What is it about Champions?

[nexus]

That you can't mention it online without getting at least one yutz crowing about how horrible it is like its their ex girlfriend or something?

 

I actually got some guy comparing it to Heros Unlimited of all things...

 

Sorry, more venting than anything else.

[Richard Logue]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

Oh , I don't know... not all the responses are like that.

 

I was in a Yahoo chat room the other day ("the comic shop" or some such) and I asked if anyone played Champions. I got one reply from an individual who said he would love to play Champions. Said he had purchased HERO 5th ed recently but hasn't had the opportunity yet to fully explore it. That's promising.

 

Saul Goode

[nexus]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

Yeah, like I said I was mostly venting.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

There are a lot of old-time players who've never actually played the game - or who played it with a bunch of mega-munchkins - who dis it on the basis of what they've heard, or very limited information/exposure at best.

 

There used to be a column in the old SPACE GAMER magazine that featured rules that made no sense, and it was common for early-editions CHAMPIONS rules to be featured there. For example, the way the concept of pushing STR used to work, any supposed normal could easily kick a car to pieces in fairly short order.

 

Also, honestly, even as a hardcore Champs guy, back in the day, half the campaigns I saw, I wouldn't have gone near, because the GMs and players weren't playing the game as a reflection of comics, but rather as just a system one could twink around with to get powerful effects by piling on a bunch of stupid Limitations.

[caris]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

nexus - It isn't just Champions. There are gamers out there that like different games. I like Rolemaster. Unfortunately, every time I mention it, I hear it called "Roll you bastard" or "Chartmaster." I try not to comment on it, but I dislike D20. I have friends that despise Storyteller and will go on at length about it.

[nexus]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

nexus - It isn't just Champions. There are gamers out there that like different games. I like Rolemaster. Unfortunately' date=' every time I mention it, I hear it called "Roll you bastard" or "Chartmaster." I try not to comment on it, but I dislike D20. I have friends that despise Storyteller and will go on at length about it.[/quote']

 

True enough, I suppose you're just more sensitive/aware when it something you like. It just seems so much more, I don't know, intense about Champions. You get people that practically venemous about it like the game line's existence is some personal insult to them. The comparison I've used is they treat it like an Ex girlfriend and can't wait to say something bad about it. Some even go so far as to just make stuff up. Or make claims so ludicrous you wonder if they've ever played the game. It just gets old.

[Richard Logue]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

"Roll, you bastard?" LoL.. That's awesome. I love Rolemaster. I've heard it called chartmaster and and rulesmaster, but never the other one. I dislike d20 myself.

 

Richard

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

nexus - It isn't just Champions. There are gamers out there that like different games. I like Rolemaster. Unfortunately' date=' every time I mention it, I hear it called "Roll you bastard" or "Chartmaster." I try not to comment on it, but I dislike D20. I have friends that despise Storyteller and will go on at length about it.[/quote']

 

Well, there are different factors that go into this sort of thing. Some people dislike or favor certain games only on the basis of prejudice - those Storyteller folk who think all other games suck even though they don't play other games are a good example. On the other hand, some people think certain games suck because they have had experience that the people who play those games often suck - and I've known people who have never sat down and read, nonetheless played, the Storyteller games who had that opinion of them, simply because they encountered a particularly necro-geeky bunch of VAMPIRE players. But it is also true that some games do suck - or at least feature game mechanics which are awkward and actually get in the way of the game. Some people - usually those with minimal or no experience with the system - have that opinion of HERO/CHAMPIONS. I think such opinions in that case are ignorant, but on the other hand, there *are* plenty of clunky games with rules systems/game mechanics which suck. The Palladium System is a great example, IMHO. RIFTS would be a vastly more playable game if it was grafted onto an entirely different rules system. I have to say also, I really detest Rolemaster (which I tend to call Rollmaster). Having to look through batches of charts doesn't do much for me, and the magic system - which has a lot in common with the basic RUNEQUEST magic system, which I also intensely dislike - doesn't feel very magical to me. Oddly, the rest of the basic RQ works splendidly, and I think one reason CALL OF CTHULHU is the best RPG of all time is that it takes the basic RQ system and applies it to an appropriate game.

[Vondy]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

nexus - It isn't just Champions. There are gamers out there that like different games. I like Rolemaster. Unfortunately' date=' every time I mention it, I hear it called "Roll you bastard" or "Chartmaster." I try not to comment on it, but I dislike D20. I have friends that despise Storyteller and will go on at length about it.[/quote']

I love Rolemaster and I call it "Chartmaster." "Role You Bastard!" is a new one on me. That's funny.

[paigeoliver]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

If I have a system hatred it would have to be D&D 3.5 (and 3rd edition). Sorry you just can't up and change the worlds most popular system to the point where the 1000s of previously published material is no longer even remotely compatible.

 

Hero is in its 5ed revised now, and yet the old material STILL WORKS for it. Sure the nitty gritty stuff might not be the same, but I can take a 1984 era module and run it with no problems at all.

 

Same can't be said for D&D 3.5. It is so different than the older versions that you are going to have to spend hours subbing monster stats, redoing the npcs to have feats and crap. Forget it.

 

I also dislike 1st edition shadowrun, which had really convoluted rules (in my opinion).

[Hermit]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

Nexus, Did you by chance ask about Champions at RPGnet?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

If I have a system hatred it would have to be D&D 3.5 (and 3rd edition). Sorry you just can't up and change the worlds most popular system to the point where the 1000s of previously published material is no longer even remotely compatible.

 

Hero is in its 5ed revised now, and yet the old material STILL WORKS for it. Sure the nitty gritty stuff might not be the same, but I can take a 1984 era module and run it with no problems at all.

 

Same can't be said for D&D 3.5. It is so different than the older versions that you are going to have to spend hours subbing monster stats, redoing the npcs to have feats and crap. Forget it.

 

I also dislike 1st edition shadowrun, which had really convoluted rules (in my opinion).

 

I agree with you about SHADOWRUN - cool theme/setting, horrible game system. I disagree about DnD 3.0 and 3.5, though. The game works better than ever, and they changed some clunky, old stuff that was just not state of the art at all. Now it works pretty well. I do think the short timespan between 3 and 3.5 was bogus beyond words, though, and think they should have provided updates to everything previously-published - all the prestige classes, spells, etc - in PDF forms.

[jackalope]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

If I have a system hatred it would have to be D&D 3.5 (and 3rd edition). Sorry you just can't up and change the worlds most popular system to the point where the 1000s of previously published material is no longer even remotely compatible.

 

I'll second that. I love AD&D 2nd Edition, and I thought the "Player's Options" books were the ebst thing they ever did. I was real excited for 3rd Ed., as I hoped it would incorporate Player's Option and stuff, but instead they dumbed the whole game down and ARGH.

 

I went from Basic D&D to AD&D 1st Ed. to 2nd Ed and never had a problem with the changes, but...ARGH! I don't like it! It's like an entirely new game! It's not D&D!

 

As for why some people don't like Champions: Math math math math...not hard math, but lots of it. It's intimidating. I have a bunch of noobs in my campaign, and their eyes glaze over trying to decipher some of the character sheet and stuff. But despite it's steep learning curve, it's still the best game fro what it does.

[Blue]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

I don't think Champions gets it any worse than most other games. It's all a matter of where you ask. RPGnet has a general distate of Champions. A lot of people here tend to bash Vampire as angsty teen nonsense. There are plenty of places you can go to see people bash D20.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

Champions/HERO has been getting more respect and less venom on RPGnet recently. Having a couple of moderators on their boards who like and play the game seems to have helped, as has the absence of some inflammatory parties on HERO threads.

 

In general, though, I think the mood there has become more HERO-receptive.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

If I have a system hatred it would have to be D&D 3.5 (and 3rd edition). Sorry you just can't up and change the worlds most popular system to the point where the 1000s of previously published material is no longer even remotely compatible.

 

Which I find interesting, because I started losing my interest in D&D (well AD&D 1st edition to be specific) around the mid eighties. About the time I discovered Champions (imagine that). When 2nd ed came down, I read the rules and thought to myself "They didn't change any of the things that annoy me about the system" so I stuck with 1st with a hundred page notebook of houserules. In essence 2nd edition drove me away from the game.

Then 3rd came along, and I loved it. Virtually every problem I had with earlier editions were gone, and most of my "houserule notebook" was either in the rules, or the changes in 3.0/3.5 made them moot. So I got back into D&D (mainly for nostalgia). I found it a much more flexible system, while retaining the flavor (if not the actual mechanics) of older D&D.

 

I still only play D&D in solo play with my wife (our group are HERO only, and thank heavens for that), but I find 3rd to be much more to my tastes than earlier incarnations of D&D. So the lack of compatability is actually a plus for me; and from what I see at the game shop I work at, for a lot of new players as well. It keeps new players, expecially the teens, from having to worry about older rules that they don't know/can't get; which brings new blood to the gaming community, which I consider a good thing.

 

As for the compatability issue, I find the second ed stuff I have (mostly Spelljammer, but some others) as easy to mentally convert into 3rd as 3rd champs into 5th. NPCs would take a little fleshing out, but monsters I found easy, as I did combat, which I generally did on the fly.

 

But I can see your point, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I think the change from D&D to AD&D was a bigger one - the only difference was that there was less previously published material out there.

 

 

 

Edited for some egregious grammer errors.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

In responce to the original question.. I think a lot of it has to do with the anti "leader in the field" attitude that many gamers have. If it is the biggest/most popular it must be bad, and that leads to negative opinions right there.

 

D&D is the biggest RPG out there. It gets bashed a lot.

 

WW was the biggest in the 90s (Aside from TSR) and some of it's players, and in some cases books, were a little bit arrogent about playstyle. It gets bashed a lot.

 

HERO/Champions has been the longest running most successful superhero RPG out there. It gets bashed, by people feeling defensive about thier game, or those that think that thier game should be universally accepted because it is better for them than the number one game.

 

It's a lot like Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy, or IBM/Mac debates of the present/past. Someone makes a choice, and bases some of thier identity on it, and then defends it intensly.

[John T]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

I've occasionally been the target of hassling (good-natured or otherwise) over my enjoyment of Hero by outspoken proponents of "rules-light" systems.

 

I wait until they (inevitably) pause for breath, and chime in with "Rules-light, brains-light..." and a smile.

 

John T

[nexus]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

Nexus' date=' Did you by chance ask about Champions at RPGnet?[/quote']

 

Once, awhile ago, but never again. That place seems to have a policy to bash Champions/Hero when it comes up.

[SuperBlue]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

HERO is my favorite system of them all. I don't care for D20 (with the exception fo DnD, which I will never run again but will play). Personally I think D20 should never have gone past DnD.... especially where D20 modern is concearned.

 

Just my 2% of a dollar.

[Greatwyrm]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

I started seriously looking into HERO just before D&D3.5 came out. I figured if they were just going to screw up D&D and make many of my supplements useless, I was done with it. Thankfully, the changes were mostly good, but I still got more interested in HERO.

 

I think most of the complaints people have are either about earlier editions or just bad GMs. In my own circle of friends, many of the things they were hesitant about just weren't in 5e.

 

Unfortuantely, I have yet to run or play-in a HERO game. If my current D&D game dies (which is a serious possibility over the next few months) there are a number I'd like to try in HERO.

[starblaze]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

In responce to the original question.. I think a lot of it has to do with the anti "leader in the field" attitude that many gamers have. If it is the biggest/most popular it must be bad, and that leads to negative opinions right there.

 

D&D is the biggest RPG out there. It gets bashed a lot.

 

WW was the biggest in the 90s (Aside from TSR) and some of it's players, and in some cases books, were a little bit arrogent about playstyle. It gets bashed a lot.

 

HERO/Champions has been the longest running most successful superhero RPG out there. It gets bashed, by people feeling defensive about thier game, or those that think that thier game should be universally accepted because it is better for them than the number one game.

 

It's a lot like Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy, or IBM/Mac debates of the present/past. Someone makes a choice, and bases some of thier identity on it, and then defends it intensly.

 

This reminds me of an old commercial I saw on TV during the Glasnot thing in Russia. They had a commercial showing the Russian communists drinking Coca-cola and Pepsi. Then it flashed to a small group of people living in the woods drinking RC Cola.

 

To me Hero is RC Cola. For a long time now, and even today I have had a hard time getting people heavily into D&D (Coke) and World of Darkness (Pepsi) because I played Hero System and noone wanted something that wasn't readily available (this was mainly during the dark days of CyberGames and RTS).

 

It sometimes annoys me that people will not play Hero/Champions because they don't want to put more 5 minutes into making a character or in the case of the superhero game will not play in a type of game where they just can't go around killing everything they meet.

[TheEmerged]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

It sometimes annoys me that people will not play Hero/Champions because they don't want to put more 5 minutes into making a character or in the case of the superhero game will not play in a type of game where they just can't go around killing everything they meet.

 

Let's be honest: it takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to make a character

 

Personally I think some of the animosity comes from the fact that HERO represents something of an "extremist" position -- by definition it's going to attract negative comments from people who hold the opposite position. People used to being spoon fed, or eating TV dinners, are going to get riled when expected to cook their own food.

[Reneshat]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

When it comes to bad games, I have to jump on the Anti-Vampire bandwagon. I don't particularly dislike the story heavy system, it's just the fact that only teenagers who think they are dark, moody, and philisophical (and are actually just whiny, and anti-social) want to play the game. Then again, my viewpoint is limited to my experience.

[Chuckg]

Re: What is it about Champions?

 

... I think that's the reason that of the two VtM campaigns that I've been on, both of my vampires eventually found valid -- valid, I say! -- in-game reasons to try and obtain nuclear weapons(*) and use them.

 

Never got a nuke to actually fire off, but hey, I did totally break the Masquerade once...

 

(How? It was an elder game, and I uncranked a Presence 6 effect -- in the middle of an Air Force base. Some things just draw too much attention to be fully covered up...)

 

 

 

 

(*) For some reason, Vampire DMs always look at me strangely when my reaction to the tactical problem "large castle full of uber bad guys we need to make die that's miles away in the countryside from collateral damage possibilities" is *not* "get together a coterie and infiltrate!", it's "look for something with a blast radius measured in kilometers and use it".

 

Sure, high explosives can't solve /every/ problem, but for solving the /particular/ problem of 'confined space full of baddies convenently located well away from the breakables', they're unmatched.