Who don't you miss?

[The Mind Master]

The whole idea of a resort "Sanctuary" where enemies get together and vacation together is ...uh... not exactly credible. Some diplomatic neutral ground where business can be transacted might be feasible. Ransoms could be negotiated, maybe info bought and sold. But a place where supers go for fun, to rub shoulders with their enemies...just doesn't work.

 

Don't miss the Gweenies or Clown myself, never used them. But they do represent a different campaign tone that is legitimate. My group has spent time after Champions sessions just speculating about fighting Clown, and having a hilarious time imagining the results. Not much of this kind of tone seems to remain in Champions, though Foxbat is still around. But it can be great fun. I have run the Fox of Crime a couple of times with great results. A fun, change of pace adventure is sometimes called for.

 

I also used the Hunstman of the Black Forest from European Enemies with great success. The players still talk about him.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by The Mind Master

The whole idea of a resort "Sanctuary" where enemies get together and vacation together is ...uh... not exactly credible. Some diplomatic neutral ground where business can be transacted might be feasible. Ransoms could be negotiated, maybe info bought and sold. But a place where supers go for fun, to rub shoulders with their enemies...just doesn't work.

 

It may not work for you, but it's worked for the campaigns I run. Of course I like CLOWN so it's obvious that our campaign styles are probably in different directions

 

As I said earlier it needs an authority figure type to keep everyone civil (like a Superman or Dr. Doom type), at least a degree of "us vs them", someplace for your superpowered people to exist amongst themselves without "all the weaklings running around", and on the black-hat side only works for the "gray hats" like the Ultimates, GRAB, CLOWN, or somesuch.

 

So I'll be the first to concede it isn't for every campaign style. But saying it "just doesn't work" is far too blanket of a statement for me to let pass.

[The Mind Master]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

It may not work for you, but it's worked for the campaigns I run. Of course I like CLOWN so it's obvious that our campaign styles are probably in different directions

 

 

Actually, I was defending Clown and that sort of campaign tone. I never used the organization myself, but the Fox of Crime is very similar in tone and goals. I have to admit, I kept his antics somewhat restrained, so the players could laugh and have a good time without feeling overly humiliated.

 

No, the concept of heroes heading out to vacation with their enemies doesn't work for me, but just about anything can "work" with a good GM and players willing to go along. Even a "cartoonish" campaign where the PC's are parodies of super-characters like the Tick could work and be a lot of fun. The Ssanctuary idea would fit in very well there. I'm just talking about my personal reactions to the whole concept of such a "sanctuary".

 

[Monolith]

I used Sanctuary as a neutral ground for villains. It was a place where villains could meet, find work, sell goods, etc. I never cared for the idea of heroes and villains mingling on a social level. I just can't see the Avengers and Ultron vacationing together.

[RobCRogers]

Call me full of nostalgia, but I miss most of the characters omitted, in one way or another. I guess that, for the most part, I don't miss CLOWN or the Fox of Crime (or the Ruler of Crime, for that matter--the guy from the International File who actually dressed like a ruler). But I enjoyed having a lot of the other characters around, even if I didn't use them.

 

As to a couple of the points on this thread:

 

I agree that the Canadian characters (Champions of the North) were underpowered, but I thought they were otherwise great in terms of flavor, artwork, variety, and concept. I really liked the "three-team" concept and wish Steve hadn't written them out of continuity.

 

European Enemies had a lot of flaws, but it also had a lot of useful, fun characters, as well as some great artwork. It's gotten a bad rap.

 

Alien Enemies was also pretty cool. I wasn't wild about every single character, but I liked many of them.

 

I *really* liked Los Asesinos, and would like to see them again.

 

I don't miss Poinsettia.

[Sketchpad]

Poinsettia ... wasn't she one of Dennis Mallonee's characters? Didn't she tie heavily into Flare & co.? (Sorry if I misspelt the last name Dennis)

[proditor]

Definitely European Enemies, specifically Mandlebrot.

 

Many hours of fun were had reciting his quote in bewilderment though....

[Tech]

I'm rather glad CLOWN isn't around anymore. Neutral Ground just never worked for me, either.

[The Mind Master]

All this being said, who really sets their campaigns in the CU anyway? I certainly don't. If there are characters who haven't shown up yet in 5th Ed, and I want to use them, I do. So it's kind of silly to really "miss" any character or group. Just use them in your campaign.

 

Chances are, your PC's aren't part of the official CU anyway, so why bother with the rest of it?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by The Mind Master

All this being said, who really sets their campaigns in the CU anyway? I certainly don't. If there are characters who haven't shown up yet in 5th Ed, and I want to use them, I do. So it's kind of silly to really "miss" any character or group. Just use them in your campaign.

 

Chances are, your PC's aren't part of the official CU anyway, so why bother with the rest of it?

I think you'd find that a fairly large percentage of gamers use the CU as their game starting point. I'm currently running my game in the CU in Millennium City until the time that I can finish writing my New Cairo campaign city, then I'll be moving the players there. But we'll still be within the CU. There's a lot of good stuff in the CU for those interested in running a standard four-color game.

 

I do agree that it's not a major issue to bring back 4E characters into a game though. The CU is just a common starting point. Where each GM takes it after that is up to them. For example I use Anarchy from EoSA, Deathstroke, Factor Four from Freedom City, The Psi-Kin (modified and renamed the Kindred), and several homemade villains and groups. There's always room for expansion.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by The Mind Master

All this being said, who really sets their campaigns in the CU anyway? I certainly don't. If there are characters who haven't shown up yet in 5th Ed, and I want to use them, I do. So it's kind of silly to really "miss" any character or group. Just use them in your campaign.

 

Chances are, your PC's aren't part of the official CU anyway, so why bother with the rest of it?

 

Our current campaign is based in the CU, with only those moderations necessary to explain our own character backstories. As well as to fit in a couple of custom villains the DM created.

 

Outside of that, it's default 5e CU all the way. Helps everybody know the ground. And knowing the ground is key to creating well-detailed backstories that mesh with and constructively engage already-existing elements of the campaign.

[RobCRogers]

Originally posted by The Mind Master

All this being said, who really sets their campaigns in the CU anyway? I certainly don't. If there are characters who haven't shown up yet in 5th Ed, and I want to use them, I do. So it's kind of silly to really "miss" any character or group. Just use them in your campaign.

 

Chances are, your PC's aren't part of the official CU anyway, so why bother with the rest of it?

 

As others have mentioned, a lot of people use something approximating the official CU.

 

As for me (I use a hybrid CU/San Angelo universe with many of my own creations thrown in), it's not so much I hesitate to break from the official world when I want to. It's more that supplements are more useful to me when they require less work or don't invalidate things I've established or liked. It's annoying sometimes to see characters "retconned" out of existence (that's a comic book term short for retroactive continuity changes, like when it was established that Wonder Woman had never been one of the early members of the JLA). And it makes some pieces less useful.

 

I like the classic Ultimates, for example. So when some of the characters were arbitrarily written out of the universe, it made the new version of the team less useful to me. I can use some of the characters and change the story to suit my needs, but it's more work than a straight "out of the box" approach.

 

A lot of the things in the 5th edition CU are great. I'm just commenting on one aspect that sometimes bugs me a little.

[The Mind Master]

Originally posted by Monolith

For example I use Anarchy from EoSA, Deathstroke, Factor Four from Freedom City, The Psi-Kin (modified and renamed the Kindred), and several homemade villains and groups. There's always room for expansion.

 

I understand what you're saying, but you make my point. You use stuff from CU, but it doesn't dictate what's in your campaign. You create your own campaign world, picking and choosing and modifying the stuff that suits you. It is not the "official" CU anymore. And I'd be surprised to find that many GM's do strictly follow the CU.

 

That's what I mean when I say there's no need to "miss" any old character.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by The Mind Master

It is not the "official" CU anymore. And I'd be surprised to find that many GM's do strictly follow the CU.

Once a GM starts playing in the CU it stops being "official" because each campaign evolves from that point. The CU does not evolve by itself. The CU is static, with new books being added to the static universe. What each GM does with it from the point of buying the book determines what the CU is in his own game. We all work from the same baseline universe.

 

A true deviation from the CU would be a GM deciding that Terror, Inc was not destroyed from within, or that the battle of Detroit never took place. It's when you change the history of the CU that it really becomes something different, not when you just evolve it from a common beginning, IMO.

[TheEmerged]

Personally, my "NeoChampion" Universe is all over the map. I use a lot of Champions Universe stuff, but I've also borrowed a lot from Aberrant and "Brave New World" (the superhero RPG based on a "counterfactual" world, not the better-known book). Also, about half of the heroic NPC's are blatant one-offs or parodies of DC/Marvel and the occassional Crossgen characters.

 

Shoot, I even use a different lineup for The Champions (Defender, Ironclad, Sapphire, Solitaire, KnightSeeker, and Jaguar).

[Monolith]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Shoot, I even use a different lineup for The Champions (Defender, Ironclad, Sapphire, Solitaire, KnightSeeker, and Jaguar).

OH MY GOD!!!!!! You mean you're one of the Jaguar likers?

[AtomicGladiator]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Outside of that, it's default 5e CU all the way. Helps everybody know the ground. And knowing the ground is key to creating well-detailed backstories that mesh with and constructively engage already-existing elements of the campaign.

 

I guess I enjoy creating my own world too much to stay bound within the CU. It would be very difficult for me to submit to that. I get ideas from the books, take some things I like, ignore others, create new things or take them from other sources. For example, VIPER and DEMON exist in my campaign, so does PRIMUS. But UNTIL does not. There's no such thing as Millenium City, we generally choose NYC or Washington or some other real-world city. Lots of background info available there, and the players have a much better sense of what the city is like if they've actually been there.

 

Plus, I love to create my own villains, change up the ones in the books (including things from their history) and add significant things in the history of the campaign world that directly involve the PC's background. If I want to use the Ultimates or anyone else, I don't give a hang if they're currently "official" or not. There's really not any extra work involved, it's just a matter of using the 4th Ed. versions of the team instead of the new versions. Or use the new versions of some characters and the old versions of the others. I don't see any difficulties.

[The Mind Master]

Originally posted by Monolith

Once a GM starts playing in the CU it stops being "official" because each campaign evolves from that point. The CU does not evolve by itself. The CU is static, with new books being added to the static universe. What each GM does with it from the point of buying the book determines what the CU is in his own game. We all work from the same baseline universe.

 

A true deviation from the CU would be a GM deciding that Terror, Inc was not destroyed from within, or that the battle of Detroit never took place. It's when you change the history of the CU that it really becomes something different, not when you just evolve it from a common beginning, IMO.

 

I think we agree in practice. I don't quite understand why you think that modifying a supervillain group (such as the Psi-Kin you mentioned) isn't a true deviation from CU but that deciding that Terror, Inc was not destroyed from within IS. But that's neither here nor there.

 

From what you're saying, you do decide to make changes in the official published versions of stuff. I assume you also allow original villains? And of course many, many things change and evolve the longer a campaign in played, as you stated. So inevitably it's going to grow apart from the published CU.

 

That's my point, and that being the case, why couldn't the campaign evolve to bring in any 4th Edition characters that you really like and miss? Why do they have to be eliminated in your campaign if you like them? You'd still be basically set in the CU, if that's how you consider your campaign. The differences would not be any greater than those we have already talked about.

 

Out of curiousity, do you consider ALL the supercharacters published as part of CU as existing in your campaign? If a new villains book is published, are they all automatically considered to exist, even if they are never encountered?

 

I ask, because in my campaign, supercharacters are not automatically assumed to exist unless/until the PC's encounter them. Takofanes, for example, has never put in an appearance, and is not considered to be out there lurking, waiting to attack. If he ever does show up (unlikely, since I HATE the aggravation and extra work of running a villain with a power pool) he will be encountered as a newly discovered threat, not as someone who has already tried and failed to conquer the world.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by The Mind Master

From what you're saying, you do decide to make changes in the official published versions of stuff. I assume you also allow original villains? And of course many, many things change and evolve the longer a campaign in played, as you stated. So inevitably it's going to grow apart from the published CU.

That's my point. The CU does not change. There are no CU:2003 or CU:2004 updates telling us all the major events that happened within the CU during those years. The CU only grows through the designs and adventures of each GM who picks up the books. We all start from the same place but we all end up somewhere different.

 

That's my point, and that being the case, why couldn't the campaign evolve to bring in any 4th Edition characters that you really like and miss? Why do they have to be eliminated in your campaign if you like them? You'd still be basically set in the CU, if that's how you consider your campaign. The differences would not be any greater than those we have already talked about.

The campaign world can evolve to bring in anything, up to the point where it starts changing CU history. When you are at the point where you've deviated that much from the common norm then you're playing a "mutant" CU campaign.

 

If in your CU game Dr. D died in 1990 then he was not there to blow up Detroit, which leads to no Millennium City, no reason for the Champions, and no reason for UNTIL to be allowed to work within the US. When you change the history that much you are changing the entire tone of the CU as it is currently written. There's nothing wrong with that, but you're then playing a dramatically different CU game then everyone else. Your playing a "mutant" game which is as much homebrew as it is CU.

 

By me adding in the Psi-Kin or Deathstroke to the game I'm not altering the course of the CU because there are already 200 villains we know nothing about except for names within the CU. I'm playing within the same CU game, and anyone can easily use my material within their own CU games without it also forcing them to alter their history or storylines. I guess that's the real difference to me. Anything which alters starting-point continuity leads to a "mutant" CU game.

 

Out of curiousity, do you consider ALL the supercharacters published as part of CU as existing in your campaign? If a new villains book is published, are they all automatically considered to exist, even if they are never encountered?

Yes, all the villains introduced in the books are considered part of my CU whether I choose to use them or not. The thing about most villains though is that they are written so as not to have a major impact on the CU. They are CU-Generic. 80% of all the villains produced are generic enough that it does not matter if they are in a CU game or not. You can use or not use most of them without any CU continuity issues.

 

I also assume that just because I'm not using a particular villain doesn't mean that the other 12 superhero teams in the US are not encountering that villain. It makes for nice news blurbs when the players can read about the Bay Guardians and their run-in with Takeofane or the Sentinels fighting Eurostar over Greenland. Having the other characters around allows me to build continuity with the CU universe without ever having to worry about using something I don't like.

[death tribble]

And the Europeans might have a more Eurocentric version of things. The old campaign I was in had the biggest superteam in the world, nearly 50 odd paranormals. Bit like the Legion.

 

If there are villains I like from previous editions like Rainbow Archer, I use them. If there are villains I don't like in the new version like Takofanes and Samhain, I don't use them.

 

The Hero Games staff know that and accept that.

 

Well except Steve who is making a list of our names and addresses and will come round at some stage and duff us all in. But he is the boss of the company after all.

[lemming]

Originally posted by death tribble

Well except Steve who is making a list of our names and addresses and will come round at some stage and duff us all in. But he is the boss of the company after all.

As long as he keeps writing books though, he never gets around to the visits.

 

My present campaign is very non-CU though I've got elements taken out and placed into it.

Hmm, I need to run another game.

[The Mind Master]

Originally posted by Monolith

The campaign world can evolve to bring in anything, up to the point where it starts changing CU history. When you are at the point where you've deviated that much from the common norm then you're playing a "mutant" CU campaign.

 

If in your CU game Dr. D died in 1990 then he was not there to blow up Detroit, which leads to no Millennium City, no reason for the Champions, and no reason for UNTIL to be allowed to work within the US. When you change the history that much you are changing the entire tone of the CU as it is currently written. There's nothing wrong with that, but you're then playing a dramatically different CU game then everyone else. Your playing a "mutant" game which is as much homebrew as it is CU.

 

 

A "MUTANT" campaign!! Omigod!! Are you a member of Genocide???

 

I admit to a lot of homebrew in our campaign, I confess it, I plead guilty as charged. Nay, I revel in it! It is our campaign after all.

 

Still, I don't think the "tone" of my campaign is what's so radically different. It's still superheroes vs supervillains The history is different, but a lot of the results are similar or the same. In the CU, Doctor Destroyer destroyed Detroit. In my campaign, Firewing nearly levelled Houston. Plenty of impetus there for a superhero group to form or UNTIL to work in the USA.

 

I think that it's great if you want to use the CU history as a background, and stick to that history in all particulars. It gives you a nice solidity as a framework. But the longer you play, the more significant things are going to happen in your campaign that will never be reflected in the published CU. And there may well be future supplements which contradict the history of your campaign. And then, "gasp!"...you may look around and find...that you, too, are now in a MUTANT campaign! BWAAA! HA! HA! HA! HAAAAA!!!

[Hermit]

I didn't care for the Aesinios, they seemed bland to me.

 

Wasn't crazy about how the Olympians were handled, it wasn't BAD mind you, but I prefered my own ideas more.

 

I liked CLOWN. The secret was to have CLOWN mock society, not the PCs. I also played up their code against killings, they actually helped the heroes sometimes.

 

 

I also enjoyed Sancutary. Realistic or not, it was enjoyable. My solution was that certain heroes/villains had gotten themselves blacklisted off the island. Oddly, I see a netrual meeting ground even MORE likely for 5th Ed given the "Paranormal registration" possibly annoying/driving off some of the more anti authoritarian supers.

 

Don't miss the conquerers. Netron just never worked for me anyways. They probably would be better revamped into solo villains as Anklysaur was.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Hermit

I liked CLOWN. The secret was to have CLOWN mock society, not the PCs.

 

AMEN!

 

Don't miss the conquerers. Netron just never worked for me anyways. They probably would be better revamped into solo villains as Anklysaur was.

 

Actually, I have found myself killing them off. I had Neutron and Wyvern both killed in seperate incidents before I realized I had a pattern going. I still haven't figured out what to do with the 4th one (Arc, I think?).

 

RE: Jaguar. Heh. Chalk it up to my fondness for Multiform. I knew I needed to up them to 6 members and Kinetik didn't interest me. I also knew, given my PC's, that I needed someone to specifically counter the group's darkness-based character. So I gave him Combat Sense, updated him to the point level (and attacks and defenses etc etc) I wanted for the campaign and there you go