M&M has "pay a Hero Point to use a Power Stunt consistent with the character's abilities".  Which one feels more like the comics (HINT:  Not the one where the game stops for 15 minutes while we stat out the points required and determine the required roll, even assuming someone actually bought the skill high enough to matter.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing in notice in RPG discussions is that there's different schools of thought about whether a game "supports" something.  Maybe just different bars.

 

Does a game support a playstyle or a genre or a tone or character archetype?

 

For some, it's 'yes" only if the system mechanics are hard-coded to force that style, tightly emulate only that genre, or have a single-choice-point option that neatly encapsulates that archetype.

 

Or, it could be 'yes' if the system gives you tools & options that you can use in that style, or to create a campaign in that genre, or a character that matches your vision of that archetype.

 

For others, It's 'yes' if the game doesn't completely block you from playing that archetype or in that style or genre, even if doing so will put you at a stark mechanical disadvantage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I agree, complications encourage roleplaying and interaction.  These other systems drive interaction, mandate roleplaying, bake in genre conventions. Of course I am tempted, I appreciate the use of evolving gaming "technology" to deliver better gaming experiences.


This is going to be a long one. 
 

A Roleplaying Game to me, consists of three elements: Good players, good roleplay, and a good game. We will not discuss the element of good players, because that is highly subjective and completely based on local conditions.

 

Roleplay

 

So let’s talk about role-play then. Of the GM’s I have played with, very few were good at encouraging “immersive”, or “deep” roleplay. Very few of us are professional, or even good actors. Save Matt Mercer‘s group of Hollywood professionals, that have set crushingly high expectations for gaming groups since Critical Roll started, most of us muddle through by setting up a framework for a personality in our heads and that framework is as elastic or rigid as our imagination can create.  Allowances should be made in this department for the various levels of comfort, as well as skill of the participants, as was said before, we aren’t professionals. 
 

In the case of the immersive roleplay, much thought was given to constructing that personality and making that framework as solid in one’s mind as they could, using one’s observations of other people, movies, and literature, to be able to respond to the external outputs the game in an internally consistent fashion. This was far beyond the “funny voice” level, and would produce a sensation of sitting in the back seat of one’s skull, watching the game while the character took the wheel. It’s rare, but when it happens, it was deeply satisfying. I have heard that the writers of novels often experience this sort of thing, where the character takes over the writing.  Of the GM’s that I have played with, Carl Rigney was one of the few that actively encouraged this. There were a couple of others, but I have also run across GM’s who discouraged this, or have had players in the games that were deeply uncomfortable, so allowances had to be made. I however still would approach constructing character personality frameworks in the same way, but with less detail, and some distance in those situations. But I still consider roleplay to be very important. 
 

So this is why I take a dim view of “genre emulation”. Most of you that discuss Champions are enamored of the Silver Age of Comics. The silver edge got its flavor due to the restrictions of the comics code authority. The code of the hero was just an in world justification for the restrictions imposed by the Comics Code. In the previous Golden Age, the influence of the pulps were still omnipresent, with Justice dealt from the barrel of a .45. As goes The Shadow, so went Batman. The exception was Superman. His writers, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, understood that having a powerful character like that killing his enemies, would look unacceptably oppressive. So Superman was kinder in his actions than the rest of the superheroes of the Golden Age. That was a reflection of his personality, not the genre. Comics themselves are a medium not a genre. There used to be many genres in comics, such as westerns, war, horror, comedy, romance, as well as superheroes. The comics code was blanketed over all of them. The attitude at the time was that comics were for juveniles, and should not include things outside of what would build good moral character. Horror comics withered and after the early 70’s vanished. The other genres in comics faded away as well, leaving just superheroes for the most part. At that time I was reading mostly wore comics, such as G. I. Combat, Weird War, and Sergeant Fury reprints, and most of them were entertaining in the same way Combat! Or Rat Patrol were, sanitized for television. I didn’t read a lot of superheroes consistently, but would pick up the occasional Spiderman, or Fantastic Four. By then I had started reading my parents paperbacks, and enjoying pulpy Alistair McLean novels.
 

But what the Code did was to blunt Batman’s vengeance, and turned him from a two gun vigilante, to a gun control advocate. He’s still the most popular  comic book character even today, and is single handedly keeping DC comics afloat, but the change the code brought to him is also still with us. The Code also changed other heroes, or eliminated some (especially those that took injections or pills to activate their powers). Code also applied to the villains as their threats became more abstracted, or goofy. The edges had been filed off. There was no spice any more. 

 

Now I talked about, in another thread, how Stan Lee felt so strongly about a story about drug abuse in an issue of Spiderman that he ran it without the approval of the Comics Code Authority, and the logo did not appear on the cover. That did not kill the comics code. The comics code faded for another reason and that was the direct market. Once dedicated comic book stores appeared insufficient numbers to support a market, other publishers appeared. These are the days of Pacific Comics, Comico, First, Eclipse, and others, that produced books of near equal quality to those of the big two, often with the same artists, who given a chance to flex their muscles, produced very pulp flavored stories. The Big two continued to produce their work in the same fashion, but also took advantage of the direct market, when DC took a chance on a couple of projects that ended the silver age: The Dark Knight Returns, and The Watchmen


As I said before, comics is a medium, and these changes in comics not only gave rise to other publishers, but also other genres returned to the shelves. Image Comics appeared as the result of disagreements between Artists and Marvel comics. Gritty violent, and Sexy, comics returned to how they were before the code. This coincided with when a lot of found and played Champions. It’s how our local games went from sort of Silver Age to what came after. 
 

So, I put out this history lesson to illustrate comics are a medium, and a so is a game system. I am of the opinion that genre emulation is the responsibility of the GM, and not the game system per se. A game narrowly tailored to emulate Chris Claremont X-Men, or Marv Wolfman Teen Titans, would be kind of limited outside of those narrow definitions. I personally chafe at comics code limitations imposed on my characters and it is one of the reasons why I walked away from comic book style games and return to fantasy or 80s movie action. Putting outside limitations, through the Meta of the game, above the game world and environment presented, makes building that personality framework a lot more difficult due to its impact on suspension of disbelief. Cops shoot to kill, homeowners shoot to kill and my super cannot? If there is a good inworld, plausible, reason I can go with that. But there are other Meta reasons that will make things difficult to remain in character, and cause some to tune out. The Prime Directive in Star Trek is supposed to limit the actions of the Federation, but even with that in place, Kirk still did what he thought was correct, and Picard deferred to it more. This shows a difference in personality. Now, in current year Universal Systems, and Toolkits don’t seem to be popular with the new gamers. So I agree with producing limited versions of Hero to cover specific genres, but having mandatory, specific,  disads, or complications above what the world offers is 

I feel, to limiting. Leave that to the GM to negotiate with the players. Genre conventions I believe should be more suggestions and ideas, rather than hard rules.

 

The Game

 

 Champions was described as the Super roleplaying game. I still think the game aspect is very important, at least to me. I discovered Champions at a wargaming convention (Origins) in 1981 when it was released. I was an avid Tabletop gamer, and after games of General Quarters, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts, I was told by a friend to go check out this game about Superheroes. The rest we all know. What made subsequent games of Champions so compelling was how elegant the system was. It was a tactical, small unit wargame for superheroes! A normal wargame is a rather (supposedly) a rational, and analytical affair, with the occasional bruised ego causing tempers to flair. Roleplay gives context and stakes to the conflict, adding a usually safe emotional element to it. That is what made  Champions and most other Roleplaying games that came after so compelling.  The challenge of a good tactical puzzle for me, with the emotional turmoil for my character is irresistible. It was addicting, and why I eschewed other Roleplaying games ( unless I was paid: see Cyberpunk), until I moved to L. A. and involuntarily dropped the hobby for a while.

 

The problem I have with most modern RPG systems, is that many of them have minimalist rules, and push combat into theater of the mind, and I have a big problem with that. I used to be involved in MUD’s, MUCK, and MUSHs. Some of them expressly had no native combat system. In those, conflicts had to be resolved through group consensus. Fights were posted has elaborately written poses, and the target either agreed with the pose, or nulled it with an equal or greater elaborate pose as written. It was a realm where the rule of cool, or most forceful ego won. It was deeply unsatisfying, especially in a realm where most people thought the spotlight was on them. It led to a lot of conflict and scenarios would detonate due to arguments. Probably due to my war gaming background, anything that wins due to the rule of cool, is going to piss me off.

 

Less of a problem, but still a large problem, is that combats in theater of the mind situations, can be subject to a large Assumption clash. If two of us are imagining a conflict in a vaguely defined environment then differences between how we imagine that environment will cause problems or lead to dissatisfaction.
 

Even differences in life experiences will lead to problems. “They” have no experience with firearms and their assumptions are based on movies and television. I, however, have a massive gun collection, and have trained as armed security for an armored car company, so arguments will arise. Conversely, if “They” who is a HEMA enthusiast, versus me, who waved a foam sword at friends once or twice, will also lead to assumption clash, unless I automatically defer to them. This is why reasonably detailed tactical rules, to me are so important to reduce assumption clash as long as things are not too abstracted. It’s the level of abstraction, that modern rule systems favor, that caused me problems, when they ignore ranges, cover, concealment, distances one can run over time, Reasonable CEP for ranged weapons over whatever ranges, visibility, lighting conditions, melee weapons, melee skills of each opponent, etc. This is why , tactically I am finding Cyberpunk Red lacking, when compared to Cyberpunk 2020, where I had a hand in researching, testing, and tuning the combat and hit location rules for. When I thought that WW2 rules were a bit lacking, I spent the money to acquire the Uniforms and weapons of WW2 participants, and headed out into the woods with like minded participants to figure out how it looked and how it felt. I was not in shape enough to take full advantage, but I got a good idea of what it was like and how it felt to be in the field, and how the weapons worked, of various types, and various periods, from WW1 to the present. My experience kind of back handed the rule of cool. It also precluded the assumptions of a few game designers, and left me unsatisfied with most modern, and “collaborative storytelling” systems. It denied me plausible, believable , escapism. 

 

Another "dislike" are Narrative control system outside of dice. Action Point, Hero Points, ect.. This pulls me out of immersion, and often  is reflected by a "rule of Cool situation.  It changes the scenery, or the universe and bends it towards the player, which I find objectionable as the environment is the universe the characters inhabit, and using an authorial meta to change it, just feels wrong.
 

We all have slightly different ideas and reasons for gaming, and it is fine that we pursue them. But in talking about Hero and Champions, without the Speed Chart, hex grid, and separated special effects from damage, it’s not Champions. It still needs that wargame framework underneath the roleplay to keep it solid. 5e and the resurgent war hammer have shown that maps and minis are still quite popular. 
 

Strict Genre emulation and embracing modern minimalism, I think would be a mistake to impose on Hero. Genre presented as a book is one thing but I think the big error of Champions Now was imposing one GMs house rules and genre enforcement onto the entire  rule book was why it missed the mark, at least for me. Taking a route like “Powered by Hero” but hiding the mechanics more is probably the correct path.  
 

I rambled, but at least I didn’t rant… much. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'm going to swing this back to "social combat", which is not a great name, but que sera.  To me, this is a granular mechanism for resolving non-physical conflicts that do not end with one side unconscious or dead.

 

Examples might include:

 

 - actual social conflict, be it Royal Court or High School.  Yes, your character might, in fact, be persuaded to do something that they later regret, and that you, as their player, consider undesirable. The character is persuaded to a different viewpoint, conned into a bad decision or pushed into a purchase they regret making.  That is called "losing a conflict", and is a possibility in games (and real life).  A single opposed roll feels very anticlimactic if such conflicts are central to the game.

 

 - a legal battle, in trial, with both sides attempting to get the judge/jury to their desired result.  Again, a single opposed roll does not cut it.  And should that be an Oratory, Charm, Persuasion, KS: Law, PS: Lawyer or some other roll?  Which others are complementary?  Are different judges, juries and/or jurors more or less influenced by different types of roll?  In a Supers game, a single opposed roll (or "just role play it") will work fine.  But not if this is a campaign focus.

 

 - Medical or scientific research.  "Roll 8- and you cure the patient; otherwise he dies" doesn't make for a great game centring around a mysterious illness.

 

To the Supers element, Champions has the Power Skill and detailed, granular rules for pulling off a one-time stunt. As I recall, M&M has "pay a Hero Point to use a Power Stunt consistent with the character's abilities".  Which one feels more like the comics (HINT:  Not the one where the game stops for 15 minutes while we stat out the points required and determine the required roll, even assuming someone actually bought the skill high enough to matter.)

 

For me, this is where elements of a Threshold-style of roll. Determine a number to "win the scene" and have players roll along with role playing. If they score under their required check, take the difference and subtract that from the Threshold. If they miss the roll, it could be added to it. If they role play well enough, they could get a bonus. Alternatively, you could also assign a "skill roll" to the challenge and roll against it to give minuses to the character's checks, making it more difficult depending on the situation. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:


This is going to be a long one. 
 

A Roleplaying Game to me, consists of three elements: Good players, good roleplay, and a good game. We will not discuss the element of good players, because that is highly subjective and completely based on local conditions.

 

Personally, Scott, I think all three elements are highly subjective and based on everyone's personally experience. I can tell by reading your post that you and I have had vastly different games of Champions (as well as other games), but neither of us have an invalidated opinion. I've ran games using both Titans and X-Men as inspiration and the only limits I've seen are ones imposed by the characters/players themselves. Yes, you may be playing a mutant hated by a close-minded society, but the real challenge there is open minds and show that you're true heroes. The same can be said about Titans/Warriors/Young Avengers/<insert teen group here>. 

 

As for the future books of Hero in whatever edition it becomes, I've always been a fan of 4th ed Champions, and that's when I think Hero hit its sweet spot. The rules were put together well, the presentation was easy to read, and, for the time, it looked like a superhero book. I would've loved to have seen a Danger International at the time, and other campaign-based games over generic "X Hero" books. Should the game condense or become simpler? I don't think it should do either. Rather the game has to become approachable again. Champions 1-4 (and the other games that comprised the Hero System at the time) were different in presentation, and in system. Some of the games had more narrow selections, such as Justice Inc's power system, while others were broader like Champions. When I say "emulate a book like Mutants & Masterminds," I'm not saying make the system more like it (though there are things Champions could learn from it). I'm saying look at the quality of the books and how they're put together. Hugh is also kind of correct in the use of Hero Points, which is pretty easy to include in the game. IMHO, Hero isn't broke, it just needs some polish and maybe some modern parts to help it shine again. 

Champions Complete was a step in the right direction, but it sacrificed a lot in the process. Along with this, there needs to be continued support in the form of other books... powers books, enemies, campaign material, etc. The books that exist for Champions 6e look like a different creature than Champions Complete. The same can be said about other genres. I've always wanted a Star Hero Guide to Starships that took something like Ryan Wolfe's Future Armada stuff and gave us nice stats and info. Or even expanding on Fantasy Hero a bit more with a Pathfinder-esque bestiary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Another "dislike" are Narrative control system outside of dice. Action Point, Hero Points, ect.. This pulls me out of immersion, and often  is reflected by a "rule of Cool situation.  It changes the scenery, or the universe and bends it towards the player, which I find objectionable as the environment is the universe the characters inhabit, and using an authorial meta to change it, just feels wrong.
 

We all have slightly different ideas and reasons for gaming, and it is fine that we pursue them. But in talking about Hero and Champions, without the Speed Chart, hex grid, and separated special effects from damage, it’s not Champions. It still needs that wargame framework underneath the roleplay to keep it solid. 5e and the resurgent war hammer have shown that maps and minis are still quite popular. 

 

I like Hero Points and such.  Hero System simulates 'dramatic realism', as you find in movies, comics, novels, and so on.  While I and my gaming group do enjoy the crunch of Hero combat and use hex grids and minis, I do want more of a dramatic realism slant than straight wargame mechanics.  It matches comics et al better.  It helps one bad die roll not ruin a session.

 

For example:  At a con game, with me running a Pulp Hero adventure, one of the evil Nazis hit one of the heroes with his sword.  I use hit locations in pulp and roll the dice in full view of the players.  Rolled a 5.  I started narrating the result, "The cruel blade slashes down towards your unprotected face" while frantically pointing at the poker chips in front of the player that represented hero points.  The player picked up on it and tossed me a single chip, saying, "Six!".  I continued, "at the last instant you get your hand in the way!"  Roll damage and apply hand modifiers instead of head modifiers.  The players and I both enjoyed it.

 

Or swashbuckling.  The hero is pushed out the window (no doubt by a cowardly, underhanded move by the villain!) annnnd... "Whew! Lucky that hay wagon was passing by to break my fall!"  That's a hero point mechanic.

 

I'm not saying a straight-up adherence to the die rolls with no hero points is wrong.  It's just less fun and less appropriate to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

Personally, Scott, I think all three elements are highly subjective and based on everyone's personally experience. I can tell by reading your post that you and I have had vastly different games of Champions (as well as other games), but neither of us have an invalidated opinion. I've ran games using both Titans and X-Men as inspiration and the only limits I've seen are ones imposed by the characters/players themselves. Yes, you may be playing a mutant hated by a close-minded society, but the real challenge there is open minds and show that you're true heroes. The same can be said about Titans/Warriors/Young Avengers/<insert teen group here>. 

 

I do not disagree. You found a group where that works. I think my high school group read mostly different comics (We liked X-Men, but didn't read Teen Titans until later, but we had a slew of independents we read) We started like The Avengers, and ended up more like an Image Comic of some sort?

 

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

As for the future books of Hero in whatever edition it becomes, I've always been a fan of 4th ed Champions, and that's when I think Hero hit its sweet spot. The rules were put together well, the presentation was easy to read, and, for the time, it looked like a superhero book.

 

Also Agreed.  Even if the editor was different, it had still a lot of input from the original Hero Games folks. and it kept that breezy style. I still like it as my favorite edition, but I can do Fred if need be.  Danger International, and Justice Inc. I think were high points of Hero writing. It might be worth getting the PDFs when they are on sale just to read, though I find staring at a screen for long periods, a little painful. YMMV.

 

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

I would've loved to have seen a Danger International at the time, and other campaign-based games over generic "X Hero" books. Should the game condense or become simpler? I don't think it should do either. Rather the game has to become approachable again. Champions 1-4 (and the other games that comprised the Hero System at the time) were different in presentation, and in system. Some of the games had more narrow selections, such as Justice Inc's power system, while others were broader like Champions. When I say "emulate a book like Mutants & Masterminds," I'm not saying make the system more like it (though there are things Champions could learn from it). I'm saying look at the quality of the books and how they're put together.

 

 There's the rub. Good Layout and good art are expensive. really expensive, and it's not something that Hero games as is can afford.  Again, I suggest some sort of crowd funding, though for my target,  I'd look at layouts like some of the Pathfinder, or the Third Party 5e books, like Age of Antiquity.

 

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Hugh is also kind of correct in the use of Hero Points, which is pretty easy to include in the game. IMHO, Hero isn't broke, it just needs some polish and maybe some modern parts to help it shine again. 

Champions Complete was a step in the right direction, but it sacrificed a lot in the process.

 

 

IMO. The problem with Champions Complete was how it was organized. They wanted to keep it short, but it's a bit haphazard. 

 

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Along with this, there needs to be continued support in the form of other books... powers books, enemies, campaign material, etc. The books that exist for Champions 6e look like a different creature than Champions Complete. The same can be said about other genres. I've always wanted a Star Hero Guide to Starships that took something like Ryan Wolfe's Future Armada stuff and gave us nice stats and info. Or even expanding on Fantasy Hero a bit more with a Pathfinder-esque bestiary. 

 

No disagreement here.  Genre supplements should have a similar cover dress as the Genre they support.  The Blue & Yellow, while subdued, and in keeping with the main rulebook, Kind of make it hard to find and pull off the shelf when needed. Pathfinder certainly had some damn pretty books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a point earlier, well, maybe I didn't. 

In combat, what's going on is usually unambiguous, people are attempting to sove a problem through violence.  The stakes could be life & death, acquiring/denying an objective, escape/capture, establishing dominance, or even just sparing. 

 

In a social a interaction, people are probably talking, maybe dancing or furtively signaling or something, but the purpose of the interaction, the stakes and approaches, aren't nearly so clear or consistent. 

 

And, while most RPGs give you fairly detailed combat, they often give you only binary checks for social "skills."

 

But it's not like you can create a compelling vision of a high stakes conversation from some non-actors talking "in character."  

You don't expect players to duke it out in a combat, you model the combat abilities of the character, abstractly, instead.  

But it's very common to say "just RP it!"

 

In Hero, you can build powers quite precisely to concept. There are both combat and non-combat powers, and some that might be used for either.

 

Then you get to skills, and they're uncustomizeable and do their thing or not on the basis of one roll.  And there's tons of em.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SCUBA Hero said:

 

I like Hero Points and such.  Hero System simulates 'dramatic realism', as you find in movies, comics, novels, and so on.  While I and my gaming group do enjoy the crunch of Hero combat and use hex grids and minis, I do want more of a dramatic realism slant than straight wargame mechanics.  It matches comics et al better.  It helps one bad die roll not ruin a session.

 

 Back in the days of USENET, before BBS's and  Forums, there was a group called REC.GAMES.FRP.ADVOCACY, where the Philosophy of Tabletop RPGs was discussed. There were two factions that would argue incessantly: The Simulationists, and the Dramatists.  I was firmly in the Simulationist camp.  That factionalizing was originally caused by the publication of Amber Diceless.  Of course no minds were changed, but it helped refine and sharpen our arguments. My position still has not changed.

 

18 hours ago, SCUBA Hero said:

 

For example:  At a con game, with me running a Pulp Hero adventure, one of the evil Nazis hit one of the heroes with his sword.  I use hit locations in pulp and roll the dice in full view of the players.  Rolled a 5.  I started narrating the result, "The cruel blade slashes down towards your unprotected face" while frantically pointing at the poker chips in front of the player that represented hero points.  The player picked up on it and tossed me a single chip, saying, "Six!".  I continued, "at the last instant you get your hand in the way!"  Roll damage and apply hand modifiers instead of head modifiers.  The players and I both enjoyed it.

 

I ran a lot of Con games as well, but this is why I always emphasized "The Team".  If that situation happened to someone in one of my Games and the BBEG took them out, the next person on the team would be expected to step up.  Casualties In my experience add to the tension of the game. But to each their own>

 

Running  Cyberpunk, or D&D 5e, if I get a TPK, well that's life. It's not something that happens a lot in Hero (Even in Fantasy Hero), so next session the Character wakes up in a barred wagon. "Start planning your escape".

 

18 hours ago, SCUBA Hero said:

 

I'm not saying a straight-up adherence to the die rolls with no hero points is wrong.  It's just less fun and less appropriate to me.

 

To each their own, and welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Back in the days of USENET, before BBS's and  Forums, there was a group called REC.GAMES.FRP.ADVOCACY, where the Philosophy of Tabletop RPGs was discussed. There were two factions that would argue incessantly: The Simulationists, and the Dramatists.

 

Ideally a system can satisfy both by offering ideas and leaving it open to choose what you like best, while working well for each.  I lean more toward simulation, because its a game, so you have rules to simulate a setting.  There's no reason to even have rules if all you're doing is free form improv.

 

I don't mind the concept or rules to encourage role playing (I try to include RP prompts and suggestions in the stuff I publish), but I've never yet seen any that really work well to encourage gaming without as you said discouraging certain approaches to it.  I'm toying with some ideas to try to encourage more RP and non-combat related play with rewards in my Jolrhos setting inspired by some MMOGs (achievements, reputation, and some other ideas).  The theory being that the game needs more rewards than loot and xps.

 

I just haven't seen anyone actually explain or suggest how these rules in other games work or how they should be included in Hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 7:49 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

Also Agreed.  Even if the editor was different, it had still a lot of input from the original Hero Games folks. and it kept that breezy style. I still like it as my favorite edition, but I can do Fred if need be.  Danger International, and Justice Inc. I think were high points of Hero writing. It might be worth getting the PDFs when they are on sale just to read, though I find staring at a screen for long periods, a little painful. YMMV.

 

You can find them on sites occasionally in print for a reasonable price. I think I paid $15 for a copy of DI last year in pretty good condition.

 

Quote

There's the rub. Good Layout and good art are expensive. really expensive, and it's not something that Hero games as is can afford.  Again, I suggest some sort of crowd funding, though for my target,  I'd look at layouts like some of the Pathfinder, or the Third Party 5e books, like Age of Antiquity.

 

Pathfinder books are gorgeous. And sure, they cost money, but better looking books could mean better sales. 

 

Quote

IMO. The problem with Champions Complete was how it was organized. They wanted to keep it short, but it's a bit haphazard. 

 

Agreed. That's one of the sacrifices I was referring to. Organization, format, lack of line branding... don't get me wrong, it was a move in the right direction, but it needed more. 

 

Quote

No disagreement here.  Genre supplements should have a similar cover dress as the Genre they support.  The Blue & Yellow, while subdued, and in keeping with the main rulebook, Kind of make it hard to find and pull off the shelf when needed. Pathfinder certainly had some damn pretty books. 

 

Yup. This is where branding is so important. When I look at my shelf, I usually know what I'm looking for by the spine. Heck, look at the latest Star Wars game: three core books, each with a line related to it in branded colors. I played a LOT of 1e Pathfinder, and it was mainly due to innovative ideas (I'm looking at you Pawns and Maps) and attractive, well organized books. IMHO, Hero needs a revamped stat block that is easy to follow and has a nice aesthetic about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

And sure, they cost money, but better looking books could mean better sales. 

 

Its a balance.  You don't want to spend more money on publishing than you earn in purchases.  Bigger companies with a much wider printing range have an easier time pulling this kind of thing off than say, a small business like mine.  Hiring an artist to do full color images is prohibitively expensive.  You have a choice between 'will it get printed at all' and 'will it look cool to me'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 4:38 AM, Scott Ruggels said:

What made subsequent games of Champions so compelling was how elegant the system was. It was a tactical, small unit wargame for superheroes!

---

But in talking about Hero and Champions, without the Speed Chart, hex grid, and separated special effects from damage, it’s not Champions. It still needs that wargame framework underneath the roleplay to keep it solid.

 

"It was a tactical, small unit wargame for superheroes!"

 

There's the rub. If Champions had been designed as "a tactical, small unit wargame" for, say, fantasy games, the system would have been different.

A least some of Hero's barnacles stem from its roots in Champions.

The Speed Chart is a good example. Before Champions, about the only game that I can think of that had anything like it was Starfleet Battles. Few other games since have anything like it either.

That suggests very strongly that "a tactical, small unit wargame" that isn't Champions, doesn't need it.

There's a bunch of other stuff - Presence, Knockback, END/Recovery, the split between PD and ED, the emphasis on Stun versus Body... - that are quite happily absent in other attempts at such games.

In terms of learning curve, Hero has made a rod for its own back.

But you can't easily get rid of them either, if you want something that is recognizably Hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The costs is around $3000 for a painted, full color cover image, to start. A "Name" artist can charge much higher.  full color interior images start at around $400 per quarter page, these days, and you can see how the costs increase with the page count. Then you need people, fluent in Indesign, or other page layout, and handling the prepress, for color bleeds so you can hyave that printed color from the spine to the outside margins, top to bottom. Not cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, assault said:

 

The Speed Chart is a good example. Before Champions, about the only game that I can think of that had anything like it was Starfleet Battles. Few other games since have anything like it either.

That suggests very strongly that "a tactical, small unit wargame" that isn't Champions, doesn't need it.

There's a bunch of other stuff - Presence, Knockback, END/Recovery, the split between PD and ED, the emphasis on Stun versus Body... - that are quite happily absent in other attempts at such games.

In terms of learning curve, Hero has made a rod for its own back.

But you can't easily get rid of them either, if you want something that is recognizably Hero.

 Exactly so.  Without that, it's basically  The Fantasy Trip, or  that FASA WW2 game, which name escapes me. 

What has become evident to me, away from this board, and mostly on the HERO Discord, is that people still want to play, primarily superheroes in the system. Other genres are discussed, but the LFG notices are all about Champions games. SO it's pretty clear that the main audience whether I like it or not, is Superheroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, assault said:

 

"It was a tactical, small unit wargame for superheroes!"

 

There's the rub. If Champions had been designed as "a tactical, small unit wargame" for, say, fantasy games, the system would have been different.

A least some of Hero's barnacles stem from its roots in Champions.

The Speed Chart is a good example. Before Champions, about the only game that I can think of that had anything like it was Starfleet Battles. Few other games since have anything like it either.

 

While I like the SPD chart, I agree that it sees most of its use in Supers games.  A 6 SPD Heroic character is pretty unlikely. Most other games' mechanics can be simulated with other Hero mechanics (e.g. Multiple Attacks with maneuvers) rather than increased SPD, although that was not the case in early editions of Hero.

 

8 hours ago, assault said:

There's a bunch of other stuff - Presence, Knockback, END/Recovery, the split between PD and ED, the emphasis on Stun versus Body... - that are quite happily absent in other attempts at such games.

In terms of learning curve, Hero has made a rod for its own back.

But you can't easily get rid of them either, if you want something that is recognizably Hero.

 

PRE was the first mechanic I recall seeing that gave Charisma an in-game effect.  Later iterations of D&D added interaction skills, and some creatures have a "awe" or "fear" aura.  I don't think PRE is limited to Supers.

 

Knockback probably is, but Knockdown arose from it, and I recall one 2e monster that Knocked struck targets back.  And by D&D 3e, we had Bull Rushes designed to knock targets back.

 

There was a D&D 2e effort to add an END-like function to D&D, but it wasn't widely used (and provided a massive advantage to undead and other creatures that did not have to follow the rule).  Once STUN was added, REC was needed.

 

Other games don't split PD and ED?  Well, perhaps not as obviously.  The D&D of the day had neither directly - if you were hit, you took damage.  Later editions added Damage Reduction (and we always had Armor that made you harder to hit) and Resistance to various types of energy.  So Hero has PD and ED, while D&D has Damage Reduction (with various limitations it fails against), Acid Defense, Cold Defense, Fire Defense, Electric Defense and (I don't recall seeing it, but) Sonic Defense.  Plus spell resistance.

 

I loved the split between STUN and BOD from the outset. How many Fantasy mainstays would not have survived a story or two if defeat meant death, or at least bleeding out?  How many times has Conan recovered from unconsciousness?  That's not "at/below 0 hp making stabilization rolls. Other versions, like D&D non-lethal damage are very klunky by comparison.

 

8 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 Exactly so.  Without that, it's basically  The Fantasy Trip, or  that FASA WW2 game, which name escapes me. 

What has become evident to me, away from this board, and mostly on the HERO Discord, is that people still want to play, primarily superheroes in the system. Other genres are discussed, but the LFG notices are all about Champions games. SO it's pretty clear that the main audience whether I like it or not, is Superheroes.

 

I think, with most Hero gamers being old grognards, they most likely learned it through Champions.  None of the other genres really took off as Hero games, which is not overly surprising.  Supers were not only the flagship - they had much less competition than genres like Fantasy or Sci Fi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Its a balance.  You don't want to spend more money on publishing than you earn in purchases.  Bigger companies with a much wider printing range have an easier time pulling this kind of thing off than say, a small business like mine.  Hiring an artist to do full color images is prohibitively expensive.  You have a choice between 'will it get printed at all' and 'will it look cool to me'.

 

11 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

The costs is around $3000 for a painted, full color cover image, to start. A "Name" artist can charge much higher.  full color interior images start at around $400 per quarter page, these days, and you can see how the costs increase with the page count. Then you need people, fluent in Indesign, or other page layout, and handling the prepress, for color bleeds so you can have that printed color from the spine to the outside margins, top to bottom. Not cheap.

 

Well, with the limited experience I've had as a third party publisher for other games, I can't entirely agree with everything said. There are plenty of artists and designers out there who are excellent, and that charge fair fees for their work. When I worked for Hero or Blackwyrm, I wasn't making hand over fist, but it was a fair rate.

 

11 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

What has become evident to me, away from this board, and mostly on the HERO Discord, is that people still want to play, primarily superheroes in the system. Other genres are discussed, but the LFG notices are all about Champions games. SO it's pretty clear that the main audience whether I like it or not, is Superheroes.

 

I agree, Scott. It's a shame, as I've always wanted to run some Star Hero, DI, or Fantasy Hero over the years, but my players really only wanted to play Champions in Hero. I've found that no one wants to put in work to make spells, or to manage a ship. Damn shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The review I read of Champions that spurred me to actually buy the game mentioned STN/BOD prominently, pointing out that it was routine for fights to end in KO, but possible for a character to be conscious & dying - quite impossible in the D&D of the day.

 

Once I saw it, I was taken both with the way phases felt like panels straight from a comic book (or story board), and with the way the SPD chart let some characters be much faster than others without overwhelmingly tilting combat in their favor. 

 

(and, of course, by the system of Powers & Special Effects... and adv/lim & disad)

 

That other games don't have such features is just a testament to the dysfunction of the RPG market, where the only game you really compete against is D&D, and you can't be part of the market if you're too different from D&D...😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there is a lot of interest in other types of games and genres, but you can mostly find superhero games out there.  Every time I ran games at conventions I would focus on some other genre, trying to demonstrate how flexible Hero is, and my old gaming group liked variety, but overall we had more superhero campaigns than anything.

 

I sell some fantasy hero products, but the champions stuff is way bigger in terms of sales.  I bet overall Hero sales numbers would reflect this.  Most people just play D&D for fantasy even though its an inferior product and probably they know it.  Its just ubiquitous and easy to find players for.  Genres like Science Fiction and Espionage are even more difficult to find players for and probably sell even less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 3:06 PM, 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 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.


 

Your friend is correct. Biggest turn off in the 6th edition is it is like a text book. It feels like it sucked all the fun out that say the 4th Ed big blue book had in it. 
 

frankly the game doesn’t need another edition. It really needs SUPPORT. Adventures. Scenarios. Settings. Games like pathfinder have the adventure paths. 5e has adventure campaigns

 

beyond 4th I don’t see much in that same support. I’m restarting a campaign using the BBB because it’s what folks know. But beyond battlegrounds and anarchy there are no senarios to support the game

 

we need more support items to run games. Not a new edition. Each edition is a toolbox. But nothing really to support that toolbox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...