What's your favorite edition of Hero System/Champions?

[zslane]

Sure, but if a GM doesn't like to see characters with bought up stats that aren't within the character's concept, but bought up purely to optimize for combat, then he needs to step in and impose restrictions. On the other hand, if a GM doesn't mind, then it isn't a (game system) problem that needs fixing since, presumably, such optimization is tolerated, if not encouraged.

 

[assault]

There are issues related to different genres here.

 

When Champions was a superhero game, figured characteristics made sense.

When Hero is a generic system, they don't.

 

Mixing the two together causes problems.

 

A good example is how people get all weird about characters buying up their Dex, Spd, Con and Str. If the characters in question are superheroes, this is a no-brainer. If they aren't, then there might be a problem. "Might be".

 

The other problem, of course, is people being silly about character concepts. Things can start to sound a bit like this:
"You can't buy that! It doesn't match the way I imagine your character being!"

 

(This is different from matching characters to the campaign's power level.)

[zslane]

14 hours ago, assault said:

"You can't buy that! It doesn't match the way I imagine your character being!"

 

This isn't really that hard. When it is obvious someone is buying up stats to a level outside their own stated character concept, it is time for the GM to step in and take control of the situation. When it is obvious they aren't, or when it is only slightly questionable, then it probably isn't going to affect the game much, and isn't really worth wringing one's hands over.

 

Since I have not used the Hero System much for heroic level play, I will defer to the experience of other on the usefulness, or lack thereof, of figured characteristics there. I will say, however, that it makes more sense to me to make figured characteristics optional in heroic level games, rather than to throw them out of the system entirely.

[archer]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

This isn't really that hard. When it is obvious someone is buying up stats to a level outside their own stated character concept, it is time for the GM to step in and take control of the situation. When it is obvious they aren't, or when it is only slightly questionable, then it probably isn't going to affect the game much, and isn't really worth wringing one's hands over.

 

Since I have not used the Hero System much for heroic level play, I will defer to the experience of other on the usefulness, or lack thereof, of figured characteristics there. I will say, however, that it makes more sense to me to make figured characteristics optional in heroic level games, rather than to throw them out of the system entirely.

 

I'm not a big fan of "the original character concept as stated on day one of the campaign is the only direction the character can grow".

 

In real life, if I want to be a bodybuilder I can do that. I can learn lockpicking or sleight of hand. If I have a close call, I can decide its a good idea to learn self-defense or first aid or convert to a religion and learn all about it so my soul doesn't go to some unpleasant place. I love reading and researching things but if all my friends were having fun getting into brawls in bars and I ended up alone doing nothing over and over again, I'd probably end up at the bar at some point and need to learn some self-defense really quickly.

 

What I thought my life would be when I was 18 years old and the skills I would gain as I saw things developing in my life was maybe 15-20% accurate.

 

I don't see why my character in the game shouldn't develop in response to what happens to him just as my own life has developed in response to my own experiences.

 

Honestly, how many people really end up exactly with the life they thought they'd have?

[Doc Democracy]

As GM I am always a bit reticent to enforce anyone's vision of a character on a player.  It means that I have to begin to make decisions that are not about game balance or story direction and those are what I think the GM is there for.  If a player wants to tweak his character in response to the threats he has just faced then who am I to spoil what it providing game fun to that person.  Some players are there to explore the character and delve into the limitations and frustrations of that character, others are there to play the game and be effective in that.  Different wants and needs.  I am not there to decide whose game fun is paramount.  If I do not like the way some folk get their fun in a game I can seek to find a like-minded group, otherwise I need to be tolerant of everyone's wants and desires as long as they do not impinge on someone elses.

 

For example, if Joe Muscles has 60 STR, the strongest character in the game, I would not allow Joe Adaption to raise his strength to close or beyond Joe Muscles.  Muscles' concept was to be strongest - Adaptation was not.  Going from 25 STR to about 50 in response to in-game challenges would be fine with me, beyond that he is stepping on Muscles' toes and I would explain that and say I was not allowing it.  I see that very much in the realms of both balance and story.

 

Doc

[zslane]

In every one of those situations, the player has strong conceptual justifications for buying up the stats as suggested. Even a character that grows, changes, and evolves in new directions is spending points in a concept-driven manner. The problem comes when the stats are bought up purely for combat optimization, and not for reasons related to the concept of the character (however you choose to frame the notion of "concept"). Then again, if a GM doesn't see combat optimization as a character build problem, then there is no reason to object to figured characteristics as being "too point efficient".

[archer]

3 hours ago, zslane said:

In every one of those situations, the player has strong conceptual justifications for buying up the stats as suggested. Even a character that grows, changes, and evolves in new directions is spending points in a concept-driven manner. The problem comes when the stats are bought up purely for combat optimization, and not for reasons related to the concept of the character (however you choose to frame the notion of "concept"). Then again, if a GM doesn't see combat optimization as a character build problem, then there is no reason to object to figured characteristics as being "too point efficient".

 

I would think that most people who end up in combat often would naturally seek to become more efficient in combat, out of a sense of self-preservation if nothing else.

[unclevlad]

18 minutes ago, archer said:

 

I would think that most people who end up in combat often would naturally seek to become more efficient in combat, out of a sense of self-preservation if nothing else.

 

Absolutely.  Combat is a crucible where effectiveness wins.  Prioritization is critical, as there's always ways to spend points...and they're all high priority.   You're basically compelled to seek efficiency points.

[assault]

First, I will point out that I am talking about superheroes here. Heroic characters are a bit different.

 

There are two cases here. The first I will address is how experience is spent. The second is how the character was built in the first place.

 

First case: Is the character underpowered in combat terms, compared to the other PCs? If so, they should correct this. There is no character concept that is obliged to be underpowered, except, I suppose, one that explicitly says "this character is underpowered".

 

Besides that, the rapid improvement of characteristics is only justifiable up to a point. That's when I would start asking questions. Of course, points spent on this are points not spent elsewhere.

 

The spending of experience is requires continual (if not necessarily intense) monitoring on the part of the GM. I don't really think this is controversial.

 

The second case is how characters are built in the first place. This is where things get weird, because they relate to how different GMs do things.

For me, characters capable of being superheroes (or villains) can have whatever characteristics they need to be viable. That's just a given. Not all characters need to take such characteristics, but that's an individual thing.

 

This is essentially independent of character conception. If I was playing in a game where this wasn't the case, I would simply adjust my character conception to allow my character to have whatever I wanted to buy. In other words, character conception is instrumental and secondary. It's a means to an end.

 

Summary: Air Wave and the Red Bee can have whatever characteristics they want.

 

 

 

 

[RDU Neil]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:35 AM, assault said:

First, I will point out that I am talking about superheroes here. Heroic characters are a bit different.

 

There are two cases here. The first I will address is how experience is spent. The second is how the character was built in the first place.

 

First case: Is the character underpowered in combat terms, compared to the other PCs? If so, they should correct this. There is no character concept that is obliged to be underpowered, except, I suppose, one that explicitly says "this character is underpowered".

 

Besides that, the rapid improvement of characteristics is only justifiable up to a point. That's when I would start asking questions. Of course, points spent on this are points not spent elsewhere.

 

The spending of experience is requires continual (if not necessarily intense) monitoring on the part of the GM. I don't really think this is controversial.

 

The second case is how characters are built in the first place. This is where things get weird, because they relate to how different GMs do things.

For me, characters capable of being superheroes (or villains) can have whatever characteristics they need to be viable. That's just a given. Not all characters need to take such characteristics, but that's an individual thing.

 

This is essentially independent of character conception. If I was playing in a game where this wasn't the case, I would simply adjust my character conception to allow my character to have whatever I wanted to buy. In other words, character conception is instrumental and secondary. It's a means to an end.

 

Summary: Air Wave and the Red Bee can have whatever characteristics they want.

 

 

 

 

 

While I can sort of see where you are coming from, I know I wouldn't enjoy playing in that kind of game. Not all character concepts are created equal, nor are equally acceptable for a particular game/campaign.

 

If someone watches the latest Mission Impossible or James Bond and says, "Cool. I want to play a super competent agent type!"... ok... but is that appropriate for the game in question? Ethan Hunt isn't "super" in the MCU, though maybe an NPC role, like Nick Fury or whatever. Having him be 'just as important/playable as Cap' doesn't fit.

 

Now, Ethan Hunt in the Netflix Marvel... he's actually TOO super. Those shows have downplayed super abilities to be even LESS cinematic action than Mission Impossible. Iron Fist has a harder time beating up Triad members than Ethan Hunt does taking down a bunch of terrorists. Again.. his concept could work, but would have to be toned down significantly.

 

If you want to play Ethan Hunt Clone as a clear PC level character, then it should be a cinematic action campaign where that type of character is the definition of "super."

 

In a large supers/universe campaign... multiple types of characters can get played, but they aren't all equal. The PCs could be city-wide protectors, and way better than the "trained agent vigilante team" but not as powerful as the "world beater" high level team. All can exist in the same world, but Gun Guy isn't "just as good" as IconicMan! when it comes to facing threats. In my campaign... Cap and Black Panther and Thor are all viable characters... but concept limitations mean that in many cases Thor's player is just doing a lot more than the other two. This is why Black Panther went from "strong, tough fighter in a cat suit" who came out of fights with the KKK torn up... to "strong tough fighter utilizing sci-fi level tech to be capable of taking on supers and aliens and galactic threats". It is a logical evolution, but Black Panther's concept changed along the way to allow for the evolution. Not all character concepts are as open, or able to change without being fundamentally other.

[Ninja-Bear]

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen Mission Impossible but when Ethan is fighting terrorists he doesn’t hold back from killing. Danny Rand I believe is still holding back from intentionally killing Triads which means it’s harder to fight when limiting your options. Plus the Triads are portrayed as no slouches when fighting either. Not sure how the terrorists are portrayed in MI.  Iow how were they built in Hero terms?  Are they like 75 pts from the old Gadgets! book or are they Steve Long builds?  

[assault]

In the MCU, Ethan Hunt would be comparable to Hawkeye or the Falcon. Or, more relevantly, Black Widow. She's precisely "a super competent agent type".

[RDU Neil]

38 minutes ago, assault said:

In the MCU, Ethan Hunt would be comparable to Hawkeye or the Falcon. Or, more relevantly, Black Widow. She's precisely "a super competent agent type".

 

Even if you granted Ethan Hunt the level of Hawkeye or Black Widow or Falcon (and that is ramping him up significantly), he's at best a sidekick. In his milieu, Hunt is the best of the best... in the MCU he's back-up. Very different concept. 

[assault]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Even if you granted Ethan Hunt the level of Hawkeye or Black Widow or Falcon (and that is ramping him up significantly), he's at best a sidekick. In his milieu, Hunt is the best of the best... in the MCU he's back-up. Very different concept. 

 

If you call Black Widow a sidekick, or back-up, I suppose.

 

The point is that he fits firmly into the superhero spectrum, in a superhero milieu, and can be built accordingly.

[zslane]

Ethan Hunt could easily fit into the Marvel universe, as a SHIELD field agent perhaps.

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, zslane said:

Ethan Hunt could easily fit into the Marvel universe, as a SHIELD field agent perhaps.

Which are also the Black Widow and Hawkeye iirc.

[Mark Perron]

can anyone tell me why they devalued or removed the total importance of DEX, CON, EGO?? I don't really care who goes first, con no longer affects anything but NOT getting stunned, and ego doesn't affect combat

[Doc Democracy]

 

4 hours ago, Mark Perron said:

can anyone tell me why they devalued or removed the total importance of DEX, CON, EGO?? I don't really care who goes first, con no longer affects anything but NOT getting stunned, and ego doesn't affect combat

 

There are huge threads on the boards about this stuff.  If you want details you can go find it there.  

 

In essence the idea was to seek to price the characteristics on the value they provided in game.  DEX does not just impact on who goes first in a fight but adds to an impressive number of skills and thus is valuable in buying up if you have a lot of these.

 

Obviously if combat is important then not being stunned in a fight is quite useful, that is reflected in the cost (which reduced because CON no longer provided any figured characteristics).

 

EGO is very useful in combat if one of the opponents is looking to use a number of mental powers or presence attacks.  It no longer changes mental combat values.  Again, the price now reflects that.

 

6th edition's biggest change (IMO) was the removal of figured characteristics and the revaluation of primary characteristics was the result of the necessary rebalancing.

 

Doc

[Tech]

And yet Doc D, according to those who took this survey, 37.5% have 6th edition as their favorite, considerably less than I expected. 4th edition comes close to tying it.

 

In general, the group I play with has stayed with 5th edition (and only a touch of 6th for a couple powers).

 

For myself, just give me my 5 or 10 pts for Instant Change and a simple explanation, not a paragraph to explain it.

[Killer Shrike]

I started with 4e, and loved it dearly. 5e and 5er came along and fueled a later day Renaissance of gaming that marks out my personal highwater mark. But objectively, as a game system, I like 6e the best.

[Toxxus]

Fourth edition for me as I primarily played Fantasy Hero and 4th edition Fantasy Hero was SO good.

 

In fact for my current 6e Fantasy Hero game I have retained the weapon, armor and encumbrance charts from 4e as I feel they did a much better job of balancing the effectiveness of gear.

[Tjack]

On 9/13/2018 at 1:20 PM, zslane said:

Ethan Hunt could easily fit into the Marvel universe, as a SHIELD field agent perhaps.

 

 

  I would use an Ethan Hunt write-up for Coulson in a heartbeat.  Remember how he took down the two gas station robbers in that  video?

   On the original subject, I’m a 4th edition guy to the grave. Maybe it’s a sentimental thing. It was the first game book I ever bought after borrowing earlier editions off of friends for a year or two, and it was fully colored after countless hours at the tables.

   Although, the thing I remember best is being able to do anything I could imagine with it.  Any character, any story, any genre. All in one book.  No looking if someone had brought JI or Star Hero or FH.  

   I know later editions did the same,  but there’s nothing like your first love.

[Cassandra]

The 5th Edition is the ultimate evolution of the greatest RPG Character Creation System.

[sentry0]

Champions: New Millennium

 

...I'll show myself out.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I play 6th end write for 6th.  It has lots of ideas and concepts in it that are great and I strongly recommend people who play other editions definitely pick up and use.  It has others I don't care for.

 

But 4th is my favorite edition, as an emotional attachment.  See, the poll wasn't "which is the best?" or "what do you recommend?" but "which do you like the most?"