Were the old Champions really that much better?

[Hermit]

I see the results from JmOz's polls, it seems like there are a lot of fans of the Guardians or 4th Ed Champions team. Nothing wrong with that.

 

However, I often hear how the previous teams were 'better' or 'cooler' than the 5th Edition ones. I'm really not so sure about that. I've rather grown to like the new crew, and when viewed on their own... they seem to hold their own and often seem better constructed (Though, even then there are mistakes).

 

So, is it nostalgia that calls so many back to the teams of yesterdecade?

 

Frankly, I think part of it is familiarity and how we've gotten a chance over time to know the Guardians (via earlier edditions or Heroic Publishing) , and the 4e Crew (fiction bits laced through out 4th Ed supplements for example). We haven't really had much of a time to emotionally invest in the 5e crew. We won't be reading of the exploits of Ironclad as he adjusts to Earth. It's too soon to really watch Witchcraft grow into a more confident mystic.. and so on.

 

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Enforcer84]

Oddly enough, we know only about the Guardians through either the Champions comic or the examples in previous editions. I do believe that nostalgia plays a big part.

 

Personally however, I don't really vote along one groups line. If I had my druthers I'd pick:

 

Marksman

Quantum (New Millenium)

Obsidian

Solitaire

Gargoyle

Jaguar

Defender (4E)

and Nighthawk, to be my Champions. All at 350 pts + 50-75 pts of additional exerience to show that they are a more experienced group.

 

I don't dislike any of the character, I just like this group better. Though the various Defenders would need to change names and concepts slightly, and Witchcraft would need to at least look different; I could easily use all 24 characters in a campaign world.

[Hermit]

Mmm, that's an interesting point... I suppose everyone could alter past and present members to fit their 'dream team'.

[Mutant for Hire]

I think part of it is that with so little known about the Guardians everyone filled in the blanks to suit their own tastes. Only having a hint of each character allowed people to customize them more.

 

And to some extent I think that part of the problem isn't that the old Champions were so much better but the new Champions characters in many cases were clearly knockoffs of the old Champions, or failed to be a significant improvement. I fail to see why Obsidian had to be replaced with Ironclad or Solitaire with Witchcraft. Quantum never had that much popularity but I don't consider Sapphire an improvement.

 

I think if the new Champions lineup had been:

 

Defender

Quantum

Obsidian

Solitaire

Nighthawk

Kinetic

 

with Jaguar and Seeker replaced by Kinetic and Nighthawk, there would have been less complaining. Nighthawk brings more to the team and a speedster also fleshes out the team complement more than a werebeast does. I doubt that many people actually miss either of them.

 

Now a little retooling and revamping might have not been out of line. For example, many consider the Quantum of Champtions: TNM to be an improvement over the original, even if Team Defender was not. But some of the lineup replacements were clearly gratuitous and were far too close to the originals for my taste.

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

I think part of it is that with so little known about the Guardians everyone filled in the blanks to suit their own tastes. Only having a hint of each character allowed people to customize them more.

 

And to some extent I think that part of the problem isn't that the old Champions were so much better but the new Champions characters in many cases were clearly knockoffs of the old Champions, or failed to be a significant improvement. I fail to see why Obsidian had to be replaced with Ironclad or Solitaire with Witchcraft. Quantum never had that much popularity but I don't consider Sapphire an improvement.

 

Sapphire is a subject I won't touch, because I'm just not sure whether I like her or not. Come to think of it, I never liked Quantum to begin with, so I guess maybe anything would be an improvement.

 

As to why the characters had to be replaced; I remember seeing elsewhere on the boards that there were various copyright issues that prevented the current incarnation of Hero Games from using certain characters. I'm not sure if Defender's "copy rights" were bought up or just passed down, but any team called the Champions would have to have him. It would BE the Champions without Defender.

[JmOz]

I am fairly certain that all of the 4th edition Champions are owned by DoJ

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

I think part of it is that with so little known about the Guardians everyone filled in the blanks to suit their own tastes. Only having a hint of each character allowed people to customize them more.

 

And to some extent I think that part of the problem isn't that the old Champions were so much better but the new Champions characters in many cases were clearly knockoffs of the old Champions, or failed to be a significant improvement. I fail to see why Obsidian had to be replaced with Ironclad or Solitaire with Witchcraft. Quantum never had that much popularity but I don't consider Sapphire an improvement.

 

I think if the new Champions lineup had been:

 

Defender

Quantum

Obsidian

Solitaire

Nighthawk

Kinetic

 

with Jaguar and Seeker replaced by Kinetic and Nighthawk, there would have been less complaining. Nighthawk brings more to the team and a speedster also fleshes out the team complement more than a werebeast does. I doubt that many people actually miss either of them.

 

Now a little retooling and revamping might have not been out of line. For example, many consider the Quantum of Champtions: TNM to be an improvement over the original, even if Team Defender was not. But some of the lineup replacements were clearly gratuitous and were far too close to the originals for my taste.

I think quite a few of us old-timers actually know a great deal about the Guardians. They were in a comic book which is more than can be said for the rest. I didn't like some of the themes of that particular book which is probably why they don't get my vote. It is creepy to have a sexually active woman who is physically aging twice as fast so - she is really nine when she begins having "adult" experiences.

 

I like the 4th E characters more than 5th E because the characters' backgrounds are more interesting to me. An violent doctor who has a grudge against gangs beats a flirt/tart (you decide). An alien prince/diplomat is far more intriguing than another alien gladiator. A mystic with a widget (I love the widget) hunted by the evil mystic order that tried to use her as a pawn is more interesting than a generic "clone" of said mystic. Beyond Seeker's implausible origin, he is a much more fun character than a pale shade of BatMan. Hey, that's just my opinion.

[Cybertooth]

I guess I'm just an old fart at heart. I really have no problems with the new characters. However, I much prefer the older characters, especially those that go way back to the beginning.

 

I've started playing Champions from the beginning. I've also collected everything from the beginning on. Unfortunately my 5th ed. collection has stalled due to a lack of funds, but I'm working on that. Also, I currently don't have a current campaign running right now, so I have no reason (yet) to get used to, or familiarized with the newer characters.

 

For me, the older characters had a certain charm to them. The rules were simple and they were simple. They were in essence blank slates that we tweaked to fill our needs. We "filled in the blanks" as we developed our campaigns, and in doing so they became an integral part of those campaigns.

The same goes for the villains. I mean, who didn't fight Ogre and Pulsar as their first adventure?

 

Sure, the older rules did not cover practically every concievable power. But, a lot of us were younger then and our characters and games were simpler. Rules were made on the fly, as were combat decisions, and new powers for those that didn't exist. We had more time to devote to the game. Now, we are older adults and a lot of simply don't have that kind of time to invest. For me, it was always about the game, not about having a perfectly created mathmatically correct character or villain

 

There was a reason Classic Enemies was so popular. Personally, I'd like to see all (and I mean all) the older characters created 5th edition style. I'd love Hero Games to put it out as a book. I would love to see Gargoyle, Icestar, Dove, Marksman, Rose, Goliath, and the others. I always wondered what that spider/human hybrid that fired a beam from his forehead in Champions II (???) was and what his character sheet looked like. I always wanted a name and stats for the villain on the cover of the original Champions and Enemies rulebook (although, I think there was a contest to name him, I never found out officially what it was--I always referred to him as Cyclopean. Heck, he was probably Dr. Destroyer).

 

I got a little off topic, sorry. So nostalgia? Yes. Where the old ones better? Not really. Did I get more use out of and more familiar with the older ones? Yes.

[Kid Chaos]

Originally posted by Enforcer84

Oddly enough, we know only about the Guardians through either the Champions comic or the examples in previous editions. I do believe that nostalgia plays a big part.

 

The old Champions comics and Flare comic posted stats for the characters. I should still have the issue with Rose's stats in fact.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Cybertooth

I mean, who didn't fight Ogre and Pulsar as their first adventure?

My first adventure was Viper's Nest. I was knocked out and nearly killed by Brick. Well, I only had a PD of 2.

[Monolith]

I think nostalgia is the biggest part of it. I came into Champions with 3rd Edition so I did not get much information on the Guardians until years later when I bought the older products. A year or two after I became involved with Champions I had the wonderful Strike Force come out, and that was really all the superhero team example characters I needed.

 

As far as the Guardians themselves, the only characters I was really interested in were Gargoyle and Goliath. The others seemed somewhat plain to me. I never really cared about the 4th Edition Champions (to me Quantum was the only interesting one) and became even more uninterested when all the covers started appearing with Seeker always getting beaten. I happen to like many of the 5th Edition Champions. They are a little less original but I think they make for more interesting characters. They seem to have more personality then earlier characters and I like using them in my MC game.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Cybertooth

I always wanted a name and stats for the villain on the cover of the original Champions and Enemies rulebook (although, I think there was a contest to name him, I never found out officially what it was--I always referred to him as Cyclopean. Heck, he was probably Dr. Destroyer).

 

They ended up naming him Holocaust, although IIRC he never had a published writeup in Adventurers Club where the contest was held. He does now, though, in Conquerors, Killers and Crooks. He's a would-be world conqueror, a step or two below Dr. D or Mechanon on the power scale - some wags have started referring to him as the new Prof. Muerte.

[Hermit]

You'll never sway me

 

Originally posted by Agent X

I

 

An violent doctor who has a grudge against gangs beats a flirt/tart (you decide). An alien prince/diplomat is far more intriguing than another alien gladiator. A mystic with a widget (I love the widget) hunted by the evil mystic order that tried to use her as a pawn is more interesting than a generic "clone" of said mystic. Beyond Seeker's implausible origin, he is a much more fun character than a pale shade of BatMan. Hey, that's just my opinion.

 

Well, Quantum, while amusing in the 'Lucy Van Pelt' way, is just the sort of character that I wouldn't want in MY team if I were playing one: Pessemistic, violent, and bad for morale.

 

Sapphire may seem to lack depth, but the 'drag on a team' kind of depth I don't like.

 

Okay, I admit it. I like Ironclad better. I think Ironclad's better suited to his profession (Why didn't Obsidian have more leadership/diplomacy skills?) and has more built in plot hooks of the sort I'd like to use.

Don't get me wrong, they're both good, but each judged solely on their own merits... I like Ironclad a bit more.

 

Okay, on Solitaire, you may have got me. I want to like Witchcraft a LOT, and on her own, she's even good... but her only improvement on Soli is that Witchcraft is pure mystic, where as Solitaire was an odd hybrid of Mentalist/Mystic (no one could ever decide). Witchcraft should have either had a different origin story or personality to differentiate her from Solitaire. I'm hoping time will help her develop the latter.

 

Nighthawk started out as my least favorite, but I've really grown to like him. I like the swashbuckler type, but given a choice now of playing Seeker, or Nighthawk (even at the same point level) I'd go with Nighthawk. He's more versitile, less goofy (head garb debate aside), and more plausible. Nighthawk is a Batman clone, but he's already started out in a different direction, which means you can take him anywhere with it.

 

[TheEmerged]

RE: Nighthawk. Speaking for myself and no one else -- I just can't get passed the Birdie Baseball Cap. For some reason it takes away any chance I have of taking him seriously, my brain always mentally adds a beer can on each side and a tube into his mouth.

 

RE: Sapphire. I'm discovering an odd kind of love/hate with this character. I've called her the "new Seeker" a few times, but recently it's occured to me there's a better description -- Female Bulldozer. I know there's no actual manhating aspect of the writeup, but it suggests itself.

 

Witchcraft. Hate to say it, but from where I type she's a wannabe Solitaire. 'Course, I have to confess to being fond of Solitaire...

 

Ironclad. Of the 4 "new" Champions, he's the one that has grown on me. Interesting note, he isn't appearing much in the artwork.

[Agent X]

Re: You'll never sway me

 

Originally posted by Hermit

Well, Quantum, while amusing in the 'Lucy Van Pelt' way, is just the sort of character that I wouldn't want in MY team if I were playing one: Pessemistic, violent, and bad for morale.

 

Sapphire may seem to lack depth, but the 'drag on a team' kind of depth I don't like.

 

Okay, I admit it. I like Ironclad better. I think Ironclad's better suited to his profession (Why didn't Obsidian have more leadership/diplomacy skills?) and has more built in plot hooks of the sort I'd like to use.

Don't get me wrong, they're both good, but each judged solely on their own merits... I like Ironclad a bit more.

 

Okay, on Solitaire, you may have got me. I want to like Witchcraft a LOT, and on her own, she's even good... but her only improvement on Soli is that Witchcraft is pure mystic, where as Solitaire was an odd hybrid of Mentalist/Mystic (no one could ever decide). Witchcraft should have either had a different origin story or personality to differentiate her from Solitaire. I'm hoping time will help her develop the latter.

 

Nighthawk started out as my least favorite, but I've really grown to like him. I like the swashbuckler type, but given a choice now of playing Seeker, or Nighthawk (even at the same point level) I'd go with Nighthawk. He's more versitile, less goofy (head garb debate aside), and more plausible. Nighthawk is a Batman clone, but he's already started out in a different direction, which means you can take him anywhere with it.

 

I always viewed Quantum as more severe than "Punisher style" problem character.

 

I can think of a number of plots I can run off of Obsidian that I can't run with Ironclad. It's the prince/diplomacy angle, even if Obsidian didn't spend a lot of points on it, that allows me to include an alien intrigue story-line much more fully that doesn't merely rely on a "militaristic edge." Ironclad plots are mostly about other gladiators. Obsidian plots can be about evil family members, rebellions at home, political assasination, polititical kidnapping, and just pure espionage.

 

Witchcraft just doesn't do anything for me.

 

I can't get past the goofy headgear for Nighthawk and his very generic background. Plus, I loved Seeker's list of contacts. His origin was awful but his interaction with the other team members was cool.

[Storn]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

 

Ironclad. Of the 4 "new" Champions, he's the one that has grown on me. Interesting note, he isn't appearing much in the artwork.

 

I'm about to reveal a truth about 'bricks' in general in both comics and rpg art. And it is so pragmatic, that you slap your forehead (hopefully, gently).

 

Bricks are large and tend to be taller (and often wider) than there teammates. So, as visual design elements... they go in the background as you can overlap the smaller teammates in the foreground. Yet because of their height, width, the viewer can still recognize him.

 

But when it is specifically about Ironclad... I must admit I have a tough time drawing him. Greg's version is very lithe, a bit too much so for me. Someone that strong should look it UNLESS it is a specific and declared character trait ('She looks like a teenager but she can lift a tank!")The little bumbies on the head, the small nose (which is really tough to pull off if I.C. is small and in the background). I want him to look alien, yet also with some "humanity"!?!?! Somehow, those two features don't quite do it for me. The egyptian motif takes some thought when he is twisting in action. That is the long answer.

 

The short answer. He is tougher to draw than some of the others.

 

 

As for Nighthawk, I didn't care for the charcter till I painted him and drew him for the first time on the cover of Champs. Now I kinda like him. I think his gauntlets need a bit of re-design, they are kinda klunky... Eric Lofgren did a nice job in U.S.P.D with N.H. dodging a teke's attack. I think of the helmet in the beginning very much Ninja Science Gatchaman... now I actually think of it more like Seattle Seahawks... which is based on the tribes statues and art from that area (blanking on the tribe's name). I think it would be cool if there was a connection for N.H. to that kind of background (I'm not suggesting he is a Native American all of a sudden, that would be jarring... but perhaps he went to college in Seattle or Vancouver... hey? at least it is different...)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Storn

I'm about to reveal a truth about 'bricks' in general in both comics and rpg art. And it is so pragmatic, that you slap your forehead (hopefully, gently).

 

Bricks are large and tend to be taller (and often wider) than there teammates. So, as visual design elements... they go in the background as you can overlap the smaller teammates in the foreground. Yet because of their height, width, the viewer can still recognize him.

 

But when it is specifically about Ironclad... I must admit I have a tough time drawing him. Greg's version is very lithe, a bit too much so for me. Someone that strong should look it UNLESS it is a specific and declared character trait ('She looks like a teenager but she can lift a tank!")The little bumbies on the head, the small nose (which is really tough to pull off if I.C. is small and in the background). I want him to look alien, yet also with some "humanity"!?!?! Somehow, those two features don't quite do it for me. The egyptian motif takes some thought when he is twisting in action. That is the long answer.

 

The short answer. He is tougher to draw than some of the others.

 

 

As for Nighthawk, I didn't care for the charcter till I painted him and drew him for the first time on the cover of Champs. Now I kinda like him. I think his gauntlets need a bit of re-design, they are kinda klunky... Eric Lofgren did a nice job in U.S.P.D with N.H. dodging a teke's attack. I think of the helmet in the beginning very much Ninja Science Gatchaman... now I actually think of it more like Seattle Seahawks... which is based on the tribes statues and art from that area (blanking on the tribe's name). I think it would be cool if there was a connection for N.H. to that kind of background (I'm not suggesting he is a Native American all of a sudden, that would be jarring... but perhaps he went to college in Seattle or Vancouver... hey? at least it is different...)

Destructor from Atlas Comics was different too.

 

I wouldn't say that necessarily makes it a good thing.

[Enforcer84]

I also think that the Guardians were more mysterious since we didn't really know what they were capable of until the comics came out.

 

BTW. Cybertooth, I also love the old art. I wish I still had all my old champions stuff. I kept selling RPG things at used book stores so I could buy frivolous stuff like Food back in college. Darn my eating habits!

 

Anyway, I have made a bit of progress designing characters for the art and examples in FRed, and the ol'BBB Watchers of the Dragon did a good job of getting the art from the first UMA and I want to translate them all to 5. and write up the art and example characters for my various hero universes.... I love to make characters, yes I do...

[austenandrews]

The old Champions were cool! You had Hercules and Black Widow with their lovers' arguements, plus Iceman and Angel, and there was that time they fought Godzilla on ... what? Official Hero NPC's? Oh. Never use'em, don't know nothin bout'em. Carry on.

 

-AA

[Agent X]

Originally posted by austenandrews

The old Champions were cool! You had Hercules and Black Widow with their lovers' arguements, plus Iceman and Angel, and there was that time they fought Godzilla on ... what? Official Hero NPC's? Oh. Never use'em, don't know nothin bout'em. Carry on.

 

-AA

Remember when Hercules made Godzilla stumble. That was woderful. Hmmm, Godzilla is thirty stories tall. That's at least 10' for each level but I could swear I heard someone say 13' is common. Okay, so that's roughly 2 hexes for 13' so 2 time 30 = 60 hexes. So, Godzilla is going to have +75 Strength from Growth. He is also a reptile and appears like he is proportionately stronger than a human being, say a 35 or better strength, a minimum of 110 strength. Wow!

 

Hercules is mighty. He was able to "grab" Godzilla's leg and "throw" him back. That's impressive. He probably translates as being stronger than Grond. YET ANOTHER CHARACTER STRONGER THAN GROND! WOOHOO! Sorry, I'm bitter about the guys running around making it out like Grond is the strongest one there is.

[austenandrews]

I once GMed a short-run "B movie" game. My planned climax was a Godzilla adventure. I had found a big, inflatable 'Zilla that I calculated was very close to 1"=2m scale, so I was going to use him alongside our Cardboard Heroes. The game fizzled before I got that far, but I still think it was a wonderfully insane idea.

 

-AA

[Doctor Agenda]

The trend on this discussion seems to be that yes, we old timers ARE nostalgic about the old characters, whether 4th ed., 3rd ed., or whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. In a few years the new or revised characters may grow on us. DoJ made a decision to have a major revision, and since legal rights to old characters are involved we may never see official 5th ed writeups/updates on many of them. Unoffical writeups and updates on the other hand....

[Hermit]

Well, while I've mentioned this before, what the CU is like now almost smacks of a comic book line relaunch/clear up to me. Love them or hate them, those things erase certain old characters, and change others. I plan to run the "Secret Crisis" sometime where I bring back 4th Ed characters as part of the plot, then have the heroes end up seeing just how their reality got this way

 

Which means I'll be able to make a 5th Edition of Solitaire and the others now on totally different paths of fate.

[Doctor Agenda]

Hermit, I like that idea!

 

Hey, I just noticed I'm standard now. Hurray for me.

[Starlord]

Originally posted by Storn

But when it is specifically about Ironclad... I must admit I have a tough time drawing him. Greg's version is very lithe, a bit too much so for me. Someone that strong should look it UNLESS it is a specific and declared character trait ('She looks like a teenager but she can lift a tank!")

 

THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one who was upset with that. He doesn't LOOK like a brick, darnit!