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

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, sentry0 said:

Champions: New Millennium

 

...I'll show myself out.

Ha! There is always one in the crowd! ?

[Doc Democracy]

5 hours ago, Tech said:

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.

 

I will bet there is a third edition rule I am using that I have never noticed changing.  I play HERO, editions are irrelevant and ephemeral except to give everyone a base to start from. It is us to blame for paragraph long powers, we love to tinker and argue about the minutia - Steve simply tried to make it all clear. That took a LOT of words. Doesn't mean you have to use them.

 

I don't have a favourite edition, I play HERO and I think arguing about details is pointless, especially as you can now download and play any edition you want. 

[bluesguy]

14 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 I play HERO and I think arguing about details is pointless

 

Amen brother!  You preach it!

[Hugh Neilson]

On 9/5/2018 at 4:32 PM, Duke Bushido said:

For what it is worth, I found years ago that simply ignoring the "you can only sell back one characteristic" (or ever how many it was; as alluded to, we ignore it) rule provides pretty much the same freedom, and has yet, in the years since the early eighties, to even cause a quiver in the game, let alone be the game-breaking horror it was suspected of being. 

 

For fantasy and alien-heavy sci-fi, we have run a couple of "build all stats from zero" campaigns: it takes X points (don't recall at the moment, as it wasn't as exciting or wonderful as we suspected it might be) to build a human from 0.  You have that many "free" points to build your starting characteristics; no formulae-derived figureds.

 

Again, not wonderful.  Interesting, and then we were done with it.  On that basis, I have to conclude-- again, I can only speak for us-- that it just wasn't as broken as has been claimed. 

 

 

On 9/5/2018 at 8:39 PM, assault said:

 

The issue with selling back more than one characteristic is that mathematically it can become a perpetual motion machine. You can "make a profit" by selling back figured characteristics for more points than you spend on STR or CON (usually CON) to get them in the first place.

 

You can push this to a ridiculous extreme by, for example, buying a million CON, selling back the figureds, and have an arbitrarily large number of points to spend on everything else left over.

 

Obviously a GM can veto this, or constrain it within sane limits.

 

What this always indicated is that either CON was underpriced, or the figured characteristics it provided were overpriced (or both in some combination).  +10 CON for 20 points gathered +2 REC (4 points), +5 STUN (5 points), +20 END (10 points) and +2 ED (2 points), so 21 points worth of stats before considering resistance to being Stunned and the rare CON roll.  +10 STR for 20 points gathered +2 REC (4 points), +5 STUN (5 points), and +2PED (2 points), so 11 points worth of stats before considering everything else a high STR provides.

 

I recall in the 6e (maybe the SETAC) discussions, the possibility of repricing and keeping Figured Characteristics was discussed.  This would have likely lowered the cost of STUN, REC and END (PD and ED being tied to other defense powers could not reasonably change), rejigged the fomuli so that a 10 STR,, CON, BOD character still had the same starting figureds, repricing the " no figured" limitation to match a 100% sellback, etc.  The question then became why keep Figured at all - just reprice the stats as "no figured" and reprice the figureds to appropriately match.

 

The bigger change, to me, was pricing OCV and DCV.  That highlighted just how underpriced DEX was (or how overpriced combat skill levels were) for what it provided.

 

I think there are still some pricing imbalances.  The stats not fixed are INT and PRE, maybe EGO and perhaps DEX to a lesser extent.  I think the "sum of the parts" cost should be comparable to the whole.  In my view, DEX, INT and PRE could be modeled very similarly, each providing +1 to a wide range of rolls/skills (which should cost 5 points for +1 to all such rolls, scaling down for more limited rolls) and something else - initiative, PRE attacks, Perception - which would make up another 5 points for +5 to the stat (limit for more restrictive application), so 2 points per +1 to the stat.  EGO should be similar, but stay 1 point (half for Ego rolls, half for PRE defense, removed from PRE).

 

On 9/5/2018 at 8:51 PM, Duke Bushido said:

So to increase END you must increase BOD?

 

I may have to re-read 6e (I kid; I doubt I'll ever do that) but that seems....  flawed.  At least, when I look at the frail little women jogging on my way to work.  I mean, I have no doubt that they can run circles around me without ever getting seriously winded, but I'm pretty sure my three-hundred-five pound self can take one hell of hit more than they can.  (No; while I _have_ had to slide out of a thirty-eight belt into a forty as I pressed beyond fifty, I'm not a fat guy.  I've got a gramps belly started, I suppose, but at six-and-not-quite-three, I'm just a big ol' farm boy.)

 

Prior to 6e, I had to increase DEX to increase OCV and DCV.  How often did we hear about the need for even Bricks to be as agile as Olympic gymnasts, all of whom must also be very potent combatants?

 

On 9/9/2018 at 10:59 AM, zslane said:

 

That is the sign of a GM asleep on the job, rather than a sign of a game system in need of design changes.

 

On 9/9/2018 at 3:18 PM, zslane said:

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.

 

 

When the price points are such that it is cheaper to buy CON (or STR) than to buy the Figured without the other benefits, the pricing is not balanced.  When a low-DEX concept cannot be competitive in the game because high DEX is the only efficient means of getting CV, there is something wrong.  The game needs to encourage building in concept.  Making some concepts (normal human agility person highly skilled at combat, say) inefficient choices discourages building in concept, or just discourages certain concepts from being built.  Neither is a good result, in my view.

 

I find some comments (not necessarily yours) that seem to move "build in concept" to the extreme of "character classes" [Brick Class gets to buy this; Martial Artist class gets something else; Speedsters get different abilities; Energy Projectors get still others; Mentalist gets something else].

 

On 1/17/2019 at 5:46 AM, Doc Democracy said:

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.

 

I'd agree it was the biggest, and most visible and obvious, change.  Decoupling has been going on for a long time and 6e was no exception (removal of things like Growth Momentum, and Stretch Momentum damage, for example).

 

With 20/20 hindsight, what 6e really needed was a sidebar setting out revised prices for STR, DEX, CON, BOD, EGO that added Figured Characteristics back in, together with each stat's "no figured" limitation.  That's what happened to a lot of other rule changes (e.g. the doubling rule for HKAs).

 

[ASIDE:  +30 DEX would then give +6 to all DEX rolls (say 30 points), +30 Initiative (30 points), +3 SPD (30 points), +10 OCV (50 points) and +10 DCV (50 points), so 190 points.  Pricing DEX at 6 points would provide a small "package deal" bonus, and  No Figured becomes a -2 1/4 limitation.  That highlights what a bargain DEX was pre-6e, or possibly that CVs were overpriced (but the latter would require a lot more work on Combat Skill Level pricing).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

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.

 

And like HTA when it first came out in 4th edition, the balancing act is not complete yet. Any time a new major concept like that comes out, it takes a while to playtest and get right (like Damage Negation)

 

Quote

With 20/20 hindsight, what 6e really needed was a sidebar setting out revised prices for STR, DEX, CON, BOD, EGO that added Figured Characteristics back in, together with each stat's "no figured" limitation. 

 

I agree, that would have been a smart move, so people can back build if they wanted.  Having Comeliness as an optional rule would have been a good move too.  But the big miss was not putting out a small book with basic rules and then a bigger book with the examples and expanded stuff, so people could play without paying 150 bucks for two mega encyclopedias.  One of the big complaints about 5th was "its too big and expensive, it intimidates new players"  so the response is to put out two volumes that size??

[Ninja-Bear]

Christopher Taylor were you aware that they did publish Hero System Basic for about $20. It was most of the rules. Iirc it was missing 5 powers such as Damage Negation.  I felt that they could’ve promoted this book more. Now we do have CC and FHC.

[Duke Bushido]

On HERO Basic:

Did they do a bound version?  If not, does anyone know where one could get a book printed?

I'd like to add a bound version to my collection of "One Thin Book" versions of 6e, next to CC, FHC, and MHI.

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

It should still be in the store. It’s only a soft copy iirc.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 9/12/2018 at 5:09 PM, RDU Neil said:

 

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.

Just actually read this post and well I politely disagree. My through my head was, haven’t you heard of Batman? Of course you did. The way I understood your post, Batman shouldn’t be with the other Supers.

[Tech]

On 1/17/2019 at 6:26 PM, Doc Democracy said:

 

I will bet there is a third edition rule I am using that I have never noticed changing.  I play HERO, editions are irrelevant and ephemeral except to give everyone a base to start from. It is us to blame for paragraph long powers, we love to tinker and argue about the minutia - Steve simply tried to make it all clear. That took a LOT of words. Doesn't mean you have to use them.

 

I don't have a favourite edition, I play HERO and I think arguing about details is pointless, especially as you can now download and play any edition you want. 

 

I've stated in the voting that my preference of editions is 4th/5th (don't remember which I picked). It is indeed because of the players that 6th edition came around and many people have difference preferences. It is because of people talking about details that 6th edition came around. I mean, we talk on the forums all the time about how to build various concepts/powers/tacos/etc. No one's arguing. Personally, I'd like to see Hero Games grow again and if that involved a newer edition, fine, even if that meant a reboot that worked.  However, there are alot of superhero games out there now and Hero Games needs to get its name out there. Champions Online came around and we had some actual commercials out there in magazines/websites/etc.  However, now CO has dwindled from what it was. I can't recall the last time there were some actual promotions about the Hero System; if there was, I'm simply not aware of it.

[RDU Neil]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Just actually read this post and well I politely disagree. My through my head was, haven’t you heard of Batman? Of course you did. The way I understood your post, Batman shouldn’t be with the other Supers.

 

Actually, yes, that is exactly it. I always hated the Batman and Green Arrow types hanging with Superman and Wonder Woman and Flash. Not that they can't be in the same world, but c'mon... if Flash was written even 50% consistent and smartly, none of the characters would ever have to do anything, because the god of speed would have taken care of it before the Batmobile left the Bat-cave. It can work only when an author has complete creative control force situations where Batman can somehow do something useful... usually by nerfing Superman in some way or other. In almost every case, the stories are inconsistent and badly written.

 

Even if you accept JLA Bat-God version of Batman (which, though entertaining to read in some comics, is ridiculous in an RPG/PC concept) that character is completely inconsistent with the Batman of Detective Comics. Batman as an iconic literary device can be portrayed in many different ways, but most of the tropes of superhero comics do NOT translate well to RPGs, let alone ones like Hero System where things are defined in very specific, comparable values. Batman's stats don't come close to Superman's... and putting them on the same team would be a nightmare rpg campaign challenge, unless everyone is on board with GM-enforced deus ex machina to somehow make it work.

 

There is an argument from some about why the love the original (up through 3rd Ed) Champs, prior to 4th Ed and it becoming Hero System. This, in many cases, is because the system allowed for more of the "Who cares about concept... everyone is 250 pts and basically the same powerlevel" type of game. Once 4th Ed came out, and the game very clearly defined "normal" and then every character could clearly be analyzed as "how far from normal, and how do you justify that, is s/he?" Hero is a great system for "People with Powers" which is really much more what I've always wanted superhero comics to be (and one of the reasons I love Marvel over DC is that at their height, they had clearly defined power levels between characters and not everyone was equivalent. Daredevil was not up to the Hulk, the Avengers needed their heavy hitters (Thor, Wonder Man, Iron Man) when the real shit hit the fan, etc.)  

 

If you want "My character is angry that his parents were killed and he took karate lessons, and now he can hang with Superman" and you accept that... ok for your game, but I'm out. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Christopher Taylor were you aware that they did publish Hero System Basic for about $20. It was most of the rules. Iirc it was missing 5 powers such as Damage Negation.  I felt that they could’ve promoted this book more. Now we do have CC and FHC.

 

Yeah but it was more of an afterthought than the main rules book.  It should have been a slim, easy to read, fast book with all you need to just run a game and a big thick honkin' "here's the answer to all your questions and lots of tips" book instead of two huge tomes.  In other words, Champions Complete (without the champions stuff) and the big official rule book.

[Ninja-Bear]

RDU Neil, when I think about Batman and others and “realism”, I see your point. And in your own game you want to disallow the Trained Normal in a Supers you got every right however to make blanket statement statement saying that a Trained Normal doesn’t belong in a Supers game when it’s a typical genre convention well I’ll disagree with that. (Sorry if that’s not what your saying though).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Mixing Batman with Flash, Wonder Woman, Superman, Martian Manhunter, and Green Lantern works in the comics, but it doesn't so much in a Champions game because when the big fight scene happens, there's a lot of "well I guess I eat popcorn and watch" or "are there any agents around?" going on.  And if you say 'well he does the investigative stuff" you're right, but in that case, every one else is sitting around eating popcorn.  If you have the right sort of players, it can work but most of the time there is frustration and smart phone checking going on instead of engagement and play.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Mixing Batman with Flash, Wonder Woman, Superman, Martian Manhunter, and Green Lantern works in the comics, but it doesn't so much in a Champions game because when the big fight scene happens, there's a lot of "well I guess I eat popcorn and watch" or "are there any agents around?" going on.  And if you say 'well he does the investigative stuff" you're right, but in that case, every one else is sitting around eating popcorn.  If you have the right sort of players, it can work but most of the time there is frustration and smart phone checking going on instead of engagement and play.

Well we must have did something wrong cause my first character was a Ninja. A “normal” ninja and after an those years of play, I’ve never sat around eating popcorn. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke afaik you don’t own 6th and picking up a point here or there and then comparing that to your beloved edition and saying that your edition is better. Not a fair shake is it? And you say on how much you House rules, so obviously the rules are lacking. Quite frankly I was hesitant against 6th, moreso cause I finally got 5th rev. So is 3rd and earlier easier? Depends on what you want to build.  If you accept what a power gives you for free back in the older editions, yeah it’s easier. What if you don’t? I heard from a long time player and friend that in the earliest editions KB was only available through DI. So if you wanted that power, KB, then either you accept you couldn’t or you had to buy DI with limitations. Which is easier? How about shrinking with mandatory 1/2 running?  Now my character has to go out and buy more running to compensate.  

 

Now  I would say that my character builds 90% you could build in probably any edition. Another 9% I’m glad I use 6th. And 1% I do scratch my head in 6th.

 

Oh and another point about rules. And this is myself speaking. I’ve been the type (and missing on it) that if there wasn’t a rule, I was hesitant to create a rule. So unless a book said you can create add or tinker with rules,  I never took that as permission to do so own my own. Again that’s a me thing.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Well we must have did something wrong cause my first character was a Ninja. A “normal” ninja and after an those years of play, I’ve never sat around eating popcorn. 

 

I doubt your campaign had Superman and The Flash on the same team as lil ninja and I doubt you were fighting world-shattering bad guys either.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I'm no historian, but I would add something here that might complicate that discussion: thanks to rravenwood, I have discovered that published reference to "the Hero System" occurred as early as Adventurers Club #1, which I believe predates even 3e.  And skilled normals were the focus of Espionage. Justice, Inc brought us a wider variety of both skilled and "regular folk" normals.  I'm not certain (not near my books to check publication dates), but Justice, Inc certainly predates 4e.

 

Justice Inc., Espionage and Fantasy Hero were as early as 2e.  They modified the Hero rules to suit them.  I think martial maneuvers premiered in Espionage.  Heal and Aid were created for Fantasy Hero.  Justice Inc. had "talents" rather than "powers", the precursor of things like Deadly Blow and Combat Luck.  All, I think, used NCM.

 

4e was the first edition that used common rules for all genres, rather than adapting the rules for the genre in question (albeit maintaining most of the core).

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Enough jokes about the size of the rykes; I know.  But the complexity that leaves experienced players flummoxed on making armor?  Armor "builds" that fill a line on a character sheet?  Maybe two? 

 

Older version?  Page fifteen.  First column toward the bottom.  Says "armor." make sure you understand all four lines.

 

Sure.  And then you had to figure out whether you should buy Armor (+3 DEF for 5 points, IIRC), or Damage Resistance (which as 15 points for half your PD/ED and 30 for all), or perhaps a 0 END Force Field (which was not the Invisible Woman's force field - that's a force wall).

 

And I do not recall the "gun" or "flamethrower" power back in 1e either.

 

I do agree with the issue of taking out everything the ability might be able to do and adding point costs.  In part, that's because I believe it should be possible to build the same (or roughly same) ability with different building blocks at comparable costs.

 

At the same time, however, when you bemoan the burgeoning size of the rules, I suggest that having PD/ED, Damage Resistance, Armor and Force Field, all means of giving your character defenses against normal and killing attacks, as separate powers increases the size of the rules, and streamlining to a single "resistant" advantage (and allowing limitations to reduce point costs) streamlines the rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Mixing Batman with Flash, Wonder Woman, Superman, Martian Manhunter, and Green Lantern works in the comics, but it doesn't so much in a Champions game because when the big fight scene happens, there's a lot of "well I guess I eat popcorn and watch" or "are there any agents around?" going on.  And if you say 'well he does the investigative stuff" you're right, but in that case, every one else is sitting around eating popcorn.  If you have the right sort of players, it can work but most of the time there is frustration and smart phone checking going on instead of engagement and play.

 

Or we use the same tropes used in the source material.  Bats has vehicles that add to his combat punch (you see this a lot in early JLA stories, and current movies).  He has gadgets to enhance his combat prowess (the JL Animated series).  He has lots of tricky little gadgets and moves which don't take down the bad guy, but rather set him up to be taken down by the damage-dealers (no one ever wants to play the "support Super"). 

 

If we are trying to emulate the source material, that source material has had Bats and Supes hanging for 60+ years.  Archer characters have been around forever (Hawkeye vs Iron Man was an early Marvel staple).  It depends what limits we decide to place on "trained normals".  To me, that's just another back story.

[RDU Neil]

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I'm no historian, but I would add something here that might complicate that discussion: thanks to rravenwood, I have discovered that published reference to "the Hero System" occurred as early as Adventurers Club #1, which I believe predates even 3e.  And skilled normals were the focus of Espionage. Justice, Inc brought us a wider variety of both skilled and "regular folk" normals.  I'm not certain (not near my books to check publication dates), but Justice, Inc certainly predates 4e.

 

Yes... I know of all these early takes on "Hero System" but they were separate from Champions, which is what I was basically reflecting upon. And even when we played the original editions, they still had the implications of scaling up from normal. 4th Ed just formalized them. Basically, once you provide clear stats for "real world" substances (doors, cars, etc.) and setting comparable damage levels to guns and knives... you have a baseline for "Just how super Is my character?"

 

Personally, this is one of the main reasons I love Hero System, but as I stated above, because it helps overcome the tropes I dislike about the genre.

 

[Chris Goodwin]

I voted, but I never responded here.  Early series for me, as I think anyone following my posts would have guessed.  Including the standalone games; I lean into them for what they do, with the option to house rule anything and everything.  

[Duke Bushido]

I logged on this evening to spread appologies all around, and to respectfully ask Hermit or any moderator happening by to strike my posts completely (I will delete the content momentarily)

 

I appologize; I thought some hobby-related social contact would pick me up, but my mind and heart weren't in it. 

 

I appologize to all of you. 

[Duke Bushido]

DUPICATE; DELETED

Edited January 20, 2019 by Duke Bushido
DUPLICATE

[assault]

On the trained normal thing: most superheroes aren't Superman.

 

It's much more common for them to be like Cyclops - a normal person with a single power. Someone who is inferior to Batman, Green Arrow or Hawkeye in every respect.

 

But nobody says they shouldn't be in a superteam.